The Money Didn’t Vanish in the BOE Non-Lapsing — And It Has Reappeared: What “Fixing the Situation” Really Means

If you followed my campaign, you may remember that I raised questions about the Board of Education’s non-lapsing fund. At the time, I shared information I had heard directly in meetings and found documented in public records. That information was quickly dismissed by some, mocked by others, and labeled as a “misunderstanding of municipal finance.”

So let’s revisit this—calmly, clearly, and based on facts.

What is a non-lapsing fund?

In simple terms, a non-lapsing fund is money that was budgeted but not spent in a given fiscal year and is legally allowed to carry over, rather than reverting to the town’s general fund. Think of it as a savings account for future needs—often used for one-time expenses, emergencies, or planned capital improvements.

Simple enough.

Where the confusion begins

Historically, non-lapsing funds tied to education were recorded on the Board of Education’s books, but the actual funds were held by the town. If the Board of Education wanted to access those funds, a formal request had to be made.

More recently, state law changed to allow Boards of Education to establish and maintain their own non-lapsing funds, rather than relying solely on funds held and controlled by the town. This change intended to provide clearer accounting, better transparency, and more local control over education dollars.

That distinction matters—because it changed how these funds can be held and who is responsible for them.

And yet, the numbers don’t add up

Within last year’s meeting minutes, there are documented emails showing confusion between the Board of Education and the Board of Finance over the balance of the non-lapsing fund. What initially appeared to be a discrepancy increasingly looked like a dispute.

At a meeting I personally attended, even members of the Board of Education expressed uncertainty about the amount. We were told that the “rainy day fund had been used” and that the money was under the town’s control. An amount once believed to be over $155,000 was suddenly described as just over $31,000.

That is not a rounding error.

That is a six-figure difference.

The story keeps changing

As the months went on, different meetings referenced different balances. Some cited one figure, others another. Then, at the most recent regular Board of Education meeting, the non-lapsing fund was referenced as totaling $126,000, said to be “available with the town.”

When asked directly whether that money was now in the Board of Education’s account, the response was:

“Yes, it is on our books.”

When asked why some board members believed the amount was closer to $39,000, the answer was:

“That is because that is what we were told,” followed by the explanation that the town manager had “fixed the situation.”

Fixed what, exactly?

The question taxpayers deserve answered

Here is the most concerning part of all: if board members themselves are confused about the amount in the non-lapsing fund, why has this not been clearly explained—once and for all—in a simple, easy-to-follow public document available to every taxpayer? This is public money. There is no legitimate reason for shifting explanations, inconsistent figures, or reliance on verbal assurances.

Equally troubling is why some board members do not press harder for clarity. Instead of demanding a full reconciliation and a public explanation, these discrepancies are often glossed over as “careless mistakes”—mistakes involving tens of thousands of dollars. That isn’t transparency. It’s avoidance.

Why asking questions became controversial

Throughout my campaign, I was mocked—publicly and privately—for raising these concerns. I was told I didn’t understand municipal finance. I was called a liar. I was told I owed apologies.

Let me be clear: no taxpayer owes an apology for asking reasonable questions about public money.

What is more troubling is the implication that statements made in open meetings somehow didn’t happen—despite being recorded, documented, and publicly available.

And here is the question no one seems eager to answer:

If our books are “clean year after year,” as multiple leaders claimed on social media, how can there be this much confusion around a single fund and its balance?

I am not a professional accountant, but I do run multiple businesses. At its core, bookkeeping is simple:

• You record money coming in

• You record money going out

• You reconcile the balance

Will we ever truly have transparency?

When the same fund is publicly described as $155,000, then $31,000, then $39,000, and then $126,000—depending on the meeting—you don’t need to be an accountant to know something isn’t adding up.

Asking why isn’t misinformation.

It’s civic responsibility.

LATEST AUDIO FROM THE PUBLIC BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING ON DECEMBER 10, 2026 DISCUSSING THE CURRENT AMOUNT IN OUR NON-LAPSING FUND:

HAVE QUESTIONS? COME TO THE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION SCHEDULED ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14th AT 6:30 PM AT THE POMFRET COMMUNITY SCHOOL CAFETERIA:

Disclaimer: This blog is written in my personal capacity and reflects my own opinions, interpretations, and concerns regarding public governance and transparency. It does not disclose confidential or privileged information and does not represent an official position of the Board of Education or the Town.