Please See Bottom for AI Disclaimer
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Committee Comments (Link: 00:02:00 – 00:07:00)
Chair Amy O’Connor called the Swampscott School Committee meeting to order on Thursday, September 11 at 6pm. She reminded committee members to use their microphones properly for the television broadcast and led the Pledge of Allegiance. When O’Connor checked for online public comment attendees, she was informed there were no attendees in the waiting room, so the meeting proceeded directly to committee comments.
Committee member John Giantis reported he had no comments for the evening. Another committee member shared that they had just come from the elementary school where a SMART message board was installed. They noted that a picture was taken with Mr. Kalishman and Ms. Raymond present, and expressed gratitude to those who worked to win the grant and to the Flutie Foundation for donating the money. The committee member explained the message board would help students who need communication assistance and observed many children playing around the school, some with the Y program and others with their parents and younger siblings. They briefly spoke with Mr. Kalishman, who reported everything was going well.
A committee member mentioned their son had told them about a new hall pass system at the high school that includes time limits, with students being checked on if they don’t return within the allotted time. The committee member expressed appreciation for the system as it would help keep learning on track.
O’Connor noted that Mr. Kalishman was not present at the meeting but reported that he had been keeping her updated every other day with generally positive reports about school energy. She stated she was taking the lack of complaints as good news for the start of the school year. O’Connor anticipated the meeting would be relatively short given Kalishman’s absence and transitioned to the finance and operations portion with Ms. Della.
Finance and Operations Report (Link: 00:07:00 – 00:31:00)
Ms. Della reported on the fiscal year 2025 budget performance, noting the school department spent 99.7% of its appropriation. The town had allocated $200,000 in free cash for elementary school utilities with the agreement that unused funds would be returned. The department used all but $4,017, which will go back to the town. Unemployment claims, initially projected to be high, ended favorably due to fraudulent claims being reimbursed and overall reduced activity.
The department had requested $83,617 from the special education reserve fund during projections, but due to unspent purchase orders from the facilities department and unemployment savings, the district ended with $98,881 in unspent dollars. These funds will be returned to the special education reserve fund after going through free cash and town meeting appropriation in December.
Della explained that facilities expenses at Swampscott Elementary were more favorable than expected because the construction company paid electricity bills during summer and the district received favorable terms on a new cleaning contract. Special education ended over budget as predicted, and district-wide programs exceeded budget due to unexpected student staff equipment purchases.
The Nahant revolving fund received approximately $1.8 million in revenue, spent about $1.3 million, and maintained a balance of $574,000 as of fiscal year end. A committee member asked about potential issues with IDEA grants for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Della confirmed no problems for 2026 but noted uncertainty for 2027 due to Massachusetts being audited on the grant by the federal government.
O’Connor inquired about the Nahant revolving fund’s purpose and usage. Della explained the $574,000 balance remains available for future fiscal years and functions similarly to circuit breaker funds, helping offset years when trying to keep appropriation numbers down. The fund is used for middle school and high school expenses since those are where Nahant students attend, serving as a lever for unexpected expenses that cannot be managed within the appropriated budget.
Giantis asked for clarification about fraudulent unemployment claims. Della explained this was a pandemic-era issue that has resurged, where someone files unemployment claims on behalf of current employees without their knowledge. The claims automatically assess charges to the district, requiring significant effort to fight them by providing documentation and having the affected employee attest the claims are fraudulent.
Regarding circuit breaker funds, the district’s award was $2.1 million with the same amount expended, maintaining a balance of $450,000. Della noted that during winter tri-chair meetings, the threshold agreement was revised to $600,000, but she discovered the signed agreement was missing and needed to be tracked down. Additionally, in July the district received an unexpected supplemental $156,000 in circuit breaker reimbursement from additional Fair Share Act funding.
The committee voted on several budget transfers between cost centers. O’Connor entertained motions to transfer $104,730 out of administration, add $121,699 to district-wide programming, transfer $218,189 out of general education, transfer $278,246 out of school facilities, and transfer $479,466 into special education. All motions were approved.
O’Connor asked Della to discuss health insurance cost reconciliation from town meeting. Della reported the total health insurance increase for school employees was $465,075, representing a 9.86% increase. The district’s net state aid increase was $417,773 and Essex Tech assessment decreased by $23,066. Between these two factors, the district covered all but $24,237 of the health insurance increase. Since the finance committee had already reduced the budget by $20,000 for legal bills before town meeting, the district essentially covered its portion of the health insurance increase.
O’Connor emphasized that the district was informed about a potential 18% insurance increase just one week before town meeting, leading to additional budget cuts proposed 20 minutes before the meeting that the Select Board did not support. She expressed appreciation for the Select Board’s solidarity in fully funding the school department’s request and noted that Della’s predictions proved accurate. O’Connor proposed sending a thank you letter to the Select Board acknowledging their support, which other committee members endorsed.
