For the VCS Conservation Almanac
May 30, 2008

We at Sheriff’s Meadow are writing this open letter to the island community in order to further clarify recent actions that have taken place on Foundation land that have been the cause of great concern to numerous people. We are sorry for the distress that this has caused. We would like the opportunity to explain our property stewardship procedure to you.

When SMF acquires a property we undertake a thorough inventory of the plants and animals, birds, moths and the types of habitat that exist upon it. We also pay close attention to the donor’s intentions and any state or local regulations and from all these parts compile a management plan that suits that particular property. The plans might range from doing essentially nothing and letting the natural flow of succession occur, to stepping in to maintain, or in some cases restore, meadows and natural sand plain habitats. There are numerous ecologically accepted ways to achieve the latter objective. These include cutting down trees, mowing brush and grasses, burning fields, removing plants and grazing livestock. Each property defines which means are appropriate for it. Burning, for instance, would not be acceptable in the field at the southern end of the Caroline Tuthill Preserve as it is too close to development. In other instances, when we have plans to mow and burn a field grown in with viburnum and huckleberry, the removal of some of those plants prior to burning may be appropriate. When woody vegetation is transplanted, we replace the soil with sand, the preferred substrate for sand plain grasses. Many of the native grasses and plants we want to encourage thrive on impoverished soil – on better soils, they will lose in competition to non-native grasses.

In the case of both of the properties in question, the field at the Caroline Tuthill Preserve and Priscilla Hancock Meadow, we have as a clear objective the preservation and maintenance of open fields. We have not had the manpower nor machinery in place to do this on our own. In our obligation and need to manage our properties, we have had ongoing relationships with respected, professional landscape contractors. When it is appropriate to remove trees and invasive species, and/or conduct mowing as part of the management plan, we have at times entered into handshake arrangements with contractors. Those arrangements allow the contractors to take a number of species that have marketable value in their business in return for mowing and clearing on the property. Except in the case of our long standing, annual ‘free tree day’ at Nat’s Farm, we do not deal with, or normally know, the identity of landowners who may be receiving any of the trees or plants removed from our property.

That said, while the recent occurrences of tree and shrub removal may have been in accordance with our internal management plan, there were numerous areas of omission and a lack of oversight. We take these errors seriously. We apologize to our supporters, to those who have entrusted their properties to us, and to all the conservation-minded citizens of Martha’s Vineyard. We have heard particular distress about “strip-mining,” using one paper’s choice of words, from another island property and we want it to be clear that that property is not owned or controlled by us. Unfortunately, the decision to feature the photograph highlighting the sod removal on the front page has made that image the photographic poster child of the story.

What is now important is how Sheriff’s Meadow reacts and learns from this experience. Our new Executive Director, Adam Moore, had already called a halt to this type of arrangement before the present incident became public, and has prepared a draft outlining new written procedures to govern our practices in stewardship matters that involve third parties. Those procedures will be presented to the Board of Directors for review and adoption. We have mapped and photographed the affected areas and are developing a remediation plan. Adam and our President, Steve Crampton, have met with Tim Simmons of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. We have promised the Foundation’s full support in implementing and overseeing restorative efforts if they are called for.

We would be pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions, suggestions or criticism for Sheriff’s Meadow, please do telephone Adam at (508) 693-5207, or email him at moore@sheriffsmeadow.org.

Sincerely,
Emily Bramhall
Vice-President

May 23, 2008
Legislative Victory for Land Conservation Congress Passes Conservation Tax Incentive for Family Farms and Ranches

GREAT NEWS! Following similar action in the House, the Senate last night voted to overturn the President's veto of the Farm Bill. Despite an earlier procedural glitch, the final bill emerged as expected with our conservation tax incentive now enacted for two more years. After an arduous uphill battle and the prospect of defeat only a few weeks ago, our national coalition now has a hard-earned reason to celebrate. This puts back in place the incentive that had expired January 1st with the exact same terms, that is, raising the deduction for donated conservation easements form 30 to 50% of adjusted gross income—and 100% for farmers and ranchers—and extending the time period for using the deduction from 6 to 16 years. We cannot thank everyone enough who made this victory possible—every single person who made a phone call, visited their Member of Congress, financially supported the campaign, or otherwise played their part at the local, state and national level. This has been a true community effort which would not have been possible without our national coalition and the help of many land trusts. Although our work is not done and we still need to make the incentive permanent, this is as far as we could possibly get this year. Thank you for your hard work that made renewal of this powerful tax incentive possible. For more information, please visit www.lta.org

In the Courts

This summer, the Vineyard Conservation Society won a major legal victory in the form of a favorable ruling from the state Ethics Commission. The precedent-setting decision marked the end of our seven-year struggle
to stop private golf course proliferation on the Island.

VCS is unique among Island conservation groups in using legal defense as an environmental protection strategy. No less than four golf course developments were proposed for Mar­tha’s Vineyard over the last decade, and during the ensuing “golf wars,” VCS testified frequently before the Martha’s Vine­yard Commission (MVC), the Island-wide planning agency which reviews such developments of regional impact.

Thanks in part to VCS advocacy, three of the properties slat­ed for development were ultimately acquired for conserva­tion, while the only golf course to be approved was required to eliminate pesticides and scale back fertilizer use. Despite these significant environmental victories, however, one trou­bling piece of unfinished business remained.

Back in the year 2000, golf developers leveled conflict-of-interest allegations against certain VCS board members who also served on the MVC, or had spouses who served on the MVC. The essence of the accusation was that VCS was a “business” with a “financial interest” in the outcome of the review process, because our advocacy campaign would bring us increased visibility and economic support. Preposterous though the charges were, the individuals in question felt obliged to resign from the VCS board so as not to endanger their ability to participate in the official MVC review.

Meanwhile, VCS requested an Ethics Commission opinion on the issues involved, not only to show up the speciousness of the claims, but also to forestall the use of similar tactics in the future, both here and in other communities in Mas­sachusetts. Our overarching concern was with the potential chilling effect on public service: if board members of non-profit advocacy organizations are unable to serve freely on municipal and state boards and agencies, civic involvement suffers as a result.

The first Ethics Commission decision, issued in 2002, vin­dicated the former VCS board members, stating that they could participate in review as long as VCS had no financial interest.  But the opinion didn’t address the broader question of whether VCS could be considered a “business organiza­tion” within the meaning of the conflicts statute.
VCS filed an appeal which, two years later, resulted in our being permitted to request a further ruling from the Ethics Commission to rule squarely on the “business organization” issue. We submitted that request in 2004, and finally this Au­gust received the ruling which affirmed the VCS position in its entirety.
In particular, the Ethics Commission rejected the insidious argument that a non-profit environmental watchdog like VCS actually functions as a business with presumptive finan­cial interests sufficient to trigger conflict-of-interest laws. In­stead, the ruling stated that VCS board members serving on government panels can take part in all decisions coming be­fore them, as long as they disclose their VCS affiliation when reviewing projects that VCS has a significant advocacy inter­est in. The ruling should have broad application to similarly situated nonprofits around Massachusetts.

While we were confident of ultimate victory in this matter, it was frustrating that we had to expend such large amounts of time and money, and had to wait so long for a final result. It stands as a good lesson, however, in how the legal process is routinely used as a weapon in land-use controversies today. It also points to the need for VCS to be ready for the next fight, and to the importance of having a committed mem­bership prepared to support that readiness. This protracted battle substantially depleted our legal defense resources, and we urge everyone who believes in this aspect of our mission to make a special gift to VCS this year to help us rebuild our environmental defense capability.

^ back to top