2024-04-13: Candidates Forum

Click timestamps in the text to watch that part of the meeting recording.

Swampscott Candidates Forum Review (April 13, 2024 - Inferred Date)

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda for the DAV Candidates Forum was:

  • 0:04 Welcome and Opening Remarks: Introduction by the host, acknowledgment of attendees, explanation of DAV’s nonpartisan role and activities, forum purpose and format.
  • 2:20 Candidate Introductions: Host introduces the two Select Board candidates.
  • 5:30 Candidate Opening Statements: Candidates present their backgrounds, motivations for running, and initial positions (Danielle Leonard first, then Katie Arrington).
  • 11:22 Audience Question & Answer Session: Candidates respond to questions from attendees on various town issues. Key topics included:
    • 12:11 Fisherman’s Beach Pollution / ARPA Funds: Use of federal relief funds for beach/sewer remediation.
    • 17:30 Veterans Housing / VFW Post Redevelopment: Plans for the VFW site, adequacy of proposed space, veteran input, and historical context of town-veteran relations. (Also discussed at 24:55, 31:41, 43:08, 1:26:45)
    • 36:18 New Elementary School Traffic & Abutter Impact: Concerns about traffic congestion, parking, safety, and communication with neighbors. (Also discussed at 47:51)
    • 47:51 Affordability, Taxes, and Town Spending: Concerns about rising taxes, the proposed library project on the former middle school site, and general town fiscal management. (Library also mentioned at 57:41)
    • 57:41 Community Preservation Act (CPA): Candidate positions on adopting the CPA in Swampscott.
    • 1:06:02 Town Governance & Communication: Issues regarding Board of Assessors status (elected vs. appointed), committee appointments, resident consultation, and potential for external investigations.
    • 1:16:50 School Budget Impact: The significant portion of the town budget dedicated to schools and potential future pressures.
    • 1:22:36 Long-Range Town Planning: Need for and communication of a comprehensive town plan.
    • 1:30:29 Phillips Park Boat/Trailer Storage: Policy on allowing boat storage in the parking lot.
  • 1:33:13 Candidate Closing Statements: Candidates summarize their platforms and ask for votes (Katie Arrington first, then Danielle Leonard).
  • 1:38:15 Host Closing Remarks & Adjournment: Final thanks, encouragement to vote and run for Town Meeting, acknowledgments.

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

  • Jeff Flander (DAV Host/Commander - inferred): [Speaker 3]
  • Danielle Leonard (Select Board Candidate): [Speaker 1]
  • Katie Arrington (Select Board Candidate): [Speaker 2]
  • Art Friedman (Resident, Precinct 4): [Speaker 14]
  • Barbara DiPietro (Resident / VFW Auxiliary Jr. VP): [Speaker 10]
  • George Jason (Resident, Precinct 3): [Speaker 4]
  • John (Long-time Resident / Veteran - inferred, name mentioned by Host 57:05): [Speaker 6]
  • Marla Bellowstock (Resident): [Speaker 9]
  • Mary DiCillo (Resident, Precinct 4, Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 5]
  • Sheila Billings (Resident): [Speaker 8]
  • Jim Olivetti (Chair, Town Tree Committee): [Speaker 7]
  • Tessia Vasilio (Chair, Board of Assessors / Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 11]
  • Andrea Moore (Resident, Precinct 3): [Speaker 13]
  • Alexis Runstadler (Resident, Precinct 6, Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 15]
  • Peter Boris (Resident, Precinct 5 / Veteran): [Speaker 16]
  • Tom Billings (Resident): [Speaker 12]

Also Recognized (Not Speaking):

  • David Grisham (Select Person) (0:04)
  • Doug Thompson (Select Person) (34:40)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Opening:

  • DAV Host Jeff Flander welcomed attendees to the Candidates Forum at the Senior Center (0:04). He recognized Select Person David Grisham in attendance.
  • Flander stated the DAV’s nonpartisan role, emphasizing the forum was purely educational (1:00). He highlighted the DAV’s local activities and the importance of veteran concerns regarding broader town issues (schools, roads, etc.).
  • He outlined the forum format: opening statements, audience Q&A, closing statements, noting a coin toss determined the initial speaking order.

