Swampscott Select Board Meeting — July 8, 2025

Note: The meeting metadata lists this as a “Zoning Board of Appeals” meeting dated June 17/May 30, 2025. The transcript clearly identifies this as the July 8, 2025 Select Board Meeting 00:59. All analysis below reflects the actual meeting content.

Section 1: Agenda (Inferred)

Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, and Moment of Silence 00:59
Interim Town Administrator’s Report 02:08 — Community development, library, building department, senior center, recreation, clerk’s office, police, and trash/solid waste update (Republic Services strike)
Board Discussion of Trash Strike Response 08:37
Public Comment 17:39 — Bike rack request at Clark School
Discussion and Vote: Fiscal Year-End Transfers 18:37 — $662,686.83 in transfers; debate over unauthorized legal expense
Presentation: Rodenticide Policy 39:51 — Deb Newman / Speak Up for Animals on banning second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs)
Joint Meeting with Swampscott Housing Authority: Clark School 1:08:34 — Future use of Clark School for affordable/senior housing
Discussion and Vote: Standalone HR Policies 1:59:39 — Electronic communications, drug/alcohol-free workplace, motor vehicle record, ADA policy, ADA grievance policy
Discussion: Updated Employee Handbook 2:08:07 — Vacation, sick leave, personal time, comp time, and work hours
Discussion: Water and Sewer Rates 2:47:34 — Rate increase scenarios and retained earnings policy
Update: Community Preservation Act (CPA) Surcharge 3:23:27 — Tax bill implementation
Consent Agenda 3:29:20
Select Board Member Comments 3:30:07
Adjournment 3:34:49

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Note on speaker identification: This transcript uses automated speaker diarization, and the [Speaker X] tags are inconsistent — the same individual is frequently assigned different speaker numbers at different points. The identifications below represent best inferences from contextual clues (names spoken, roles referenced, content of statements). Where a specific identity cannot be determined, a generic role is used.

Select Board Members (5 present):

Doug (Select Board Chair): Facilitates the meeting, calls votes, manages agenda flow. [Various speaker tags throughout]
Mary Ellen Fletcher (Select Board Member): Defends her engagement of outside counsel on Pine Street; contributes to housing discussion and employee handbook review. [Primarily Speaker 7 and Speaker 1 at various points]
David Grishman (Select Board Member): Raises concerns about unauthorized legal expenditure; asks pointed questions on fiscal transfers and Clark School. [Primarily Speaker 3 and Speaker 10 at various points]
Danielle (Select Board Member): Comments on trash response, police hiring timeline, communication gaps, and elderly/disabled residents. [Various speaker tags]
Fifth Select Board Member: Participates in votes and discussion. [Various speaker tags]

Town Staff:

Gino Cresta (Interim Town Administrator / DPW Director): Delivers TA report, provides detailed trash strike updates, discusses fiscal transfers and fire personnel costs. [Various speaker tags]
Patrick (Finance Analyst/Assessor): Presents water and sewer rate scenarios, retained earnings analysis, and CPA surcharge update. [Various speaker tags]
Marianne (Human Resources Director): Presents standalone HR policies and employee handbook revisions; provides peer comparison data. [Primarily Speaker 6 in HR sections]
Max Kasper (Community Development Director): Presents memo on Clark School status and potential RFP for leasing. [Various speaker tags]
Diane (Administrative Staff): Manages slides and technology during the meeting.

External Presenters:

Charlie Patsios (Swampscott Housing Authority Chair / Governor’s Appointee): Presents case for using Clark School for affordable housing. [Speaker 6 in housing section]
Kevin Johnson (Housing Authority Executive Director): Provides data on waiting lists, voucher rates, and housing stock. [Speaker 2 in housing section]
Deb Newman (Founder, Speak Up for Animals): Presents comprehensive rodenticide policy proposal. [Speaker 4 in rodenticide section]

Public Commenters:

Thomas Arrington, 40 Roy Street (Park League CIT): Requests bike rack at Clark School. [Speaker 10 at 17:48]

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening 00:59

Chair Doug called the July 8, 2025 Select Board meeting to order. Following the Pledge of Allegiance, the Chair led a moment of silence for a tragedy in Texas, remarking, “Climate is coming to get us” 1:55.

