What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

To the editor: Most of you likely saw Friday’s Current article about the Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NP&EDC) and our recent efforts to reach an agreement with petitioner Mrs. Rayport. I want to share additional context because, as a commission, we are genuinely disappointed that - after multiple meetings and sincere attempts - we were unable to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. As Matt Fee said, “We are so close,” and that remains true.

To start, it’s important to remember that the idea of restructuring the NP&EDC did not originate with Mrs. Rayport. The concept was first introduced by former Planning Director Andrew Vorce in 2021. Mrs. Rayport later advanced her own version of that restructuring. While I understand some of her reasoning, her proposal ultimately diverged from the Commission’s goal: broadening membership, increasing accessibility, and ensuring the Commission reflects the full diversity of Nantucket.

Although her proposal passed at two Town Meetings, it was not approved at the State House. Key legislators and representatives from the Commonwealth’s 12 Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) told PLUS leadership that they wanted any restructuring of the NP&EDC to come from the Commission itself. They did not support the petitioner’s version and twice tabled it for future discussion. In other words, despite local votes, the State declined to advance that model.

The good news is that the Commission has now completed its own home rule petition. Our proposal is the product of months of meetings, extensive public outreach, and thoughtful input from residents, town officials, staff, and commissioners. It is intentionally diverse, inclusive, and grounded in the needs of today’s Nantucket.

Throughout this process, we examined a wide range of sectors, organizations, and community groups to ensure the Commission’s future membership reflects the island’s current and evolving demographics. While we didn’t agree on every detail at every moment, we ultimately reached consensus on the full structure, and that proposal is what is on the warrant. Overall, our proposal is similar to the citizen petition except for one point: whether the at‑large seats should be elected or appointed.

Massachusetts guidance for advisory boards (which the NP&EDC is) recommends the appointment of members. Our reasoning is simple: we want to ensure that all residents - not just those with the time, resources, or networks to run a campaign - can serve. Appointments open the door to more voices, not fewer.

At last week’s Select Board meeting, both Matt and Brooke acknowledged the progress we’ve made, with valuable guidance from Julie Fitzgerald. Between meetings, our Chair, Abby De Molina, asked the petitioners to share what compromises they were willing to consider. Because they are not bound by Open Meeting Law, they could have provided input that we could then discuss publicly. They declined.

As Dave Iverson noted, the petitioner’s model would likely result in a board composed primarily of older, well‑resourced individuals - essentially replicating the current structure rather than expanding it. That is the opposite of what the Commission is trying to achieve. We want a board that brings in new voices, new perspectives, and new leadership.

Our vision for the at‑large seats is clear: they should be filled by emerging leaders from across Nantucket’s diverse communities. People like Shantaw Bloise, Shane Perry, Esmerelda Martinez, plus another 50 I can name and many others who represent the island’s future. These are the individuals who, I believe, in 10 to 15 years, will be shaping Nantucket’s direction. Serving on a board or committee now is how they build experience, confidence, and a public voice.

Finally, I want to address one additional point. The Land Bank’s language - “Commission members shall be legal residents of Nantucket County” - is straightforward. Yet three petitioners argued that non‑residents, including individuals living as far away as Singapore, should be eligible to serve. For a body charged with planning Nantucket’s future, local residency is not just reasonable; it is essential. And call me crazy, but if Nantucket is in the name, we should have someone serving who lives here year-round. We have no shortage of committed, capable year‑round residents ready to serve.

So, as we move toward Town Meeting, the NP&EDC, Town Administration, and PLUS respectfully ask for your support of our article. It reflects months of hard work, broad community input, and a genuine commitment to building a more inclusive, representative, and effective Commission for Nantucket.

Joseph Topham