This Legislative Affairs meeting was another speed-run through appointments, with one exception: the Licensing Commission seat actually got a few questions.
That alone made it more useful than the usual “they’re here, congratulations” routine.
The committee moved six appointments in a little over ten minutes.
Jeremiah Sheehan was sent along favorably to the Public Works Commission/Glenwood Cemetery Commission for a three-year term. Anthony DiPierro said he knew Sheehan had “prior public works experience” and saw “no problem supporting this appointment.” That was the whole discussion.
Michael Piazza was advanced to the Everett Housing Authority Board for a term ending February 1, 2029.
That one came with a brief but telling comment from DiPierro. He said, “the process of this seat still doesn’t exactly sit well with me with the removal of the former member,” but added that he knows Piazza, thinks he is “capable of the job,” and would support him.
That matters because it is one of those little Everett sentences that tells you more than the vote itself. Nobody wanted to relitigate how the prior board member got bounced. But DiPierro made sure the discomfort was on the record before voting yes anyway.
Then came two Library Board of Trustees appointments, Miss Pulio and Beverly London. Both were moved favorably with basically no scrutiny at all.
For Pulio, DiPierro said he “could not think of a more fitting board for her to serve on.” Fine. Maybe so. But the committee did not explain why in any concrete way.
For London, the process was even shorter. Chair Michael Marchese noted she was present if anyone wanted to hear from her. Nobody did. DiPierro moved favorable action. Done.
That is how most of these meetings go. Presence is treated as qualification. The rest gets filled in later by vibes.
The one item that got actual questioning was the appointment of Lynn Farrah Costa to the Licensing Commission for a six-year term.
That seat matters more than the casual handling suggests. The Licensing Commission deals with alcohol licenses, entertainment licenses, compliance issues, business hearings, and decisions that affect both neighborhood quality of life and whether businesses can operate without nonsense. Six years is not a small appointment.
Katy Rogers, to her credit, did what she did two weeks ago on the Samuel Fern appointment: she asked to hear from the appointee instead of waving it through.
Rogers asked Costa why she wanted the seat. Costa said she was there “to serve,” described herself as “a mother” and someone familiar with the city, and said, “I’d like to have, be able to influence what is happening around the city.”
That answer was honest, if broad.
Rogers then got more specific. She raised “two points of contention” she has with the Licensing Commission and asked where Costa stood.
First, Rogers asked if Costa would support “the bottle bill to make sure that nips are redeemable statewide.”
Costa did not give the kind of instant yes activists usually want for their clipboards. She said, “I would like to hear from everyone involved,” added that she was “not really sure” what all the points were, but said she had heard Rogers’s concerns and shared “some of those as well.”
That is a normal answer from someone who has not spent months marinating in issue-campaign language. It also showed the problem with using an appointment hearing to test-drive policy positions on matters outside the narrow powers of the board.
Then Rogers asked if Costa agreed that liquor stores should not be advertising in public parks.
Costa answered plainly: “I do yeah.”
Stephanie Smith followed with a different line of questioning, though less of it was really questioning than welcoming. Smith said she was happy because “it’s the first time we might actually have a woman on the board,” then asked Costa whether she had experience in business, licensing, alcohol service, entertainment, neighborhood impacts, and the impact on business owners.
Costa answered candidly that she did not have direct hands-on licensing experience. She said she had worked in different fields, had helped put together events, had read some of what service on the board entails, and would need “research” and communication to get up to speed on state and city laws.
Again: not polished, but at least real.
After Costa left the table, Rogers moved favorable action and Smith seconded it. The committee voted yes.
So the committee’s pattern was the same as always: ask almost nobody anything, then move the appointments along. But on Costa, at least there was a visible attempt to establish whether she had thought about the job.
The last appointment, Laura Evans to the Disability Commission, was sent forward with even less ceremony than the library seats. DiPierro moved favorable action almost as soon as it was confirmed she was in the room. Smith chimed in that “we need the disability commission to really get moving,” which is probably the most substantive thing said all night about that board.
And that was it. Motion to adjourn. Gone.
Compared with the April 13 meeting, this one showed the split personality of Legislative Affairs pretty clearly. Two weeks ago, Rogers objected to confirming Samuel Fern to the Licensing Commission without seeing “a face to the person” and hearing where he stood. This week, she applied the same basic logic to Costa, and the committee actually entertained it.
Good.
Because if the committee is going to pretend this is vetting, it should do at least a little vetting.
What still did not happen was any meaningful discussion of standards. What experience should matter for a six-year Licensing Commission appointment? What exactly happened with the prior Housing Authority removal that “doesn’t exactly sit well” even with a yes vote? Why are some appointees questioned while others get the Everett special: you showed up, welcome aboard?
Those answers were not in the room Monday night.
The votes were. The process, such as it is, rolled on.