A bill has caused a spectacle among Select Board members, although the procurement office believes nothing was out of sorts by Select Board Member Mary Ellen Fletcher, despite allegations from Select Board Member David Grishman.

Grishman raised concerns at the July 8 Select Board meeting over a bill that had reached former Finance Director Amy Sarro’s desk, accusing Fletcher of “committing malfeasance” and attempting to “cover up” the expense which would “violate Mass General Law.” The issue was sparked by a $8,460 bill from Braintree-based law office Murphy, Hesse, Toomey and Lehane, which was issued to the Select Board on May 30 following work around a second opinion on the Pine St. VFW Post property.

“If there was no appropriation made by Town Meeting or signed agreement by the Town Administrator, this would not be a lawful expense for my office to pay. Unless there was an agreement that has not been filed with the accountant’s office,” Sarro had emailed Select Board Chair Katie Phelan and Vice Chair Doug Thompson on June 24. “We can discuss options but more likely this invoice would need to go before Town Meeting for authorization to pay.” 

Sarro did not want to go on the record for this story, and when the Swampscott Tides called her cellphone on Thursday it went straight to voicemail. 

Select Board Vice Chair Doug Thompson noted in the July 8 meeting that it seemed to be Sarro’s opinion that because there was not a signed engagement letter she couldn’t pay the bill. Fletcher pointed out there were no engagement letters for other town projects.

Fletcher, who was the chair at the time, acknowledged to the Swampscott Tides that she did talk with the group and that their work was in regards to the Pine Street property, which would have had $1.8 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds at stake.

“Of course there’s a bill,” Fletcher told the Swampscott Tides. “We have an opinion from KP Law, so the question was can we rely on this opinion. There have been times where we’ve questioned KP Law’s advice, so we should get a second opinion.”

Fletcher told the Swampscott Tides then-Vice Chair Katie Phelan was involved in the conversation, as was community development and Affordable Housing Trust Chair Kim Martin Epstein. She said in the July 8 meeting that she “did not unilaterally make the decision.”

“It’s not something where you go out and you get a vote,” Fletcher said. “It’s not in the charter.”

The Swampscott Tides confirmed there is no mention of reaching out to an outside counsel in the town charter.

Grishman, however, brought up the issue at the July 8 Select Board meeting, saying that Fletcher took action “without the vote or knowledge of the Select Board.”

“I want to address an extremely concerning matter, which was brought to my attention,” Grishman said. “While this infraction by a current sitting Select Board member and former Finance Committee member is bad, what happens next is worse. There is now a legal bill due of $8,460 for this unauthorized legal bill.”

Grishman also suggested that Fletcher should pay for the bill herself so that “Swampscott taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for your unauthorized expenditures.” 

“I feel strongly that there should be a consequence to your actions,” Grishman said. 

Fletcher said in the meeting that this is an example of Grishman trying to “malign” her. 

In March, a special Town Meeting was held to discuss the VFW Post 1240. The warrant, which ended up failing, would have revoked the previously granted authority to the Select Board to sell or lease the property at 10 New Ocean St. and 12-24 Pine St. 

The Select Board was previously split in a 3-2 vote in support of the Pine Street project. Fletcher was in the majority, while Grishman was in the minority of the vote.

Fletcher shared at the special Town Meeting that the Town Counsel’s opinion was that Swampscott did not have the authority to rescind the jurisdiction given to the Select Board. Fletcher also shared the second opinion at the March 19 meeting. Town Meeting Members also received a copy of the opinion as they entered the building.

“A second opinion from a well-respected law firm, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey and Lehane, concludes that Town Meeting does not have the authority to revoke the original vote as it is a binding contract,” Fletcher said in March. 

The Murphy, Hesse, Toomey and Lehane law office conducted 28.2 hours of work to prepare a second opinion for the Select Board, according to documents obtained by the Swampscott Tides. Work included research, preparing a memorandum and phone calls with Fletcher and Community and Economic Development Director Marzie Galazka.

Now-Chair Phelan shared the law office’s opinion at the special Town Meeting, noting it was similar to what town counsel shared.

“Because we have signed the LDA and rights have vested in BBH, we currently do not have the ability to revoke the rights that we gave to the Select Board to enter into that agreement,” Phelan said in March.

At the July 8 Select Board meeting, Grishman acknowledged that “from time to time the town is going to need to engage outside counsel.”

“Whenever this occurs, there’s a vote of the Select Board,” Grishman said.

Natalie Swanstrom, the Department of Public Works business manager and Swampscott’s staff member for the purchasing department, told the Swampscott Tides this is not fully correct.

Swanstrom said that for bills under $10,000, it is considered “best business” practice to solicit a single opinion. For bills between $10,000 and $50,000 there is supposed to be a solicitation of three businesses, and for over $50,000 a Request for Proposal is sent out.

At none of those levels, however, does the full Select Board need to be aware of the charges, according to Swanstrom. The town administrator is able to sign the contracts and bills.

Interim Town Administrator Gino Cresta told the Swampscott Tides he “was aware that the law firm was contacted for the second opinion.” Grishman had claimed at the Select Board meeting Cresta was not aware.

Grishman said at the Town Meeting that Fletcher had attempted to “cover up this unauthorized expense.”

“Stating the truth and facts may be inconvenient, but is not maligning. One member of the Select Board cannot authorize the expenditure of taxpayer dollars without a vote of the Select Board,” Grishman told the Swampscott Tides. “Further, Select Board Member Mary Ellen Fletcher should never put a town employee in a position where she asks that employee to knowingly violate Mass General Law. This is absolutely unacceptable.”

In the Select Board meeting, Grishman claimed Fletcher approached Sarro.

On her part, Fletcher told the Swampscott Tides that “the money is right there in the line item” under the town administrator for consulting. 

“I’m being accused of asking for a shuffle,” Fletcher said. “Why am I being accused of asking for a shuffle if the money is in the line item? I’m not asking to shuffle any money. I had absolutely no conversation whatsoever with Amy Sarro…What this is is drama. It’s constant drama from Mr. Grishman. It doesn’t stop.”