See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Indigenous People’s Day Proclamation (Link: 00:02:00 – 00:10:00)
Chair Katie Phelan called the Wednesday, October 8th Select Board meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. She reminded attendees that the meeting was being recorded.
Phelan then read the Indigenous People’s Day proclamation, which recognized that indigenous people have lived on the lands now called Swampscott since time immemorial. The proclamation acknowledged that Swampscott was built upon the traditional and ancestral homes of Native Americans referred to as num keg, who called Swampscott the “Land of Red Rock.” The document noted that Indigenous Peoples Day was first proposed in 1977 by a delegation of Native nations to a United Nations conference on discrimination against indigenous populations in the Americas.
The proclamation committed the town of Swampscott to protecting and advocating for justice, human rights, and dignity of all people, and to supporting principles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It officially proclaimed October 13, 2025 as Indigenous People Day in Swampscott and encouraged all organizations, residents, businesses, and public institutions to acknowledge and celebrate indigenous peoples’ contributions while recognizing ongoing struggles of indigenous communities.
After reading the proclamation, Phelan emphasized the importance of reflecting on the words rather than simply moving on to the next agenda item. She informed attendees that there had been an indigenous people celebration at the farmer’s market over the weekend, which included singing, dancing, and children’s craft activities. Phelan stressed that the commitment goes beyond proclamations to include learning and taking action on the words spoken.
Town Administrator Report (Link: 00:10:00 – 00:25:00)
A new town administrator presented their first report, explaining they would change the format going forward. Instead of reciting completed items from before their arrival, they would provide high-level highlights while still compiling the full report for board packets and Thursday online posting for residents. They thanked Gino A. Cresta Jr. for his support during the transition and acknowledged his work supporting staff while wearing multiple hats as interim town administrator.
The new administrator outlined their initial activities, including meetings with elected officials and department heads. At their first department head meeting, they established baseline expectations including being on time, being responsive with goal of responding within a day, and flagging any staffing or resource constraints. They announced plans for regular department head meetings, skip-level meetings with staff below department heads to identify future leaders, and earlier budget discussions than normal to allow time to get up to speed.
The administrator emphasized having an open door policy for volunteers, elected officials, appointed officials, and residents, noting they may not have immediate answers but would get up to speed quickly. They expressed interest in regular community outreach and office hours outside of events. Current hiring processes include interviews for public safety admin, customer service rep, and rec coordinator positions. Recent new hires included Tim Milliken as land use planner, Nathaniel Snow as library head of technical services, Whitney Wilkinson as library aide, and Kevin Kaufman as police officer who will attend the Academy on October 14th.
Board members asked questions about the Kings Beach UV pilot study report. Cresta explained that Kleinfelder completed the final draft report which was reviewed by Lynn and Swampscott stakeholders and is currently being reviewed by MassDEP. The report was expected to be released by end of week, but MassDEP requested to review it first to ensure all parties were on the same page. When asked about Swampscott stakeholders, Cresta clarified it was himself and Liz Smith, who served as administrative assistant and was involved from day one. The Water and Sewer Commission had not yet seen the report but would receive it when the board does.
Board members discussed whether to add the UV pilot study to the next agenda and whether the Water and Sewer Commission should review it first. They agreed the report warranted board review and could be presented with a summary since it was 32 pages long.
Leonard raised the topic of reconsidering the town accountant position structure, suggesting discussion about changing it to a director of finance position. The new administrator requested time to research and survey the employment landscape to provide an informed recommendation. Board members agreed background work was needed to understand whether the position should be town accountant, finance director, or another structure, given recent departures in the finance department. They agreed to add this discussion to the next agenda after receiving a memo with background information.
Phelan presented Cresta with an appreciation gift – a bowl made by John Pello from a tree from Linstead Park – on behalf of the board for his work as interim town administrator. The board took a photo for documentation.
Cresta clarified that interviews were ongoing for both town accountant and assistant town accountant positions that were already posted, asking whether to continue the process while considering restructuring. Board members confirmed the interview process should continue while taking a fresh look at the structure, and suggested consulting with the Finance Committee since they have considerable interaction with this role.
