Past and Future Collided as the City Council 'Old Guard' Axed the Framingham Schools in a 6-5 Budget Vote

In the FY27 budget meeting on June 16, 2026, where the Finance Subcommittee’s budget recommendation was considered by the full City Council, a remarkable picture emerged.

Clearly on display were both the deep divisions in the City Council, and the fundamental failure of the Finance Subcommittee to adapt its budget solution to either the values of the community or the opinions of the majority of City Council members excluded from the budget process.

A prior article laid out the full context for this critical meeting:

The Deep Fractures in Framingham Government Are On Full Display in the Broken FY27 Budget Process (June 15, 2026)

Never has it been more obvious that there is a major disconnection between the City Council and the community on education and senior services, but now it is much clearer where the real problems lie in the City Council.

It is as if an X-ray was just done on that government body, and a series of fractures confirmed.

The Budget Process Fracture

Confinement of almost the entire budget discussion and decision making to the Finance Subcommittee is now, finally, convincingly, proven to be a major failure:

• The City Councilors excluded from the inner chamber of Finance Subcommittee proceedings had a very different opinion on the damage cuts to the school system would deliver. When 5 of 11 City Councilors rise up in opposition to the Finance Subcommittee recommendation, something serious is broken.
• The reorganization of senior services drew even more opposition, with 9 out of 11 City Councilors voicing opposition to the elimination of the Director of Aging Services. Just King and Leombruno stuck to the ill-considered ‘re-organization’ scheme. These two, who thought the whole scheme was just great and creative, found no company in their fellow Councilors. How could the Finance Subcommittee have gotten this so wrong?

Excluding a majority of the City Council from the heart of the budget review, with an ‘old guard’ of City Councilors calling the shots through the entire process, guarantees a poor, distorted outcome, and that is exactly what happened.

In future years, our City Council should embrace a much more inclusive budget review process, such as that employed by the 11 member Worcester City Council, where every City Councilor is engaged in the entire budget review.

To encourage much better budget discussion, the City Council could also use the practice, employed in other cities, such as Medford, Gloucester and Newton, where the City Council meets, not formally as a council but as a Committee of the Whole, where meeting rules allow for more flexible debate.

Then after everything is properly thrashed out, the City Council reconvenes under its normal rules, and does the final vote on the budget.

Note

A "Committee of the Whole" is a parliamentary procedure in which an entire legislative body (such as the MA House of Representatives, State Senate, or a local city council) resolves itself into a single committee to informally debate and amend legislation or review budgets before taking a formal vote.

By operating as a committee of the whole, the legislative body relaxes standard debate rules—such as limiting how many times a member can speak—allowing for more collaborative, free-flowing discussion and quicker consensus on complex issues.

What Next for Senior Services?

Given the 9-2 City Council vote, it seems that common sense may ultimately prevail in protecting senior services from an ill-considered, rushed, budget-driven re-organization. It is unfortunate that Randy Aylsworth, the fired director, may well remain a victim of the city government’s poor judgment.

It would make great sense to reinstate Randy, and then see how a formal review of the re-organization scheme turns out. That way the City Charter would be respected, and the almost complete senior survey and associated report could be folded into a much better plan for the future.

Some comparable action should also be considered for the Parks & Rec/Facilities ‘merging’ scheme.

‘Old Guard’ Domination of the City Council: Another Fracture

The ‘old guard’ on the City Council comprises City Councilors: King, Cannon, Stefanini, Ottaviani, Long and Leombruno. They have been present in Framingham governance for the better part of the past 25 years, and have driven the city in a low taxes direction for at least 8 years.

Low taxes has been the #1 priority of the ‘old guard’ for years.

The more ‘junior’ City Councilors: Ward, Feeney, Mallach, Alexander and Bryant, offer a more youthful, modern view, which connects much better to community values, especially on education.

Low taxes is not the #1 priority of these newer City Councilors. They have a much broader view.

It was not a surprise to see City Councilor Ward lead the defense of the schools, and receive such strong support from City Councilors Feeney, Mallach, Alexander & Bryant.

It is notable that 3 of the 5: Ward, Alexander and Bryant, have had prior School Committee experience, and clearly have a much better appreciation of the current state of the schools than the ‘old guard’ City Councilors, whose mindset seems dominated by memories of a distant past, which has no relevance today.

Further, City Councilors Feeney and Mallach have distinguished themselves by expert communications with the community through their excellent newsletters.

They engage their constituencies like no other City Councilors. They know what is happening in the schools and in the community.

This is why in the vote on the importance of the schools, there was such a collision between past and future.

The ‘old guard’ simply is stuck in the past, has little connection to the community, and has no appetite for new approaches or improvement. It also is especially blind to the state of the schools and even has a certain degree of animus towards the schools.

Cannon/King Negativity on the Schools

Cannon called a response from the Superintendent cowardly:

Mike Cannon Calls the Superintendent's Response Cowardly (5/26/26 meeting)

He then poured further scorn on the School Committee and Superintendent:

More Mike Cannon Negativity on the Schools, Including the Superintendent and the School Committee (5/26/26 meeting)

Added to this, in the discussion prior to the vote on adding money back to the schools, King showed disdain for the School Committee, when he said:

“… even if we appropriated this money, I'm not sure what would happen with it.”

disregarding entirely the fact that the School Committee plan for the added money was very specific, very detailed and entirely clear.

King negativity on the schools has been in place for years, and he thinks he simply knows better how to run the schools. Another comment from this 6/16/26 meeting:

“… if you look at, really look at the school's department budget and see what's spent, in my opinion, there's other areas you could save a million dollars and do the things that's being proposed by Mr. Ward But there doesn't seem to be a desire to do that.”

It is very hard to see King and Cannon ever supporting the schools, and their opinions are a very large obstacle to the big improvements which need to be made to the schools in future years.

What Next?

Although the FY27 budget process was so troubled and the ‘old guard’ continued to dominate the discussion, and got exactly what they wanted, the resistance of the ‘junior' City Councilors is encouraging, and offers hope for the future.

They need to keep at it, and push for the planning and better practices which the ‘old guard’ has resisted for 8 years. We have a new, competent Chief Financial Officer, Brian Turbitt, on board and he is a great planner. Brian needs to be given as much support as possible as he rights the city financial ship.

But we need more City Councilors who are forward looking, appreciate the value of a strong school system, and improve community engagement, like Mallach and Feeney.

5 forward-looking City Councilors is not enough.

We need 6, and preferably 8, to surmount the ‘old guard’ obsession with low taxes and cost cutting. [Some key decisions need a 2/3 City Council majority.]

We hope that the Ward/Feeney/Mallach/Bryant/Alexander voices on the City Council grow stronger in the remainder of their term, and also hope that they receive reinforcements at the next City Council election in November 2027