Ethics questioned
Schlesingers raise conflict of interest issue with NPT architectural survey for SBPF
BY PETER B. BRACE INDEPENDENT WRITER
Armed with an architectural survey, the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund told the Conservation Commission on Dec. 5 that 1.9 million cubic yards of sand could ultimately save 54 historic houses.

While that may or may not happen, two Nantucketers, Mort and Reva Schlesinger, believe that the collection of data on these houses done by the Nantucket Preservation Trust, a nonprofit historic architecture advocate, was done unethically.

The Schlesingers asserted in a letter to the editor in the Dec. 19 issue of The Nantucket Independent that the Nantucket Preservation Trust, as a nonprofit hired by SBPF, has a conflict of interest as nonprofits are not supposed to be hired to influence town decisions. The Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund, another nonprofit, is trying to convince the ConCom to permit its beach rebuilding project.

"This is a serious matter, as our nonprofit organizations are not meant to be part of a team arguing for a project before our town boards in return for payment, nor should this be the impression given," said the Schlesingers in their letter to The Independent. "This is a clear conflict of interest, as payment puts impartiality squarely in question."

But NPT Executive Director Michael May said that the Preservation Trust is not part of the SBPF team as the Schlesingers claim, and that it was merely providing survey information as they were contracted to do. Much of what NPT does, said May, is architectural surveys of historic houses that are paid for by property owners.

"We didn't take a stand," said May. "All we did was lay out the facts about the history. We feel that's our role, really, to advocate for historic preservation and getting that information out is really important. Nobody knew about the houses along the North Bluff, so I totally disagree. Our role is to educate people about the architecture.

"All of our house histories and our surveys - we're hired to do that," he continued. "We feel that it's a public benefit to get information out to the public."

In May's presentation at the Dec. 5 ConCom meeting, he said the NPT survey found several examples of simple Capes, bungalows, Victorians, Queen Annes and Second Empire Style houses on the North Bluff, along with Codfish Park cottages built in the 1930s and 1940s that mirrored the style of the fishing shacks originally built there. Although he did disclose at the meeting that SBPF had hired NPT to do the survey, May denied that he is attempting to sway the commission in SBPF's favor, saying that NPT is not part of SBPF.

According to May, SBPF contacted the Nantucket Preservation Trust in 2006, asking it to comment on the historic resources that could be lost should erosion of eastern shore beaches continue unchecked, but his board of directors opted against commenting because it did not have enough information about

Sconset's architecture to do so.

May added that he did suggest at that time that a study be done to assess the extent of historic architecture in 'Sconset.

"We believe that Nantucket's architectural heritage is a national treasure and that it is threatened like never before," he said. "Getting the information out about this small but important piece of Nantucket is part of our mission, a fact that we hope advocates and opponents of the SBPF would embrace."

SBPF's executive director, Cheryl Bartlett confirmed their arrangement with NPT.

"We paid them $12,000 and paid them to do the survey, not support us. We paid them to give us an objective opinion if there are historic houses in the area," she said.

SBPF is also arguing that erosion would eventually claim public beaches, roads, infrastructure and buildings in 'Sconset - all part of Nantucket, which, in its entirety, is a National Historic District designated by the National Park Service.

Bartlett said that the Schlesingers are incorrect in their belief that NPT is part of the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund and that NPT was not arguing to the commission in favor of the beach nourishment project for the preservation of the structures.

"We paid them to evaluate the homes and if our claim to preserve our historic properties [was accurate]," she said. "Basically, what they did and what they would do for anybody is evaluate their homes and that's what we hired them for. There is no legal reason why another nonprofit cannot support another nonprofit."