Remember early on I told you all that they would attack individuals and try to move your focus off the issues. Your, or my discontent is the issue, not you or I.

I’m not a tit-for-tat-er and I did not begin this to enter into a dialog of any kind with the Kool-Aid drinkers. But just this once I will reply to the comments from Interestedparty (Begley).

First I shall try to clarify bylaws and ethics laws as the concept of ethical conduct and the laws pertain to the writer’s defense of Begley’s self-serving application of the rules for Mr. Cruz. Firstly, knowing or witnessing what Mark Andrews and Walter speak about in their drive-bys is completely irrelevant. The mere suggestion, when the people’s elected representative charged with general assurance and oversight is out and about with his and our employee on a regular basis, that they do not discuss town business should by itself be insulting to everyone.

The fact that we have a TA with questionable ethics and also past and present conduct issues who is increasingly the target of a disgruntled and dissatisfied citizenry should be the issue. The fact that in any other town Mr. Andrews would have been terminated for his outrageous behavior, or at least investigated by the BOS should be the issue. That every attempt to do so by other BOS members or citizens has been blocked by none other than Mrs. Begley and Walter Cruz should be the issue. The fact that Walter will not allow discussion or for the TA to be questioned by concerned BOS members should be the issue. The fact that there is no denial that the TA has threatened employees for no reason other than their perceived disloyalty to him should be the issue.  The fact that Andrews has forbid department heads from disclosing to the BOS where their budget money has gone should be the issue. The fact that the citizens of Lynne Road and the also BOS where lied to about the group home on Lynne Road by Andrews and that he’s been caught in numerous other lies should be the issue. The fact that the BOS knows for an absolute certainty that Andrews manipulated the budgets of Town departments and has moved and continues to move money illegally should be the issue. (get the emails folks) And there are several dozen other things that should be the issue and when they are not, when the offenses individually or collectively committed by Andrews are so egregious that any reasonable person would cry out, “where is the BOS on this”, then Walter Cruz getting into a car with the TA, or hanging out in his office “IS” the issue.

If you read any laws or expectations regarding the ethics and conduct of public servants, the standard does not require proof of impropriety. Under Begley’s kind of standard an official could act in any fashion or break every law and then use, “you did not see or hear me so I’m not guilty” as a defense. The actual standard that is applied for officials is that you must not only avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps Interestedparty and Mrs. Begley should brush up on the codes and standards of ethical behavior.

In addition to riding around with the TA, the current BOS chair holds meetings without quorums and then represents what the board has decided without ever having legally opened a meeting or taken a vote. (Illegal and unethical) Mrs. Begley seems to be a common attendee at these illegal proceedings, but that does not seem to concern her.

We had a former BOS Chairman named Bruce who also had a propensity for speaking for the entire BOS, as to what they would or would not do, or what someone could or could not do in their name and he would also do so without a vote or hearing. He was a dictator and I understand he plans on running again. We actually deserve him again.

Because Mrs. Begley’s, Walter Cruz’s and Interestedparty’s hypocrisy seems to have escaped them, let me offer their logic back to them in an example they might comprehend and then ask them if the shoe was on the other foot would they offer or accept the same defense or be as understanding?

Interestedparty, imagine that you discover that your husband visits one of his female employee’s at her home several times a week for an hour or two each time. There are no witnesses to what’s actually transpiring behind the doors.  Interested, would you really give a rat’s ass that you did not know for an absolute certainty what they were doing? Would you just be “OK” with his explanation that they were just discussing gardening; because that is the hypocritical defense you are suggesting we accept. Or would you hire an attorney?

So when it or something similar happens in your life try to remember, you have nothing to whine about because your standard is “since you were not in the room with them, no harm no foul” right? This is why elected officials are expected to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Wow, didn’t see that coming did you? See that’s the problem with hypocrites, they simply can’t see past the application of the rules for their own agendas. 

As to Mrs. Begley’s concerns regarding the certifications of Bob Ethier, this is another ruse and not merely hypocrisy, but also unethical and perhaps ille…. . He does not need the certification she is all a dither about. And if her fear is really being sued, then I would suggest that we are much more likely to be sued by an employee due to Andrews’ direct actions or the BOS’s failure “to” act than from anything Burke may do. This double standard is also proof that Mrs. Begley is either a co-conspirator with Andrews or an incompetent of the highest order.

This whole Ethier matter started with the Town Administrator being pissed off because Bob Brady and Frank DeFelice were appointed as associate members to the Board of Health and because Andrews did not get his own stooge voted in. The TA blames Bob Etheir for Brady and Frank. But that is not the beginning….

