At Saturday’s Annual Town Meeting, voters will consider creating a new finance committee. Citizen Petition Article 33 is intended to provide independent oversight of the Town’s financial practices. The Article proposes establishing a committee charged with reviewing accounting procedures, purchasing compliance, and contract oversight.
On March 17th, Article sponsor Jack Barron discussed his proposal with the Select Board. He described the proposal as a way to improve compliance and potentially save money over time.
Barron failed to convince the majority of the board to support his Article. But he hopes that voters at the Annual Town Meeting will decide differently. (Although, due to his medical condition, he may not be able to attend the meeting. If that happens, he’ll try to find someone else to present the Article on his behalf.)
Barron presented remotely from a rehabilitation center following back surgery. He explained to the board that his Article was inspired by a 2024 Mass Dept of Revenue review. He characterized the report as finding the Town was not fully complying with certain financial procedures. He envisioned that a new committee would help ensure Mass DOR’s recommendations are implemented—particularly around maintaining proper custody of contracts and verifying that payments align with contract terms.
Barron’s proposed committee would operate independently from existing financial officials. He emphasized that creating a group of individuals who are not personally interested in town finances would help verify that rules are followed.
The sponsor pitched that the Article doesn’t cost anything “and would save taxpayers money”. But the Article actually includes language that authorizes the committee to spend up to $20,000 annually for audits by a certified public accounting firm (with at least 10 CPAs). Upon questioning, Barron justified that the funding would function as a standard annual appropriation, similar to contingency funds used for legal expenses. He said any unused funds would roll over each year and any additional funding would be through Town Meeting approval.
Under Barron’s Article, five listed boards would each appoint one member. (Elected officials would be barred from serving, due to potential conflict of interest.) Each member would serve a two-year term. Members would collaborate with the Town’s auditor and include its findings in the Town’s Annual Report.
The appointing boards are listed as the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Advisory Committee, the Board of Assessors, and the Select Board. Select Board member Al Hamilton indicated that the list didn’t make sense to him. He suggested the appointing authorities should be boards with financial expertise, which he believed some of the committees were lacking. Barron responded that voters could amend the appointing boards if they wished.
Chair Andrew Dennington pointed out that the existing Advisory Committee already has authority to perform similar oversight. Barron countered that while the authority exists, the committee has never exercised it. He also noted that some communities separate financial oversight functions to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
(For readers unfamiliar, the Advisory Committee is charged with reporting to Town Meeting on the Town’s financial situation and Articles on the Warrant. The committee tends to focus on looking at how money is budgeted and used, future financial forecasting, and what makes sense to spend on going forward.)
Hamilton said there was some merit in Barron’s idea. He explained that he didn’t mean he believed Town staff was doing a poor job. But he opined, “it it is important that the citizenry have confidence in the way we manage the tax dollar”. But he suggested adding a sunset clause to allow the Town to evaluate the committee’s effectiveness after a set period.
Upon questioning, he proposed five years. Barron responded that he might consider making/supporting that amendment, but with a longer timeframe, such as eight years.
The Select Board’s vote on supporting the Article was 1–3, with one abstention. Hamilton was the sole vote in favor, while Tim Fling abstained.
The Mass Dept of Revenue’s (DOR) report that Barron referred to was out of assessments that the Select Board asked DOR’s Division of Local Services (DLS) to conduct a couple of years ago. Since then, the board has been working on creating and updating its financial policies. This week, the board discussed several of the policies and draft polices. They adopted some new ones and worked on continuing to refine some others.
In the discussion, Town Administrator Mark Purple said that DLS’ studies had been of two areas: financial policies and financial management. He followed, “we’ve not touched the financial management study piece of it yet.”
You can read the full text of Article 33 here. The Article is the second-to-last on the Warrant for the meeting that opens this Saturday, April 11th at 10:00 am, at Trottier Middle School. (For more coverage of the upcoming Annual Town Meeting, click here.)
To the bill payer / taxpayers: Please consider a “YES” vote on ARTICLE 33. It’s your money and your voice at Town Meeting. It’s no surprise that the Select Board Members who voted against Mr. Hamilton’s call for an audit on St. Mark’s Park is now voting against Article 33. This Article 33 is YOUR CHANCE to get control over spending and contracts. Please consider a “YES” vote on ARTICLE 33.
Also, it is very important to maintain some control and NOT to automatically vote in your own increase in taxes AT THIS TIME for the ROADS until there is CONTRACTUAL REVIEW, CUSTODY CORRECTIONS AND OVERSIGHT.
Per the 8-2024 STATE REPORT, still pretty recent. If the SB is still working on policy, that means a few years have gone by and it’s still being worked on?
ARTICLE 33 – please see the following link.
The state has noted in its report (see link to Article 33 above, very important to read) to the Town that:
· the Town Accountant is legally obliged to maintain custody of all contracts and grants AND VERIFY that the terms of the contract are met.
Not complying with Massachusetts Law would be seen by most people as mismanagement.
This deficiency is the genesis of the proposal to create an audit committee (Article 33). To attempt to address “Best Practices” and compliance with the law. (The report also suggests:
· better statutory compliance and improved internal controls by depositing money into a TOWN CONTROLLED account. Questions? Read the report.
Importantly, please see the following links and read these very important, self explanatory public documents. These documents are self evident. The dates are very important to pay attention to, since the project apparently did not have a signed agreement until late 2021. Thank you.
Select Board member calls for audit of St. Mark’s Street & Park project (Updated) – My Southborough