At a noon meeting Friday, the Martha's Vineyard Regional High School committee approved a change of attorneys in its legal action against the Oak Bluffs planning board.
At a noon meeting Friday, the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School committee approved a change of attorneys in its legal action against the Oak Bluffs planning board for denying a proposed artificial turf infield at the school.
The last-minute discovery of a conflict of interest by attorney Mark Bobrowski, whom the committee voted 5-4 last month to hire, forced the switch, said member Kris O’Brien.
“What we need to do is, obviously, retain new counsel . . . and continue seeking the appeal,” Ms. O’Brien said.
At Mr. Bobrowski’s recommendation, she said, the law firm of Mead, Talerman and Costa is ready to take over the case.
While the deadline to appeal the planning board’s denial was originally reported as June 3, Ms. O’Brien said the Oak Bluffs board’s decision was recorded with the town on May 16, giving the committee until June 6 to file its appeal.
Mead, Talerman and Costa has already conducted a conflict of interest check and found no concerns, Ms. O’Brien said.
Committee chairman Amy Houghton said the situation with Mr. Bobrowski was out of the ordinary.
“This is not a reflection on the committee,” she said.
“It’s highly unusual that you would have talked with somebody, and at the 12th hour they report a conflict,” Ms. Houghton said.
After unanimously rescinding their May vote to hire Mr. Bobrowski, the committee then voted 5-4 to work with Mead, Talerman and Costa, a land-use law firm based in Newburyport.
As with the May vote, members Kathryn Shertzer, Mike Watts, Louis Paciello and Kimberly Kirk joined Ms. O’Brien in the majority.
Voting nay were Roxanne Ackerman, Robert Lionette, Skipper Manter and Ms. Houghton.
The vote came near the abrupt end of a glitch-riddled Zoom meeting that also heard strong public objections to the turf field appeal.
Geraldine Brooks expressed “total incredulity” at the news.
“I’m just here to voice a lot of the disgust that I’ve heard in the community about this approach,” said Ms. Brooks, a West Tisbury author whose children played varsity sports at the high school.
“We have an alternative. We’re going to waste another growing season. Our kids could have had fantastic, state of the art, natural, healthy grass fields years ago, and how long is this going to on?” Ms. Brooks continued.
High school administrator Sam Hart said he worried that the legal case may harm the high school’s chances of moving forward in the Massachusetts School Building Association construction program.
“No one who is in favor of an appeal is wrong; in fact, you might be successful in this appeal process,” Mr. Hart said.
“But a concern of mine is whether . . . we might want to think about some of the collateral damage that would be done through an appeal process like this when we are entering into the MSBA program,” he added.
“I see this as potentially having significant negative impact on the MSBA process, and there’s a larger picture out there,” Mr. Hart said.
Public comment was still under way, with Beka Al-Deiry speaking, when the Zoom conference suddenly ended about 40 minutes after the start of the meeting.
Ms. Houghton logged back on several minutes later to tell a handful of people who had rejoined that the meeting had been adjourned by default when the connection — and thus the committee’s quorum — was lost.
The high school committee holds its regular meeting Monday at 6 p.m., also on Zoom.
Comments
The school is going to use
Jon W TisburyThe school is going to use taxpayer money to sue the town it is in, which will also have to use taxpayer money to defend decision? Over a sports field? Seems short sited at best.
Why is the high school
Jane Beaumont OBWhy is the high school digging in on artificial turf, it is against the entire islands wishes, save for a few vocal people on the fringes. We want natural grass fields for our kids now! Stop dragging this fight out at the expense of taxpayers and more importantly our children, you are supposed to be acting in their best interest!
"Against the entire island's
Islander61 OB"Against the entire island's wishes"? Not quite. The actual users of these facilities, the school's athletes, are actually very much for this project as is. The kids held a rally last year supporting the project. The users, and those parents of those athletes, would likely have issue with you omitting their wishes. I would actually suggest that the minority are those who oppose this project, they just happen to be more vocal against it because it made it through the MVC hearing when they expected it to get rejected. Those who are in the field of athletics think that the fact that this project hasn't been approved are appalled by the decision to deny the project. The question that you should be asking is "how did this project get through the MVC, voted by the very same planning board to not suggest to not require a special permit, and go through a vetting process that has been unprecedented on this island, get highjacked by the PB and it's chair who, no matter what the science said, was going to reject the project because of his previous bias?" This is again on record that he opposed this project during his board's previous review. If these 2 town officials who voted not to approve did their job as required by law, their decision wouldn't be under appeal. The town's very own lawyer advised them but they rejected that advise, now their decision is being appealed, why is anyone surprised by that?
The entire islands (sic)
Schools Out TisburyThe entire islands (sic) wishes? Please don't speak for me. And yes, our children deserve a safe and maintainable field. The existing proposal denied by OB provided just that.
