In a paid Open Letter to Our Neighbors, Washington College President Mitchell B. Reiss issued another ultimatum that the College would not buy the SFC John H. Newman Armory unless the town changes the conditions of the sale back to a vision statement submitted to the Council at the July 18 meeting. Reiss has said twice that the college doesn’t need the armory to build an environmental center on the banks of the Chester River.
In the letter, Reiss offered his version of the failed negotiations with the Chestertown Town Council and referred back to the July 18 Council meeting where he says a 4-1 vote sealed an ironclad deal for WC to purchase the Armory. Reiss said the vote was based on a vision statement WC submitted to the council that evening
“We wish the Council well in its disposition of the Armory property. As disappointed as we are that we were unable to reach agreement on the Armory, we remain committed to continuing our productive partnership with the Town, County, and Eastern Shore.”
What the two parties did agree on that evening was that WC would reimburse the town for the cost of a prior environmental study and that WC would purchase the Town’s option to buy the Armory for the $320,000 remaining mortgage, which Maryland owes the Federal government for the Armory.
For some Council members, this is where all agreement ends.
An audio recording of the July 18 meeting indicates that there was no binding agreement for the Armory. The 4-1 vote gave Chestertown Town Manager Bill Ingersoll the ability to negotiate the transference of the Armory to WC with the Maryland Department of General Services, which holds the deed. It was also made clear that a final Memorandum of Understanding needed to be drafted.
“What are you asking of us tonight?” Councilman James Gatto asked Mayor Margo Bailey at the July 18 meeting.
“I’m asking simply for a vote from the Council to let Bill Ingersoll proceed with making arrangements with the state, or however the state wants to do this, so that Washington College is the new owner of the Armory,” Bailey replied.
“I have some concerns I’d like to see in writing, such as public use of the building,” Gatto responded. “I want to see a formalized outline because this is going to last 50 years or better.” He expressed concern that any final Memorandum of Understanding should stand the test of time beyond the tenure of any council member or college president.
Bill Ingersoll agreed the sole purpose of the July 18 vote was to get advisement from the state on how the transference to WC would work.
“I think assigning our rights to the Armory is what we’re attempting to do here tonight,” Ingersoll said. “There is a bit of process with the Department of General Services. It may be six-and-one-half-dozen, whether we can [transfer] straight to WC, or through the town to WC. We have to find out whether they care which way it goes.”
Gatto reiterated to the Spy last night that “the July 18 vote was only to give Bill Ingersoll the go-ahead to negotiate with the state and WC,” Gatto said. “In there was a series of provisions, including definitive access–in writing–which we still don’t have. All we have are promises.”
At the September 16 meeting, Reiss presented the town with an MOU that was negotiated with Ingersoll. It was voted down 3-2 because Councilmen Marty Stetson, Gatto, and Gibson Anthony believed the MOU did not go far enough to address public access or clearly define WC’s role in the rails-trails project, which would ultimately connect the main campus to the Armory–where WC hopes to build a new environmental center.
In October, Mitchell Reiss gave an exclusive interview to the local print newspaper giving the town a November deadline to sell the Armory–based on the September MOU submitted to the Council. Reiss clearly stated that the Armory was not needed for the college to fulfill its plans for a waterfront environmental center, and that WC could complete the project with property already purchased from Alger Oil, an adjacent property.
In October, after marginalizing WC’s need for the Armory, Reiss again appeared before the Council with another MOU, which increased the longevity of the agreement from 10 to 25 years, but the agreement still lacked specifics on public access and participation in the rails-trails project, according to Gatto, Stetson, and Anthony. The meeting then went into executive session with Reiss, where he apparently made room for compromise and asked the Council to come back to him with a proposal. Reiss then left the meeting where moments later a unanimous agreement was reached on what to offer the college in exchange for the Armory.
Although Anthony, Stetson, and Gatto could not comment on the specifics of the executive session, they indicated that Bailey and the four Council members had made compromises to reach the unanimous decision, and they were very positive about what they were offering the college.
Stetson rebuked Reiss’s open letter as another end-run around the Council via the media.
“I feel a little offended that Mr. Reiss never came to us to accept or deny our offer, or negotiate a compromise. Instead he went to the press,” Stetson said. “We’re the people he had to negotiate with, and he chose not to.”
