Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Opening and Pledge of Allegiance (Link: 00:04:00 – 00:05:00)
The July 22, 2025 Swampscott Select Board began with the Pledge of Allegiance, with assistance from an honoree named Effie.
The first order of business was announced as a presentation of a proclamation to Effie Cobbett for her Girl Scout Gold Award. Cobbett was invited to the microphone and asked to explain what it took to achieve the award.
Girl Scout Gold Award Proclamation Presentation (Link: 00:05:00 – 00:12:00)
Effie Cobbett described her Girl Scout Gold Award project, which focused on reclaiming an unused wooded area across from Swampscott Middle School that is part of the Muskrat Pond Conservation Area. Her project had three main goals: reclaiming the area for public community use, removing invasive species in Swampscott, and creating a space for natural, unstructured play near both the middle school and elementary school. Cobbett acknowledged the assistance she received from Tony and Marzi from the Swampscott Conservation Commission and Swampscott Conservancy, her Gold Award advisor Suzanne, Interim Town Administrator Cresta, Mr. Noonan, and the DPW in removing old structures, trash, and other obstacles that had prevented public use of the area. She also worked with teachers in the Swampscott school system to implement curriculum about invasive species specific to Swampscott.
A committee member asked Cobbett about her Girl Scout experience, and she explained that she started as a Daisy at age five. When asked about the timeline for achieving the Gold Award, Cobbett explained that while there are Bronze, Silver, and Gold Awards in Girl Scouts, she was unable to complete her Bronze and Silver Awards due to her troop disbanding and COVID-19 disruptions. This made pursuing the Gold Award more important to her, with the process starting three to four years ago and officially beginning about a year ago.
Chair Katie Phelan informed Cobbett that the town would be installing plaques at Town Hall this fall listing all Eagle Scout and Gold Scout recipients, and her name would be added. Since she would be away at school, they discussed potentially having her participate virtually in that ceremony.
Phelan read the official proclamation recognizing Cobbett’s achievement. The proclamation detailed that the Gold Award is the highest honor attainable by a Girl Scout, requiring years of dedication and commitment. It specifically recognized her work removing unsafe outdoor exercise equipment at Muskrat Pond Conservation Area, removing trash and invasive species, building and installing a bench, creating unstructured play equipment from natural materials like fallen tree parts, and creating interpretive signs about invasive species and nature play equipment. The proclamation stated that this community service project would benefit visitors to the conservation area for years to come and was signed by the entire Select Board on July 22nd.
Following the proclamation reading, the committee arranged for photographs to be taken with Cobbett, her family, and the Select Board members, with Dianne Marchese taking the pictures.
Agenda Reorganization and Public Comment (Link: 00:12:00 – 00:32:00)
Committee member Maryellen Fletcher requested to move the town administrator’s report to the end of the agenda due to ten items requiring attention. Phelan initially agreed to the reorganization without requiring a formal vote, noting that the only downside would be fewer people present to hear the town administrator’s updates later in the meeting. The agenda was reorganized to move directly to public comment.
Phelan opened public comment with a three-minute time limit and noted that the Select Board would not respond to public comment, following their tradition. Jill Cesary of 15 Charlotte Road spoke first, identifying herself as chair of the recreation commission, a town meeting member, and farmers market volunteer, but clarifying she was speaking as an individual. Cesary expressed sadness and dismay about the hiring process for the new recreation director, stating the town should have appointed an interim director, retained the outgoing director part-time, and conducted a transparent search during the off-season. She criticized the acting town administrator for proceeding hastily with an opaque decision that passed over an experienced internal candidate, calling the decision demoralizing to dedicated employees. Cesary announced her immediate resignation from the Recreation Commission and stated her last day as market manager would be August 3rd.
Debbie Friedlander of 159 Phillips addressed ongoing online conflicts among board members, asking them to work out personality and policy issues professionally and maturely. She requested they refrain from personal attacks in public, noting that residents voted for all board members and that time spent attacking each other was time not spent on community issues.
Rachel Terradash of 71 Middlesex Avenue spoke as a parent concerned about a gap in recreation director coverage during children’s programs, specifically Park League, requesting the board ensure continuous oversight during the transition period.
Jackie Camberlengo of 1 Bellevue Road, who serves as interim recreation director and program coordinator for three years, spoke about her experience as one of four candidates interviewed for the recreation director position. She described the hiring process as disrespectful, involving discriminatory comments and breaches of confidentiality. Camberlengo detailed being notified only 24 hours before the outgoing director’s retirement that she would not be selected, being shown other candidates’ resumes in an attempt to discourage her application, and being told the decision was difficult because the interim town administrator would “lose friends” either way. She sent a complaint email on June 4th that received no response and urged residents to question municipal leaders about hiring processes to ensure fair treatment of candidates and employees.
Two online participants also provided public comment. Mike Keller of Pine Hill Road criticized the lack of awareness about new parking restrictions at Fisherman’s Beach, suggesting warnings should have been issued before $75 tickets were given to longtime taxpayers. Bill Demento of 1008 Paradise Road criticized the Select Board’s practice of not responding to public comment, particularly regarding serious issues like the $100,000 recreation director position, calling for more transparency and truthfulness from the board.
Committee member David Grishman requested an opportunity to respond to public comment, but Phelan declined, stating the board’s policy of not responding to public comment and suggesting he could speak during Select Board time. Another Michael Keller of 11 Outlook Road supported Demento’s comments about the need for board responses, particularly on topics involving children and internal hiring processes.
Following public comment, there was discussion about when to hold the town administrator’s report. A motion was made to move the report back to its original position before new and old business, which passed by a vote of 2-1-2, with Phelan abstaining. The board decided to proceed with the town administrator’s report at that time.
Town Administrator Report (Link: 00:32:00 – 00:55:00)
Interim Town Administrator Gino A. Cresta Jr. delivered his report covering multiple town departments and initiatives. He began by noting that a bike rack requested at the previous Select Board meeting had been installed at Abbott Park the following day. Cresta announced that a dedication ceremony for Effie Cobbett’s Gold Award project at Muskrat Pond would be held Saturday, August 2nd at 10 AM in the middle school parking lot.
Cresta reported that staff are planning the third annual Humphrey Street Block Party scheduled for August 9th from noon to 4 PM, with vendor information to be released soon. He updated the board on the Town Administrator search, noting that the search committee would meet in executive session at Swampscott Elementary School to interview nine candidates, clarifying that he was not among them. The committee would forward up to five candidates to the Select Board, which would have 30 days to make an offer.
