Mayor Phillip Jones described City Council as having worked to repair its relationship with Newport News Public Schools at a June 23, 2023 retreat. The city’s minutes also record Vice Mayor Curtis Bethany discussing that repair.
The record shows disagreements about school funding, academic accountability and construction, alongside raises and substantial investments. The question is what cooperation delivered: completed facilities, funded services reaching students and clear responsibility when commitments changed.
A political relationship can improve while a project remains unfinished. Residents need to evaluate both.
HOW THE DISAGREEMENTS DEVELOPED
At an April 2018 budget hearing, Hilton Elementary teacher Cindy Connell characterized the relationship as hostile and adversarial. She objected to blame and competing explanations about compensation.
Then-Mayor McKinley Price argued that NNPS could provide proposed raises without the additional $3 million requested, citing personnel spending below budget. The eventual outcome was a 4% employee increase in 2018–19, according to the division’s salary history. The dispute did not end with employees receiving no raise.
At a February 2021 joint work session, Price sought clearer accreditation goals. Superintendent George Parker responded that the division already had a plan and supported improved collaboration. That exchange established disagreement over coordination and evaluation, rather than an absence of planning.
The June 2023 retreat returned to accreditation. Jones sought a direct conversation and warned of a more difficult budget process without a plan; Cleon Long requested baseline measures. City Manager Cynthia Rohlf noted that earlier councils had requested and received plans, but turnover disrupted continuity. Jones’s warning was not a recorded vote to cut funding.
Taken together, the minutes raise a practical issue: how do successors inherit commitments and unresolved decisions instead of restarting the same discussion?
COOPERATION AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS COEXISTED
Four days after the retreat, School Board Chair Lisa Surles-Law thanked Council for fully funding the FY2023–24 school budget. She identified funding for six clinical social workers, six attendance specialists and 30 security officers, alongside salary and safety investments.
At that meeting, Southeast Community resident Pam Hall questioned the Huntington school-site decision and whether residents’ views were valued. Her comments were her assessment, not proof that every resident opposed the project.
Both perspectives matter. Officials can cooperate with one another while residents question the decisions. And funded positions are a commitment, not proof that each was filled or that the intended service reached students.
HUNTINGTON’S DESIGN AND SCHEDULE
Huntington made the coordination problem concrete. During the June 2023 retreat, John Eley raised track and performing-arts requirements; Bethany sought School Board confirmation; Tina Vick said she lacked sufficient information about earlier discussions.
In August, Acting City Manager Alan Archer described NNPS’s preferred athletic-track addition and the need for school approval of the final design before Council appropriated funding. Staff estimated approximately $1.4 million in additional funding and warned that redesign and resubmission would delay bidding and construction.
Jones supported the option despite the schedule consequence. The estimate purchased an added feature; it was not an established $1.4 million loss from political conflict. The unresolved questions concern approval, actual cost and the change’s schedule effect.
Public expectations then shifted:
- June 2023: Engineering Director Craig Galant discussed a tentative fall 2025 opening.
- September 2024: NNPS’s groundbreaking announcement described a 600-student school projected to open in 2026.
- September 2025: Galant identified June 2026 as anticipated substantial completion.
- August 18, 2026: NNPS reported 63% overall completion, with completion dates pending city–contractor negotiations.
The last entry is the district’s dated published description, not an independent construction audit or a measurement of progress today. It warrants an explanation of the changed June expectation.
It does not establish that the track decision caused every later delay. Galant also identified potential steel, electrical-component and site challenges. His expected $77 million school-project cost was separate from the recreation center.
A credible accounting would distinguish design changes, procurement, site conditions, utility coordination and contractor performance, showing which events affected the completion date. Progress percentages and a dependable opening date answer different questions.
FUNDING PREDICTABILITY REMAINED UNRESOLVED
At Council’s July 2025 retreat, Budget Director Lisa Cipriano discussed a school funding formula’s potential predictability and reduced flexibility. She reported approximately $13 million in average annual school reversions over five years and a decline in schools’ share of unrestricted city revenue from roughly 33% to 29% over a decade.
Those are city staff’s presented figures. Neither establishes adequate funding or waste. Year-end balances can reflect vacancies, delayed spending or other circumstances; a declining revenue share does not automatically mean fewer dollars in absolute terms.
At the September joint meeting, School Board member Douglas Brown supported a formula as a planning tool, and both bodies agreed to work toward one. The FY2027 adopted budget still described it as work in progress. That is the status in the book, not proof that no later agreement could exist.
Residents need reconciled figures, a description of remaining decisions and an implementation date for any agreed arrangement.
THE FUNDING AND VOTES ARE SUBSTANTIAL
The FY2027 adopted city budget identifies $128,489,307 for school operations, $3 million above FY2026, and $10,366,969 in city-paid school debt service. Together they total $138,856,276.
Separate allocations include $2 million for buses and $2 million for student devices. Debt payments and capital purchases should not be described as classroom operating money or employee compensation.
On May 12, 2026, Eley moved adoption of the operating budget and Robert Coleman seconded it. Jones, Bethany, Coleman, Eley, Marcellus Harris, Long and Vick all voted yes. Gary Hunter thanked Council for its education investment.
That is evidence of cooperation and ownership of decisions. Council approves funding; the School Board manages school funds. Project administrators and school leadership have their own responsibilities. A construction problem, staffing vacancy and appropriation dispute may require answers from different offices.
POLITICAL SUPPORT AND THE NEXT TAX QUESTION
For November 2026, the Newport News Democratic City Committee endorsed Jones, Long, Eley, Hunter and Surles-Law. That shared support is documented, but endorsement is not a ballot-party designation: Virginia’s listing identifies Jones as independent. It also does not establish every historical official’s affiliation.
Political support can be evaluated alongside governing performance without treating disagreement as illegitimate or assigning officials blame for decisions before their tenure.
The November 3 referendum asks whether Newport News should be authorized to enact an additional local retail sales tax of up to 1% for school construction or major renovation, expiring June 30, 2046. It is authorization sought from voters, not an already enacted tax or unrestricted operating revenue.
WHAT RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO INSPECT
A repaired relationship should produce a shared account of commitments: responsible offices, approved funding, original and revised deadlines, and actual delivery.
For Huntington, that means contract baselines, design changes, extensions, change orders and remaining work. For operating funds, it means explaining year-end balances and whether funded positions and services materialized. Academic comparisons should identify measures and explain changing assessment systems.
The underlying meeting history documents both conflict and collaboration. It does not establish a single honest dollar amount for the cost of political division. The test of improvement is whether cooperation now produces results residents can trace and verify.
REPORTING BASIS
This edition retains the dated Council and joint-meeting findings, NNPS construction and salary statements, adopted-budget figures and election distinctions from the original report linked below. Its construction and funding descriptions are historical snapshots, rather than a new project inspection or financial audit.
