LEOMINSTER — At its regular meeting on July 28, 2025, the Leominster City Council convened as the Legal Affairs Committee to hold a public hearing on C-94, a proposal submitted by Mayor Dean Mazzarella to increase school committee members’ stipends by $1,000, along with an annual cost-of-living increase based on the Consumer Price Index. If approved, the raise would take effect at the start of the next term.
After introducing the public hearing on the matter, Susan Chalifoux-Zephir, the chairperson of the Legal Affairs Committee, said that there has been some confusion about the proposed increase.
“So, there’s been some confusion about this, and we did get a response from the mayor,” Chalifoux-Zephir said. “There’s some other emails that went back and forth amongst a council and school committee member who shed some light, I think, on the process and how things might have gotten a little mixed up.”
Chalifoux-Zephir said she would read those communications into the record during the council’s regular meeting discussion. She then invited comments from fellow councilors on C-94, and when none responded, she opened the floor to public input.
School Committee member Eileen Griffin of 135 Highland Avenue then approached the dais from the audience.
“As a school committee member, I just wanted to kind of refresh people’s memory that we currently get $2,000 per year and we haven’t had a raise in 10 years,” Griffin said. Griffin added that she has served on the school committee for 30 years and for about 20 years she didn’t get any compensation.
“Nobody is doing this, you know, for the money, for sure,” Griffin added. “But just to try to augment…for our time. We are obviously attending lots of events and contributing money back to the school system. I think, you know, as a school committee, we voted for there to be an increase of $2,500, and the mayor had indicated in an email to all of us that that’s what he was going to be requesting. So, it’s very confusing.”
Griffin asked the council for clarification on how the mayor’s proposed increase of $2,500 was reduced to $1,000 when considered by the city council.
“I’m not sure how that kind of filtered down,” Griffin said. “So, I wanted…to make sure that the appropriate…avenue has been adhered to, and…I guess it is not really clear to me that it has, and I was hoping to get some clarification later on in the meeting.”
Leominster School Committee members currently receive an annual stipend of $2,000. School Committee member Melissa Bible also spoke out against C-94 during the public hearing.
“It’s really disheartening to see how we, as other elected officials, have been treated and undervalued,” Bible said. “I think we’re elected officials and we should reflect the community that we represent.”
Bible then questioned whether a city council and school committee made up entirely of white members from middle- to upper-class economic backgrounds could genuinely understand the diverse communities they serve. She explained that the proposed increase was intended to create more equitable access for those who want to serve but may face financial barriers.
“It’s also been really frustrating that after our email in June where we said, ‘Whoa, what happened? How come we were going to get a $4,500 cost? It’s now 3,000,’” Bible said. “We asked for information and no one responded to us. How do you value us when you can’t respond to an email from other elected officials?”
Bible added that, as Griffin mentioned, something is better than nothing. She noted that she does not plan to run for school committee next year, so she won’t benefit from any potential increase.
“But I think as a committee and as a community, we need to be able to reflect the community that we are and give access to the community that we are,” Bible said.
When Bible finished, City Council President Mark Bodanza said, “Can I just make something clear? We can’t respond as a body by the internet, okay? We have to respond as a result of deliberations at an open meeting.”
Bodanza then explained that that was the purpose of the hearing that evening, to deliberate in an open public session in accordance with open meeting law.
“We can’t have an email exchange and comply with the open meeting law,” Bodanza said.
Bible replied, “But individually, you can respond to individual members.”
Bodanza said, “But, the open meeting law would prohibit one city council member from responding to that question to the entire school committee.”
Bible then raised concerns about a message from the school committee secretary that appeared to have gone unanswered. Chalifoux-Zephir clarified that she had responded to the email.
“The question did come from the secretary for the school committee and I did have an exchange with Chris Silverman to understand what was going on and then try to get to the bottom of it,” Chalifoux-Zephir said. “So, I think I want to be clear about that — that somebody did respond to the secretary of the school committee who raised an issue and was looking for clarification.”
Bible responded by clarifying that while the council did respond, there was no explanation for how the stipend went from $4,500 to $3,000 overnight.
