I just had this vision of Bobo and Bruce sitting in front of a warm fire in their winter sweaters (or member's only jackets) Sipping hot cocoa and puffing on their pipes while they discuss the power elite and hate bloggers. Call it a fireside chat!

Oh wow..now we need animation!

I just got a copy of the newsletter that some of the people on this site have been circulating.  It is very informative about town meeting. But the one you might consider doing for the election in April would have to be 10 pages long. The list keeps growing. I am really leaning towards a clean--4 selectmen--house cleaning in April. Two elected seats, and two recalled seats. I'm giving Cruz the benefit of the doubt since most of the crap (except his complicity in the computer audit) was before he came into office and fell asleep at the wheel.

Larry, there IS no leadership in town from the failed ITA to the totally failed bos. It's depressing.

Does anyone know who was actually responsible for computing the  incorrect 75/25 contribution figures in the first place?  I am sure there are plenty of people to hold responsible for not catching this very large error before now, but who actually was the one who did the "figuring"?  Is there an individual or committee that oversees the "Health Care Trust Fund" who is responsible for the calculations that are used to determine the employee's payroll deduction?  I have the responsibility of doing the health benefit contribution rate for my company and though it is on a much, much smaller and simpler scale, it's the same principle without the surplus figure to deal with.  If I were to make a mistake when figuring out the employee's share, it wouldn't matter who else missed it for however long, the ultimate responsibility for the mistake would be mine... 

So, anyone know?

notalawyer wrote:

"...personal experience you cite.

Ahh, thanks notalawyer. I've been putting "site", and thought it looked wrong. Learn something new everyday.

Hi Ms. Lilly. Yeah, I chose not to respond, because I've detected a strong pattern of your defending "them", no matter what. Don't worry, your not alone in exhibiting this unfortunate hiccup. You seem bright and open to "debate", and raise some good points. It's just, it appears to me that it "points" in the same direction all the time.

Thanks again, NAL

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-06 22:38:20)

The selectmen hired the past couple of TA's, the selectmen hired the auditor, what's that old cliche?  When the selectmen point fingers, they'll have three pointing back at themselves.

MsLilly, 
I've witnessed your input for several months now and you ask many questions that you yourself can get answers to if you take the time to research.  In this regard and while "nal" has given you good direction, the answers are in the law.  (see a segment of the same section of the law underlined below)

I just finished reading your very impressive post re: the MGL...very nice job...yes, it does not answer my question directly, but it certainly confirms you are headed in the right direction...I am looking forward to reading more of your continued research...you just might discover my answer for me...

Where an annual or earlier accounting of administrative service charges, claims paid, and claims incurred and unpaid, under a contract authorized by this section to the subdivision, discloses that payment from the fund has resulted in the contributions of the subdivision and its employees and retirees toward a previously established total monthly premium or rate has been shared on a ratio inconsistent with the share of the contributions as provided from time to time by applicable sections of this chapter, the subdivision shall adjust future contributions toward the total monthly premium or rate to compensate for the inconsistency Payment to the subdivision by the employees, retirees and surviving spouses of their contribution toward the total monthly premium or rate shall be to the extent and manner as required in the applicable sections of this chapter.
The treasurer shall be the custodian of said fund and may deposit the proceeds in national banks or invest the proceeds by deposit in savings banks, cooperative banks or trust companies organized under the laws of the commonwealth, or invest the same in such securities as are legal for the investment of funds of savings banks under the laws of the commonwealth or in federal savings and loan associations situated in the commonwealth. Any interest or return of premium or claims advance, excluding dividends applicable to section eight or eight A, shall be added to and become part of the fund. The treasurer shall invest and reinvest as aforesaid such funds to the extent not required for current disbursement as determined by the subdivision. Any interest liability incurred as the result of processing a tax anticipation loan authorized by section four of chapter forty-four, and directly related to the establishment or the continuance of the aforesaid claims trust fund, shall be chargeable to said fund. The treasurer shall take measures that will assure a sufficient balance at all times in said fund to make prompt payment for incurred and unpaid claims and other related liabilities
Now, while I would not suggest throwing anyone under the bus, as it's not my style, the law is quite clear that the treasurer has a significant responsibilty in the management of this fund, as per the law.  Now I'm also convinced that most town employees do not take the time to read and understand the law, which is why most municipalities pay 6 figures for a COMPETENT TA to read and comprehend and manage all aspects of municipal government.  Wareham has been lacking that for several years now , which explains some of our dysfunction and escalated legal expenditures.