School Committee Goals Discussion (Link: 00:31:00 – 01:04:00)
Ms. Della presented information about student activity funds, explaining it is an annual legal requirement to set maximum checking account limits. She requested the same limits as the previous year: $50,000 for high school, $40,000 for middle school, and $15,000 for elementary school. She also requested approval to open and close various student activity accounts, including opening class of 2029 and gardening club accounts at the high school, class of 2033 at middle school, and class of 2038 at elementary school, while closing graduated class accounts at each level.
Committee members discussed the management of these accounts, with Della explaining they are managed through Quicken by administrative assistants at each school. She noted that class accounts now follow students through their school career rather than staying at one school level. The committee asked about old class accounts with significant balances, and Della reported they are still working to locate former class officers to distribute funds, including a class of 1985 account recently resolved. The committee voted unanimously to approve both the checking account limits and the opening and closing of specified student activity accounts.
O’Connor transitioned to discussing school committee goals, with Wright presenting draft goals based on notes from their August workshop. The first goal focused on technology, specifically educating committee members to use, access, and manage data and shared drives in a consistent, organized, and efficient manner. Wright suggested having Ms. Mackinoles provide training and proposed creating a dedicated school committee drive with folders for policy, finance, and other subcommittees, with editing privileges for relevant committee members and view-only access for others.
Committee members discussed the structure of shared drives, with Wright emphasizing the importance of avoiding deliberation in shared documents while ensuring all members have access to the same information. O’Connor suggested adding a chair folder for items like tri-chair meeting minutes. Giantis recommended adding a completion date, with the group settling on initiating the technology goal by the first quarter of the school year, with ongoing implementation as needed.
The second goal addressed communication strategies, with the committee exploring how other districts communicate and developing their own communication plan. Contreras explained the goal stemmed from low public attendance at meetings despite important budget and financial information being discussed. He wanted to ensure community members, particularly those without children in the system, could access information about budget conversations and decisions before town meeting.
Committee members debated the appropriate audience and content for communications. Wright emphasized distinguishing between school committee news and district news, while a committee member stressed being careful about communications directed toward staff. The discussion focused on reaching taxpayers without children in the system and providing information about policy and budget decisions. Giantis suggested researching peer district strategies, and the committee agreed to use their established peer group from negotiations as a reference point.
The third goal involved evaluating legal services, with the committee planning to research the Council of School Attorneys for evaluation tools and assess their current attorney relationship. O’Connor clarified this was not a criticism of current counsel but rather overdue due diligence, noting it had been approximately 12 years since the last evaluation. Giantis volunteered to lead this effort, with Wright suggesting the goal should include developing a regular evaluation cycle and process, potentially every 10 years, along with creating a matrix of goals and needs for attorney partnerships.
The committee discussed whether superintendent evaluation should be included in their goals, ultimately deciding it was part of their regular job responsibilities rather than a special goal. O’Connor explained they would work with their MASC field representative on the evaluation process, noting it had been delayed due to COVID and other circumstances but was important to properly recognize their new superintendent’s work.
Wright made real-time edits to the goals document, adding language about commencing technology education in the first quarter of 2025 and developing recommendations for legal evaluation cycles and processes. The committee discussed whether to add completion dates for the communication and legal goals, ultimately deciding that since committee members had volunteered to lead those efforts, they would provide periodic updates rather than set specific deadlines.
Swampscott Auditorium Naming Approval (Link: 01:05:00 – 01:13:00)
O’Connor explained that the auditorium naming discussion was tabled from a May meeting because it was not on the agenda at that time, preventing a vote. She noted that more progress had been made since then and asked a speaker to provide updates.
A presenter, identified as Mr. Dulet, provided an update on the auditorium renovations, noting that installers had completed networking work that day and that Superintendent Kalishman had visited his room approximately ten times with fundraising and promotional ideas for the auditorium. He shared visual updates showing the completed acoustic paneling installation by Emory Construction, explaining that absorption material was placed in alcove spaces and that the audio improvement was immediately noticeable. He described a moment when Ms. Zotto was able to put down her microphone and still be heard clearly throughout the room.
Dulet showed images of the speaker installation, including two line arrays with six speakers each and four large subwoofers at the front for enhanced sound quality. He explained that audio professionals tuned the room by placing microphones and measuring frequencies to ensure optimal sound quality, a process that took half a day. He acknowledged Roger Talkov, a class of 1979 member, for his dedication and contributions to the project.
The presenter described additional completed installations including PTZ cameras in the back of the room that would allow two people to operate the entire system, and a new large screen with a 13,000 lumen projector that remained clearly visible even with full lighting. O’Connor noted this would improve town meeting presentations. Dulet mentioned that the only remaining item was a premiere show planned for November 24th, featuring a battle of the bands with faculty bands from all three schools and student bands, organized by Eddie Rovi and Emily Zotto. He expressed hope that his live sound engineering class would run the sound for the event.
