Response to Nancy Dempze’s Critique of Kelly Fredrickson’s Post and Lack of Response to Attorney Fenn’s Legal Analysis; Comment on The Land Trust’s Video

Response to Nancy Dempze’s Critique of Kelly Fredrickson’s Post and Lack of Response to Attorney Fenn’s Legal Analysis; Comment on The Land Trust’s Video

If you want to read a detailed, informed opinion regarding the lawsuit and land conservation in general, see Peter Fenn’s Westwood January 24th Minute Post and his January 29th response to Attorney Berman’s post of that same day. Attorney Fenn has 40 years of relevant experience, and as far as I can see, he is far more qualified to provide an educated opinion than anyone else that has weighed in on this matter, with the possible exception of Westwood Land Trust Attorney Kenneth Berman who did not provide information regarding his experience and expertise.

It is interesting to note that Land Trust President, Nancy Dempze, has not disputed anything that Mr. Fenn stated in his legal opinion, but rather chose to disparage Kelly Fredrickson’s post, labeling her as “an advertising executive”. (I will save those that will try to critique this post the trouble -- I am implying without proof, her intent was to minimize Ms. Fredrickson’s opinion.)

In my opinion, Atty. Dempze’s post was an extremely well written argument on behalf of the WLT. However, I don’t see where Ms. Dempze has stated that this is her opinion, nor does she cite the sources of her information that she seems to have stated as fact. As far as Atty. Dempze’s qualifications, on her law firm -- Hemenway & Barnes -- website, her areas of expertise are listed as “Wealth Management, Estate and Tax Planning, Trust and Estate Administration and Non-Profit Representation.” I don’t see how her legal background provides her any more expertise about the environmental impact of farming than Ms. Fredrickson’s professional experience as an “advertising executive.” I think we can all agree both are entitled to their opinions. In my opinion, I don’t think simply sitting on the board of a Land Trust makes you an expert on land conservation, the environmental impact of the various forms of farming, and all of the nuances.

If the statements of Atty. Dempze came from the report that was prepared for the Land Trust by Mark Copperman -- the report the Land Trust has not agreed to supply -- she should state this. If the report supports the Land Trust’s position, I find it hard to believe they would refuse to make it available for all to review. If it came from some other source, she should cite it so we can all review the source for ourselves (also to prevent being accused of plagiarism).

The WLT Video

In my opinion, the video that the WLT has now posted is another attempt to mislead Westwood’s residents and sway public opinion. The video shows people at 665 Clapboardtree Street and children frolicking in the meadow. Are they trying to lead us to believe that Westwood’s residents are actually using the meadow for recreation? I have spoken with neighbors in view of the meadow, and they have said that they have virtually never seen anyone in the meadow (other than the people mowing the meadow) in over 20 years (also see Chris Bean’s Post). I would like to see the uncut version of this film. If the children are anything like mine, I think we would hear “how much longer do we have to be here?”

-Despite refusing to make Mark Cooperman’s report available, the film shows him making statements about the meadow.

-How many people in Westwood know where they could park if they want their children to frolic in meadow as the film depicts?

-Would the people playing in the meadow damage the Wildflowers that the WLT claims they have an obligation to protect?

-Instead of staging a film of the meadow to try to sway public opinion, if the WLT would arrange educational events regarding the ecology of the meadow, they would actually be accomplishing something.

-Is it an appropriate use of the WLT’s funds to place advertisements in the local newspapers and produce videos to sway public opinion to their side in an ongoing lawsuit?

-Please use commonsense when viewing this piece of advertising designed to influence your vote. Apply the same scrutiny to it that you would to any paid advertisement put before you. Read and review the actual language in the four articles on which you will be asked to vote. Don’t fall for the endless attempts to mislead you about what your vote actually means. Follow the recommendation of the FinCom, vote for Indefinite Postponement on the four articles.