Select Board Joint Meeting with School Committee and Finance Committee

Swampscott, MA — February 9, 2026

Section 1: Agenda

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 00:04:55
- Select Board, School Committee, and Finance Committee each called to order
Utility Reserve Usage Agreement (MOU) — FY25 Background and Timeline 00:07:50
- Detailed chronological walkthrough of how the school utility reserve MOU originated (October 2023–May 2025)
- Discussion of the MOU’s language (“offset” vs. “replace”), the zeroed-out utility line, and the lack of written records from tri-chair meetings
Utility Reserve Usage Agreement (MOU) — FY26 Discussion 00:29:45
- Clarification that FY26 would follow the same zero-utility-line approach
- Acknowledgment that the process was clearer for FY26 than FY25
- Discussion of MOU deficiencies (no defined baseline, lack of specifics)
Adjournment 00:32:58
- School Committee adjourns
- Finance Committee adjourns
- Select Board adjourns (with birthday acknowledgment for a participant)

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Note on Transcription Quality: This transcript was produced by automated speaker diarization, which appears to have intermittently confused speaker labels — particularly between the Select Board Chair and the School Business Administrator during the timeline presentation. The mapping below reflects the best inference from contextual clues.

Inferred Identity	Speaker Tag(s)	Basis for Identification
Katie Phelan (Select Board Chair)	Speaker 1 (closing segments) / Speaker 2 (opening)	Opens and chairs the joint meeting; entertains motions for adjournment; addressed as “Katie” by Mary Ellen Fletcher 00:14:01; redirects public comment to written submissions
Cheryl Stella (School Business Administrator/CFO)	Speaker 2 (timeline segments) / Speaker 1 (timeline segments)	Introduced as “Miss Stella” by Glenn Castor 00:06:49; presents the detailed budget chronology; thanked by name at adjournment 00:33:34
Glenn Castor (School Committee Chair)	Speaker 5	Self-identified 00:05:50
Finance Committee Chair (name unclear in transcription)	Speaker 3	Self-identified as chair at 00:05:56; name garbled in automated transcription
Mary Ellen Fletcher (Select Board Member)	Speaker 4	Corrects the record about “Ms. Fletcher’s” position on the utility line item 00:14:27; references Mr. Grishman and tri-chair dynamics
Mr. Kalishman (School Committee Member)	Speaker 6	Introduced by Glenn Castor 00:06:49; describes being new to the issue and studying it with Cheryl Stella
School Committee Member or Town Official (name not stated)	Speaker 7	Demonstrates detailed knowledge of FY25 budget article mechanics and town meeting votes; possibly “Patrick” referenced in discussion
Unidentified Participant	Speaker 8	Minimal speaking role
Unidentified Participant	Speaker 9	Minimal speaking role
Committee Member (name not stated)	Speaker 10	References specific town meeting timestamps; asks clarifying budget questions; likely a Finance Committee member
David Grishman (Select Board Member)	Speaker 11	Moves to adjourn; referred to as “David” by the Chair 00:33:31; thanks Cheryl Stella for the presentation
Unidentified Participant	Speaker 12	Minimal speaking role
Finance Committee Member (possibly named Eric)	Speaker 13	Provides detailed analytical critique of the MOU language; prompted to speak by the Finance Committee Chair 00:26:38

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Opening and Purpose

Chair Katie Phelan called the joint meeting of the Select Board, School Committee, and Finance Committee to order at approximately 5:00 PM on Monday, February 9, 2026 00:04:55. After the Pledge of Allegiance, she stated the purpose of the meeting: to resolve outstanding questions about the utility reserve usage agreement (MOU) between the school district and the town before entering the upcoming FY27 budget cycle. School Committee Chair Glenn Castor and the Finance Committee Chair each called their respective meetings to order.

Castor framed the discussion by noting that the meeting would address how the MOU originated in FY25 and then proceed to FY26 00:06:29. He introduced School Committee member Mr. Kalishman, who offered preliminary remarks acknowledging the issue’s complexity: “Somebody who wasn’t there when this all went down, I can completely understand how it’s confusing. It took me quite a few meetings with Cheryl to really wrap my head around the timeline” 00:06:51. Kalishman delivered what proved to be the evening’s key takeaway: “The good news for all of us is that this MOU is over and done with and we will be funding our budget, funding the utilities in our budget just like we did in FY25 and FY26” 00:07:02.

