We are all going to have to trust Superintendent Richie Smith’s interpretation of the school lawyers’ interpretation of the law.
Again.
Despite a high level of public interest in the legality of the MVRHS School Committee’s acceptance of anonymous cash donations to fund the artificial turf lawsuit, the committee voted on Monday night, Nov. 6, that the public is not allowed to read for ourselves what the school lawyers recently advised in writing — at taxpayer expense — on the subject. All three up-Island members argued for transparency, and voted to make the document public. The rest of the members voted to keep it secret, although they did not cite any authority entitling them to withhold it.
At Monday’s meeting, the superintendent reported that the lawyers’ written opinion advised that the committee can continue to accept and spend anonymous cash donations — just as they did last July. While he did not elaborate, he left the impression that funds may not only be accepted anonymously as to the public, but also anonymously as to school officials and the school committee itself. He conflated the various uses of the term “anonymous,” leaving us wondering: Anonymous to whom?
Critically, therefore, it remains unclear whether the legal opinion states, one way or the other, that it is necessary for even one school official or one school committee member to know the donors’ identities to assess and confirm whether they fit within a category of private donors to regional school districts permitted under Massachusetts law.
Committee member Robert Lionette, who had read the lawyers’ letter, took issue with the interpretation offered by the superintendent. Mr. Lionette said that under his reading of the lawyers’ advice, complete donor anonymity is not allowed under the statute. Given the disagreement among school officials and committee members, the committee voted to go back to the lawyers again, for the third time, for a behind-closed-doors Q and A session.
So again Island taxpayers will have to pay lawyers to untangle the mess that has been wrought upon us by the school officials and committee. And again we will be kept in the dark about what their lawyers say they must do, or may not do.
In advance of that nonpublic Q and A session, please permit me to try to clarify where things stand:
- Is cash allowed to be donated to the school? Yes, this is not disputed.
- May donor identities be kept anonymous from the public? Yes, this is not disputed.
- Does Chapter 44, Section 53A, apply to private donations to our regional school district, limiting them to “a charitable foundation, a private corporation, or an individual?” Yes, this is not disputed.
- If the school has had a past practice of accepting anonymous cash gifts, does that mean they can continue to do so? No, only lawful gifts may be accepted, irrespective of past practices.
- Have other regional school districts in Massachusetts accepted anonymous donations, no questions asked? Maybe or maybe not, but no examples have been provided.
Indeed, there is at least one example to the contrary. City officials earlier this year in Holyoke were very concerned about whether they could lawfully accept under Section 53A a large, anonymous, monetary gift to their public school. They were relieved when they learned that the donor had been confirmed as a “private company,” and thus a legal donor under the statute. They were satisfied that although the donor was to remain anonymous to the public, some officials knew the identity, and were able to confirm the legality of the donation. (The Holyoke public schools are under receivership, and the school committee is not the decisionmaker.)
“This could’ve been sped along a lot faster. They know who this person is, the company as it turns out, it was just anonymous publicly, but that was not explained at the beginning,” Holyoke City Councilor Jourdain said. (See bit.ly/TR_HolyokeSchoolFunding.)
The Holyoke experience highlights the critical unanswered question that remains for MVRHS: Is Massachusetts law satisfied if just one school official or one member of the committee knows the identity of every donor, and can confirm to the full committee that the donors are permitted under the law?
Yes, that is a reasonable interpretation of the statute, in the absence of a judicial interpretation. But we do not know whether school counsel so advised, based on the discussion at the Monday night meeting.
It must be said that the better, more cautious, risk-averse interpretation of Massachusetts law is that the entire school committee should know the identities of donors before voting to accept the funds. Meeting a legal standard is the lowest bar that must be reached, of course, but as a policy matter, we can always do better. Our public school should do better.
So where are we now? Hard to say.
We could be here: If one or more school officials or school committee members, in fact, know the identities of all the cash donors, and can assure the rest of the committee — in public, as required by the Open Meeting Law — that those donors meet the terms of Massachusetts law, then the legal issue is resolved.
Done and dusted.
But instead we are here: No committee member or school official has come forward to say that they know the identities of the donors, and the legal issue therefore remains unresolved.
Vicki Divoll is a lawyer and a member of the Chilmark finance committee. For several years she has acted as liaison to the MVRHS on behalf of the committee.
