Killingly's budget referendum is May 13: What's on the ballot and what's at stake
Now that the proposed fiscal 2026 budget has been accepted following an annual Town Meeting that lasted about five hours, Killingly's budget moves to a referendum May 13.
Two changes were made to the budget at the annual Town Meeting May 5. The first change was to reduce the general government budget by $13,500 by eliminating town councilor stipends. That motion was approved, with 87 votes in favor of the reduction and 62 opposed. With this change, the proposed general government budget is now $23,629,755.
The second change was that $1.1 million was added to the education budget. The motion to increase the education budget passed, with 117 votes in favor of the increase and 37 opposed. Now, the proposed education budget totals $49,038,817.
A sample ballot was posted on the Town of Killingly's website May 6. Four questions appear on the ballot.
The first question is: 'Shall the General Government Budget for the Town of Killingly, Connecticut, in the amount $23,629,755 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 be approved?' The next question is a follow-up question to the first, and asks 'For voters who voted 'NO' on Question #1a 'Is the Budget Too High?' or 'Is the Budget Too Low?'
Then, the ballot asks: 'Shall the Education Budget for the Town of Killingly, Connecticut, in the amount of $49,038,817 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 be approved?' Like the question on the general government budget, the follow-up question is 'For voters who voted 'NO' on Question #2a Is the Budget Too High?' or 'Is the Budget Too Low?'
Voters in districts 1, 3 and 5 will vote in the board of education central office, located at 79 Westfield Ave. Voters in districts 2 and 4 will vote at Killingly High School. The polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Killingly residents can see which voting district they live in by accessing a link on the town's website.
Absentee ballots for the budget referendum became available May 6. Those interested in obtaining an absentee ballot should contact the Killingly town clerk at 860-779-5307 as soon as possible. All ballots must be issued in person according to Connecticut General Statutes.
According to the Killingly Town Charter, if one or both of the budgets are rejected at the referendum May 13, the town council and town manager will review the budget/budgets and present them at another town meeting, which would be held Monday, May 19. Action would only need to be taken on the budget/budgets that were rejected at the referendum.
At the Town Meeting May 19, there would be a discussion and referral to another referendum. The budgets cannot be increased or decreased, they could only be adopted or rejected.
The next referendum would take place on the eighth day following the town meeting, according to the town charter, which would be May 27. The subsequent referendum would have the same polling locations and hours as the initial referendum.
This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Killingly budget referendum is May 13: What is at stake?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
34 minutes ago
- News24
Harvard scores a temporary victory in battle against Trump administration ‘vendetta'
A court on Thursday put a temporary stay on Donald Trump's latest effort to stop foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, as the US president's battle with one of the world's most prestigious universities intensified. A proclamation issued by the White House late Wednesday sought to bar most new international students at Harvard from entering the country, and said existing foreign enrollees risked having their visas terminated. 'Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' the order said. Harvard quickly amended an existing complaint filed in federal court, saying: 'This is not the Administration's first attempt to sever Harvard from its international students.' '(It) is part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' READ | 'Such a disgrace': Outrage as Trump ramps up attacks on Harvard, Columbia US District Judge Allison Burroughs on Thursday ruled the government cannot enforce Trump's proclamation. Harvard had showed, she said, that without a temporary restraining order, it risked sustaining 'immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties'. The same judge had already blocked Trump's earlier effort to bar international students from enrolling at the storied university. The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution from any future federal funding. Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and 'viewpoint diversity'. Trump has also singled out international students at Harvard, who accounted for 27% of total enrolment in the 2024-2025 academic year and are a major source of income. In its filing, Harvard acknowledged that Trump had the authority to bar an entire class of aliens if it was deemed to be in the public interest, but stressed that was not the case in this action. The president's actions thus are not undertaken to protect the 'interests of the United States' but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard. Harvard filing Since returning to office Trump has targeted elite US universities which he and his allies accuse of being hotbeds of antisemitism, liberal bias and 'woke' ideology. Trump's education secretary also threatened on Wednesday to strip Columbia University of its accreditation. The Republican has targeted the New York Ivy League institution for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, throwing all of its federal funding into doubt. Unlike Harvard, several top institutions - including Columbia - have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
What Market Basket's labor tension reveals about Gen Z
