Letter: Amherst’s Long Failure to Comply with Preservation Law

6
historic preservation.  National Register

Photo: Wikipedia

The following letter was sent to the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) on December 7, 2024, regarding comments made by Commissioner Comeau prior to the MBLC’s vote to grant the Town of Amherst until March 31, 2025, to sign a construction contract for its Jones Library Project (MBLC total grant amount $15,565,472).

At your meeting on December 5, 2024, Commissioner George T. Comeau spoke in terms that might be regarded as arguably slanderous, of the Amherst Historic Preservation Coalitions’s courtesy copy to you of its Report to the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General. This Report describes grave concerns about the MBLC’s Massachusetts Public Library Construction Program.

In particular, these concerns relate to the construction grant that the MBLC awarded for a project on the Jones Library in Amherst. It would demolish the entirety of the Library’s brick 1993 addition and parts of the historic, 1928 Library’s exterior and interior. The Project would include a new, larger addition.

Several members of the coalition’s steering committee reviewed that report in draft. I am one of them. I do not appreciate Commissioner Comeau’s slurs, for my colleagues or for myself.

In the coalition’s report, Commissioner Comeau failed to identify a single statement that he said was a lie.

Granted, there are points in that the report that might have been expressed more precisely. But as far as I know there is no falsity, witting or otherwise. Commissioner Comeau’s blanket statements were unfair. They were apparently also unsupported.

In advocating for the Town of Amherst’s requested extension of time to sign a construction contract for its project, Commissioner Comeau gave great weight to the support generously expressed by several elected officials.

But, to obtain that support, what representations did the town and the Jones Library Trustees make to those officials? Would they have advocated for this second extension of time for the town to sign that construction contract, had they been aware of the following facts?

  • In January 2017, in mandatory forms on their multi-million dollar MBLC construction grant application, the Town Manager, Jones Library Director, and Jones Library Trustees wrongly attested by omission (pp.90) that this historic Library was not on the State Register of Historic Places, and not on the National Register (as a contributing structure in the Downtown Amherst Business District) (see p.9 or preceding document). The Library is listed on both. This possibly contributed to the MBLC’s failure to insist that the town and Library Trustees have their project timely vetted for compliance with the MBLC’s own historic preservation regulations (605 CMR 6.05, Conditions of eligibility, subsection (2)(d)23) as well as those of the MHC (900 CMR 71.00).
  • The Town Manager and the Trustees failed, until February 2024, to provide all the Project Notification Form data that they had been legally obligated to provide to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), for historic preservation vetting “as early as possible in the planning stages of the project.” Here, this was no later than 2016.
  • The Town put this project out to bid not once (first in January 2024), but twice (again in September 2024), using construction bid documents in which “adverse effects,” identified by the MHC, still remained;
  • After nearly a decade, and more than $2,700,000 in MBLC grant funding, the town and Library Trustees still lack a project design that complies with applicable historic preservation law; and
  • This implies that the project’s costs are almost certain to exceed the single, within-budget general contractor bid received in October 2024, and that the project might have to be re-bid yet again, at yet more expense, if necessary changes are discovered before the construction contract is signed.

The plain fact is that the town and Jones Library Trustees did not need this extension of time because their project is complex. They needed it because, for years, they blew off their legal obligation to have their project vetted, either by the MHC (905 CMR 71.02 (1)) or under regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.6). Resolution of adverse effects, subsection (a) to eliminate (State) or to avoid (federal) “adverse effects” to the historic Jones Library. Failing that, project sponsors are required to minimize “adverse effects” or, failing even that, mitigate them (36 CFR 800.6, Resolution of adverse effects, subsection (a)).

I have no doubt that Commissioner Comeau will file a reply to the coalition’s report with the Office of the Massachusetts Inspector General. I do not doubt that he will share a copy with the coalition, and look forward to seeing it.


Sarah McKee

Sarah McKee was an Amherst resident for more than 20 years. She is a former president of the Jones Library Trustees and former General Counsel, Interpol U.S. National Central Bureau, and is a member of the D.C. Bar.

