Table of Contents
Will Winchester move from Robert’s Rules of Order to Town Meeting Time? That’s a question Town Meeting will possibly answer in the fall.
The final night of the Spring Town Meeting wrapped up with no definite decision over which parliamentary process will be used, despite heavy debate, but instead Town Meeting formed a committee to study each process.
The committee will be made up of Town Moderator Philip Frattaroli, Town Counsel Jay Talerman, Town Clerk MaryEllen Marshall, the Select Board, two Town Meeting members appointed by Town Manager Beth Rudolph and a former moderator.
A report is expected at Fall Town Meeting.
The debate over Article 38, which included several recommended changes to bylaws by the Committee on Government Regulations (COGR), picked up where it left off on May 1.
COGR — acting as the Decennial Review Committee — has been reviewing 24 of Winchester’s 25 town bylaws since last fall. The only bylaw not revised was the Community Preservation Act, which was passed by Town Meeting last spring and voted and approved by voters in November 2024.
The body voted on the following sections:
• Section 1.3: Changing a 10-day requirement that the Town Meeting warrant be mailed or posted online to 13 days.
Vote: Yes
• Section 2.2: The requirements by which Spring Town Meeting assembles. COGR added two new phrases, one of which does not just limit the meeting to financial matters and the other being “including debt service on capital expenditures.”
Select Board Chair Michelle Prior said the debt service phrase is not needed, hence why the board voted unfavorable action.
Precinct 1 member Ann Sera once again reiterated her issues with footnotes and adopting a standard by which the town could move forward. She called the section “extremely screwy.”
Marshall said her office will fix the changes, thanks to Town Meeting having passed another article which allowed the town to create just the standard Sera was suggesting.
Vote: No
• Section 2.3: The requirements by which Fall Town Meeting assembles. COGR’s addition was to once again not limit what the body discusses.
Precinct 1 member Anthea Brady said it didn’t make sense to vote the section, since 2.2 failed. Town Meeting agreed.
Vote: No
• Section 2.4: The addition of the words “website” and “email” to allow the town to post the adjournment of Town Meeting and notify absent members about the business discussed.
A question was raised as to why notifications also had to be mailed. Frattaroli said the town charter required they be mailed.
Vote: Yes
Robert’s Rules versus Town Meeting Time
As expected, the debate about making the switch from Robert’s Rules of Order to Town Meeting Time under Section 3.1 went on through a long portion of the evening.
Talerman, who is town moderator in the community where he lives, was one of the people who worked on developing the Town Meeting Time process. He talked about how the fourth edition of the book is available in the Minuteman Library System as well as online after one Town Meeting member asked about where the document was available.
Sera, who had the third edition of Town Meeting Time, as well as a thick copy of Robert’s Rules of Order, said she had been using both books throughout the three nights of Winchester Town Meeting. She said neither was hard to use, but they did differ at certain points and there seemed to be some confusion over how the differences would affect discussions and motions.
“Why not put it off until the fall or send it back for further study?” she suggested.
Precinct 5 member Peter Cheimets agreed, making the motion to send the section to a study committee to return in the fall.
Several other Town Meeting members agreed, stating there seemed to be an overall state of confusion around the differences between the two processes.
Precinct 5 member Pamela Cort added Town Meeting members are “very, very smart people who are very, very detail oriented” and having a detailed presentation available would be helpful. She said she also preferred to go to committee.
“I would venture to guess there are maybe five people in this room who understand it,” said Brian Vernaglia, of Precinct 4.
Precinct 8 member Diab Jerius said he had nothing against using either process, but there were definite concerns by Town Meeting about how it could modify Town Meeting Time to serve how the body conducts business.
In the end, members voted to send the matter to committee.
Precinct 3 member Bill McGonigle pointed out Town Meeting couldn’t vote on further sections because of the inconsistencies created by the earlier motion to send to committee. McGonigle said he supported a motion to indefinitely postpone the entire section, if not the rest of the article.
