The MVRHS School Committee will continue to use anonymous donations to pay attorney fees following a Land Court judge’s ruling that favored the committee’s planned turf field at the high school.
The committee met with attorney Brian Winner Monday night during a public meeting, voting 7-2 to continue to engage his services.
Winner was expected to assist in understanding the court order and determining next steps. That will include contacting the Oak Bluffs planning board, and its attorney, Michael Goldsmith, to figure out how to proceed. Winner said he would report the status of that discussion to the committee.
On Monday, the committee held a brief discussion into whether or not to contract Winner’s services, due to a lack of clarity on where the funds to pay for his services would come from. According to committee Chair Kathryn Shertzer, donations would be used to pay the fees.
Shertzer assured the committee that no taxpayer money would be spent on any more legal fees associated with the field lawsuit. “It’s not coming out of the high school budget or legal line,” said Shertzer, “We accepted donations specifically for this purpose.”
According to Shertzer and MVRHS finance manager Suzanne Cioffi, one of the donations was from an anonymous donor, while the other came from a named donor, Reginold Anfrantz. Both were accepted in a July meeting.
Committee member Robert Lionette expressed concerns about the nature of accepting anonymous donations. “I understand the nature of people wanting to be anonymous, but anonymous to the public and anonymous to the committee are two different things,” Lionette said.
Superintendent Richie Smith said, “We consulted our attorneys with that specific question. He cited Massachusetts law chapter 71, section 16, about municipalities versus school committees. It is his belief and our understanding that the acceptance of anonymous donations is something that we can do.”
Shertzer supported Smith, saying, “I can tell you, Robert, I was on that phone call with Richie and Mark, and he [the attorney] emphatically said that it is completely acceptable to accept [anonymous donations.]”
Lionette requested getting the statement from the attorney in writing.
Committee member Lou Paciello asked if committee members are permitted to make anonymous donations. He questioned if it would be a conflict of interest. “If you’re going to speak with the attorney again, can you find out?” said Paciello.
Shertzer and Smith agreed to take it up with the attorney.
The identity of the donor is still unknown.
Winner also briefly assessed the 13-page Land Court order ruling issued last week. The judge ruled that the Oak Bluffs planning board overstepped its bounds when rejecting a special permit for the field, because of state law known as the Dover Amendment that allows educational institutions to bypass some local zoning.
It was Winner’s personal opinion that the Oak Bluffs planning board would not object to the ruling, as there is “nothing to be appealed” and “nothing left to try,” Winner said. “This is the end of the case.”
“Since there is nothing left to do in Land Court, we should dispose of the case. The easiest way to dispose of the case is to propose a very simple agreement for judgment and present it to the judge, which would state that the planning board’s denial is vacated … and because we already have a site plan approval, this is the end of the case.”
Shertzer asked for a motion for Winner to move forward with attorney Goldsmith, which the committee approved.
Winner stated he saw no reason why either party should be spending more time, money, or resources. “The case is over,” he said.
Winner read a sample judgment for the MVHRS committee that he planned to submit to Judge Smith.
The committee inquired if the planning board and town of Oak Bluffs would be able to appeal the judge’s decision.
“If Oak Bluffs decided to continue to object, we’d have to ask the judge to issue a final judgment, and at that point, Oak Bluffs could file an appeal, but we’re not at that stage yet,” said Winner.
Should the ruling be appealed, the case would go to Massachusetts Appeals Court before a panel of three judges.
Maybe the school committee should note that the NFL Players Union has called for all fields to be grass due to injuries. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nflpa-director-lloyd-howell-calls-for-natural-grass-at-all-nfl-stadiums-after-aaron-rodgers-injury-133703746.html
John, not all turf fields are the same. The field proposed here will be softer and more forgiving that the type of field the NFL uses. Also, the NFL owners have almost unlimited budgets for field maintenance, dramatically more that that of a high school. So much so that most NFL grass stadiums replace their worn out grass several times during the season, do you see the high school doing that throughout the year? That is with limited use compared to the use of a high school field gets throughout the year. Let’s compare apples to apples please.
Maybe it’s time for an island wide referendum on turf. My guess is that most of us don’t want it. But I’m willing to find out. As for ‘facts’, it stretches my credulity, Patrick Cleary, that high school kids get to play on safer turf than NFL players. Who would have thought that professional players could have avoided turf-toe, rug burn, ligament damage and all the rest, by playing on high school fields.
Comments are closed.