Interim Town Administrator’s Report 02:08

Gino Cresta, serving as Interim Town Administrator, delivered a comprehensive departmental update:

Community Development: BeneBret has requested additional time for Pine Street schematics, now due July 30. The Planning Board’s comments will be forwarded to the Select Board before its July 22 meeting. Hotel Clearview is reviewing the town’s restructured PILOT payment structure.

Public Library: Over 250 patrons attended the summer reading kickoff; the library recorded 996 visitors in one week despite a Friday closure.

Building Department: Building Commissioner Rich Baldacci met with department heads regarding ADUs and will issue a public FAQ soon. The department issued 156 permits in June totaling $42,075 in fees.

Senior Center: Governor Healey increased the formula grant from $15 to $16 per resident over 60, projecting $69,120 in revenue for part-time staff, transportation, software, and conferences. State earmarks for a new refrigerator and freezer were approved but won’t be released until fall. The Senior Center will close July 16 for a ferry trip to Boston.

Recreation: The summer concert series kicks off with Studio Two (Beatles tribute band) on Town Hall Lawn. Bent Water Day on the Beach is scheduled for Saturday, July 12. Thursday movie night at Fisherman’s Beach will feature Moana.

Clerk’s Office: A new public records system was procured to assist with FOIA requests. A new cable TV contract with CompuCast is under discussion. The final auditorium upgrade (speakers and acoustic paneling) is scheduled for early August.

Police: Two-piece grant training was conducted. Community surveys were completed by a third party. The Chief is conducting final evaluations for four lateral officer candidates, with 40 new candidates on the physical training exam list.

Trash Strike Discussion 06:42

Cresta provided a detailed update on the Republic Services labor strike, which he described as “a fluid situation” that had “consumed a lot of my time in the last week and a half” 06:49. Key points:

Monday’s route (only one week’s worth of trash) took over two days to complete with replacement drivers [07:06–07:22].
The town made a decision to forgo recycling collection this week, asking residents to bring recycling bins in 07:36.
Six dumpsters were placed at the DPW yard — three for trash, three for recycling — as a resident drop-off option [07:47–08:15].
Cresta expressed skepticism about Republic’s claims that the strike would end soon: “I don’t get a warm and fuzzy feeling about that” 08:26.

Board Member Danielle thanked Wayne Spritz and Gino Cresta for their response, noting “I wish our response or our advanced response to this was a little bit better” and suggesting the Health Department may have had earlier warning [09:01–09:30]. She raised several operational concerns:

Elderly and disabled residents: Approximately 70–100 housebound residents need assistance. The Senior Center Director, Heidi, is developing a recommendation for volunteer assistance [12:50–13:28].
Communication gaps: At the farmers’ market, most Swampscott residents learned about the strike through Facebook (“the Nest”), not through the town’s CodeRed system. Only about 1,100 of 5,400 homes (~20%) are signed up for town alerts [13:51–14:50]. Cresta confirmed a robo call with “somebody’s voice from town hall” was sent that day 14:22.
Why routes start late: Striking workers are blocking the gate at Republic’s facility, preventing trucks from leaving [15:02–15:09]. Cresta said he offered to house trucks locally, but Republic declined citing security and daily mechanic checks [15:15–15:26].

The Board discussed opening a Thursday drop-off at the DPW yard for additional relief, and Cresta agreed to do “whatever the board desires” 16:07.

Danielle also requested that the Police Chief provide the Board with a detailed police hiring timeline [16:10–16:27].

A Board member questioned whether the $69,120 senior center formula grant was restricted to specific uses. Cresta committed to checking with Heidi [17:02–17:15].