For Community Development, Cresta reported that the Pine Street project received an eligibility letter from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, confirming it meets criteria for funding programs including the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Housing Stabilization Fund. This letter is required for applying for funding and submitting a comprehensive permit to the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals.
Library updates included the launch of a new English Language Learning Conversation Circle beginning Monday, August 4th at 6:30 PM, with over 20 people pre-registered and potential need for additional sessions. The summer reading program continues with record-breaking attendance at several events. The Senior Center hosted over 50 people for a Boston By Ferry event, and staff are working on grants to continue the Open Minds Through Art program. The center is also collaborating with the Fire Department on smoke detector education and testing for seniors, with an educational lunch program on real estate tax exemption and deferral scheduled for August 20th at Pesina Center.
Recreation updates included Wednesday’s Swampscott by the Sea concert featuring B Side Hustle, with Coastal Brewery, Hungry Nomad, and Isabella’s Ice Cream on site. The July 30th concert would feature Moose Juice, a Grateful Dead tribute band, with Granite Coast Brewery, Chicken and the Pig, and Uncle Joey’s Cannoli. Thursday movie night at Town Hall would feature Grease, sponsored by Sam Walker’s American Tavern.
Police Department updates included one officer resignation and transfer to Lynnfield PD. Positively, a conditional offer was sent to a lateral transfer with response expected within days, a second potential lateral transfer would interview within weeks, and a third candidate was undergoing background checks. If all three come through, the department would be one officer short of full staff. Additionally, 25-30 applicants applied for the Physical Fitness Test scheduled for July 23rd and August 10th. Officer Kevin Reen and SRO Brian Wilson conducted a bicycle safety day with helmets donated by the Police Department and six bicycles donated by Charlie Patsios.
Cresta provided extensive traffic updates, noting that Elm Place is now resident parking only and one-way from southbound to northbound. Pitman Road is resident parking only outside designated Westcott parking spots, which are marked and signed. Hillcrest Circle, Upland Road, Maple Avenue, Burpee Terrace, and Burpee Road are now resident parking only with signs installed or pending. The speed bump on Burpee Road received positive feedback, unlike Stetson Road speed bumps. Columbia Street is resident parking only on the residential side from Borough Street to Beach Avenue. No parking signs were installed on Essex Avenue for safety, and handicapped parking spots were added on Borough Street near Doherty Street Circle entrance and at the lottery intersection of Middlesex and Norfolk Avenue. Eight no parking signs were installed 15 feet from intersections per police requirements.
Regarding Fisherman’s Beach, recreation parking only signs were installed, but parking passes for Swampscott Yacht Club employees were delivered late, resulting in premature parking tickets that would be voided. Cresta provided a detailed trash update, noting all five routes were completed timely the previous week, though recycling pickup was suspended. Two trucks normally service the town weekly, but new drivers unfamiliar with routes required both trucks for trash collection. The DPW yard remained open for recycling Friday 3-7 PM, Saturday and Sunday 10 AM-4 PM, which was well-received by residents. However, some residents were bringing regular trash instead of just recycling, and basement/garage cleanouts were creating problems. No metal pickup or drop-off would occur Saturday due to overcrowding, and yard waste pickup was suspended until further notice.
Board members asked follow-up questions about various topics. Phelan requested alerts about metal recycling suspension and traffic updates for affected neighborhoods. Grishman questioned actions regarding Republic Services’ contract default on recycling, and Cresta explained they weren’t paying July bills and were tracking all costs for reconciliation. The town chose not to join a lawsuit against Republic, maintaining good communication and receiving dumpster support. Thompson noted their favorable contract rates and the risks of early termination. Board members thanked Cresta and DPW staff for their responsive handling of the trash situation, with Leonard acknowledging Dianne Marchese’s communication efforts and Wayne Spritz’s involvement.
Cresta provided context on DPW yard usage, noting they filled three dumpsters the first weekend with recycling only, nine containers the second weekend with both trash and recycling, and thirteen 40-yard dumpsters the most recent weekend. He credited local trash companies for Sunday morning emergency pickups. Grishman requested traffic updates on Stetson Avenue speed issues and Monument Avenue crosswalk safety, where jersey barriers had been replaced with delineators. Cresta agreed to reinstall jersey barriers and explore permanent curb bump-outs through grants. Phelan suggested a community meeting for Stetson Avenue given conflicting neighborhood requests.
Grishman asked about private versus public roads, and Cresta explained that roads were accepted in 1995-96 for Chapter 90 funding, with some remaining unaccepted like portions of Walnut Road and Gallows Point. He agreed to provide a complete list and ensure proper procedures were followed for recently accepted roads like Supreme Court. Thompson asked about expediting police lateral hire interviews to avoid losing candidates, and Cresta confirmed one interview was completed with others scheduled soon. A committee member requested assurance about recreation program coverage during the director transition, which Cresta promised to maintain.
UV Pilot Update and Discussion (Link: 00:55:00 – 01:20:00)
A speaker provided an update on the UV pilot project, noting they were more than halfway through the pilot period running from Memorial Day to Labor Day weekend. While no firm conclusions had been reached, they reported many observations and learnings despite facing operational issues including seaweed problems. A team of samplers led by a supervisor was testing seven days a week at five different locations, including the Linden Swampscott culvert, the UV system’s influent and effluent tanks, and the Swampscott section of Kings Beach daily to supplement the town’s weekly testing required by DPH.
The speaker explained they were seeing correlation between test results and expectations, as well as between their results and DCR’s testing of the Lynn portion of Kings Beach. DCR was also testing the Swampscott outfall at beach level during system operation. When functioning properly, there should be no flow from the Lynn side as all water gets trapped and processed through the system, though some flow was occurring due to sand accumulation forming pools downstream of weir walls.
Rain events created challenges as stormwater brought debris that either got trapped by screens or passed through the system, including plastic bags, cigarettes, and bottles found in UV tanks. The ongoing trash strike was potentially contributing to more recyclables on streets. Rain caused tanks to become dark and smelly, increased turbidity, and decreased UVT (UV light penetration), which were inversely related measures. Test results showed effectiveness decreased temporarily after rain but recovered quickly.
