To the editor:
One must read the ballot question to determine what’s at stake with the upcoming Special Election in Westport on February 27. Spelled out in approximately 470 words, it exceeds …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
One must read the ballot question to determine what’s at stake with the upcoming Special Election in Westport on February 27. Spelled out in approximately 470 words, it exceeds mere approval of a new $100 million school. Allow me to focus on some aspects of this referendum.
The town will be authorized to borrow $96,884,896, but the unelected Westport School Building Committee will be authorized to spend it. The town will also be responsible for any costs over that amount that the WSBC incurs.
The language of the referendum pertaining to the grant is vague and certainly not definitive. It states “Westport may be eligible for a grant …the town may receive grant money … the Project Funding Agreement may be executed between Westport and the MSBA … any premiums may be applied to payment costs …” How can anyone jump on this bandwagon with no guarantee where it will take us?
Specific referendum language is that the grant is a non-entitlement, discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA. There are 37 strings attached to their Initial Compliance Documentation. The introductory paragraph of this contract states that each participating district shall exercise due diligence in ascertaining and certifying the truth throughout all phases of the project.
One last consideration to be made is that the MSBA grant is highly competitive. According to Westport’s Save Our School’s FAQ, the state moved us ahead of probably more deserving districts due to our “hazardous” materials and a perceived need for a quick solution. However, this was before the court’s decision on December 8, 2017, in Westport v. Monsanto. The three-judge unanimous ruling said the town could not prove the level of PCB contamination was so severe that it was harmful to human health. No remediation is necessary and no property damage results because Westport failed to prove the level of contamination poses an actual health risk.
I would hate to see the MSBA renege on any grant they may give us – especially once the demolition ball starts to swing.
Marilyn Pease