Public Comment 17:39

Thomas Arrington, 40 Roy Street, identified himself as a Counselor-in-Training at the Park League program at Clark School. He reported there is no bike rack, noting many campers ride to Park League with “nowhere to lock up their bikes” and some are “leaving them straight on the ground” [17:48–18:11].

Fiscal Year-End Transfers 18:37

The Board took up discussion and a possible vote on fiscal year-end transfers totaling $662,686.83. Cresta and the Finance Director (Amy Sorrow, who prepared the document before departing) presented the funding sources. Key line items discussed:

Fire Personnel (~$230,000): Cresta explained this stemmed from (1) a firefighter on workers’ compensation all year whose position required overtime backfill, and (2) a discovered practice of firefighters “calling in sick” for their remaining accrued sick days prior to retirement — effectively receiving full pay plus triggering overtime costs. Cresta stated emphatically this practice “will be discontinued” [21:13–22:19]. Board members expressed surprise and dismay; one member reacted visibly, and Cresta noted, “I know I gave that same look” 22:02.

Property & Casualty Insurance (~$153,000): This overrun was attributed to insurance costs for the new elementary school and Hawthorne building that were known but not budgeted for FY2025. Staff confirmed these costs are properly factored into FY2026 [23:25–24:17].

Legal Expenses (~$98,650 overrun): Costs were attributed to Pine Street, Hadley, personnel matters, and the settlement of an outside counsel engagement. The discussion revealed that the town went over its fixed amount with KP Law [24:34–25:16].

Unauthorized Legal Expense Controversy 25:27

Board Member David Grishman delivered a prepared statement alleging that Board Member Mary Ellen Fletcher, while serving as Chair, had unilaterally hired an outside law firm (Murphy Hess Toomey and Lehane) in February 2025 to provide a second legal opinion on Pine Street — “without the vote or knowledge of the select board and without the approval or knowledge of acting town administrator Gino Cresta” [26:00–26:13]. He alleged the resulting $8,460 bill remained unpaid, and that Fletcher had subsequently approached former Finance Director Amy Sorrow requesting funds be moved to pay it, was told no, and then “went to another town hall finance employee requesting to override that guidance” [26:46–27:18]. Grishman characterized this as “malfeasance” and argued Fletcher should pay the bill personally [27:55–28:05].

Fletcher responded forcefully, calling Grishman’s statement an attempt “to malign me” and “to make things up and to lie” [28:08–28:19]. She argued that seeking a second legal opinion on Pine Street “is totally normal,” that the Community Development Director and housing staff were fully aware, and that funds existed in the TA’s consulting line item [28:31–29:39]. She counter-charged that Grishman himself had engaged consultants without board votes when he was Chair [30:35–30:47].

The exchange became increasingly heated, with multiple board members talking over each other. Grishman pressed: “You directed a town employee to violate Mass General Law” 31:31. Fletcher denied this: “Absolutely did not” 32:36.

The Chair intervened with a measured and consequential statement, urging the board to settle the matter without putting town employees in an uncomfortable position: “If we did something that we shouldn’t have… it’s a learning moment for us” [35:22–36:14]. The Chair acknowledged the procedure was not followed correctly — no board vote was taken — but stressed the importance of owning the mistake collectively rather than singling out individuals. He noted Cresta was actively interviewing for the permanent TA position and should not be put “on the hot seat” [37:04–37:16].

Board Member Danielle proposed three discrete action items: (1) vote on the fiscal year-end transfers; (2) determine how the $8,460 bill gets paid; and (3) take up the Select Board handbook at the next meeting to clarify policies on interactions with town staff [38:57–39:25]. This effectively de-escalated the confrontation and refocused the Board.

Vote: Motion to approve fiscal year-end transfers as recommended by the Interim Town Administrator. Passed unanimously [39:41–39:47].

Rodenticide Policy Presentation 39:51

Deb Newman, founder of the nonprofit Speak Up for Animals, delivered an extensive presentation advocating for a formal town policy banning second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) on public property.

