Now I have the context. Let me write the analysis. The April 8, 2026 meeting sits at the apex of the crisis described in the 2026-04 snapshot — one week before the Fletcher censure vote, two weeks before the April 28 election.

Swampscott Select Board — April 8, 2026

Section 1: Agenda

06:50 Call to order, recording notice, Pledge of Allegiance led by local scouts
08:16 Town Administrator report — HR (Asst. Town Accountant offer extended, customer-service rep search, regionalization exploration), website launch update, Repair Cafe announcement, Hawthorne lease terms drafting, Archer Street Woods pause
15:43 Public comment (Joe Dulac re: upcoming high-school and jazz orchestra performances)
16:59 Scout recognition — Eagle Scout proclamation for Adrian Laporte and unveiling of 101-year (1925–2026) Eagle Scout / Gold Star plaque for Town Hall
29:51 Middle School MSBA Statement of Interest — presentation, discussion, unanimous vote
1:10:27 Resolution on federal immigration enforcement (revised version) — discussion and unanimous vote
1:16:03 FY27 preliminary operating budget — five-year financial projection, levy capacity, school revolving-account debate
1:52:56 FY27 capital plan — CIC rankings, track replacement, 89 Burroughs Street (VFW relocation), district security, sewer-lateral history
2:43:54 Town Administrator’s six-month evaluation form
2:49:43 Open the annual town meeting warrant (April 28 ATM)
3:04:25 Findings and recommendations from the independent investigation of a complaint against MaryEllen Fletcher
3:19:05 Consent agenda (with two items pulled for review)
3:27:36 Select Board comments
3:29:22 Adjournment

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Speaker attribution in this transcript is unusually noisy — the same numeric tag is reused across distinct people, and people move between tags. I have triangulated from self-identifications, address-by-name, and topic continuity. Where the evidence is weak I say so.

[Speaker 1] — Predominantly Nick Connors, Town Administrator (Hawthorne lease, Archer Street Woods, FY27 projections, salary/expense assumptions, signing-off lines). A handful of lines during the Eagle Scout proclamation chaos read as Doug Thompson taking back his line (“It’s my line, I think” 18:31).
[Speaker 2] — Katie Phelan, Chair. Calls every formal vote, addresses Doug and “Daniel” (Danielle Leonard) by name, leads transitions, calls public comment, opens/closes warrant. Confidence: high.
[Speaker 3] — Doug Thompson, Vice Chair. Self-identified as the board’s “only Eagle Scout” (“That’s me? I know” 17:46), led the Eagle proclamation and plaque presentation, opened the MSBA discussion (“the physical building of the middle school is a bit of an issue” 30:18), seconded motions. Confidence: high. (Inference for the meeting open: the very first remarks at 6:49 are casual cross-talk, and Speaker 3 saying “Y’all say evening and welcome” reads as Thompson opening for Phelan; not definitive.)
[Speaker 4] — Two distinct speakers share this tag. (a) Max Casper, Facilities Director during the MSBA presentation (signaled by “Superintendent Kalishman” address 30:44 and the technical building-systems content). (b) David Grishman, Select Board Member during policy discussions — he makes the MSBA SOI motion and reads its formal language 1:08:01, offers the cost/revenue framing on 89 Burroughs (“we made a commitment” 2:01:00), raises the $3M sewer-lateral history 2:13:05, and explicitly states “I filed the complaint” against Fletcher 3:15:10.
[Speaker 5] — Predominantly MaryEllen Fletcher, SB Member. She introduces the Eagle Scout proclamation 17:13, reads from the proclamation script, and later carries the bulk of fiscal-hawk questioning (Nahant revolving account 1:34:53, B&B revenue framing, capital plan ranking questions). The early HR/administrative briefing under this tag at 8:16 reads more like a town-staff personnel report (mentions of “Mary Ann, Patrick and Liam”); it is possible that early Speaker 5 is an HR/staff person and the tag is reassigned to Fletcher from the Eagle ceremony forward. I attribute the substantive board-level Speaker 5 lines to Fletcher.
[Speaker 6] — Joe Dulac (self-introduced, 148 Elmwood Road, 16:00). Later in the meeting Speaker 6 reads the formal “On behalf of the select board” line at the Eagle ceremony, reads the redrafted ICE resolution, and makes the motion to approve it — these latter readings are almost certainly Doug Thompson (he authored the redraft per the snapshot; he’s named in lead-in “Doug’s going to tell us how it’s redrafted” 1:11:01). The transcriber appears to have collapsed multiple people into Speaker 6.
[Speaker 7] — Mixed. The procedural framing on the ICE resolution (“highly consistent with many other jurisdictions” 1:15:21) and the collaboration defense of Calichman / Herrick-Stella against Fletcher’s Nahant pushback [1:45:21–1:47:35] are most plausibly Doug Thompson or possibly Phelan. The vehicle-fleet questioning (“I don’t understand why the facility director needs a car” 2:21:50) reads as MaryEllen Fletcher spillover. Treat individual Speaker 7 attributions as inferred unless the surrounding addressing makes it unambiguous.
[Speaker 8] — Patrick Luddy, Finance Director (newly promoted Jan 7, 2026). He answers debt-service questions on the high-school bond (“about seven hundred and sixty thousand dollars… over seven million outstanding” [57:33–57:55]) and proposes the capital-stabilization cash-flow mechanism for 89 Burroughs 2:08:34. Confidence: high.
[Speaker 9] — Danielle Leonard, SB Member. Seconds the ICE resolution (“Second” 1:11:55); her 3:08:04 comment “I also appreciate Marilyn [MaryEllen], you um uh making that statement” and the lengthy follow-up on accountability and “charting a different course going forward” align with her snapshot role as the rising voice. Confidence: medium-high.
[Speaker 10] — Max Casper in capital-plan / facilities discussion (duress buttons, EFIS envelope, LVT flooring). Confidence: high based on content continuity from his earlier MSBA presentation.
[Speaker 11 – 19] — Mostly audience members at the Eagle ceremony reading names from the plaque list. Speaker 13/16/17 references about the IRS mileage rate (~$0.75) appear to be background voices. Speaker 14 discussing “equity issue” on student device refresh and “Ms. Macchi knows is in here right now” reads as Jason Calichman, Superintendent, who was named earlier as present. Speaker 19 (“I did not rank order them into must-do and not. I included them in the plan as presented”) reads as Connors. These tags are not consistent; attribute with caution.

