A meeting was held Thursday afternoon between the chairs of the Oak Bluffs planning and select boards and two representatives from the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School School Committee regarding the ongoing discussion on the turf.
Legal counsel for both groups were present.
Thursday’s meeting comes on the heels of the school committee making a public announcement that they would pursue a joint meeting with the town.
No date has been set for a public meeting between the full boards since Thursday. The only confirmed date pertaining to the case is the public court appearance in state land court in Boston, set for July 14, according to Oak Bluffs planning board chair Ewell Hopkins.
“Up until now, the conversation has taken place between counsels,” Hopkins said. “Yesterday’s meeting was an opportunity for representatives of the parties — the plaintiff and the defendant — to come together and understand directly, without going through counsel, why we are having the meeting. And then the goal was to discuss the process that would take place.”
When asked if there would be another meeting, Hopkins said he wasn’t sure: “It’s not clear that there will be a large public meeting.”
MVRHS committee member Mike Watts, one of the two representatives present at the meeting, told The Times “the school committee has been seeking a joint meeting to work on a resolution,” regarding the ongoing high school field turf lawsuit.
Watts declined to share more information on the grounds that the meeting outcome has not yet been shared with the rest of the MVRHS committee. He did say the meeting established “ground rules” for upcoming meetings that the committee may pursue. “We are trying to settle,” Watts said.
Hopkins shared that the meeting was a “multihour discussion” at the request of the MVHRS committee. The discussion, according to Hopkins, revolved around why a public meeting would be necessary for the future, and the logistics of how such a meeting would take place. “Now they decide if they would like to proceed,” said Hopkins. He declined to comment further on the specifics of what was discussed.
“They wanted to have a meeting. We asked why. As they explained why, we explained to them the process by which such a meeting could take place. Now they are determining how they’d like to proceed.”
“We shared the position of the town, and what would be an appropriate process forward,” Hopkins continued. “Now they are evaluating and determining what their position will be. We discussed what the town’s process and procedures are for presenting proposals and applications to the town. We walked them through that process, and now they are off making plans.”
Legal counsels representing the town of Oak Bluff and the MVHRS committee are Michael Goldsmith and Brian Winner, respectively. Also present at the meeting were MVHRS committee member Kris O’Brien, Oak Bluffs town administrator Deb Potter, and the chair of the Oak Bluffs Select Board, Emma Green-Beech.
“We would like for them to drop the lawsuit,” said Hopkins, when asked of the town’s desired outcome.
Hopkins shared he planned to attend the land court hearing in Boston on the 14th. “I intend to be in court,” he said.
It seems odd that Ewell Hopkins, a self-styled champion of the people and promoter of community engagement, would be so resolute in his resistance to a public meeting. What could he fear from the involvement of an engaged public? Could it be that he doesn’t wish to learn that the majority of the electorate has grown tired of his expensive, quixotic, and potentially unlawful campaign against a duly authorized and permitted project? The town response to the summary judgment motion did not seek a judgment in it’s favor – it argued that summary judgment was not appropriate, and that the matter should proceed to a full trial. People need to understand this. The OB boards are not attempting to conclude this matter expeditiously, and have no concern for the costs of litigation. They wish to prolong this in the hopes of exhausting the school committee’s resources. So, I guess we’ll see what the court has to say a week from now.
https://www.watersaversturf.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PFAS-Turf-Testing-2020.pdf
Pfas free turf. What say you all!
https://www.watersaversturf.com/about/artificial-grass-testing/pfas-free-artificial-turf/
Grant– nice that you posted some links.
On your first one,
I see lots of pages of numbers–6 in fact,
Out of the approximately 600 numbers
I only see 3 zero values
Perhaps you could summarize for us a bit.
Please– The second one may have some bias.
But, as I have said many times, the PFAS issue is
only one of many that concern me. I think that
by now the opponents of this fiasco should be willing
to yield a bit about the PFAS and realize that they are
not going to kill us all. The science is pretty conclusive
that the levels are very low, and in keeping with background
levels.
Even if this stuff was free you would still have the resistance of those who claim higher injury rates. I still wonder if people that are against turf because of injuries deny their kids playing away games at schools with turf?
Ryan– not every parent is a helicopter parent
you can only do what you can do.
Who is paying for the MVRHS school commmittee’s lawyer?
Some of it is being paid by for by Chilmark taxpayers.
Make sure the all the Finance Committee Members are aware so that they can make the correct budget recommendations to the voters. .
The MVRHS should drop the lawsuit. They are still spending money on legal fees and causing the Town of Oak Bluffs to pay leagal Fees.
School Com. claimed they would not pay for this suit with Town Money then Who is paying for it ?