Key points of the presentation:

SGARs cause “a grisly death” by disrupting vitamin K recycling, and kill non-target wildlife (hawks, owls, eagles, foxes, coyotes) through secondary poisoning [43:53–44:18].
Massachusetts municipalities cannot regulate rodenticide use on private property through local laws but can control application on public property by policy [44:18–44:23].
Newman found seven bait boxes labeled brodifacoum (an SGAR) and 13 unlabeled boxes on town properties, despite an informal agreement to stop using SGARs [45:14–45:48].
The Swampscott Middle School’s IPM plan listed brodifacoum technical at 95% concentration, which is “fatal to humans, companion animals, and non-target wildlife” [47:04–47:20].
Newman advocated for a complete SGAR ban (rejecting the 14-day emergency exception in Mass Audubon’s model and the proposed state bill), humane alternatives including electric shock boxes (~$78 for two on Amazon) and ContraPest (rat contraceptive showing up to 95% population reduction after one year), and a pilot program at Fisherman’s Beach or Blaney Street [55:38–1:01:18].
She also proposed pursuing a home rule petition to extend the ban to private property [53:02–54:09].

Cresta confirmed the town had informally stopped using SGARs but acknowledged no formal policy existed [1:04:13–1:04:22]. Max Kasper had previously suggested a pilot program at Fisherman’s Beach. After discussion, the Board directed Newman to work with the Health Director (Jeff) as her point of contact, and Newman’s organization agreed to fund the pilot program [1:06:24–1:08:10]. A board member noted the Health Director should have been present for this discussion [1:07:17–1:07:57].

Joint Meeting with Swampscott Housing Authority 1:08:34

The Board held a joint session with the Housing Authority. Max Kasper first presented a memo on the Clark School’s status:

The Clark School remains under school department control but has been mostly vacant since the new elementary school opened [1:09:24–1:09:47].
Current limited uses include Big Blue Bargains storage, Recreation Department’s Park League program, and surplus furniture storage [1:09:43–1:10:20].
Internal consensus among town and school leadership is to retain control for potential middle school swing space in 3–5 years, while pursuing a short-term lease (~3 years) via RFP [1:10:22–1:12:10].

Housing Authority Chair Charlie Patsios then delivered an impassioned presentation [1:15:38–1:27:09], arguing for dedicating the Clark School to affordable housing:

The Housing Authority had reduced state-identified areas for improvement from 34 to 4 under new leadership [1:16:39–1:17:00].
The statewide waiting list for Swampscott housing exceeds 90,000 people [1:17:05–1:17:16].
Three of four Housing Authority properties scored above 15 (the threshold for “needs work”), with scores in the 30s and 40s. The youngest building dates to 1961 [1:17:48–1:21:55].
The state recommended creating a second agency — the Swampscott Affordable Housing Development Corporation (501c3) — to compete for funding. It has been incorporated and recognized by the state [1:18:04–1:19:06].
The state indicated that if the town owned the property, it would provide 70–80% reimbursement for construction. A new building meeting federal (HUD) standards could qualify for federal reimbursement over $2,000/unit/month versus the current ~$300/unit/month under the state system [1:23:35–1:35:17].
Swampscott has “spent $170 million on education” and “zero on public housing” [1:19:56–1:20:01].
Patsios proposed the Clark School could house both affordable housing AND a relocated senior center, freeing space at the high school for administrative offices or additional classroom space [1:22:40–1:23:20].

Kevin Johnson (Housing Authority ED) presented data showing Swampscott has the highest MRVP voucher rate on the North Shore at $2,800/month, compared to $2,300 in Lynn and Nahant, $2,400 in Marblehead — reflecting the shortage of affordable stock [1:30:13–1:31:30].

The Board’s response was sympathetic but cautious. Chair Doug noted the discussion was “very intriguing, a little complicated” and that the housing option should be considered alongside other possibilities [1:47:42–1:48:19]. Board Member Danielle identified three primary options for the Clark School: housing, a community life center, or holding for future school use [1:50:53–1:51:20].