2. Candidate Introductions:

  • Flander introduced candidate Katie Arrington, detailing her Swampscott roots, family, professional background, and extensive volunteer work including Town Meeting membership and PTO leadership (3:13).
  • Flander introduced candidate Danielle Leonard, mentioning her background, family (including wife Caitlin Leonard’s Swampscott ties and role as teacher/coach), education, professional experience in HR (Harvard, Lynnfield Schools, Swampscott Schools), and involvement in PTO, Recreation Committee, and the new school’s advisory committee (4:00).

3. Candidate Opening Statements:

  • Danielle Leonard (5:30): Thanked the DAV and attendees. Stated her focus is on her children and the town’s future. Emphasized the need for more focus on seniors (nearly 30% of the population) and veterans. Expressed support for re-establishing a Veterans Committee and wanting to hear directly from veterans about their needs.
  • Katie Arrington (8:14): Spoke about her parents’ values (“work hard and be kind”) and their sacrifices. Highlighted her family’s multi-generational living arrangement as relevant to affordability. Stated her primary goal is making Swampscott more affordable. Emphasized her style as listening, learning, and seeking kind, empathetic solutions rather than criticism.

4. Audience Q&A Session:

  • Fisherman’s Beach / ARPA Funds (12:11): Art Friedman asked about using ARPA funds for beach pollution mitigation.
    • Leonard strongly advocated (13:42) using all available ARPA funds immediately for beach/sewer infrastructure, citing the federal consent decree, impact on property values, and health concerns. She criticized the Town Administrator’s alternative spending priorities (e.g., mobile town hall) and opposed funding the work through a sewer tax increase.
    • Arrington agreed (16:15) on using ARPA funds but stressed the need for collaboration with state officials and Lynn, noting the problem’s scope likely exceeds ARPA funding.
  • Veterans Housing / VFW Post (17:30): Barbara DiPietro expressed concern about the proposed VFW post size (1,480 sq ft vs. current 5,800 sq ft) in the veterans’ housing plan and the transition period. DAV Host Flander added the DAV hasn’t been consulted (19:23).
    • Arrington, who attended the preliminary meeting (19:55), acknowledged the early stage, stressed the project’s importance, and pledged to advocate for veterans’ needs and ensure they get the space they want, including involving the DAV.
    • Leonard criticized (21:37) the town’s typical approach of lacking stakeholder input (veterans in this case). She agreed the proposed space was insufficient and advocated strongly for listening to veterans’ needs, re-establishing the Veterans Committee, and finding transitional space. She framed herself as a vocal advocate willing to challenge the status quo.
  • History of Town-Veteran Relations (24:55, 31:41, 43:08, 1:26:45): George Jason and John provided historical context, describing a long-standing difficult relationship between the town and veterans, citing perceived disrespect, past zoning battles, the handling of the American Legion property sale, and the feeling that the current VFW housing plan was imposed without adequate consultation. Mary DiCillo echoed the need for direct veteran input before any decisions and honoring veteran culture, decrying the characterization of the VFW post as merely a “bar.”
    • Leonard acknowledged (27:20) the “fraught” relationship, attributing negligence to the Town Administrator and Select Board. She reiterated support for the Veterans Committee and the need to repair the relationship, admitting past town missteps. She questioned how many Swampscott veterans would qualify for the proposed housing but stressed the need for outreach.
    • Arrington emphasized (30:07) collaboration, wanting to champion veterans and see the town “make something right.” She committed to being their champion if elected. George Jason later (1:26:45) detailed the history of the VFW property acquisition and the perceived unfairness of the current proposal, reinforcing the sentiment of veteran mistrust towards town administration.
  • New Elementary School Traffic (36:18): Marla Bellowstock voiced strong concerns about the anticipated “nightmare” traffic and parking situation around the new school, questioning the adequacy of planning and busing.
    • Arrington (38:22) expressed hope for collaborative solutions, mentioning staggered start times and potential work with the School Resource Officer on crossing guard procedures.
    • Leonard (40:04) agreed with the concerns, citing conversations with Mason Road abutters. She stressed the urgent need for community outreach now, before the school opens, criticizing the lack of proactive communication from the town/school. She mentioned emailing the new principal and noted Mary Ellen Fletcher’s request for meetings by June 1st. She pledged to use her connections if elected to push for this outreach.
  • Affordability / Taxes / Library Proposal (47:51): Sheila Billings expressed alarm about rising taxes on a fixed income and questioned expensive ideas like the $30 million library proposal for the former middle school site, contrasting it with the need for commercial tax revenue.
    • Leonard (50:31) addressed Ms. Billings’ separate concern about lack of response regarding construction blasting damage, tying it to poor town responsiveness. On taxes, she strongly opposed increases and criticized the Town Administrator’s ARPA spending list as “ludicrous.” She called the $30M library proposal “out of touch,” noting lack of resident outreach, contradiction with “green space” promises from the 2022 Town Meeting vote, and failure to consult library trustees. She suggested alternative uses for the site (Hat Shell, arts center, food trucks, splash pad) should be considered based on resident input.
