Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Elective Pay topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Select Board reviews short-term legal engagement to advise on elective pay and Inflation Reduction Act

Select Board · April 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Select Board reviewed a proposed short-term engagement with Lawyers for Good Government, Inc. to advise on elective pay and Inflation Reduction Act matters, discussing a 12–24 hour cap and conflict-waiver language; Town Counsel has reviewed the engagement letter and no vote was recorded on the contract.

The Wellesley Select Board reviewed a proposed engagement with Lawyers for Good Government, Inc. (L4GG) on April 6, 2026, to provide short-term legal assistance related to elective pay and issues tied to the Inflation Reduction Act. The item was presented to the Board for discussion; no final vote on retaining the firm was recorded at the meeting.

Sustainability Director Dr. Marybeth Martello explained that the firm is known to town sustainability staff, has conducted webinars attended by local staff, and has prior experience working with comparable communities on elective pay projects. She told the Board that the proposed engagement would be temporary and serve as a safety net in case the town’s RFP for tax advisory services produced no bids or the Permanent Building Committee moved to accelerate the project timeline. Dr. Martello said the engagement contemplates a cap of roughly 12 to 24 hours of legal services and that “12 hours is typical for this type of work,” adding that the hours could be extended depending on L4GG staff capacity.

Executive Director Meghan Jop confirmed that Town Counsel had reviewed the letter of engagement. Board members discussed a conflict-of-interest waiver included in the agreement; members described the clause as unusual in appearance but acknowledged such language is standard boilerplate for law firms that represent multiple clients and is intended to limit firm liability.

The discussion focused on whether the short-term engagement would be used only as an interim measure while the town’s RFP process continued and on ensuring the town would be ready to act if the project timeline accelerated. The Board did not take a vote to retain L4GG during the April 6 meeting; the engagement letter and related materials remain part of the meeting record and the town’s RFP process is expected to proceed.