Residents press Windsor Locks leaders for audit transparency as board approves routine business

Windsor Locks residents pressed the Board of Selectmen on audit delays and the town’s use of grant money during public comment at the board’s May meeting, while the board approved several administrative items, including a surplus‑equipment disposal policy and acceptance of a $250,000 planning grant for an outdoor athletics project.

At the start of public input, Linda Palmer, of 15 North Main, said town “spending in this town is outrageous” and asked why “the last funding was withdrawn by S and P due to late audits,” saying residents deserve “transparency and accountability, not dismissive responses.” She cited state statute language (as spoken) requiring annual municipal audits and said delays can harm the town’s financial standing and public trust.

Palmer also raised the police department’s purchase of in‑car cameras, saying grant money was not used because “the chief and lieutenant Chernick did not choose to use the grant money for the cameras because they did not want to follow the grant requirements,” and that taxpayers now face ongoing maintenance and software costs. That allegation was presented as a resident’s claim; no department official gave a contrary statement during the meeting.

Board leaders acknowledged audit problems are being addressed. The chair said a consultant for the audit work started the day of the meeting and that the board will bring more information to the next meeting. Resident Wayne Siaras later asked for a brief public summary of the consultant’s role and timeline; the chair said he would provide more details.

Several other residents questioned budget presentation and authority over certain funds. Kurt Graves, of Windsor Locksmith, said a $550,000 “loss of funds” line appears separately in the budget and that it makes year‑over‑year comparisons difficult; he urged that engineering funds be prioritized for Spring Street. Patty Murphy countered that the decision to use those funds was made by the town attorney and selectmen, not the board of finance.

The board did not take formal action on the audit or the LOSIP/‘loss of funds’ accounting during the meeting; officials said follow‑up information and reporting will be provided at a future session. The selectmen did approve other business by voice vote, including a procedure for disposal of town‑owned equipment and vehicles and routine approvals noted on the agenda.

The meeting record shows the board agreed to post further audit and project updates on the town webpage and the selectmen’s social channels. The board adjourned after routine announcements; no formal timeline for resolving the outstanding audit questions was given at the meeting.