The system had been operational about 70% of days since starting June 2nd, with downtime due to equipment issues, seaweed, algae, trash problems, and generator failures requiring regular maintenance. The system was shut down the previous weekend due to debris from heavy rain on July 7th and 8th that caused backups in the Swampscott system. The speaker noted this was part of the experimental nature of testing UV treatment in a tidal environment, which the Canadian manufacturer Trojan had never attempted before.
Board members asked follow-up questions about effectiveness and rainfall thresholds. The speaker confirmed the UV system was working at scale when operational, reducing bacteria to essentially zero except for two or three days during heavy rain events. Regarding rainfall impacts, the speaker explained it depended on both amount and intensity, citing examples of how different rainfall patterns affected system performance. Kings Beach had been open approximately 80% of the time this year compared to 70% closure last year and 91% closure two years prior, though weather conditions varied significantly between years.
The speaker explained the geometric mean issue that occurred after recent rainfall, where bacteria spikes caused Lynn’s side of the beach to close for eight days. The geometric mean uses a trailing five-day productive average rather than additive, making it difficult to recover once exceeded. The Swampscott section remained closed and would likely take two to three more weeks to reopen due to weekly testing schedules. The speaker believed continuous treatment would have reopened the beach sooner.
Phelan emphasized that even if the pilot worked perfectly, the beach would still close for 24-48 hours after rainfall due to CSOs and other factors, and that scalability, cost, and permanent structure considerations remained significant hurdles requiring coordination with Lynn. The speaker reported having their first meeting with DEP and EPA since the pilot began, noting the agencies appeared impressed despite initial skepticism.
Cresta informed the board that the project costs had exceeded the initial $800,000 estimate, with Lynn requesting an additional $20,000 from Swampscott – $10,000 for extra Kleinfelder consulting work and $10,000 for sound blankets to reduce noise. Phelan raised safety concerns about murals and fencing affecting sight lines at stop signs, requiring drivers to inch out beyond the stop sign to see traffic. Cresta noted complaints about the murals being distracting to drivers on the already narrow road.
Brian Drummond of 153 Humphrey Street provided public comment requesting daily data collection from Swampscott inflow, noting that one-third of the time readings were below 104 bacteria levels, one-third above, and one-third had no data. He suggested DPW assistance in collecting samples when pumps were off at six inches or less behind the weir wall. He also recommended modifying pump operations to turn off when water reached the weir wall level during high tide to avoid pumping seawater and debris, potentially saving fuel costs and reducing pipe clogging.
Cresta and the speaker responded to Drummond’s suggestions, explaining that screens had been installed to stop seaweed and that the float system was designed to activate at six inches to avoid sucking bottom debris. The speaker declined the daily sampling request, citing safety concerns about accessing the 10-foot-deep culvert and the poor quality of the remaining six inches of water, which would be a soupy mix of seawater, culvert flow, trash, and bacteria. The speaker emphasized they were making decisions based on safety, value, and resource allocation after consulting with DEP and EPA.
Regarding the additional $20,000 funding request, board members expressed mixed reactions. Some members firmly opposed additional funding, while one member acknowledged that cost overruns happen in projects and suggested getting more detailed information about the itemized costs and overall project trajectory. Thompson suggested the engineers should have anticipated seaweed issues. Cresta noted that if funding was denied, the alternative would be to cut the pilot short to save on rental pump and generator costs. The board requested more information before making a final decision.
Water and Sewer Rates Discussion and Vote (Link: 01:20:00 – 01:43:00)
Town Treasurer Patrick Letty presented information on fiscal year 2026 water and sewer rates, addressing action items from the July 8th meeting. He had researched other municipalities’ retained earnings policies, finding a wide range from Marblehead’s 5-7% of budget to Salem’s 25% of prior year budget. Swampscott’s current policy is 20% of budget, adopted by the Select Board and Finance Committee several years ago.
Letty also researched potential relief for ratepayers unable to afford water and sewer bills, proposing a voluntary contribution system on quarterly bills that would create a special fund for relief similar to tax abatement processes. This would require special legislation, and he provided draft language for consideration. The fund would be a special revenue account where earnings and interest would remain dedicated to the relief purpose. Board members expressed support for this approach and requested town counsel review the language.
Letty presented three new rate options targeting lower retained earnings levels: Option 4 would achieve 14% retained earnings for both water and sewer funds, Option 5 would target 12%, and Option 6 would target 10%. Options 5 and 6 would require dipping into current sewer retained earnings since the sewer fund was projected to close fiscal year 2025 at 14% retained earnings. He explained that any option more aggressive than Option 4 would require appropriating retained earnings to balance the rates.
Fletcher questioned how unpaid bills affected the calculations, and Letty explained there was a modest uptick in tardiness with approximately $200,000 in water receivables and $100,000 in sewer receivables as of June 30th. Fletcher noted that unlike private sector risks, these charges are secured by underlying property and earn 14% interest when unpaid, making them less risky for the town.
Grishman asked about the Water Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee’s recommendation, and Letty confirmed they had recommended fully funding retained earnings to 20% of budget by the end of fiscal year 2026. Grishman argued for staying the course given the town’s commitment to spending $10.5 million over three years on infrastructure improvements and the need to maintain flexibility for future projects. A committee member countered that the borrowing capacity for MWRA loans would not be affected under any scenario, and that extending the timeline to replenish retained earnings was reasonable given current economic conditions.
Phelan suggested this topic could be part of the upcoming financial summit discussion to determine if the 20% policy remained appropriate. Letty noted that 60% of the researched peer communities operated with retained earnings below 20%, with many at 10-15% or below. A committee member acknowledged that while the Water Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee had a particular focus, they may not have been presented with all current options.
Grishman emphasized the town’s obligations under the consent decree and noted that water and sewer rates had actually fallen in some years since 2015. He stressed the importance of continuing investments and addressing infrastructure problems proactively rather than reactively, citing ongoing issues at Fisherman’s Beach that would require additional funds.
A participant provided comment, noting that policy is not law and that Swampscott hadn’t hit 20% retained earnings in a long time. She cited Marblehead as an example where their 5-7% policy didn’t reflect their actual retained earnings levels. She warned about unexpected costs, referencing a $100,000 water main valve break that required reconfiguring ARPA money because sewer retained earnings were insufficient. She noted that last year’s rate increases were designed to achieve 17% retained earnings for fiscal year 2025, building to 20% over three years, but the town ended at 14% in sewer and 6% in water, demonstrating that projections don’t always materialize.
