NORTHAMPTON — The School Committee voted 7-1 Wednesday to recommend that City Council adopt a state law allowing councilors to increase school funding above the mayor’s proposed budget, though several members acknowledged the change would likely come too late to affect the fiscal year 2027 spending plan.

The decision came after a chaotic virtual 30-minute special meeting, in which a debate over procedure led to a heated exchange between Vice Chair Alena Bartoli, who was acting as chair, and member Michael Stein.

If approved by the council, adoption of the 1987 legislation “An Act increasing local control over the annual school budget,” would allow the council, through a two-thirds council majority vote, to raise the school budget. City Council can currently, through a simple majority vote, decrease or reject funding for various departments, but cannot raise budgets without the mayor’s approval.

A motion to recommend the law’s adoption was brought forward by Stein and fellow committee members Anat Weisenfreund and Renika Montgomery-Tamakloe in an effort to bring the School Committee’s recommended $53.3 million “strong budget” back before the council.

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra’s proposed budget allocates about $47 million to NPS for next fiscal year — an increase of $2.96 million, or 6.79%, from the current year. A strong budget, meanwhile, would mean the city’s contribution to the schools would amount to about $53.3 million.

“Our current structure and charter are extremely heavy-handed, while one person has all the decision-making power and makes decisions, weighs the values of the city and the resources unilaterally and imposes that decision upon the rest of the elected officials and the city at-large,” Stein said. “Despite us voting 9-0-1 for the strong budget because we know what we need is completely ignored … [this] seems more participatory and democratic.”

Stein went on to call into question the point of holding School Committee and City Council meetings, accusing the mayor of levying “unilateral” control of city government that overrides the budgetary recommendations of various departments and bodies.

Robbie Saner-Sullivan, the lone School Committee member to vote against the measure Wednesday, said that while she generally supports efforts to secure additional funding for schools, she did not believe this was a “responsible” way to do so.

“If I thought that this was a responsible way to get more funding for the schools, I’d support it, and if other towns and cities across the state thought it was responsible, it would be widely used. It’s been on the books since 1987 and it is not,” she said. “Throwing it at the City Council now feels to me, because it is too late to be considered by law … to be not in good faith.”

Weisenfreund countered Saner-Sullivan’s claim that the law is not widely used throughout the commonwealth, noting that numerous cities and towns, including Greenfield, Amesbury, Easthampton, Waltham and Cambridge have adopted the 1987 legislation.

Given that City Council was expected to vote on the city budget Thursday evening, multiple School Committee members mentioned that even if the city adopted the law, it would be too late to apply for next year’s budget.

Montgomery-Tamakloe, however, remarked that even if the law’s adoption could not legally impact the upcoming budget, it could be used as a procedural tool in future years.

“It is too late for Council this year, but not next year. We talk so much about listening to the experts, but if we don’t get this budget passed, we will be in the unenviable position of having to decide what are the greatest needs for our district,” Montgomery-Tamakloe said. “If City Council had the opportunity to opt-in, they could increase the budget to the strong budget level, so that we aren’t put in the position where we decide who stays [and] who goes.”

However, the motion’s timing stirred controversy when Weisenfreund claimed she submitted a request for the special meeting approximately three weeks prior and did not receive a response from her fellow School Committee members. She and Stein argued that if the issue had been addressed in a timely manner, it might have been approved prior to the FY27 budget vote on Thursday.

Bartoli, in response, explained that for a special meeting to take place, two School Committee members must request it, and she had not received member Stein or Montgomery-Tamakloe’s requests for a special meeting until Friday, May 29.

Stein disagreed with Bartoli’s statement that two School Committee member requests are necessary to hold a special meeting — prompting a back-and-forth between him, Weisenfreund and Bartoli in which the members repeatedly interrupted and talked over one another, arguing about who had “the floor” to speak.

Stein challenged Bartoli’s ruling that his challenge of her opinion on the procedure was off topic and repeatedly made points of order, to which Bartoli repeatedly told Stein to stop interrupting her, threatening to adjourn the meeting if he continued.

At one point during the altercation, Weisenfreund interrupted to remark “Do your job, member Alena Bartoli,” to which Bartoli exclaimed back “I am doing my job, member Weisenfreud!”