Louis G. Michael says
An ultimatum is a demand, requested for a specified period of time; and is backed by explanation of consequences in case of noncompliance. President Reiss’ open letter deals with a time limit, and clearly describes future consequences. However, there is no sense of a “demand” in what he proclaimed. The open letter to Washington College neighbors perfectly reflects President Reiss’ accountability to his office; to his board; to the College; to the community; to the Mayor & Council; and the press. It would have been the height or irresponsibility for him to dodge this difficult task.
Rachel Goss says
“clearly define WC’s role in the rails-trails project…”
“participation in the rails-trails project…”
I feel the words ‘role’ and ‘participation’ are not accurate – the town wanted more $$ from the Collge – pretty simple.
How many potential buyers have contacted the council members since the letter was punblished? can the phones handle it?
Kevin Shertz says
Thank you, Spy, for providing a comprehensive timeline background on the Armory issue in this article. How we got to where we are is really important for people to know. The Town does NOT own the Armory.
Interesting that Mr. Reiss fails to mention the October MOU provided to the Council by the College. Or, for that matter, the September 16th version.
Kevin Shertz says
Louis G. Michael wrote: “An ultimatum is a demand, requested for a specified period of time; and is backed by explanation of consequences in case of noncompliance. President Reiss’ open letter deals with a time limit, and clearly describes future consequences. However, there is no sense of a “demand” in what he proclaimed.”
Horse hockey. A clear “demand” is being made:
“Unless the Town Council is prepared to honor the commitment made to the College in their vote of July 18, we have no choice but to decline the opportunity to acquire the Chestertown Armory.”
It is 100% an ultimatum. If that weren’t the case, he would have referenced either the September 16th or October 17th Memorandums of Understanding as the basis what he wanted that the College offered to the Council in his “Open Letter.”
President Reiss clearly wants the June Mission Statement accepted as-is, whereas the Town Council very clearly included additional conditions in their discussion and vote on July 18th, including giving the Town Manager permission to pursue the issue with the State, who actually owns the Armory, AND requiring a Memorandum of Understanding to be drafted and accepted at a later date.
Here are some other choice quotes from that July 18 discussion that President Reiss failed to include in his “Open Letter” when citing the meeting minutes:
“Mr. Ingersoll stated that the question was whether the Town would assign their interest in the Armory to the College, subject to a Memorandum of Understanding being signed with the College.”
“Mr. Ingersoll stated that this was not the final act. He said that the Council asked for the College to attend a meeting and they were here this evening. He said that the property had to move along because the State wanted to dispose of the Armory by September 2011.”
“Mr. Ingersoll stated that the Memorandum of Understanding can still be altered and changed to spell out the details.”
The meeting minutes can be found here for folks who are interested. Too bad the audio isn’t available online to flesh out the abridged version so as to fully demonstrate the intent of the discussion:
https://www.chestertown.com/gov/minutes.php?ID=305
eliott forman says
every one missing point the town has NO say over it. The only thing they had was an option which expires.The next in line to aquier it is a nopn-profit which school is.Only ones who may have some say is planning board if need variance.I think college doing county hugh favor.If town does not want college and planning board turns it down then every one living in town should be taxed to retro fit it
Oliver Randall says
I wonder if President Reiss might answer Mr. Stetson’s basic question as to why he felt he had to write a letter to the community, rather than offer the Town Council the respect of meeting with them to discuss their unanimous proposal beforehand?
Steve Payne says
Is the City an actual contract owner under a contract that is still valid and assignable from the State? Does the college have a valid signed assignment agreement from the City?
Kevin Shertz says
I’d imagine so, Steve Payne, otherwise the College could have foregone the “Open Letter” completely and simply communicate with the State directly if the Town had waived its right of first refusal. And, the Town would likely not have sent their October 21st correspondence if they were not authorized to follow through on their part.
Rome Oneil says
Reiss’ monkey
President Reiss doesn’t want the armory and wants to get rid of this monkey on his back. His July 18th offer wasn’t accepted and the Council countered with their proposal. While using the feint of negotiation, Reiss used a newspaper platform to put pressure on the Council to play his game. They didn’t. So again Reiss used the media platform (Kent County News and Chestertown Spy) to apply pressure via his open letter but included the stipulation that the College’s plans would still need final approval by the Maryland Historical Trust for the deal to be finalized. It’s always good to have an exit strategy. We’ll have to wait to see what happens to Reiss’ monkey.
Janice Dickson says
Mitchell Ress is a well-known international diplomat He surely knows what he’s doing when it comes to negotiating. Then there are three town reps who are not up to the task of negotiating with this man.