That said, enough with who's responsible and the finger pointing.  It's time to gather competent resources and begin finding solutions to the many issues we face.  I'm hopeful that "MovingWarehamForward" can see and work together with "TakeBackWareham"  as wanting to accomplish the same goals.
Our current leadership has proven that they do NOT have the tools to bring people together.  I'm also hoping you can compliment the effort instead of, in my opinion, bashing the good intentions of many citizens that have given of their time in the past and can aid in bringing us out of the bowels.  It's your choice...

Last edited by bbrady (2009-10-06 23:50:50)

Mr. Brady...
I know I should probably re-read your post again before commenting,  but I think the pertinent info is in the first underlined section which states what should happen with the excess/shortage,  not who is responsible for the calculations, which is my  question...the second underlined section seems to state the treasurer's responsibility of the fund (and surplus) itself.

When judgement day arrives regarding whether or not I have "complimented the effort", who gets to decide my success or failure? Will it be an entire panel or just a single person acting as judge and jury? 

If we are to lift ourselves "out of the bowels", then we must not act like shitheads....

Welcome MsLilly… MsLilly everyone is going to be pointing fingers, no one wants to take responsibility for this mess. Could you at least agree that if the BOS had hired a COMPETENT TA as soon as possible instead of taking over a YEAR to even post the job, then maybe just maybe this error could have been found a lot earlier?

MsLilly,  You'll know within your own conscience if you've contributed positively or negatively.  I'm not impressed so far...

marny wrote:

Welcome MsLilly… MsLilly everyone is going to be pointing fingers, no one wants to take responsibility for this mess. Could you at least agree that if the BOS had hired a COMPETENT TA as soon as possible instead of taking over a YEAR to even post the job, then maybe just maybe this error could have been found a lot earlier?

I agree Marny...in my opinion, I think the auditor should be first in line when it comes to bearing the brunt of the responsibility for not detecting the error until now, but there should be a long line forming behind him...the acting ta might have been capable of keeping the town's business in order for a while, but I believe it has become quite evident that he has reached the end of his duration of effectiveness...

Hopefully the TA interviews that took place on Saturday, (meeting was posted Thursday?), will bring a much needed resolution and we will have a competent TA in the very near future...

Molly,
There isn't anything new about the politics surrounding this. I do think there needs to be a full accounting of this and a more definitive figure. The CPA letter was more of an overview. While the number is being firmed up, I think it would prudent to engage in some type of discussion to make sure this doesn't happen again and how to resolve the current situation.

As far as blame, it would be much easier to not assign blame, but when the first article on this topic quotes a Selectmen as saying,

We’re not accountants. We don’t handle the money. We have to trust our administration on things like this. We have to trust our town administration and we have to trust our accountants."

then the blame game is started. I want to add that this article came out before the meeting had ended, so at least two Selectmen discussed the topic quite candidly before the meeting was concluded.

Hopefully this can be solved and put to bed in short order.

Whoops. Did I just read that the bos were at the multi service on Saturday for TA interviews? So what was the chit chat outside in the parking lot? Better have been about the weather. And I get postings by email. Why didn't I get the posting for the bos meeting if it was a quorum? Didn't we decide at TM that all those things would be posted online which would include the email service?

Don't we have the right to know what is going on? These bos complain about this site, but they don't give us any information. Transparency? Our town is so fogged up right now--bad attempt at humor-- that we won't see the light for a long time.

Rule Number 1 in Business: You want to avoid rumor and innuendo in the workplace?  Keep your employees informed and rumors or misinformation won't be passed around. Good communication is crucial for success in any relationship.

It should also be rule number 1 in Wareham. Transparency? You decide.

TA interviews? it is important to know where they are in that process.

1. Initial stage: a pile of applications is received. Does anyone know how many apps came in?

2. Winnow down: usually a search committee, publicly appointed, sorts the pile down to a reasonable number for the first round of interviews. Does anyone know how many made the first cut, if they are at this stage?
Now, at this point, it is the usual practice to not make the names of the interviewees public. This is done to protect the applicants, who could have problems with their existing employers.

3. Finalists: there emerges from the vetting process a small group, say 3-5, who are then interviewed in public by the BoS. Was Saturdays' group a set of finalists?

