Washington College today confirmed they have the most recent offer from the Chestertown Town Council to sell the SFC John H. Newnam Armory to the college.
“We are not walking away from the Armory,” said WC Director of Media Relations Kay MacIntosh. “There will be a meeting this Friday with the President and the Board of Governors to discuss the Town’s offer.”
The most recent offer from the Mayor and Council came in the eleventh-hour last week as WC President Mitchell B. Reiss formally withdrew the college’s interest in purchasing the Armory. Spirited division on the Council and bitter public discourse had plagued the negotiations since the July 18 council meeting.
Council members were split on how the town should be compensated for selling its “option” in the Armory, and the college stood its ground on fiscal constraints–rejecting a requirement to help fund the town’s Rail-Trails project as part of the purchase agreement.
MacIntosh said the college would probably respond to the town’s new offer next week.
Good
So Reiss has declined the armory with his formal withdrawal of interest. Now he wants to take the latest offer by the town to his board. I think the word to describe this is ‘flip-flop.’ Next week we will hear that the “Board” decided not to take the offer. Where is the leadership by Reiss; can he make a decision or not?
Will the meeting of the Board be open to the public like the Council meetings are? Or will only one side be presented.
Thank God we have people like Rome Oniel in this world!
Saving the Chestertown Armory benefits the wide Kent and Queen Anne’s community by: (1) Protecting the historic SFC John H. Newman Armory – to capture the building’s past and position it for the future; (2) Upholding of the military history and significance of the Armory – to honor those who have served the community and the nation; (3) Perpetuating public use assets of the Armory – to serve emergency needs in times of natural or other disaster, accommodate functions, civic activities, and recreational needs, and provide for community as well as private and commercial events (4) Renovating the Armory on a Green platform – to demonstrate environmental strategies linked to historic preservation; and (5) Creating an educational center dedicated to our heritage – to support programs as archaeological and environmental studies. Pursuit of these objectives is straightforward. But, the burdens of ownership by governments, individuals, or institutions portend high risk for any who may come to own the Armory. Not the least of these is dealing with the considerable environmental requirements, hazardous waste cleanup, and beyond. Nobody can tell what they will turn out to be. Before leaping in, it is imperative to thoroughly prepare for the unknown consequences of these obvious risks.
Washington College is a private institution. Like most corporations it seems to be governed by a board which makes the major decisions.
The board represents the college and not the public so I don’t know why they would be expected to hold a public hearing.
The Board reacts to what the President relates to them. Are all the facts being presented or just the ones he wants the Board to hear? An open meeting is possible for this agenda item if the Board wants to be a good ‘corporate citizen’.
To the second post, I think the word is “courtesy,” not “flip-flop.”
Reiss made it clear that WC needed to make a decision by mid-November. When that date came and went, he formally declined the Armory under the terms offered.
The M&C then met yet again and burned the midnight oil to come up with one last offer, which they tendered. We don’t know what’s in that offer, but can assume that it requests more of Washington College than the Board approved. The courteous – and neighborly – thing for Reiss to do in that situation is to take this final offer to his Board. If he had ignored it or turned it down flat, no doubt there would be angry comments about how insulting that is to the town.
We’ll all just have to wait and see what conditions the M&C placed on what should have been a no-brainer, and how the WC Board reacts to their latest proposal..
To the last post. Your support my point by saying “Reiss made it clear that WC needed to make a decision by mid-November.” So why did he place a full page ad in the paper stating his decline and then back peddle? Why not place another ad stating he was being a good neighbor by being “courteous”?
Well, Rome, I think you have both your facts and your calendar confused. Reiss did not place a full-page ad declining the Armory. On Nov. 10, the college posted an open letter responding to legitimate questions from the community. These questions arose because of the “confidential” nature of the M&C’s offers, made as a result of closed, executive sessions.
The open letter made it clear that the new and changing conditions from the town were not something that the College could afford and it explained the background to the issue. The letter reiterated the need to arrive at a decision by mid-November and said that IF the council was unwilling to abide by the terms agreed to in July, the College would have to decline the property. At that time, I think that everyone hoped that sanity would prevail in the Council, and that a deal similar to that agreed upon in July could still be worked out.
A week later, the deadline for an agreement had come and gone, and a letter was sent to the town formally declining the property. This was entirely consistent with the position the College had articulated before, multiple times. And again this was not an artificial deadline set for negotiating reasons, but was a practical time frame linked to the College’s clean-up of the adjacent properties – and the council was well aware of this.
In a subsequent M&C meeting, the Mayor tried to convince the Council that this was an opportunity that should not be thrown away by the town. This resulted in their most recent offer, which Reiss has politely said that he’ll take to his board.
So it’s pretty clear that Reiss did not “state his decline and then back peddle.” Out of all of the parties to this negotiation, he is the ONLY one who has been consistent – and ironically, he’s been criticized by some for not ”negotiating”!
I have news for those critics – when doing business with the irrational, it is not rational to meet them halfway, when halfway is both unaffordable and completely illogical. And I suspect that even you understand how ridiculous your suggestion is that Reiss take out another “ad” to say that he was being courteous.
Bravo, John! Bravo!
A much better acquisition for the College would be the old Rock Hall “Clam House” In the harbor of Rock Hall. A short distance to the Bay, it would be an opportunity for the College to partner with Maryland Waterman to help that industry, thinking out of the box to provide opportunities for an occupation in decline. A partnership with the Maryland Waterman’s Association and the College would be a win/win for eveyone involved! This facility is big enough for labs and offices, and has slips that would provide dockage for the research boats that would be needed. It is not hard to imagine the ideas that would evolve with the working knowledge of many generations of Waterman pairing with Academics with a vested interest in the environment.
@ John Siedel: bravo, again. And why not take a look at Joe Lill’s suggestion?
Thanks for the info on Rock Hall,which several others have also mentioned to us. It’s too big a project for us alone, given our other commitments, but we can certainly look at some partial involvement, perhaps as part of a larger collaborative effort. Always worth a look!