DRACUT — The often-strained relations between the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee spilled into the open at the Nov. 10 Town Meeting during confusing discussions of two school-related warrant articles.
One of the two articles called for an “operational audit” of the School Department. The article passed, although the terminology had changed since it was first drafted by selectmen. It was then called a “forensic audit.”
The second article would have shifted control of money generated by leasing the Parker Avenue School building from the school board to the selectmen. This article was dismissed.
The discussions led one voter to observe, “This town is as fractured as the country.” Another voter later turned to social media to call the behavior of town board members, including Finance Committee members, “an embarrassment.”
The call for a “forensic audit” of school records was placed on the warrant for this Town Meeting at the selectmen’s Oct. 14 meeting after several months of bad publicity and mounting tension between the boards.
Selectman Alison Genest alluded to the difficulties when she made the motion to approve the audit. She reminded voters that the school budget is $63 million and then began a list of problems that have surfaced “in recent months.”
She highlighted several controversies, including the overpayment of retirement benefits “to one School Department employee,” presumably Andrew Graham, whose hours she said were “not monitored by his boss.” She also cited the use of pre-stamped checks that led to a delay of several days in paying nine School Department employees and two other problems in procurement and process.
The article set $25,000 for an operational audit. “That’s not just a drop in the bucket compared to the $63 million school budget, it’s called good government,” Genest concluded.
Selectman Chair Josh Taylor told voters when he initiated the call for an audit, his intent was to focus on procurement issues, not on what an annual audit of town finances would cover. But the term he used at the time was “forensic audit,” which would have broad focus including a search for fraudulent actions.
“This is not a stick-it-to-the-schools audit,” Taylor said.
School Committee Chair Renee Young questioned the $25,000 budget for the audit.
In 2019, the School Department conducted an operational audit, and it cost $70,000, Young said.
Voters questioned the $25,000 figure as well.
Town Manager Kate Hodges said she had consulted contacts she has in the field and several would perform a narrowly focused audit for that amount. These individuals, some of them retired, would do this work. She would publish a request for quote, abbreviated as RFQ. If the responses are over $25,000, she would discard them.
Taylor and School Committeeman Rob Sheppard tangled over a call for the boards to meet to work on their relationship. A meeting like this was held in August before the issue of payments to Graham surfaced.
Taylor and Sheppard each said they had reached out looking for another meeting, but each side had ignored the other.
The School Committee would agree to another such “only if a mediator is present.”
“I’m not looking to fight with the Board of Selectmen,” Sheppard said. “In fact, I’m looking to work with them.”
Sheppard moved to transfer $25,000 from the town’s legal services department to the School Department to conduct an audit under the School Committee’s direction “in consultation with the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee.” He added, “I want to make sure there is no thought of an overrule here by the selectmen.”
Sheppard’s motion was defeated 174-132.
As the Town Meeting started to move on to the main motion, Finance Committee member Alyssa Navarro complained that it was “poorly written” and the committee had voted not to recommend it.
A motion was made to dismiss the original motion. That also failed, with a vote of 164-142. The main motion then carried 164-140.
The vote which allows the School Committee to retain control over Parker Avenue School funds preceded the audit vote.
The article would have repealed two votes taken at Town Meetings in 2015 by limiting revenue generated by leasing the building to use for maintenance only. Other revenue would have been returned to the town’s general fund.
That article was defeated 231-80.