Let's test this theorem. A short hop north of the unique burg of Wareham, is a small Town by the name of Plymouth. tomorrow, 10-8-2009, the three finalists for the Town Manager position will be interviewed in public, and on TV. Next door, is the Town of Kingston, which conducted the interviews for its Town Administrator live, and on TV a few months ago. I was able to watch the Kingston interviews on streaming video; there was a personal interest because I knew two of the three finalists. Add: Mattapoisett, Dartmouth, Westborough, Grafton, Scituate,  etc.

Is it different here?

If so, why?

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-10-07 13:36:38)

I cannot make myself believe that John Sanginet didn't notify his handler the instant he heard about the Monday meeting.  I also can't imagine the person holding the ITA's leash not staying away because he wasn't specifically invited...It would have been a classisc ,"Do you know who I am?" moment .

What I can imagine is Bruce not telling the others  and ordering Sanginet to stay "mum", figuring that BOS attendance would be a lose/lose, but  that pretending not to have been informed would give them  some traction in the aftermath.

On the short run, it worked, but these things have a way  of becoming unravelled......

bbrady wrote:

Just for the record, MsLilly, it's not the auditor's responsibility to "detect errors" in the health trust fund.  It's the responsibility of the administration
(TA, Tresurer and the accountant) to manage and reconcile annually.

I never claimed that I had even come close to understanding the complexity of the situation, which sounds like that may also hold true for the many involved...

It was stated that the same auditor has had the responsibility of auditing that account since it's inception...perhaps I misread that or was incorrect in thinking that an auditor "audits"...if I misunderstood,  I apologize...at least the employees you suggested as being the "main players" in this mishap are the same as I suspected...

Personally, I do not agree with your perspective on most subjects, but I do respect the obvious knowledge you have regarding town government and how it works...you generally don't have to agree with someone to learn from them...it is too bad that you can't seem to avoid the insults long enough to try and pass that knowledge along to those of us who are interested in comparing information from as many sources as possible, especially when it comes to those of us with opposing viewpoints...only "like-minded" individuals need apply I guess...

I don't believe auditors calculate formulas. They verify addition, subtraction, that funds have been correctly transferred between accounts (debits and credits) and that all accounts balance. Whomever oversees the Insurance Trust Fund  sets the formula each year. The auditor would only verify that the columns of figures add up and balance. 

Do you ever have your taxes done by a professional? If the IRS or State does an audit of your taxes, the company doing your tax filing is not responsible if you misrepresented your wages, exemptions, deductions etc. You give them the figures and he plugs them in where they belong, adds them up and charges you big tme. But, he's not responsible if you don't give him the correct information. In the same way, an audiitor is not responsible if you give him the wrong formula. He takes your formula and makes sure the math adds up. It's up to you to make sure you are using the correct formula.

Selectman Donahue knows that and to bash the auditor was ludicrous.

On another note, historically when the Town of Wareham has hired a new TA, they've done it either of two ways. They hired a professional company to do the search and narrow the field to three best candidates or they've put together a committee made up of half officials, half citizens who did the initial interviews and narrow it down to three or four candidates who were then interviewed by the BOS.

Last edited by Maturevoter (2009-10-07 15:32:15)

the BOS and ITA have been put on notice by 2 unions i know of as of tuesday...

Mature is exactly right.
The Town Accountant does the day to day accounting needs of the Town: paying pay checks, setting aside Federal, State and Local fees( Locally the Ins.money), Soc. Sec., etc.
The auditor is to determine that the day to day operations of the Accountant are correct, as well as, ensuring that all accounting procedures are being used properly, and locating any monies that have been transferred to cover an over charge of another Department.
Shame on the auditor for not picking this up.
How much did that cost the Town?

Last edited by danoconnell (2009-10-07 18:38:21)

Maturevoter is quite correct regarding the auditor function. and DanO is on target regarding the accountant. So, where to look?

there must be an outside consultant to produce the projected premium payments to the trust fund. The cost of the consultant is high enough that an RFP would be required, one would think ($25K in one community I contacted). the RFP would be handled by the T/A's office. Therefore, the consultant's report would no doubt go to the T/A first.

