Why to Vote No on 26 and 40

As the nephew of Oliver and Geneva Merrill and as a party to the 1999 settlement with the town of Amherst in regards to Cemetery fields, I wish to state a few facts as why to vote against all of the articles on the ballot that are tied to Cemetery fields.

Oliver and Geneva Merrill were approached by the Cemetery Trustees to purchase the land for a cemetery not a recreational facility. Oliver and Geneva did not approach the Town.  During the course of negotiations they were asked if they minded if the fields were used for teams to “practice” on should they (the town) not have field space available elsewhere. They were told this would involve only an area being mowed off. The example that they were given, was that of what Paul Caufield had done just down the street for years for the Amherst Patriot’s. They did not think this was a bad idea and so they agreed so long as a fence was erected on the property line.

They were misled and contended this till their deaths.  This was later proven to be true when a confidential memo Attorney Drescher acting as counsel for the Town/Trustees wrote to the then Town Administrator Dana Crowell dated May 7th 1993 surfaced. In the memo it states “Of most concern to me, however, was the discussion that we had about the fact that the Trustees or the Selectman may want to retain the ability to alter the use of the property, in the future, if a circumstances warrant. The agreement and the deed have been drafted so that latitude is available to the town, subject to the qualifications that I indicated in the opinion letter.” It then goes on to say “However, as at least one of the Trustees pointed out, the Merrill’s may, because of the conversations that were had with them, be under the impression that this latitude won’t be exercised, won’t exist or is clearly not intended.  If there is even a possibility that the Merrill’s will perceive the discussion that way, then I strongly recommend that you address this issue “up front” so that there will not be the possibility that they will later claim that we misrepresented this transaction to them”. 

The discussion with the Merrill’s never happened. It was not until the first planning board meeting that the true plans were revealed and Oliver and Geneva realized they were duped. Yes, they wrote a letter prior to the meeting that stated they had no objections; however they had not seen the scope or intent when that letter was written by them, rather they were relying on what was said to them, why would they think they would be misled. If one does there research they will see after that planning board meeting the Merrill’s were against anything but it being used as a Cemetery as they were requested to sell the land for.

The 1999 court agreement that was approved by all parties involved, including the Attorney General’s Office division of Charitable Trust, was and is the Town’s counter offer to my proposal to end the litigation.

This is just another example of the Town not honoring its agreements that it makes. Unfortunately the Town has a long standing tradition of not keeping its word. Some of these actions have led to the Town ending up in lawsuits and this is one of those cases. This may be part of the reason the Town is finding it difficult to find landowners willing to work with them.

So I ask the voters to support the current Cemetery Trustees and vote no on #40 on the Town warrant. They understand their fiduciary duties and know how to honor agreements and should be rewarded for that, not punished.

Respectfully,

Kevin J Grassett