The Water Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee member recommended at minimum Option 3 from the original proposals, which would result in a $300 annual increase, though she clarified that the committee had actually recommended Option 1. Fletcher made a motion to adopt Option 4 rates as shown in the packet, with rates to be incorporated into the meeting minutes. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 3-2, with Grishman and one other member voting against. Grishman explained his opposition by stating concern about continuing past mistakes and the need to restore retained earnings closer to financial guidelines.
Employee Handbook and Motor Vehicle Policy Discussion (Link: 01:43:00 – 02:08:00)
HR Director Maryam McMaster presented updates on standalone policies and the employee handbook. She began with a revised motor vehicle policy, explaining that the previously approved policy from their insurance company was not specific enough, so she wrote a new policy and had it reviewed by legal counsel. The policy would require setting up a driver verification system (DVS) that Cresta would need to sign off on, allowing the town to check driving records for employees using town vehicles. The cost would be minimal, approximately $8 per request. The board approved the motor vehicle policy with the town administrator designated as the approving authority.
McMaster then presented personnel policy changes, starting with vacation time on page 31. The previous proposal gave employees three weeks vacation from the start, replacing a system where vacation time varied by position level. Under the revised version, employees would receive three weeks for years 1-9, four weeks for years 10-14, and five weeks starting at year 15. Legal counsel confirmed all changes should start in January rather than retroactively, and there was no existing grandfather clause in current policies.
Fletcher objected to giving three weeks vacation to early-career employees, preferring alignment with DPW contract language: 1-5 years get two weeks, 6-10 years get three weeks, 11-15 years get four weeks, and 16+ years get five weeks. Leonard disagreed, arguing that two weeks was inadequate in the current job market and would hurt competitiveness when salaries were already not advantageous compared to neighboring towns. She emphasized that vacation time was part of the total compensation package.
Grishman supported Leonard’s position, noting that lower salaries should be offset by better benefits, and that three weeks would be a minimum competitive level. Leonard added that the package was standard rather than exceptional, noting the town lacked paid family leave and maternity benefits that candidates commonly seek. Thompson requested comparative data on peer communities, and McMaster confirmed that most peer communities provided equal vacation time regardless of position level, with most offering two weeks initially.
The board discussed whether the additional vacation week would offset the reduction from five to three personal days. Leonard suggested structuring vacation as 1-5 years get three weeks, 6-14 years get four weeks, and 15+ years get five weeks, arguing that ten years was too long to wait for an increase. Phelan agreed with this structure, emphasizing that vacation time had no direct cost to taxpayers and that well-rested employees were more productive. She noted recent criticism about not valuing employees enough and saw this as a no-cost improvement.
Thompson questioned the cost impact, but Grishman pointed out that turnover costs taxpayers more than vacation time. McMaster noted they had never experienced problems with employees taking excessive vacation that interfered with job performance. The board reached consensus on the vacation structure: 1-5 years get three weeks, 6-14 years get four weeks, and 15+ years get five weeks.
The board reviewed sick time accrual, confirming it would remain at 1.25 days per month as currently practiced. They discussed doctor’s note requirements, changing the language from “may be required” to “are required” to eliminate subjectivity, with notes to be submitted to HR upon return to work. Personal leave was reduced from five to three days to align with peer communities.
Discussion turned to grandfathering provisions and length of service calculations. McMaster explained that legal counsel recommended starting new policies in January without grandfathering, as the changes generally benefited employees. The board clarified that length of service should refer specifically to service with the town of Swampscott, not previous municipal experience, though such experience might be negotiated during hiring for salary purposes but not for vacation policy.
Thompson asked about bereavement leave language on page 48, concerned that the one-week limitation following death or funeral was too restrictive when families sometimes delayed services. Phelan noted the policy used “generally” rather than absolute language, providing flexibility. McMaster confirmed they had accommodated delayed services in the past, with the town administrator having discretionary authority. Thompson made a motion to accept the handbook as amended, which passed unanimously.
Select Board Handbook Discussion (Link: 02:08:00 – 02:25:00)
Phelan then introduced discussion of the Select Board handbook, noting multiple previous conversations, revisions, and legal counsel review. She explained that counsel’s notes related to compliance requirements, particularly regarding free speech cases and constitutional considerations, and recommended softening language around public comment procedures.
Fletcher questioned why the code of conduct was being kept separate from the Select Board handbook, noting that previous boards had reviewed the code of conduct and suggesting both documents should be updated together. Leonard agreed they should review the code of conduct but preferred to complete the handbook first since they had been working on it for months.
Grishman raised concerns about Chapter 9, Section D regarding town administrator evaluations, specifically language stating that individual evaluations would become part of the personnel file and not be available for public viewing. He noted that legal counsel had commented on this provision but argued for protecting employee confidential information. Grishman revealed he had submitted public records requests for town administrator evaluations from half a dozen South Shore communities and received none, with some communities stating the records didn’t exist.
Phelan responded that legal counsel advised they couldn’t prevent public access to evaluations under state law, noting this would put the town in conflict with state policy. She suggested they could seek a second opinion if the board disagreed with their counsel’s advice. Thompson supported getting a second opinion, recalling that KP Law had previously told him the town was obligated to release evaluation information and had advised past chairs of this obligation.
Grishman clarified that he believed there was no obligation to release evaluations, only that the board “may” release them with a vote. Fletcher disagreed, stating she had been told there was no option and that KP Law later said the town was in violation by not releasing evaluations. The board voted unanimously to seek a second legal opinion on whether individual evaluations could be kept confidential in personnel files.
The board debated whether to finalize the handbook that evening or wait for the second opinion. Leonard argued for finalizing it and amending later if needed, while Fletcher preferred not finalizing it while disagreeing with legal counsel. Phelan noted the evaluation provision wouldn’t be relevant for at least a year since they don’t currently have a town administrator to evaluate, but they would need an answer before hiring and evaluating a new administrator.
Grishman questioned whether all current board members had signed previous versions of the handbook, revealing that he and Leonard had signed it while Phelan had never been asked to sign it and Thompson had not signed it but had followed the policies. This led to discussion of Chapter 2 language stating that formal voting by select board members may only be conducted after affirming the oath of office, which includes reviewing and accepting the handbook and code of conduct.