The T/A would now know the total to be deposited in the Trust fund over the coming year. for purposes of preparing the Town's budget, he would, one presumes, allocate the total to the two contributors.

the budget is then reviewed by the FinCom, BoS, whoever. the Town's portion of the trust fund obligation is very likely taken on faith. got questions?, the T/A has the consultant's report.

then, on to Town meeting, and final approval. We have a number!

then the fiscal year begins, and things go awry. Who does the law specify as the "custodian of the fund"? that would be the Town's treasurer. doesn't the treasurer have the fiduciary responsibility to see that the deposits into the fund match the total from the consultant, as well as the proportions specified?

Well, I asked that question of a town treasurer in a self-insured community, that is not Wareham.

Are you the custodian of the fund, as stated in chapter 32B, Section 3A?
Yes, absolutely.

does that mean that you are responsible for seeing that the correct amounts from both the Town and the employees are deposited into the trust fund?
Yes.

So, in effect, you are the last line of defense?
You could put it that way.

Stop the finger pointing. end the speculation. It appears that the custodian of the trust fund should be answering some questions.

Notalawyer...Thanks again.
You are so important to this site you don't even know it.

Oh, this just keeps getting better!

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc … 1/TOWN1001

I don't think this link's been posted yet.
Geez, it's getting hard to keep track.

Courier: Audit suggests town did not contribute full share to school employees’ health trust

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

This Standard Times Article (By Steve Urbon) is just great.  I have to add some running commentary:

WAREHAM — Selectmen and the interim town administrator have for months procrastinated over the warning signs of deep trouble in the Health Care Trust Fund, according to Finance Committee Chairman Dick Paulsen.

Richard, please.  The selectmen can do no wrong.  Didn't you get the memo?

“That’s why I think they’re culpable,” he said in an interview outside the selectmen’s meeting Tuesday.

Again, this is coming from one of their people, not someone they can easly write off as a "power elite bastard."

Selectman Chairman Bruce Sauvageau, meanwhile, said the board has been tracking the issue with an eye toward solving it. “Time is ticking,” he told The Standard-Times Wednesday. He called for a summit meeting of the boards and town officials involved to design a strategy.

Don't worry, Wareham.  The financial planner that owes $181,000 in back taxes and got his car repo'd is going to solve this financial problem.  Sweet Brucey is on the case.

Paulsen had been rebuffed in an attempt to address the board on the issue of the estimated $1.9 million owed to employees from the trust. He said he was told by Sauvageau and Selectman Jane Donahue that citizens’ input time was off limits to town officials. As for being accommodated elsewhere on the agenda, he said Sauvageau wanted to know in advance what he wanted to say, which he refused to do.

Let me get this straight.  The selectmen do not allow town officials to speak to the board publicly during selectmen's meetings?  Any reporter worth his salt would be foaming at the mouth by now.  Bobo, on the other hand, is apparently cool with it.

As recently as two weeks ago, Paulsen said, Dr. Barry Rabinovich, superintendent of schools, asked interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet for an urgent meeting of subcommittees from the School Committee, Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen to discuss the audit the School Committee had commissioned.

“Time is of the essence,” wrote Rabinovich.

“Sanguinet ignored the letter,” said Paulsen.

And who ordered Butt monkey to ignore the letter?  As we've seen repeatedly, Butt Monkey is little more than a glorified BOS secretary.

The letter was included in an information packet distributed Monday by the Health Advisory Committee. Sanguinet did not return a call Wednesday seeking comment. Sauvageau said he was unaware of the letter.

Sweet Brucey, I thought you knew everything. 

The first indication of a problem came in early July when School Committee member Geoff Swett briefed the Finance Committee about concerns that the town, by siphoning off the trust fund surpluses over the years, wasn’t sticking to its obligated 75 percent contribution to employees’ health care.

All on this board of selectmen's watch.

Indeed, the audit found that instead of 25 percent, the employees were paying 28 to 36 percent in the years 2004-08. (The figures for 2009 are not yet available.) Restoring the percentages, which in the case of the unions are contractually obligated, would cost the town $1,888,860.

Again, all on this board of selectmen's watch.

Paulsen insisted Sanguinet knew early on that this was the town’s obligation, even as the town administrator disputes the actual figure. At Sauvageau’s instruction, Paulsen said, Sanguinet had received a written ruling from the state Department of Revenue. Dated Aug. 7 and addressed to Sanguinet, the ruling makes it clear that town appropriations will have to be made to restore the 3-1 ratio in the trust fund.

“They told us it’s not illegal but we can’t do this,” Sauvageau said.

