- Brad, are we ready?

You can't hear me?

Okay, good evening.

I'm gonna call the select board meeting

of August 26th, 2025 to order.

I'm Marjorie Fryman.

With me tonight are select

board members, Tom Felder,

Colette, o Frank Beth Sullivan

Woods, and Kenny Lars.

Also with us is Executive

director Megan Job.

Tonight's meeting is being

broadcast live on Comcast eight

and channel and Verizon Channel 40,

and will be available for

later viewing on Wellesley

media.org.

We are going to begin our meeting

by going into executive session

and then returning to open

session at approximately 7:00 PM

I request a motion that the board vote

to convene in executive

session for the purposes

of discussing strategy with

respect to contract negotiations

with non-use union personnel,

finance director candidate,

and to review executive

session minutes as I declare

that having such

discussions in open session

would have a detrimental

effect on the town

- Move to enter executive

session under Mass General Law

Chapter 30 a subsection

21 A, except number two,

to review contract negotiations

with non-union personnel,

finance director candidate

and mass general law, chapter

30 a, section 21, A seven

to approve and consider release

of executive session minutes

of May 6th, 2025,

June 3, 20, 25 B,

and June 24th, 2025 B.

And to invite Meghan Job

and Cory Tester to join

as the chair has declared

that having such discussions

in open session would have a

detrimental effect in

the town town's position.

I'm going to amend that to

say, just to invite Meghan job

following the adjournment

of executive session,

the board will return to open session

to take up the remainder of the agenda.

- Second,

- Kenny. Aye. Colette Aye.

Beth. Aye. Tom Aye. And I say aye as well.

We will now move into executive session.

- You can't see him? He's upstairs. Yeah.

- No, not knowledge. Nice to have it.

I was, no one asked for. Good.

- Okay.

- Good evening.

The select board is now

resuming the open portion

of our meeting for August 26th, 2025.

And our next agenda item is

citizen speak. I believe Mr.

Keeley has indicated that he

would like to speak Mr. Keeley.

- So, and Tom just hit

the button to its green.

- Anyways, it's green.

Tom Keeley. Marjorie, I want

to talk about the Deb situation

and I talked to the board oh, a week ago.

And what I want to let you

know is if you were reviewing

the seven members who

were staying on the board

and on recent performance evaluations

on an aggregate basis,

they wound up rating Deb

satisfactory meeting their, their concerns

and the circumstances and

what they were looking for.

But on the other hand, we

wind up having Deb having

what I call a mark of

Kae, a public mark of Kae

being walked out of the

building by hr, which

by the way, in my knowledge

has never ever happened in the

co in the town of Wellesley.

And I'd like someone to look at that.

I, that's what I've heard. And it was

degrading to her as I understand it.

She was in tears. And it just is demeaning

and it really has upset

the seniors at the center.

Now we then go

and we have to wait four months

to find out what's going on.

Everything's quiet. Nobody's

talking about anything.

Nobody knows the reasons.

And believe me, we figured

it was something huge. Okay?

Why would hr, they have

to, you know, remove her

and get her out of the building.

There had to be something really huge

and we don't hear

anything for four months,

but we do have rumors

and there's press things

going on and things like that.

Terrible for the town, terrible

for the Council on aging,

terrible for the staffs,

terrible for the seniors.

Never should have happened.

And that's really what we

learned when we finally got the

report a hundred days later.

So we've go, went through

this thing for a hundred days

and we get a report and it

really was not warranted

that she would be taken

outta that building.

It, it, there's a performance issue.

It should have been done

in a performance way

and the regular process, et cetera.

It never should have

happened the way it was.

Now, in many cases, especially

Ken, he would think, well,

this is a one-off, you know,

there's a bad situation.

But no, it's not. It's actually

gone from bad to worse.

For six years we've had a curse on

the council on Aging leader.

We will soon have the

ninth leader in six years.

You can imagine the disruption

that that means in terms

of the center and it's got to end

and I think it will end with new board,

with all new offices and four new members.

And that's what I wish.

But I want you to be aware

that this has really hurt the town's image

and it certainly has hurt people going

to apply for the jobs.

So as you look forward,

you wanna think about

this ever happening again to any employee

or any head of a department.

Now, I'm gonna run outta time,

so I'm only gonna say two

things about the consultants.

Okay? Colette and I at

times have been auditors.

And one of the things

about being an auditor,

you wind up having a principle.

And the principle in terms

of trust is independence.

And these consultants broke

that trust their own words,

they broke that trust.

And I have a report that I

will send to Marjorie related

to this, and I'll send it

to Megan and also to Judy.

And the other thing is,

when you think about the consultants,

when you think about why they were here,

and I remember Ken asking the question,

what's this thing about climate

climate change going on?

That was about the climate at the center

and that's what they were looking at.

Well, their interaction with

whoever it happens to be

to have Deb removed.

Okay? They certainly

changed the climate at

the Council on Aging.

Okay? The, the staff was in fear

and the seniors like

myself are extremely angry

about what went on.

That's my message to you

and thank you for your time.

- Thank you Mr. Keeley. Would

anybody else like to speak?

Okay, Megan,

there's no one else on the

line for Citizen Speak.

Okay? Okay.

We'll turn to Megan now

for the executive

director's report, please.

- Thanks, Marjorie. I

just had a few updates.

First, I want to remind folks

that tomorrow is the first day back

for Wellesley Public Schools.

So we wanna welcome

back the teaching staff,

the administration, and

wish everyone a safe, happy,

and healthy school year given

the first few days of school.

Just a reminder to watch for

pedestrians and bicyclists

and to be patient as we gear

back up for the school year.

It's always, the first two

days are, are always slow going

as buses

and parents are, are,

are learning oftentimes

the new carpool lanes.

So bear with us as part of that too.

I just wanted to let folks

know the police department is

looking for school crossing guards.

This is a, a good part-time gig.

And so if you're interested,

we'd encourage people

to reach out to the police department

and they pay pretty good

for a couple hours a day.

Just also a reminder that

next week Labor Day is upon us.

And so municipal buildings and apartments

and the RDF will be closed

on Monday, September 1st

for Labor Day, but regular

business hours are gonna resume

on September 2nd.

And then just briefly, Warren,

H-V-A-C-I am waiting for a,

a more full report.

PBC is actually meeting this week,

but there have been some issues

with the sprinkler subcontractor.

And so at present they are

looking to need to extend

that lease for our health

and recreation department

to remain at eight,

at eight Worcester Street

for at least another month.

So currently that shift

has been from November

to DEC to December.

I'll follow up with a more thorough

report once I receive that.

And that's all I had Marjorie.

- Okay, thank you very much.

Let's hope the Warren work completes in

that additional month.

That would be good. Go ahead Tom.

- As you know, I'm at the PPC meetings.

I, I just want to add,

and correct me if I'm wrong, it,

it's not a performance issue on the part

of the sprinkler company.

It's a matter of discovering

that some of the duct work

for the HVAC has to run through areas

where the sprinkler

connections are located

and so they have to relocate,

sprinkler has in order

to allow for the design of the HVAC.

- Yes, it's not a performance issue.

The scope of work and the

contractors have been performing well.

- Thank you Tom for that clarification.

Okay, our next agenda item

is a consent agenda item.

Megan, has anybody requested

that it be removed? No. Okay,

- So move to approve the consent agenda.

- Second.

- All in favor? Aye.

Okay, our next agenda

item is special town meeting preparation.

As most people know, special

town meeting will commence

on Monday, November 3rd

and likely run through

Wednesday, November 5th.

We're holding those three days.

So Megan has distributed

the draft article list

and the special town meeting warrant.

Megan,

- So in your loose leaf documents

that I just distributed at

the start of the meeting,

I had emailed this late in the day.

It's just a slight red line

version that's incorporated.

Comments received as well

as under article five.

We just needed to modify

the language slightly.

We still had some of the

design language in there

with regards to the RDF.

Some of the, the comments pertain

to just spelling out acronyms

as you know, we're, we're used to that.

So I appreciate the

feedback when we get that.

No real substantive changes,

I will know there was some

questions with regards

to some edits to the citizens petition

and we are precluded from

changing anything within that.

So, and just as such, the premise is that

because a hundred citizens sign this

to make any modification would

necessitate approval from

those citizens.

So there was one particular notation

that the special,

the language could be

clarified in the motion

because it, it just happens

to reference an October

special town meeting

rather than our date is November 3rd.

So that can be corrected

in the motion from the

citizen preparing this.

I did take a couple, there

was a couple questions

that the board had on

some of the language.

I can reach out to the proponent

or certainly invite the,

the proponent if the board

would choose that, but

otherwise we'd be seeking the

board's approval as amended.

I should note this has been reviewed

and approved by town council

and happy to incorporate

any further edits.

- Thank you. Megan, does anybody have

any additional comments?

Edits,

- It's just for the public,

which we will post this once

it's signed off by the board

and the constable and the town clerk.

It has 13 articles

and we are hopeful that this could be

completed in two nights.

- Yes, please.