FY25 Utility Reserve Timeline Presentation

Cheryl Stella, the School Business Administrator, presented a detailed chronological walkthrough of the utility reserve MOU’s origins 00:07:58:

October 2023: Four tri-chair meetings focused on upcoming school budget challenges including transportation costs, new elementary school operating costs, special education expenses, and the loss of ESSER/pandemic funding.
January 29, 2024: The School Committee submitted its voted FY25 budget — a 5.1% increase that included money for utilities at the new elementary school 00:09:08.
February 5, 2024: The School Committee presented this same budget to the Finance Committee.
February 9, 2024: The Town Administrator emailed the Superintendent and Select Board proposing a lower school appropriation of 3.84% ($32,199,000), with two separate warrant articles for utilities and special education to make up the difference 00:09:26. As a result, the school zeroed out the utility line in its appropriated budget.
May 20, 2024: Town Meeting voted to approve the school appropriation under Article 3, combining tax levy, local receipts, and free cash for utilities. The utility reserve MOU was signed the same day by the Town Administrator and Superintendent 00:10:02.

Stella then moved to the FY26 timeline:

December 23, 2024: A tri-chair meeting discussed the FY26 school budget, with consideration of funding FCS utility costs outside the appropriation “similar to last year” 00:11:29.
January 13, 2025: Tri-chair materials presented by the school department assumed $200,000 from the utility reserve for the elementary school.
January 17, 2025: Tri-chair meeting minutes recorded that “Ms. Fletcher supports removing $200,000 under the utility” 00:12:07.
January 20, 2025: The School Committee’s FY26 voted budget showed zero in the utility line for the elementary school 00:12:13.
March 20, 2025: The Finance Committee asked why $200,000 in free cash was needed for a line originally budgeted at $214,000. The school responded that without free cash funding, the amount would need to be added back to the school’s appropriation 00:12:40.
April 16–18, 2025: Budget questions were compiled and posted publicly; a memo was sent to the Select Board and Finance Committee clarifying the utility funding history 00:12:52.
May 19, 2025: Town Meeting voted to approve Article 5, including $200,000 from free cash for the utility reserve line of the school operating budget 00:13:32.

Discussion of FY25 MOU Issues

Select Board Member Mary Ellen Fletcher immediately raised a clarification, requesting that the two fiscal years be addressed separately 00:14:01. She contested the characterization of her position in the January 2025 tri-chair minutes, stating: “I didn’t support removing 200K — that was an inaccurate statement. I did absolutely support having $200,000 still in a utility MOU utility line item to offset — that’s the key word — the utility expense” 00:14:27. Fletcher emphasized that tri-chair meetings are a mechanism for facilitating ideas, “not to make decisions” 00:15:13, and that the MOU’s use of the word “offset” rather than “replace” was “a big, big problem” 00:15:33.

This distinction proved central to the evening’s discussion. School Committee Chair Glenn Castor pressed for clarity: “For FY25, the utility line item was zeroed out, correct?” Stella confirmed. Castor continued: “So even if the MOU used the word ‘offset,’ the reality is there was no funds in the budget to offset, correct?” Again confirmed 00:17:04.

Mr. Kalishman introduced an email that had been requested to clarify the FY25 votes 00:17:28. A knowledgeable participant (Speaker 7) explained that an original separate article (Article 4) for a utility fund was indefinitely postponed, and instead the town increased the school’s appropriated budget by the same $200,000 00:18:04. Kalishman synthesized this: “The schools first put the money in the budget, then were told to take it out. Then at town meeting we effectively put it back in” 00:18:31. Speaker 7 clarified that not everyone understood the utility funding had been zeroed out from the school’s budget — “I don’t think that was clear to everybody” 00:19:08.

The Finance Committee Chair highlighted the confusion surrounding the MOU’s execution: the agreement was signed on the day of town meeting, yet “it wasn’t funded the way that the writing on the MOU thought it was, even on the day it was signed” 00:21:07. Stella acknowledged: “It’s clear as mud, really, right? From the very get-go to the point that we’re at now where we’re still sitting here trying to figure out exactly what happened” 00:21:29.