Vicki was a lawyer. She has a J.D. Please stop calling her a lawyer. That is past tense. Not current with the Bar in any state I could find. Let’s just call it for what it is. And she is surely capable of reaching out to the School’s attorney’s on chilmark taxpayers dimes through chilmark town Counsel on this matter. Instead we keep getting essays. Vicki. Do what you were elected to do……advise the residents that elected you if their money is being spent appropriately. The massive irony is you didnt want money spent on this project yet here we go burning your dollars because Vicki can’t accept another lawyer’s opinion. Chilmark residents, you have been assessed based on the school budget and you approved that money for expenditure. You don’t get to say how school committee members spend grants, donations etc as Ms Divoll would have you all believe. Wonder if Ms. Divoll would have any issue if this was not about a track and field? Doubtful or where has she been for the past bunch of years? I guess not paying attention!
Reasonable people are free to disagree about any number of topics, and by that token of course you and Ms. Divoll are free to disagree about this topic. I am a little baffled, however, by your discounting out of hand her previous experience as an attorney. If she were a retired judge, instead of a retired lawyer, would you similarly raise the point that she’s retired as a reason to discredit her opinion on the law? Being a former lawyer doesn’t necessarily make her right on this topic, but I don’t see how it makes sense to say or imply that her previous work experience as a lawyer is irrelevant.
To hear once again the crying of an up island finance committee member regarding secrecy all while racking up MVRHS legal fees. I’m tired of the do anything to stop this project. it’s getting exhausting. Her town was the first town with Robert Lionette, who is on the school committee, leading the way to defund our high school. Then they asked that no 2024 budget monies be spent on legal fees and they get a vote to support that. Yet, it is the very same people who continue to ask for legal fees to be spent. First they want to pass their questions through to the lawyers, $$$$, they don’t like the answers superintendent Smith gives them and validated by chairwoman Kathryn Shertzer, so they want a written statement from the lawyers explaining themselves.. $$$$$$. I remind everyone Chilmark pay Approx 6% of the budget. If they want all these questions answered, why not have their own town pay the money to vet them thru their lawyers and save our other towns the expense of their inability to wait for the judges rendering of a decision.
Or the School Committee could be transparent and show us the lawyers opinion.
Or you could run for School Committee and show us the lawyers opinion.
Vicky
It is time to stop this, there are not criminal elements, or drug gangs donating to the school board. It is one person who doesn’t want to be harrassed by the Field Fund supporters. Please just wait for the judge on 11/17.
Terry, your response is hollow. You and the other two men from MV@Play have refused to name donors from the inception of this project.
Susan
There is history of people who support the project being attacked. Do you remember Dr Green? Opponents to the project tried to destroy her reputation all because she said she worked for the EPA instead of saying she did contract work for the EPA. Opponents labeled her a lier, even posting on MIT web pages attacking her creditability. You people tried to deeply hurt her over a minor slip.
The only thing Dr Green did was state scientific facts that destroyed your faulty arguments, you couldn’t argue against facts so you attacked her person.
If not legally required to list donors, why would we chose to expose them
Terry Donahue
Why should they be named?
Susan, first of all, fundraising for this project has yet to start, so why do any donors need to be mentioned and you vilify individuals who have done nothing but try to improve the status of the school’s playing fields, like the people at MV@Play? Second, the MV@Play group never got a chance to fundraise because your friends at the Field Fund promised to put in grass fields, thus MV@Play stepped back and let them take the project. Susan, please explain to me then, why doesn’t the high school have brand new grass fields, paid for and managed by the Field Fund, as they promised and said could be done? And when they promised to put in grass fields, why didn’t anyone raise an eyebrow asking for them to produce the names of their donors? Can’t you see why this ask for donor names is just you and the opposition trying to do anything to get the project rejected, up to and including, acting outside the law, as the PB Chair did, and threatening to defund the school budget, and a non-binding referendum to not allow legal donations just to get your way? Look at it this way, if you can, if the planning board chair acted within the confines of his position as instructed to him by the town attorney, then the school wouldn’t have incurred all the bills for the appeal, an appeal it seems was needed because a special permit was not needed after all. If he had acted within his parameters, then this anonymous donation wouldn’t have been needed. Why aren’t you upset about the money the planning board caused everyone to pay?
Mr Donahue. You know it was just one person who donated? If so, it would seem this donation was not quite anonymous. If not, you are speaking about something you actually do not know the details of. If what you say is true, it would seem that this information can be shared with some people but, not others. Seems you have done more to prove Ms. Divoll’s point than to refute it.
Can we just end this child like debate? Kids play sports on grass. That’s just what they do. You want to have them play on plastic well you’ll have to go to the time out chair in the corner and complain, but the grownups are done with your whining.
Harrison
I had nothing to do with the recent anonymous donation. What Ms Desmarais and I were talking about happened nine years ago.
Comments are closed.