There is a lot more to the Don Bliss story than you might have read recently in the news papers and I suspect Town counsel will soon be earning his keep. To suggest Wareham’s behavior has been merely egregious in this matter would be an understatement. Interest is accruing at $500+ per week, plus there may be additional 5 to 6 figure damages and penalties for the Town as well because we will not pay him or tell him why. Andrews is ignoring him.

To date, despite a direct BOS order that Mark Andrews pay Don Bliss in May, Andrews has not paid Lt. Don Bliss. A recap: we wrongfully fired Don Bliss, we did lose the lawsuit and the BOS did make a decision to not appeal the ruling because finally, this BOS accepts that the past BOS/Town acted badly in the Bliss case; so why have we not paid him?

As with Don Bliss, Lynne Road and virtually every case we’ve lost over the years, we had legal advice before we acted. Or perhaps the BOS got one of those “Directed Opinions” after they fired Don. I’m certain we had counsel at every stage of the legal process. Yet we now not only seem unable to abide by a legal ruling from the court, but the BOS is completely incapable of ordering Mark Andrews to do anything whatsoever and what’s worse is that they are perhaps the only people in town who don’t know it.

It’s got to be that friggen Stockholm Syndrome. That’s the one where you fall in love with your kidnapper. Where is counsel now? Evidently merely losing the case was not enough for us. No, we want to get sued again. Don Bliss is the only officer in town who has not been issued a permanent car to drive, as befits his rank. So now are we punishing him for winning his wrongful termination case by using discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices against him. By the way, Don won because he was right and the BOS was wrong. The fact that a court may rule to take every car from everyone until Don Bliss gets one too is about a week away. FYI BOS, he probably should not be assigned the worst car in the fleet now either folks.

Everyone should be outraged by Andrews conduct in this matter, but the more important issue, yet perhaps less noticeable than that we are willingly in contempt, indifferent, ignorant and arrogant is that we also apparently committed perjury in our testimony before the court. It’s either that or the money was there at one time and Andrews has emptied another fund without consent.

We have virtually destroyed Don Bliss’s life. His family struggles every day to make ends meet and hold a life together after we ripped it apart. The personal and financial strain on his family was supposed to end when the BOS lost, but it continues. WHY?

According to testimony from Mr. Sanguinet (past acting town administrator and then assistant TA under Andrews) testified the settlement money, ($250,000 or so) was in escrow and ready for paying a judgment in case Wareham lost. So why has Don Bliss not been paid? After all, Sanguinet testified we had the money. Testimony, that’s the one that begins with you raising your hand and swearing to tell the truth. Maybe we should begin every BOS meeting with that one. Or was the money there when Sanguinet said it was and perhaps someone spent it for something else and did not feel obligated to tell anyone?

There are only four reasons for Don Bliss not being paid if the money was truly in escrow, as sworn to by Sanguinet: stupidity, incompetence, revenge or perhaps Mark Andrews has spent the money to cover ½ million + in unbudgeted overtime expense or to hide some other financial benchmark he missed. Maybe Andrews is waiting for the new fiscal year to begin next week so he can grab $250,000 and begin 2012 in the red so to continue the new financial shell game “Wareham, You’re Busted”. Maybe he now even has BOS approval.

Didn’t we just work for days at town meeting to pass a Balanced Budget for 2012? Keep in mind what I wrote about the Healthcare Trust Fund. Good Luck! If this is Andrews’ plan, a biblical financial shortfall will occur next year when hopefully, Andrews is merely a bad memory for Wareham. My guess is we are already short $750,000 to 1.4 million for 2012 and it has not begun yet.

If Andrews did indeed raid the fund set aside to pay Don Bliss and he spent that money he should be terminated for cause on the spot.

Back to Lynne Road, Chairman Cruz stated, promised and assured those citizens at last Tuesday’s BOS meeting that the Town would be forthcoming with information and assistance within two days and I understood that to mean any documents that the folks on Lynne Road might need to fight their battle would be immediately forthcoming, as all present understood that time was of the essence. Didn’t you all hear that too?

Well isn’t it strange that Myles Burke not only keeps public records locked in his office, which is I believe is against the law, but he has also refused to furnish Lynne Road residents copies of public information about their own homes. He has forced residents of Lynne Road to file “Public Information Requests” and assured them that it would take some time to pull the records together. The records they seek are the information cards which the building department uses (or is supposed to use) every day and which are immediately accessible to anyone in the building department, providing of course Myles Burke is at work that day and that his office is unlocked. This is how Chairman Cruz intended to keep his promises? Or maybe Burke and Andrews don’t really give a rat’s behind what Cruz wants?

If I were Burke I wouldn’t want to give up the cards either, particularly if they showed that there were in fact restrictive covenants on them and therefore the building permit for the 7 Lynne Road should not have been issued without HOA approval. Or I were Myles, I wouldn’t give them up until I’d made new ones. Maybe the cards do or did show the correct information and because Burke had them locked up in his office the day the permit was pulled the inspector never saw the correct info.

Beneficiary: The concept of a "beneficiary" will also frequently figure in contracts other than insurance policies. A third-party beneficiary of a contract is a person whom the parties intend to benefit from its provisions but who is not a party to the contract.

Also, food for thought, our Town Counsel made an argument Tuesday evening that only the beneficiary of the HOA covenants could bring an action to stop 7 Lynne Road. This is often referred to as “standing” or the right to act. Which meant he was putting the burden back on 40 odd citizens to protect the entire Town. He may have been selectively correct in his opinion. Yes ,the Lynne Road residents/HOA may be the beneficiary of the HOA covenants, however, as the Planning board made the HOA a condition of approval of the cluster subdivision, I’ll bet a compelling argument could be made that the Town is also a third party beneficiary thereto and therefore obligated to enforce them.

TUESDAY NIGHT WILL BE INTERESTING. A Game.