- So I'll make a motion to approve the,

the warrant for special

time meeting as amended.

- Second.

- All in favor? Aye. Aye.

- Megan, do you want us to sign this now?

Shall I pass it around? Okay,

- Thank you.

- Okay. Also with us tonight

is town clerk Casey Cato,

who is joining us to give

an overview of Ali's law.

Hi Casey. Hello. Thanks for being here.

- So I have a question for you, Megan,

does the screen come down or no?

It'll, okay. Okay.

- I've never presented it in this room, so

- Yeah, yeah.

Connector. Do you wanna start?

- Sure. I will start, and I

actually, I have hard copies

for you if you'd like that

- Because the,

- The fonts are little and

all that kind of stuff.

- A copy of the bylaws.

- And this is a revised bylaw that I

- Sent

- Two nights ago just,

or last night Actually I, yep.

Okay. Hello? Just pick up.

Okay. It's been a while.

I'm Casey Cato. I'm the town clerk.

I am here to discuss the

changes to the bylaw 47,

which is around animal control officer.

And specifically what we're

trying to do here is incorporate

what is now Ali's law.

It's called Ali's Law, which was an act

to increase kennel safety.

And it came about because

Ollie was a very beloved dog,

was in the care of a kennel

and ended up getting mauled

and then eventually

passed from the injuries.

And so in September, 2024,

the governor signed Ali's law into effect

and the, they have done a lot

of work at the state level

to really make sure we

understood what the law was

and to encourage us to

start implementing it.

And actually we started

implementing it right away

as was required.

But please note that the

regulations are still pending.

So some of the details we'll continue

to be getting throughout

whenever they get to that.

Oh, the connector.

- Miss Gloria.

One sec.

- Okay. I know I have

to show the pictures.

- Yeah,

- So Marjorie, while we're waiting,

could Casey give us some context about

how many kennels we have?

- Sure. And I can do that

as we go through this,

but we actually only have five kennels.

So we're not that big a town.

We have 3,400 dogs, we

have five kennels. 34, yes.

Plus or minus, but, so we have 3,400

that are licensed this year.

And that's been pretty

consistent in the last few years.

I think they, it went up during COVID,

so I think many people were home alone

and wanted some friendship.

So, but anyway, so we have 3,400 dogs.

We currently have five kennels.

So it's, the Ali's law is

not a big part of our work

nor the animal control,

but we absolutely need

to incorporate it into the bylaws.

So as I mentioned, most towns are actually

starting to do that at this point.

The next slide. So here's the law,

it went into effect actually the, we had

to have all the kennels

inspected by June 1st.

Fortunately we only had five

and our Jenny Smith who

can't be with us tonight

because she's actually homesick,

but inspected them all.

So, and the law really was

requiring businesses offering

boarding daycare or training services

to obtain a kennel license

and maintain records of

the individual licenses

of dogs in their care.

So, and actually what we're

seeing is that's been great

because if somebody wants to

drop off their dog at a daycare

or a border, the border is requiring now

that they have a license

and proof of a license.

And so we are getting a bunch

of dogs getting license,

who we were either we didn't know about,

or they may have been a

little more delinquent about

licensing their dog.

So now they, so often

before vacations we hear from

people, I need to license my dog.

We're like, oh, okay. Also homes

with more than four dogs have

to obtain a kennel license.

And so this is, they

are now differentiating

between personal kennels

and commercial kennels.

Or actually we are, the state is not,

but now we are, the

personal kennels will have,

let's say five or more dogs.

We will give them a kennel license,

which requires an inspection,

but they'll still, we'll

give them a tag for each

of their dogs so that if

one of the dogs gets loose,

then we can track it.

The other thing is that

we're tracking the rabies

and that is a lot of why we license is

because it's a pub public health issue.

The other reasons for the law is

that it's requiring breeders

and foster homes to have kennel licenses.

If it's a shelter or a rescue

or a nonprofit, the fee is waived.

And then individuals

offering home boarding

and daycare services,

and this is the area that

is a more challenging for us

to find, as well as the state has not

provided a lot of guidance on this.

There are these new online dog care apps

and they're supposed to get a license,

but it is hard to find them.

So I had a more tech

savvy person than myself

who was in our office for a while

and she actually signed up for the app

and was trying to find who

the dog caregivers were.

And they don't tell you until

after you book an appointment.

So you know, so trying to

find where they're located

and where they're located here,

because they may be

supporting Wellesley owners,

but they may not be right

in the Wellesley limits.

But we, we'll continue to look for them.

And then vets to get kennel

licenses if they're boarding

beyond medical necessity.

So oftentimes they'll board a dog

because it's medically necessary,

but then sometimes

they'll board a dog beyond

that on the license.

It'll list the number of

kennels, number of dogs allowed

per the A CO inspection.

And then also what they've done is

they've increased the fines.

So if you don't have the license

the, for the first offense,

it's $500 and sub

penalties are the li the fine goes up.

And then also the kennels are

supposed to report injuries

to the licensing authority,

which would be myself and then the state.

And so when the, we have a whole official

kennel injury reporting form that we use

and we're supposed to keep track of that.

Fortunately we haven't seen any of those.

Let's see, next page.

- Casey, can I ask you, what's

- The typical

- Lag time be between the

issuing of a first defense

and a second check?

- So that, that is not necessarily defined

and it depends on the severity

of the issue as well as

if they're, if people are working

on a plan, so for example,

and the, you know, the state

walked us through some of this,

it, it's up to municipality and the A CO.

So there's a little discretion on it

because if it's a,

let's say the air conditioning

unit isn't working great,

but it's springtime, so they

may have a little bit more time

to address

that versus if the dogs

are really being taken care

of poorly, then the amount of

time you might give somebody

to fix that before you shut

them down might be shorter

and you may be doing follow

ups much more frequently.

Got it, thank you. So the second piece

that we're adding into the bylaw

is actually chapter one 40,

section 1 74 F, which

has actually been around

for a little bit, but we

hadn't addressed it before.

So this is a good opportunity

to clean some things up.

We found out we didn't

have it in the bylaw,

and this is really around

confinement of animal.

So a dog is found in a closed car

and it's 90 degrees out, it's

a hundred degrees in the car,

a police officer

or a firefighters can

actually break into the car.

So it gives them license to that

and it has this whole

protocol on what you can,

what you can or should do.

Now I do know that there are, in some

of the electric vehicles,

they can keep it on, right?

So, but they have like a little message

that shows up on their window

that says it's cool inside

or I don't know exactly the wording of it.

So these are the proposed changes

and so it's 47, which is around

animal control regulations.

And we are expanding

some of the definitions

to go all the way to one 70 4G.

It was at 1 74 E, which includes both the

Ali's law pieces as well as the

Regulation of the inside A vehicle 47 B

and D are really around kennel licenses.

Those were pieces that

were in the original bylaw

around kennels and we're

actually making a new section

47 point F.

So we've differentiated the

individual dogs versus kennels

and that allows a little more clarity.

I had some feedback from an

interested advisory member

who said, you know, it was

starting to make it more, it,

it would make it easier to

understand by splitting 'em up.

So that was split up.

And so there's a new section

on the kennel section

and then around the violations.

So, and the other piece is that in,

so it increases a fourth offense.

So for, and that's just for

individual dog owners as well.

So if you, if your dog's been,

if you've been without the

rabies for you know, year

after year after year

or un licensing, it allows

us to increase the fine

And then the proposed changes

to the, so the, to correspond

with this is that we have

on the, under the section

of bylaw article 52,

which is around the fines.

And so we outline the

different fines for that

as well for kennels.

So if there's no license,

that fine with them be

is outlined more than allowed

dogs is also for a fine.

And then the, the process

which actually has been

incorporated as well is the

hearing process for citizens

to petition for an investigation.

So if there's excess barking

ance poor conditions,

there's a whole outline of how many days

before, you know, if once a

complaint comes in we have

to give notice of a

public hearing, we have

to have a public hearing

within 14 days after notice.

And then there's an investigation

during that time as well.

So that is it on the pieces.

As a Beth asked, we actually

have five kennels in town,

three of them are commercial kennels

and two are personal kennels.

So we don't have many.

And let's see, they've all been inspected,

they all did very well.

And the inspection is

just a one page sheet

where Jenny Smith goes in

and she checks whether the

dogs are being treated well,

are they able to have room to roam around

temperature, sanitation is

taken into consideration,

lighting, food access to clean food

and fresh water, then exercise space.

Great. So that is it on the dogs.

And then I hand out the bylaw

changes the redline version,

which I have has been reviewed

and revised with the help of town council.

- Great, thank you very much.

Does anybody have any further questions?

- Thank you Casey. I had two questions.

One is since the fines are

in our bylaws, they're harder

to update and I noticed we'd updated

three of the kennel sizes,

but not the smallest one

and each one looks like

it went up by about $50.

So I was wondering why we didn't

increase the smallest kennel

fee also by $50, right?

Because I'm assuming it's like

based on the time it takes

to visit or do something.