Spread the love

6 thoughts on “Letter: Amherst’s Long Failure to Comply with Preservation Law

  1. Sarah, thank you for this.
    I watched the meeting on Zoom. Though it took me a minute to disregard my agitation at first seeing an in-person attendee at the table eating from a bowl of food, I reminded myself that it has been years since I could assume that elected or appointed officials would always present professionally when conducting business in the public’s eye.

    When the agenda item of another extension to the Jones project was presented, I cringed as Commissioner Comeau began. I remembered his reaction at the meeting for the extension requested last summer and was concerned that his clear bias for the extension and dislike for those opposing it then would again rear its head. Sadly, not only did Mr. Comeau exhibit the same, but his apple polishing of the elected officials he cited in favor of the extension was second only to his allegations of lying by those, common people, opposed to the extension. That not a single commissioner had a question or comment before the vote was taken would, in some circles, be described as the fix as in.

    In my mind, the behavior exhibited by Mr. Comeau renders him unfit to hold an office that should require independent thinking and respectful treatment of all state residents.

  2. As usual excellent stuff from Atty. McKee.

    There may be enough weasel room in the very polite but somewhat oblique request for correspondence between MBLS and the OIG to not treat the request as a public record request. I would suggest a flat out public record request.

  3. Does anyone have a copy of the bid documents for the Library for the bid last November? I would like to compare the spex for the handling of the historic woodwork with what was worked out in the historical review process after that November bid.

  4. The November bid documents can be accessed at the links below:

    Combined Bidding Specifications – https://1drv.ms/b/c/27be862e5e454acb/EctKRV4uhr4ggCcpHAAAAAAB7ezws6xXu_aAFPozjydwHg?e=8hFv4t

    Combined Bidding Drawings – https://1drv.ms/b/c/27be862e5e454acb/EctKRV4uhr4ggCcoHAAAAAABW9yml0EULTm7aQewIc1KqQ?e=vwsdXH

    Note that the Specs are 3700 pages and the Drawings are another 288 pages. For unspecified reasons the Town chose to publish “Construction Documents” on its Section 106 Historic Preservation and NEPA Environmental Review web page that are only 155 pages long.

  5. It is really not clear to me, as a member of the Amherst Historical Commission, and one of two members who were the Consulting Party to the Section 106 process recently, what the current state of the directions in the bid documents are for the interior Philippine mahogany panelling and woodwork. It is all custom made for this 1928 building so how it gets somehow redesigned for somewhere else is hard to envision. It doesn’t sound to me like what is discarded will be saved.

    I am particularly concerned that the construction drawings (the last ones I saw) do not reflect discussions that have happened since the bid docs were submitted. This means that the drawings call for tearing down portions of interior wall panelling in places that WERE to be re-designed due to the need for a large (20 feet long) mechanical book sorter. That piece of equipment has been removed (but one feels it is present – its Ghost if you like!) and we know that the existing plan for the hole in the wall from the Amity St facade was there to help people put their books in the sorter (in the historic library directors’ office) – well, the Section 106 process effected removal of said hole. And by implication the book sorter itself.
    Given how frequently the AHC is mentioned in the current MOA as a point of reference for the project should it go ahead (I hope it does not) this puts me in a difficult position where I have to both advocate for historic preservation in town and somehow at the same time, deliberate and undermine preservation. I am holding my breath – this kind of crazy dis-associated mode is also likely to have the Whipple House window (currently in the Special Collections space) put somewhere inappropriate. It will probably also leave perfectly serviceable roof slates lying around as souvenirs or being tossed out with the woodwork. And don’t get me started on the demolition issues which are so unnecessary in the current plans – that don’t limit our carbon footprint.

    What is also far from mute at this point is also the many concerns raised during the Section 106 review that featured the relationship of the building and the property as a whole, an issue that the Town never let the AHC address from the time I joined the commission.

Leave a Reply

The Amherst Indy welcomes your comment on this article. Comments must be signed with your real, full name & contact information; and must be factual and civil. See the Indy comment policy for more information.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.