Public Comments (Link: 00:25:00 – 00:29:00)
Phelan asked Leonard to keep time for public comments since her phone was not working. Louis Shisulo of 48 Farragut Road addressed the board on behalf of the Recreation Commission to announce a celebration of Italian Heritage Month. The event will take place on October 19th at the farmer’s market and will include Sicilian arts and crafts for children, Italian vendors displaying their products, and Italian performers. Shisulo encouraged everyone to attend and celebrate Italian heritage.
Before opening the floor for additional comments, Phelan made an announcement about the Master Plan Committee. She noted that October 16th would be the last open house for the master plan, which is the third such event. The first open house had about 50 attendees and the second had about 30, so they hoped to reach 80 people for the final one. Phelan mentioned that the survey response had not been robust and encouraged people to respond to the surveys available on the town website. She emphasized that community input was important and noted there would be another meeting at 6 o’clock on October 16th regarding the Glover, encouraging participation in both events.
Seeing no additional public comments, Phelan moved to old and new business. She announced that the first agenda item on climate action had been tabled due to emergency scheduling problems and would be moved to two weeks later. In its place, she moved up the discussion on the memorandum of understanding for the Clark School.
Clark School Recreation MOU Discussion (Link: 00:29:00 – 00:59:00)
Max Casper, facilities director, and Jason Kalman, superintendent, presented a memorandum of understanding between the town and school department for recreation use of the Clark building. Casper explained they had discussed this nearly a year ago but were unable to finalize it at that time due to changes in recreation department leadership. The MOU was substantially similar to the previous version.
Recreation Director Charlotte presented her vision for expanded programming at the Clark School. She explained she had increased programming significantly since becoming director and held open office hours to hear from residents about their interests. She identified untapped audiences including parents of young children wanting evening activities and older adults who might not consider themselves seniors. She noted the Clark was a perfect location that had already been used for Park League and Jewish holiday programming when school was closed, accommodating 52 kids for Yom Kippur and 24 for Rosh Hashanah. Her programming ideas included ongoing clubs and classes, Friday night activities for kids, and opening the gym with concessions when DPW floods the outdoor ice skating rink.
Board members questioned the financial aspects of the arrangement. Grishman asked about utility costs, and Charlotte provided figures showing FY25 costs of $36,952 for the empty building and FY24 costs of $48,279 when the school was in use for half the year. Leonard questioned the school’s budget planning, learning that the school department had not budgeted for utilities this year, expecting the building to be rented out either to recreation or an outside entity. The school had been paying utilities without budget allocation, anticipating the building would be occupied.
Thompson clarified that the school budget was developed in November when the recreation MOU was expected to be a done deal, explaining why utilities weren’t budgeted. The discussion revealed that the recreation revolving fund would pay the utility costs through proceeds from programming. Leonard referenced the previous finance director’s assessment that the revolving account could sustain $60,000 without strain, though $40,000 was the anticipated cost.
Thompson questioned the current balance of the recreation revolving fund, which Charlotte reported as $276,978. She explained this number fluctuates, being higher in summer due to programs like Park League and lower at other times. Board members discussed the need for financial projections and programming plans to justify the utility costs.
Leonard emphasized the need for a pro forma analysis of anticipated programming and revenue. Grishman expressed qualitative support for increased programming but wanted to see quantitative analysis, referencing concerns about the recreation department’s ability to recoup investments. Leonard corrected him regarding stand-up paddleboards, confirming they had recouped that investment.
Leonard, as recreation liaison, supported the proposal, noting constant themes of space shortages in town and high demand for programming. She cited examples like the ice skating rink flooding and flag football league with over 70 participants. She expressed concern about potentially having to put the building out to RFP for outside entities when the town had its own use for it.
Thompson questioned whether current space at Recharge was sufficient or if Clark was truly needed. Phelan noted that certain activities like indoor pickleball required gymnasium space that Recharge couldn’t provide. Leonard mentioned that the recreation department had to rent space at Salem State for third and fourth grade basketball the previous year due to insufficient gym space in town.
Charlotte explained advantages of Clark over Recharge, including longer-term availability, better accessibility, and outdoor space. She described recent programming successes at Clark, including full-day programs during no-school days where children could have lunch and recess outside. She was currently running Learn to Roller Skate programs on the Clark hot top.