Paulsen praised Sauvageau for insisting that Sanguinet get a ruling in writing from the Department of Revenue, but criticized what he said was a subsequent lack of follow-up on the part of the selectmen and town administrator.

Concrete proof that the selectmen knew of a problem since at least August and yet did nothing.  But in their defense, they were very preoccupied with the very important business of trying to hunt down Internet critics.  And really, how important is $1.9 million dollars when there are smart aleck bloggers afoot who are hurting Sweet Brucey's feelings?

One consideration, Sauvageau said Wednesday, was the fact that former town accountant Robert Bliss had filed a civil rights lawsuit over his firing over another matter. The accountant is a central figure in the trust fund story, but “we didn’t want to be accused of going after him personally,” Sauvageau said.

Yeah, that's a load of horseshit.  Let me translate what Sweet Brucey said.  "We could not investigate this because it is all Bliss' fault, and yet somehow we're going to say it is all Bliss' fault before conducting an investigation."

Sauvageau said the auditor’s figures need to be adjusted to reflect employees who are paid under federal and state grants, as Sanguinet continues to insist. But if the current estimates hold, a full-time employee working through the entire period from 2004 through today would be owed approximately $4,000.

Bruce, pay your taxes.

Paulsen said “common sense” calls upon the selectmen to apologize to all town employees, make immediate refunds to retirees or their estates, revise the town budget “to reflect reality” and open to the public the selection and interview process for a permanent town administrator.

Common sense and the selectmen?  Why don't you mix oil and water and have the fox guard the hen house while you're at it?

Sauvageau said that since the audit results are in the hands of the School Department, perhaps Rabinovich would be the one to convene a joint meeting to begin working through the problem.

Sweet Brucey is on the case!

I am still a bit vague on why Bob Bliss is getting credit for the issue. IT clearly states that the fund is managed by the treasurer. Uhmmm, hello? We do have a treasurer, correct?

It's difficult for me to understand without inspecting the ledgers and entries. I have heard enough from the ITA about "surplus money" that I think it is critical to see exactly how it played out in the books, so to speak.

The message from Mr. Paulsen doesn't fall on deaf ears. He may be alerting us to some sort of shenanigans in the works or just simply following your idea. Based on history of poor hiring, you almost expect that he knows something we don't and is alerting us????

Since there is a treasurer, then I would curious why his name hasn't come up during this process.

One of the possible problems I see with the current situation is if there was a surplus created by not accounting for the adjustment in the employee share, did they utilize that surplus for other expenses? What level was used?

RU,
I believe you have coined a new term worth remembering.....Selectbozos.......a very worthy description. Thank you!

I have not written before on this blog, but with so many issues cropping up, I thought it best to respond and set various records straight. And I am using my own name, probably a mistake, but I am not much of a one for staying in the shadows.

First, although I am Chairman of the Finance Committee, what follows are views that I hold as a citizen of the town, not as the Committee Chair.

Let’s look at five different issues, which while separate, are in fact, intertwined.

•    The issue of the Health Trust dating back to early July
•    What happened subsequent to September 24, 2009 when Dr. Rabinovitch delivered his “letter?”
•    Whose “man” am I
•    Bob Slager “losing respect” for me
•    What to do

In early July, the FinCom and the BOS were made aware of the fact that there might be an issue, and when Bob Slager called me, I told him that “Until we know what the numbers are there is no way of knowing if this is even a story.”  I said that and would say the same thing again today, but please note, and he got this right, the use of the phrase “what the numbers are” 

From that point forward, I became increasingly interested in the issue, as did the FinCom.

Bruce at the outset was on the same page, and as I have publicly stated, he was quite firm with the ITA, “write the DOR-don’t call-write”   Perfect. We were in harmony singing the same song.

But the drift started almost immediately, the ITA did not immediately do as he was instructed.  It was perhaps two weeks later that after my repeated requests, that he did send the letter and on August 7, 2009, the DOR response came back-more on that later.

On July 6, 2009, I sent an email to John Sanguinet and copied Bruce

“For the three years 2007, 2008 and 2009, could you please supply us with the dollar amount contributed by the Town for all employees health care….so that we can add up the percentages.  If they come out at 75:25, then we apparently have no problem, and that is what we want to see.”

On July 14, 2009, on an email from me to Bruce, I said in part

“We need the letter and we need numbers, specifically, what where the amounts of premiums that came from various entities in each of the last three or four years.

