In recent conversations about Stoneham's budget, some have suggested that concerns about our town's finances are exaggerated. That talk of cuts to schools, public safety, and community services amounts to "scare tactics" designed to manipulate voters.
That's all well and good, except for the fact that we're not talking about what might happen. We're talking about what has already happened.
The Cuts Are Real. The Consequences Are Here.
When someone tells you that budget concerns are overblown, ask them to explain this: A third-grade teacher with 17 years of experience at Robin Hood Elementary left Stoneham this year for Salisbury. For better pay. A literacy specialist with 23 years in our schools made the same choice, heading to Burlington. These aren't isolated incidents. Stoneham Public Schools started this school year with 28 unfilled positions.
We found candidates. We hired them. Then, one or two weeks later, they called back: "I'm sorry, I got another offer. It's significantly more money." In one case, a teacher withdrew to take a job paying $33,000 more per year. Another turned us down for a 40% raise elsewhere. When surrounding communities pay $8,000 to $11,000 more for starting teachers, Stoneham isn't competing. We're losing before the race begins.
This isn't a scare tactic. We're well into the 2025 school year, and these positions are still unfilled.
"Just Make More Efficient Choices" Ignores the Choices We've Already Made
Some argue that Stoneham simply needs to be more efficient, to "do more with less." Here's what "efficiency" looks like in practice:
Our Police Department has the exact same number of officers today as it did in 2001. Not fewer. The same 40. Except now they're responding to 42% more calls (from 13,116 in 2000 to 18,620 in 2024), and they're doing it without the 15-16 auxiliary officers we used to have. As a result, our police force is so understaffed that detectives and sergeants regularly work patrol shifts. And when they do, we're paying premium overtime because higher-ranked officers cost more per hour. In FY25, overtime spending reached $655,000, nearly double the budget.
Meanwhile, our Fire Department operates at 50% of the national safety standard for staffing. We average 8 firefighters per shift when the recommended minimum is 16. On November 14, 2024, firefighters responded to 105 Marble Street, where a resident was trapped on the third floor. Our crews rescued the victim in six minutes. But that victim had to climb down the ladder on their own, because we didn't have enough firefighters to carry them. Thankfully that individual was able-bodied and could get down on their own. The choice our firefighters face at every major fire: putting out the fire, or searching for victims. With proper staffing, they wouldn't have to choose. This happened in Stoneham. Last year.
The Department of Public Works had 60 employees in the mid-1980s. Today, it has 17. A 72% reduction.
The Library lost over $100,000 this year, forcing weekend and evening closures, eliminating all paid programming, and leaving four positions unfilled. It now risks losing state certification, held by all but four libraries in Massachusetts. That would mean losing $57,000 in annual state aid and access to grants.
The Council on Aging also lost significant funding and expects to be "in the red at some point this year." Transportation services, congregate meals, and essential programs for seniors are all at risk. These are vital services for many of Stoneham's most vulnerable, and the town cannot prioritize their budget over legally-manded services like police, fire, and schools.
Underfunding things is Expensive
It's easy to say the town should live within its means. But "living within our means" in Stoneham has meant choosing which essential services to reduce or eliminate. Here's the reality: When you cut positions to save money, you don't actually save money. The work doesn't disappear, so you pay overtime to cover the gaps. And overtime costs more.
Between Police and Fire alone, Stoneham spends over $1 million per year in overtime. When we can't hire a Speech and Language Pathologist at $68,000, we contract the service at $110,000. When experienced teachers leave for better pay, we lose our training investment and start over. When firefighters choose between rescue and firefighting, we're not just losing efficiency. We're risking lives. This is what "living within our means" actually looks like.
Facts Aren't Scare Tactics
Higher taxes can be a difficult pill to swallow. But suggesting Stoneham's challenges can be solved by simply "tightening our belts" ignores that we've been cutting for decades. The question isn't whether we face hard choices. We do. The question is which hard choices we're willing to make and whether we're honest about the consequences.
When 28 teaching positions go unfilled, that's not a exaggeration. When firefighters can't safely perform search and rescue, that's not fearmongering. When educators leave for $20,000 raises elsewhere, that's not misinformation. These aren't scare tactics. This is Stoneham in 2025. And if we don't address it now, it's only going to get worse.