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

TA Report and Hawthorne update [08:16–15:32]

Connors reported an offer extended for the new Assistant Town Accountant, ongoing customer-service rep interviews, and “early stages” regionalization discussions with neighboring communities to share a department-head role. The Repair Cafe at the Senior Center this Saturday was announced. The redesigned town website is live; Google’s stale index is the chief outstanding issue and residents are urged to use on-site search and to subscribe to the news alerts.

On Hawthorne, Connors reported terms agreed in principle with the Swampscott Center for the Performing Arts proposer; counsel is redrafting and the lease may return for the April 15 meeting (April 29 fallback). Grishman asked whether the Center’s scope matches what was presented publicly — Connors confirmed it does. Connors also reported a Colliers exploratory meeting on a future longer-term RFP, citing the Portland, Maine old-courthouse precedent.

On Archer Street Woods, Connors confirmed work is paused while wetland delineations and entranceway materials are verified with the contractor and Conservation Commission. Phelan and Grishman both pressed for clearer community communication — Phelan asking for a one-pager and an in-person community meeting; Connors agreed both formats would be useful.

Public comment [15:43–16:53]

Joe Dulac, 148 Elmwood Road, promoted the high-school musical (“Putnam County Spelling Bee”) and Sunday’s Blue Big Band performance (Duke Ellington’s Far East Suite).

Scout recognition [16:59–29:39]

Fletcher (Speaker 5) introduced an Eagle Scout proclamation for Adrian Laporte, Troop 53, whose project restored a World War I cannon at the local cemetery and added a Rotary-funded plaque listing First World War fallen. Thompson, the board’s “only Eagle Scout,” delivered the proclamation. The board then unveiled a plaque listing every Swampscott Eagle Scout and Gold Star Award winner since 1925 — “101 years of Swamp Scott scouting achievement” 21:01, which will hang at Town Hall. Multiple scouts in attendance took turns reading names.

