News Reporting

“Vineyard May ‘Take’ Southern Woodlands,” by Dawn Aberg (Cape Cod Times:  March 7, 2002)

 The Land Bank of Martha’s Vineyard has offered Oak Bluffs selectmen 80 percent of the town’s costs should it decide to pursue an eminent domain action against what has become known as the “Southern Woodlands.”

Landowner Corey Kupersmith had planned the contentious 276-acre parcel as a golf club.  But the Martha’s Vineyard Commission defeated his golf proposal last month for the second time in two years.  Under an alternative plan, Kupersmith has proposed building 366 housing units under the state’s “anti-snob zoning” law, Chapter 40B.  Town voters will consider the possibility of an eminent domain action in a special town meeting on March 26. The vote is simply the first step in the “takings” process.  Should the action against the property ultimately succeed, neither of Kupersmith’s plans for the woodlands will see the light of day.

Land Bank executive director James Lengyel made the group’s offer in a March 6 letter, received yesterday in the selectmen’s office.  Even if approved in Oak Bluffs, the land bank offer would require backing by the five other Vineyard towns in order to support a bond issue for the purchase.  It is unclear how much such a purchase would cost the six towns.  A successful eminent domain procedure allows the government to take private land for public use, upon payment of “just compensation.”  What “just compensation” might be for 276 acres of conservation land on Martha’s Vineyard is not at all clear.  Specific appraisals were not available last night.

And, as acknowledge in Lengyle’s letter, it is ultimately the court that determines the land’s value in such a case.  But in a purchase of 11.6 a conservation acres in Edgartown last fall, the land sold for approximately $130,000 per acre. A similar valuation translates into a $35 million price tag for the Southern Woodlands.

Oak Bluffs would be expected to recoup its 20 percent share from the town treasury or, as Lengyel wrote, from “other sources.”

According Lengyel, the Land Bank advocates public conservation of the property in its entirety.  But, he said, the group would also support a partial conservation plan.  Furthermore, should an eminent domain action proceed but be unsuccessful before the court, his letter states the organization would be willing to share in payment of any damages assessed against the town.

 

 “Tisbury Police Chief Apparently Forced into Retirement” by Dawn Aberg (Cape Cod Times),  March 20, 2002)

TISBURY – Town administrator Dennis Luttrell pulled the shiny badge out of his office drawer as an offer of proof.

Tisbury Police Chief John McCarthy has left the department after nearly 29 years of service, and several months of fighting for his job.  The move was announced yesterday as a retirement.  But all indications point to the fact that McCarthy was forced out.

The departure comes just a little more than a year after a consultant’s report characterized the Tisbury Police Department’s operational dynamics as “dysfunctional at best.”  In the most dramatic example of labor unrest in the department, the town was forced to pay $375,000 to settle a discrimination complaint filed by a former patrolman.  The Wasserman Report, as the consultant’s study is called, recommended specific steps for getting the department back on track.  The report did not specifically call for the chief’s dismissal.  But its recommendation that operational control be turned over to a lieutenant hired from outside the department did raise questions as to what McCarthy would have left to do as chief if that advice were implemented.

In December, the selectmen reportedly offered the chief a retirement package in exchange for his immediate resignation. McCarthy did not accept the offer. In February, the chief was forced to relinquish operational control of the department to his new lieutenant, Theodore Saulnier.  Then Tisbury Selectmen notified McCarthy that they would not renew his appointment in June. The Selectmen never formally confirmed any of these widely reported events.  But, as Luttrell said last night, “they didn’t refute them either.” McCarthy, who officially left the department Monday afternoon, could not be reached for comment.

The press release issued by the town quotes him as being “thankful for the opportunity to serve the citizens of Tisbury.”  At the Selectman’s meeting last night, officials praised McCarthy for his long service to the town. Saulnier, who will serve as interim chief, announced that “everything is going well” in the newly structured department.

But questions regarding McCarthy’s retirement benefits remain.  The timing of his departure calls into question his eligibility for full benefits. McCarthy served 20 years as chief, almost three times the state average of 7.3 years.  But his overall department service is still shy of the 30 years required to obtain maximum benefits. Luttrell noted that the county, not the town, sets the benefit level according to a statutory “equation.” Salary levels as well as length of service are factored into the formula. If only his department service is counted, McCarthy is 1 ½ years short of maximum benefits. But, according to Luttrell, when the chief’s military service is factored in, an acceptable adjustment under the rules, the pension level will be very close to maximum retirement levels.  Luttrell estimates that the pension will come to 78 percent, as opposed to a possible 80 percent, of the chief’s working salary.  McCarthy earned $72,702 in 2001.

