The “Reply” and “Response” documents are probably the most interesting in this set.
Here the Attorney General, having remained publicly silent for years, formalizes the abdication of her duty to protect the Trust and its beneficiaries.
The most important statement in this document is at the bottom of Page 5: “Based on the information that is currently available to the Selectmen Feoffees, they have serious doubts about whether the sale of the Trust assets is, in fact, the best way to provide a perpetual benefit to the Ipswich Public Schools.” The beneficiaries would be interested to know if there is any information the Selectmen Feoffees have obtained since this filing that have alleviated those doubts.
This is the Amicus Brief that gained the support of over 700 citizens in the span of about 10 days before the Summary Judgment hearing. It was later allowed by the court.
This is the School Committee’s strongest written opposition to the sale that they have now accepted. Their own pro-formas show the financial advantages of no-sale compared to sale, and they were done assuming that the Trust principal would be wasted over time (note the last line of the pro-formas “Value in 2011 dollars”, which decreases over time). Now that the court has required this value to remain constant, that means there will be even less money available for the schools than these pro-formas show if a sale were to go through. It is also worth noting that these pro-formas only cover 5 years; see specifically paragraphs 40-42 of the opposition for the School Committee’s own dire projections for a sale past the 5 year mark. We tend to think that the opinions in paragraph 42 are overly pessimistic, but even with more “realistic” numbers the sale option – even if it were legal – is, put plainly, an awful deal.
It is important to note that no public vote of the School Committee was taken between this scathing indictment of a sale and their acceptance of a sale.