The discussion concluded without a vote, with consensus that more conversation is needed — including with the school committee — before proceeding with any RFP. Several members suggested the RFP process may be premature and an RFI (Request for Information) might be more appropriate [1:52:04–1:52:34].

Standalone HR Policies — Vote 1:59:39

Marianne presented five standalone policies recommended by Human Resources, KP Law, and the risk control insurance company. The Board discussed the ADA coordinator role — currently defaulting to Marianne but potentially better suited for the Building Commissioner or Town Administrator — and decided to leave it with HR for now, with the option to revisit [2:01:45–2:05:30].

A blank in the electronic communications policy (“insert title of appropriate official”) was filled with “Town Administrator” [2:05:34–2:06:25].

Vote: Motion to adopt electronic communications and computer usage, drug and alcohol-free workplace, motor vehicle record, ADA policy, and ADA grievance policy. Passed unanimously [2:07:16–2:07:59].

Employee Handbook Discussion 2:08:07

The Board conducted a detailed third reading of the updated employee handbook. Marianne noted she had sent comparison data to the Board on April 2 but received no feedback in over three months [2:08:12–2:08:56]. Key issues discussed:

Vacation Policy [2:09:24–2:15:50]: Board Member Danielle raised concern that vacation time was graded by position level rather than length of service, which she said was uncommon in peer municipalities. The Board debated whether to standardize at three weeks for all employees (matching the current grades 4–6 schedule) or maintain a two-week starting point. No consensus was reached.

Sick Time [2:17:23–2:22:46]: The handbook incorrectly listed accrual at one day/month when the actual practice is 1.25 days/month (15 days/year). The Board identified a missing provision requiring a doctor’s note after five consecutive sick days.

End-of-Sick-Leave Buyback [2:19:23–2:29:16]: Danielle flagged the sick leave buyback provision (20% of banked hours up to $8,500) as non-standard for non-union employees and argued this is where language must be added to prevent the pre-retirement sick time abuse discussed during the fiscal transfers. However, given that very few non-union employees actually retire from town service, the Board acknowledged the provision’s practical impact may be limited [2:27:57–2:28:08].

Personal Time [2:30:01–2:30:24]: Board consensus was to reduce personal days from five to three, consistent with peer communities.

Comp Time [2:30:40–2:35:51]: Marianne explained the current comp time tracking system (electronic, with paper forms signed by the TA) and its value as a retention/recruitment perk. The Board decided to leave comp time policies unchanged.

Work Hours [2:41:04–2:46:50]: The current 34-hour work week was noted as below peer averages (Marblehead 37.5, Ipswich 35, Scituate 35). Danielle advocated increasing to 40 hours; others suggested 36 as a compromise. The discussion revealed that some department head contracts specify 40 hours while others specify 34 or are silent. No decision was made; the Board asked Marianne to make a professional recommendation.

The handbook vote was tabled to the next meeting, with Marianne to incorporate edits (vacation structure, sick time accrual correction, doctor’s note requirement, personal time reduction) [2:39:16–2:47:25]. Board member Grishman urged the Board not to let another 90 days pass before acting [2:16:12–2:16:29].

Water and Sewer Rates 2:47:34

Patrick presented updated rate increase scenarios based on FY25 year-end results:

Sewer revenues came in ~$220,000 above budget, attributed to the aggressive 18.2% rate increase last year [2:48:37–2:49:03].
Water revenues were ~2.5% below target, attributed partly to an increased delinquency rate (~10%), up from the historical ~3.3% [2:49:08–2:49:44].

Three scenarios were presented [2:51:04–2:51:50]:

Scenario	Avg. Bill Increase	Retained Earnings Target	Estimated Annual Cost Increase
1	~28%	Full (20%) by FY26	~$358/year
2	~25%	Partial	~$325/year
3	~24%	Lower	~$300/year

The Water Sewer Infrastructure Committee favored Scenario 1 [3:00:40–3:00:54]. However, Board Member Mary Ellen Fletcher expressed strong reservations: “I just think this increase is exorbitant. I really do. Even option three” [3:10:37–3:10:41]. She questioned whether the 20% retained earnings target was too aggressive and suggested lowering it to 15%.