    • Arrington (55:33) offered to connect Ms. Billings with the construction liaison regarding blasting damage. On affordability, she called for slowing tax growth and increasing commercial revenue through collaboration. Regarding the library, she agreed it wasn’t what was discussed initially and hoped the town would hear the public outcry and engage in collaborative discussion.
  • Community Preservation Act (CPA) (57:41): Jim Olivetti asked for the candidates’ positions on Swampscott adopting the CPA.
    • Arrington supported (1:00:36) adopting the CPA, citing Nahant’s success using CPA funds for historic preservation, open space, and housing. She noted it requires a town vote (1-3% surcharge) and funds are overseen by a separate committee, potentially reducing the burden on the general budget for specific projects.
    • Leonard opposed (1:02:24) adopting the CPA at this time, citing its previous defeat in Swampscott (2007), the tax increase involved, and lack of sufficient public information. She expressed deep skepticism about the committee appointment process, fearing Select Board bias, and demanded clarity on oversight, funding levels, and specific project goals before considering support. A brief clarification followed where Arrington noted the CPA vote is planned for the November ballot, not Town Meeting, allowing time for outreach (1:05:16).
  • Town Governance / Board of Assessors (1:06:02): Tessia Vasilio (Chair, Board of Assessors) highlighted recurring issues of town committees (Veterans, Library Trustees, Solid Waste, Assessors) not being consulted. She specifically asked about the proposal to change the Board of Assessors from elected to appointed and the use of internal vs. external investigations, noting her request for DOR assistance was met with the proposal to change the board’s status.
    • Leonard (1:07:51) strongly opposed changing the Board of Assessors to an appointed body, calling it a move to take power from the people. She reiterated criticism of the lack of collaboration and consultation by town leadership. She strongly advocated for external, independent investigations to ensure transparency and unbiased results, stating internal investigations risk corrupted outcomes.
    • Arrington (1:10:59) stated she wants residents heard and town officials trusted. She proposed holding office hours if elected. She expressed openness to outside investigations and stressed the need to work collaboratively with officials and residents.
  • ARPA Funds for Sewer Infrastructure (1:12:38): Andrea Moore asked for a specific dollar amount candidates would commit from ARPA funds ($2.1M remaining mentioned) to sewer system repairs.
    • Leonard (1:13:59) reiterated she would devote all remaining ARPA funds to sewer/water infrastructure and beach cleaning, calling it common sense given the aging pipes and federal mandate. She recalled opposing previous ARPA use for bonuses.
    • Arrington (1:15:57) also stated she would give all ARPA money to fixing beaches/sewers, acknowledging it wouldn’t cover the total cost and stressing the ongoing need for collaboration with state partners and Lynn.
  • School Budget Impact (1:16:50): Alexis Runstadler asked how candidates would address the dynamic of the growing school budget (approx. 65% of total) potentially squeezing other town services.
    • Arrington (1:17:29) emphasized collaborative work with the school system. She then raised a concern about Leonard potentially needing to recuse herself from school budget votes due to her wife being a school employee, questioning the feasibility given the budget percentage.
    • Leonard (1:18:52) defended her position, citing precedent (Mary Ann Speranza Hartman) and distinguishing the Select Board role from the School Committee’s budget-setting authority. She stated she would recuse if ethically required but doubted it would arise often in the Select Board context. She emphasized collaboration, referencing the current strained relationship between the Superintendent and Town Administrator, and suggested her relationships (noting support from 4 of 5 School Committee members) could facilitate better communication and budget negotiations.
  • Long-Range Town Planning (1:22:36): Tom Billings asked if candidates support creating and communicating a 5- or 10-year town plan.
    • Arrington (1:23:59) believed a master plan exists on the town website but stressed the importance of making residents feel heard through mechanisms like office hours, regardless of the plan’s existence.
    • Leonard (1:25:01) acknowledged a master plan exists but agreed outreach, especially to new residents, is lacking. She suggested better communication and transparency about long-term goals are needed beyond just posting online.
  • Phillips Park Boat Storage (1:30:29): Peter Boris asked if candidates support allowing continued boat/trailer storage in Phillips Park parking lot.
    • Leonard (1:31:04) supported allowing it, stating it has historically been permitted and she doesn’t understand why it was stopped, speculating it might relate to failed pickleball plans. She acknowledged the need for better handicapped spot marking.
    • Arrington (1:32:13) stated she personally doesn’t have strong feelings as she doesn’t boat, the boats don’t bother her, but she is interested in revamping the area generally (criticizing the current handicap signage). She was open to discussion if reasons emerge for disallowing storage.