Please, Anthony, Gatto, and Stetson, do not let personal snubs, pet projects, and petty preferences get in the way of getting rid of this white elephant. As so many other people have said, where are the anxious “others” waiting in the wings to take on the armory? And do you want the town to be responsible for millions of dollars of expense so the armory will be open to the public accessed by the now infamous rails-to-trails? Wake up you three. You are way out of your league in trying to negotiate with or make demands of a man who has negotiated with international figures.
Rome Oneil says
Janice,
After the final meeting that Reiss had with Mayor and Council, a counter proposal, unanimously approved by Mayor and Council, was presented to Reiss. Rather than further discussion, Reiss says its ‘my way or the highway’ by going back to his initial proposal. Like I said earlier, he doesn’t want the armory and is making it look like he’s the good guy.
It was interesting seeing an article by the Superintendent of schools about bullying. I thinking Chestertown is looking at an example of bullying by Washington College.
Joe Holt says
On behalf of Washington College, I would like to clarify a few misconceptions arising from the commentary that followed President Reiss’s open letter.
First, the MOU sought to formalize assurances provided to the Town Council in a vision statement for the Armory prepared by the College. That is, the MOU provided for public access to the Armory building, as the Town requested. The MOU also committed the College to work collaboratively with the Town’s master planning efforts with respect to the Chestertown River Walk and the future development of Stepne Manor, also as the Town requested. The College’s position has remained unchanged on these points throughout its discussions with the Town, and the Town Council members have not questioned these commitments.
Second, the Town Council invited President Reiss to join them in Executive Session on October 17 to continue the discussion. On October 21, President Reiss received a revised, “final” agreement from the Council that removed a number of the earlier issues but inserted new provisions that would compel the College to incur additional and substantial financial burdens in relation to this transaction. This final agreement was marked “confidential,” so the College did not feel it could in good faith divulge the specific nature of these new conditions. President Reiss responded to the Town Council on October 24 with a list of twelve questions. The President’s response also explained to the Town Council members why the College needed to have a decision by mid-November. Some of these questions were addressed, but the College is still awaiting a comprehensive response from the Town Council.
Washington College’s position with respect to the acquisition of the Chestertown Armory remains unchanged: We wish to acquire the Armory to enhance our educational program, we are committed to providing community access to the facility so long as it does not unduly interfere with the core educational mission and objectives of the College, and we pledge to cooperate and seek opportunities for mutually beneficial and productive collaboration with Chestertown’s master planning efforts with respect to the Chestertown River Walk and Stepne Manor.
This is not an ultimatum, but rather an offer that the Town Council may consider and then accept or reject.
Joseph L. Holt
Chief of Staff
Washington College
Steve Payne says
Thanks Kevin. It sounds like trust is lost between the parties for whatever reason. Maybe too many cooks in the kitchen!
Gibson Anthony says
eliott forman says:
November 10, 2011 at 3:37 PM
“every one missing point the town has NO say over it. The only thing they had was an option which expires.The next in line to aquier it is a nopn-profit which school is.”
Hi Eliott,
I”ve noted your comments before about the clearinghouse process allowing for non-profits. I contacted the State representative in charge of Armory dispossessions. She confirmed that there is no allowance for non-profits in the clearinghouse process. She confirmed that if the Town declines it’s option, then the Armory is exposed to the free market.
Steve Payne says
My post above was placed prior to the last post by Mr. Holt. It sounds like a fairly typical case where renegotiating is happening and I hope it works out for The Town and Wash. College.
Kevin Shertz says
Joe Holt wrote: “This is not an ultimatum, but rather an offer that the Town Council may consider and then accept or reject.”
And yet, President Reiss and Washington College felt the need to publish advertisements in both The Chestertown Spy and Kent County News before their responses to these 12 questions were able to be known by their constituents in a next Town Council meeting.
As Spock on Star Trek would say, “Fascinating.”
For an organization that is mightily disinterested in the Armory, you sure seem to be acting in a manner otherwise. How about making the negotiations public knowledge instead of talking about “12 questions” the citizens are totally unaware of? And, why didn’t the “Open Letter” address these 12 questions in either the coverage of the issue in the Chestertown Spy or Kent County News?
I would sincerely hope for the sake of the College and Chestertown, these negotiations are concluded amicably. Seriously. What a win-win this could be, even with all the drama.
But, Joe Holt, you may wish to remind your President that we are not Pyongyang, and when it’s all over, he has to live here either way. Your neighbors — dare I say Ambassadors for your student body (i.e. customers) — aren’t a bunch of rubes. I personally (as a sincere friend of the College) am unimpressed by the “selective memory” the organization has chosen to pursue on this issue.
