LOWELL — The School Committee forcefully asserted its independence as a co-elected and equal body to the City Council, and pushed back hard against a draft home rule petition that would transfer extensive functions of the committee to the city administration.

Danielle McFadden, the newest member to the body representing one of the two at-large seats, said the scope of the petition language “concerns me,” during the School Committee’s Wednesday night meeting.

“At last night’s council meeting, the council reviewed a draft home rule petition that authorizes the consolidation of School Committee functions with the city, including, but not limited to, financial, personnel and maintenance functions,” she said.

Her alarm at the sweeping powers that the council proposed to take over from the district was universally shared by her colleagues, including member Dominik Lay, who called the petition “insulting to the School Committee.”

Last May, the City Council voted to adopt the provisions of MGL c. 71 s. 37M, with respect to the creation of a combined facilities department with the city, the Department of Public Works and the Facilities Department of the school district.

But in an early sign of the deepening crisis of either communication or trust between the two legislative bodies, the school committee summarily rejected the city’s surprise request last May, with their concerns more about having a major reorganization presented to them on such short notice.

“I’m not prepared to move forward with it,” committee member Connie Martin said at the time. “When the city comes back with more specifics, I’ll be willing to consider it.”

Senior Schools Custodian Mike Sheehan urged the members to vote against the plan during its May meeting on the issue.

“I’ve worked for the School Department for 30 years,” he said from the podium last year. “We understand there’s an issue with the facilities in the school. Essentially, this will allow the city to move all of your custodians out of the School Department over to the city, which I think is disrespectful, and there’s no need.”

The committee didn’t need much convincing to vote down the provision, with then-Mayor Dan Rourke the only “yay” vote. Under Lowell’s Plan E form of government, the mayor, who is elected by the City Council from among the members of the City Council, chairs the School Committee.

The City Council and the School Committee held a joint Facilities Subcommittee meeting last April, June and October, but the meeting minutes revealed the increasing schism between the two sides.

At the October meeting, Councilor John Descoteaux noted a joint department would go a long way in assisting with upkeep of the buildings, while School Operations and Maintenance Director Rick Underwood commented that it would not be beneficial. Councilor Corey Robinson told the subcommittee that the city was responsible for the school buildings, and that “they should establish a mechanism which would suit them best.”

The school district uses the buildings, but almost all are owned by the city. The district is responsible for custodial services, like cleaning, while the city is responsible for repairs and improvements.

The contentious issue percolated in the background, before finally bursting to the forefront with Robinson’s motion at the council’s Jan. 27 meeting to have the proper department provide a draft home rule petition allowing the city to establish a centralized facilities department.

The Feb. 3 response from City Solicitor Corey Williams was “An Act relative to the consolidation of administrative functions of the school committee with the city.”

Williams reports directly to City Manager Tom Golden, who oversees all city departments except the School Department.

This proposed legislation would, if approved by the City Council, create a structure that falls solely within the authority of the City Council, and allow the city to “consolidate administrative functions, including but not limited to financial, personnel, and maintenance functions, of the school committee with those of the city.”

Councilor Sean McDonough, who is a teacher at Lowell High School, spoke as a “private citizen” from the podium Tuesday night against the petition, which he called a “poorly veiled attempt at privatization.”

He also called the proposed legislation an “unwarranted power grab.”

“Privatization is an attack on working families,” said McDonough, who is also a member of the United Teachers of Lowell labor union. “It is incredibly difficult to undo and once the door is opened, every working person in the city is at risk of being next. I hope this administration is a friend of working families in the city of Lowell and I hope that this council and this administration formally take a stand against privatization.”

McDonough routinely recuses himself from district votes from the council floor. By text Friday, he said that he followed the advice of the State Ethics Commission before addressing the petition at Tuesday’s council meeting.

“I received that advice before registering to speak,” he said.

Golden acknowledged that privatization could save money, but urged the council and the committee “to talk this through and how to get to yes on this.”

The council voted Tuesday night to postpone the petition for four weeks. But the following night, School Committee member Fred Bahou was in no mood to “get bowled over.”

“I highly recommend that [the council] remove the home rule petition” Bahou said. “Four weeks from now, it shouldn’t be taken up, and if it is submitted four weeks from now, then let the state go ahead and make that decision. If we need to revisit this a year or two years from now then we can do that after the state comes up with their decision.”

The School Committee unanimously passed Mayor Erik Gitschier’s motion to again have its Facilities Subcommittee meet with the City Council Facility Subcommittee to discuss the creation of a facilities department.

“I believe that it’s vital that the School Committee be at the table and serve as an equal voice to any discussions related to facilities,” McFadden said before the vote. “Agreeing to meet and have these conversations does not mean that I would ultimately vote to support consolidation or be in favor of a specific proposal. It means that I want to ensure that we are actively involved in shaping any discussions that impact our schools.”