The discussion turned to the auditorium naming, with Dulet expressing preference for “Swampscott Auditorium” rather than “Swampscott High School Auditorium” to make it feel more town-wide rather than solely associated with the high school. Wright raised concerns about the logo design shown, suggesting the district logo should be on a second line or removed entirely to better embrace the town identity rather than confuse it with school branding.
Dulet clarified that the logo shown was just a quick visual example and not a proposed final design, agreeing that a separate logo design process would be appropriate. O’Connor emphasized the importance of identifying the space as a town facility rather than confusing it with school branding. Wright made a motion to approve changing the name from “Swampscott High School Auditorium” to “Swampscott Auditorium,” which was seconded and approved unanimously by the committee.
Subcommittee Updates and Financial Summit Discussion (Link: 01:13:00 – 01:20:00)
O’Connor mentioned that subcommittee appointments seemed to haunt her, but committee members confirmed they had already completed those appointments. Wright asked for an update on the Financial Summit, prompting O’Connor to report on her meeting with Katie Phelan and Eric Hartman about the summit’s content and structure.
O’Connor explained that one difficulty with the Financial Summit was staffing issues, and emphasized that it should focus on town finances broadly rather than just school reporting as had occurred in a previous summit. She offered to have someone from MASC come speak to educate attendees about Chapter 70 funding, noting that while there was a lot going on at the time, they could add this to the agenda when it was finalized.
Wright suggested expanding the educational component to include presentations about Proposition 2½ and the sustainability of funding education within those limits. She proposed inviting speakers from MASC or Mass Municipal Government to discuss data about how educational costs, particularly special education, are growing faster than the 2½ percent limit allows. Wright emphasized that the goal should be developing a fiscal policy that works for everyone while understanding the realities of funding constraints.
Wright recalled that the first Financial Summit had featured a keynote speaker from the Collins Institute, which she felt added professionalism and gravitas to the meeting. She noted that the second summit had been dominated by school committee presentations, including her own presentation about the new school and Martha’s special education presentation, along with a Chapter 70 presentation. Wright suggested focusing more on broader fiscal policy discussions rather than detailed school department presentations.
O’Connor agreed with Wright’s suggestions about focusing the Finance Committee and Select Board on these broader issues, noting they had been discussing a “reset” approach. Wright emphasized the need for justification about why such a reset should happen and what it should look like, including examples of what other towns might be doing to address similar challenges.
O’Connor mentioned they had a tri-chair meeting scheduled for the following week and referenced a planned listening session, though she admitted without her notes she could not recall the specific focus of what they would be listening to. Wright expressed support for the listening session concept, particularly noting her preference that it would involve only the tri-chairs rather than the full committee.
The discussion transitioned to concussion policy, with Wright noting she had not heard from Ms. Farley about the issue. O’Connor provided context that Giantis had previously expressed reservations about the policy and had planned to conduct research, with the committee having tabled the vote but planning to address it at this meeting.
Concussion Policy Vote (Link: 01:20:00 – 01:22:00)
Giantis addressed the pending vote on the concussion policy, stating he was comfortable proceeding with a vote that evening. He explained that he had reviewed the underlying document called “concussion protocol” and provided personal context for his previous concerns. Giantis shared that one of his daughters had suffered a concussion several years ago, which revealed gaps in the process, including teachers not knowing the student was in concussion protocol and various notification and tracking issues.
Giantis reported that he had sent his highlighted concerns to the superintendent and copied O’Connor on the correspondence. He noted that the superintendent indicated they would consider his feedback as part of their current review to update the protocol, with the timing being favorable since they were already examining the policy. Giantis stated that receiving these assurances about his feedback being considered made him comfortable with approving the top-level policy.
O’Connor entertained a motion to approve the concussion policy as presented two weeks prior. A committee member made the motion, which was seconded by Contreras. With no discussion, the committee voted unanimously to approve the concussion policy.
Final Actions and Adjournment (Link: 01:22:00 – 01:23:00)
O’Connor announced the concussion policy motion had passed unanimously and moved to the final actions and votes. She presented a donation from the girls soccer team in the amount of $2,488 to pay for an additional coach, noting that it had been processed through the athletic director according to proper protocol. A committee member made a motion to approve acceptance of the donation, which was seconded by Contreras and passed unanimously.
O’Connor then requested a motion to approve the regular session minutes from August 28, 2025. A committee member made the motion, Contreras seconded it, and the motion passed unanimously. With no additional items to address, O’Connor entertained a motion to adjourn. A committee member made the motion, Contreras seconded it, and the meeting was adjourned with unanimous approval.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.