Investigator Found Two Fletcher Code Violations; Board Censured One

The town’s redacted investigation report on Select Board member Mary Ellen Fletcher found “sufficient credible evidence” that she violated two sections of Swampscott’s Board and Committee Code of Conduct. The Select Board censured her for one.

The nine-page report, signed by Jeffrey Weinstein of Clifford & Kenny, LLP and dated March 25, 2026, found violations of Chapter 5, Section C, “Conduct in Relation to Town Staff,” and Chapter 5, Section A, “Conduct in Relation to other Town Officials” (report § VII). The censure the board adopted on April 15 covered Section C only.

Chair Katie Phelan recommended before the vote that the board “only consider the violation for Chapter 5, Section C.” A member moved the narrowing amendment and another seconded it; the transcript does not identify either by name, and the minutes record no mover or seconder. The minutes record the amendment passing 4-0 with Fletcher not participating. On the final censure, Fletcher answered the call for opposed votes with “Opposed.” The chair questioned whether she could vote, town counsel’s opinion was relayed that the subject of a censure cannot vote because censure requires unanimity, and the chair directed that “the vote should reflect four, zero, zero with Mary Ellen not being able to vote” (minutes, April 15; transcript h4iiDoNKOQU [1:14:15-1:15:00]).

The Code allows the board to impose discipline that is less restrictive than an investigator’s recommendation. The record carries Phelan’s reason for narrowing the motion, quoted below. It does not say why Section A was removed rather than narrowed.

The investigation was about Fletcher’s conduct

The report examined whether Fletcher violated the Code of Conduct (§ II). It did not examine whether anyone hit a car.

The car-damage allegation that led to the complaint had already been withdrawn and was not tested. On November 26, 2025, a man reported to Swampscott Police that his car was side-swiped in the Vinnin Liquors and Whole Foods parking lot and named Grishman’s white Mercedes as the likely culprit. Three days later, on November 29, he told police through Lt. Michael Frayler that he no longer wanted the department to investigate: “best to let this one go since there’s no video footage … there’s vendors online who sell painted fenders for $250 which is way less than my deductible” (¶ 28).

The department had already found that the photo he sent “does nothing to illustrate the lower portion of the vehicle or any potential damage that can be codified” (¶ 25). Grishman told the investigator he took time-stamped photos and video of his car showing no damage (¶ 27). The complainant never answered the investigator’s emails or calls (footnote 1).

The investigation instead weighed what Fletcher did after the complainant’s email reached her.

Weinstein credited findings against Fletcher

The report’s findings of fact turn on credibility judgments, and the investigator quotes Fletcher directly.

On whether she answered the complainant’s email, Fletcher “initially stated she didn’t recall replying … but later acknowledged, through her attorney, that she did in fact reply” (¶ 11). She had written back at 7:11 p.m. that night, before driving to the police station at about 8:05 p.m. (¶¶ 12-13). Between those two times, at 7:46 p.m., the complainant replied: “Give my regards to David and wish him a Happy Thanksgiving. … He should be careful where he parks his nice Mercedes. Apparently, cars in the area are getting wrecked up in parking lots and it would be a shame if his fancy car got damaged” (¶ 12).

On whether she spoke again with the lieutenant she met in the station lobby, Fletcher “at first denied having further contact,” then “acknowledged having a brief ‘two-minute’ phone call” after she left (¶ 20a).

On the phrase the lieutenant says she used on her way out, “I want to get this guy,” Fletcher told the investigator: “I don’t remember saying ‘I want to get this guy.’ If I were to say something like that, that would have been inappropriate, because it’s not who I am” (¶ 19). The investigator “found [the lieutenant’s] recollection to be credible” (§ VII). The lieutenant had written a memorandum to Chief Ruben Quesada the same night. He told the investigator he wrote it because it was “an incident involving a Select Board member that could lead to criminal charges” and was “significant enough to memorialize and push up the chain to the Chief and Captain” (¶ 23). The phrase appears in the memo’s text (¶ 24).

The lieutenant, a twenty-year veteran of the department, is redacted throughout the report and is a different person from the officers named in it: responding Officer Michael Kenyon, Lt. Frayler, and Chief Ruben Quesada.

