The Oak Bluffs finance and advisory committee is once again urging the Oak Bluffs planning board and the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School (MVRHS) committee to resolve the field lawsuit.
During a meeting on Thursday, Jan. 4, the finance committee voted 7-0 to send a letter to the planning board recommending that no more funds be used toward the field lawsuit. Finance committee chair Sherry Countryman and member Sean DeBettencourt abstained from voting.
The controversial lawsuit is over the planning board’s rejection of the school committee’s request for a special permit to construct a synthetic turf field. The school district appealed the board’s rejection. After a land court judge ruled in favor of the school district this past fall, the planning board filed a notice to appeal the decision.
“The FinCom recognizes that there are challenging and multifaceted challenges in the litigation,” the letter, dated Jan. 5, reads. “However, a majority of the FinCom believes that this matter has been sufficiently litigated at considerable expense to the town, and the planning board’s position was found to be without merit.
“The FinCom therefore voted at its meeting that the expenditure of any further legal fees by the planning board on the litigation is also unmerited, and recommends that such expenditures cease,” the letter states.
Last April, days after the school committee voted in a split decision to continue the appeals process for the field lawsuit, finance committee members expressed their frustrations regarding the expenses associated with the litigation, and urged both parties to come to a resolution.
As an Oak Bluffs voter who gets hit with a double whammy by the ongoing lawsuit, I agree with the Finance Committee that the Town should no longer fund this, on either side of the equation. I am also opposed to donations being given (to either side) to continue the lawsuit. This is awfully close to bribery, it seems to me, to give money to a public entity to continue this fight. . The Fin Comm is correct; this should be settled by home-grown arbitration. It does seem that a lot of irrational, emotional opinions are being flung as “facts” on both sides of this argument. Time for the grownups in the rooms to step forward and settle it.
Say it ain’t so finally a voice of reason to help the taxpayers out here. Maybe Ewell Hopkins can get private money to keep this game going.
When you appeal a court case it does not mean you are trying to reverse a decision made in a specific court. The court in which the plastic turf field vs. natural playing field was tried was not the appropriate court in which to litigate a case of this nature. Appealing the field case merely means moving the case to the court which is appropriate to try the case. It is part of legal process.
This conflict is sad as anonymous money is involved in building the field and to prolong school committee litigations. Money shouldn’t be such a power player in a a case that has the community split down the middle. This will always have a taste of corporate money bulldozing our democratic process.