The board discussed sponsorship possibilities and legal questions about RFPs for room sponsorships. The new town administrator agreed to research this with the superintendent. They clarified that the school would retain custody of the building while licensing use to the town, with the town responsible for maintenance and utilities as outlined in the MOU.
Thompson raised concerns about the one-year term and potential future conflicts if the program succeeded but the school needed the building back. Kalman responded that his long-term vision was for Clark to serve as a recreation center for kids, adults, and seniors, noting that future plans would depend on middle school developments and would be worked out collaboratively.
The board discussed the no-assignment provision in the MOU, clarifying that Charlotte could allow recreation-related activities like Hughes lacrosse clinics but couldn’t sublease entire sections to outside entities. Charlotte provided examples of how local sports teams could benefit from indoor space during field closures.
The board agreed to table the decision pending financial projections and programming plans from Charlotte, with a goal of concluding the discussion in two weeks and potentially implementing the MOU by November 1st as originally planned.
Community Life Center Committee Update (Link: 00:59:00 – 01:16:00)
Annika Kumley, chair of the Community Life Center Task Force, presented an update along with task force members Cheryl Levinson, Bob Powell, and Kate Green. Kumley explained that the task force was formed in January and had experienced some initial challenges with member turnover before stabilizing. The group had reached two major milestones: issuing a Request for Qualifications over the summer that received four qualified bids, and extending opportunities to all four firms to submit RFPs by the end of October.
The task force’s timeline includes selecting a firm by mid-November and having them begin work December 1st, with a goal of completing the entire evaluation by mid to late April. Kumley outlined the task force’s two primary mandates: conducting a general needs assessment to determine if residents want a community life center, and if there is significant interest, determining what structure would meet those needs including gym space, learning space, and other facilities.
The RFQ required firms to demonstrate capacity for substantial community interaction, ability to evaluate potential sites around town for retrofitting or new construction, architectural expertise, and cost estimation capabilities. The task force conducted reference checks and reviewed comprehensive information packets from all firms before deciding to extend RFP opportunities to all four.
Leonard questioned whether the Clark School recreation trial could substitute for the needs assessment. Phelan responded that the recreation director’s work would represent only a small portion of what the needs assessment would examine, noting that the rec department is currently one person who wouldn’t be conducting broader community outreach or evaluating other buildings and sites. She emphasized that the needs assessment would have much greater breadth than just recreation programming.
Task force members explained that their vision encompasses a community life center serving all ages and interests, potentially including senior center, veterans, and other services. They noted the current problem of having to turn people away from existing programs due to space constraints. Kumley described her experience growing up in Boulder, Colorado, where multiple community centers offered diverse programming from dance to languages, creating lasting community value.
Phelan noted that the master plan process had already identified community desire for a community life center, and emphasized that this was a feasibility study focused on need and feasibility rather than predetermined outcomes. She mentioned that one RFQ response had already identified potential parking constraints at Clark School for a comprehensive community life center, suggesting other sites with better parking might be more suitable.
The task force confirmed they had requested firms evaluate specific sites while also consulting with facilities director Max Casper about additional potential locations, with Levinson noting they identified 20 different possible sites. The RFP requires firms to ensure inclusive community engagement across diverse constituencies and conduct comprehensive outreach to avoid biased sampling.
Thompson emphasized the importance of extensive community engagement through multiple methods, times, and locations to ensure representative input and avoid the common problem of insufficient community feedback. Kumley agreed this was crucial to avoid disenfranchising residents and ensure all voices are heard through the task force’s departmental liaisons.
The presentation was informational only, with no vote requested. The task force indicated they would return after selecting a firm to provide further updates on the feasibility study process.
G Bar and Grill Entertainment License Amendment (Link: 01:16:00 – 01:42:00)
Phelan opened discussion on G Bar and Grill’s request to amend their license to include live entertainment on Thursdays from 6-9 PM and Sundays from 4-8 PM. Greg, the restaurant owner, explained they currently do not have an entertainment license and were seeking to add acoustic music with two to three instrumental pieces and vocals, describing it as quiet acoustic music without drums or loud instruments.