Context: Solar and Rising Utility Costs

Stella provided important context for the original rationale behind the MOU approach. The expectation in 2023 was that once solar panels were fully operational on the new elementary school’s roof and parking lot canopy, utility costs would decline, making a permanent budget increase unnecessary 00:22:27. However, the situation has changed: the parking lot solar canopy is now “a no-go” due to a National Grid issue, and supply charges have risen such that “$200,000 isn’t even enough” to cover the school’s utility costs 00:23:20. The town side faced a parallel situation with Hadley School’s utilities — $50,000 went into the town budget from free cash to pay Hadley bills under the same logic 00:23:56.

MOU Language Critique

A Finance Committee member (Speaker 13) provided a notably detailed critique of the MOU’s drafting 00:26:45. He pointed out that the agreement references “the increase in the utility fund” but does not define the baseline: “Is it compared to all three elementary schools? But at the time Clark was still part of the schools. So is it Clark? The increase of the new school plus Clark over Clark and Stanley or just Stanley?” 00:27:26. He also noted the MOU does not specify which funds can be used to pay the costs — the appropriated $30-million budget or the total $40-million school budget. Kalishman agreed the baseline was missing and acknowledged: “There would have been more detailed conversations… but they should be in any version of what we’re doing on a go-forward basis so that there is no confusion if all the players changed” 00:29:06.

FY26 Resolution

Chair Phelan confirmed that by the time of FY26 budget discussions, there was clearer understanding that the school’s utility line would be zeroed out and that the free cash transfer would be the sole funding mechanism 00:29:59. She recalled stating at a prior meeting, “What are our options — to not have electricity at the elementary school?” — which the Finance Committee Chair confirmed was accurate 00:30:14. Phelan noted: “At least for 2026, there was a more clear understanding what the school had been doing for the budget going into pre-town meeting than maybe we had for FY25” 00:30:53.

A committee member (Speaker 10) pointed viewers to the recorded May 19, 2025 annual town meeting (at 2:33:43) where “Tasfia” raised the same question on the floor and it was confirmed that the utility account was zeroed out and the free cash was the only funding 00:25:46.

Public Comment and Adjournment

When an audience member raised their hand, Chair Phelan noted that the meeting did not include a public comment period and directed written questions to herself and the School Committee Chair 00:31:34.

Select Board Member David Grishman, before moving to adjourn, thanked Cheryl Stella “for that timeline and walking us through and providing clarity and being willing to explain the mud” 00:33:34.

The School Committee, Finance Committee, and Select Board each voted to adjourn. The meeting concluded at approximately 34 minutes.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The Core Issue: How Did the School’s Electricity Get Funded?

This joint meeting was convened to untangle a confusing funding arrangement that has persisted since FY25 — the utility reserve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Swampscott’s school district and the town. The central question: when the school budget’s utility line was zeroed out for the new elementary school, was the $200,000 in free cash meant to replace that funding entirely, or merely supplement existing budget funds?

The answer, as revealed through Cheryl Stella’s timeline presentation, is that the school had no budgeted utility funds for the elementary school — making the $200,000 the sole funding source despite the MOU’s language suggesting it would merely “offset” costs. As Stella put it: “It’s clear as mud, really” 00:21:29.

Why This Matters to Swampscott Residents

The MOU is finished. Mr. Kalishman delivered the most significant news early: the utility reserve MOU arrangement is “over and done with,” and going forward, utilities will be funded directly through the school’s appropriated budget 00:07:02. This eliminates a mechanism that created confusion across three boards, left incomplete documentation, and relied on institutional knowledge held by officials who have since left their positions.

Rising utility costs are a budget concern. Stella noted that $200,000 is no longer sufficient to cover the elementary school’s utility costs due to rising supply charges 00:23:20. Additionally, the planned solar parking canopy — which was expected to reduce costs — is no longer proceeding due to a National Grid issue 00:23:04. These factors will increase budget pressure in FY27 and beyond.