Middle School MSBA Statement of Interest [29:51–1:10:27]

Max Casper presented. The SOI is the first step into MSBA’s core program; the school committee has already unanimously authorized the superintendent to submit; the April 17 deadline is firm. Casper laid out a contingent timeline: 2026 SOI submission → late-2026 eligibility decision → 2027 module 1 → ~May 2027 feasibility funding request at town meeting → ~Fall 2030 town-meeting construction appropriation (with debt exclusion) → ~Fall 2031 start → completion ~2033.

Casper described the building condition: 1958 original + 1977 conversion-to-high-school addition; 1977 boiler still operating 38:50; 1970s generator; electrical largely 1970s with some 1950s; no sprinkler system (only large school in town without one); accessibility limitations especially to the gym; asbestos floor and pipe-wrap throughout. Recent investments — new roof, fire alarm, security vestibule, and the funded window project — were not wasted; the orientation is toward renovation, not teardown, because MSBA reimbursement rates effectively favor renovation and the building has “good bones.”

Fletcher 44:14 pressed on the feasibility-study cost (~$750K–$900K precedent from the elementary school) and the financial fit; Casper said the financial picture lines up “not perfectly” with debt service rolling off the high-school bond in 2035 and the unfunded-liability obligation completing in 2032. Connors and Casper both encouraged the board to consider strengthening the SOI’s energy/decarbonization answers by leaning on the elementary-school precedent (EUI under 26, fully electric, geothermal).

Grishman 1:08:01 read the formal MSBA-mandated motion language. Phelan called the vote — unanimous approval to authorize the superintendent to submit. The board treated this as a credibility-restoring moment with the MSBA in the wake of the just-completed elementary-school partnership.

Resolution on federal immigration enforcement [1:10:27–1:15:53]

A redrafted resolution — heavily vetted by counsel — was read in full (Speaker 6, likely Thompson, who had circulated the redraft after KP Law feedback). The resolution: (i) refuses to allow town property to be used for federal immigration staging or operations; (ii) requires a valid judicial warrant or court order before granting access to non-public town spaces; (iii) explicitly preserves compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the Fourth Amendment, and any applicable state/federal funding requirements; (iv) cites Massachusetts EO 650 (Jan. 29, 2026); (v) urges peaceful and nonviolent expression. Phelan emphasized that “we are not jeopardizing Swampscott in any way” from a federal/state funding posture 1:14:47. Unanimous approval.

FY27 preliminary budget — five-year financial projection [1:16:03–1:52:52]

Connors presented a five-year projection (the first such roll-up he and Patrick Luddy have produced; will be refreshed quarterly). Headline assumptions: 2.5% levy growth + $425K new growth; flat state aid (treated conservatively); 10% health-insurance growth (the last three years exceeded 10%); local receipts threaded with actuals where available (hotel/meals).

Grishman 1:21:53 pushed for a small upward state-aid assumption, noting even 1% compounded materially changes the picture. Connors held the conservative position, arguing that better-than-projected revenue should make subsequent years easier rather than license current spending.

The 27/28 town-side increase is ~2% growth on operating (excluding fixed costs, which sit “up above under obligations”). Schools are held at 3.25% across the projection period (the rate the SC achieved this year after compression from 4%+). Excess levy capacity is exhausted by FY29 in current projections; the bottom-line surplus/deficit “would technically require an override” in FY29 1:25:10.

The average tax-bill impact for FY27 as presented: $670 (CPA-inclusive: $680). The CPA increment is ~$10 over prior year.

The Finance Committee has not finished its work; final SB vote was not taken tonight.

The Nahant revolving-account exchange [1:34:53–1:48:21] was the most heated stretch of the meeting. Fletcher renewed her concerns: as of September the revolving fund held ~$574K; the school side has been able to drop its FY27 ask from ~4.4% to 3.25% partly by spending the fund down; Fletcher argued there is no codified policy for the size of the fund and the town should not be using excess levy capacity while a substantial school cushion exists in a revolving account. Calichman (Speaker 4) defended the practice: the fund has been at zero before (“not what we want”); the balance reflects timing of Nahant payments versus summer payroll; the fund is projected to draw down to ~$200K by end of FY27. Phelan 1:39:52 confirmed the tri-chair has committed to a May/June meeting to set financial guidelines and parameters governing the fund. Leonard 1:45:21 explicitly defended the unprecedented level of collaboration this year between the three committees and pushed back hard on the framing that the school department was acting nefariously; she catalogued “11 to 12 pages of questions” the school department has answered and praised Herrick-Stella and Calichman. Phelan then closed the discussion 1:48:21 — “it’s okay to have disagreement … but eventually we have to move on” — and the board moved forward without changing the school appropriation.