'Honestly, I don't even remember the 2014 situation. It just seems like it's asking a lot of the employees. Why's it on us?' — Gen Z Market Basket employee, June 2025 Ten years ago, Market Basket—a New England-based grocery chain—became a national symbol of grassroots worker solidarity. Thousands of nonunion employees staged a dramatic walkout to protest the ousting of their CEO, Arthur T. Demoulas. Customers followed suit, boycotting stores. Shelves emptied. The message was clear: people, not just profits, mattered. And it worked. Demoulas was reinstated, and Market Basket's culture of loyalty was hailed as a case study in bottom-up leadership. Now, in 2025, Demoulas has been placed on administrative leave, and tensions are beginning to stir again. But something feels different. The energy is quieter. The loyalty less certain. And for good reason: the workforce has changed. A different kind of commitment Most of Market Basket's current front-line employees are millennials or Gen Z. Many of them weren't even in high school in 2014. And unlike the prior generation, they didn't come up in a workplace culture that promised stability, pensions, or upward mobility. They came of age during mass layoffs, the pandemic, and a decade of seeing 'essential' workers celebrated rhetorically—but often left unsupported. When I spoke with a Gen Z employee this week, their perspective was both honest and revealing. 'There's no way I really care about the long-term health of the company. I'm not going to work here for life. However, I do care about the people I work with—and the affordable prices. I'm torn.' The comment wasn't true apathy, but a different kind of commitment. Fairness, clarity, and a voice As a leadership researcher and business school lecturer who focuses on generational dynamics, I've seen this mindset across industries. Gen Z doesn't reject work ethic—but they do reject blind loyalty. They want to contribute, but they also want fairness, clarity, and a sense that their voice matters. They're less likely to organize around a charismatic executive and more likely to organize around shared values or people in their immediate circle. When I asked this employee what empathy looks like to them at a moment like this, their answer wasn't about the company—it was about the customer. 'We have a lot of people who are elderly and can't afford to go anywhere else. That actually makes it harder, because we can stay open for them—or walk out and hope that we can keep MB the way it is long term.' That response reflects a major evolution in how younger workers see the workplace. It's not about 'company man' culture—it's about what's humane, what's sustainable, and who's affected. Why this matters to leaders In 2014, Market Basket's walkout became iconic because it was so rare: a coordinated labor action without a union, driven by a deep emotional connection to leadership. It represented a kind of institutional loyalty that's becoming less common—not just at grocery stores, but across industries. Today, we're seeing a different dynamic. Gen Z workers are still willing to take a stand—but it's not always the kind of stand companies expect. Some may walk out. Others may opt for 'quiet quitting,' high turnover, or organizing through digital platforms instead of picket lines. Their actions are no less meaningful, but they're often less visible—and that can leave organizations flat-footed if they're not paying attention. In my research and classroom discussions, I see Gen Z define loyalty not as longevity, but as values alignment. They will go to bat for coworkers. They'll support customers and communities. But they expect the same in return from leadership. And if they don't get it, they won't stick around—especially not to fix systems they didn't break. That creates a new challenge for employers: building workplace cultures that don't rely on legacy loyalty, but earn trust in real time. The risk of expecting too much The 2014 Market Basket strike succeeded because workers and customers felt united. But this time around, younger workers are more skeptical—not just of leadership, but of the idea that change depends solely on their willingness to sacrifice. 'Why's it on us?' the employee asked. That's the generational rift in a single sentence. Many younger employees have watched companies brand themselves as family until times get tough. They've seen layoffs announced over email, burnout go unacknowledged, and corporate promises ring hollow. So, when they're asked to 'do the right thing' for an employer, they ask—reasonably—what the company is doing for them. And yet, they still care. They care about fairness. They care about their team. They care about the elderly shopper who relies on affordable produce. That tension is exactly where Gen Z sits: morally aware, emotionally intelligent, and structurally exhausted. What comes next If a walkout happens again at Market Basket, it won't look like 2014. It might not even be a walkout. It might be subtler: shifts in morale, early exits, a lack of buy-in. But it will still matter. Because the real story here isn't about one grocery chain—it's about a generational shift in how workers define loyalty and leadership. And as companies across industries wrestle with engagement, retention, and trust, this moment is a reminder: culture isn't inherited. It's built—and rebuilt—by every generation that shows up to work. Gen Z may not be in it for life. But they are in it for something. And if leaders want to keep them around, they need to stop asking for blind loyalty—and start delivering earned respect.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
A West Virginia prosecutor is warning women that a miscarriage could lead to criminal charges
