To the editor: Two recent letters-to-the-editor submitted by Barrington Town Councilor members Michael Carroll and Kate Weymouth allege that claims made by me regarding the Spencer Trust need correction. Their letters appear to be little more than the loud protests of people caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again.

Since the Spencer Trust first came to Barrington in 2005, there has been no written qualification standards for beneficiaries beyond the written Spencer Will itself, nor has there ever been a simple application form specific to the Trust for residents to fill out. The town council has routinely exploited the lack of beneficiary standards to use the Trust to serve a single-minded agenda.

Councilors Carroll and Weymouth want to move virtually all of the accumulated Spencer Trust income ($400,000) over to the Barrington Housing Board of Trustees in advance of final beneficiary qualification standards created by the Spencer Trust Fund Advisory Board.

The scheme they are attempting fails to meet the requirements of the Spencer Will in many ways. The most obvious is that the result of this questionable maneuver will be to divide available Spencer Trust income between two different and competing classes of Spencer Trust beneficiaries. Isolating a group of beneficiaries from available trust income is a clear violation of one of the Spencer Will requirements that the income must be spent annually, not saved for future use by one group.

Councilors Carroll and Weymouth fail to disclose in their letters that this scheme has not been reviewed by a qualified trust attorney who is being paid to serve the interests of the Spencer Trust. They wrongly hold that the Attorney General's office rendered an opinion on this matter. As an attorney, and Trustee, Councilor Carroll should know better that the Attorney General's office did not render an opinion certifying that this proposed scheme meets the terms of the Spencer Will. The Attorney General's office is simply not being paid to represent the interests of the Spencer Trust.

In sum, this is a scheme, and a bad one. Trustees should be held to a higher standard. Dodging a proper legal review by a qualified trust attorney appears to be part of their roll-out plan.

Residents must demand that the councilors put their money where their mouth is, and complete a legal review by a qualified trust attorney who is actually being paid to serve the interests of the Trust. Anything short of that opens up the possibility of a breach of the Trustee's fiduciary duties, exposing the Trust to even higher, and unnecessary, legal costs.

Gary Morse

Barrington