Residents press Kensington board for financial records as citizen task force seeks transparency

During the public‑input portion of the April 7 Kensington School Board meeting, residents asked the board to provide a set of detailed financial records so a citizen group can analyze the district’s budget and capital position.

Ben Cole, introduced himself as a Kensington resident and said he had written the board about the status of a budget review group formed last school year. Cole asked the board to publish a packet of baseline financial information within 10 business days so volunteer reviewers and the public would be “working from one place.” The packet he delivered at the meeting listed requested items including: ownership information for Kensington Elementary School property; 2023 net capital asset values by category (land, improvements, buildings, equipment); net pension liability; net other post‑employment benefit (OPEB) obligations; compensated absences; the teacher and principal collective bargaining agreements; links to SAU 16 materials on the Department of Education site; the last annual financial report (noting the district’s audit format differs from longer narrative reports); SAU 16 strategic plan results, and Kensington Education Trust Fund balances.

Board members and other residents disputed aspects of the request. Several board members and staff pointed out much of the material is available through SAU 16 public reporting and the state audit form; one board member noted the district has used a shorter “citizen audit” or cash‑flow audit in recent years rather than a longer annual financial report and that a fuller 36‑page audit would cost roughly $12,000–$15,000. A resident, Courtney Brady, raised a concern that an unofficial volunteer group calling itself a “task force” could be perceived to contravene the will of voters after a prior warrant article on a formal task force failed at the ballot. Other residents and the requestors said the volunteer group is informal and intends to share its final packet with the board and town officials rather than act as an official board committee.

Board response and next steps The board did not agree to fulfill the full, time‑sensitive 10‑business‑day request that night. Members suggested the administration could review the packet and report back at the next meeting with clarifications; the board chair asked staff to read the submitted packet and prepare a response at the following meeting. The board also noted that the volunteer budget group is not an official school board committee and that any continuation or reinstatement of a school‑based review group would require a future decision.

Why it matters The requests center on core fiscal transparency questions — asset and liability reporting, audit formats, and whether the district will invest in a fuller financial audit — all of which feed into budget deliberations. Board members said the cost of a fuller audit is a budget decision for a future fiscal season, while residents argued access to consolidated, clearly labeled documents would lower barriers for public review now.

No formal board action was taken on the packet request at the April 7 meeting.