Grishman expressed concern about the validity of votes taken by members who hadn’t signed the handbook, questioning whether this created a constitutional crisis. Phelan noted the language used “may” rather than “shall,” suggesting it might not be mandatory, but acknowledged they should ask legal counsel for clarification. A committee member suggested they all sign the handbook that evening to ensure they were properly sworn in as voting members.
Phelan questioned whether the town could legally require additional steps beyond the oath of office before elected officials could validly vote, noting this hadn’t been previously reviewed by legal counsel. Thompson asked about the meaning of language stating that failure to abide by handbook or code of conduct items would be “punishable up to and including censure by the board,” questioning what specific punishments were available.
Leonard explained this was similar to employment language about “up to and including possible termination,” providing a range of potential consequences without specifying exact punishments. Phelan noted that stating censure as a possible consequence in the manual would give people advance notice of potential repercussions for violations.
Grishman highlighted Chapter 10B regarding relations with town staff, emphasizing that staff report only to the town administrator and that select board members should not request staff to undertake tasks without explicit approval from the town administrator. He stated there had been recent directives issued by select board members to town staff, leading to a heated exchange with Fletcher who denied his accusations and demanded he stop making what she called lies. Grishman mentioned that finance staff member Trang Vu had resigned that day, suggesting it was related to communications from Fletcher, which Fletcher vehemently disputed.
Select Board Policy Discussion and Handbook Signing (Link: 02:25:00 – 02:37:00)
The heated exchange between Fletcher and Grishman continued, with Fletcher vehemently denying that she had asked any employee to pay an invoice and challenging Grishman to stop making what she called false accusations. Grishman maintained his position that Fletcher had violated the policy regarding communications with town staff, specifically referencing the resignation of finance staff member Trang Vu. Fletcher offered to meet with Vu the following day to clarify the situation and accused Grishman of constantly attacking her integrity.
Grishman reiterated the handbook language that town staff reports only to the town administrator and that no select board member should request staff to undertake tasks without explicit approval from the town administrator. Fletcher agreed with the policy but continued to deny violating it. Phelan intervened, noting that the agenda item was about reflecting on the policy itself, and if no one was suggesting edits to the policy language, they should move on and hold each other accountable to the policy once signed.
Leonard attempted to redirect the discussion toward productive dialogue, referencing earlier public comment from Debbie Friedlander about being better in their interactions. She suggested having an honest conversation rather than lodging insults, noting that Fletcher’s failure to sign the handbook in the past appeared intentional to the other board members, potentially to avoid being bound by the rules. Fletcher explained she initially thought signing was a waste of time and felt it was other members trying to give her a hard time, but acknowledged she had voted to support the policy and was obligated to follow it.
Grishman brought up an incident involving Fletcher allegedly yelling at Jackie Camberlengo in town hall, noting the power dynamic at play. Fletcher responded that she was conducting personal business when Camberlengo approached her, and she raised her voice asking to be left alone. Leonard continued pushing for honesty and accountability, suggesting that everyone had likely violated some aspect of the policies at various times and should own their mistakes rather than deny them.
Fletcher agreed that everyone had probably violated something in the policies at some point but refused to admit to things she claimed didn’t happen, specifically denying asking any employee to pay an invoice. Leonard suggested discussing the specific legal invoice in question, leading to discussion about whether to table the handbook item and move to that topic. Leonard made a motion to adopt the policy as written, which was seconded and passed by a 5-0 vote.
The board then proceeded to sign acknowledgment forms for the handbook. A committee member requested that Cresta, as town administrator, have an obligation to report violations of the handbook, particularly regarding staff interactions, noting that probably everyone except Phelan had violated that section at some point. Phelan clarified that she had always copied the chair or town administrators on communications and had not violated that particular provision.
Phelan suggested that as a matter of respect to the chair, whoever holds that position should be copied on requests to the town administrator so the chair can serve as a sounding board and bring issues to the board when necessary. Leonard agreed this created a checks and balances system with multiple people responsible for oversight. Cresta asked about the reporting mechanism, and Leonard confirmed he should report violations to the chair. After completing the handbook signing process, the board agreed to move agenda item 8 up for immediate discussion.
Legal Invoice Discussion and Payment Authorization (Link: 02:37:00 – 03:00:00)
Leonard initiated discussion of the $8,460 legal invoice, asking about the chain of events that led to the current controversy. She wanted to understand how the issue surfaced in July from something that occurred months earlier. Fletcher explained that the controversy began when former Director of Finance Amy Sorrow questioned the bill during month-end closing for fiscal year 2025, as part of what’s called “the shuffle” – paying accrued invoices. Fletcher noted that Sorrow had contacted Phelan about the bill, who then copied Thompson, who forwarded it to Grishman, leaving Leonard as the only board member not initially informed.
A committee member traced the fundamental issue back to the special town meeting period, arguing that the board typically engages counsel through consensus or vote in executive or public session. He contended that the problem arose when board members went in different directions to solve problems individually rather than processing decisions through the collective body. He expressed concern that the town counsel’s opinion suggested any two select board members could spend up to $10,000 with just a nod from the town administrator, without broader board awareness.
Phelan acknowledged making a mistake in the process, explaining that Finance Committee member Naomi Dreeben had mentioned in a meeting that they typically get second opinions on such issues, leading Phelan to pursue that course without considering proper procedures. She admitted she should have asked more questions and come to the board first, committing to never make that mistake again. However, she emphasized that services were rendered and should be paid, noting that Sorrow had allocated funds in the legal line item before leaving.
Fletcher defended the action as normal behavior, citing examples of other expenditures like $94,000 for consulting on the library and Hawthorne projects that didn’t come before the select board for votes. She argued this was consistent with past behavior and not unusual. A committee member disagreed, noting that while the board may not have known exact dollar amounts, they were aware of and had nodded approval for those other engagements in executive session, unlike this situation.
Leonard acknowledged the contentious nature of the underlying issue and the board’s split on the matter, noting that no one could definitively answer legal questions at the time. She agreed the process was incorrect and should be avoided through a simple vote ahead of time, but emphasized that the law firm deserved payment for services rendered. She criticized putting the interim town administrator in an uncomfortable position where he might not feel able to say no to requests.
