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.
“the motion failed with only about 23 percent support”
The Debt Override passed with only about 23% of town wide voter support.
Small percentages of support matter. Such ironic beauty in these numbers.
Deepika Sawhney
I am very upset by the failure of Art. 26. It seems that most TM members and Town’s professionals did not understand the gift that Art. 26 was offering to the Town.
The dashboard is a step in the right direction. But it does not address part of a problem with our projects where not every constituency has an advocate with easy/legislated access to management.
Of the town employees/contractors whose job it is to represent Lexington’s interests in the project, the SBC and Mr. Cronin want to make sure that the project is delivered with as few change orders as possible to keep to timelines and budget (an extremely important goal), the architects want to protect the budget so no architectural features are eliminated due to a budget short fall, and Turner wants to maximize profit. So, for example, none of them may support a demand by the principal/LABBB to include additional safety steps (2nd shift for small sections of the project, different way to insulate LABBB from construction noise, access by workers to job site, etc.).
The citizens’ committee proposed in Art. 26 will, among other financial info, see bills for the kinds of decisions that will effect the functioning of the existing school – each with short descriptions of progress. My experience from early 2000 LHS upgrade was that in spite of the LHS Principal having the responsibility and supposed power to ask for changes, having to deal with construction issues and negotiating with the construction manager while running a school was just too hard. Mr. Baker already works very hard, and his attention should be focused on serving our current LHS students and staff.
The citizen’s oversight committee can serve a valuable role in both ensuring that whatever financial decisions are being made make sense and, especially, monitoring procedures and suggesting changes (if necessary) to those billed items that affect occupants of the current building. Postponing the formation of this committee by half a year is doing our students, staff and residents no favor.
Having watched Mr. Cronin at TM present a proposal for fencing around a couple of playgrounds at existing schools, where he got the facts wrong and did not even seek input of school principals prior to making a request for funding makes me even more convinced that there is a need for an advisory committee that can pay close attention to Bloom’s construction bills and procedures so that best practices adapted to LHS needs are implemented.
If a motion for reconsideration was made on this article I hope that the article is reconsidered and approved by TM. The Bloom project will need all the help we can offer it. Art. 26 is proposing a committee of qualified professionals donating (at no cost) expensive professional services to this project. Why would the Town not accept such an offer?
Olga Guttag (served as a full-time volunteer client representative during early 2000 LHS update)
NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY – Art. 27:
I would not have supported the Parker amendment which made an actionable article into a toothless resolution with no required deliverables. In the past, this kind of amendment has generally made good ideas die in committee. It is time to allow citizens to see more easily what is done with our tax dollars.
Here is synopsis of my address to TM regarding Art 27:
TM members and members of our major boards,
I am not sure you get the full sense of anger and frustration residents currently feel at most of our local elected officials.
After the fiscally disastrous 2023 Art 34 of excessive MBTA rezoning and insufficient lack of disclosure of current and future operating budget deficits prior to pushing through the debt exclusion for Bloom, many of us have lost trust in our local government.
Your and every committee’s push back against articles 26 and 27 shows me that the staff and our elected officials have no desire to be more transparent. If you expect me – who has supported every request for an override since 1984 – to again raise my taxes, you MUST make all operations and associated costs far more transparent. As Mr. Pato said in support of the fateful Art. 34 in 2023, if we need to make some adjustments later, we can just amend the article. Same applies to these articles which ask for transparency.
The necessary information asked for in this article is already available to professionals. They could not deliver projects without it. The town already employs an excellent person sitting right here [Taylor Galusha, Director of Communications] to communicate information needed by residents.
You – our elected officials – need to rebuild our trust if you expect to ever regain it. Art. 27 is the first and critical step. Please support Art 27.
Olga Guttag, former Lexington School Committee member
I am disappointed because neighboring town already have implemented systems to improve financial transparency, despite pushbacks and difficulties.
New LHS portal is a good first step. More financial transparency is necessary for LPS, as we face both fiscal and trust deficits.
I hope by next town meeting, we can have clear deliverables with deadlines to obtain financial transparency comparable to our neighboring towns.
As the birthplace of American democracy, we need to ensure citizens can have easy access to our checkbooks. Otherwise, democracy dies in darkness.
As the birthplace of American liberty, Lexington should be leading in civic transparency, not lagging behind it. The 77 men who stood on the Green in 1775 did not wait for someone else to act. If we want to honor the principles that shaped this town 250 years ago, we should embrace openness and make accountability a visible part of how we govern today.