The discussion revealed that rate recommendations in prior years had been “chopped down before they got to see you” [3:11:26–3:11:43], meaning the Board had not been presented the full range of options historically.

Patrick was directed to return at the next meeting with:

Peer community data on retained earnings policies [3:16:05–3:16:12]
A scenario modeled at 15% retained earnings [3:16:34–3:16:42]
Research on an elderly/disabled water and sewer relief program modeled on Revere’s voluntary contribution program [3:07:00–3:09:24]
Research on late notice/demand fee authority (requires town meeting) [2:52:53–2:53:08]

The Board expressed concern about the cumulative impact on taxpayers: estimated ~$750 property tax increase + ~$300 water/sewer increase + ~$100 CPA surcharge = approximately $1,150 in new annual costs for the average household [3:10:21–3:10:37].

CPA Surcharge Update 3:23:27

Patrick confirmed the Community Preservation Act 1.5% surcharge is now appearing on preliminary tax bills. The first two quarters are projected to generate approximately $375,000 (annualized ~$750,000 less exemptions). A means-tested exemption will be available through the Board of Assessors starting January 1. Patrick agreed to post a calculation explanation on the town website and locate an online calculator for residents [3:23:51–3:28:13].

The Board discussed CPC committee formation, with nominations from relevant boards/committees expected by end of August [3:28:22–3:29:15].

The consent agenda was approved with minutes deferred to the next meeting. Items required re-voting due to a prior meeting where a member participated remotely from a vehicle, which was not permissible.

Vote: Motion to approve consent agenda sans minutes. Passed unanimously [3:29:48–3:30:05].

Select Board Member Comments 3:30:07

Board members offered thanks for the July 3 reading ceremony (coordinated by Nancy Schultz, Kelly Kittiv, and Margaret Solimar); congratulated Danielle Strauss on her retirement from Recreation after 20 years; praised the Fourth of July events; and again thanked Gino Cresta and DPW staff for the trash strike response.

Cresta noted that King’s Beach was open on July 3 when most other Commonwealth beaches were closed — “a hundred percent because of the UV” disinfection system [3:34:03–3:34:09]. He also reported beach shower repairs at Phillips Beach are underway with parts on order [3:34:29–3:34:48].

Vote: Motion to adjourn. Passed unanimously [3:34:49–3:34:54].

Section 4: Executive Summary

For Swampscott Residents: What Happened and Why It Matters

Trash Strike Creates Ongoing Crisis; Town Mobilizes Workaround

The Republic Services labor strike dominated the early portion of the meeting. Residents should know that recycling has been suspended this week, and six dumpsters are available at the DPW yard (three for trash, three for recycling). Replacement drivers are unfamiliar with routes and starting late due to picket line blockages. The Board discussed opening an additional Thursday drop-off and mobilizing volunteers to assist approximately 70–100 housebound elderly and disabled residents. Critically, only about 20% of Swampscott households are signed up for the town’s CodeRed emergency notification system — the Board acknowledged this as a systemic communication problem requiring attention.

$662,687 in Year-End Transfers Approved; Fire Department Practices Reformed

The Board unanimously approved fiscal year-end budget transfers, with the largest drivers being fire department personnel costs ($230,000+) stemming from a firefighter on workers’ compensation all year and the discovery that retiring firefighters had been calling in sick for their remaining accrued days — collecting full pay while simultaneously triggering overtime costs for their replacements. Interim TA Cresta stated this practice has been discontinued. Property and casualty insurance added another $153,000, attributed to the new elementary school and Hawthorne building costs that were known but never budgeted for FY2025.

