To the editor:
The irony of being accused of wrongdoing by nefarious people is not lost on me. I just hope the irony is evident to people in the Swampscott community whose respect and trust I’ve worked to earn and want to keep.
I don’t typically acknowledge in a public forum, volleys of verbal abuse. I find it repugnant to wade into the putrid muck regularly spewed by the hateful and power-hungry. But the reprehensible display by Suzanne Wright, née Spellios, and a few other School Committee members at their most recent meeting has prompted me to dip in a toe.
Why would I have said at the April 2, 2025 Select Board meeting, after I’d been a part of several open and well-documented sessions on the topic, that I had not seen the school’s line-item budget for fiscal year 2026? That would have been ludicrous. My remarks “were off the cuff,” as our agenda included further discussion about the budget, not a vote forced by a motion from David Grishman.
I was not ready to make a statement regarding my position, but I was prepared to ask more questions. So, here’s exactly what I said, admittedly a bit confusing, but when taken in total it is obviously meant as a call for a more exhaustive and hopefully enlightening accounting:
“I am going to abstain, only because I have not seen what I appear to be a full line-item budget from the schools to see exactly what can possibly, if anything, come out. I do think there’s a process, but I am in full agreement that the schools do need additional support. So, until I see everything knowing that I am very serious about what the tax implications are for this entire community, I’d just like to see everything wrung out.”
If we’d adhered to the agenda, I may have had the opportunity to get answers to my questions, such as: Where is the line-item for the school’s consultants? Why will the superintendent be paid less than the figure related to his employment, and where will that extra money go? Will the budget be reduced by that amount? These are just a few of the issues that warrant deeper examination, especially when members of the School Committee are adamant about paring down the town’s budget to supplement theirs. Never mind that the schools already enjoy almost seventy percent of taxpayer money.
School Committee members reacted to their own absurd interpretation of my comments during their “Committee Time,” devoting just shy of thirty minutes to bashing the Select Board Chair – namely, me. At least twelve of those minutes were afforded to Ms. Wright, who not only repeatedly and falsely claimed that I am a liar, but also made a “wish” that her committee could “endorse another candidate” and provide a “vote of no confidence” regarding my position on the Select Board. Her obvious political stumping and blatant disregard for the integrity of other committees had no place at a public meeting, yet Chairman Glenn Paster allowed her the dubious privilege to continue, unchecked. Carin Marshall, Amy O’Connor, and Mr. Paster also berated me for my alleged dishonesty and my abstention, which I intentionally chose over “Nay” to express my earnest desire to support the schools, but not at an unnecessary expense to Swampscott taxpayers.
Ms. Marshall called my abstention “cowardly,” so I wonder at her assessment of Ms. O’Connor, who abstained, and of Mr. Paster, who voted merely “Present,” at a recent, highly significant and controversial Town Meeting, which Ms. Marshall, town meeting member, did not even bother to attend.
John Giantis, understanding the moral parameters and legal limits inherent at public committee meetings, had the courage to warn his colleagues they had likely overstepped on both. At the very least, the town’s Code of Conduct was breached. Yet, Mr. Paster informed the group that legal counsel and the State Ethics Commission had been consulted prior to the meeting, so there is no need to worry.
That statement may be the most shocking of any uttered during their assemblage that night. Had he just admitted to being complicit in a calculated scheme to publicly discredit me? And was David Grishman, who had previously forced the vote on the budget, involved? The ramifications, starting with Open Meeting Law violations, could be many.
All this ensued while two student appointees on the dais silently looked on. I wonder what lesson they will garner from this gang of adults who are charged with their safety and welfare during the school day, who preach against bullying and intolerance, and who are supposed to lead by example.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Fletcher
Swampscott
