Ban On Turf "Not Under Consideration" As Town Leaders Clash In Tense Board Of Health Meeting

A ban on turf is “not under consideration,” Nantucket Board of Health chair Ann Smith told the Current after a tumultuous meeting Thursday marked by accusations that the discussion on the merits of an artificial turf field at Vito Capizzo stadium strayed close to a violation of the state’s open meeting law.

Based on draft language obtained by the Current, it appears Smith was preparing to make motions to allow the installation of turf at Vito Capizzo stadium, but only if it meets as-yet unspecified and undefined Board of Health requirements. But Smith’s motions ultimately did not get considered on Thursday after a majority of the Select Board, which appoints the members of the Board of Health, intervened to instruct Smith to shut down the meeting.

“This topic is not agended. It is not noticed properly. Town counsel has weighed in on it. You are, in my understanding…[in a] very, very grey area here on open meeting law,” Select Board member Brooke Mohr said. “I think you’re very, very, very in muddy territory here.”

The Board of Health has been considering whether to block the turf field for months, but a scheduled hearing that could have settled the issue was disrupted when several Select Board members suggested that continuing the conversation - specifically the motions two members of the Board of Health were prepared to bring forward - would be an open meeting law violation.

“This shouldn’t go on like this,” Select Board and Board of Health member Tom Dixon said. “I suggest that we hold this until another meeting when this is in the packet, and the public has had a chance to digest it.”

The allegations sparked calls for Smith to be removed from her position as chair.

“Based on what occurred, I believe it’s appropriate to call for those responsible to step down or be removed so the public can have confidence in this process,” said Nantucket High School junior varsity girls soccer coach and emergency room nurse Kate Garrette, who has been a staunch supporter of the school’s turf field proposal.

Smith circulated a motion she planned to make to the Board of Health’s members several hours before the meeting, which could constitute a violation of the state law intended to ensure that all public meetings are open and accessible to the public.

“I would err on the side of caution here, make all of the emails public, and continue this hearing to a later date,” Select Board chair Dawn Hill said.

The Massachusetts open meeting law requires that most deliberations of public government bodies be open to the public, defining a deliberation as “oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction; provided, however, that ‘deliberation’ shall not include the distribution of a meeting agenda, scheduling information or distribution of other procedural meeting or the distribution of reports or documents that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed.”

Select Board members also raised concerns about the vague nature of the relevant agenda item, which did not contemplate any specific motions.

“A vague agenda item leaves room for anything to be discussed,” Mohr said. “It is the opposite of the purpose of open meeting law.”

Smith maintains that circulating the memo was not a violation of open meeting law, as long as she made it public during the meeting. She claims that town counsel’s opinion did not suggest that making the motions would have been a violation.

A copy of the town counsel’s memo could not be immediately obtained.

Smith described her motions as a “compromise,” but their lack of clarity on what the Board of Health will require is unlikely to satisfy pro-turf advocates.

“I move that the Board of Health takes no action to prevent the proposed installation of an artificial turf field and related track improvements at Vito Capizzo Stadium,” one motion reads in part. “I further move that no turf, track, infill, backing, shockpad, adhesive, or related product may be shipped, delivered, installed, or placed into service unless and until the contractor has satisfied pre-installation requirements to the satisfaction of the Baord of Health, under standards, criteria, and review procedures initiated and approved by the Board and made a mandatory part of the bid, procurement, and contract documents.”

The other motion calls for a “binding written agreement” requiring monitoring, regular reporting to the Board of Health, inspection and maintenance of stormwater treatment systems, review of material substitutions, and Board of Health oversight, among other items.

In the wake of the meeting, some of the leading voices advocating for the turf field option issued sharp criticisms of the discussion and Smith’s conduct.

“What we saw at the Board of Health meeting was deeply concerning,” Garrette said. “When a process starts to look predetermined instead of objective, the public has a right to question it. If the process isn’t fair, the outcome can’t be trusted.”

“I was disheartened watching that meeting unfold. It felt predetermined from the start. Dozens of people showed up and spoke thoughtfully, and it did not feel like their input mattered,” island resident and parent Graham Veysey said. “No matter where you stand on the issue, the process has to be fair, transparent, and above reproach. This was not.”

Smith told the Current that Mike Hugo, the director of policy and government relations for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, advised her it was “absolutely fine” to circulate her motion.

While the potential open meeting law violations will hang over any future discussions of the turf field, it seems that some members of the Board of Health are looking to chart a course down the middle of the two sharply divided sides, though Smith’s motion leaves the key question of what that course will be unanswered.