Greg explained that they opened on Sundays to expand during difficult winter months and provide community programming with local artists. He acknowledged not realizing the entertainment box was not checked on his original application and noted they had never gone past 8 PM, though doors were sometimes open in summer which may have generated neighbor complaints.
Fletcher questioned Greg about the location of performers, which he confirmed was in the front of the restaurant where they removed tables. She expressed concern that Greg had received a call from Marzi Galaska about not having an entertainment license but proceeded with an advertised event anyway. Greg clarified the call came the same day as a planned event that had already been arranged and paid for, involving two people singing for two hours.
Fletcher expressed difficulty with the request due to concerns about disturbing neighbors who live across the street and behind the restaurant, noting this would interrupt their daily environment and well-being. She referenced past issues with another restaurant and expressed concern about ongoing problems.
Phelan suggested potential conditions like keeping doors closed during performances or using soundproofing. Greg responded that their acoustic music was not much louder than their regular sound system, but acknowledged that open doors could cause echoing across the street. He noted they had never received noise complaints in 18 years of operation.
Greg compared his request to the town’s summer concert series, noting he could hear those concerts clearly from his house by the water tank, arguing that quiet acoustic music for a couple hours twice weekly until 8 PM should not be a major disturbance. Grishman supported the request, noting the music would be played inside the restaurant rather than on Humphrey Street, and made a motion to approve the amendment. Leonard seconded the motion.
Thompson clarified that the application showed Thursday hours until 9 PM, not 8 PM as Greg had stated. Greg indicated he would be happy to keep it at 8 PM but noted Thursday would typically be a later night, potentially until 9 PM.
Moira Farrell of Blaney Circle addressed the board, expressing concern about “creep” and precedent-setting. She described ongoing noise issues in the area starting at 4:30 AM with garbage pickup and early deliveries, sometimes continuing until 1:30-2:00 AM. She noted that when G Bar originally opened, the neighborhood did not object because it was supposed to be intimate fine dining without a rowdy crowd, and they were concerned about the area becoming noisier.
Farrell questioned why neighbors were not notified of the hearing and expressed frustration about property rights not being respected. She worried about the precedent of expanding hours and volume, referencing how accommodations often expand beyond original parameters.
Jody Watts of 259 Humphrey Street, who lives directly across from the restaurant, presented Instagram posts showing music advertised from 8-10 PM on multiple dates, contradicting Greg’s statements about never having music until 10 PM. She described hearing trumpets and amplified music through open garage doors, noting the performers were positioned right at the edge of the outdoor space.
Greg disputed the 10 PM claim, stating the restaurant closes at 10 PM and they had never had music that late. However, when confronted with the Instagram evidence, he suggested there may have been advertising errors or that advertised bands never showed up.
Thompson expressed concern about the discrepancy between Greg’s statements and the documented Instagram posts, noting it did not give her confidence in the application. She also raised broader concerns about balancing everyone’s needs in the area and the collective impact of multiple restaurants on neighbors.
Leonard questioned whether past music may have run until 10 PM while the current request was for different hours going forward. She also raised concerns about rat problems in the area, suggesting the town needed to do more to help residents with issues that weren’t entirely the restaurants’ fault.
Phelan suggested it was unfair to have Greg address all neighborhood concerns when multiple restaurants operate in the area. She proposed having Marzi Galaska organize quarterly community meetings involving health department, police, community development, neighbors, and all restaurateurs to address ongoing issues and provide regular check-ins on compliance and neighborhood relations.
Entertainment License Discussion for G Bar and Kitchen (Link: 01:42:00 – 01:52:00)
Phelan emphasized that neighborhood issues don’t fall on one person or one town hall department and reiterated the need for community discussion involving neighbors, restaurateurs, and town staff. Fletcher expressed concern about Greg operating without a license and hearing reports of non-acoustic instruments like trumpets, but asked if neighbors would have issues if they couldn’t hear acoustic music outside. Farrell confirmed that would be acceptable.
Fletcher suggested a solution similar to one used with the Mission restaurant years ago, where music was allowed inside as long as no one could hear it outside. Grishman proposed a compromise allowing only vocalists and acoustic guitars while keeping doors closed, which Greg agreed to accept.
