Senate Bill 1 was promoted as a $300 million investment in early childhood education and special education services. But buried in the bill is a provision with little to do with students — and everything to do with giving teacher unions and state officials in inside track to local school district’s finances.
A New Reporting Mandate
Section 36 of SB1 requires every local board of education to produce an annual report on their “non-lapsing, unexpended funds” — leftover dollars from previous budgets. At first glance, this might appear to promote transparency. But here’s the twist: the law doesn’t direct these reports to parents, taxpayers, or even locally elected finance boards. Instead, the reports must go directly to the State Department of Education — and to the unions.
That means union negotiators and state officials get advance access to a district’s financial reserves — a significant advantage when labor contracts come up for negotiation. Local voters, by contrast, get no such direct insight unless they file FOI requests or search through meeting minutes.
An Open Blueprint for Higher Labor Costs
During the May 31 House debate, Rep. Jennifer Leeper (D–Fairfield) made the intent plain: “There’s been lots of efforts to try to raise the salaries of our teachers that have been more expensive than we could compensate for at the state level.”
Her solution? “These unaccounted for surpluses could be a part of empowering a local municipality to raise teacher salaries… just sharing that information so it can be a part of the discussion.”
In other words, if the state cannot afford the raises unions are demanding, it will help them target local reserves instead.
Rep. Lezlye Zupkus (R–Prospect) pushed back, saying, “Why should the board of Ed have their books wide open to the State Department of Education? … I’m not sure why we’re opening up to the bargaining units. They don’t open their books up to us.”
Not About Transparency — About Leverage
In the Senate, Sen. Eric Berthel (R–Watertown) raised similar objections. “That information is readily available through the Board of Education, through FOI,” he noted. “I don’t know that I’m comfortable with making it a requirement that we have to share that information with a bargaining unit.” His amendment to strike the provision failed along party lines.
Supporters, such as Sen. Doug McCrory (D–Hartford), the Education Committee chair, claimed the measure promotes transparency. But true transparency means making information available to the public, not selectively routing it to union leaders and state officials behind closed doors.
The Risks for Local Control and Fiscal Responsibility
The mandate opens the door for the state to penalize towns that save responsibly, potentially using reserve balances as an excuse to reduce education aid or pressure districts to spend down surpluses on labor costs. It also lays the groundwork for redistribution of local funds — reframing prudent budgeting as “hoarding.”
That’s not speculation. In written testimony, Connecticut Education Association (CEA) President Kate Dias stated: “Towns often carry large balances in the unassigned portion of their General Fund… This allows towns to sequester funds that could otherwise be used for salaries/benefits for teachers and municipal workers.”
Simply stated, if your district manages to live within its means, the union want that flagged — as an opportunity to advocate for increased compensation during future negotiations.
They’ve even accused towns of “misleading voters” and “hiding funds” in reserve accounts. The next step? Forcing local officials to justify every unspent dollar — treating responsible budgeting as a bargaining problem.
A One-Sided Arrangement
SB 1 created a legally mandated financial pipeline to union negotiators, without any reciprocal transparency from the unions themselves. Parents and taxpayers — the very people funding these budgets — are left on the sidelines.
This is not about improving education outcomes. It is about shifting bargaining leverage and financial control away from local communities and toward unions and state bureaucrats. School boards are accountable to voters, not to the union hall. Yet under SB 1, unions get a VIP pass to financial reports while taxpayers watch from the back row.
The result is a predictable one: more insider influence, more pressure on local budgets, and more taxpayer dollars redirected toward labor priorities — without voter approval or public scrutiny.