Is this a shame (including my own reaction?) Absolutely.
Matt weir says
Gibson, thank you for clearing up the issue of what happens if the Town does not excersise it’s option. It sounds to me that if the Town does not buy the structure, the markets will be able to determine the true value of the property. Would you, or any of the other two council members care to wager $1,000 that if Chestertown does not buy the property that the sales price will never come near the $500,000 price you have been looking for?
Gibson Anthony says
Joe Holt said:
“Some of these questions were addressed, but the College is still awaiting a comprehensive response from the Town Council.”
I was curious about this comment because Town Manager Bill Ingersol told me last week that he would call President Reiss directly to clarify. In addition, I had also called President Reiss directly and discussed elements of the counter-proposal. Joe said that he was not aware that President Reiss and I had spoken, nor was he aware of whether or not President Reiss and Bill Ingersol had spoken.
Bill did respond to President Reiss’ questions very quickly in an email (cc-ed to myself and the rest of the council) which had precipitated my interest in making sure that a phone discussion between the two parties took place.
In addition to my interest in making sure that questions had been answered, I also indicated to Joe that I would like to know how we can work things out. His answer was that they are not in a position to compromise. It should be noted that the Town Council voted unanimously on the last counter proposal because we all thought we were compromising in a way that could help an agreement to go through.
At the same time the college cried foul when finding out that the additional requirements were being considered by the Town the college had inserted, for the FIRST time, a limit of ten years for the things they were promising. This was done without notifying the Town in advance and discussion of limiting the time period of the agreement had never taken place, because council members thought that they were negotiating a very long-term agreement, if not in perpetuity (which is probably not legally possible).
Running a full page ad in a newspaper is not a genuine attempt to to come to a compromise agreement, it’s a PR campaign. By the way, I don’t need commenters to tell me I’m out gunned, I read President Reiss’ book called Negotiating with Evil. I know exactly how out gunned I am.
Jack Offett says
I applaud President Reiss for taking this position and taking it publicly in the fashion he has. There is no opportunity for the local press to manipulate the College’s position with reporter spin.
He should have even been briefer: To town: “We are done on Armory.” I would have saved the political analysis. Let’s face it, with Gibson Anthony gone and Linda Kuiper on her way in, the numbers change on this issue. The Mayor is definitely in a position to break any tie. Stetson is just being Stetson.
And Gatto, well for those who haven’t served their life sentence here, it is important to remember after 30 years of his pontification on the State’s nickel at the department of planning, Governor Ehrlich, in one of the few competent cost cutting measures he ever took, had Jim retired when his bosses reviewed his accomplishments file only to find it empty. As chair of the planning commission and now on the council, Jim’s pattern is to throw up road blocks that only a career bureaucrat with ZERO real world experience can conjure up . . . and of course there is always the shake down and the usurpation of others’ property.
Based on the chatter in the local coffee klatches, the voters are saying he is the next to go.
Congratulations President Reiss. If you are still interested in the Armory in the new year, it will be there. As someone who has negotiated with terrorists who have ever evolving demands, you know the drill: when the town comes back begging for any deal, give them a hair cut and don’t pay for the Phase II reimbursement. Even it these politicians don’t understand real world consequences of their personal agendas, the public will and won’t forget it in 2013 when the College will own and be reutilizing the Armory and the voters retire Jim Gatto from local politics.
Gibson Anthony says
Dear Matt,
I was responding to a previous comment by Mr. Forman who had repeatedly made an incorrect assertion. I wanted everyone to know that I do my homework on things like that.
Perhaps you would serve the community better by explaining why, as a D.C. resident and college board member, you made phone calls to Chestertown to campaign for my opponent. It seems to me that you knew that getting Linda elected would help the college get what it wants. Perhaps you should keep your politics in D.C., it’s more fitting.
Or, perhaps you could explain the gag-order restricting the press from sharing the college’s full page ad with others until after the press deadline. My guess is that it’s all about manipulating the public and making sure there isn’t an immediate response from those accused so that guys like Jack Offett (who don’t show up at council meetings) get suckered by the spin.
Jack Offett says
Mr. Anthony, you are letting your emotions show. It may be healthier for you take a break and get over your loss.
No one got suckered into spin here, just more consumer confidence reality check. The public is already being abused by the cost of maintaining the white elephant homage to old style national defense on Quaker Neck Road. If it can’t be razed, we at least need to find someone other that the state taxpayers to carry the load. I suspect the town lacks the juice to buy the marina with its global warming problems and carry the armory cost too.