Caren Connolly, also of Precinct 3, made the motion to refer the rest of Article 38 back to COGR to come back in the fall. Connolly under Article 56, the formation of new Town Meeting committees, suggested the move to form a committee to deal with the study of Robert’s Rules of Order versus Town Meeting Time.
Both of those motions were voted in the affirmative.
Town Meeting also voted to send three other articles that changed bylaws — 46, 48 and 49 — to COGR for a fall presentation.
One more bylaw change
Another bylaw change by COGR, Article 43, would require the town to specify what its departments are spending. Right now, allocations are under the “undistributed” line item, which combines all departments into one.
COGR member Joan Miller said the idea is to add departmental spending into separate line items so that Town Meeting can have a better idea of what the town budget actually entails.
Prior said the Select Board felt the request didn’t belong in a bylaw, but should instead be moved into procedures. She added the town already has fiscal procedures in place due to state law requirements.
Comptroller Stacie Ward said she agreed the bylaw was better placed into the town’s policies and procedures. She said putting it into a bylaw creates inflexibility.
“My concern is that we’re fixing something that under law, there are no requirements for it to be fixed,” Talerman said, of the article. “My other concern is that if this is included in the bylaw it will be inconsistent with state law.”
Joan Miller said COGR also wanted the article revisions to provide per pupil costs from the School Department for Town Meeting.
Ward said FinCom had done an “excellent analysis” regarding per pupil costs, which she knows is a concern, but that she and Andrew Marron, the school’s director of finance and operations, were working to address the issue of how that information is reported.
Ward added she had no problem updating the comptroller’s report or providing information at any time.
Town Meeting voted 88 in the affirmative to 39 in the negative, with two abstentions, to a motion to amend the language of the article.
Ward also explained she had requested the word “Departmental” be added to Chapter 6 in the COGR changes in order to differentiate which revolving fund was being discussed in the bylaw. She said both the schools and town have revolving funds.
Town Meeting voted to keep the change in place.
Two other sections of the chapter were deleted because they were no longer required by the town.
Changes to FinCom
Article 39, a citizen’s petition brought forth by Cort, asked Town Meeting to amend Chapter 2 of the Winchester Code of Bylaws Section 4.1.3 to change how Finance Committee members are appointed.
Currently, FinCom members are appointed by the chair of the Select Board, chair of FinCom and the town moderator.
The motion was seeking to also appoint the chairs of the Planning Board and School Committee.
Speaking on her motion, Cort said she has seen a “pattern of disconnect” by FinCom when it comes to how the board makes recommendations and the way it consistently fails to work with other boards, committees or commissions.
She said “the structure” didn’t seem to be working. Cort added Winchester officials need to work together, especially now.
FinCom Chair Jeff Calabrese said the board was obviously unfavorable on the petition.
“We have serious budget and financial issues,” Calabrese said. “It seems as if the solution is then to replace FinCom.”
Calabrese said FinCom provides an independent review of Winchester’s finances. He added it was “unfortunate we have to stand up here and defend it.”
Many former members and chairs of FinCom came forward to defend the board and the work it does to protect the town’s finances. Several pointed out the board is made up of volunteers, who spend countless hours looking at the numbers and providing recommendations for responsible spending.
“I’ve been there,” said one former chair. “You are constantly trying to put 10 pounds of need into a five pound bag.”
Cort said the article was not about independence, but of communication and that FinCom had not been collaborative in its efforts with other boards.
In the end, the article failed, with 98 members voting against it, 30 in support and 4 abstentions.
Muraco culvert project
The Select Board was back before Town Meeting, requesting $2.6 million to pay costs to install additional culverts behind the Muraco Elementary School for flood mitigation purposes, including engineering expenses.
Select Board member Michael Bettencourt said this is the final time the town would be before Town Meeting for the project, which has been ongoing since 2021 when voters approved a Proposition 2 ½ debt exclusion override and Town Meeting authorized the borrowing of $9.11 million.