I told the Observer almost two seeks ago that we needed the numbers, I hope not to respond the same way if asked again.”

Please note the reference to “two weeks,” I will stand by my assertion that the drift was underway.  Nothing had been done

On July 22 in an email from Bruce to me:

“By the way, our auditor already incorporates this trust find like all others into his annual report”

My response in part, was

“My personal hope, perhaps misplaced, is that we can get this taken care of on our own, before the union hits us with an unfair labor suit, with the  attendant publicity and cost.

You and I have a different opinion on the gravity of this.  It will be interesting what the DOR says, maybe not definitive, but interesting none the less.”

But now-and thank you Bruce-I had a clue as to where to look, and look I did

And I would add that the “drift” was now complete, and I am mindful of the observation by Mae West, “I was Snow White, but I drifted.”

From an email to the FinCom dated August 23, 2009 and using the 2008 audit:

“This is kind of interesting and troubling (if I am correct)

On page 25, there is a section that deals only with the what is called the “Internal Service Funds” in which the town paid $5.5 MM and employees $2.1 MM, a ratio of 72:27

To bring the ratio to 75:25 would mean the town would have put in $5.694 MM, or about $200,000 more then we did.

Now it is possible that some bargaining groups are mandated to contribute more, so what I am about to suggest should be viewed with that in mind.  And I am also assuming that the total amount in this account is for Health premiums

If the ratio is in fact to be 75:25, then in this one year, we are down by, as noted, $200,000.  Then you get into the question of how many years has this been going on.  My understanding is that this may go back five years, to Hartman. Our liability again if 75:25 is the benchmark, would be that the Town would have to make up perhaps $700,000, give or take.”

Now please remember, I was doing this on my own but in effect at Bruce’s suggestion.

I concluded that if the amount was $700, 000 for two years that a reasonable guess would be $1.5 million for four years.

The next day August 24, 2009, in an email that went to the BOS and the FinCom

“Let’s think about this a bit more.

The ITA refused to pay half the cost for the “audit” and I think that was a mistake.

Let’s assume that what I surmised below is on the right track: that the town did something that was inappropriate (and I might add illegal, although that is not my point, but read on).

With what the ITA did in turning the school committee down, was to cede control of the whole process to them. Investigation. Conclusion. Portrayal.  We have no voice in this.

And so when the report comes out the headline the next day might be along the lines, “Wareham Town Officials Engaged in Illegal Activities” and go on from there pointing out, among other things, that the town refused to participate in an examination of the issue and that the cover-up is now made visible.

And you know what it would be true, slanted, but true. (I would take exception to any inference of “cover-up” but once out there, the process is hard to stop)

So, what to do?

My suggestion is that the BOS instruct the ITA that he is to reverse course; offer to up pick half the tab and if the town is at fault, the town will pick up the whole tab.

That way the town has a voice in this and a seat at the table.

The result might be the same (that is that we were in error), but the tone would be entirely different.

And this should be done quickly, the report should be here soon, like in a week or so.   And you should be very public about this.

What if I am wrong.

Well, then consider the $1,500 spent to be kind of an insurance “premium.”

And if I am correct, it is both the fair thing to do and sensible.

Dick

No response from the BOS, but clearly a sense on the part of the FinCom that we were in dangerous waters. The drift was continuing.

On September 20, 2009 in an email to Bruce, Jane and Brenda:

“But it is what it is and we have to face the financial consequences. 
If the August 7, 2009 DOR letter has not been circulated on the BOS, I would suggest that everyone either read it or review it as the case may be.  The part about the town “as requiring that the town contribute a specific percentage of the previously determined premium of rate amount, at least by year end,”  was and is definitive.


The issue is to be discussed at the School Committee on Wednesday, but there is an opportunity for a small sub-committee of two people from the School Committee, two from the BOS, a similar number from the FinCom and the ITA and Barry to get together on Monday or Tuesday to try and figure out how to handle this financially.

Bruce you wanted to wait until the numbers are in, and as noted above, they are.  I am not privy to what they are, but they will be a major problem.

Brenda, you and I talked about this and Jane you are being rung in since you are one of our liaisons as well as a BOS member.

The bottom line is that the town got a break for the last several years, and now has to make this up in some manner.  The issue is how.

Please let me know what you want to do.”

Let’s say for the sake of argument that they did not believe that I was correct, but with this email they should have gone into high gear.  But did they?  I think not.

