Tisbury Town Counsel Declares Contract with Hospital Illegal

BY JOSHUA SABATINI

Tisbury's town counsel said this week the controversial
amended contract among Island towns, the county and Martha's
Vineyard Hospital is not a legal document.

David Doneski, of the Boston law firm Kopelman and Paige, sent his
legal opinion to the Tisbury selectmen Monday afternoon.

County manager Carol Borer asked to address the town's
concerns at a selectmen's meeting Tuesday after learning last week
that the board questioned the legality of the agreement.

Ms. Borer told the board she was there because "the town
appeared to have some questions about the agreement."

Ms. Borer explained that the town entered into the intermunicipal
agreement with the passing of Article 17 at the town's special
town meeting on April 24, 2001.

Selectman Thomas Pachico asked, "But how did a one-year
contract turn into a three-year contract?"

Ms. Borer said that the procurement committee, in charge of managing
the contract between the towns and the county, voted to change the
contract's duration. The committee changed the contract in March
2001 by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Doneski stated in his opinion: "The procurement committee
did not have the authority to bind the town of Tisbury to participation
in a three-year agreement or any agreement extending beyond June 30,
2001."

Mr. Pachico said he also had a problem with the fact that the
amendment appeared in "fine print" and that nobody at the
April 24, 2001 special town meeting was informed of the three-year term.

Selectman Tristan Israel said the board was not even going to put
the article on the town meeting floor in April, unless the agreement was
for only one year.

Mr. Israel said the board always wanted an end date for the contract
and wanted the opportunity to revisit the contract after fiscal year
2002.

"We were told that it would be good for one year, to go do it,
to try it. That was what was pitched. So why are you fighting semantics
with us, if the intent was to look at it after one year?" wondered
Mr. Israel.

"You pitched it as a one-year deal and then changed it to a
three-year deal without even telling us," Mr. Pachico charged.

Ms. Borer repeated again that the committee voted to amend the
contract. "Where are the minutes?" asked Mr. Pachico.

"I gave them to Mr. Dennis Luttrell," said Ms. Borer.
But Mr. Luttrell said all he had were notes, nothing signed, nothing
with a record of the vote or who made the motion.

Mr. Doneski stated that the town entered into the emergency medical
services agreement after a town vote on April 11, 2000, but was not
bound after fiscal year 2001, even after Article 17 passed. Also, Mr.
Doneski said the committee's vote is not binding because "no
formal amendment to the agreement has been executed by the respective
boards of selectmen and the board of county commissioners."

What the committee did do was "create a new document with a
term of three years and attached to it the signature pages" from
the May 2000 agreement.

"Right now the funds are being held hostage," said Mr.
Luttrell. "It is our intent to get these funds out." He
advised drafting a new agreement and doing it quickly.

"The Article [17] authorizes us to [sign the agreement]. But
it still sits on our three's discretion. There is no agreement as
far as we are concerned. I suggest you go back and clean it up,"
said Mr. Pachico.

Ms. Borer said she would go back to the procurement committee, but
was quickly interrupted by Mr. Pachico who said, "The committee is
not valid now."

"Then how do I do it?" said Ms. Borer.

"That is not our problem," answered selectman Raymond
LaPorte.

"We want to pay," said Mr. Israel. "We need a new
agreement in order for us to pay the money."