Amid a constantly changing reproductive landscape, one West Virginia prosecutor is warning people who have miscarriages in his state that they could get in trouble with the law. Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman says that although he personally wouldn't prosecute someone for a miscarriage, he made the suggestion out of an abundance of caution after hearing from other prosecutors. Truman even suggests people might want to let local law enforcement know if they've have a miscarriage. Several reproductive law experts say people around the country have, indeed, faced charges related to miscarriages — but they still wouldn't recommend reaching out to law enforcement. Truman says the idea first came up during a chat with other West Virginia prosecutors at a conference several years ago, and it's been been an ongoing conversation since. The initial conversation was theoretical, since at the time, women in the US still had the constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. But some of the prosecutors believed they could charge a person using state laws related to the disposal of human remains. 'I thought these guys were just chewing on a Dreamsicle,' Truman said. But, he added, West Virginia's legal statutes include definitions that are 'pretty broad-ranging.' The way some prosecutors may interpret the law means people who miscarry could face criminal charges, including felonies, he said. 'It's a different world now, and there's a lot of discretion that prosecutors have, and some of them have agendas where they would like to make you an example,' Truman told CNN. 'What's changed is, Roe isn't there anymore, and so that may embolden prosecutors in some cases,' he said. 'I'm just trying to say, 'be careful.' ' Early pregnancy loss is common, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, It happens in about 10 of 100 known pregnancies, often because the embryo isn't developing properly. And some reproductive law experts say it's probably not a good idea to call the police when it happens. 'It's always a mistake to invite law enforcement into your reproductive life,' said Kim Mutcherson, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School who specializes in reproductive justice. Calling police could prompt an unwanted investigation, she says. 'If they then decide, 'no, it actually wasn't a miscarriage, this was somebody who took pills,' or whatever sort of thing that they want to conjure up, then all of a sudden it goes from 'here's this poor woman who had a miscarriage' to 'here's a person who we're going to start to prosecute,' ' Mutcherson said. 'I understand the idea that caution is better than being caught up in something that you weren't anticipating, but it is difficult for me to imagine any circumstance in which I would think it was safe for someone who miscarried to call the police,' she added. Abortion is illegal in West Virginia, but there are exceptions in the case of a medical emergency or a nonviable pregnancy, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Kulsoom Ijaz, senior policy counsel with Pregnancy Justice, a nonprofit focused on the civil and human rights of pregnant people, said she doesn't believe there is anything in West Virginia law that criminalizes miscarriage. 'I think the law is pretty clear,' she said. 'There's nothing in the law that says someone can be charged with a crime in connection to their pregnancy loss or their conduct during pregnancy, or for how they respond to that pregnancy loss or miscarriage or stillbirth.' The fractured landscape of reproductive rights that came about in the wake of the Dobbs decision, the US Supreme Court ruling that revoked the federal right to an abortion, has increased the risk that a pregnant person can face criminal prosecution for a variety of reasons, not just a miscarriage, according to a report from Ijaz's organization. Between June 2022 – when Dobbs was handed down – and June 2023, there were more than 200 cases in the US in which a pregnant person faced criminal charges for conduct associated with pregnancy, pregnancy loss or birth, according to Pregnancy Justice. The number is most likely an undercount, Ijaz said. In West Virginia, there were at least three cases related to pregnancy prosecutions. In one, the state's Supreme Court found that the state could not levy criminal child abuse charges against someone for their prenatal conduct, which included substance use during pregnancy. Even with the strict abortion ban in place, Ijaz said, 'there are still protections for pregnant people.' In states like Alabama that have fetal personhood laws that give fertilized eggs, embryos and a fetus the 'same rights as you and I,' Ijaz said, it's a little different. 'We've seen people get prosecuted and face decades of incarceration for substance use during pregnancy, because that fetus that they're carrying is seen as a child,' she said. Last year in Ohio, a woman who had a miscarriage at home was charged with a felony on the advice of the Warren City Prosecutor's Office, but a grand jury dismissed the case. Ijaz said that she doesn't think there is an appetite for these kind of cases among the public but that no matter where someone lives, inviting the law into their life right after a miscarriage is ill-advised. The legal landscape for reproductive justice 'seems to almost be changing on a daily basis' – and generally not in favorable ways for pregnant people, said Brittany Fonteno, CEO of the National Abortion Federation, a professional association for abortion providers. 'The laws, the rhetoric, the culture in which we are living in within the US has become so incredibly hostile to people who experience pregnancy,' she said. 'I think that the intersection of health care and criminalization is an incredibly dangerous path,' Fonteno added. 'As a country, we should be supporting people and their ability to access the health care that they need, rather than conducting intrusive and traumatic investigations into their reproductive lives.' Fonteno recommends that people who experience pregnancy loss reach out to a qualified medical professional rather than law enforcement. 'While we are living in a very different country than we were pre-Dobbs, I believe still that this is an individual experience and a health care decision,' she said. 'Most providers believe that as well.' Mutcherson also says that the reproductive justice landscape in the US is 'scary' for people who are pregnant, who want to get pregnant or who have bad pregnancy outcomes. If there's any silver lining to the discussion about criminalizing miscarriage, she said, it's that it's good for people to know that such things can happen. 'Women have been criminalized for their pregnancies for decades, frankly, so to the extent that there is a wider and broader conversation about what it means to treat an embryo or a fetus as a person, and the ways in which that diminishes the personhood of somebody who was pregnant, that is in fact a valuable thing, right?' Mutcherson said. 'Maybe this is actually going to bring us to a better space.'