For half a year, the debate on the turf field, which the School Committee endorsed after significant debate, has centered on PFAS, so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other adverse health effects. Advocates of turf claim that the materials for the proposed field at Vito Capizzo stadium will include no intentionally-added PFAS, which could actually be safer than natural grass, considering the background levels of PFAS present in Nantucket’s soil. On the other side of the debate, some anti-PFAS experts claim that the tests used to make those claims aren’t sensitive enough to detect all PFAS, and that the proposed artificial turf material is likely to add some PFAS to the environment.

During the meeting, Board of Health member Meredith Lepore suggested her own compromise, which would have required a series of rigorous tests for any turf field installed at Vito Capizzo stadium without blocking the use of turf outright.

Lepore has been the Board of Health’s staunchest opponent of turf, but it’s unclear exactly what her motion would have mandated, as the Select Board stopped her before it could be put forward in full. It’s also uncertain if the Board of Health would have had the regulatory authority to implement her motion, which sought to amend the article printed in the Town Meeting warrant. It is highly unusual for the Board of Health to amend a Town Meeting warrant article, and it’s not clear where their legal authority to do so would come from. The School Committee is already planning a number of tests for the materials used in the field.

The repeated and direct intervention of multiple Select Board members who do not sit on the Board of Health is striking, and such action is exceptionally rare in Nantucket’s municipal government. It is also notable that the three Select Board members who spoke constitute a quorum of that board.

The Select Board’s action may represent a growing rift between the members of the Board of Health and the elected body that appoints them, after the Board of Health has repeatedly clashed with other town bodies in recent months over both turf and a proposal to restrict the number of allowable bedrooms in certain portions of the island. The School Committee, Planning Board, Affordable Housing Trust, and now Select Board have all been at odds with the Board of Health this year.

Both Smith and Lepore’s terms expire this year, and they would need Select Board support to be reappointed.

At Thursday’s meeting, Smith said that the Board of Health was singling out the Vito Capizzo stadium field, and that no Board of Health decision would affect any other future turf fields planned for Nantucket. If true, that’s a major shift for the Board.

Smith said after the meeting that she had no concerns that blocking one turf field could set a precedent.

Smith claimed that the Board of Health had “never considered” an island-wide ban, but in past conversations with the Current, she repeatedly said that she had not decided whether or not to support a ban on artificial turf, and specifically clarified that an island-wide ban was “a possibility.” Additionally, when the item was first put on the agenda for discussion, it referred to a “discussion regarding the use of artificial athletic fields on Nantucket,” a general item that refers to fields in the plural and does not mention the school’s plans for Vito Capizzo stadium.

When confronted with this information, Smith conceded that it “could have been” the case that a ban was initially considered, but that assumptions that the Board of Health was moving toward such a ban were wrong. She then added that the Board of Health might consider an island-wide ban in the future.

Additionally, Smith’s own motion may not be worded precisely enough to avoid applying to all turf and track installations across the island.

The first motion is split into two sections. The first section ends by saying that “this motion applies only to [Vito Capizzo stadium] and not to any other artificial turf installation elsewhere on Nantucket,” but the second section then goes on to say that “no turf, track…or related product may be shipped, delivered, installed, or placed into service unless and until the contractor has satisfied pre-installation requirements to the satisfaction of the Board of Health.” Whether or not the disclaimer in the first section applies to the second might be up for interpretation.

The reference to the track is likely to draw further scrutiny. Until Thursday, the Board of Health had never seriously considered the track element of the project. Smith said that she was not aware of any possibility that the track would be blocked, but her motion calls out the track specifically, saying it can’t be installed without Board of Health approval.

Smith has previously drawn criticism for allegedly pre-judging the issue of artificial turf, though she has maintained that this is false.

Emails obtained by the Current show that Smith worked to arrange speakers and written materials opposing artificial turf in the days leading up to the Board of Health’s first public hearing on the topic.

Smith told the Current that she looked for studies showing the dangers of turf because she knew that there would be ample information in favor of turf and wanted to make sure both sides were represented, and that she had not made a decision on the issue.

“I have a medical background, and as such, I do go by facts, and I do go by evidence,” she told the Current several months ago. “I felt from my conversation with [school Superintendent] Dr. [Elizabeth] Hallett that that side was well-represented. I did not, and at no time do I have any reason to favor one side or the other. I would like to really dispel that. I don't know. I know it's a thorny issue. I know there are things to be said for both sides. I know that the jury is out in terms of safety.”

The emails also show that Smith was preparing for an emergency motion to approve a cease and desist order against the Nantucket Public Schools (NPS) before the hearing, also on the advice of Hugo.

The Board of Health is planning a special meeting to continue the discussion, which has not been scheduled. In the meantime, town officials will have to watch for open meeting law complaints from town residents.