FY27 capital plan [1:52:56–2:44:00]

The Capital Improvement Committee (CIC) ranking matrix was reviewed. Connors noted only FY27 lines were ranked (A/B/C/?); out-years remain unranked because scope and timing are too uncertain. The board pushed back on several items:

Track replacement (Upper Jackson) ranked C by CIC. Leonard 2:11:14 objected sharply: the C is rooted in the CIC’s “population served” criterion, but track-event fees generate revenue, the football field’s fees aren’t comparable, and the asset serves more residents than other A-ranked items. Fletcher pushed on athletic-fee math ($450 high school, $275 middle school) and asked whether alumni or corporate sponsorship (New Balance Foundation, Puma, Institution for Savings) could defray cost. Calichman and Connors agreed to come back in June with a naming-rights framework. Repair (rather than full replacement) is not viable per the CIC discussion.
89 Burroughs Street (VFW relocation) marked with a ”?” rank pending information on Veterans Crossings timing. Grishman framed it as cash-flow only — the $1.6M B’nai B’rith rent payment offsets the town investment on certificate of occupancy. Patrick Luddy suggested a possible capital stabilization vote at town meeting to fund the cash-flow gap; Connors agreed to investigate and report back next week.
Vehicle requests (facilities EV, DPW EV, fire deputy chief vehicle) drew skepticism — Leonard pressed for binary “must-do this year” rationale; Fletcher pushed broader “do we really need all these vehicles” framing; Connors committed to a two-bullet justification next week.
District security upgrades (HS duress buttons matching MS/ES) — uncontested as an A+ priority.
HS flooring ($250K) rated B; Casper confirmed it is “good but can wait.”
Sewer mains rehabilitation ($3.5M) — Grishman 2:13:05 cited an email from Eric Schneider (FinCom vice-chair) noting the town has spent over $3M repairing ~500 private sewer laterals. Grishman wants a future agenda item to investigate accountability and recoupment. Connors noted the lateral bylaw is going on the warrant this year (it was rescinded last year due to typographical/process errors) and pointed out the IDDE work program publicly described this practice since 2017.
Paving (Atlantic Avenue) — Phelan noted prior conversation suggested it was already funded; Connors said this is the normal cadence after last year’s reduced authorization. He will reconcile with the DPW director.

Town Administrator six-month evaluation [2:43:54–2:49:35]

Phelan distributed a new evaluation form (three categories, individual evaluations not publicly released per Connors’s contract, only the summary public). Fletcher objected to using a new form rather than the prior version and to non-release. Phelan and Grishman defended the form choice as the chair’s discretion and the non-release as contractually proper. Forms due by April 17.

Open the annual town meeting warrant [2:49:43–3:04:08]

Connors proposed shifting all zoning-related articles to the December annual town meeting going forward (now that the second ATM is calendared as the first Monday in December) — keeping spring as budget-centric. Board consensus: support the practice. The current draft has no zoning items anyway; sound bylaw, landscaping (tree caliper at AVH), and earth-removal items will move to fall.

The rodenticide citizen petition will be duplicated as a board-sponsored article in miscellaneous (Fletcher’s request), allowing the petitioner to withdraw. The vets-fund codification vote from December 2024 will be reviewed and codified on the warrant next week. The warrant was opened unanimously; closing expected April 15 or April 29.

Investigation findings [3:04:25–3:19:05]

Phelan framed the matter: this is about what occurred in the police-station interaction the evening before Thanksgiving, not the underlying parking-lot incident itself, which was handled by police in normal course. The report is publicly releasable (taxpayer-funded) with redactions to protect employees and members of the public.

Fletcher 3:04:36 read a prepared statement: she had walked into the police station after forwarding the complainant email to the chief and TA; she “violated the code of conduct by getting further involved” and apologized “to Mr. Grishman, the select board, and the town.” She committed to “do better.”

Phelan 3:06:00 catalogued two distinct violations: (1) §3.2 (conduct in relation to town staff) — town staff felt they were being given direction by an individual SB member; (2) §3.1 (conduct in relation to other town officials) — concerns about another official’s conduct should be routed privately through the chair or, where appropriate, the TA. Fletcher confirmed she was addressing both.

