Editors, Vineyard Gazette; 

Following the formal resignation of the current Steamship Authority general manager, as of Oct. 1, 2025, Mr. Robert Davis will be rehired as a senior advisor. His new contract contains remarkably generous terms. The advisor contract will be for an additional 1.5 years at full pay, that is, at no less than his current salary. Mr. Davis’ compensation also includes a free sports utility vehicle or mid-sized vehicle, with all expenses, including gas and insurance covered, and full health benefits for him and his wife.

More recently, during an SSA executive board meeting, Mr. Davis directly requested that the board extend the newly agreed-upon cost-of-living allowance (COLA) for non-union SSA workers to include the SSA administrative personnel. In response, the SSA board recently voted to give Mr. Davis an additional 10.6 per cent COLA pay bump, just three months before he is rehired as a senior advisor.

How can the SSA even consider a cost-of-living increase for Mr. Davis when his new salary, which will be increased from his former one, more than compensates for cost-of-living expenses? It should also be noted that, while the contract states that it is for 1.5 years, this is misleading. This is because the contract allows Mr. Davis’ employment to continue without limit if neither party presents a termination date.

This remarkably generous post-general manager contract is inconsistent with the protracted negotiations of the SSA with its employees, who were asking for reasonable, not overly generous, salary increases. Their new contract, of course, includes no perks like a free car and gasoline. How can the SSA justify such a disparate set of compensations?

Such behavior is typical of SSA operations. The SSA has made it extremely clear that it takes very good care of its senior staff. These include its former general managers and general counselors, many of whom, like Mr. Davis, have been rehired as advisors after their retirements, all on impressive terms.

The SSA’s rehiring of many of its upper-echelon senior staff begs the question of how many on-site advisors the SSA needs. If, as the SSA claims, it has been operating successfully for many years, why does it need to hire yet another senior advisor? Is Mr. Davis so essential to SSA operations that he is really needed to maintain a fully operational organization moving forward? In light of the many failures of SSA operations under the leadership of Mr. Davis, if a new advisor is really needed, it appears it should be anyone but Mr. Davis.

Damien Kuffler

Woods Hole