Letter: Letter to the Mount Greylock School Committee

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

Below is the text of an email I submitted to the MGRSD School Committee today (Aug. 29):

Members of the MGRSD School Committee:

I'm writing to you in support of the work of your Phase 2 Subcommittee and its recommendation to install a turf field at Mount Greylock's campus.

I ask you to trust the members of the Phase 2 Subcommittee, and your members you appointed to that subcommittee, in their lengthy due diligence and public deliberation -- of both the financial and alleged health risks in light of current medical research -- in determining that a turf field is best for the school and its students.

As a parent of scholar-athletes involved in the field sports at Mount Greylock (soccer and lacrosse) since the fall of 2010, I can attest directly to the difficulties these teams have had regarding natural grass field conditions. Invariably, games played on natural grass in the county have been either postponed or canceled outright due to unplayable surfaces caused by weather and season conditions. Even well-maintained natural fields have fallen prey to our New England weather variations, more so recently.

For example, this past spring season the boys lacrosse team had to relocate five of its games to, wait for it, local turf fields (MCLA and Williams). It played on nine turf fields in a 20-game season. The girls team played a similar number of games on turf fields in a 22-game season. If Mount Greylock determines it shouldn't have a turf field due to alleged health issues, then should its field teams forfeit all games to be played at opponents' or neutral turf venues?


That's why so many surrounding educational institutions with athletic programs have adopted the turf field for their field sports teams. Area high schools such as West Springfield, Chicopee Comprehensive, Deerfield Academy, Berkshire School, Burr and Burton Academy, Chicopee, East Longmeadow, Agawam, Pope Francis, Springfield Central, South Hadley, Easthampton, and Northfield Mount Herman all have turf fields. Local colleges Williams, BCC, MCLA, Mount Holyoke, Amherst, UAlbany, RPI, Sage, Union, UMass, Smith, Elms, AIC, Westfield State, Western New England, Springfield and Skidmore all have turf fields.

My eldest son looked at 21 colleges in his pursuit to play collegiate lacrosse; all have turf fields. The college he's currently enrolled at and playing for, installed its turf field in 2015. My youngest son, now a senior at Greylock, has looked at 17 colleges this past year; all have turf fields.

I doubt any of these institutions would be using a turf field if their assessment of the health, financial, and environmental factors confirmed actual, material issues regarding the same. For support of that, just look at the recent analysis BCC went through with its field, a field many county schools now use due to its stable availability for play in any weather condition.

I urge you strongly to move forward with the turf field project and vote in favor of its installation at the school.

Respectfully,

Adam Filson
Williamstown, Mass. 

Filson is a Mount Greylock grad ('83) and the parent of two children  who have attended Mount Greylock (2016 and 2020).

 

 

 


Tags: high school sports,   MGRHS,   turf field,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

AG Clears Williamstown Select Board in Open Meeting Complaint

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Attorney General's Office on Wednesday cleared the Select Board in an Open Meeting Law complaint filed by iBerkshires.com while simultaneously confirming the supposition at the heart of the complaint.
 
The AGO found that the board did technically violate the OML when it moved to executive session on May 11, a misstep the board previously acknowledged in its response to the complaint.
 
The meeting in question was held behind closed doors to discuss the town's response to a proposal from Williams College to acquire the former town garage site at 59 Water St.
 
At the time of the May 11 meeting, the board had held no public discussion, let alone a vote, on whether to enter into negotiations with Williams, the lone respondent to a request for proposals issued by the town for the 1.27-acre parcel.
 
The board cited an exception to the Open Meeting Law that states executive sessions are appropriate if, "holding the discussion in open session may have a detrimental effect on the Board's negotiating position."
 
iBerkshires.com maintained in its complaint that the executive session was premature given the fact that the board on May 11 had no one to negotiate with as it had not agreed — publicly — to negotiate with the college.
 
The news organization cited the fact that the town's RFP clearly indicated a multi-step process in which the board first would decide whether to engage with any of the respondents (assuming multiple bids were made) and then enter into negotiation with one of the respondents.
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories