Town Meeting met for its fifth session on Wednesday night to discuss articles related to financial transparency.
Both of the Articles the group discussed, Article 26 and Article 27, were created out of citizen petitions. The first asked the town to create a financial transparency group to communicate Lexington High School building project expenses to residents. The second asked the town to adopt an online tool residents could use to look up public records related to town finances.
The former was shot down but the latter passed, albeit with adjustments.
Here’s how those debates went:
Article 26: Create a “Financial Advisory Committee” for the LHS building project
This motion stems from a citizen petition created by Gauri Govil, Deepika Sawhney, and Sudha Cheruku. It calls for the town to create a volunteer-filled “Financial Advisory and Transparency Committee” that would communicate LHS building project expenditures with residents. The committee would be composed of residents with “relevant expertise in construction finance, auditing, public procurement, or large-scale construction project delivery,” the motion states. Petitioners argued the town needs a body like this because it’s difficult for residents to find detailed information on town spending related to the project.
“A yes vote is a vote for accountability,” Article 26 petitioner, Sudha Cheruku, said in a pre-recorded presentation on the motion.
Some Town Meeting members in favor of the motion argued there isn’t any harm in having another sounding board to help with a big capital project.
“This project is the biggest thing we have ever done,” Town Meeting member Judith Crocker, of Precinct 5, said. “I think more eyes on it can’t hurt, I don’t see this as a point of bureaucracy, I see that as another set of eyes looking at the project.”
Many residents and town leaders were skeptical, however.
Town Meeting member Nicola Sykes, of Precinct 8, had the “Construction Dashboard” page of the LHS building project website (which was taken down as of last night) displayed for Town Meeting to view. She then asked Sawhney what additional information she would want to see. Sawhney argued that webpage provides a good overview of project expenditures, but called it “patronizing” because it does not go far enough in depth.
Some Committee and Board members argued the new committee could create more confusion and slow the pace of work.
“It’s really hard for me to imagine how a more knowledgeable group could be created,” Charles Lamb, a member of the Capital Expenditures Committee, noted, praising the School Building Committee for its diligent work, which he called “the Lexington process, but on steroids.”
Some Town Meeting members agreed and urged fellow precinct reps. to vote no.
“This citizen’s article is more likely to increase project costs…even though I know that is not their intention,” Todd Burger, of Precinct 9, said, calling Article 26 “unnecessary.”
“I am skeptical that this will be adding any significant value,” said Monica Davis of Precinct 5.
“This has the potential to spiral into a level of interrogation of [staff that could inhibit them from doing their job],” argued Peter Shapiro of Precinct 4.
In the end, the motion failed with only about 23 percent support.
Article 27: Adopt an online financial transparency tool
This proposal is the result of a citizen petition created by Town Meeting members Steven Kaufman and Archan Basu. It calls for the town to adopt an online financial transparency tool so residents can see how the town spends money. The tool could offer residents searchable, downloadable, and regularly updated information. In his presentation, Kaufman cites the LHS building project as a reason for adopting a platform like this now — residents want to see how the town stays on track with spending as the project unfolds. Neighboring communities already have such tools — Arlington has OpenCheckbook and Waltham has OpenGov.
Adopting a similar tool in Lexington could increase transparency and reduce the number of questions and public records requests town staff get, Kaufman’s presentation explains.
“Many of us have lost trust in local government,” resident Olga Guttag argued, urging Town Meeting members to pass the article. “You, our elected officials, have to regain our trust.”
The Select Board “[supported] the spirit of this Article,” member Doug Lucente said, but the Board unanimously opposed it. Members argued it could burden town staff and more public input is needed before implementing.
Town Meeting member Kyle York, of Precinct 1, asked town staff about the types of public documents people have to submit public records requests to obtain. Carolyn Kosnoff, Lexington’s assistant town manager for finance, explained that some documents are thousands of pages long and include sensitive information like tax ID numbers. When residents make public records requests for those documents, a staff member has to sift through every page and redact that sensitive information so the town does not become vulnerable to scams like phishing attempts.
Town Meeting next discussed an amendment to Article 27 proposed by Glenn Parker, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 3 and chair of the Appropriation Committee. Parker’s amendment asks the town and Select Board to: list out what they would want in an online financial transparency tool; look into tools that could satisfy those requirements; create a timeline for the implementation of the tool and a budget (including setup and ongoing expenses) to follow; and share a progress report with Town Meeting members at the 2026 fall Special Town Meeting.
Parker created this amendment because he believes it puts less of a burden on staff and does not involve buying a new software right off the bat, he explained.
“The amendment understands that we don’t really know what kind of report would be useful for us,” Shapiro argued, urging fellow Town Meeting members to vote in favor of Parker’s amendment.
“It all comes down to making reasonable decisions about burden on staff,” Town Meeting member Michael Boudett, of Precinct 4, said, reminding Town Meeting of the work Kosnoff explained staff put into redacting information on public records. “For someone to figure out what is legally permissible and make it legally available…would be a full-time job just by itself.”
Kaufman, however, called Parker’s amendment a “tombstone for transparency” because it does not guarantee a tool will be installed. Some in attendance agreed.
Mona Roy, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 7, argued the original article brings a solution and Parker’s amendment essentially kicks the can down the road.
“As we see at a state level, studies are often where good ideas go to languish,” she said. “Week after week, my office hours are full of people wanting transparency…I hear you.”
The members voted to move forward with the Parker Amendment with about 79 percent support.
Kaufman then offered a substitute motion that added to Parker’s amendment. His additions ask the town to provide monthly reports, adopt “an initial pilot transparency portal,” provide reports on two projects before November 2026, and appropriate $50,000 to do so.
Shapiro argued those adjustments take away the flexibility of the Parker amendment.
Town Meeting member Bridger McGaw, of Precinct 9, argued the substitute motion actually creates flexibility. He noted that while $50,000 would be appropriated, the town would not be forced to spend it, it would just be earmarked and could be returned to the general fund if not used.
“We might be wonderfully surprised because our town staff are very talented,” McGaw said.
Kaufman’s substitute failed with about 38 percent support.
The group then voted on the motion under Article 27 as Parker’s amendment is written. That motion passed with about 94 percent support.
Article 2L: School Building Committee report
Before the precinct representatives dove into Articles 26 and 27, they heard a report from the School Building Committee. Kathleen Lenihan, a member of the committee, shared that the LHS building project is currently in the “detailed design” phase, which is when an approved plan is made into an actionable, comprehensive plan that’s ready for procurement and construction.
The presentation on the new school included updated renderings of what the new high school could look like:
Town Meeting will not meet next week because it is school vacation week for Massachusetts public schools. It will reconvene on Monday, April 27.