Bitter Dispute Over Unauthorized $8,460 Legal Bill

The meeting’s most contentious moment came when Board Member David Grishman accused Board Member Mary Ellen Fletcher of committing “malfeasance” by unilaterally hiring outside counsel for a second opinion on Pine Street without a board vote, then allegedly pressuring a town finance employee to pay the bill after being told it was unauthorized [25:27–33:05]. Fletcher denied wrongdoing, saying the consultation was routine and the Town Administrator was aware. The Chair de-escalated the situation by framing it as a collective board failure and directing three follow-up actions: paying the bill, reviewing procedures, and adopting a select board handbook at the next meeting. The underlying tension between Grishman and Fletcher on this issue appears deep-seated and unresolved.

Housing Authority Makes Historic Appeal for Clark School

In what Housing Authority Chair Charlie Patsios called “the first time we’ve actually ever stepped in front of the town to have a conversation like this” 1:16:06, the Housing Authority made an impassioned case for dedicating the Clark School to affordable housing. The pitch: the state would reimburse 70–80% of construction costs if the town owns the property, and a new building meeting HUD standards could qualify for federal reimbursement of $2,000+/unit/month versus the current ~$300/month under the state system. The Housing Authority has created a new 501c3 (Swampscott Affordable Housing Development Corporation) to compete for funding. The Clark School is being presented as potentially transformative: housing, a relocated senior center, and community space — all in one building. However, the school department has indicated a desire to retain the building for potential middle school swing space. This sets up a fundamental community conversation about competing priorities that will unfold over the coming months.

Water and Sewer Rates: Another Significant Increase Coming

Residents should prepare for a 24–28% combined water and sewer rate increase, adding an estimated $300–358/year to the average household bill. This comes atop estimated property tax increases of ~$750/year and the new CPA surcharge of ~$100/year. The total new annual burden for an average household could approach $1,150. The Board expressed discomfort with the magnitude and directed staff to investigate lowering the retained earnings target from 20% to 15% and to research an elderly/disabled relief program modeled on Revere’s. A vote is expected at the next meeting (before August 15 billing).

HR Policies Modernized; Handbook Revisions Approaching Completion

Five standalone HR policies were adopted (ADA, drug/alcohol, electronic communications, motor vehicle, ADA grievance). The employee handbook remains under revision, with key changes approaching consensus: reducing personal days from 5 to 3, standardizing vacation by length of service rather than grade, correcting sick time accrual rates, and adding a doctor’s note requirement after five consecutive sick days. The broader question of increasing the standard work week from 34 to 36+ hours was raised but deferred.

CPA Surcharge Now on Tax Bills

The 1.5% Community Preservation Act surcharge approved by voters is now appearing on preliminary tax bills. Means-tested exemptions will be available starting January 1 through the Board of Assessors. The town expects to collect approximately $750,000 annually, and committees are being formed to receive nominations for how to spend it.

Section 5: Analysis

A Board Under Strain, Moving Forward on Multiple Fronts

This was a marathon meeting (nearly 3.5 hours) that revealed a Select Board grappling with an extraordinary number of consequential issues simultaneously — a trash strike, fiscal transfers, housing policy, HR modernization, water/sewer rate increases, and CPA implementation — while also managing significant interpersonal tension.

The Grishman-Fletcher Confrontation: Substance and Strategy

The most dramatic moment — Grishman’s prepared statement accusing Fletcher of malfeasance 25:27 — was clearly premeditated, complete with specific dates, invoice details, and a demand for personal financial restitution. Fletcher’s response was equally forceful, if less organized, counter-charging that Grishman engaged in similar practices as Chair and characterizing his accusations as a pattern of personal attacks [28:08–30:16].

On the substance, both sides have partial credibility. Grishman’s core point — that a sitting board member engaged outside counsel without a board vote and then allegedly pressured staff to pay the bill after being told no — raises legitimate governance concerns, particularly the allegation about pressuring a finance employee. Fletcher’s counter-point — that consulting line items exist for exactly this purpose and that the TA and Community Development Director were aware — is also plausible, particularly if past chairs operated similarly.

