Central to the meeting was a thorough debate over how the audit should address special education costs, a concern for both the committee and the community. Members discussed the importance of refining questions within the audit scope to ensure they encompass broader financial management issues, as well as specific grievances tied to special education spending. The revised audit scope, displayed for attendees, was acknowledged as an improvement over previous versions, yet members agreed that it still required additional clarity to adequately address both specific and systemic financial issues.

A key point of contention was the phrasing of questions related to expenditures, particularly whether the audit should focus on all expenses or only significant ones. The term “material expenditures” was suggested to narrow the focus, moving away from trivial matters and emphasizing financial implications, including the management and procedural challenges associated with special education costs.

Further complicating the audit scope were concerns about invoices submitted without signed contracts. These issues prompted discussions about the effectiveness of existing procurement services and the need for clearer processes, particularly when addressing special education services. The conversation revealed a community perception that school-side issues often resulted in misplaced blame on the town, calling for a more nuanced approach to resolving procurement-related questions.

Adding to the complexity was the decision-making process around selecting an auditing firm. The committee considered whether to continue with the current auditor or seek an independent firm to avoid potential conflicts of interest. A new firm could provide a fresh perspective, but concerns about timing and continuity were also discussed. The committee emphasized the importance of selecting a vendor with experience in Massachusetts school systems and town-school partnerships.

The meeting also touched on the role of various committees in the audit process. A suggestion was made to involve the advisory committee later in the process to avoid excessive edits that could delay the audit’s completion. The focus was on achieving consensus between the select board and the school committee, the primary decision-makers, before presenting the audit scope to other committees.

In addition to the audit discussions, the committee briefly addressed potential funding concerns for Fiscal Year 2026, emphasizing the immediate priority of finalizing the audit process. The audit, described as a “deficit review,” was recognized as broader than a standard audit, intended to provide a review of financial practices.