Submitted by (see list below)
The recent walkout by Democratic members of the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) during a key budget meeting has drawn attention — and rightfully so.
At stake is a serious discussion about how to balance the needs of our schools with the financial realities facing our town.
This year, the Board of Education (BOE) has requested an increase in its operating budget from $235 million to $247 million — a $12 million increase, or 5.1% more than last year. The Republicans on the BET are not asking to slash large sums from the BOE’s budget. Instead, they have proposed limiting the increase to around $243 million, which would still represent a 3.5% increase in the BOE’s budget, which is in line with inflation.
This is not about cuts. It’s about asking the BOE to find 1–2% in efficiencies, as the BET is asking of all town departments. That’s not only reasonable — it’s responsible. The BET cannot in good conscience ask residents to absorb a 6% tax hike when we know there are savings to be found that won’t touch core programs or services.
Superintendent Toni Jones and the BOE developed a thoughtful budget, and we value their work. But private conversations with BOE members and district administrators have indicated that $2–3 million in savings are achievable without reducing classroom instruction, staffing levels, or student programming. These are operational efficiencies — not educational cuts.
We’ve heard from residents across Greenwich: seniors living on fixed incomes, young families working hard to stay here, and lifelong residents trying to keep up with rising costs. Their message has been consistent — maintain excellent services, but please don’t spend without scrutiny.
That’s why this process exists. The BET is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. It’s meant to be a forum for debate, compromise, and responsible decision-making. When the members meet, we propose amendments and work through differences — not walk out when things get tough. What’s concerning is that instead of engaging, some members chose to push for even more spending — not just on schools, but on new climate consultants, redesigns for the Holly Hill dump, and other discretionary items that, while worth discussing in the future, are not priorities right now.
Meanwhile, there’s been fearmongering around the Advanced Learning Program (ALP), one of Greenwich’s strongest educational offerings. Let’s be absolutely clear: we are not proposing any reductions to ALP. In fact, we believe it should be expanded.
The call for efficiencies is not about cutting what works — it’s about reviewing what doesn’t. We all know from personal and professional experience that finding 1–2% savings is entirely feasible — but it requires diligence.
What’s not appropriate is suggesting that school budgets should be immune to oversight, as if any review is an attack on education. That’s simply not true.
We believe we can get to a budget that supports students and teachers, respects taxpayers, and upholds the standard of excellence that makes Greenwich a great place to live. But to get there, we need all parties at the table, willing to listen and willing to lead — not just when it’s easy, but when it matters.
Greenwich deserves thoughtful leadership — not theatrics. Let’s work together to do what’s best for all of our residents.
Michael Hahn
Valerie Stauffer
Michael Behringer
Jerry Cincotta
Jane Sprung
Amaris Guadalupe
Rich Malloy
Hellen Malloy
Christina Hahn
Jeanne A. Hahn-Rienzi
Alyson Cowin
Michel DeVita
Timothy Busler
Philip Dodson
Wynn McDaniel
Henry Orphys
Carol Zarrilli
Gail Lauridsen
Peter Lauridsen
Priscilla Lauridsen
Erin Speiss Chang
Laura Pugliese
Paul Pugliese
Trey Reynolds
David Lancaster