Cresta clarified his role, stating he was aware of the situation but never authorized the expenditure. This revelation complicated the discussion, as board members noted that if he had authorized it, there would be no controversy. Leonard emphasized that the handbook they had just signed was designed to prevent such issues in the future, and that Fletcher’s failure to sign it previously sent a message that she wouldn’t abide by the rules.
Phelan expressed frustration with the difficulty of taking leadership roles with the current board, feeling it was a no-win situation where people looked for mistakes to criticize. She called for respectful accountability and common standards of leadership, expressing concern about the fear of making mistakes without receiving grace. She emphasized that everyone should assume good intentions from board members.
Grishman stated his goal was ensuring proper governance to prevent larger financial problems in the future, wanting all board members to have the same information and work together on a level playing field. He suggested taking the bill to special town meeting for a vote. Phelan noted the irony of this suggestion, given that Grishman had sent a letter on behalf of select board members without informing the board, which she found equally frustrating.
Leonard called for mutual accountability, noting that everyone could think of instances where other board members had acted inappropriately. She urged everyone to own their mistakes and commit to doing better. All board members verbally committed to improving their conduct going forward.
Fletcher made a motion to pay the bill, which Leonard seconded. When asked why anyone would vote against payment, a committee member cited multiple reasons including lack of authorization, getting only one confirmatory opinion, and the significant cost. Cresta confirmed that Sorrow had put $10,000 into the shuffle specifically to pay this bill, which had been approved by the board. This revelation led to confusion about why the issue was being discussed if the bill was already approved for payment through the shuffle process.
The motion to approve payment of the invoice passed by a vote of 3-2. Phelan committed to adding an agenda item for the next meeting to discuss safeguards to prevent similar situations in the future. All board members reaffirmed their commitment to better conduct going forward.
Town Administrator Search Committee Extension and Ambulance Contract Approval (Link: 03:00:00 – 03:08:00)
The board briefly addressed the Town Administrator Search Committee update, with Leonard noting that committee members were not joining the meeting as they were conducting interviews all week. Phelan entertained a motion to extend their deadline to August 24, 2025, which was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously.
The board then moved to discuss the ambulance service contract. A committee member provided a comprehensive overview, explaining that Swampscott had been contracted with Cataldo Ambulance for over 10 years to provide service to both Swampscott and Marblehead. He noted that due to population size and incident numbers, it was not economically feasible for ambulance companies to contract with just one of the towns individually, making the joint arrangement necessary.
The committee member explained that while Swampscott had been out of contract with Cataldo for some time with a couple of one-year extensions, they decided to conduct due diligence when Marblehead’s contract was also expiring. This process led them to receive proposals from other ambulance companies, with Beauport Ambulance providing the most appealing offer.
According to the presentation, Beauport’s proposal met or exceeded every aspect of Cataldo’s contract in terms of staffing levels, response times, and community engagement. Beauport committed to sponsoring four community events annually for police, fire, senior center, and schools, including hands-on CPR training and first responder training. They also offered to return 5% of their profits to nonprofit organizations within the town, to be determined in conference with town officials.
The committee member emphasized that like other ambulance contractors, this was a zero-bid arrangement where the company makes money by billing insurance companies, Medicare, and patients rather than charging the town. Beauport also committed to a higher level of service with an improved mixture of Advanced Life Support (ALS) versus Basic Life Support (BLS) response.
Both the speaker and his Marblehead counterpart, along with Cresta, recommended signing the contract as soon as possible, with Beauport hoping for an August 1st start date. The arrangement would also involve a licensing agreement for the former police station at 86 Borough Street, currently occupied by Cataldo, with plans to move Beauport in within the next month.
Thompson asked about rental arrangements, and Cresta confirmed they were considering increasing the rent from what Cataldo currently pays. The committee member noted that Beauport had been around since the 1970s, initially moving out of emergency response to focus on transport, but the current owner, John Morris (son of the founder), had moved the company back into emergency service. Beauport currently serves Hamilton, Gloucester, and provides backup for Boston, among other communities.
There was discussion about whether this required two readings per board policy, but Phelan noted that while two readings were typical policy, they weren’t required. The committee member emphasized the time sensitivity, noting they needed the contract by August 1st and that it was uncomfortable asking Cataldo to provide standby services for upcoming events like the block party when they knew they would be leaving.
The committee member clarified one contract modification based on town counsel’s advice regarding insurance requirements. Their insurance carrier had requested increasing auto liability coverage from $1 million to $5 million, but Beauport found this cost prohibitive. All other insurance provisions met or exceeded current requirements with Cataldo, with most being higher than current levels. The $1 million auto liability amount remained the same as the existing Cataldo contract.
Leonard made a motion to approve the ambulance service agreement, which was seconded and passed unanimously. Phelan thanked the committee member and Graham for their hard work on the contract negotiations.
Borough Street Rehabilitation Funding Discussion (Link: 03:08:00 – 03:22:00)
Thompson introduced a proposal to address the long-standing veterans housing saga by committing the $1.54 million rental payment the town would receive from B’nai Brith for the 99-year lease to rehabilitate the veterans post at 89 Borough Street. He explained that everyone wanted veterans housing, and the major dispute had been about whether the post could remain at the Pine Street location or needed to be moved elsewhere.
Thompson proposed that when the town receives the $1.54 million at closing from the Pine Street development, those funds should be committed to ensuring the veterans post gets built in a modern, fully ADA-compliant condition at Borough Street. He noted this amount would roughly cover what would have been needed to build the post at the original Pine Street location, including both the shell construction and interior build-out.
Phelan noted that she and Thompson had met with counsel and Cresta to understand the implementation process, which provided two options. The first option would place the proceeds in a “proceeds from sale of real estate” account, after which Town Meeting would need to appropriate those funds for the building rehabilitation through a majority vote. The second option would create a special purpose stabilization fund specifically for 89 Borough Street.
Thompson explained the drawbacks of the first approach, noting that by the time closing occurred and Town Meeting needed to vote on appropriation, it would be a year and a half to two years later, with uncertainty about who would be in office or what priorities might exist. This created vagueness about whether the funds would actually be spent on the post or diverted elsewhere.
Leonard suggested creating a memorandum of understanding to solidify the commitment, but Phelan clarified that while the current board could sign such an agreement stating their intentions, Town Meeting would still have the authority to spend the funds, potentially making the MOU meaningless.
