Boat tests questioned
I have been following with interest the situation concerning the Harbormaster's boat since the problem first arose last spring.
Common sense dictates that Ribcraft doesn't design and build a product subject to the type of (premature) failure experienced in this instance. If this were to be the case, due diligence by the responsible town representatives most certainly should have discovered such a proclivity before the purchase of the boat.
More importantly, if the Press has accurately reported the facts, no one tested the area of water where this problem occurred before or during the time the boat was berthed at East Ferry. While doing so would not necessarily have been common practice nor might the need to do so have been anticipated, the fact that no testing was done during this time is most definitely problematic to the town's interest in this case.
Simply put, the facts suggest that the first person to test the water after the issue arose, Joseph Lombardi, found a problem. It is diffi- cult to believe that Mr. Lombardi is not competent, unless Ribcraft is entirely irresponsible in protecting their interests. Professor Gregory subsequently found no problems and has the luxury of hindsight in reviewing Mr. Lombardi's findings - to no relevancy.
The Town can't prove the lack of electrical problems in the water while the boat was berthed at East Ferry and it is a matter of interest that the first tests done revealed the existence of just such problems. A skeptic might even opine on the possibility that the problems Mr. Lombardi discovered were corrected before Professor Gregory performed his tests?
In my opinion, the Press's leader, "Final tests for electrolysis damage show no problems," gives the wrong impression because it ignores the pivotal issue of timeliness that will be the main, if not only, criterion on which this matter rests.
William H. Ashton Jr.