The Chair’s intervention was perhaps the most consequential moment of the exchange [35:22–37:51]. By reframing the dispute as a collective board failure rather than individual malfeasance, refusing to put Cresta in the position of testifying against a board member, and directing specific remedial actions (paying the bill, reviewing procedures, adopting a handbook), the Chair demonstrated effective conflict management. The message was clear: own the mistake, fix the process, move on.

However, the underlying dynamic between Grishman and Fletcher appears to run deeper than this single incident. The transcript suggests an ongoing pattern of mutual antagonism that may continue to surface.

The Housing Authority’s Strategic Positioning

Charlie Patsios delivered what was effectively a closing argument for a case he’s been building for over a year. His presentation was emotionally resonant — “please hear the voices of the people that so far haven’t been heard” 1:23:23 — and strategically sophisticated. By positioning the Clark School request alongside senior center relocation, school space optimization, and federal funding eligibility, he presented a multi-stakeholder solution rather than a single-interest demand.

The financial argument is particularly compelling: the difference between state reimbursement (~~$300/unit/month) and federal HUD reimbursement (~~$2,000+/unit/month) is transformative, and the state’s indicated willingness to cover 70–80% of construction costs creates a narrow window of opportunity.

However, the Board’s response — sympathetic but carefully non-committal — reflects the genuine complexity. The school committee has not been fully briefed. Multiple constituencies want the Clark School (recreation, senior center, community life center, schools for swing space). Board Member Danielle’s suggestion of an RFI rather than an RFP was instructive: the Board isn’t ready to commit to a direction yet.

The critical next step is whether the school committee will release control of the building to the town — and that conversation hasn’t meaningfully started yet [1:39:28–1:39:47]. Patsios’s four-year timeline for “boots on the ground planning” [1:38:39–1:38:54] suggests this is a long game, and the Board has time to deliberate, but Patsios’s pointed historical references to Swampscott letting public buildings deteriorate until they’re sold to developers [1:20:21–1:20:53] are designed to create urgency.

Water and Sewer Rates: The Compounding Problem

The water and sewer rate discussion revealed a structural challenge years in the making. Patrick’s disclosure that prior rate recommendations had been “chopped down before they got to see you” 3:11:26 is significant — it suggests the Board has historically been presented artificially low options, contributing to the current deficit.

The most interesting analytical exchange was around the 20% retained earnings policy. Mary Ellen Fletcher’s challenge — “do we really need to have twenty percent?” 3:12:35 — is a reasonable question that the Board should have been asking years ago. However, Patrick’s point about bond ratings and the need for dedicated resources to service water/sewer debt [3:15:21–3:15:49] provides a counterweight.

The cumulative impact calculation articulated during the meeting (~$1,150 in new annual costs per household) [3:10:21–3:10:37] represents a politically significant threshold. The Board appears to be approaching a point where the aggregate burden on taxpayers forces harder trade-offs between competing priorities.

Employee Handbook: Process Over Substance

The employee handbook discussion, while substantive in its HR details, is perhaps most notable for what it revealed about the Board’s working dynamics. Marianne sent comparison data on April 2 and received zero feedback for over three months 2:08:50. Grishman’s insistence that “we can’t let 90 days go by” 2:16:20 reflected broader frustration with the pace of this process.

Board Member Danielle’s contributions here were consistently the most technically grounded — drawing on apparent HR expertise to identify specific issues (grading vs. years of service, sick leave buyback for non-union employees, doctor’s note thresholds) that others on the Board missed. Her effectiveness in this area contrasted with the more emotionally driven exchanges elsewhere in the meeting.

Looking Ahead

This meeting set up at least four significant action items requiring decisions at upcoming meetings: water/sewer rates (vote needed before August 15), employee handbook (next meeting), the Clark School’s future (ongoing), and the Select Board handbook/governance procedures. The Board is clearly operating at capacity, and the quality of its decision-making will depend on whether members do the preparation work between meetings that the handbook episode suggests has been lacking.

2025-06-17: Zoning Board Of Appeals