Leonard argued against unfair restrictions on local businesses, noting the town hosts outdoor concerts multiple times per summer that can be heard throughout town. Thompson countered that public concerts occurring five times yearly were different from private restaurant music potentially occurring 100 times yearly. Leonard disputed the frequency comparison, noting there were more than five town concerts.
Grishman suggested eliminating brass instruments and keeping doors shut would greatly mitigate noise concerns and represent a fair compromise. Farrell expressed relief that the proposal was for limited hours rather than extending until 10 or 11 PM, but remained concerned about “creep” and the potential for expansion beyond agreed parameters.
Greg clarified that Little G operates from 4-10 PM, closing at 9 PM during fall and winter, and described it as a family restaurant. When questioned about delivery times, he explained they have one produce company that delivers in the morning and that he had contacted all distributors and trash companies about the town’s 7 AM ordinance prohibiting activities before that time.
Greg emphasized his efforts to be respectful to neighbors over nearly 20 years, including washing trash barrels and having daily trash pickup with swept and sprayed back areas. Leonard noted the difficulty of balancing cleanliness requirements that prevent rats with noise concerns from cleaning activities.
Phelan proposed approving the license with the discussed parameters and time limitations, contingent on Greg keeping his word, and suggested starting quarterly community conversations in the neighborhood to address all issues and determine which town departments could help mitigate problems for both restaurateurs and residents.
Greg addressed concerns about “creep” by explaining that their liquor license requires them to stop serving alcohol and have all employees out by 11 PM, and that entertainment hours would be similarly binding. He emphasized his commitment to following written rules as he had done for 20 years without issues at his restaurant.
The board voted unanimously to approve the amended entertainment license for G Bar and Kitchen. Phelan confirmed someone would reach out about organizing community meetings and reminded Greg that Thursday night music should end by 9 PM. She invited Farrell to provide a list of concerned community members for outreach or to organize a neighborhood meeting that town officials could join.
Farrell concluded by noting that concerns would only grow once the planned hotel is completed, referencing ongoing issues with parking, rats, vendor parking restrictions, and large trucks making U-turns on Humphrey Street in the tight space, expressing that neighbors’ concerns were not being adequately represented.
Select Board Goals Discussion and Prioritization (Link: 01:52:00 – 02:40:00)
Phelan introduced the discussion of Select Board goals prioritization using a chart prepared by Dianne Marchese that listed goals by board member from the previous meeting. The purpose was to prioritize goals from one to five to provide clear communication to the new town administrator about what should be prioritized going forward. Thompson corrected that the climate leader investment decision was $1 million, not $100 million as listed on the chart.
The board decided to categorize goals as A, B, or C priorities rather than ranking numerically, with A representing the highest priority items that must be accomplished. The new town administrator noted that some items like the trash contract were operational necessities that would be completed regardless of priority ranking, suggesting the board focus their votes on more strategic or visionary items requiring research and direction.
Fletcher categorized her goals, rating transition audit and source elimination as A priorities, staffing backup plans and TA hiring process review as B priorities, Glover update and charter review as A priorities, and town-wide calendar as B, though Phelan argued the calendar should be A due to transparency concerns. Leonard suggested charter review should be C due to its massive scope, but Fletcher explained much preliminary work had already been completed when Grishman was chair, making it more manageable through a small committee approach.
The board discussed health insurance contract evaluation, with Leonard rating it as B priority. They needed to determine notice requirements for potentially leaving the Group Insurance Commission, having received conflicting information previously. The new town administrator would need to research this with other towns’ experiences.
Grishman categorized his economic development goals, noting that items like completing the hotel and Hawthorne Humphrey Street renaissance were long-term ongoing efforts. He rated economic development, downtown parking improvements, and Hawthorne completion as A priorities, collaboration with housing authority for affordable housing feasibility study as B priority, and added full-time assessor and finance director hiring as A priority.
Leonard presented her concise list, rating Hawthorne as “A plus plus” priority, financial priorities summit with finance committee and schools as A priority, prioritizing staffing and FTEs at town hall as A priority due to critical staffing shortages, completing the hotel as B priority since it was progressing without needing additional resources, and unused properties review as A priority due to its connection to financial and budgeting decisions.
