Tensions ran hot during a MVRHS school committee meeting as committee members continued to pay attorney fees relating to a pending legal appeal, despite a previous decision not to.
The committee met Wednesday, July 12th with attorney Brian Winner to discuss further litigation strategy in the matter of the school district versus the Oak Bluffs Planning Board over a synthetic turf field planned for the high school.
Committee chair Kathryn Shertzer tried to move the meeting into executive session in the matter of Martha’s Vineyard Regional School District vs Oak Bluffs Planning Board in state land court, inviting Winner to join, who was present on the zoom. But before agreeing to go into executive session, other committee members initiated a discussion about why Winner’s services were being incurred in the Fiscal Year 2024, when the committee had previously agreed that no FY ’24 monies would be spent on the litigation.
“Should we discuss number 3 first, appeal finance?” Committee member Skipper Manter asked. “I see Mr. Winner is present, he’s not working for free. We have an obligation to pay him, but we have no funds. So, shouldn’t we talk about that first?”
The attorney’s services were also engaged on July 3rd in a meeting with representatives from the school committee and members of the Oak Bluffs planning and select boards present, along with their attorney.
On Wednesday, Manter and committee member Robert Lionette expressed the most concern for transparency and open communication. Lionette said that according to his memory, the last public comment the committee had issued on the attorney had been from committee member Mike Watts, informing the attorney that funding ended on June 30th.
“I called Attorney Winner and informed him that we did not have fiscal year ‘24 money to spend on his services,” Watts confirmed.
“We are in FY ‘24. We are incurring bills today,” Lionette said.
Upon reviewing the minutes from a meeting on April 5th, Watts moved to only access funds from FY 2023 on the legal line for the appeal. It passed unanimously. Manter moved to not take any funds from the FY 2024 operating budget for the appeal challenge, which passed 5-4.
But on Wednesday, Shertzer ultimately pushed the committee to enter into executive session regardless. “Since he is on the clock, we are going to move into executive session and discuss finance in an open public meeting,” she said.
Following the executive session, Shertzer made a statement that the committee had voted to instruct their attorney to move forward with the appeal.
“A call should have taken place prior to engagement of services,” said Manter, of the July 3rd meeting, where Winner was present.
“We were very clear at numerous elections and town meetings, voting no money should be spent on Fiscal Year ‘24. There was no talk about any other type of funding except donations. There was never any discussion of taking any expense money out of the leftover FY ‘23 money come July 1st.”
Manter went on to say that he thought the committee’s approach was deceitful and “a back door approach” to keep funding litigation fees. “We tell people we’re not spending anymore money,” he said. “This is not what we agreed to do.”
Superintendent Richard Smith explained the money would come from a “special purpose appropriation” clause that interpretively allows for the use of any leftover FY 2023 money, which in this case would be used to fund FY ‘24 legal expenses pertaining to the lawsuit. According to Smith, as of last week, the remaining available amount for use was $8,000. “So far, no FY 2024 money has been spent,” Smith said.
The superintendent shared that he had been in collaboration with MVRHS finance manager Mark Friedman when strategizing.
“We are doing our due diligence,” said Smith, adding that Friedman and an attorney were both looking into “the validity and appropriateness” of moving forward. “We are still working towards an answer,” Smith said.
Lionette was not satisfied. “If there’s uncertainty, I think it’s profoundly wrong to move forward,” he said. “To suggest somehow that $8,000 is a paltry amount, and that it’s ok to work into the gray? Completely problematic to me.”
“I’m disappointed that we don’t have more clarity,” he said. “I fully intend to reach out to the AG’s office tomorrow morning to seek clarity on the financial fees in support of our attorney. I think for purposes of transparency for our community, it would be appropriate for the committee to support that.”
Smith defended his choices of engaging Winners services in front of the committee.
“I was told clearly a year ago that I am acting for this board, so those actions took place. We are responsible, Mark Friedman and myself, to pay.”
He went on to say, “this board created this situation. Do not look at me as if I spearheaded this,” of the overall litigation situation.
“We never said there would be no money spent,” said Shertzer. “It said no money out of FY ‘24 would be spent. To Richie’s point, we are talking a finite amount of money, the $8,000 left of the FY ‘23 budget.”
“I don’t believe we’ve misled anybody,” said Shertzer.
The school district’s lawsuit against the town of Oak Bluffs and the Oak Bluffs Planning Board will have a hearing on Friday morning.
The voters could not have been more clear: no more money. This shell game is duplicitous and disgusting, as is the entire notion of the school suing the town in the first place.
After nine years the proposed field project is going before the judge Friday 7/14/23.
Why can’t we all just wait for for the judges decision? The only attorney fees will be for one day in court.
There has been a great deal of discussion about beinging financially responsible.