Leonard 3:11:23 gave the longest statement, separating accountability (“if we cannot hold each other accountable, then we have nothing”) from the operational complaint, and called for a substantive cultural reset across town/school/finance relationships.

Grishman 3:13:10 explicitly framed the conduct as “a complete subversion of the chain of command … a complete abuse of power” and stated “she has gone to department heads or other people and requested things … this is not the first time.” Fletcher and Grishman traded sharp exchanges — Fletcher cited Grishman’s July 22 (“slanderous comments towards Gino Cresta and Katie Phelan”) in defense; Grishman replied “you just got caught this time.” Phelan 3:17:50 closed the discussion by repeating the board’s commitment to the code of conduct and seating two new members in three weeks.

No formal motion was taken on the investigation findings tonight. (Per the political-context snapshot, the censure vote will land the following week, on April 15.)

March 2 and March 18 minutes pulled at Fletcher’s request. The recreation revolving-fund cap raised from $500K to $650K (mid-year mechanism via joint SB + FinCom vote). Fletcher raised concerns about a hacker’s license vote already taken (police had vetted location, no reconsideration). Phelan resigned the Poet Laureate Committee seat to make room for Joseph Blood (incoming student member). Leonard requested a Climate Leader / grant update next week.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The MSBA Statement of Interest is the most consequential affirmative vote of the night. The unanimous authorization clears the April 17 state deadline. The realistic completion horizon is 2033, with the first material taxpayer ask — feasibility funding (~$750K–$1M precedent) — coming to May 2027 town meeting and the construction debt-exclusion vote arriving around Fall 2030. Why this matters: it sets in motion a project that, at the high-school precedent’s reimbursement scale, plausibly slots into the window when the 2035 high-school debt service rolls off, but the 2027-2030 transition will overlap with the existing levy-capacity squeeze the board is already describing as override territory by FY29. The board’s framing — renovation, not teardown — aligns with MSBA’s stated preference and is what makes the financial math conceivable.

The FY27 budget projection now has an explicit fiscal cliff. Connors’s five-year projection shows excess levy capacity exhausted in FY29 with a sub-$500K deficit at current assumptions. The average tax-bill impact for FY27 alone is $670 (CPA-inclusive $680). Override talk has moved from rhetorical to mechanical: it is in the projection. Health-insurance growth at 10% (still arguably understated) and flat state-aid assumptions are the load-bearing variables; both are at least somewhat outside town control.

The Nahant revolving-account dispute is unresolved but contained. The school side’s argument — that drawing down the fund is what enabled the 3.25% ask rather than 4.4% — appears to be accepted by a majority of the board, with formal policy guardrails deferred to a May/June tri-chair meeting. Fletcher’s substantive concern (no codified ceiling for the fund) has merit and will be addressed by policy, but tonight’s outcome is that the operational budget framework moves forward.

The federal-immigration-enforcement resolution is a clean, defensible policy product. It is heavily vetted by KP Law, conforms to EO 650, preserves all federal/state funding compliance hooks (esp. 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and the Fourth Amendment), and articulates a binding posture for town facilities. Whether it has practical bite depends on actions never visible at a select-board meeting.

The capital plan is now being scrutinized at line-item granularity in a way the board has not consistently done before. The track ranking-C debate, the EV-fleet must-do justification, the $3M private-sewer-lateral history, and the 89 Burroughs cash-flow mechanism are all signals that FinCom (with Hartmann and Guthrie’s “round-number syndrome” critique behind them) and the board are taking capital seriously in the override-shadow context. Watch the May tri-chair meeting and the joint sewer-lateral discussion Grishman asked for.

The Fletcher investigation report is now public and on the record. Fletcher’s apology — direct, naming both code-of-conduct provisions involved — is the floor. The board did not formally act tonight. The April 15 meeting falls before the April 28 election and is the natural next step.

Section 5: Analysis

This is a transitional meeting: the work is consequential but the political resolution is two weeks out at the election. With Thompson and Grishman both not seeking re-election (a fact the public has known for weeks but is not stated in this transcript), and Fletcher under active investigation, three of the five sitting members are on the way out the door — by choice for two, by reputational pressure for one. The strongest dynamic in the room is that the four members who remain functional are using this meeting to set up the next board, not to fight legacy battles.