Phelan categorized her extensive list, rating employee relations and morale as A priority due to current turnover providing opportunity to rebuild trust, financial reevaluation summit as A priority with tri-chair committee working on mini breakout sessions rather than one large summit, communication improvements and town-wide calendar as A priorities, Select Board unity and respect as A priority, regionalization opportunities as B priority, beaches and pipes (source elimination) as A priority, and economic development and unused properties as A priorities.
Thompson presented his list with housing authority master plan, Hawthorne completion, and Glover completion plan as A priorities, climate leader investment decision and unused property plan as B priorities, and CPA implementation as B priority since it mainly required seating the committee. There was discussion about whether the unused property plan should be A priority if it included historic property identification and utilization planning.
Thompson consolidated the A-priority items onto a single list, identifying duplicates across board members’ goals. The final consolidated list included 12 A-priority items: clarity on financials/transitional audit, source elimination/beaches and pipes, Glover update, town-wide calendar/communication improvements, economic development/Hawthorne/Humphrey Street development, full-time assessor and finance director hiring, FTE prioritization and staffing structure, financial priorities summit, unused property review and master plan, employee relations and morale, Select Board unity and respect, and housing authority master plan.
The board discussed the financial summit approach, with Phelan explaining the tri-chair committee planned mini breakout sessions on topics like capital improvements, financial guardrails, and budget guidelines rather than one comprehensive summit. Thompson expressed concern about timeline, noting the budget process would begin soon and encouraging completion of key discussions before March 1st budget deadline.
Leonard suggested utilizing the current finance consultant to help facilitate financial summit discussions given his experience across multiple towns. The new town administrator noted this would be outside the consultant’s current scope and would incur additional costs, but offered to have informal conversations about potential assistance.
The new town administrator indicated he would use the board’s prioritized list as the foundation for developing his own annual goals, requesting time to get up to speed before presenting his goal framework to the board. Phelan suggested reviewing previous town administrator goals to ensure nothing important was overlooked.
Phelan concluded by moving to the consent agenda, which included two new appointments to the water sewer infrastructure advisory committee for Scott Morello and Bindesh Sharatha, approval of funding for new benches through the commissioner for disability, approval of minutes, and notification that executive session minutes were being withheld after biannual review by outside counsel confirmed the reasons for withholding still existed.
Consent Agenda and Committee Appointments (Link: 02:40:00 – 03:09:00)
Fletcher requested to pull two items from the consent agenda for separate discussion: the water and sewer committee appointments and the commission on disability funding approval. She also requested to table the approval of minutes until the next meeting so she could send comments to Dianne Marchese. The board voted unanimously to approve withholding executive session minutes as listed on the agenda after their biannual review.
Fletcher moved to discuss the water and sewer infrastructure advisory committee appointments separately, noting that while two new members were proposed, there were four vacant alternate positions and Andrea Moore had applied twice but was not being recommended. Grishman, as liaison, explained that committee chair Kelly Beacon had reviewed all applicants and recommended Scott Morello and Bindesh Shrestha, both PhDs, based on their technical expertise and qualifications for the committee’s scientific work.
Fletcher expressed disappointment that the positions had taken so long to fill and insisted that Andrea Moore should be appointed to the committee, arguing for a balanced committee composition rather than all scientists and engineers. She emphasized that Moore was a proven advocate who could effectively communicate and get results. Grishman responded that the committee was seeking technical expertise and that the chair had determined these two candidates were the best fit.
Leonard asked about the total number of applicants, which Grishman estimated at around a dozen. He noted that some highly qualified individuals had withdrawn their applications due to social media attacks on committee members, making fit particularly important for this committee. He explained that Scott Morello would take over GIS analysis work previously done by Matt Peltier, while Bindesh Shrestha, a PhD chemist, would fill a role similar to former vice chair Mr. Bakley.
Leonard questioned whether the committee structure with four alternates was common, noting that alternates could step up to vote when regular members were absent. She emphasized Andrea Moore’s advocacy work for clean beaches and cautioned against turning away volunteers who wanted to contribute, especially when there were open seats. She argued that dissenting opinions and different perspectives were valuable even if sometimes difficult to work with.