The MOU was poorly drafted. A Finance Committee member’s analysis revealed the agreement lacked a defined baseline for calculating utility cost increases, did not specify which funding sources could be used, and failed to account for operational variables like Clark School’s status 00:27:26. This finding carries broader implications for how the town structures inter-departmental financial agreements.

Tri-chair meetings need better documentation. Multiple participants noted the absence of meeting minutes from critical tri-chair discussions in 2023–2024, leaving no written record of decisions that shaped the budget 00:16:15. Mary Ellen Fletcher emphasized that tri-chair meetings facilitate ideas but do not make binding decisions 00:15:13, yet the budget was effectively reshaped through those conversations.

Consensus Reached

All three bodies appeared to reach a shared understanding of what occurred and agreement that the MOU approach should not be repeated. The meeting achieved its stated goal of resolving this issue before entering the FY27 budget cycle.

Section 5: Analysis

A Necessary Reckoning with Institutional Memory

This meeting served as a post-mortem on a budget mechanism that, by all accounts, failed in transparency if not in outcome. The utility reserve MOU was conceived with reasonable intentions — bridging a temporary cost gap expected to shrink with solar energy — but executed with insufficient precision and documentation. The fact that three elected boards required a joint meeting two years later to reconstruct what happened speaks to the arrangement’s fundamental weakness.

The “Offset” vs. “Replace” Debate

Mary Ellen Fletcher’s insistence on the distinction between “offset” and “replace” 00:15:33 was the sharpest argument of the evening. Her point — that the Select Board and Town Meeting were told the $200,000 would supplement existing budget funds, not serve as the sole funding source — raises questions about informed consent at the appropriation level. Glenn Castor’s methodical follow-up questions 00:17:01 effectively established the factual record: the utility line was zeroed out, meaning “offset” was functionally impossible. This exchange was the meeting’s most consequential moment, establishing a shared factual foundation that all three boards could accept.

The Finance Committee Member’s MOU Critique

The unnamed Finance Committee member’s (Speaker 13) forensic dissection of the MOU’s language 00:26:45 was arguably the most analytically rigorous contribution of the evening. By identifying the undefined baseline, the ambiguity around Clark School’s status, and the unspecified funding sources, this member demonstrated precisely why the arrangement failed. Kalishman’s response — conceding the deficiencies while noting the departure of the original signatories — effectively closed the door on retroactive accountability while implicitly accepting the critique’s validity 00:28:43.

The Absence of Key Actors

A recurring theme was the departure of the officials who created the MOU. The former Town Administrator and former Superintendent — the agreement’s signatories — are no longer in their roles. Stella noted that “unless you’ve been in every meeting and in every discussion since 2023 and on every email… some of those individuals unfortunately are not here to speak to that” 00:22:13. This underscores the importance of the Finance Committee member’s point about future agreements needing sufficient detail that “if all the players changed, we would still be able to do the same mechanics” 00:29:10.

The Finance Committee Chair’s Key Observation

The Finance Committee Chair made perhaps the most damning observation of the evening: the MOU was signed on the day of town meeting, and “it wasn’t funded the way that the writing on the MOU thought it was, even on the day it was signed” 00:21:07. This suggests that the document was either poorly understood by its signatories or was overtaken by last-minute budget restructuring. Either interpretation reflects poorly on the process, though the meeting’s tone remained constructive rather than accusatory.

Looking Forward

The meeting’s ultimate purpose — clearing the decks before FY27 budget discussions — was accomplished. The consensus to fund utilities directly through the school’s appropriated budget eliminates the confusion but introduces new budget pressure. With the solar canopy project stalled and supply charges rising, the school department will need to absorb utility costs that exceed the $200,000 that was previously carved out through a separate mechanism. This sets the stage for potentially difficult FY27 budget conversations, particularly if the town is already constrained by Proposition 2½ limits.

The evening also revealed a broader governance lesson: informal tri-chair discussions, while useful for building consensus, can become problematic when they reshape budgets without adequate documentation or formal board approval. Fletcher’s admonition that tri-chair meetings are for “facilitating ideas” rather than making decisions 00:15:13 serves as both a corrective to past practice and a standard for future budget cycles.

2026-02-09: Select Board Joint