So it seems to me we,

even though it sounds

like we're gonna have

to reopen this again,

we might as well do all

of the fees at once.

- And so that's a great question and you

and I discussed it earlier

and yes,

it does require more time

from the a CO than it did

previously because we weren't doing,

actually we were doing inspections,

but not at the same level for

anything that was a kennel.

How we determined the, the fee

for the licensing versus

the fines was that

if you were an individual, you owned a dog

and let's say it's spayed

or neutered, it's $15

a dog, it's a license.

And so the thought here was

that it, you know, five dogs

that would be $75.

And so, and most of the small

kennels are personal kennels.

So they, they owned

five dogs, so that kind

of pushed them over the edge.

And so what we didn't wanna do

was if, if that was the group

that was, you know, they were

owning the dog for themselves,

not for commercial gain,

but absolutely open to it.

And the other thing that

actually you bring up an

interesting point because

our fees are in our bylaws,

anytime we wanna make

a change, it has to go

to town meeting, it's a

sole process, it has to go

to the ags office as

well afterwards, maybe be

before my time we had all

the fees were separate,

they were a select board vote

and I believe probably around

2018 when I first started,

they were started to be

brought into the bylaw.

It doesn't have to be that

way, it's just a town choice.

And so if we were to take them out,

which actually in talking to town council,

we may wanna consider that

because it gives us

more flexibility because

otherwise we, we tend not

to address fees, right?

I mean we've, we addressed the,

probably about three

years ago, four years ago,

we increased the fee for the dog,

just regular license went from 12 to 15

and it hadn't been changed

in probably 20 years.

So it had been a long time

and things, simple things

like just how we process it

and the time it requires

for us to do the work on it

as well as we used to take a lot of cash

and from, from a change perspective,

that was making it a challenge as well.

But it wasn't just about the change,

but it was about the cost to

support the program went up

and the revenue, the

thought behind the revenue

that we take in on both dog licensing

and the fines is really

to support the animal control officer.

- Thank you. So the,

the small kennels are really

individuals that have four dogs

that live in their home or

or five dogs that live in their home?

- Well, well one of, one

of 'em does that We only

of does, we have one

that's at five. Right.

- Well thank you for

answering my question.

The other is, and I'm sure

the attorneys at the table

understand this, but I

don't the first offense

and then the second offense doesn't have

to be linked to the first offense.

You could have bad air conditioning

and then you could not feed the dog

or they, they don't have,

it's not a scale on the

same offense, it's numbers

of times you do something not

appropriate. Is that right?

- You know, I would have to check on check

with the animal control officer.

We tend not to,

I think it depends on the

severity of the fence and the type

and the type of offense. Yeah, it's

- Just not defined in here.

Right? So I assume it's discretionary.

Either it's you did three different things

so you're at a third offense

or you did the same thing three times.

That's that's how I read it.

- Right. And it's

something we, I can go back

on as well as check with

the state in terms of

what their thought is on as

they develop their regulations.

- Just for clarity, I don't own

a dog. I don't kennel a dog.

I don't intend to own a dog.

- Anything else? Thank you

very much Casey. Appreciate it.

Okay, our next agenda

item is appointments.

And the first set

of appointments we will

take up is the Council

on Aging appointments.

I'm gonna make some preliminary comments

and then I'm gonna turn

it over to Colette.

The select board approved

a policy on appointments in

March, 2024.

It is currently being reviewed

in the policy subcommittee

for unrelated matters,

but the rest of the

policy itself is clear.

The purpose of the appointments policy is

to clarify the appointment

process to be followed

by the select board for all

appointments to town boards.

Within that policy it says the following,

the select board will

prioritize candidates

who offer specialized skills, knowledge

or experience that will be

helpful to the work of that board

or committee in order

to reflect a true cross

section of the community.

The select board will seek

to appoint members from

diverse backgrounds

and fields of expertise whenever possible.

The board supports broad

community engagement

and seeks to avoid conflicts of interest.

So we endeavor to appoint

candidates not currently serving

on other boards except

where there is deemed

to be a synergistic value

to simultaneous service

in all appointments.

The select board will

avoid political patronage

by judging all candidates

on merit experience

and qualifications only.

And we typically endeavor

to make those appointments in June.

The policy also states that

the appointments will be made

by the majority vote of the board unless

otherwise provided by law.

The Council on Aging has been

through several changes in

staff leadership over the past

eight years and given the turnover,

the board considered very

carefully how we wanted

to approach the appointment process.

We had a detailed discussion

about the upcoming vacancies on

the board at our May 6th meeting.

And recognizing the ongoing

nature of departmental

and organizational audits

and reviews then underway anticipated

that those results could

potentially inform the necessary

skillset and expertise

required by ideal candidates.

In that end, the consultant's

report in the end,

the consultant's reports did

not yield probative information

on skillset requirements

for our appointments.

The board, however,

considers the appointments

to the COA at this time

to be critical ones

to bolster the board's

ability to move the council

and its numerous objectives forward.

The board also decided

at the May 6th meeting

to follow our current policy

on appointed board interview

processes, which was to have

Colette, the then current chair

and myself represent the board.

In the interviews, Colette told our board

that the COA chair was amenable

to that approach and Colette

and I, or both of us, Colette or I

or both of us participated

in every interview.

Our appointment policy also states

that the underlying board chair

will seek feedback from the

select board chair and the

liaison on those appointments

as the board evaluates the

CO a's recommendations.

There were criteria that were gleaned from

that May 6th meeting and Colette

and my discussions with

other select board members

that we determined to be important

to our board in which we

shared with the COA leadership

for their interviewing process.

Those included previous experience serving

and sharing boards, implementing

strategic plans, distilling

and prioritizing for implementation

and being well-versed in execution.

Good communicator and listener invested

and knows the COA staff

and patrons experience supervising staff,

Wellesley Town government experience

and perhaps experience in the

service or catering industry.

The COA process was that the chair

and vice chair set their

criteria for candidates

and actually did not include one

of our most important

skillset requirements,

which was leadership

experience in town government.

They interviewed all

candidates who responded

to inquiries from the COA chair

and who submitted applications

and everybody was asked the same questions

In the COA meeting last week

when the board voted on the

chair's recommendations,

the board did not hear the

qualifications of those

who had interviewed whom

they did not recommend.

And the board did not receive all

of the applicant's resumes.

The COA did not chair with the board

that the select board felt

very strongly about town

government leadership experience.

Colette requested that the COA chair

and vice chair meet with her

and me prior to the

board meeting last week

so we could discuss our personal

views on the applicant's

and interviews which

invitation was declined.

The COH here indicated that she preferred

to present the recommendations

to her board first.

Thus Colette and I did

not have the opportunity

to share our feedback or recommendations

or to reiterate the criteria which we

felt were most important.

Colette again asked the chair

this morning to speak with her

so that our discussion

this evening would not

come as a surprise.

And again, the request was denied.

Thus, our only opportunity

to discuss our reactions

to the interviews, the skill sets

and experience that we believe are key

to strengthening the matter

in which the COA board acts

within the structure of Wellesley

Town Government to comply

with open meeting law is to

discuss it now in open session.

One of our ongoing concerns in working

with the COA board leadership

over the past year is

that the board did not seem

open despite repeated requests,

suggestions, feedback,

and consultants reports to consider

how it might help itself be

stronger in the wel Wellesley

decentralized system,

which requires detailed budget

presentations with metrics

to support f fiscal year

budget requests, collaboration

with the finance department,

HR department, select board,

select board office, and presentations

to the advisory committee.

It is also important to remember

that is the select board

that has the responsibility

to prevent the co present the

COA budget to town meeting.

So now I'm gonna turn it over to Colette.

- So thank you Marjorie.

So from sitting in on the interviews

and reading the

applications and biographies

and hearing from our board and

and May 6th as well as what

the Council on Aging chair

stated as their needs

that are certainly very well

qualified candidates, I feel

that the slate put forward

by the Council on Aging has

some real strengths in hiring

leadership positions,

strategic plan implementations,

experience serving

and cheering on boards, knowledge

of patrons and communications.

But as Marjorie mentioned,

there is one significant gap

and that does not meet the needs

that the board outlined in

our discussion in May in terms

of having depth of town

government experience

thinking forward about

what the biggest priorities

and responsibilities the COA board are.

We see them as hiring a new

executive director, healing

as a workplace community building

and an effective long-term director

and board relationship

completing the needs assessment

and developing a strategic

plan based on that.

And the goals of becoming

an age-friendly community

and advocating for whatever

the council agings needs might

be from all of the above priorities

and responsibilities, a depth of knowledge

and experience in town

government is essential.

And there was a candidate

with decades of experience

as a town meeting member

experience on multiple town

committees and boards

experience establishing

and implementing multiple strategic plans

experience in the establishment

of the Town Tolls Parsons Center.

And I feel that it's critical

that the Council on Aging Board

has access to that skillset

and experience and would suggest adding

Barbara s as an appointee.