Officials cite timeline gaps and miscommunication
During the regular meeting that followed the public hearing, Chalifoux-Zephir read aloud three communications meant to clarify how the stipend amount evolved behind the scenes: a letter from Mayor Dean Mazzarella and two email exchanges—one from City Council President Mark Bodanza and another from School Committee member Greg Thomas.
In his letter, dated July 15, Mazzarella explained that several months earlier he had asked Thomas to collaborate with Bodanza to determine a stipend figure that would be acceptable to both the council and the school committee. Mazzarella stated that he initially believed the council would support a $2,000 raise but was later informed by Bodanza’s office that the amount agreed upon was a $1,000 – $3,000 increase with the addition of an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). That is the figure Mazzarella ultimately submitted to the council for consideration.
Bodanza, in an email to the mayor, also dated July 15, corroborated that version of events. He wrote that, after discussing the issue with Thomas, he had proposed a $1,000 increase plus COLA, which Thomas indicated was “generally acceptable.” Bodanza emphasized, however, that several weeks passed without further communication, and that when the petition was formally submitted, questions began to arise. He also noted that he was unaware of any conflicting information being conveyed to the school committee and encouraged the mayor to clarify matters if miscommunication had occurred.
“The day C-94 was filed,” Bodanza said in his letter, “Wendy Weeks contacted me and asked the amount that should be included in the communication and I replied $1,000 plus the COLA. I had no knowledge of any other amounts or arrangements that were made with school committee members at that time and only learned of that much later. The proposed increase is completely within your prerogative, of course. If a miscommunication caused the lower figure, it could be remedied by you sending a request to us seeking to amend the amount of the raise before our hearing on July 28th. I have purposely refrained from copying anyone on beyond the legal affairs chair, the city clerk, and Mr. Thomas, as this would constitute an open meeting law violation.”
In his July 15 email, School Committee member Greg Thomas outlined a series of informal discussions that took place between January and June regarding the stipend increase. He said the first conversation occurred by phone on January 8, when a proposed amount was $500 less than what the council previously voted on—though he admitted he couldn’t recall the exact figure. A follow-up call with Council President Mark Bodanza happened on April 8, during which Bodanza mentioned there was an “internal discussion” happening with the mayor and said he would follow up.
Thomas went on to describe a June 25 conversation with fellow committee member Jennifer Alker, during which both agreed they were satisfied with the proposed $3,000 figure. However, he noted that the conversation took place informally—at a party—and emphasized that he did not consider himself to be speaking on behalf of the full committee. He closed the email by acknowledging that the entire process had involved a fair amount of miscommunication and said he was open to further discussion with the group.
When she finished reading the correspondence, Chalifoux-Zephir said, “At this point, I still think that there’s some miscommunication here. I don’t feel like there is a consensus.”
Bodanza replied, “All I can say is what I said in my email. I have no doubt based on the presentation this evening of the school committee members that the mayor told the school committee a different number. And I did not talk to the mayor before the communication came down.”
Bodanza said there was a six- to seven-week delay between his initial discussions with Mayor Mazzarella about the school committee stipend increase and the point when the official communication was sent to the city council. He emphasized that, while the final decision rests with the mayor, it would be concerning if the mayor communicated one amount to the school committee but submitted a different figure to the council.
“If he told them one thing and the communication came down as another, I would feel awfully bad about voting on that,” Bodanza said.
Chalifoux-Zephir then recommended keeping the public hearing open to allow more time for clarification. Specifically, she said she would ask the city clerk to refer the matter back to the mayor so he could reconsider the original school committee vote and clarify the discrepancy in proposed amounts.
Bodanza added that there appeared to be miscommunication regarding the proposed stipend amount. Bodanza said he had heard two different figures—$2,000 and $4,500—presented before the school committee, which would indicate a $2,500 raise. At one point, he believed the mayor had cited $4,500 as a final figure, but then a $2,000 raise, which he noted, wouldn’t add up.
In light of this, Bodanza recommended keeping the public hearing open and referring the matter back to the mayor for clarification.
The Legal Affairs Committee then voted unanimously to continue the hearing on August 11 at 6:40 p.m.