If the school board drops the law suit seven years of planning and $650,000 dollars go to waste and we still haven’t improved one playing field on the campus for our kids.
IS THIS BEING FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE?
Terry– That’s pretty desperate logic.
To claim that they should continue to waste money on a failed cause because they have already wasted $650,000 on a failed cause is insulting to the taxpayers.
I think the taxpayers made it pretty clear at town meetings that they didn’t want this to continue. The school board heard it, and apparently just lied through their teeth to get the financing in the town wide elections. They are pants on fire liars– pure and simple– they can claim they are not, but they are still wasting taxpayer money on legal fees.
But what else would we expect from a group of idiots that want to put a dangerous, toxic 500,000 pound lump of plastic at our school ?
Yeah, you got one thing right– rather than improve the fields , they have just been wasting money on their over inflated ego’s.
And you think they should continue to do that ?
I repeat–
That’s pretty desperate logic.
Don,
nice of you to sit in you bunker and criticize everyone and call people names. why don’t you stand up and volunteer your time, sit on a board, any board, It takes a lot more time and effort then pounding out you comments all day. .
Sir with all due respect you start calling people liars, you better damn well be able to back it up with some facts.
If the money was left over from last years budget, you can use it this year, show me a law that says you can’t or apologise.
John– It seems that there was some confusion over that technicality.
So, ok– I will apologize for the pants on fire liar comment, since there seems to be some ambiguity about it.
But I will opine that the option of using “left over money” was not adequately explained to the voters before they funded the school. It was misleading at best, and not what the voters expected.
The idea was to stop hemorrhaging money on legal fees, That is what the board agreed to. Yet here we are 2 weeks into fiscal ’24 and the committee
is still spending on legal fees. Will they find some other money somewhere ?
So I will revise my comment from “pants on fire” to only 1 Pinocchio .
Is that OK ?
I don’t get on committees because they seem to routinely pull stuff like this.
Some circular logic here. Complain about the behavior of a committee. When asked why you don’t try to join said committee state it’s because of the behavior of the committee. Why should the nattering nabobs try to change anything? What would they have to complain about? How would they be able to sit on the sidelines and have an opinion about how absolutely everything? I’m reminded of when I was umpiring a game and someone was complaining and I asked why they didn’t help out. They said “No thanks, too many people complain”.
This isn’t about desperate logic; it’s about breaking free from a logical trap – the sunk cost fallacy, to be precise. This is the trap where you stick to your guns, refusing to change course simply because you’ve invested a lot of time, effort, or resources, even when you know your path is doing more harm than good.
School committees aren’t just political mouthpieces, simply amplifying what voters echo. They play a much more pivotal role than that. They’re guardians of our schools’ future, ensuring that our schools meet the needs of all our students, not just the vocal ones. Our School Committee members? They’re not appointed; they’re elected. So, if you’re not on board with their decisions, flex your democratic muscles. Vote ’em out. Why not consider stepping up and running against them when their term’s up? Like the great philosopher Plato said, ‘One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.'”
I do vote—
Thank you Skip Manter and Robert Lionette for watching over what’s best for our students, our community and our environment.
And I further wonder what the legal fees are for todays hearing in Boston! ChaChing
No one seems to recognize the most logical
solution to this problem: eliminate the football program. That might be an impossible concept in Texas, but certainly sensible Vineyarders should see why this sport is harmful in many ways.
Football teaches our boys and girls how to injure opposing players without getting caught.
Thomas, please take note that boys and girls soccer, boys and girls lacrosse play on the field being replaced. In addition, the field hockey team plays on a grass field which is, for all intents and purpose, obsolete. The game, at all levels, is now played on turf. So, I guess you would be for eliminating the Performing Arts Center in the new school design to get rid of the performing arts too. That will be expensive too. You clearly don’t know what the benefits are of extracurricular activities.
And, to also temper some other commenters here, no one EVER said this field is needed to create professional athletes, or for that matter, to gain college scholarships. This field is needed to provide a safe playing environment, provide outlets for thousands of children on the island that will get them outside playing, allow them to learn valuable life lessons, and keep them from sitting at home leading sedentary lives. The high school should be an inclusive facility, inclusive for the entire island population. This field will be the right step in that direction, and will be safe for the environment.
All that money could have gone to paying teachers a little more. Lord knows, they deserve it.
How much per pound is this grass going to cost the taxpayer?
Skipper and Robert, really? Your very own committee, in which Robert was the chair, stated that no 2024 money would be used, and it’s not. Did you really think that with the judge’s court date set to be in July, which everyone knew prior to the end of the fiscal year, they wouldn’t pay the attorney to attend that court appearance? This is just grandstanding to win points with their supporters, they knew that FY 2023 money was going to be used.
Comments are closed.