The board removed Section A

The Section C violation rests on the lieutenant’s account, which the investigator credited: Fletcher went to the station, asked the department to “send a cruiser to [Grishman]‘s residence” to check for damage (¶ 16), and did not route the request through the chair to the Town Administrator (§ VII). Fletcher’s account differs. She told the investigator that, asked whether the complainant had said Grishman’s car was damaged, she said “I don’t know you have to go look,” or words to that effect, and that she did not recall the lieutenant “saying anything about a search warrant” (¶¶ 16a, 17).

The Section A violation is where the contested credibility finding sits. It includes the investigator’s finding that Fletcher said “I want to get this guy,” or words to that effect, in reference to Grishman. It also includes the finding that Fletcher “should have directed the matter to the Town Administrator in accordance with the Code of Conduct policy” (§ VII).

Dropping Section A removed the inter-member-respect finding, the factual dispute the investigator resolved against Fletcher, and the finding that she should have gone to the Town Administrator.

The Code allowed a lighter result

The Code of Conduct’s enforcement chapter, Chapter 6, sets the process. A complaint goes to the Town Administrator and the appointing authority, whose office documents it “forthwith”; they “immediately” determine the next step (§§ B-C). The Town Administrator may investigate personally, assign the Human Resources Director, or “refer the matter to a disinterested outside firm” (§ D). That is what happened here.

The respondent gets 15 days to respond, and the process is to finish “no more than sixty (60) days after the date of notice to the responding Town official” (§ D). The notice date is not in the record, so the document does not show whether the 60-day deadline was met. The same section lets the Town Administrator grant “a reasonable extension” when an outside firm investigates, so the 60 days is not a hard limit here.

Two parts of the board’s handling diverged from the Code’s default path. First, the final report is to be “reviewed by the appointing authority and … Town Administrator in executive session and shall remain confidential” (§ E). The report itself is headed “CONFIDENTIAL.” The board instead agreed on April 8 to release it with redactions.

Second, the Code frames discipline as “recommended by the Town Administrator” and approved by the board. The narrowing on April 15 was the chair’s move, not the Town Administrator’s.

The Code also permits a lighter result. Approved discipline “may be less restrictive … than the recommendations made in the … independent investigator’s report” (§ E). No member “may be censured without the unanimous approval” of the board (§ E). On April 15 that rule was relayed on the record as town counsel’s opinion, by a town official rather than by counsel in person, as the basis for Fletcher not voting on her own censure.

The chapter fits an elected member awkwardly. The Code covers elected and appointed officials alike (Ch. 1 § A), but Chapter 6’s machinery runs through an “appointing authority” that can decline to reappoint. Here the Select Board acted as reviewer and disciplinary body at once.

The reason given was for narrowing, not for dropping Section A

The investigator offered three sanctions as options: a personal apology, a public apology, or censure (§ VIII). The board took the last, the heaviest of the three. What it narrowed was the scope of the finding, not the severity of the sanction.

Phelan’s stated reason for dropping Section A was shared fault: “given the back and forth communications that have occurred from all the public comments … everybody shares some burden of blame here.” Her reason for keeping Section C was staff protection: “the public has a way to get rid of us if they don’t like us … but town staff doesn’t” (transcript h4iiDoNKOQU [57:46-58:26]).

No one said on the record why Section A was removed rather than narrowed. The minutes, transcript, and report do not say whether that was Phelan’s judgment alone, town counsel’s advice, or something worked out with Fletcher’s attorney.

The PDF metadata raises a provenance question

One detail in the posted PDF raises a question the board and Town Administrator could answer. The file’s embedded title reads, verbatim, Draft Report (Select Board Investigation)_Jaime reviewed_Connors Edits_3. Its author is listed as Jeff Weinstein, and it was generated on April 9, 2026, at 2:33 p.m., the day after the board’s release vote and six days before the censure.

“Connors” is the surname of Town Administrator Nick Connors, who received Grishman’s complaint. “Jaime” appears to refer to a Clifford & Kenny partner, though the document does not identify the name.

The filename is consistent with a routine redaction pass by the Town Administrator’s office to prepare the confidential report for public posting, which matches the blank overlay runs where names are withheld. It is also consistent with substantive edits. The document does not say which. That is a question for the Town Administrator and the board, not evidence that anyone altered the investigator’s findings.