Thompson recommended the special purpose stabilization fund option, which would require creating the fund at the upcoming Town Meeting before receiving any funds, requiring a two-thirds vote. This approach would allow the discussion to occur while the issue was fresh in everyone’s mind, and the funds would be protected for their specific purpose. A subsequent majority vote would be needed to appropriate the money once received.
Phelan explained that funds in a stabilization account are protected and can only be used for their designated purpose, meaning Town Meeting could not appropriate those funds for anything else. However, she noted this could create a situation where they become “stuck” if circumstances change.
Thompson acknowledged the pros and cons of both approaches but recommended the special purpose stabilization fund because while they might become stuck, the funds could still be extracted through another Town Meeting vote if circumstances warranted. He made a motion to recommend that Town Meeting create a special purpose stabilization fund for the rehabilitation of 89 Borough Street in the amount of $1.5 million.
Grishman seconded the motion, emphasizing that the board had made a commitment to veterans and voted to move them from their current post to Borough Street, making it important to allocate funds to ensure their new home would be top-notch. Leonard supported the motion, noting it was one of her key reasons for voting for the original proposal.
Fletcher expressed hesitation about voting immediately, stating it was the first time she was hearing about the proposal and wanted time to consider it. She clarified her concern was not about the substance but about the technical aspects, noting that some stabilization funds have provisions that can prevent access to money, citing an example of $300,000 currently sitting in an account that can only be spent on new property.
Phelan suggested they could nuance the vote to include the ability to extract excess money if anything should change. Fletcher also mentioned ensuring adequate room for grants that might be applied for under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The committee member acknowledged this was expressing the will of the board and that specific plans would need to be developed for the actual warrant article.
The motion passed unanimously, with Phelan adding a friendly amendment to include not just rehabilitation but also facilitating the physical move of veterans from their current location to Borough Street. The board then prepared to move on to discussion of the Pine Street schematic design.
Pine Street Schematic Design Review and Approval (Link: 03:22:00 – 03:58:00)
Grishman made a motion to approve the Pine Street schematic design, which Leonard seconded. The board acknowledged that Planning Board Chair Ted Dooley was participating online along with representatives from B’nai Brith Housing. Community Development Director Marzi provided an overview, noting that B’nai Brith had received their project eligibility letter from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, creating a pathway to advance the project. The next milestone required approval of the schematic plans.
Marzi explained that the board had requested Planning Board feedback on the plans, which resulted in comments ranging from requests to relocate the building to the center of the parcel, examine building massing, preserve trees, provide privacy screening from second-floor porches, and address parking concerns. The Planning Board also complimented the architectural features and how the design blended with neighborhood character, capturing the coastal New England aesthetic.
Holly Grace from B’nai Brith addressed the Planning Board’s comments through a response matrix. Regarding the request to center the building and turn the entrance to Erie Street, she explained this would be problematic, requiring two entrances, creating more curb cuts, potentially reducing parking, and raising floodplain concerns that would make the building appear taller. The board accepted this explanation without requiring changes.
On the building massing concerns and request to eliminate the tower and deck, Grace explained the tower was designed to break up massing and articulate the corner entrance, noting that a flat roof would make the building feel larger and more commercial. The sloped roof better fit the residential context. Additional renderings showed the building in context with neighborhood homes, demonstrating how it would appear from street views down Pine Street and Erie Street.
Planning Board Chair Ted Dooley participated remotely to discuss the setback issue. He explained that approximately two dozen homes along Erie Street from Eastern Avenue to Pine Street all maintained standard setbacks of 10-15 feet, while the proposed building had only a 5-foot setback. He suggested moving the building back 5-10 feet to match neighborhood character and reduce the visual impact of the building’s massing, particularly at the intersection where sight lines were important.
Dooley noted that local zoning bylaws allowed up to 25% of parking spaces to be compact (8.5 feet wide instead of 9 feet), suggesting this might help accommodate the setback change. However, Grace responded that their parking plan already included compact spaces to maximize the lot’s capacity. The team indicated that increasing the setback by 10 feet would result in losing 4-5 parking spaces and would shift driveway curb cuts closer to the intersection, creating circulation issues.
After discussion, Grace indicated that B’nai Brith could accommodate an additional 5-foot setback (for a total of 10 feet from Erie Street) without losing parking spaces, though it would require internal reconfiguration. This represented a compromise between the Planning Board’s request for 10-15 feet and the current 5-foot setback. Dooley accepted this as a reasonable middle ground that would help address massing concerns while maintaining parking capacity.
The board also addressed other Planning Board comments, including the developer’s commitment to contract with an arborist to reassess tree removal and explore saving more trees, install privacy screening and noise mitigation measures for the second-floor amenity deck, and maintain the architectural character that had been praised by the Planning Board.
A committee member asked about solar readiness, and Grace confirmed they would commit to making the building PV-ready and would study the possibility of installing solar panels on the sloped roof design, potentially including actual solar installation in the project.
Marzi summarized the conditions that would be included in the approval: the proponent would contract with an arborist to reassess tree removals, install privacy screening and noise mitigation measures, increase the Erie Street setback by 5 feet for a total of 10 feet, and receive positive acknowledgment for architectural character while parking concerns were noted without additional requirements.
The motion to approve the schematic designs with the conditions as detailed by Marzi passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. The board thanked all participants including the B’nai Brith team, Planning Board Chair Dooley, and Community Development Director Marzi for their work on the project.
Financial Summit Planning and Consent Agenda (Link: 03:58:00 – 04:03:00)
Phelan addressed the final agenda item regarding discussion and possible vote on the mission or definition of the future financial summit, deciding to table it until the next meeting. She emphasized the importance of each board member putting thought into the summit’s purpose, noting she had asked the Finance Committee and School Committee to have similar conversations beforehand. Phelan expressed concern that without clear expectations, participants might arrive with different ideas about the summit’s goals, potentially leading to negative outcomes.
Leonard highlighted the critical need to address the Clark School situation that had been raised by Charlie Patsios the previous week when Phelan was absent. She noted that Patsios had raised questions about the Clark School and the possibility of entertaining options with Superintendent Max and the school department. Leonard felt this issue should precipitate a financial summit or require some type of joint meeting to address the Clark School question, given the important points raised by both Patsios and the superintendent regarding his RFP process.
