#1 2012-01-16 11:56:32

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE

No I’m not off my meds. Every single person at last week’s department head meeting with the Fin-com heard the screaming in the hallway. All anyone needs do to find out what happened is find someone who was there and ask him or her, but do it privately and swear to protect that person. Everyone who was there knows that if they talk about what they saw and heard they will lose their job and the BOS will do nothing to protect them from the tyrant. And, and this is the point, when they go, Andrews will replace them with someone from his professional or friend network, regardless of their qualifications.

Folks, we need to keep ourselves focused on Andrews and his behavior and machinations. I list the people he’s brought in not so we can hate them or attack them, but so you would all realize just how we are losing control of the fabric and culture of our community.

In no way should anyone take my comments as a slur on any of those people. As a matter of fact, attacks on the chief and others completely miss the point. As I’ve said in the past, it appears we have a chief who is getting the job done for us. Personally, it has always been my opinion that anyone who puts a gun on every day and goes out to protect my life and property by putting theirs at risk cannot be over paid. If however you feel that the new police or building department is involving itself in politics, well that’s another fight. So if you have issues with the chief, or anyone else, then make that case based on their actions, not simply because they were hired by, or as a result of Andrews.

The issue is not Rick Stanley, or Myles Burke as people. The larger issue is loyalty. Small towns regularly have department heads and employees who come from within the community, or those who come from outside to be part of a community. Andrews is practicing a textbook hostile takeover style by driving out old employees and replacing them with his cronies.

Simply ask yourselves this question; if push comes to shove do you believe the Andrews team members will demonstrate their loyalty for you and Wareham or will they close ranks around the guy who gave them their jobs? And if you believe that some of them are overpaid then the question is, what do you think Andrews purchased with that money?

While I have disagreed with people on many issues in Wareham, I have always accepted that regardless of which side I find myself on, people on both sides are focused on making Wareham better. We may disagree on the path, not the destination. For the first time we have a growing faction whose loyalty is first to Andrews. If this is the town you want then do nothing. If not, the fight is with Andrews, not the people he’s hired. Besides, if Andrews goes he will most likely take these people wherever he goes because that is how a virus works. He will need them infect a new host.  At his next job Andrews will surround himself with people loyal to him so he can do exactly there what he’s done here.

Unless we do something about Mark Andrews, by the time he does leave he will have replaced every department head or director with his people and they will have replaced as many of our current employees and your friends with their people as they can. That’s how it works. Two years from now you will not recognize the Wareham Andrews leaves us. It will not just be broke, it will be dysfunctional.

Offline

 

#2 2012-01-16 12:42:31

Inside-Tip wrote:

The larger issue is loyalty. Small towns regularly have department heads and employees who come from within the community, or those who come from outside to be part of a community. Andrews is practicing a textbook hostile takeover style by driving out old employees and replacing them with his cronies.

The larger issue is political patronage, the use of town resources to reward individuals for their unquestioning loyalty.

Offline

 

#3 2012-01-16 14:02:56

billw wrote:

The larger issue is political patronage, the use of town resources to reward individuals for their unquestioning loyalty.



First.. I want to clarify posts/comments I made on Wareham Village Soup. I was not saying Stanley was/is a racist. I've never personally seen any evidence of it from him. But as a taxpayer, I think it would be irresponsible to not consider any allegations that have been "levied" against him..about this, or any serious accusations. "Touchdown"..who I believe is the same person who called themselves Interstedparty..and calls themself cranberry on Slager's.. made a comment in response to InsideTip's thread on Wareham Week..which said the only "rumor" about Stanley was one ITip had written (that Stanley had "fixed" Andrews DWI).. I have no idea if that accusation has any validity.. But, my response was in response to "touchdown"..saying that it was the "only" rumor about Stanley.. So, I added another "example".

Because of Stanley's relationship with Andrews, I don't believe he should have been hired. I believe the "hiring process" was flawed...to say the least. I believe his pay should've been "on par" with any Chief in Massachusetts "in charge" of a police dept. in a community comparable to Wareham in population (22K), etc.. The civil service exam should have been "used"..and candidates should have been considered..and the best one should have been selected. The "streamlined" process used by Andrews guaranteed that Stanley would be the Chief..and at the "price" Stanley wanted. Myles Burke has also benefitted greatly by being "old pals" with Andrews.

Andrews was hired by a horrible BoS who are responsible for many of the problems Wareham's had to deal with, in a hiring process which violated the open meeting law 14 times. We had to figure out for ourselves that Andrews had 2 DWI's..which had cost him one job, and caused him to be turned down for a TA job in another town. Our financial "house" has been in disarray under Andrews watch. We've hired outside firms as expensive, temporary band-aids to fix everything from our accounting to our assessing departments. Nobody can "sugar-coat" (to me) that Andrews has done "his best under the circumstances".. He is (in large part) RESPONSIBLE for "the circumstances".

The reality is, I don't hold out much hope for Wareham. Despite many warnings..the "town folk" have continued to aimlessly wander down the road to ruin. Oh, well. C'est la vie.

Last edited by Dave DiPietro (2012-01-16 14:31:23)

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com