Remember I told you all that Andrews told Ethier that “if your friends are going after my buddy Myles Burke, then I will get you fired?” The reason he’s so pissed off, and this goes back to the Myles Burke matter, is that Frank DeFelice is the Vice President of Southeastern Massachusetts Building Officials Association and also a member of its Board of Directors. The Board Frank serves on applies the state standards for who does and who does not qualify to take the Commissioner of Buildings certification exam. There is no discretion, they review your resume and you either qualify or you do not. Frank is also one of the most credentialed and certified building professionals in Massachusetts.

Let me put this into third grade logic for Interestedparty and Mrs. Begley. It’s kind of like when you go to the amusement park and the sign says, “your head must reach this line to go on this ride”. Or, that you must be 18 to vote, or 21 to drink or a natural born citizen to be president. These are the rules folks, the ones most of us live by every day. So Interestedparty, when you find out your 16-year old daughter wasn’t at a sleep over and that she really went away for the weekend with a 32-year old guy, it’s nothing, that whole underage statutory rape thing is just another inconvenient rule and besides, no one really heard or saw what they were doing in the room, right?

Regardless of Bob Ethier’s issues, Myles Burke does not have the required years running a construction company, or in the trade to meet the state requirement to be allowed to take the exam. You may also recall that he was denied the exam on those grounds and failed to appeal the board’s finding because he knows he really does not meet the requirement. You should also remember the state sending Wareham a letter notifying Burke that he could not take the exam and that he was not to sign permits of any kind. You may additionally recall that many people believe that it was Mark Pacheco who interceded and got a reversal of Burke’s case and reopened his appeal. Well regardless of Burke’s appeal, it is only so he might appeal the board’s finding and resubmit his resume and unfortunately he simply does not meet the minimum requirements, so the Board’s decision will be the same. Now it seems that Pacheco is in Boston trying to get the state to change the rules for Burke and while he’s doing that Burke has hired an attorney to go after Frank DeFelice personally. He has filed requests for emails and correspondence from the town Frank works for, apparently hoping to show that Frank and others conspired to deny him the exam.

So Andrews is going after Bob Ethier because Andrews hates Frank DeFelice. Now, either Mrs. Begley is blissfully unaware of these facts or she is a willing party to Andrews’ taking over our town and terrorizing or employees.

As to Interestedparty’s concern that we might be sued for terminating Burke without cause, let me explain what “cause” is. Yes, we have a contract with Burke, and Andrews gave Burke 18 months to get his certification, which period is up in October 2011. Burke should have been terminated when his appeal period was up, but regardless, Myles Burke does not meet the criteria to test for Commissioner or Inspector of Buildings and unless Pacheco changes state law for him, it is unlikely Burke can invent five-years of history running a construction company by October.

Mrs. Begley and others apparently believe that our 18-month period is some exemption from Sate law. It is not. We can give Burke till 2020, but that does not allow him to sign permits of any kind. It never did. The BOS acts as though he was exempt from this limitation by our 18-month period and he was and is not. Myles Burke does not hold a Local Inspector’s certification and he does not hold the required Commissioner’s license, therefore, according to the state, every single permit he has signed in Wareham is illegal and actionable against Wareham should something happen to anyone or anything in any building he permitted. Actually any insurance company or bank can also sue Wareham for damages arising from illegally permitted construction. Am I the only one who gets this stuff?

So Burke has repeatedly broken the law by signing permits and Andrews and the BOS have allowed it. Now it seems that Mrs. Begley is more concerned with Bob Ethier’s situation than our safety or liability. Perhaps if Mrs. Begley would take the time to read the state statues she might actually understand the issue. Whether or not she’d actually give a damn is another matter.

What Mrs. Begley must not understand is why the state has strict requirements or why the certification is so important to Wareham. Because clearly if she does understand the law, then by her actions she is willing to jeopardize your safety and that of your families and children. She is willing to lessen the quality of the service you pay for. She is willing to see you get less so Myles Burke can have a job. Because the fact of the matter is that the exam everyone talks about is a universal test that is set by Federal Law. Each state establishes its own criteria for whom may take the exam, but the test is given by a private company and all commissioners in the country take the same test.

One of the primary reasons for this is so that the next time we have a Hurricane Bob (it was in all the papers, Interestedparty) and FEMA comes to Wareham, they only work with tested and credentialed commissioners because they need to know that the guy or woman they are working with knows what the hell he or she is doing.

This is one of those cases where you really do not want a person who got the job thru a political favor making decisions which could cost you everything you own, including your life.

That’s a main reason for the requirements, there are lots of others that are also compelling, not the least of which is our financial liability for all that Burke, Andrews and the BOS have done to date.

On that note, if Mrs. Begley is really concerned about liability, I’m willing to bet that if the Lynne Road hearing goes badly on the 24th, that because of Burke and Andrews political bullshit, Wareham is probably going to see and lose a suit of biblical proportions and she might try being concerned about that for once. I for one will be looking forward to the both Andrews and Burke being sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury, where Begley and Cruz cannot protect them. As a matter of fact I can’t wait to see Begley and Cruz under oath too.