5. Candidate Closing Statements:

  • Katie Arrington (1:33:24): Thanked the DAV, veteran services, and Leonard. Mentioned her grandmother was a pioneering female select board member in Rockport. Stressed the difficulty of town finances requires better decision-making processes: more information sharing, resident input, patience, and kindness. Positioned her lived experience in Swampscott as her strength, focusing on affordability while maintaining empathetic leadership. Asked for votes on April 30th.
  • Danielle Leonard (1:35:52): Thanked the host and attendees. Expressed pride in two women running. Highlighted her past engagement speaking at Select Board meetings. Framed her candidacy as being a voice for residents who feel unheard, advocating a return to “common sense” governing focused on finances, infrastructure (beaches, pipes), and rebuilding community trust. Directly addressed veterans’ concerns, expressing disappointment at their treatment and pledging respect for resident wishes over imposed agendas. Asked for votes on April 30th for a change in governance.

6. Host Closing Remarks & Adjournment:

  • DAV Host Jeff Flander thanked the candidates and attendees (1:38:15). He urged everyone to vote on April 30th and encouraged residents to run for open Town Meeting seats, particularly in Precinct 2, emphasizing participation over complaints. He apologized to DAV members for the long meeting, reiterated the importance of the forum and building relationships. He thanked the Senior Center and Swampscott Cable. He acknowledged Select Person Doug Thompson was also present. The forum concluded.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The DAV Candidates Forum provided Swampscott voters a platform to hear from Select Board candidates Danielle Leonard and Katie Arrington on key town issues. Several major themes emerged, revealing areas of both consensus and differing approaches between the candidates.

Key Issues & Candidate Positions:

  • Veteran Relations & VFW Post: A significant portion of the forum (17:30, 24:55, 31:41, 43:08, 1:26:45) focused on the town’s historically strained relationship with veterans and specific concerns about the proposed veterans’ housing project displacing the VFW post with inadequate space. Both candidates pledged strong support for veterans. Leonard emphasized acknowledging past wrongs by town leadership and strongly advocated for direct veteran input via a re-established committee. Arrington stressed collaboration and working to ensure the housing project provides what veterans need. The discussion highlighted deep-seated mistrust among some veterans towards current town administration.
  • Fiscal Responsibility & ARPA Funds: Candidates unanimously agreed that the remaining federal ARPA funds (approx. $2.1M) should be entirely dedicated to fixing Swampscott’s aging sewer infrastructure and addressing beach pollution (13:42, 16:15, 1:13:59, 1:15:57). This represents a significant potential investment using one-time funds rather than immediate tax increases for this specific, mandated need. Leonard strongly criticized the Town Administrator’s alternative spending ideas and past use of ARPA for bonuses.
  • Affordability & Taxes: Both candidates acknowledged affordability as a major concern (8:14, 47:51, 55:33). Arrington highlighted her family’s multi-generational living situation as evidence of financial pressures and advocated slowing tax growth and increasing commercial revenue. Leonard voiced strong opposition to tax increases and was highly critical of proposals like the $30M library (51:51), arguing it was out of touch with resident priorities and the “green space” promise associated with the site vote.
  • Town Governance & Communication: A recurring theme from residents was dissatisfaction with town communication, consultation, and responsiveness (17:30, 19:23, 36:18, 50:11, 1:06:02). Leonard positioned herself as a voice for unheard residents, criticizing the current administration’s lack of transparency and collaboration, specifically opposing making the Board of Assessors appointed (1:07:51) and advocating for external investigations. Arrington proposed office hours (1:10:59) and emphasized working collaboratively within the existing structures to improve communication and trust.
  • New Elementary School Impact: Significant resident concern exists regarding traffic, parking, and abutter impacts from the new school (36:18, 47:51). Both candidates agreed more proactive community outreach is essential before the school opens. Leonard pledged to actively push for this now (40:04).
  • Community Preservation Act (CPA): The candidates differed on adopting the CPA (57:41). Arrington supported it (1:00:36), seeing it as a tool used successfully elsewhere (Nahant) to fund specific projects (historic, open space, housing) via a small surcharge, potentially easing general budget pressure. Leonard opposed it currently (1:02:24), citing the tax increase, lack of public information, and deep distrust regarding committee appointments and oversight.