 

“Frustrations Mark Town Budget Peparations,” by Dawn Aberg (Milton Times, May 1, 2008)

Budget frustrations flared at the April 22 Warrant Committee meeting as town officials responded to the pressures of a rapidly approaching Town Meeting.  Attending the meeting at the Warrant Committee’s invitation were Selectmen and School Committee members.  Much political backtracking took place, as leaders conceded an override probably wouldn’t pass this year and insisted that budget numbers previously submitted to  the committee did not reflect actual operational realties.

The meeting was originally called, Warrant Committee Chair Katherine Conlon confirmed, to discuss projected level-service funding figures for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.  The discussion was set to clarify details of the town’s long-standing commitment to a multi-year budget  planning approach.  But the School Committee upstaged the planned agenda by deciding it would not support an override this year, despite the school system’s fiscal needs.

“This is really an about face,” Conlon said Wednesday night.

“Characterize it however you want. It’s our current position,” shot back School Committee Chair Beirne Lovely.

“But the warrant is in print, and we’ve recommended a contingent budget on the basis of information we received,” Conlon objected. “You’ve changed your position.”

“That’s our prerogative,” Lovely declared.

Lovely noted “uniform doubt” among elected officials that an override would succeed this year.  Echoing concerns voiced by Selectmen over the last few weeks, he pointed to the current lack of enthusiasm among residents for tax increases and the absence of leadership to press an override battle.

To take an override to the town and lose “would be extremely detrimental going forward,” Lovely said.  He admitted his perception was “a political conclusion.”  He also expressed his reluctance to base future school budget projections on current funding levels.

“If this is projected forward and called level service, it doesn’t serve the students of Milton well,” he said. School Committee member Chris Huban agreed.  “We don’t want to be hamstrung with the numbers being used in the contingent budget.”

Lovely said that the School Committee was, instead, prepared to “struggle through this year” and the inevitable cutbacks.  The budget cuts would involve movement of some school children to different districts, he said, as well as some increased class sizes.  He claimed changes in the school administration and new perspective would allow the committee to “work through the summer, rip through the budget and start again.” As of Wednesday night, the School Committee had not formally voted on its recommendation of an override.  When pressed for and official thumbs up or down position, Lovely said the School Committee would vote on the override recommendation only if Selectmen did.

Selectmen took their turn at the table accompanied by Town Administrator Kevin Mearn.  Chair Marion McEttrick described the bleak realities facing the town departments. “Every budget is very tight this year,” she said.  “Too tight.  People need to understand what the impact of a non-contingent budget would be” if there is no override.

Selectman Kathy Fagan underscored the point.  “There really will be cuts and changes if there is no override,” she said.  “But you can’t underestimate how much time it takes to educate people.  The timing is not such that we can put it together over the next few weeks.”

In line with Lovely’s long-term approach, Fagan suggested a “nine month concerted effort to educate voters on why we need the money.”

Fire Chief Malcolm Larson was present to substantiate Selectman John Shield’s position, laid out at the April 17 selectmen meeting that the Fire Department budget reflected in the warrant would present public safety concerns.  Warrant Committee members appeared particularly frustrated by the presentation.

Larson had endorsed the same budget in January, even in the face of what Warrant Committee members said were concerns that the numbers might be too low.  Committee member James Conley recalled that he had directly addressed the point.

“I remember the meeting,” he said. “I literally asked ‘is there a public safety issue.’”  He recalled that Larson had said he could work with the numbers.  Larson answered Conley by saying he had thought at the time that there would be an override.

Conlon said the elected boards have known about the override recommendation for months.  The position is reflected in the warrant, which went to press in early April.  The committee, a group of appointed residents, is assigned the job of coming up  with  the annual operating budget on the basis of the information it receives.

“We’re not a political board,” Conlon explained after Wednesday’s tumultuous meeting.  “We are appointed to take a financial view of things and make our recommendations on that basis.” But at this point, recommendations based on projections and a multi-year vision is “probably a moot issue,” she conceded.

“We have a crisis,” said committee member Leroy Walker.”  There are problems with the way we fund services given the lack of our commercial tax base.  The way to educate the town is to talk about multi-year budgets.  We need to figure out how to start to make projections. Or we’re going to go through this every year.”