A week after West Tisbury voters opted not to approve the town’s share of the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School’s (MVRHS) budget for the upcoming fiscal year, Chilmark officials are following suit.
At a Chilmark finance advisory committee meeting Thursday afternoon, committee members voted to rescind their previous recommendation to approve the town’s MVRHS budget, and instead voted to recommend denying the line item in the budget at Chilmark’s annual town meeting on Monday, April 24.
The committee’s decision is in response to Martha’s Vineyard Regional School District vs. the Town of Oak Bluffs Planning Board, an ongoing case in Massachusetts Land Court filed by school officials after the planning board rejected a proposal to install a synthetic turf field, citing concerns over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Since then, the school committee has spent $30,000 in legal fees, and recently voted to continue the appeal in court, without a specific cap on cost.
It takes four out of six towns to approve the school’s budget. If the school appropriations are turned down by three or more towns, they’ll need to hold a special town meeting to approve any amended budget items. Although the Oak Bluffs finance committee also expressed frustration with the continuing legal battle, voters in Oak Bluffs — and Edgartown — both approved their shares of the school’s budget at their respective annual town meetings on April 11.
Chilmark finance committee members emphasized that the decision to recommend denial of the MVRHS budget stems solely from the lawsuit, and the open-ended costs associated with it.
“I want to make it crystal clear,” said Chilmark finance committee chair Susan Murphy Thursday. “This vote has nothing to do with the budget itself, regarding everything other than the unlimited spending on this lawsuit.”
“It’s based on the actions of the school committee,” she said.
Murphy pointed out that Chilmark voted against using school funds for the development of the turf field in 2019. “It would be consistent with the wishes of our town to not prolong this lawsuit.”
“The school committee must — it is not a choice — they must address the issue that the towns find objectionable,” she said.
The towns that opt to vote down the budget due to the litigation are not to be blamed, Murphy said. Rather, the “pressure will very quickly be on the five members of the school committee who voted to do this action.”
Seeing that legal reps for the school district have relied heavily on the Dover Amendment to make their case — legislation that allows properties with an educational component to bypass certain zoning bylaws — finance committee member Rob Hannemann raised concerns about setting a precedent by supporting the school committee’s continued appeal.
“The schools have overstepped their bounds here,” he said. “They’ve crossed a dangerous line [by] seemingly assuming that schools are superior to the towns.”
Hannemann said the lawsuit is intended to “override a town board.”
If the school committee prevails in court, “what town is next on the line to have the Dover Amendment applied to changing something that a town board wants to do or not do? It could be Chilmark,” he said.
“The schools have broken trust with the towns; we can’t have that go forward,” Hannemann continued. “We have to send a message, such that this kind of thing doesn’t change how [the school district and Island towns] work together.”
The finance committee had every intention of approving the high school’s budget, committee member Vicki Divoll said, until the school committee’s vote “to remove the cap on the lawsuit spending [and] removed the need to have additional votes within the school committee on spending … As a result, the way they’re spending their money, [Chilmark] will be in the dark about that.”
The school committee risks “running the legal line into the red,” she said.
“So we’re in a pickle here, because [Chilmark] hasn’t had a voice on a lot of this,” Divoll said. “But when the spending becomes inappropriate, we have to step up.”
Because the MVRHS budget cannot be amended on the town meeting floor to exclude only costs associated with the turf lawsuit, the town must vote down the entirety of the request, Divoll said. “The only vehicle that we as a town have, the only vehicle that taxpayers on the Island have on the Island to fight back when they feel the spending in this manner is excessive, is to vote no on the budget assessment to our town.”
In the event of a vote to deny the MVRHS budget, the funding request will go back to the school committee for changes.
“Five members of the school committee have brought this to a head here with this extreme, extreme action,” Divoll said of the suit. “The ball is fully in their court.”
“They will have to listen to our words and act accordingly to fix the budget,” she said, before sending it back to the towns for approval.
On how that would work, school district Superintendent Richie Smith said the school committee would likely revert back to the FY23 budget levels if no resolution could be reached.
A failure to come to terms would prompt “a deep concern about our ability to support kids,” he said.
On the existing litigation, Smith said he’s “working hard to try to consider different settlement options, and will continue to do so.”
“I just don’t advertise those things publicly,” he said. “But rest assured, I’m doing so.”
The Chilmark finance committee ultimately voted 5-1 to recommend denial of the high school’s appropriations. Committee members Susan Murphy, Vicki Divoll, Rob Hannemann, Bruce Golden, and Marshall Carroll voted for, and Don Leopold against.
Chilmark’s annual town meeting will be held Monday, April 24, at 7 pm at the Chilmark Community Center.
I am one of the original three who started MV@Play in an attempt to improve the high school athletic fiends nine years ago. I read your letter to the editor about the need to be fiscally responsible and end the law suit between the MVRHS school committee and the Oak Bluffs Planning Board.
If the school committee stops the suit the proposed project is dead.
Do you consider waiting for another month or so for the judge to adjudicate the suit unreasonable or are you advocating quitting now and wasting the $650,000 already spent plus the $1,200,000 that the school will need to invest in three new fields plus a track.
It would seem to me that action is much more fiscally irresponsible, currently the lawyers are waiting to hear from the judge, therefore very little money being spent on legal fees.
Terry Donahue
Terry, thanks very much for this comment, as it allows clarification.
