SWAMPSCOTT — The public broke out into applause multiple times as residents took the microphone in opposition to a potential contract extension for Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald at the Select Board’s meeting Monday night.
Two separate complaints against the Town of Swampscott have been filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in response to alleged acts of discrimination by Fitzgerald. Police Officer Briana Sanchez and former Community Development Office Manager Maureen Shultz are alleging that Fitzgerald discriminated against them due to their sex and age, respectively.
Monday’s meeting agenda included discussion and a possible vote for an extension to Fitzgerald’s contract, along with the Police and Fire Chiefs. Just before the meeting commenced, Board Chair David Grishman acknowledged the complaints against Fitzgerald and The Item’s article from Feb. 10.
“The Select Board knows these complaints exist. The town disagrees with these filed complaints, and the town is vigorously defending itself,” Grishman said. “We’re not going to take any questions or speak further to this at a public meeting this evening.”
Soon after, the meeting was opened up to public comment. Resident Danielle Leonard spoke first in vehement disagreement with the board’s decision to include contract extension discussions for Fitzgerald, along with overall disdain for the actions he has been accused of.
“It is completely lost on me why we would entertain or think that this is something of importance to the people of this town that we would rush through with a year and a half left on the contract and actually try to put through an extension in light of the disgusting article from the Lynn Item,” Leonard said.
Resident Elizabeth Pappalardo spoke next and immediately deferred her two minutes to Leonard. Leonard went on to express her feeling that the board does not adequately represent the community’s desires, and the agenda item in question was an example.
Resident Andrea Amour stepped up next, describing an email she got from a board member that she felt was unprofessional and hostile. After receiving the email, Amour said Fitzgerald recommended she reach out to him to discuss the situation.
“The conversation which ensued was frustrating, to say the very least,” Amour said. “There was no apology within those ten minutes. He encouraged me to ‘be more positive’ with outsiders so I don’t tarnish the image of our town.”
Amour added that Fitzgerald criticized her for not coming to him first before bringing up the state of King’s Beach during the public question portion of the Hadley School Hotel hearing in January.
After Amour’s comments, Fitzgerald responded to the opinions lobbied toward him. While he said he appreciated the criticism, he expressed that he felt it was unfair to pass judgment as he feels his side of the story has yet to be fully represented.
“What I’ve heard tonight has been unfair,” Fitzgerald said. “To use language that infers somebody might be ‘disgusting’ or acts that have been portrayed by one side in an article, it’s just unfair… I’ve tried incredibly hard to speak with everybody to try to find common ground.”
He added that he believes people should not be “casting stones” if they do not know both sides of the story. He said the town’s response to the complaints remains confidential as it goes through due process, but Fitzgerald said that he has nothing to hide.
“There’s not an iota of information that I don’t want to have become public,” Fitzgerald said. “There are other people involved in this, and I can’t stand up on a soap box and get into the details without violating people’s right to privacy.”
After another resident made a public comment against a potential extension for Fitzgerald, Grishman attempted to end public comment despite the fact that there were other residents who still wished to speak. Attendees then cried out that he was not authorized to do so, and the session continued.
Toward the meeting’s conclusion, Grishman announced that the agenda item to discuss and possibly vote on Fitzgerald’s and other nonunion contracts would be tabled to a future meeting.