I think the board can

see from the applications

and the bios received

that there are instances

where the portfolios

or the experience of some

of the members are similar

and if the board is, is willing to hear,

I can make some recommendations

on what I might feel

based on our interviews

and experience were, I would

recommend that the, the,

the experience and the

portfolio of Margaret Line

and Joyce Waddington are have

somewhat similar experience

and profiles and we could

make an amendment there

and if so, I would recommend nominating

Margaret Line given her

extensive experience in strategic

plan implementation and executive hiring.

Alternatively, we could defer on Mr.

Horn's application as he mostly

brings a strong connection

to Council on Aging patrons

with his nomination.

Something that is quite well

represented on the current board.

I would recommend keeping Tim Fullham.

So the entire recommended slate

that I would recommend is

Tim Fullham, Barbara Srel,

either Margaret Line and Joyce

Waddington or Margaret Line.

And, and Mr. Horan, I do feel

important to sort of note

that the nominations, I felt

that the nominations missed

an opportunity to connect

with the housing authority patrons

by not nominating an applicant

with a strong connection there.

And we should consider that

as a focus area in next

year's nomination process.

So Marjorie,

- Thank you.

Other board member comments? Beth?

- I think we should hear from

the Council on Aging Board

because I did watch their meeting.

My understanding is that

they followed our policy.

They, they laid out a very

clear set of criteria,

I do believe on their criteria

was government experience.

At least that's what it says in the memo.

And I think that as I look out,

we have 2, 4, 6, 7 members

of the board, which is,

I think we should hear from

them. I'm not familiar,

- I'm not just taking board comments at

- The moment.

I'm not Okay. I I was very

impressed with the slate

of candidates that were

put forward before us.

I thought the depth of

strategic planning, experience,

nonprofit experience, experience

with seniors in our town

was stellar.

And I, I, having been involved

with the Council on Aging for many years,

thought this was one of

the most robust lists

of applicants and I thought

that they did an excellent job.

I thought that the concept of

that we had spoken

about in great detail of

widening our reach in the community

and not double dipping on

individuals they adhered to.

So that there were members

on here that certainly done

yeoman's work in this town

and continue to serve.

And I I believe Colette

among those are the

individual you expressed

to currently serves at our request on a

meaningful board to the town

and as does the other

individual you mentioned.

So I think in terms of

getting new people engaged

and involved, this slate is outstanding

and I was really thrilled with it.

- I just wanna clarify

what my understanding is.

Actually, I'm gonna ask you

to clarify what you mean

by double dipping and

serving on another board.

Yes. So with with the

recommendations Colette made.

- Yeah, so Colette

mentioned two individuals

and I believe both

of those individuals

currently serve the town

one on an elected board

and the other is appointed by our board

to serve on a board in

a financial capacity.

- Well one is our representative

to the Norfolk County

- Appointment,

- Right?

Yes. But as I say

before, the synergistic opportunities

of somebody's experience

should not disqualify them.

And I was not here when

the appointment policy was

reapproved last year.

Well, when it was being worked on,

I was here when it was approved,

but my understanding was that

that was explicitly put in to

safeguard a candidate who offered

very important qualifications.

- So before you follow up

Colette, I would just like to say

that I believe it was in situations like

the, we mentioned specifically

the Climate Action Committee

where that is a seat designated

by board participation

to have a member sit in.

So it's, it was seats where

there was a requirement

that you serve on another board

because of the observed

synergy between the two.

And I don't, I actually, I I

feel this is really awkward

because all of the candidates are strong

and so I think we've set up a process that

defers the selection

to the, what do we call it?

The appointed board,

unless there is an egregious

flaw, in which case we, Beth,

- I'm sorry, I don't agree with that.

Okay, that's okay. We do

not defer an appointment.

We take recommendations from

the chair for appointment.

They are our appointments. I agree

- With you,

- This is a critical appointment.

And I also wanna say we have not asked any

of the candidates whether

they might be willing

to step aside from their current role

to alleviate your concern.

But I reiterate one of our

very strong expressions

of experience

for a new candidate was extensive town

government experience.

And there is a candidate,

and I will say very candidly,

the candidate had had a

negative experience at the COA

and I'm not sure whether

that weighed heavily

against her choice,

but I believe that any board

in a learning position might

take that into account

and consider that she

now wants to come back

and work on the board and help

things heal among the board

and the staff and the patrons.

So I just have

to make those distinctions in

your comments. I'm sorry, Colette.

- Margie, could I ask a process question?

So when you and Colette

participated in the interviews,

were the interviews in person?

- Some were, some were on Zoom.

- And was there any discussion

after the interactions

with the candidates about

takeaways on the candidates?

Or was there any feedback

to the board about thoughts

on the different candidates?

Or is this kind of, it was

being held till the end?

- My understanding is that

the recommendations were made

after all interviews were completed. The

- Recommendations were made after all

the interviews were done.

And I just wanna clarify two points.

None of the candidates

really have extensive

time government experience.

We have one candidate who has served three

and a half years as a time meeting member.

That's not what we were looking

for in town government experience.

And that is not my understanding

of the synergistic,

you know, nature of what

we were talking about.

There are some members who

serve on different commissions

that are very complimentary

and you know that that

discussion at the time was all

centered around the

historical commission, not

around climate action.

- Other comments, Kenny?

- Sure. So our policy reads

the evaluation and recommendation

will be quote strongly

considered by the board, along

with other factors

described in this policy.

We had a discussion about

the appointments policy a few

months ago and I said we

should take out strongly

because we are the appointing board

and ultimately it's our

decision that's the way it goes.

And I was, people did not agree in

general with that comment.

And the point was, this is a,

the underlying board is the ones

that are really the experts here.

And if they come with a

recommendation, it's strong,

we should give that significant weight.

And so we're at a position now.

So I sort of lost out on,

on that everybody else,

or at least three people,

didn't think my position was correct.

So now we're at the point

where these are the words in our policy

and I'm looking at it

and I'm thinking, okay,

we're gonna strongly, we're going

to give strong consideration

to the underlying board's recommendations.

So I looked to the process

was the process thorough,

and from everything I understood

from talking to people

and hearing what you're saying,

we had two board members

who are part of the process.

It, we came up with

seven great candidates.

As Beth said, every one

of these people is very

qualified to do that.

And so I will give great

deference to the underlying board

because I think the process was thorough.

Their rationale for recommending

these people are, are great.

The, the people. I do think

town government experience is

important, but I also

think it's very important

to start allowing other people

to be on these boards so that

different perspectives are heard.

It's not just the same

people over and over again.

So I think the government

experience is important,

but I think that's also

outweighed by the fact

that we really need new

people involved in the town.

And while there's seven, seven members

continue on the board, that is significant

government experience to me.

I I take what you're saying,

this one candidate has

a a an enormous amount of

town government experience,

but there are people with

government experience on this.

So I, I think we should be

giving strong consideration

to the recommendations put

in front of us by the COA.

- Nothing that either Colette

or I has said should suggest

that we're not giving

strong consideration.

We were both very clear in

everything we said about

what we discussed, what we suggested

to the Council on Aging, our attempts

to discuss the appointments with them,

and they're declining those invitations.

This being our only

opportunity to discuss it.

And I will say

that serving on a board in

Wellesley in our decentralized

structure is a very difficult balance

because it's a policy

board, it's not operations.

And if you read the consultants

reports, there's a lot

of discussion about policy and operations.

And I personally feel that

somebody who has served on

and chaired both advisory

and the select board understands

that role very, very clearly.

And it's not recirculating a lot

of people over and over and over.

It's one member out of 11.

And we felt Colette,

and I, correct me if I'm wrong,

that all the other criteria

that the COA laid out were

covered by either current

or other proposed candidates.

Tom,

- I do wanna make clear that

I have a great deal of respect

for the process that the

COA board has gone through

to arrive at the candidates

that have been proposed.

And I also understand, Kenny,

the points you're making

and I think it is important

to reflect on the process

and the commitment we've made

to a process for appointments.

But I also know it, it just happens

that when I came on the board,

I took over the role from Barbara Sorel

of being the proponents

representative for the completion

of the Tolls Parson Center.

And I had a wonderful

opportunity to serve for a year

as the liaison to the Council on Aging.

And I'm old enough to be a member.

So I, it matters to me the services

provided by the COA, it matters

to me that people of an age

and in that category

who benefit from the COA

have a strong organization

both in terms of,

of the remarkable growth

that we've had an entry into

our own facility for seniors.

And you just have to walk

in there on a given day

and see what a difference

it makes in a lot

of people's lives,

connecting people socially

and giving them back things

that might be missing in

their life in any of our lives

as we, as we age.

But I I do find that in order to preserve

that, that the Council on Aging

is at a critical inflection

point and it, it doesn't

matter exactly why we got here.

What does matter is that I

think we need to put forward

a face that is where, where,

where change is what's happening

within the organization

and its leadership so that we

can point to that commitment

in hiring a new director.

And I think that a new

director that candidates,

it's a small world, it doesn't

take a lot to understand

that there have been problems

and you know, the definition of

what the problems were

has a habit in this world

of being self-serving.