Significance for Voters: The forum highlighted critical choices facing Swampscott regarding fiscal priorities (ARPA funds, taxes, major projects like the library), infrastructure needs (sewers/beaches), community relations (especially with veterans), and the fundamental style of town governance (collaboration vs. challenge, transparency). The candidates presented distinct approaches, with Leonard frequently challenging current leadership and processes, while Arrington emphasized collaboration and finding common ground. The election outcome could significantly influence how the town addresses these pressing issues.

Section 5: Analysis

This candidates’ forum, hosted by the DAV, provided a revealing look into the concerns of engaged Swampscott residents and the contrasting styles and priorities of the two Select Board candidates, Danielle Leonard and Katie Arrington. The discussion, grounded in the transcript evidence, suggests several key dynamics:

  • Deep Resident Dissatisfaction with Current Governance: Beyond specific policy disagreements, a strong undercurrent throughout the Q&A was resident frustration with communication, consultation, and perceived responsiveness from town leadership. This was explicitly voiced regarding veteran relations (17:30, 24:55, 1:26:45), the library proposal (51:51, 57:41), committee consultation (1:06:02), school abutter outreach (36:18, 40:04), and even basic responses to concerns like construction damage (50:11). This sentiment provided fertile ground for Leonard’s more critical stance.
  • Leonard as Challenger, Arrington as Collaborator: The candidates clearly positioned themselves differently. Leonard consistently adopted a more confrontational approach towards the current Town Administrator and Select Board practices (13:42, 21:37, 51:51, 1:07:51), framing herself as an advocate ready to challenge the status quo and demand resident voices be heard. Her arguments often centered on perceived failures of current leadership (lack of listening, poor fiscal priorities, inadequate outreach). Arrington, while acknowledging problems, emphasized collaboration, listening, kindness, and working with town structures and officials (16:15, 19:55, 38:22, 1:10:59). Her arguments focused more on process improvement and finding common ground, leveraging her lived experience and community ties.
  • Veterans’ Issues as a Microcosm: The extensive discussion on veteran affairs (17:30 through 34:39, 43:08, 1:26:45) served as a potent example of the broader governance issues raised. The specific complaints about the VFW post size, lack of consultation (from both VFW Auxiliary and DAV representatives), and historical grievances presented a compelling case study of the disconnect felt by some community groups. Both candidates appeared genuinely committed to improving the situation, but their approaches mirrored their overall styles: Leonard focused on rectifying past wrongs and systemic failures, while Arrington focused on moving forward collaboratively on the current project.
  • ARPA Funds as a Point of Clear Consensus (and Implicit Criticism): The unanimous agreement between both candidates and questioners (13:42, 16:15, 1:13:59, 1:15:57) to dedicate all remaining ARPA funds to sewer/beach infrastructure stands in stark contrast to the Town Administrator’s previously presented list (referenced critically by Leonard 13:42, 51:51). This consensus suggests strong public and candidate alignment against the administration’s stated preferences on this specific, high-value issue.
  • Strategic Positioning on Key Votes/Issues: The CPA (57:41) provided a clear policy difference, with Arrington embracing a potentially useful fiscal tool and Leonard voicing caution rooted in distrust of implementation. Arrington’s challenge regarding Leonard’s potential conflict of interest on school matters (1:17:29) represented a direct tactical move, which Leonard parried by citing precedent, scope of role, and her existing collaborative relationships with School Committee members (1:18:52). Leonard’s repeated mentions of support from School Committee members (51:51, 1:21:58) appeared calculated to bolster her collaborative credentials despite her critical stance towards town administration.

Overall Impression: The forum effectively showcased the candidates’ differing philosophies on town governance. Leonard presented a case for more fundamental change and direct challenge to current administrative practices, resonating with expressed frustrations. Arrington offered a vision of improving processes through collaboration and empathy from within the system. The effectiveness of each approach likely depends on a voter’s assessment of the root causes of Swampscott’s challenges and their preferred style of leadership. The numerous detailed questions and historical context provided by residents suggest a highly informed and engaged electorate grappling with significant issues of trust, fiscal management, and community identity.