The Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School (MVRHS) committee now has an additional $2,000 to spend on ongoing synthetic turf field litigation.
The committee received a $2,000 donation from Terrence and Annemarie Donahue for “field project legal fees,” alongside another $2,000 donation from a group of anonymous donors that was being submitted by committee member Louis Paciello on their behalf.
While the committee voted 7-1 to accept the donation from the Donahues, the second set of donations was tabled until after clarification was received from legal counsel. Committee member Roxanne Ackerman was the sole dissenting vote.
According to the letter from Paciello, several people came to him after The Times reported the school committee was seeking donations for legal fees in its lawsuit against the Oak Bluffs planning board’s appeal over the athletic field lawsuit. Paciello wrote that he would recuse himself during the vote for this set of donations.
Committee member Robert Lionette asked whether the donation was compliant with state laws; In response, committee member Mike Watts clarified that the donors needed to be individuals and not organizations, like corporations or special interest groups.
“I’m comfortable with it,” Paciello said, saying the donations have been vetted. Martha’s Vineyard schools Superintendent Richie Smith said the issue had been brought to the State Ethics Commission to check whether there was a conflict of interest.
When Lionette stated he was still uncomfortable about this process, citing an undisclosed discussion held during a previous executive session, Smith pointed out that legal opinions are not “all-encompassing,” but waiting for more information was another option.
After further discussion, Smith expressed frustration about the uncertainty relating to anonymous donations and the field, particularly since some of the questions require legal knowledge to properly answer. He asked committee members what their “appetite” was for the anonymous donations.
“I’m frankly getting tired of doing this. I really am. It gets old being in this position,” Smith said, clarifying that he was not faulting Lionette and school officials’ need to be careful with legal matters. “We’re educators, and we’re constantly being put in this position, and you all are educators, and you all are citizens … you’re just trying to put a project forward that takes care of kids.”
The committee decided to table the issue and receive a second opinion from their legal counsel, Murphy, Lamere, and Murphy, although no vote was taken.
Meanwhile, the committee unanimously approved certifying the fiscal year 2025 budget. The operational budget added up to $26.6 million, which is lower than the initially proposed $27.02 million, but higher than the fiscal year 2024 budget of $25.1 million. Now, school officials will need to present the budget to the voters during the upcoming annual town meetings.
Additionally, the committee unanimously voted to have no public funding be used for the field lawsuit or the project itself, which includes the track. “Not one penny in this budget is for a track project,” committee member Mike Watts said.
The committee also approved in a split 5-3 vote to request towns to put a nonbinding ballot question asking voters whether they favored a grass or turf surface for the athletic field for the upcoming annual town meeting season. The committee members who voted against the motion were Kris O’Brien, Louis Paciello, and Kathryn Shertzer, according to committee minute taker Teresa Kruszewski.
The suggestion came from committee member Skipper Manter, who said the voters had never been asked what their preferences were regarding the field surface. He said this would be an opportunity to gather data, and give an opportunity for people to express their views.
Some committee members argued against the measure, disagreeing with the process and questioning the point of the measure at this stage of the project.
The reason the field project keeps getting stalled is because Mr. Lionette continues to get in the way. As a committee member it’s your job to show unified support for a project, that on several occasions, has been voted and approved by the board you sit on. Your continued pursuit to get this project denied is boarder-line akin to what Mr. Hopkins is doing in OB, outside your lane and irresponsible. Step in line and get this done, it’s what the coaches, athletes, and your committee wants. This is what the principal and superintendent are talking about, work together to get this project done and stop your support for fracturing our community any further. Furthermore, stop ringing up lawyers fees questioning answers you’ve already received. Public entities accept anonymous donations all the time, you’ve voted for them every time except now because of your lack of support for this project. If you won’t help, get out of the way.
Amen
“As a committee member it’s your job to show unified support for a project, that on several occasions, has been voted and approved by the board you sit on.”
You have to show support for decisions you disagree with?
Absolutely. You make your argument with your board during deliberations. If you fail to sway your fellow committee members, and you lose the vote, you support the decision that was made. That is what being on a committee is about. You don’t then try to find other ways to get your way. If you don’t like it, abdicate your seat.
Absolutely Not!!! If you lose the vote you are under no obligation to support the majority, denigration is to be avoided.
See the US Congress for clarification. It ain’t over till it’s over. It ain’t over.
It’s politics.
Yes please. Let every town meeting vote, grass or plastic.
Really? Did OB residents get to vote on whether or not they wanted the future disaster that this wind farm building and build out of Packer Wharf will create? No. That is what the MVC is for. Every town has reps on the MVC and the MVC voted to support the project. You can’t change the rules just because you didn’t like the outcome.
Patrick– I wonder what “future disaster”
you think will happen because the V.W
people built what appears to me as the
most solid building on this island.
You could be more careful with your
wording.
you are neglecting the fact
that the wind farm is in federal waters
15 to 32 miles away from the vineyard.
While I disagree with your opinion about
the turf field, and have often spared with you
about it, I think most of your arguments
are worth taking into consideration.
Not this one. As far as I know, that side of
beach road is restricted to marine activity
only. — I could be wrong, of course.
But, does it really make a difference if the
marine activity is for wind farm operations
or aquacultural endeavors ? The MVC should
only be concerned with the impact on the
Vineyard– not what happens offshore.
Should the MVC be able to deny a mussel
farm 5 miles out, and approve an oyster farm
5 miles out because 60 % of the people on the
commission prefer oysters ?
I agree with Ms. Brooks– This one seems
beyond the capacity of the agencies involved.
That is obvious– let the people decide…
Oil spill in the harbor. Don’t pretend that that can’t happen. That disaster. With todays weather, flooding is a major concern in that area.
“Oil spill in the harbor. Don’t pretend that that can’t happen. That disaster. With todays weather, flooding is a major concern in that area.”
Packer’s fuel tanks are right on the harbor. He transfers fuel from barges with hoses.
Hey if the turf opponents want to make up scenarios why can’t I? PFAS with the field is just that, a fear campaign. But you’re both missing my point, my point was, no one asked for a vote of the entire island to approve the build out of Packers to accommodate Vineyard Wind, it got approved by the MVC. Just like all other DRIs. There is no reason to ask for an island wide non-binding vote for the field, that’s not only ridiculous but it’ll serve as a terrible precedent. That is why the MVC was created. So can we get off, let the island vote kick.
Comments are closed.