So you have past directors who

want to have been successful,

weren't for whatever reason,

which doesn't really matter anymore,

but it's never their fault.

And you, you don't know

what the conversations are

that are taking place.

So I think in order to really

be able to achieve a level

of equilibrium

that will let the Council on

Aging going forward, the kind

of skills that Barbara brings

to a board knowing her

well are really important.

And that doesn't reflect

poorly on the recommendation

that the Council on Aging

Board has put forward.

It doesn't diminish Beth's comments about

her perspective on the qualifications

and the individuals who

participated and were selected.

It's simply saying that

as I reflect back on

the last several years

and our efforts to work

with the Council on Aging

and with the management staff

to prepare for advisory,

to prepare for town meeting to change

how they were approaching the budget

to understand the different,

more complex elements

within the budget, that's

where we were having problems.

And I know that this board

in its recent past leadership

has had an emphasis on

policies and procedures

and we need to finish that work.

So I I think that the kind of leadership

that a slate that includes

Barbara would bring

to the Council on Aging

would bring to the process

of hiring the new executive

director really has value.

And I would certainly

hope there are positions

that are open a year from now that anyone

who wasn't successful, that is one

of the excellent candidates comes back.

And I, I I think it, it's

entirely possible for us to,

to talk with any of the individuals

who weren't appointed about that.

It had nothing to do with them.

It was about the people who were chosen

and what the perception

was about what added value

to the mission of the COA going forward

at this point in time.

So you, you know, I believe

that Barbara would be

an important addition to

that board at at this time.

I think she'd add a lot of value

and I think it's my understanding

that she's enthusiastic

about the opportunity.

So

- I just wanna clarify something

and I I, I watched our May

6th meeting several times

and actually twice today

in preparation for this,

we did have that

conversation about strongly.

And, and what what I recall

from that was, you know,

we talked about we have a

number of boards that we appoint

and some of them are very

kinda straightforward.

And so when it's, and I I used the example

of historical commission,

they're very technical boards,

so sometimes they want an architect

or they want a, you know, a lawyer

or they want a landscape architect.

And I said specifically in those cases,

we do take the

recommendations very strongly,

but there are some situations,

the Council on Aging being

one where we want might

to interject ourselves

much more into the process.

And that was the entire point

of that discussion was to say

to the board, how do we want

to interject ourself in this process

because I believed that we

needed to more strongly.

And so that is, that is certainly

where I was coming from there.

But what what I find is

missing here is that we said

what our priorities were

and one of them is entirely missing.

And so we need to correct

that in this process.

I would say that the

Council in Aging has had a,

has been in crisis and this

is our chance to make sure

that they have what

they need to go forward.

And so I feel really strongly

that we have to give them

a seasoned town government

experienced board experienced,

knows how to talk to advisory, knows how

to present something at town meeting

because they're, we are

trying to think about

how are they serving the community

and they, if they're going to

advance their goals, they need

that to help serve their community.

That's where I'm coming from with that.

It's not, it's not discounting the work

that the council has done

or the recommendations,

but it's honoring what we think

and in a moment of crisis they need.

- So if there are no more

board comments now I'd like

to invite Judy, Judy Gertler

and Peter grape chair

and vice chair if you'd

like to make some comments.

I'm sorry, pat, you wanna

come to the table? Sure.

- Okay. I had prepared some remarks

that now that would be redundant

with some of the things

that you said about the process.

So I'm gonna just try

and skip through here.

You ha have a, a, a memo

for me and I think Marjorie

and Colette have rehashed

what the process was.

So I'm gonna skip that, but

I wanna make a few points.

You've already mentioned that

the COA will be facing some

challenges in the coming year

specifically, we'll be looking

for a new director and we'll

be developing a strategic plan.

So basically as you've said,

we need individuals with skills

to contribute to these

two challenges in addition

to the other functions

that, that the board has.

You've already mentioned that Marjorie

and Colette attended the

interviews along with me

and representatives of the board members.

I do wanna correct something

you said that you offered

to meet with us to discuss

the, the candidates.

I, I may have misunderstood something,

but when Colette met with Peter

and me last week, she

asked if we would discuss

where we were with our recommendations.

And my response was that I felt

that I needed to discuss it

with our board first.

They hadn't seen the recommendations yet.

And before we had our board

meeting last Thursday,

I did circulate the resumes for everyone

that we had interviewed.

So the, the, the board knew

who the other candidates were,

but we chose to focus

because it was a public meeting, we chose

to focus on the people

that we were recommending.

We didn't wanna get into any discussion

of why we did not pick other people.

Okay. My memo

to you included the 11 evaluation criteria

that drove the interview questions

and is the basis for the recommendations.

I wanna emphasize that a key factor was

identifying individuals

who had demonstrated an interest

in the over 60 population

in Wellesley and expressed

an interest in moving

the COA forward.

We want people on our

board who are not critical

of past actions,

but who see them as experience

on which we can move forward.

We also paid particular attention

to the candidate's demeanor and attitude.

When speaking about the COA

organization, we were looking

for people again who saw

the glasses half full,

not half empty, that we

had experience that we had

to build on a second tier of factors

included experience with government

or nonprofit budgeting,

candidate search and evaluation

and some knowledge of

Wellesley Town government.

We did not have the same intense

requirement that you seem

to have in terms of someone

with a real depth of

Wellesley's government.

We just did not see that,

see that that was as,

as driving a factor as

as you, as you perceive.

We were also mindful

of the select board's

appointments policy, which strives

to avoid appointing an individual

to more than one board of commission.

You, you talked about the

process that we went through and,

and the, the meeting that

we had had last week.

So I'm not gonna go into that again.

As you know, we had a

meeting last Thursday,

there were nine of us that

were able to participate

and the board voted unanimously

to recommend four individuals,

Timothy Fullham, Bernard Ham,

Margaret Line, and Joyce Waddington.

We've given, given considerable time

and thought to our recommendation.

So we were hoping that

you would agree with us

regarding the candidates

who are most suitable

to fill the four open board positions.

We believe that these four

individuals will bring new ideas

and energy to our board.

Peter, did you wanna add something? Yeah,

- Just a couple of comments

and mostly ex extemporaneously.

I look, I'm, I'm pretty good.

I I actually pronounced

that word. Alright.

I think we worked very hard at this.

I I think we all were very diligent.

I think we looked at all the criteria

including town experience.

I guess I would agree with

Judy is that we weren't as,

as understanding that this

was the most important thing

of all the criteria that were,

and I don't think that was,

that was told to us that

that was, that, that the

select board felt that that was

critical of, of our selection.

I think we looked at all the

candidates very, very carefully

and I think we did a good, a good job.

I think we did a, a good due diligence.

We felt the candidates

best met the criteria,

the ones that we've mentioned.

And I guess we're gonna

be disappointed if we feel

that the board is not going to,

not going to agree with our,

our, our slate of candidates.

So I still hope and,

and feel that, that I'm hoping that you'll

reconsider your, your

obvious concern about our,

our four and thank you.

- Anything else?

- Well, at this point,

does it make sense to

have the board explain

to us the specific strengths of each

of the re individuals

they're recommending?

Because I believe there is extensive

experience leading organizations

and if we're talking about

organizational structure

leadership, I believe that we

owe the work of the COA board to be

laid out fully before we vote.

- That's fine, Judy.

- Well, I'm just saying that

because I, I'm gonna guess

that most of us don't know all

of these individuals

that we're talking about

and so I think it would

be helpful for us to

get a little color behind them.

- Okay. We felt

that Tim Fullham,

- I I'm sorry, I just wanted to interrupt.

We've been given, I, I'm happy

to have you go through it

and to share your thinking,

but I want to be clear,

this board has been

provided with extensive

biographies along with Ms.

Tlers memo and,

and in preparing for the meeting,

I don't think there's any lack

of information that we've had.

We are not taking our

responsibility lightly

or making a suggestion

about another individual

without due regard for the information

that we've been provided about the others.

So I just want be clear that,

that we have been given a lot

of information and I think it's important

to give you an opportunity

to share it with us.

But in preparing for this

meeting, we've had all

of the information that you've had.

- Beth, do you want me to go ahead

or I, I, it's, it's your choice, Judy.

I I I'm just gonna say for me,

I did not think town

government experience was the,

a number one most important thing

for the Council on Aging Board.

I believe the strength

that the board has shown in

building community and that

the programming the community

and they are growing in leadership.

We have a entirely new leadership group

and I look at a former executive director,

a long-term volunteer at the COA

leading Wellesley neighbors

leading, serving on the board

of nonprofit boards.

I, I don't know what more we

want in terms of leadership

and new thinking and new

faces and new experiences.

So I I,

I don't think I understand the

criteria by which we're doing

ads and drops on this list given the, the,

the slate that they recommended to us.

But I will acknowledge

this is highly unusual

as a appointment experience.

I don't think I've ever had one like this,

I'm just gonna say I fully

support the slate put

before us as very strong.

