Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water

The Vineyard Gazette shouts, "Shark". Today's Gazette has another article about the 'political chaos in West Tisbury'. Clearly, there are problems in town, but the article serves, I feel, to exacerbate them, rather than simply report them.

Was the Executive Secretary wrong?
About half of the article recounts the advice of the Town Counsel at yesterday's Selectmen's meeting relative to the filling of a vacancy on the Board of Assessors. The clear implication in the article is that the Executive Secretary was wrong in stating that, from her conversations with the Secretary of State's office, an election to fill the vacancy was not possible under state law due to the timing of the resignation establishing the vacancy.

The Town Counsel claims that the secretary's statement was 'a good faith misunderstanding'. Yet, Counsel went on to say that the Selectmen were not mandated to put the vacancy on this year's Town ballot; they could defer the election until the end of the term. So, was the Executive Secretary's decision a 'misunderstanding'? Her wording may not have been correct but the result was the same as Counsel's conclusion.

Although the Selectmen could continue with the appointment route, Counsel 'balanced his legal opinion with a bit of practical advice' and recommended that a special election be held. The article makes it seem as though the Town Counsel is the smartest, wisest guy in the room. This is the same Town Counsel who did not see fit to inform the Selectmen and the Town that an attorney could not easily withdraw from a case. And the same Counsel who hired a municipal law expert to take his place at Town Meeting.

Was the law violated?
Here it appears as though the answer is yes with one caveat: the Gazette reporter sometimes sees things differently from others and I'm basing this on his article as I was not at the meeting nor has it appeared on local television yet.

The Assessors supposedly adjourned their meeting when the Gazette reporter entered the room. Yet, a short time later, when asked to come to talk with the Selectmen, the Assessors said they were in a meeting. This sounds like a violation of the Commonwealth's Open Meeting law.

Either the reporter is a lawyer or the Gazette has close ties with a lawyer as the reporter knows that an Assessor takes an oath of impartialty. At this same meeting, the vacancy on the Board of Assessors was filled and the new Assessor proceeded to a joint meeting of the Assessors and the Selectmen. However, she was not asked to take the oath of impartiality. A small point, true, but it would be nice to have at least one case of the 'i's' being dotted and the 't's' crossed.

Why no response?
In the first issue in this post, it looks as though the reporter stretched things. The second issue suggests some errors by Town officials. The one I'm about to write about is clearly a mistake and, in light of the emphasis on legal affairs in the Town over the past year, a major mistake.

In November of 2003 a taxpayer - okay, the taxpayer of the year, Bill Graham, - asked the Assessors for a manual documenting the appraisal software leased by the Town. The Town refused and in August 2004 Graham went to court to get the documents. Well, guess what? The Town did not file a response. Thus, a default order was issued in the Fall. In January, Graham requested a default judgment. That case was heard this week.

You probably won't believe that the Town's attorney - not the Town Counsel - appeared in court a half-hour late just before the judgment was to be issued. It's a small Island so the judge gave the Town ten days to file an answer. Amateur night on the Vineyard!