Thompson requested an update from the committee about their current priorities and work scope to better understand what skills were needed for effectiveness. He noted it had been some time since the board received a comprehensive report from the committee and wanted to understand their focus in light of upcoming capital planning decisions.
Leonard raised concerns about committee diversity, noting there was only one woman currently serving and questioning whether the existing committee composition would pass diversity standards. She emphasized the importance of embracing diversity in all forms and ensuring people weren’t appointed based solely on who they knew, referencing previous feedback about appointment processes.
Phelan suggested that the issue wasn’t just about one particular volunteer but about nine or ten other applicants who wanted to participate. She expressed concern about turning people away when the town constantly asked for community support, noting that rejected volunteers might not apply again and this could be a lost opportunity for long-term community engagement.
Fletcher stated she was uncomfortable with having the committee chair defend why particular individuals weren’t being appointed. Grishman agreed this would be inappropriate but suggested having the chair provide an update on the committee’s scope, goals, and evolution over 18 months of work. The board agreed to schedule a committee update within 30 days.
The board voted on the appointments with Fletcher voting no, stating she was unhappy about the political nature of the decision and the lack of information about alternates and Andrea Moore’s repeated applications. The other board members voted yes to approve Scott Morello and Bindesh Shrestha’s appointments.
The board then discussed the Commission on Disability request to accept funds for purchasing benches throughout town. Fletcher questioned who would decide bench placement and whether there was an existing process. The new town administrator requested the opportunity to make recommendations about donor recognition and timeline policies, noting concerns about future maintenance liability and the need for sustainable donation practices.
Discussion included concerns about the number of benches needed in the community and maintaining consistency in memorial bench appearance and recognition standards. The board agreed to approve opening the account to receive donations while developing policies for bench placement, recognition, and maintenance within 30 days. The account language allowed for use on additional Commission on Disability projects and initiatives beyond just benches.
Select Board Time and Meeting Adjournment (Link: 03:09:00 – 03:15:00)
Leonard initially declined to go first for Select Board time, with Thompson volunteering instead but stating he had nothing to report. Phelan also indicated she had nothing to add.
Fletcher announced several upcoming events and committee updates. She reminded residents about the Fix It Clinic, also called a Repair Cafe, scheduled for Saturday, October 25th from 9 AM to noon at the senior center. Phelan explained that the repair services were free and covered various items including clothing mending, electronics troubleshooting, and small appliances, with appointments required by October 20th or 22nd. The program was organized by Wayne and Alex and had been successful in neighboring communities like Salem and Danvers or Lynnfield.
Fletcher announced the Pumpkin Toss event scheduled for November 9th and provided updates on various committees. The Solid Waste Committee was working on the trash RFP and would meet with the new town administrator to assist. The Board of Assessors was gathering information to set tax rates. The Retirement Board was making decisions about consultant selection.
Fletcher thanked the Recreation Commission for adjusting their meeting schedule during the Jewish High Holidays, specifically moving a meeting that had been scheduled on Rosh Hashanah. She emphasized the importance of respecting these high holidays in a community with a large Jewish population and suggested that a town-wide calendar would help prevent such scheduling conflicts by blocking these dates in advance.
Fletcher concluded by thanking the technical crew in the booth: Nathan Kent, Nate Besheimer, Alexander Perez, and Joel Dulet.
Leonard reported on Pirate Bike School, which had recently visited Swampscott and taught her five-year-old to ride a bike in 15 minutes. She spoke with owner Peter Conway, who chose Swampscott over communities like Needham, Newton, and Wellesley because of what he perceived as a well-organized recreation department and his positive connection with Charlotte, the recreation director. Conway’s program was fully booked within 10 seconds and focuses on children with special needs and low-income children who cannot normally afford bike lessons. Leonard noted that generous community members had volunteered to help bring a larger program to town for these populations.
Leonard welcomed the new town administrator Nick Connors and congratulated him on completing his first meeting. Grishman made a motion to adjourn, which Leonard seconded, and the meeting was 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.