A committee member mentioned having a subsequent conversation with Cresta about forming a working group to do preliminary fact-gathering among different parties to prepare for a broader joint meeting. He noted discussing this with the superintendent earlier that day, emphasizing the need to understand the timeline for the middle school project, as whether it would happen in the next five years versus ten years would significantly impact capital planning, the financial summit, and particularly the Clark School situation.
Phelan mentioned efforts to schedule a tri-chair meeting with the chairs of the three boards to begin discussions and take a preliminary assessment of the situation. Leonard reiterated her concern about not forgetting Charlie’s suggestions and questions, along with the superintendent’s RFP considerations, emphasizing the need for a broader discussion. Phelan agreed, noting she didn’t want the school to feel they lacked options since they currently controlled and paid for the Clark School building, though they needed Select Board permission to proceed with an RFP or RFI process.
Leonard observed that it seemed the school wasn’t looking to hold onto the Clark School long-term, though they might need it temporarily before potentially transitioning it to housing or other uses. The board agreed to table the financial summit discussion and have Marchese add it to the next agenda for further consideration.
The board then moved to approve the consent agenda, but Fletcher requested removing the minutes from the previous meeting. Thompson raised questions about road race permit requests that only showed police department approval without approvals from fire, recreation, health, or the town administrator. The board decided to remove both road race permits and the July 8th minutes from the consent agenda to ensure all required approvals were obtained.
The final consent agenda included only the Harbor Waterfront Advisory Committee appointment, Cultural Council appointment, and minutes from June 18, 2025. The motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously. Phelan then moved to Select Board time, offering Grishman the opportunity to speak first since she had asked him to wait earlier in the meeting.
Select Board Member Comments and Personnel Matters Discussion (Link: 04:03:00 – 04:39:00)
Grishman began his Select Board time by detailing recent changes in town hall, including the elimination of assistant positions at the police and fire departments, with the fire department assistant being told her position was eliminated while on maternity leave. He noted that the public health nurse was told her job would be eliminated despite being funded at town meeting, the land use coordinator wasn’t hired as town planner but got the same role in Malden, and the finance director left due to being disrespected and not offered a contract until too late for less money than offered elsewhere. He reported that another finance employee gave notice that day and that Jackie Camberlengo would be leaving August 1st.
Grishman criticized the decision to focus on the recreation department during its busiest season despite having more events and programming than ever before and a plan in place to ensure summer programming wouldn’t be impacted. He alleged that discriminatory comments were made to Camberlengo during the hiring process, including suggestions she should remain part-time to spend more time with her son. He claimed the decision was made before she could submit her resume or interview, and that he contacted Cresta on May 29 about these concerns with no action taken.
Grishman further alleged that confidential information was released during the hiring process and that despite reporting this and continuing to express concerns to both Cresta and Phelan, an “unethical, discriminatory, and corrupt hiring process” was allowed to continue. He stated that a candidate “politically and personally connected to multiple Select Board members was hired for $20,000 more than the job was advertised for.” He called for a full outside investigation and immediate stop to the recreation hiring process.
Cresta immediately asked Grishman to clarify whether he was being accused of making discriminatory comments, but Grishman declined to respond publicly, saying they could talk offline. Cresta expressed that this was shameful and noted he would need to figure out his next steps, questioning why anyone would apply for the town administrator position after witnessing such treatment.
Leonard responded with strong criticism of Grishman’s comments, stating she was disheartened that progress made earlier in the meeting had been “thrown out the window.” As someone with HR background, she found the public discussion of a confidential hiring process nauseating. While acknowledging that all applicants were stellar and that Camberlengo had transformed the recreation department, Leonard emphasized that sometimes people win and lose in job applications, and how one acts afterward defines their career.
Leonard defended Cresta’s character, stating she would never suggest he was corrupt or discriminatory and that he was only trying to do what was best for Swampscott. She acknowledged the process didn’t go perfectly but refused to engage in speculation about who said what, noting that different people hear and deliver things differently. Leonard apologized to Cresta for having to endure the public discussion and emphasized that the board needed to support the interim town administrator’s decisions.
Fletcher also defended Cresta, noting he had stepped up for almost eight months, working weekends and taking on areas outside his expertise while others took vacation time. She criticized Grishman’s “constant attacks on people” and stated his comments were disappointing and unhelpful to the community. Fletcher apologized to Cresta and commended his work in positioning the town in a better place.
Thompson acknowledged the progress made earlier in the meeting and expressed concern about not losing that momentum. He noted questions about the hiring process that should be clarified but acknowledged he didn’t have firsthand information to comment on specific allegations. He raised a potential issue about whether the interim town administrator had authority to hire someone, but Cresta clarified that the offer letter stated permanent appointment required confirmation from the permanent town administrator.
Phelan offered Cresta time to respond to the allegations. Cresta acknowledged making missteps over eight months but noted the irony that someone concerned about money paid to the former town administrator due to allegations was now making similar character attacks against him. He stated he would need to determine his next steps and questioned why anyone would apply for the town administrator position after witnessing such treatment.
Phelan welcomed any investigation into her role in the process, stating that when she learned her friend Charlotte had applied, she immediately told Cresta she wouldn’t discuss it to avoid any appearance of impropriety. She challenged Grishman to specify what unethical actions he believed she had taken, emphasizing there was nothing she participated in during the process.
The discussion continued with various board members defending the hiring process and questioning Grishman’s specific allegations. Leonard pointed out that everyone in the small town had relationships with many residents, and that the decision-maker was Cresta, not the board members. The debate included questions about salary information, municipal experience, and the timing of the hiring decision.
Camberlengo then addressed the board, acknowledging the difficulty of the interconnected relationships in the small town and discussing the “optics” of the situation. She explained that she had been told during budget season that a pay raise wouldn’t work due to optics during election season, making the current situation’s optics difficult to accept. She clarified that she wasn’t seeking to reverse the process but wanted to address hiring protocols for the future.
Camberlengo explained that the “plan” referenced earlier involved former director Danielle Strauss staying on part-time through the busy summer season, which she had supported as a way to avoid micromanaging someone during the department’s busiest time. She emphasized her commitment to a smooth transition and her faith in the board going forward.
Fletcher concluded by noting that too much had been said about personnel matters that the board couldn’t properly comment on due to confidentiality requirements, making it difficult to provide transparency or discuss process changes. She expressed that the conversation was unfortunate and should have been handled internally. The meeting was then adjourned.
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.