The Concord‑Carlisle Regional School Committee voted to approve a letter to the Concord Select Board that flags an error in the town's recent voter information packet, asks for clearer guidance on acceptable pro and con statement language, and reiterates the committee's support for the campus completion project. The motion to approve the letter passed on a roll‑call vote, six in favor and one opposed.

The committee's campus completion subcommittee chair, Brian (chair, campus completion subcommittee), opened the discussion by stressing the committee was not disputing the legitimacy of the election. "By no means are we questioning the the legitimacy of the actual election itself," he said, and framed the committee's concern as focused on the accuracy and clarity of materials sent to voters.

The body of the letter, as edited and approved at the meeting, asks the Select Board to review the voter information packet process after committee members identified an incorrect per‑household amount in the packet and raised questions about what constitutes acceptable language in pro and con statements. Committee members debated whether the item should be forward‑looking (outlining funding plans) or limited to process concerns; attendees ultimately removed one contested bullet, agreed to add committee members' names to the letter, and inserted a sentence emphasizing the role of accurate information in democratic decision‑making.

Sandeep (member, Concord‑Carlisle Regional School Committee) proposed the sentence that was added: "Accurate data is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, citizens and leaders cannot make informed decisions or hold the institutions accountable." The committee incorporated that line into the second paragraph before finalizing the letter.

During discussion members also confirmed that the committee is actively pursuing funding for the project: Laurie and Bob (names referenced by committee members) are preparing a CPC application with an internal deadline noted by members as September 19 and a related meeting on September 16. Committee members discussed alternate funding approaches including placement in capital plans that could avoid borrowing; several members urged that the committee should continue to develop and present specific funding steps when coordinating with the Select Board.

Committee members asked Brian to revise the draft on the fly to (1) remove the flagged bullet about the origin of specific language, (2) add the sentence about accurate data, (3) rephrase a separate bullet to ask what the process is for drafting and approving pro/con language and whether a designated review team exists, and (4) add committee members' names alphabetically to the signature line. Brian was asked to send the finalized version to Erin for placement on letterhead and distribution. The group also discussed whether a committee member should read the letter at the Concord Select Board meeting that evening; several members volunteered to attend or serve as virtual backup.

Formal action: the committee approved the motion to send the letter to the Concord Select Board as discussed in the meeting. The roll‑call vote recorded: Percek, aye; Kelleher, aye; Marano, aye; Peshardy, aye; Rankin, aye; Watterson, aye; Williams, no. The motion therefore passed 6–1. The committee then moved and approved adjournment.

The meeting included roughly one substantive agenda item — review and approval of the letter — and roughly eight committee members took part in the substantive discussion. The committee emphasized that its approval of the letter does not contest the election outcome but seeks clearer voter materials and an aligned, collaborative path with the Select Board toward securing funding and completing the campus project.