The MSBA discussion was technically excellent and politically efficient. Casper’s presentation explicitly tethered the project to the elementary-school precedent and conditioned every commitment on the eventual feasibility study. The “renovation, not new build” framing is doing two jobs: it signals fiscal restraint to taxpayers anxious about a $100M-plus project, and it leverages MSBA’s documented preference for reuse. Connors’s suggestion to strengthen the energy/decarbonization answers using the new elementary school’s credentials was the right tactical insight — those answers are exactly the kind of “marketing” wins the board can compound. The unanimous vote reflects months of off-stage tri-chair work, not a sudden alignment in the room.

The Nahant revolving-account exchange is where the meeting’s center of gravity actually sat. Fletcher’s policy critique — that a fund should not exceed a codified ceiling while the town reaches into excess levy capacity — is substantive. Phelan and the tri-chairs have implicitly conceded this by committing to a policy framework by May/June. But the meeting itself was about whether to relitigate the FY27 number now, and Leonard’s intervention 1:45:21 was the decisive move: by foregrounding the historic level of cross-board collaboration this year, the volume of written answers, and the appropriate ways to surface disagreement, she made it more costly for Fletcher to keep pressing. Grishman’s “ask and answered” close 1:42:43 and Phelan’s “now we can move on” 1:48:18 sealed it. The substantive policy question lives; the operational FY27 question is settled.

Adversarial-public-exchange caveat. Leonard’s defense was articulate and clearly performed with audience benefit in mind; Fletcher’s continued questioning was less polished and got less sympathetic framing from the chair. That asymmetry does not establish that Fletcher’s underlying policy concern about the revolving-fund ceiling is wrong. The May/June tri-chair work will be the substantive test; tonight’s vote tally is a procedural settlement, not a substantive vindication of either side on the policy question.

The capital plan stretch is the leading indicator that the next board will operate differently. The track ranking-C dispute, the explicit demand for two-bullet vehicle justifications, Patrick Luddy’s capital-stabilization proposal for 89 Burroughs, and Grishman’s surfacing of the $3M private-lateral history all share a structure: previously delegated decisions are being repulled into board-level scrutiny. This is partly Connors’s adaptation — he is six months in and now visibly inviting more scrutiny rather than less — and partly the FinCom-led pressure from outside the room. The lateral-bylaw recovery (last year’s typographical-error rescindment is finally being corrected) and the warrant-cadence rebalance (zoning to fall, budget to spring) are both quiet structural improvements that compound over the next several years.

The Fletcher segment is best read as a managed wind-down rather than a turning point. Fletcher delivered exactly the apology the investigation recommends, identifying both code-of-conduct sections by name. Phelan’s restatement of the §3.1/§3.2 framework served two functions: it ensured the apology covered the full record, and it set up next week’s action with a clean transcript. Leonard’s “we have nothing if we cannot hold each other accountable” speech is the on-record articulation of a censure-readiness posture. Grishman’s “you just got caught this time” comment, while sharp, is the kind of statement that the eventual censure vote can absorb without amplifying — he’s leaving the board anyway, and his anger is a personal grievance rather than a structural challenge to anyone remaining. The deferral to next week (rather than a same-night vote) suggests Phelan and Connors are coordinating the procedural choreography deliberately.

Inflection-point assessment. This meeting is not itself the inflection point — that comes April 15 (censure vote) and April 28 (election). But it locks in three load-bearing facts that will carry into the next board: (1) MSBA process is launched and the financial trajectory is now public; (2) FY29 is on the record as an override-eligible year in the official projection; (3) the code-of-conduct enforcement question has been litigated in public, with Fletcher on the record acknowledging the violations. Each of these is a deliverable handed to the new board.

Faction outcome. No faction “won” tonight in the sense of defeating another. The Phelan-Leonard-Thompson axis ran the room with a remarkably professional cadence (Eagle Scout ceremony, MSBA presentation, ICE resolution, warrant opening, evaluation distribution). Grishman participated normally on policy and bluntly on the Fletcher matter. Fletcher’s substantive engagement on capital plan questions was actually one of the meeting’s stronger threads, even as her procedural standing eroded. The dynamic is less faction-versus-faction than handoff: the four functioning members of this board are putting the work into shape for the board that begins in three weeks.

2026-04-08: Select Board