Sequence

• Jan. 22, 2026 — Grishman files his written complaint to Phelan, copying Connors (¶ 30). The complaint cites “Chapters 5(A) and 5(C) of the Handbook”; those sections are in the Code of Conduct, and the report treats them as such.
• March 25, 2026 — Weinstein signs and dates the report.
• April 8, 2026 — Fletcher issues a public apology; the board agrees to release the report with redactions (minutes, item 9). No censure vote.
• April 9, 2026, 2:33 p.m. — The posted PDF is generated (file metadata).
• April 15, 2026 — The board narrows the motion to Section C and censures Fletcher, 4-0-0.

A note on the people the report describes from their own accounts: Fletcher’s biography in the report — a resident since 1988, and since about 1990 chair of the Recreation Commission, vice chair of the Finance Committee, a member of the Article 6 Commission, and PTO liaison — is self-reported in her investigation interview (¶ 2). The report approximates Grishman’s Select Board service as 2020 to 2026 (¶ 1); he was first elected in the COVID-delayed 2020 town election and re-elected in 2023 (Itemlive, June 30, 2020), so the report’s approximation is right.

Sources

• Redacted investigation report, Jeffrey Weinstein / Clifford & Kenny, LLP, dated March 25, 2026 (DocumentCenter 7704): data/reference/town-documents/redacted-investigation-grishman-complaint-7704.md and .pdf
• Board and Committee Code of Conduct, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6: data/legal/source/board-committee-code-of-conduct-2022-08-29.txt
• Select Board minutes, April 8, 2026 (item 9) and April 15, 2026 (item 1): data/committees/select-board/minutes-2026-04-08.md, minutes-2026-04-15.md
• April 15 meeting video and analysis: data/professional_transcripts/h4iiDoNKOQU.txt, data/analysis_markdown_prof/h4iiDoNKOQU.md
• Prior coverage: data/news/2026-05-13_censure-and-after.md
• People: data/people/mary-ellen-fletcher.md, david-grishman.md, katie-phelan.md, nick-connors.md

Correction and addendum (Sept. 11, 2026, 2 a.m.)

A verification pass against the report, the Code of Conduct, and the April 15 transcript produced these changes, all applied in the text above:

• The amendment’s mover and seconder were removed. The article had named David Grishman as mover and Doug Thompson as seconder. The transcript records only “I’ll make the motion” and “I will second that,” with no identifying cue, and the minutes name neither. The names came from a machine analysis whose speaker labels are unreliable. The one name cue nearby, “Come closer, Doug,” is addressed to a different speaker than the one who seconded.
• Fletcher voted. The article said she did not vote on town counsel’s advice. She answered “Opposed” when the chair called for opposed votes; the chair questioned it, counsel’s opinion was relayed, and the tally was then recorded as 4-0-0. The sentence now describes that sequence.
• “The record does not explain why” was overstated in the summary, the opening, and a section heading. Phelan’s stated reason for narrowing the motion is on the record and quoted in the article. What the record lacks is a reason for removing Section A rather than narrowing it.
• “Conduct no one disputes” was wrong. Fletcher’s account of the station conversation differs from the lieutenant’s (¶¶ 16a, 17); the paragraph now carries both, and the “send a cruiser” quotation is cited to ¶ 16, where it appears, rather than § VII.
• “A path to a lighter result, and it used it” did not fit the document. The investigator’s three options (§ VIII) ran from a personal apology to censure; the board chose censure. The narrowing was of scope, not severity.
• Counsel’s opinion was relayed, in the third person, by a town official; KP Law did not speak on the record. The Code’s unanimity clause is now quoted as written (“may be censured without the unanimous approval”).
• The Code covers elected officials. Chapter 1 § A applies it to “elected and appointed officials except for members of the School Committee”; the earlier line said it was written mainly for appointed volunteers.
• Nine pages, not eight, per the PDF’s own page count. The corpus copy of the report had carried the same error in its frontmatter and has been fixed.
• Grishman’s first election was 2020, not “unsettled.” The uncertainty was a corpus error, since corrected in his person file.
• Added: the complainant’s 7:46 p.m. reply, which arrived between Fletcher’s email and her drive to the station; the lieutenant’s same-night memorandum and his reasons for writing it; the Code’s extension clause for outside-firm investigations; and the complaint’s citation of the “Handbook.”
• Timestamp for the Phelan quotations corrected to [57:46-58:26].

Still open: the report does not say which lieutenant-level officer is redacted, and the article’s statement that he is a different person from the named officers is an inference from the redaction pattern, not a statement in the document.