We wish we were wrong; we warned them. We told them how to fix it. They ignored us.

We gave Canton officials a clear, lawful roadmap to fix a broken process.

STIRM Group didn’t seek out the Canton Audit—we were brought in because others knew the town was about to get it wrong. Individuals familiar with our track record in rooting out law enforcement mismanagement encouraged us to take a look. After reviewing the Request for Proposal (RFP) with our full team, it was immediately clear: the process was fatally flawed. The scope was vague, the standards misapplied, and the structure almost guaranteed a weak, politically palatable report. We had the experience to fix it—and we told them exactly how.

In our formal withdrawal, we laid out the problem in plain terms. We detailed the RFP’s deficiencies and gave Canton officials a clear path forward: pull the existing RFP, revise it to meet operational audit standards, and reissue it after the Karen Read retrial—the very case that triggered public outrage and led to the audit vote. This wasn’t theoretical advice. It was a roadmap to salvage a failing process. Instead of acting, officials said nothing. Then, our withdrawal letter was leaked—by a town official. We issued a single-page public statement on social media and quietly stepped away, content to watch how it would unfold.

“We gave Canton officials a clear, lawful roadmap to fix a broken process. They ignored it. Our withdrawal letter spelled out exactly what would happen—and it did. The audit they commissioned avoided the central question: How did an accredited police department fail so completely during two high-profile homicide cases? Instead of demanding accountability, they settled for a shallow report focused on safe, familiar targets. STIRM would have pursued the hard truths—how it failed, why it failed, and who was responsible. Canton didn’t just miss the mark—they chose to.”
— STIRM Group

The final audit, conducted by 5 Stone Intelligence, did not meet the level of depth or accountability many in the community had anticipated. Key concerns raised during the special town meeting—specifically, how an agency accredited under the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission (MPAC) since 2015 could fall so far short during two high-profile homicide investigations—were not substantively addressed. Instead, the audit appeared to rely on CALEA assessment standards, which are structurally different from the MPAC benchmarks Canton was subject to. This shift in evaluative framework left critical questions unanswered and contributed to a report that, while procedural in appearance, lacked the operational scrutiny and accountability focus the public had demanded. For many, it felt like a missed opportunity to confront systemic issues head-on.

After the report was released, the questions started: “Who was the group that backed out?” The answer spread quickly. Our warnings had been accurate. Our recommendations were ignored. And our credibility—earned from decades of operational audit experience—was now impossible to deny.

In response to community demand, STIRM Group published a formal white paper and executive summary dissecting the audit’s failures, outlining what real reform looks like, and reaffirming our original assessment. It stands as proof of what should have happened—and what still must happen if Canton wants real accountability.

We weren’t there to play politics. We were there to get it right. And we still are.