Letters

As a member of the 12th generation of my family to live in Southampton, I have observed with dismay the behavior of the leadership of the Southampton History Museum regarding the Conscience Point Shellfish Hatchery.

Until recently, I have been both impressed with and grateful for the work of the museum. I have proudly watched my wife, Kathy, serve on the museum board, my sister Anne serve as the board’s president, and most recently our daughter Meghan served on the board.

Many in the community know that Meghan was the first board member to resign, expressing her opposition to the museum’s treatment of the hatchery.

This week, we learned of the very impressive work of Town Historian Julie Greene [“With Eviction Looming, Old Town Records Offer Potential Lifeline to Conscience Point Shellfish Hatchery, Showing Town May Own Site,” 27east.com, February 5]; Ms. Greene has found that it appears virtually certain that the land on which the hatchery is located is, in fact, owned by the Town of Southampton, not the museum.

Despite the rather contemptuous dismissal of this finding by Sheila Tendy, an attorney representing the museum, it seems to me that this information presents an opportunity for a graceful and amicable solution that all parties to this unfortunate and unnecessary dispute should embrace. The town can assert ownership of the land on which the hatchery is sited,and enter into the agreement with the hatchery that will allow it to continue its work, which has great educational and environmental value. And the museum can focus its attention on property it actually owns and go about the process of restoring its once-sterling reputation.

I do have a question, though. We all know that each year a referendum is placed on the school budget ballot in which district voters are asked to approve approximately $285,000 of taxpayer funds to go to the museum for educational programing. Museum Director Sarah Kautz has maintained that the taxpayer funds are collected to underwrite the general operation of the museum, not to fund educationally related programming specifically. If this is the case, one wonders if taxpayer funds are paying the legal expenses that the museum is now incurring to seek the eviction of the hatchery, a very valuable educational activity.

Director Kautz, I believe the community has the right to know the answer to this question. And, Attorney Tendy, if your dismissal of the work of the town historian is rooted in research you have done, or documents you possess, I believe it would be appropriate for you to share this information with the community as well.

Tim Bishop

Southampton