I am a lawyer and practiced
Vicki Divoll ChilmarkI am a lawyer and practiced law in DC in my former off-island life. This lawsuit, in addition to being ill-conceived, is a bottomless money pit for the towns' taxpayers. The notion that the whole litigation will cost the school $80,000 is ludicrous. It will cost many, many times that. (Oh, and of course, Oak Bluffs must also pay to defend the suit since its taxpayers are suing themselves!!)
Taxpayers should know that they will have NO SAY in this process, and that the 5-4 vote of the MVRHS school committee can keep pouring money into the budget "legal line" without any constraints. For example, there is $600,000 sitting in the contingency so-called "emergency" fund just waiting for them. They have already dipped into that fund for $60,000 of costs related to this field project (the Martha's Vineyard Commission process) and will do it again. And again. Do you really think they will ever give up?
As a lawyer you likely
Jason OBAs a lawyer you likely understand that the courts settle disputes, and hiring lawyers is not free. I look forward to this court bringing this matter to a close so a field can be built in my lifetime.
Be careful what you wish for;
Charles West Chester PABe careful what you wish for; you might just get it.
I’ve been passively following the debate over natural or synthetic turf fields, and both sides make compelling arguments. In an ideal world, natural turf fields are generally the preferred surface to play on, but maintaining natural turf to today’s acceptable standards under MV restrictions (pesticide, fertilization, water restrictions) would be a tremendous challenge for any turf manager. I think it’s a question of tolerance,. Do you want an absolutely perfect playing surface (plush green, weed free), or can you accept your fields as something less than that? I’ll continue to follow this island quandary for years to come. Today’s pre schoolers might continue this debate by the time they graduate law school.
It seems Committee chairman
edward spalding North Plam Beach / EdgartownIt seems Committee chairman Amy Houghton should allow others to judge whether “This is not a reflection on the committee,”.
Like Charles I have passively followed this and wondered how this could possibly drag on for so many years. Its my understand that its clearly understood that synthetic turf causes more injuries than natural grass and its my understanding that the main reason its used in the NFL, et al, is because the broadcasters/viewers [those alumni who through untold amounts of money at their football programs] like the appearance, after all its football and who wants to look at muddy fields and muddy players.
Vicki is certainly on the mark. An analogy comes to mind to the effect that this law suit is also the definition of a boat, a hole in the water into which you dumb unlimited sums of money from the day you buy it until the day you sell it.
Does anyone think the money spent to date not to mention the money to be spent on this foolishness couldn’t be better spent of other academic areas.
It seems to me there need to be a few changes to the school board – I assume that is who is running this ongoing fiasco.
FYI, injuries on turf fields
Islander61 OBFYI, injuries on turf fields are not higher than on grass. That comment is not supported by scientific study. Everyone keeps quoting the same study, but that is one study vs dozens that have been done on this subject. I can provide several studies that say just the opposite, that turf fields are safer or injuries occur at equal rates turf vs grass. In fact, if you participated in the several hours of testimony, as I did, you heard the school doctor, athletic trainer, and athletic director state studies, and through their own experience, the best the anyone could say was that there is no difference between the injuries on grass or turf. But then again, you would have to trust the science, but it is clear that those who opposes this project don't want to follow the science. You mentioned the NFL, well let me address that. The NFL turf fields are hard and fast, that is because the NFL wants a fast game. Those turf fields are not the same that is being proposed here, not all turf fields are the same. The Brock pad being proposed will actually reduce concussions by 50% for those injuries that are caused by head to ground contact. That fact alone should convince everyone that the turf field is what the school should be installing. If we can protect just one child's brain than we should be doing this. Lastly, I read the appeal that was printed in the media, my question "why is everyone so willing to accept that elected officials can not follow the law and get away with it?" I strongly believe we should be holding elected officials to higher standards and not let them vote against a project because of their own personal bias, especially when they were elected into those positions to follow the law. If the land court appeal overturns the PB ruling, and it sounds like there is a pretty strong case to do so, then the town of OB having to pay the lawyers fees for the school is on the planning board chair, maybe next time he will do the right thing and follow the laws of the town that elected him. If the appeal doesn't overturn the decision, then the town won't have to pay the fees. You shouldn't be worried about paying the school's lawyer's fees if you believe the PB acted within the law. I guess we will see.
I would suggest you check
edward spalding North Plam Beach / EdgartownI would suggest you check your facts and/or stop talking to or listening to the hype of those who sell artificial turf. If concussions concern you and I think any parent should be concerned, I would suggest some other sport and I suspect AT is more likely to increase concussions but i also suspect the real issue on concussions is the head to head [or even body] hits that are the largest part of the problem; even heading the ball in soccer is a concussion issue.
Furthermore, the Vineyard isn't about unnatural, quite the contrary.
Healthy natural grass can be grown using reduced applications of traditional products assisted by the use of environmentally sensitive products.
I am sure there are other studies with other opinions; it took me all of about a minute to fine this one.
https://www.uhhospitals.org/for-clinicians/articles-and-news/articles/2…
This committee needs to be
Carol formerly ChilmarkThis committee needs to be voted out. How soon can that be done?
Add new comment