On September 24, the letter to John Sanguinet is delivered to him with the results of the audit.  That letter contained a suggestion paralleling what I had been saying all along, let’s sit down and talk.

Now, things get murky, The Selectmen say words to the effect that they knew nothing about this and Sanguinet to date has not responded to three requests as to the “time-line,” particularly as to when he told the BOS about the letter and its contents.  It is possible that they did not see the letter, but when where they told of its contents, that is the question?  For me it is difficult to believe that Sanguinet sat on this for almost two weeks, possible I guess, but unlikely. But that is what we are led to believe.

But putting that aside, and it is important, the BOS knew something important was afoot, they had my warnings and in public session the School Committee made it known that the report was out. So, did no one on the BOS ask Sanguinet anything? Did they ask anyone?  At best this is an error of omission; one of them should have picked up the phone and asked-there is no excuse for not having done so.

Look, how hard would it have been to do what Barry suggested, but not in this town, no way and that is what I am critical of.

But hold the presses, now I am told, “that, oh sorry, we did know on September 29, but did not see the letter, just the numbers.  But we went ahead on October 6 and excoriated everyone in sight, well just because.”

And separately, hard on the heels of that,  from Bruce asking that we attend a joint meeting on Tuesday with the BOS, the School Committee and the FinCom.  The School Committee has already turned them down because, in part, of inadequate time to prepare.  Our response was that we want to know what conclusion they arrived at.

And one of my FinCom members really hit the nail on the head: “Kind of feels like being a pooper scooper.”

Bruce in his own Bruceikian manner said and I quote “The purpose of the meeting is to begin the dialog between all parties”   “Begin?” Now that the union-sorry “cat”-is out of the bag, let’s “begin?”  Kidding does come to mind. And he refused to talk to the point that the FinCom is requesting what we believe is legitimate information; what specifically are your conclusions (almost four months into the process?)

I am sure that he will look us in the eye and say, “why,yes, of course it is a holiday weekend and people may be gone, but this is important, important do you hear me!!”  But might not someone ask “who brought us to this point?  Who made it “important?”

To the issue of whose “man” I am-one blogger said I was their man-well, I am not a betting man, but I bet if you asked the Selectmen, the best you would get is a roll of the eyes.  And if you asked them the same question six months ago, the response would have been more temperate but the message would have been the same, he is very independent. “Our man, hardly look what he is doing to us-but then in an aside, not that we don’t deserve it?”

And now finally to Mr Slager, and his email to me that in part said I am a hypocrite:

“As chairman of the FinCom, why didn't you make your concerns public immediately? Where were your letters to the editor? Why didn't you bring this subject up to selectmen when you (rightfully) criticized Sanguinet for not providing the FinCom timely information on the budget? That occurred after July. You had an opportunity then and you chose not to take it.”

Ok, as to the first criticism, I chose not to bring this public, because as I said and he quoted accurately, I wanted the numbers. Did I have suspicions, suspicions that were growing, yes I did?   But I am not an accountant, so I decided to wait on the “public” part until the audit came in.  However as to his other observation, it should be clear to anyone who reads this objectively, that on many occasions and in different ways I alerted the BOS.  My numbers were correct, my calculations were correct and frankly my conclusions were correct.  Does that make me a good guy? No. A bad guy? Well depends on your point of view.  What one might conclude is that this is somebody who did some homework and was trying to quietly suggest to the BOS that they should do something, and he was unsuccessful.

Mr Slager also commented that “It sounds to me that you are simply angry that you weren't put on the agenda at the last minute on Tuesday and now you are throwing what amounts to a tantrum. Are you planning on apologizing to readers of the Observer for saying in July "At this point we don’t even know if there is even a surplus. This doesn’t have the appearance of being a really significant issue."

There were three other people there who witnessed my comments about not being able to speak publicly to the BOS at Citizens Participation, and I think if they were asked they would have to say that my tone I believe was critical but measured. It did not rise to the level of tantrum, I have been to several BOS meetings, I know what tantrum looks like.

Interestingly, and still on the subject, Mr Slager admitted that he did not know about the gag rule (Committee members and Department Heads may not speak at Citizen Participation) and asked me “are you a citizen of the town,” again in front of three witnesses, and when I said “yes,” he shook his head and mumbled something to the effect that is not right, leaving me to the impression that he thought the BOS stance on this was wrong.  And Slager being Slager, I assumed that he would make an issue of what he apparently thought was a bad policy. 

