After an executive session, the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School Committee announced they had agreed on plans for settlement talks with a proposed date, location, and agenda items to be discussed in a public meeting with the Oak Bluffs Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board.
“We have tonight, with the help of our attorney, come up with a location for option, a date for option, and agenda items for option,” New Chair of the Committee Kathryn Shertzer announced. “This will all get communicated in the morning through our attorney to the other boards.”
“To summarize what we discussed and can share, beyond the fact that we have already put out a settlement offer,” said Shertzer, “we have opened up our settlement discussion to invite everybody to come to the table and talk. So we have invited the Board of Selectman of the town of Oak Bluffs, we have invited the entire Planning Board of the town of Oak Bluffs, the town administrator, as well as the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School Committee, to come together in one public meeting.”
“We hope to use a moderator for the discussion,” added committee member Mike Watts.
No further details about the date, location, or agenda items were shared in the public session.
There was some talk of holding the conversation in a public session.
“If there’s ever a time for transparency and openness, this is it,” said committee member Skip Manter. “This has gone on for a long time.”
The committee ultimately moved to enter executive session at the recommendation of their attorney, Brian Winner. “I think some of the things we may touch upon would warrant an executive session,” said Winner.
Watts asked if any of the topics could be sequestered and discussed in public, but Winner felt conversations “that pertain to more substantive matters,” should be held in executive session. “That being said, you’re the client and it’s your vote that determines whether or not the discussion is held in a public or executive session. I’m suggesting it, I’m not requiring it.”
Spending it all on grass.
Unless I’m missing it, other then the heading, this article never actually mentions what the meeting MVRHS is pushing for us about. I’m thinking that may actually be information you want in the article.
I find it interesting that in this article in this newspaper, it clearly mentions that the school is pushing for a settlement meeting to end this issue once and for all. This, at the request of the up island towns to end this suit, that they clearly stated by not initially approving the high school budget. So the school was listening wasn’t it. But, the editor of this newspaper writes an editorial vilifying the school committee when it is clear that the school committee seems to be the only ones interested in resolving this issue but putting a settlement offer on the table.
The OB leadership, the planning board, finance committee, the select board, and the town attorney do nothing to settle this ongoing appeal that has been filed against them. Not a peep out of them. They have cancelled meetings to discuss this, they have not even reported that they have discussed the issue of the settlement offer at all that would ends this appeal.
Where is WT, Chilmark, and Aquinnah now? Why aren’t they publicly denouncing the town of OB leadership like they did the school committee? You wanted this to end, step up. Oh wait, the up island towns are afraid that the settlement offer may still involve a turf field, so this was never about the money was it? It was, and has always been, about being anti-turf. Like this has never been about PFAS, it has been about being anti-turf. Call it was it is please, but you can’t do that can you, because turf isn’t illegal and nothing has proven that it will leach PFAS into the ground. Why doesn’t the editor write something about that? Report both sides of this “debate”. Then it will actually be called reporting.
Patrick– since there is no mention of what is to be discussed in this article , I find it interesting that you criticize the up island towns for being “afraid” ???? Afraid of what, exactly ?
I think you have opined that they should have nothing to do with it — let me know if I am wrong about that—
Come on– There are 2 options here– turf or no turf. What can the “compromise” be ?
As for the times– In this article, which you are commenting on, they are quoting people and reporting the facts about what went on in this particular meeting.
The Times has been reporting both sides of this debate for years. They have published hundreds if not thousands of comments for or against this project.
Your comment implying that the Times is not reporting both sides of this debate is disingenuous. misleading and blatantly untrue.
Let’s keep it honest,
PLEASE .
Don, please link the article that the editor has written an editorial about supporting the turf field. I would love to read it and be corrected. Thanks.
Since there is an offer on the table, why hasn’t the town of OB done anything, I mean, anything about it or commented on anything related to the offer? Can they even say they have met to discuss it? Has the planning board chair even brought it up to his board members? I would like to read that the town is even talking about it, wouldn’t you?