Bettencourt said in November 2023, Town Meeting approved an additional $10.2 million.
The town has been working with the MBTA after the agency expressed concerns about how the project would impact their culverts. Although Winchester has been working with the MBTA to resolve the issue, Bettencourt said the agency is now requiring the town install sleeves between existing inner walls and outer walls.
That, he said, is where the additional money will be spent.
Bettencourt credited the late James “Jimmy” Johnson, who worked on this project. He said Johnson was there at the beginning and he had hoped Johnson would be here to see the project finished.
“This is a gold standard of a public works project,” Bettencourt said. “It’s not glitzy or glamorous, but it’s something that will preserve the town in generations to come.”
Precinct 3 member Vincent Dixon said the flood mitigation project is something the neighborhood needs and deserves. Dixon then suggested the town request the state delegation approach the MBTA to seek partial compensation for their new requirements, which should have been part of the initial project.
Article 19 passed Town Meeting unanimously.
Converse Place
The Planning Board on May 6 voted unanimously that changes to a special permit given to a developer in 2022 for 10 Converse Place were substantial enough to require a new developer to resubmit plans.
Article 31 asked Town Meeting to authorize the Select Board to lease or convey an easement for wetland remediation in order to assist the development of 10 Converse Place.
Bill McGonigle spoke for the Select Board, saying the board wanted to get ahead of any possible project. However, he added there was still little known about the development.
“We want to move forward with [the town’s] blessing,” McGonigle said. “We want to be able to steer the 10 Converse Place development as best we can.”
Planning Board Chair Brian Vernaglia, however, said his board was voting unfavorable action on the article.
“It’s too premature to vote on this,” he said. “These are questions that should be asked in our public hearing.”
The Planning Board voted on May 6 to continue its public hearing process on the proposed development to May 20.
Conservation Commission Chair David Miller also spoke to the project, saying his board was neither for nor against the project. However, he said ConCom in 2023 denied the original project under both the Wetlands Protection Act and the town’s local bylaw.
Miller said the original applicant appealed the decision to the state Department of Environmental Protection and Superior Court for the local bylaw. The DEP, he added, is still in the process of reviewing the appeal while the town is in Land Court over its bylaw.
Miller said the original plan was just “too big” and the new development will be built in the same footprint, which also makes it “too big.”
Michelle McCarthy, a Precinct 7 member, spoke as a member of the Historical Commission. She said the project would have a “negative impact” on Winchester’s historic downtown, not to mention Mill Pond.
She asked the Select Board to consider postponing the article because Town Meeting didn’t have a lot of information to go on.
Precinct 1 member Maura Sullivan said the 2022 project was not viable and the 2025 project still needs to go through the process. She said Town Meeting should be concerned about leasing or conveying an easement around Mill Pond without enough information.
Sullivan asked for “a moment of reset” and to “tread carefully” in dispensing public land.
Dorothy Simboli, of Precinct 6, questioned if there was a timeframe in which the article could be brought back before Town Meeting if the article was indefinitely postponed.
Talerman assured Town Meeting that unlike zoning articles which cannot be back before the body again for two years should they be postponed, there is no barrier and the item can be re-introduced in the fall.
Town Meeting voted to indefinitely postpone the item.
Other articles
While the Personnel Board is normally one of the last to report to Town Meeting, Frattaroli took its article, 33, out of order.
Cheimets, who chairs the board, said there were four motions before Town Meeting that included a $236,000 ask to fund raises, a 2.5% increase for non-union town employees and reserving funds for collective bargaining contracts with the unions.
Town Meeting voted in the affirmative on all four motions.
Article 36, said Rudolph, was an annual housekeeping item to balance the town budget. She said the town was asking for $1,599,050 in free cash and $400,000 from the overlay surplus to reduce the tax levy for fiscal year 2026.
Town Meeting approved the measure.
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to correct a quote by FinCom Chair Jeff Calabrese, as well as the final vote of Article 39.
