In a guest commentary today, New London City Councilor Adam Sprecace argues that former city councils on which he served should not be blamed for the fiscal problems confronting the city. His basic argument, it appears, is that the councils based decisions on the best information available. If budgets were later overspent or revenues fell short of projections, that was the administration's fault.

Of course if the city still had the city manager form of government, Mr. Sprecace would probably not get an objection, since the manager worked for the council. The elected mayor, however, does have a difference of opinion and contends past councils should have done a better job meeting their budget-approving duty.

Mr. Sprecace, the lone Republican on the council, is an earnest, hard working and able councilor. He takes seriously the job of reviewing the budget and squeezing out savings. When Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio first raised alarms about the fiscal crisis facing the city, Mr. Sprecace correctly pointed to revenue sources the new mayoral administration did not account for.

But we differ on his perspective that past councils share no responsibility for failing to recognize, or for ignoring, trends showing revenue projections falling short of estimates. And while department budgets were overspent, some were not realistic to begin with; case in point a fire department budget that consistently failed to fully account for overtime costs.

Where we do agree with Mr. Sprecace is that a forensic audit is in order. With the transition to a new form of government, disagreement and confusion continue over the seriousness of the budget problem and its origins. As he writes, the city can better move forward once its exact fiscal status is clarified for all.