And he quoted me again correctly about it (the Health Trust issue) not having the appearance of being significant, but again and in my “defense” I would again note that I not only did say that I wanted the numbers (again) but also began to dig in to try and get more texture. And as it became clearer to me that there was an issue of significant proportions, I became more vocal to the BOS, but again unsuccessfully.  So, as he suggested I did in fact try to talk to the Selectmen, and you may judge the degree of success.

What to do?

I had four items that I wanted to deliver if I had been granted the right to speak:

1.    The BOS should immediately apologize to the town and its employees
2.    The BOS should immediately look to the senior retirees of the town, figure out how much they were owed, cut checks and mail them out to those seniors with a letter of apology.  I know we don’t “have” the money, but for the BOS to expect seniors to bear the burden is unfair. They should not be put on Wareham Lite or some sort of “holiday.”
3.    Have the ITA revamp the already just approved revamped budget, and add in the cost of the shortfall.  My guess would be that to both send out the cash and start the process of correcting the issue for current active employees might be in the neighborhood of $400,000. And while we are at it, let’s deal also with what appears to be inevitable, more cuts by the state, perhaps $200,000 to $400,000.  So the total change might be anywhere from $200,000 to $600,000. 
4.    That when a new Town Administrator is hired that the process be opened up to the town, and that the final candidates be interviewed openly by the town, no more closed doors. 

Finally, the FinCom started to discuss the desirability of trying to get younger people interested in our processes and to that end; we will be hosting a regular posted meeting on Wednesday, October 14 at the High School at 12:30 pm in the auditorium.  Because of the unfortunate timeliness of the Health trust Issue, it will be the top item on the agenda.  And unlike the Chairman of the BOS, we do allow reasoned participation without prior scrutiny by a censor-and reasoned means just that-to the point and polite.  I should add that our conversations on this date go well back over a year, so there is no “political” motive in this; it is what it is.

In addition, we will be appearing as guests of the Onset Protective League on Thursday, October 15 at 7 pm at the VFW in Onset. 

I'll be the guy with one hat (a private joke)

Dick Paulsen

Mr. Paulson,
I want to thank you for the information and your candid look at what happened. As you are now aware, you cannot count on Robert Slager to give a true picture of what has happened.

I am familiar with a quite a few employees of Wareham. One of the challenges facing this administration is the fact that they have unfairly targeted employees. If you want to build a dialogue with the employees, you will find there is a certain bitter taste which might make it difficult. To add to the difficulty, you have former workers that were terminated or laid off. They will certainly feel the need to extract their pound of flesh.

I have read through as much information as possible and I would like to ask a few questions.

In the articles written by Slager, there is more than one reference to Bob Bliss. The letter from DOR and MGL references the Treasurer and not the Town Accountant. Why are we not hearing any mention of the Treasurer's involvement?

I watched the Selectmen's meeting where the FIN COM asked the BOS for help in obtaining information (to perform your job). During that meeting, the ITA commented about a surplus. This isn't the first time I've heard his comments about a surplus. Am I off base is considering the effect of this problem is compounded by using the surplus to pay other expenses?

Again, thank you for your candid comments!

Last edited by Larry McDonald (2009-10-09 14:55:35)

chairman of the fin comm and wareham citizen thank you for the information, your honesty and your desire to come here to the "hate bloggers" site.. ty again....to you and your board i have recently met another member of this board and they were very infomative like yourself kudos to the task you have all taken on..

Thank you, Dick Paulsen.
Thank you for your service to the Town of Wareham. Thank you for your honesty and forthrightness.
Thank you for asking the right questions and never receiving any answers. Thank you for being a good steward, and thank you for sharing your knowledge with us all.
I am sure you have more to say, and I will wait anxiously to hear it.
I am sure everyone apologizes for the way you have been treated by those who hold elected office.

Mr. Paulsen,

thank you, ever so much for your description of events over the past few months on this issue. An act of courage, indeed.

Your narrative raises some new questions for me, but they can wait until another time. For now, we all need to digest the scenes from inside the sausage factory.

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-10-09 18:21:27)

I think there may be some criminality here. If the DA investigates this debacle, someone might be headed to jail.

Liz:
I'm getting lost in all these official statements.  I need more coffee.  Where is the quote from Foster coming from?