To the editor:

Confusion is the byproduct of deception. Manipulating public opinion with incomplete or misleading information in order to achieve a desired outcome is a form of deception.

Due to size constraints, my letter, printed in the September 5 edition of Westport Shorelines, failed to inform your readers that the EPA does not require school systems to test for PCBs. But once they are discovered, the burden falls on the municipality to mitigate or remediate the expensive problem.

In 2010, Westport took part in the MSBA’s Green Repair Program to renovate their Middle School’s windows and roof. In compliance with the state’s discretionary requirements for their grant, Westport tested the building for hazardous substances, including PCBs. The discovery of PCBs caused Westport to embark on a multi-million dollar project to remove them and bring suit against Pharmacia (manufacturer of the window caulking) for the costs.

The resulting appeals court ruling in Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co. was twofold:

1. Monsanto could not have had foreknowledge of any unreasonable risks from PCBs when the Middle School was built in 1969.

2. “No remediation [was] necessary – and hence, no property damage results – unless the PCB contamination in a building poses an actual health risk,” Judge Lynch wrote on behalf of the unanimous panel. (December 12, 2017, Fall River Herald News) In other words, Westport failed to prove the level of contamination was so severe that it was harmful to human health.

This ruling was posted December 8, 2017, about six weeks prior to Westport’s Special Town Meeting on January 23, 2018. Officials remained silent about this information when it became time to vote for the new school funding. The Frequently Asked Questions and answers provided by the School Building Committee only address the foreknowledge aspect of the the court’s ruling, and as of this writing to you, have not been changed. 

To my knowledge, town officials and the unelected School Building Committee have never publicly admitted this information. It would be conjecture on my part to say the vote would have been different if they had, but your readers can make that determination. And the millions of dollars spent like confetti for remediation and monitoring? Taxpayers are left holding that empty bag of debt.

SBC Chair Dianne Baron’s response (Westport Shorelines, Sept. 12, 2019) to my letter does not deny the allegation that Westport was sold a Taj Mahal they couldn’t afford or that voters were led to believe the no-dollar-amount referendum was for $58 million. She tries to contradict my letter by saying the MSBA will fund 49% of eligible costs while she omits Westport will be solely responsible for any expenditures over the $38 million grant, according to her motion on January 23, 2018.

Her claim of a net reimbursement of approximately 40% of the entire project is speculative at best when her budgeted construction amount of $75 million is still only an estimate. When voters approved the $97 million debt exclusion, handouts at that Special Town Meeting estimated construction costs at $48.4 million and said nothing about discretionary expenses or requirements – eligible or otherwise. I discern from her sales pitch reminding us of the considerable payoff from the MSBA grant, that questions are being asked and consensus is starting to wane. But it’s too late now; Westport is left holding another bag because the project needs to be finished according to agreement with the MSBA.

As demonstrated earlier in this letter, voters and town officials chase after the golden carrot only to be whacked with the stick of unfunded mandates. And we read that a common thread is woven through every article about Westport’s new school: despite all the cheapening, student programs will not be sacrificed. It’s becoming quite clear that the building is just an expensive box. The content of the MSBA-mandated programming, approved by a 2-1 margin, should be everyone’s real concern. 

Marilyn Pease

Westport