To the editor:

After reading Bill Reed’s well-researched and documented article about Westport’s dismal financial health, we have to ask why wasn’t that information presented at any of the pro-new school forums, private house parties, and, most of all, at the January 23 Special Town Meeting prior to the vote?

Why weren’t the strings attached to the MSBA grant, as listed in the Initial Compliance Documentation and signed by town officials, also presented at the informational meetings and prior to the vote? Allow me to quote “string” #9 which applies to Article 1 that passed with the required 2/3 vote to get on the ballot for a town wide vote on February 27.

“9. The District hereby acknowledges and agrees that, before the Authority (MSBA) can grant final approval of a Project, the District must vote to authorize and appropriate the full amount of funding for the Proposed Project that is necessary to meet the total project budget as agreed to by the Authority” (emphasis mine)

 That explains why $96,884,896 – not the town’s share of $58.9M – was the appropriation amount voters passed. Since the MSBA grant is highly competitive and a non-entitlement, discretionary program based on need (also spelled out in Article 1), we have to ask why do we need $37.4M from the state if voters pass the ballot question on February 27?

Keep in mind, Article 1 was amended from the original article posted on the town’s website and made available by pro-new school groups. The original didn’t have a dollar amount and simply allowed voters to write a blank check so town officials could fill in the blank. This could far exceed the $96.9M appropriated. Didn’t we learn anything from Boston’s Big Dig?

Marilyn Pease

Westport