My Turn: FinCom has seen “breakdown in process”

The Finance Committee (FinCom) plays a critical role in our town: advising on budgets, reviewing expenditures, and helping guide decisions that affect every taxpayer. The integrity of its appointment process matters. And yet, recent public records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveal a troubling breakdown in how this process was handled.

What the bylaw requires

Lincoln’s town bylaws are clear. They state:

“The Moderator of the Town shall, within thirty days after the final adjournment of every Annual Town Meeting, appoint for a term of three years either two persons or three persons, as may be necessary, to provide a committee of seven members (…) The term of office of each member shall commence immediately upon qualification and shall expire upon the final adjournment of the Annual Town Meeting of the last year of such person’s term of office.”

This language affirms that the responsibility to appoint FinCom members belongs solely to the moderator — not to the Finance Committee itself or any other individual. The process is meant to be transparent, timely, and grounded in public accountability.

What actually happened

Emails made public via FOIA show a very different process unfolding behind the scenes. Anyone can request these emails from the Town Clerk; they are public record. In one outreach message, the chair of FinCom wrote: “(…) me taking on the Chair Role and him taking on the Vice Chair Role and so recruiting falls in my purview.”

This directly misstates the bylaw. While the chair can assist with identifying strong candidates, the power to select and appoint belongs only to the moderator. The chair’s role should be limited to offering suggestions as one of several inputs, not acting as the main decision-maker in the selection process. But in this case, the chair handled nearly all outreach, correspondence, interviews and vetting.

The FOIA documents show that for each open slot, the moderator was presented by the chair with only one final candidate after the chair had already conducted the majority of outreach and narrowed the field. In one case, the moderator was informed of a candidate who later declined, but no broader pool of candidates was considered or interviewed. At least one resident (not affiliated with any current town committees) reached out to the moderator to express interest, yet was not offered even a preliminary conversation. This suggests the moderator had limited interest in evaluating any options outside those presented by the chair of FinCom.

The moderator confirms the delegation of duties in another email to the chair of Fincom: “Thank you so much for pursuing the search to fill Andy’s seat.” Essentially this suggests a self-appointed committee.

A pattern of exclusion

In another email, the chair remarked: “[Resident] continues to push and is asking when/if we’ll hold public interviews which I am not inclined to do.” That statement reflects a deliberate choice to avoid an open process. In fact, no general call for volunteers was made. Outreach was limited to those with close personal ties (recommendations from spouses and close friends), or individuals already serving on other committees. Qualified residents outside that inner circle were neither welcomed nor considered.

Even more concerning is this comment: “We really have till May/June as it’s been precedent to have folks serve out till June then roll off, vs. TM [Town Meeting], even though TM is the official line of demarcation… I do worry about our favorite resident sticking to the rules if folks serve a few months longer than the rules suggest.”

Precedent does not override bylaws. Suggesting that rules are flexible and describing a resident who expects compliance as a nuisance shows a troubling attitude toward public oversight and accountability. Residents who ask questions or seek transparency are not “favorites” or problems; they’re fulfilling the civic role we should all support.

Why this matters

Some may argue that because the appointments were ultimately made by the moderator, there’s no issue. But that misses the point. The process was not transparent. It was not inclusive. And it did not follow the spirit of the law. This has real consequences. Yes, Lincoln has a AAA credit rating. But that rating doesn’t reflect the full picture:

• Our tax bills are among the highest in the state.
• Our reserves greatly exceed credit agencies’ guidelines.
• We misallocated $500,000 per year for several years — money we’ll never fully recover.
• The budget presented at Town Meeting misrepresents our actual revenues and expenditures in order to raise reserves without explicit town approval.

The Finance Committee does not offer hybrid meetings. Roughly half of its meetings are held virtually, yet these are not recorded or made publicly available, despite repeated requests from both residents and town officials.

Notably, FinCom meetings were previously recorded, but the practice ceased after a resident raised a question about the Hanscom misallocation. During that exchange, the current chair provided a response that was proven to be inaccurate, and the resident’s public comment was abruptly shut down. Since then, recording has not resumed and FinCom developed a more restrictive public comment policy.

In-person meetings are not streamed and often overlap with other key town meetings, making it difficult for residents to attend. As a result, residents are effectively shut out of the process unless they can be physically present. (The only exception is the budget hearing leading into Town Meeting, which is recorded, but by then the budget has already been set).

The Finance Committee should be a check on our financials, not a closed circle where only familiar names are welcomed. We need a committee built on independence, rigor, and diverse perspectives.

What needs to change

The current process undermines trust. It discourages civic engagement. And it signals that governance happens behind the scenes, not in the open. We often hear that it’s difficult to find volunteers, but that raises the question: why aren’t we opening up the process to the many capable and willing residents who call Lincoln home?

We can, and must, do better. We owe it to every taxpayer to ensure that town governance is fair, transparent, and consistent with the rules we’ve collectively agreed to follow. The Finance Committee is too important to be treated any other way.

Sincerely,

Karla Gravis (145 Weston Rd.)
Sarah Postlethwait (7 Lewis St.)

---

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.