The Joliet Junior College Board of Trustees on Wednesday approved a $322.3 million budget for fiscal year 2026, but not before a tense debate that saw a motion to postpone the vote fail and exposed deep divisions over the board’s budgeting process.

The budget ultimately passed on a 6-1 vote with one abstention, but the discussion preceding it was dominated by concerns over transparency, timing, and fiscal oversight.

The most significant challenge to the budget’s passage came from Trustee Maureen Broderick, who moved to postpone the vote until a special meeting in July. Broderick argued that trustees needed more time to analyze the document, citing over 45 questions she and Trustee Elaine Bottomley had submitted, for which they had only received answers that morning.

“I haven’t had enough time to go back and review all that,” Broderick said, also voicing concern over a $73 million increase in the total budget over the last three years. “That’s why I’d like to sit and study and have us work as a team to have a full assessment of what’s going on.”

Broderick invoked state law, noting the board had until the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year to pass the budget, which would allow for a delay.

The administration cautioned against postponement. Karen Kissel, Vice President of Administrative Services, detailed the months-long budget process that begins in December and involves multiple layers of review and input from across the college, culminating in the legally required 30-day public display period before the June vote.

The motion to postpone failed 2-6, with only Broderick and Trustee Michelle Lee voting in favor.

The subsequent debate on the budget itself highlighted a split between trustees seeking to reform the process and those emphasizing the need to move forward.

Trustee Bottomley, a new member of the board, expressed frustration with the timeline. “I am not thrilled about this process, and that’s not a secret,” she said. “I feel as though our process is flawed. I would like to fix it and address it for next year.”

Despite her reservations, Bottomley ultimately voted for the budget, pointing to the administration’s fiscal discipline in whittling down 69 new position requests to just 17 and utilizing a salary vacancy offset to capture savings. “There isn’t an individual thing that I can look at that I have a problem with… it’s just that I’d like more time,” she concluded.

Trustee Alicia Morales pushed back against the call for delay, arguing that costs like inflation and rising property values are out of the board’s control and that the budget process had been followed correctly. “We talked about these in January about this budget, and then it came to us in May to review it and start asking questions,” Morales stated. “For us to come at the 11th hour and ask to postpone… we should be prepared.”

Trustee Diane Harris supported the budget, noting that it achieved the key goals of being balanced and not raising tuition.

Trustee Lee, who abstained from the final vote, called for a change in procedure for future budgets. “If we’re not going to postpone this, then can we at least agree to have a meeting to talk about fixing the process?” she asked.

Board Chairman James Budzinski acknowledged the request, gaining a consensus to have the board’s policy and finance committees review the process for next year. “I acknowledge a request by everyone in this room… we need to just have a slightly different process so yesterday and today doesn’t happen,” Budzinski said.

The final vote saw Trustees Budzinski, Bottomley, Harris, Bishop, Garcia Guillen, and Morales in favor. Trustee Broderick voted no, and Trustee Lee abstained.