It will be interesting to see what the free market brings. Probably not much of a higher price. For those focusing on the appraisal, it is totally unfounded. There is not a bank in this country that could finance that deal under the post-Dodd-Frank regulations because according to the press this property is saddled not only with the structure but alleged toxic problems. Cash will be king to make any deal happen. And cash has a higher value today than credit. That drives the cash value of the property down.
I have full confidence that with the new council make up, Mayor Bailey and Mr. Ingersoll (yes Mr. Anthony, it has two “ls”), will salvage the deal. Margo, Mabel and Linda are going to be a powerful force in the next few years.
Matthew Weir says
Gibson,
As any US citizen, I am allowed to participate in and support any candidate and election in any part of this great Nation. This is a right guaranteed us by the Constitution of our great nation. As I have explained before, I have invested a great deal of money in Chestertown and love the area dearly. I served as a volunteer firefighter and EMT for 4 years, worked at local businesses and have many friends and family in the area. I continue my association with the Town through business activities, charitable contributions and friendships. I am sorry that my association with Chestertown does not please you.
Gibson Anthony says
Dear Jack,
Your mean-spirited comments about councilman Gatto are unnecessary and offensive. I’ll leave it at that. Finding people willing to run for public office is harder because of that type of behavior. Signing off and looking forward to more time with friends and family.
Matthew Weir says
Gibson, A quick question, as this is a public forum. You have suggested that elected officials should never receive support (financial or in terms of calling, emailing or speaking to voters) from someone who lives outside the Town limits of Chestertown. I would assume that you have never received any support from someone outside the limits of Chestertown (Queen Anne’s County, Rock Hall, Tolchester, Kent County, etc.). Should residents of Kent County not support people running for office in Chestertown or is it simply my support of a candidate that you find so offensive?
Steve Payne says
“There is not a bank in this country that could finance that deal under the post-Dodd-Frank regulations because according to the press this property is saddled not only with the structure but alleged toxic problems.”
Lenders potential liability when lending and possibly owning a property that is polluted goes back to the 80s. It’s pretty standard stuff now I don’t think Dodd Frank has anything to do with it.
Cash does talk though. The reason is because cash buyers can settle faster than buyers that need a loan. That’s always been the case.
Jack Dorsey says
It sounds as if someone’s bluff has been called.
Matt Gerstung says
The biblical story about King Solomon and the two women who argue for the possession of a child comes to mind in regards to the ownership of the armory. Here in this parable King Solomon ordered that the child be cut in half and divided equally between the women to settle the dispute. I view the town council as being divided which has led to a new member being elected. When King Solomon made his decision the true mother of the child pleaded for mercy and begged Solomon to give the child to the other woman. This act of mercy proved who was the real mother and the king gave the child to her. The council has tried to implement a plan for Chestertown but did not complete what was needed to move this deal forward and now must try again with a new member in order to preserve the common good of the town.
Jack Offett says
Gatto analysis is honest and accurate.
There is a continuing misconception by some local electeds that no matter how much you have invested here, unless you live hear you don’t have a right to a voice. Absentee property owners are getting mugged by the tax man when they most often use the least government resources. Mr. Weir should be applauded for being involved in the electoral process.
Robert and Lolly Braunschweiger says
As part-time residents of Chestertown for more than two years, my wife and I have become very attached to the town and often think about how the future of the town can be assured. In our opinion, the physical nature of the town is most appealing and a big reason why we and others are here. However, beauty alone does not make a viable community and Chestertown is most fortunate to have the benefit of an economic engine like Washington College.I say this as an urban designer who spent 50 years designing new towns, new communities, college campuses and assorted and varied urban environments throughout the U.S.
It is not uncommon for governments, state and federal, to dispose of surplus properties. It is, however, a very difficult and arduous path to find suitable uses for those properties. The Chestertown Armory is an interesting building on a site with considerable potential, but to find a private developer with the financial backing to come up with a profit making use for that site will be extremely difficult. The willingness of the College to assume the burden of developlng the property which will benefit its students as well as the town seems like an obvious arrangement of good fortune. Both sides should be celebrating.
The fact that the College and the town are at an impasse only makes me think of the stalemates that we currently have in Washington, DC, 50 miles to the west. Surely our small town, where everyone works side by side, can find within it the willingness to sit down and reach an agreement which will benefit all of us who live, work and study in Chestertown.