Norwell Select Board Clarifies Capital Budget Vote, Addresses Post-Town Meeting Concerns
Board votes to proceed with recommended expenditures while holding additional items for future consideration
NORWELL - May 14 - The Norwell Select Board has voted to proceed with only the recommended capital expenditures from the recent town meeting, addressing confusion that arose during the May 5 vote on Article 3.
In a unanimous decision Wednesday night, the board approved a statement acknowledging concerns about the capital budget article while affirming support for Town Moderator Matt Greene's procedural decisions.
"We elect to proceed with the expenditure that all voters, officials, boards, and committees overwhelmingly supported in the amount of $673,500 and hold the additional expenditures authorized above $673,500 for possible further action," the statement reads.
The resolution comes after several residents requested reconsideration of the capital budget article during town meeting, citing confusion about what was being voted on.
Board member Bruce Graham, who drafted the statement with Town Counsel, explains the board took immediate action after the meeting.
"I didn't sleep well after town meeting because of the issues," Graham says. "The next morning I got up and I got on the phone."
Graham contacted school officials about one of the contested items – a paving project at the school – and confirmed it wouldn't move forward regardless of the vote outcome.
Chair Jason Brown acknowledges the procedural aspects of the vote were handled correctly but notes the large volume of people moving in and out of the meeting hall likely contributed to the confusion.
"I think if the room settled down, I don't think we'd really have at least a detail of what transpired and how the vote went," Brown says.
The board's statement explicitly supports Town Moderator Greene while taking action to address residents' concerns about the outcome.
During public comment, resident Catherine Toupence, speaking via Zoom, emphasizes the perception issues surrounding the vote.
"The perception vast majority is that it was so understood that we were voting on the recommendation," Toupence says. "At the end of the day, I'm speaking up because we're asking to do what's right here and ensure that the voice is heard."
The board's solution allows the town to proceed with the capital items that had clear support while deferring the contested expenditures to a future town meeting.
In addition to addressing the capital budget concerns, the board tackled several other significant issues:
Health Insurance Plan Design
The board unanimously approved a motion directing Town Administrator Darleen Sullivan to pursue a more cost-effective health insurance plan design strategy, focusing on high-deductible or otherwise less expensive options.
Brian Greenberg, who introduced the motion, frames it as a necessary step toward addressing the town's structural deficit.
"Health insurance has been one of the things we've discussed as obviously being one of the bigger drivers on the town side of our structural deficit," Greenberg says.
Graham, who works with group health insurance professionally, strongly supports the move.
"Under the Affordable Care Act, you still get your annual physical at no cost," Graham notes. "Coupled with a health savings account, you can park thousands and thousands of dollars tax-free into something that grows with compounded interest over years."
Brown emphasizes the need for fundamental changes to the town's financial trajectory.
"Whether you support the override, you're against the override, it fundamentally doesn't really matter in the long term because you eventually get to the same place," Brown says. "You either get to the override sooner or later. So you fundamentally have to make a change."
Government Study Committee Appointments
Town Moderator Green appointed four members to the Government Study Committee: Mary Beth Shea, Art Joseph, Rebecca Freed, and David DeCoste.
The committee will examine the charter changes made in 2012, which altered the roles of various town boards and committees.
Brown explains the committee will evaluate "if those changes were either a benefit or detriment to the delivery of government efficiently to residents and taxpayers."
Electronic Voting Discussion
The board also discussed potentially implementing electronic "clicker" voting for future town meetings.
Moderator Greene presented the concept as a way to streamline voting and make the process more efficient, noting that many other Massachusetts towns already use similar systems.
"The clickers would allow us to go... We would still do a voice vote for the first crack at it," Green explains. "However, the second vote... would combine the standing vote and the counted teller vote, which we currently do, into simply pressing a button."
Mary Beth Shea, who previously served on an Electronic Voting Committee in 2017, cautions that implementing such a system represents "a fundamental change to voting in town meeting" by creating a secret ballot.
The board agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting after the new board is seated following the upcoming election.
The board also:
- Voted to place a non-binding ballot question regarding the Community Preservation Act surcharge on the 2026 election ballot
- Approved the release of a covenant for 296 Main Street, contingent on the owner receiving proper permits for an accessory dwelling unit
- Recognized outgoing board members Brown and Graham for their years of service to the town
This was the final meeting for Brown, who served 12 years on the Select Board, and Graham, who served six years.