Why not put it up for a Island wide referendom vote. Then make it part of the planning process for the new school which is underway ??
Yes, let’s have a vote!
First, let’s ask each side to make their best arguments for why plastic or organic grass is better.
Let each side get a full page in both papers, pages facing each other.
All claims will be fact checked and edited before publication, and there must be links to back up information.
After publication, let there be a month of open community discussions in various locations.
Let voting be available for that whole month – online or email, with verification of Vineyard residency.
With open access to well organized information from both sides, Vineyarders will finally be able to compare pros and cons of each option, and will therefore be able to make an informed choice between plastic or organic grass.
There is an immense difference between these two options.
Which option seems likely to pose the least risk for our youth, our waters and our economy?
Let’s behave like a democracy – let the People decide.
“Now they [school committee] decide if they would like to proceed,” said Hopkins.
There is absolutely nothing in this article that indicates that Mr. Hopkins, nor anyone else on the OB side of the litigation, opposes a public meeting. Indeed, there is ample reason to believe that it is the pro-turf school committee members who are reticent to engage in a public discussion. The pro-turf members publicly said they wanted such a meeting, but they have not yet agreed to do so.
More importantly, I do not recall a PUBLIC meeting at which a vote was take to authorize Mike Watts and Kris O’Brien to meet with the OB side, and lawyers for both sides, to discuss this or any other matter. Who put them in charge of these highly sensitive negotiations? And three hours times two lawyer is a lot of money for OB and the rest of us to spend. Who authorized that spending and where is the money coming from?
Oh Vicki, “Indeed, there is ample reason to believe that it is the pro-turf school committee members who are reticent to engage in a public discussion”
Were you not around for the 7 years of public discussion before this project was approved?
TURF IS PFAS FREE!!! ARE THE GRASS FIELDS PFAS FREE????
Yes–John– actually they were, until chemical companies
invented this stuff, and politicians had no spines
to stand up to them and regulate them
Where would the PFAS come from on a grass field ?
There is none in the seed, none in the fertilizer, the
lawn mowers don’t generate PFAS.
So ok– let’s say the plastic field arrives PFAS free
after 10 years of maintenance and getting rained on,
etc. will they still test PFAS free ?
Why do you think there are PFAS in the grass fields?
I mean I know they have some, but why ?
I’m sure if it’s in the grass field at the high school, it’s in my
lawn and your lawn, in the water we drink, in the food we
eat. We have done a pretty good job of spreading this stuff
around. That plastic field will likely test positive just being
outside for 10 years. Better to ban the manufacture of this stuff.
But grass fields don’t generate tons of microplastics that the
athletes “eat” every time their face gets smashed into the it.
Not to mention all the fecal matter from small animals
birds and bugs that just ferments in between the plastic “blades”
along with the spit from the players — Hmmmm- Tasty. —-
until there is some sort of chemical “cleaning” done once in a while.
Great –no PFAS to start.. Are the chemical “cleaners” PFAS free ?
That stuff should help the water quality—
Yes, Don – your vivid description needs to be understood as an unavoidable fact with plastic turf: “…microplastics that the athletes “eat” every time their face gets smashed into the it. Not to mention all the fecal matter from small animals birds and bugs that just ferments in between the plastic “blades”
along with the spit from the players …”
To that we must add the PFAS-laden dust that will inevitably be kicked up as our teens run and trip on the turf. Breathing heavily, it gets deep into their lungs and blood stream. Everyone needs to understand the facts about how this affects the entire endocrine and reproductive system, etc. Here’s just of many links: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/
Consider attending this school committee meeting on zoom this Wednesday at 4 pm. Looks like they will discuss funding the lawsuit (“appeal finance update”) on which they promised to spend no more taxpayer dollars.
MARTHA’S VINEYARD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Special School Committee Meeting
Wednesday, July 12 2023 at 4PM
Culinary Arts Dining Room/ Zoom
Click for Agenda Items
Welcome – Chair Opening Remarks
Executive Session, subject to the Chair’s declaration, to discuss litigation strategy, pursuant to G.L. c. 30A § 21(a)(3), in the matter of Martha’s Vineyard Reg. School Dist. v. Oak Bluffs Planning Bd., Land Court No. 22 MISC 000294. Vote to reconvene to return to open session.
Appeal Finance Update
Feasibility Study Agreement Discussion and Vote
Additional ESP’s Request Possible Vote
Topics Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair/Announcements
Adjournment
Participation available remotely by Zoom:
https://mvyps.zoom.us/j/87662586340?pwd=b2JjU3FOZnA5Q0dJVmgrZTBFVEd1Zz09
Meeting ID: 876 6258 6340
Password: 095008
Find your local number: https://mvyps.zoom.us/u/kikWqQUAz