Letter: “Just Add It Back”
When Norwell Select Board member John McGrath urged the School Committee to add back into their FY ’27 budgets everything they “lost” in FY ’26 after a failed override, it may have sounded harmless. It isn’t. It is intellectually dishonest, fiscally misleading, and fundamentally circumvents the will of the voters.
An override is not a suggestion—it’s a binding choice by the community on whether to permanently raise taxes to fund additional spending. When an override fails, voters have set a clear limit.
Telling departments to simply “add it back” pretends that vote didn’t count. It treats a democratic decision as a temporary obstacle rather than the final word.
Saying departments “lost” money implies those override dollars were theirs to begin with. They weren’t. The override sought permission to exceed the levy limit, and voters declined. Those funds were never in the budget, never in the tax base, and never approved. There is nothing to “restore.” Pretending otherwise rewrites fiscal reality.
Telling departments to reinsert everything they wanted under an override—regardless of revenue constraints—turns the budget into a fantasy exercise. Instead of prioritizing needs, departments are encouraged to inflate requests based on what might have been. That undermines the discipline Proposition 2½ is designed to enforce.
If FY ’27 budgets are built on a foundation of rejected override spending, the town inevitably appears to be in “crisis” again next year. But that crisis is manufactured—constructed to pressure residents into accepting another override, not to present an honest accounting. This tactic uses the budget as a political tool, not a planning tool.
A failed override requires departments to reassess and adapt. That’s the entire point of a levy limit. Advising them to “just add it back next year” sidesteps that reset and creates a backdoor override embedded inside a regular budget cycle. That’s not oversight. It’s circumvention.
Residents expect elected officials to respect voter decisions. When a Select Board member essentially instructs departments to recreate the override through FY ’27 budgets, it signals that the town will pursue its desired spending levels regardless of voter input. Few things erode public trust faster.
Instead of trying to nullify the FY ’26 vote, responsible governance requires that the town:
Work within the levy limit voters affirmed
Prioritize essential services
Engage residents transparently about future needs
Rebuild trust before considering any new override
“Just add it back” is not a budgeting recommendation. It is a quiet attempt to undo a democratic decision. The voters spoke. Respecting that decision isn’t optional—it’s the foundation of public trust and responsible governance.