And I believe from what I know

and what I've seen at the Council on Aging

and excellent recipes for future success.

- So I just, I wanna add a

little nuance to my comments

and respond to Beth.

We never said that town

government experience was the

only requirement.

We said it was important.

And the color that I will give

you to that is that Colette

and I had been working with

the previous leadership

for a year, and one thing

that came over, came up

again and again and again,

and was referenced in the

CSS reports was discussed

with the executive director

and the HR director multiple

times, was the crossover

and the distinction between a policy board

and staff operations.

That to me is very important

because Wellesley is an odd duck.

We are decentralized, we are the only

town in this commonwealth that

has an executive director.

And it is highly, it is very difficult

to straddle the line between being a board

and staying away from daily

operations and not leaning over.

I'm not saying whether

there was or there wasn't.

I'm just saying it came up

again and again and again,

and executive director of

a nonprofit and experience

and patronage at the TPC

undoubtedly are important,

but to navigate Wellesley's

weird structure,

in my opinion, requires something more.

So I'm not denigrating the

process, the candidates,

anything except that I

think that your board

will benefit from the

25 years of experience

that our recommended candidate has.

And in speaking with

her yesterday, we know

that she is very eager to

serve on the board with you

and to set you, help you

all move to a successful

completion of the

executive director search

and the strategic plan.

Colette.

- Yeah, I mean, I just want to

echo it's not, it's not that

that was the one and only,

but it's, it's missing.

It's one of our, one of our

require, one of our, the things

that we were searching for

and board members, and it's just missing.

We only have a time meeting

member with, you know,

just over three years of experience.

And I, I just don't think

that serves the constituency

that we're trying to serve

through the Council on Aging.

Well, there are, some of our

appointed boards have very

rigorous procedural work that they do.

This is an, a social arm of the government

that is touching the biggest

growing part of our population.

This is very important and

we want them to succeed.

And that's what this is about.

- Well, there's something more too.

I, I, you know, I see, and,

and I know that COA has been

talking about this when we've

been part of the conversations.

I think there's a rich future for the COA

and for the Tolls Parson Center.

I think we have the potential

with the new kitchen

for expanded social opportunities services

to the population.

I think we have a possibility

for expanded hours.

And as we explore whether

there's a demand for that,

I think all of that is going

because all of that's gonna

require an expanded budget.

It's gonna require careful

leadership in terms

of the staff at the COA.

It's gonna require an organization

that's going to have to

grow and have a skillset

in a particular direction

that is going to work well

within Wellesley government

and within any government that,

where departments are

fighting for resources limited

by the taxpayer's tolerance.

So I, I think that's the other

reason why I think Barbara

brings great value,

because I think she has a

keenly honed sense of what

that growth trajectory can look like

and what the existing

budget can tolerate in terms

of providing additional

services for the seniors

as an organization.

I want the COA to succeed.

I want the board to be successful.

And so I think, I think we all do,

and I think we have different

perspectives on that.

But I, I do think having

worked with Barbara

that she would add great

value to the, to the board.

- Peter, what I was going to say,

and I don't know how,

how, how impactful it is.

You know, Judy and I have agreed to meet

with Colette on a regular basis,

and I think that takes into

account a lot of the, the,

the concerns that you have

with respect to making sure

that we're following

the, the town guidelines

and the town making sure

we're concentrating on

policy and not on operations.

I understand your fears here, but I Yeah.

But, but I, I feel that our working

with Colette on a regular basis

and we've agreed to meet with her monthly

and tell her everything that we're doing

and what's going on is

sufficient to do that.

And I still feel strongly that

the other candidates would,

would supplement our, our

board in a better fashion.

So

- I appreciate you saying that Peter

and I value the time that

you and Judy spend with me.

But we talked recently about,

you know, you feeling that,

you know, there was a lot

of attention on the COA and,

and why, why, why were we spending

so much attention on the COA

and I think having a seasoned

board member on your board

would let that work happen

on your board rather than me

discussing it with leadership.

And then, and I'm relying

on you then to convey that

to your board on my behalf.

And I, I think, I think

that would really take

that discussion away from leadership

and liaison to the board level.

Where is, it's where it belongs.

All the discussions are, are,

and we talked about this, the board acts

as a board leadership

can help guide the board,

can help get the information ready,

can help frame the discussion.

But leadership is not

a board within a board

and these discussions are much better,

much healthier at the

Council on Aging board level.

And then the relationship

between the liaison at this leg board

and the Council on Aging can return

to a conduit of information.

That's really what the

liaison role is for.

I'm more than happy to spend

time supporting and guiding,

but I, I think it would be

much better for that guidance

to come from within your

own board with a seasoned,

a depth of time government

experience, which would bring

that to every, every discussion

to the 11 members of the board.

- Any other comments?

Anything else from COA board?

- I don't think so.

- Okay. Are we ready to, to vote?

- I just,

okay.

- So I would make a motion

to approve a slate of

candidates for the cancel

on aging consisting of

Timothy Fulham, Barbara s Margaret line,

and I, I did take, I'd

take some feedback on the,

from the board on the fourth nominee.

But let's, let's make those three nominees

and then talk about our fourth nominee.

- I agree with you Colette. I Joyce, what?

- Just a second for that.

Oh, and then we can have discussion.

So Tom, will you second that so

that we can have discussion? I apologize.

- Yeah. Second.

- Okay.

I agree with you that Joyce

and Margaret have similar experiences.

I think Margaret has a

little more experience

with the tolls Parson

Center and the COA patrons.

And for that reason I might add her

and include B Bernie,

who I believe brings a

slightly different perspective

and different experience to the board.

But we can talk about the three nominees

that Colette has made so far.

Yep. So we have a second.

Is there any further discussion?

Do you wanna make a fourth nomination?

- So I would nominate

Mr. Horan to add to that.

I, I agree with what you said.

There's very similar portfolios

and I would just encourage,

we had some great applicants

to continue to up to apply.

There are every year we make appointments.

- Can I ask a question before we vote?

Can, would it be better to

do it one by one so that

it's not an up and down on a slate?

It it, it looks like we're

picking people one by one.

So I think voting one by one

- Or do you wanna do a slate?

I can, we can take those

motions off the floor

and we could do the slate

as we've just discussed.

Or I mean, it's up to

the board if you want

to do one by one or a slate

- And we could do, I can tell

you the two that I will vote

for Tim

and Margaret, so I don't know

what everybody else feels about those.

We could take two at once. Well

- It's, it's a, either way

the result is the same, it's

- However you want

- It.

Right. So I'd prefer to

take it as a slate. So

- I'm go can be rescind the

motions I've made so far

and I'll make a motion to

approve the slate consisting

of Timothy Fulham,

Barbara sell Margaret Line

and Bernard Horan

- Second.

- Any further discussion?

All in favor? Aye. Aye. All

- I oppose it, but I would

vote for Margaret and Tim

- Also

- Oppose it.

- Okay. Thank you all very much.

We wish you success in

the coming years success

with your executive director.

We're excited to see the strategic plan

and the outcome of the UMass study.

We appreciate all the

time you've put into this.

I'm just scrolling down.

Our next appointment is

to the Kish panel and I

will turn that over to Beth.

Beth gave us background on

all of the candidates for

that committee.

I would just make one comment

and one recommendation.

Beth, the committee has

existed since the select board

appointed them first in 2005.

It would be great if we

could end this fiscal year

with a recommendation.

I know it's been really

hard and they've tried,

but if we could get a, any

decision on the disposition

of those wonderful panels, that

would be icing on the cake.

- So I guess the first thing is you'd have

to officially make me the liaison

to the Cabbage Panel

Committee to steward it.

They don't have a liaison,

so I've been pinch hitting

every time something comes up.

I think they would be overjoyed

to bring their period

of service to fruition.

I think part of what would be

most helpful to bringing that

to fruition would be

advocacy from this board.

That as we approach

major building projects

that we think about using

these pieces of artwork.

And we have built two schools

and not used any of the panels.

We have panels at the main

library inside and outside.

We have panels at the high school that

for design reasons, they

were not deemed appropriate

for Honeywell or Hardy.

We are about to embark on

projects with the Board

of Public Works and I do believe that

that would be important.

They have met with the

design review board,

I believe it was within the past year,

to educate them about the

presence of the panels they have

paid for themselves to

put together an inventory

of the panels in the order in which

they were designed.

There are obviously holes

because some of the, so I'm not an artist.

I would say some of the

more visually engaging ones

that have birds and things

on them have been selected

for other placement.

But, and some of the panels

were designed around grates

and so they're harder to home.

But they are all currently

living in the basement

of the Hills Branch Library.

I know the library trustees

would be also delighted

for these panels to find a

place where they can be enjoyed

by the community without

going to the basement.

So yes, I I think that would be good.

I don't know if it's realistic

by the end of the fiscal year

because we won't have a

building project fully designed

perhaps, but maybe

progress could be made on

other possible homes.

I I think that's a

reasonable bar to proceed on.

