Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over OpenGov contract and budget figures exposes divisions
Summary
Councilors exchanged sharp public statements after a Facebook post questioned town contracting and pay increases. The town manager and other members disputed the post's figures, saying OpenGov contracts total about $500,000 through 2030 and average salary increases were roughly 5.3%; the exchange underscored tensions over transparency and communications.
Councilors and town staff clashed March 16 over public claims about a recently signed software contract and town salary increases, with one councilor's social-media post prompting a formal correction during the meeting.
The dispute surfaced during public comment and carried into council discussion when a speaker said a Facebook post—signed with a council title—asserted the town had buried an $800,000 contract in the default budget and reported average salary increases of 16% to 25%. A council member challenged those figures and said the post was incorrect.
The town manager responded directly at the meeting: "The OpenGov, there's 2 of them ... it's actually just over $500,000 between now and 2030," and said the "average salary increase is 5.3%," adding most increases were between roughly 2% and 6%.
Why it matters: The exchange put procedural transparency and how the town shares budget information at the center of the meeting. Several councilors and members of the public said inaccurate or misleading public statements from elected officials erode trust; others said the post reflected legitimate voter concern.
The town manager said he would present evidence to correct the record, including contract dates and earlier council briefings. Opponents countered that the timeline of contract signings and when the public learned details merited closer scrutiny. One councilor said a contract was signed earlier than it appeared in subsequent meeting discussions and raised questions about when and how the council was informed.
The meeting did not produce a formal finding; instead, members debated whether the matter should be followed up with written documentation and a clearer public explanation. Councilors asked staff to confirm contract dates and the budget process so that public-facing statements can be corrected if necessary.
What council members said (selected): "It's important that people get the correct information out there," a council speaker said, adding that documents showing council awareness had been circulated. The town manager said he would "show segments of the council meeting in his own words" to correct the record.
Next steps: Councilors asked staff to provide the relevant contract documents and budget materials at a future meeting; no formal disciplinary or ethics action was taken at this session.