The towns were waiting patiently for the judge in the turf lawsuit to rule on the summary judgement motion. But after the five school board members acted three weeks ago to remove all caps, transparency, and accountability on future spending on this lawsuit, the towns had no choice but to act now. The taxpayers lose their voices and their power to affect this issue after town meetings are over. The five school committee members forced the taxpayers hands.
Hi Vickie
I just saw that Robert Lionette canceled MVRHS School Committee meeting that was going to discuss a settlement with the Oak Bluffs Planning Board?
Why would the chair of the MVRHS school board do this?
I speak directly to the 5 irresponsible school board members. This issue will get me to go to the Tisbury town meeting to vote this irresponsible lawsuit out of existence.
You lost the legal vote to put the poison field there.
Get over it.
Even Fox news sorta admitted that trump lost the 2020 election.
It cost them nearly a billion dollars.
Spend the money on a new lawn mower rather than lawyer.
Don, you don’t know if it was a legal vote, that’s why it is legally being appealed. It seems that the planning board didn’t even consider the Dover Amendment in its ruling, not to mention the science it clearly ignored, because there is no science that says this field is “poisonous”. To use kid’s educational funding as a pawn is just downright wrong, no matter what you believe. That would be like a parent taking away a kid’s lunch money because a parent didn’t agree with a teacher’s choice in books to read.
The solution is GMO grass seed, synthetic fertilizer, chemical herbicide, man made pesticide and all natural diesel fuel for the grounds keeping machinery
The petty politics played out on this island is getting disgusting shame on these boards, resorting to this kind of action. Using our kids as pawns and the temper tantrums of adults or so-called adults. These are dirty tricks being played by dirty politicians. It is legitimate question to get an answer to the Dover amendment by an unbiased judiciary. It was never like this here and maybe it is just a sign of our times. Of course all you have to do is turn on the TV and see similar dirty tricks being played out in Washington, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised they happen here as well. Who is looking out for the kids now?
Bob, the problem is the failure of Right thinking Islanders to stand for election.
Does anyone recall that the MVC reviewed this project EXTENSIVELY and gave it the go ahead? The issue here is squarely on the shoulders of the OB planning board chair – that’s where your anger and retribution should be aimed. There is no science to support the claim that the project creates a PFAS issue.
The newspapers and every town receive notifications of MVRHS School Committee meetings, Not a peep about this MVRHS executive session to discuss settlement offers to the OB…see for yourselves…click on the agenda here….
MV Regional High School Committee – Agenda 4-24-23 (https://www.westtisbury-ma.gov/school-committees-all-island/agenda/mv-regional-high-school-committee-agenda-4-24-23)
SUBMITTED ON APRIL 20, 2023 – 12:51PM
Thanks John , I looked up the statement from the Horsley Witten group ( MVC Peer reviewer) who reported ( Pg 23 8-26-21 decision) that , “there was insufficient data to conclude how the synthetic carpet, shock pad and infill would effect the environment “ . Pg.22 of the MVC decision states,” micro plastic would be shed from the field ( up to 441-772 pounds per year) potentially affecting groundwater, Island ponds and aquaculture”.
Those are written statements on record to serve as a safety net for those leaders who approve of this project from environmental lawsuits. That’s not science I can rely on. Our drinking water is at stake.
The MVC majority voted for this out of date and divisive project which is mis-aligned with their mission.
Suggesting anger and retribution is not a good example for our student athletes or fellow community members . Words matter .
Rebekah, your picking and choosing what you wish to highlight is interesting. You didn’t include that there will be a two layer filter and trench drain to capture any micro-plasics that may break loose. You also didn’t mention that the field will reduce nitrogen that is released into the ponds from the decreased need for fertilization, and the rain gardens that will be put in place to assist in decreasing nitrogen run-off as well. Remember, Sengy and the Lagoon are nitrogen sensitive. You also chose to not mention that the commission wrote that it is “essential and appropriate in view of available alternatives”. So, you can pick and choose what you want from their decision, as I did, to support your argument but the long and the short of it is that the commission voted to approve the project. The MVC you say “voted for this out of date and divisive project is mis-aligned with their mission”, as the proclaimed institution developed to protect the island, it said it was appropriate and developed conditions to protect the environment. I would say they did their due diligence. It is the OB Planning board who likely overstepped their authority, which we will find out in court. The lack of studies to support the claim that turf fields affect ground water alone says enough. They’re sure are enough of them out there that could be studied. Lastly, and I have said it before, the towns voting to reject funding for student education because they don’t like a decision made by elected officials, is flat out wrong and poor sportsmanship.
And what about the microplastics that get ground into the clothing or the lungs of the players ?
When applying nitrogen fertilizers, there is a point where you apply the fertilizer at a rate that the grass can use.
Most people have lawns, and over apply nitrogen fertilizers.
The school doesn’t need to do that. But if it did, the amount would be insignificant in relation to the surrounding private properties.
I agree Beka but it was not me who is suggesting retribution, it was suggested by the adults at the town meetings – to “send a message” to the school committee.
Hi Rebekah
If you will read the specifications for the Synthetic Turf filed with the MVC you will find a filter will be installed under the entire field to capture any micro plastic particles that MIGHT be shed by the field. Concerning polluting the aquifer or the ponds the report from Weston & Sampson commissioned by the MVC is attached below.
Weston & Sampson testing done for the MVC 2/1/21. Based on our review and the current regulatory standards for PFAS in Massachusetts, there are no significant risks associated with the discharge of PFAS from the synthetic turf field into groundwater.