And I will definitely

discuss that with these

six stellar individuals or

five five stellar individuals.

- Well, thank you for, for

talking to PBC and DRB about it.

I honestly don't have a sense of where,

how the committee sees

the panels fitting in,

in a municipal architecture design.

So that would also help me.

But you're right, I mean maybe we consider

with future building

projects whether there's an

appropriate home for them. They

- Were the entire exterior

of the main branch library.

And I think if we look at what

was done at the high school

and what was done at the library,

there are very tasteful implementations.

And again, not an architect.

I don't think they necessarily

have to go in a building.

They are, they're made to be outside.

And so maybe I, I did speak

to some people about perhaps

they could have helped with the

light barriers and

things around the field,

you know, as a walking wall.

So I will work with them on other

implementation strategies.

- Thank you. Thank you

for clarifying that.

I know that they are intended

to be accessible to the public.

And by the way, you are

listed as the liaison on

- Yes.

Yeah. So I've been, so

thank you for your I've been working with

- Them. Yes. Thank you

for your And they have

- Extensive binders.

- Tom,

- I I had occasion, it seems

to me several years ago

to ask about these panels

and I, I appreciate what

you're saying, Beth,

but my understanding is that the panels

that are in use were cherry picked

as the most aesthetically pleasing.

Not all of the panels

are viewed as, as at,

as attractive as the ones

that have been used and

therefore may not from a

design perspective have a,

a home in a building project.

I think it's important to

look at these as an asset

that's convertible.

They, they have some artistic value.

So I, I think we have to,

as one of the options,

have a sense of what their

value is in the marketplace as,

as well while we explore

various ways to use them.

- So that's what I was

trying to say about some

of them have bugs and birds on them

and some of them have dots on them.

The committee might think more

of them are aesthetically pleasing than

some others might think.

But I will work with them on that.

- Thank you very much. So

could we have a motion please

for the appointment

- Move to appoint George

Roman, Tory DeFazio, Joe Shore

and Sylvia Han Griffith to

the Capish Panels committee

for a term to expire on June 30th, 2026.

Beth, do you want me to amend

Sylvia's last name? Yeah, I

- Was just

- Gonna say that please.

- S Sylvia Rich and did

you mention Robert Murphy?

- Robert Murphy.

- Okay.

So I'm gonna amend that

motion to have Sylvia Rich

and Robert Murphy added to that motion.

- Second.

- Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Thank you Beth. And please

thank the long serving members

of the panel committee.

Okay. We are now up to

the discussion and vote

and ratification of the

finance director contract.

So I'll turn it over to Megan

and I just wanna remind

everybody that this is

the hire that Megan is Megan,

she is prevent presenting

the contract to the board

for ratification,

but she has the authority

to make the hire.

- Thanks Marjorie. So we had

done a hiring process working with HR

and through

that process we conducted

interviews last week I gave a a

brief update to the board on Tuesday.

We conducted interview,

an interview on a leading

contender on Wednesday

and there was unanimous support

from the hiring committee

to move this forward to a contract.

And so I would be requesting

ratification of a contract

to hire Rachel Lopes de

Roach for a three year or

or slightly under three

year contract to go

through June 30th, 2028

at a salary of $183,000

with four weeks of vacation.

Just as a background for folks,

Rachel started her career

as an auditor.

She has both a, a bachelor

and master's degree,

bachelor's in accounting,

master's degree in

Business administration.

She then proceeded to

start to work for the town

and she continued to work

for the town of Wellesley for

just about 12 years through

various different departments,

finance and budget analyst.

She also was the retirement

board administrator,

then the assistant finance

director for seven years,

followed by being the treasurer collector.

So she, outside

of being the finance director

has assumed just about every

role leadership role in the,

in the finance department

for the town of Wellesley.

She then departed the town

as she moved across country

to Arizona and operated

in various capacities at

the city of Sedona as well

as now at a private consulting group.

We are in a fortunate position

that she is moving back

to Massachusetts and,

and so I would seek the board

verification of a contract

for Rachel Roach.

- Any questions or

comments? Motion please.

- Motion to approve the

contract with the finance

director as discussed in

executive session. Em demanded

- Second.

- All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

Megan, please extend to

Rachel our warm welcome back.

We're excited to see her

and thank her for taking this opportunity

to return to Wellesley.

Okay, our next item on the

agenda is administrative matters

and we will discuss and vote minutes.

We'll first take up two sets

of minutes from the June 3rd

and June 10th select board retreats

and I believe there's some,

- Oh, I think we missed

the executive director's

- Course.

Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah,

- And I was trying to share them.

- Hold on a moment. Sorry Megan.

We're now discussing the

executive director goals.

There you go.

- So on the screen for your review, our,

based upon the board's voted

work plan from last week,

some draft goals certainly, you know,

can feel free to edit these.

These essentially focus on

three tasks with subtasks.

Part of those one successfully

negotiate finalized union

contracts, which is inclusive

of the nine town contracts

that are all open for

subsequent for FY 27 and beyond.

The second goal being develop

and implement a comprehensive

capital planning process.

So that's been a deemed as a high priority

for the board this year,

working with Colette and Joe

and others to finance staff

facilities, DPW schools,

et cetera, to create a

comprehensive process.

And then we have a bunch of

what I would call catchall items

that I've tried to implement that

through the work plan would

become priorities including

working with the establishment

of a standing bylaw review committee

and setting up, working with

the board to establish that.

Oversee development of town

wide facilities, master plan,

also part of the capital plan,

but in particular fo focusing

on the fire station master

plan, which I am part

of that project team.

There was one at I've, I've

edited in talking to Marjorie,

there was a, a reference on North 40,

but I think where it's not

really on our work plan right now.

So we've deferred that

and following the, the

vote of our, the board

and then also looking at

the expanded use of AI

and permitting infrastructure planning,

budget analysis and public engagement.

So, so I'll tell you that is really ai,

we continue to evaluate that.

We're doing some tests

on copilot right now.

I haven't really had enough

time to dive in on that yet.

But we're also looking,

Brian was talking about

some other voiceover IP

and inherent information too that they're,

they're testing first on their

level as we look to expand.

And so I think there's a number

of different departments

looking at it incrementally.

And Brian's trying to foster that.

Generally building department

has been implementing AI

for a period of time.

One, to create cohesiveness

just in terms of the letters,

which has been, I would

say highly successful.

And so we're looking at

opportunities even on a small level

on a daily basis, try and increase those.

And significantly

for this board has also

been minutes compilation.

And as part of that we've

extended that out to a number

of different boards and

committees for test trials

and NRC planning advisory

and someone else who I'm forgetting has

to have done the test trials.

And so I know in particular

advisory would likely be seeking

as part of the special town

meeting supplemental to add

that at the higher level that we have,

because it's about $2,000 a year

to do about five meetings a month,

which advisory certainly hits.

And I think that would free

up capacity within their

administrative staff.

So these are the proposed goals

and so happy to adjust,

you know, the board.

- Thank you very much Megan.

Just like we discussed when

we were doing your review,

there are three main goals,

but they're really like 12 sub goals.

And so we don't take this lightly.

We appreciate that this is a lot of work

and a lot of very high level work.

Some of it you'll be doing

in conjunction with the board

and some of it you'll be

directing and leading,

but as you say, it is

directly tied into our voted

and approved work plan.

I I think they're terrific.

Are there other comments,

suggestions, edits, Beth?

- So I also agree, and I

agree with all of them.

I have three suggestions

because I believe goals should

be attainable within the

designated time period.

And so, and, and they should

also have like a clear role

on the first one.

I, I would like to include

collaborate with the select board

to set negotiation goals as a first kind

of step in that process.

Because I think that is also

part of your job to kind

of solicit from the

board what the target is.

- So, so I would argue

that's not even a step

because I, I cannot commence bargaining

without that. So that, that's why I,

- So I I would put it probably because

- I am your

- Our agent.

- Agent. Thank you. I'm like what's,

- So I I think that should

- Be, see Beth, you are a lawyer.

- Yeah. Who knew? So that would be,

I would just put it on there

because I think it's a critical

step in goal two, I would

have the headline read,

develop a comprehensive planning tool

because I think implementation

may not be attainable

within the timeframe.

- What was the second

word? I'm sorry Beth.

- I would just take out and implement

because I'm not sure

implementation is reasonable

to fully satisfy.

And so I would remove that,

but everything else is great.

- Good. And so to, to

comport it with smart goals.

Yes, exactly. Yes. Achievable.

- And then the third under goal three,

I think again for attainability

under the first bullet,

I would put support the

exploration of a standing committee

because if that's going

to town meeting again, I,

I just think it's not attainable

within the time period.

- I, I wouldn't be so

quick to change that.

I, I think that is attainable.

It does not need to go to

town meeting necessarily

because it, it isn't funded.

So I I wouldn't be so quick

to back off from a goal

of establishing that.

- Oh, so I, I thought this was

a, something we were bringing

to town meeting as a bylaw.

Did I miss something at our retreat?

- It doesn't need to be a

bylaw, it can be a committee

that's established by the select board.

