I read with interest the article about a state bill for scam funds being unlikely because a bill would set a bad precedent. Since I was the person who suggested a state solution to our problem, I would like to clarify that my objective was not to pass a bill. It was simply to include funds in the next state budget, to compensate the town in whole or in part.
There is already a precedent for that, because the current state budget includes $10 million to compensate victims of the FRM Ponzi scheme. Apparently only wealthy investors are entitled to relief from the state, but innocent townspeople are not worthy.
Sandra Bibace
Peterborough