- Oh, I just missed that discussion.

I I thought we discussed not going

to town meeting at special,

but going to annual.

So I, well something may

have happened not at our

meetings that I'm not aware of.

- Okay, so let me rethink that.

We, we are discussing, referring

things to this committee

for recommendations to change bylaws.

They're not gonna be

changing them themselves.

Did we decide we wanted a standing

bylaw committee in the bylaws?

Us? I I, I'm not sure we

- Did.

granularity of the

discussion. I think,

I don't think you did.

- No, I don't think we did either.

- Well, I would say my, it

it was not, it is not clear

to me whether it would

be a town meeting action

or a board, a appointee,

a board appointed father

- I was just working toward

at Obtainability. Yeah,

- So, so I think if you

did both exploration

and establishment, because

I'd support either one. Okay.

- I think you, if you have a

sta if you have establishment,

you can get rid of exploration

because you can't establish

without exploring.

Right.

- So

- Just say I was, I was substituting

- Right.

And it says support the establishment

so it doesn't say complete establishment.

I think so keep semantically it's fine.

Support establishment. The

establishment. Go back, leave it.

- Okay. No changes on

- That one.

- I'm gonna summarize that.

- Right?

Just take out, there you go.

Okay. Thank you Beth. And

- I I will add Beth that top

- One.

Yes. Thank you Beth. Any Kenny?

- I would add under the third

one support the analysis

of splitting the budget into two,

the school budget out

from the omnibus budget.

- Oh yes.

Good catch. Anything else?

- Nope. Under a,

what do I wanna say there under a

I motion? Can I cover a motion?

- Yeah. Can I ask, aren't we a little

further along than that?

I mean is that on on Kenny's point?

- I'm sorry, Kenny, what

was the language again?

- I said support the analysis

based on the last discussion

discussion that we had that we're not,

we didn't decide quite yet,

- I suppose That's right.

We, we did talk about

unintended consequences, right?

- Just right. We need a

little more analysis. Right.

- So does that wording

cover what you Yeah,

- I think that's

- At town meeting.

Okay. I'm sorry Megan at

the very end. Yep. Hold

- On, I'm just going back.

Yeah,

- Under a separate motion at town meeting

or say splitting the school and town mo

and town budgets into two

separate motions, whatever,

as long as it says town meeting.

Okay. Those are great comments

and additions. Thank you.

Any anything else before we vote? Okay.

Colette motion please.

- Sorry,

- Move to approve. Oh,

- Move to move to approve

the executive director's

goals as amended.

- Second.

- Any discussion? All in favor?

- Aye. Aye.

- Thank you Megan.

That's, that's a hefty list of goals

and we're excited to

work with you on them.

Okay. Now we're gonna go to

administrative matters with

sincere apologies for running late to,

we'll first take up the two

sets of minutes from June 3rd

and June 10th on the

select board retreats.

And I believe there are some comments

- It might be just easier to,

I'll put up the red lines Yes.

That we received. I'll

start with June 3rd.

- Okay. - And then the board

and I gave you hard copies in

- These, so Yes, thank you.

- So I had some suggested

edits to the suggested edits.

I don't know how you wanna handle it.

I'm gonna say in June

3rd the, there's an edit

that's I think on line

28 of the edited This is,

is this June 3rd, Megan?

Yes. Yeah. So it says in response, Mr.

Larges noted that if

leadership roles are limited

to rotation among only three members,

the remaining two members

are effectively denied.

I actually think it might be more accurate

to say if leadership roles

are limited to some members,

members who are some member, sorry, if,

if leadership roles are limited,

some members are effectively

denied the opportunity

to gain leadership experience.

I, I think if you're

saying it's a rotation

among three members,

you're kind of implying one

of those members is me.

I have only been vice

chair once, chair once

secretary a wee bit

and so I'm, I don't feel

like I'm in some rotation,

so I just, I I think that just

to be more accurate, it's,

it's better to say if

leadership roles are limited,

some members are effectively denied.

I think it's getting at

what you are meaning,

but I I there's been

nothing unusual about me.

- Yeah, I'm trying to do the math though.

Could, if it would require,

it's too late in the

night to do the math here,

but I think you need a rotation of three

to li to be limiting.

But I haven't thought

this totally through,

but I don't feel that strongly about it.

I I get your point. Yeah,

- No, I think that's clear the way Colette

has it. Go ahead, Colette.

- And then on line 44,

you, you need to see either

he, it says he asked for an

explanation of the process

and whether if miss, so

I think you should say

and if Ms. Afra

- Or whether - Or whether one

of the other weather better.

Okay, so weather and then I think, yeah,

- I think you just leave weather

- And then on line 45 after speak to Mr.

Du period, I think it,

we need to add in there

that Ms a Frank explained the process

and then noted that she'd spoken

otherwise it seems like I totally

ignored you and I don't think I did.

- You did not.

- So, so just so I'm clear cut right here

where it says where my Ms Fra

- Where it says she noted she had spoken,

rather than saying she noted,

I would say Ms a Frank

explained the process and noted.

- Perfect.

- Yeah, that's perfect.

Then on the next page

when we get to line 53,

when it says, as as she has

not, I actually don't agree

with the amendment at all in this section

because it changes what I was saying.

I didn't say that it's

that a board member had

had voted in the minority.

That's not the issue.

The issue is that you don't support

board votes when they're taken.

So that really changes

the nature of what I said.

So I I would actually prefer to refer,

refer back to how it was drafted.

I think So line

53, 54 and 55.

I, i I don't agree with

any of those amendments.

- Colette, I wanna back up for

one second. I agree with you.

It changes the nature of what you said

in line 48.

First of all, there's a t

missing in the word rotate at the

very end, but also it says

in Beth's comments, she

does not support the pattern

of rotating among a small subset

of the board, which I mean,

strictly speaking, rotating

among a small subset would suggest that

the subset has each

served more than one time.

Does that, is that okay with

you? Do you wanna change that?

- Yeah, actually that's the same thing.

- Say that's what I said,

- Right?

- I think, I think editing

the minutes to change

what someone said doesn't

make sense. Okay. All

- If that's actually what you said,

then we'll leave it.

Okay, go ahead Colette.

- Although we have had discussions

that we don't put stuff

in the minutes, it isn't correct.

So I mean I, that I'd,

I'd rather focus on changing what I said.

Yes. And then

so online do we have,

I have the original

minutes, so let me see.

- So Colette, we can just revert back to

what you wrote in 54 because

I, I heard it differently.

So if you intended it the

other way, that's fine. I I

- Do and - I've heard you say

both, so I'm fine with either

- I, I've never said the former

and I write my comments

for every meeting and I have my comments.

I know I said then

in line 62 it says she does

considerable work to, I

I would actually ask you

to include in there ensure board

members are fully informed.

- Which line are you

- Collecting? Line 62.

It's, it says that she, it's

an amendment that says Ms.

R Frank stated that she

does considerable work.

Do you have that there?

- Yep,

- Yep. That's, I think that's reasonable.

- Right. And and then I'd

like to to say, to say

to ensure board members are fully informed

and presents with an

S matters to the board

for efficient decision making.

It just needs an ask there. Okay.

Okay. So that,

those are the amendments I

would recommend to that set.

I just have a small

suggestion on the next set.

I, I think the amendment, I

gotta get it over. Sorry Megan,

- On six 10.

- Yeah,

- Hold on.

- I mean I think the amendment

on line 71 is unnecessary

and extraneous when we had

the statement, the position

and the discussion of it.

I think it's just restating

what's said before.

So I think it should just be removed.

- It's repeating what's in line 66 and 67

- And I have no further comments.

- Any other comments on those two sets?

Okay, let's continue on to

the executive session minutes

and then we'll take one motion.

- So I,

- Oh, okay. So

- I'm - Going to have a

motion to approve the minutes,

land motion to release minutes.

Is that right?

- For what?

- A motion to approve these minutes.

And then do we need a motion

to release the executive session

minutes or you just report that

- Out?

I just report it out. Okay.

- So I will make a motion

to approve the minutes

for June 3rd, 2025 and June, 2010.

2025 as amended.

- Tom. Second.

- Any further discussion? All in favor?

- Aye.

- Okay, now we go on

to the executive session minutes.

- So I would just report out that it,

the board's executive

session held earlier, this,

earlier this evening that

the board voted to release.

The executive voted to approve the minutes

and to release the minutes

of, sorry, I'm just scrolling

to the motion.

And we have a long packet. May 6th,

June 3rd B and June 24th.

B.

- Okay, very good. Anything else?

- Those are all 2025. 2025, correct.

We're really on top of it now.

- Thank you Colette.

Okay, the next agenda item

is the chair's report.

It's been a long day and due to the hour

and the fact that there is

nothing pressing at the moment,

I don't have a chair's report,

so I will adjourn the meeting

at 9:03 PM Thank you everybody

and have a safe and healthy Labor day

and we'll be back on our next meeting is

Tuesday, September 9th.

Thank you everybody.