#66 2009-10-20 22:15:01
Hmmm...he must feel threatened by Janey. He doesn't let her speak, yet he just allowed brockton brenda get all her deese and does out.
Offline
#67 2009-10-20 22:17:35
"I make a motion to make it" Well what it are we talking about brockton brenda? Shouldn't you use a complete and comprehensive motion.
Offline
#68 2009-10-20 22:20:13
oh yeah, brockton brenda lets get into a power struggle with the restaurant over who requests a show cause hearing. No people can not open and close as they wish.
Offline
#70 2009-10-20 22:24:41
"We would like to see you at town meeting so you can support our agenda.." Jane D.
Offline
#71 2009-10-20 22:26:35
Why didn't bruce thank the ita?
Offline
#72 2009-10-20 22:31:48
NAL:
You are welcome :-)
Offline
#73 2009-10-21 07:23:15
SO THE SELECTMAN ARE GETTING ANOTHER DEPT HEAD TO QUIT WITH THERE HARASMENT,TED THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, ONLY 3 DEPT HEADS ON THE SELECTMAN HIT LIST THE HEALTH DEPT HEAD , THE HEAD OF THE SEWER DEPT AND CINDY PEROLAS HUSBAND , AND THE HEAT IS ON MUNCIPAL MAINTENANCE, BOT THE COSTS ON YHESE RETIREMENT PACKAGES TO WAREHAM WILL SURE BE GREAT.
Offline
#74 2009-10-21 07:24:15
I wonder how long sweet Brucie is going to continue to act out his apology. Does anyone remember his apology to officer Pillsbury? Did Sweet Brucie ever send the letter of apology to the officer as promised? I would be surprised.
Offline
#75 2009-10-21 07:41:34
rukidding wrote:
I wonder how long sweet Brucie is going to continue to act out his apology. Does anyone remember his apology to officer Pillsbury? Did Sweet Brucie ever send the letter of apology to the officer as promised?
Brenda sent his wife a bouquet of roses.
Offline
#76 2009-10-21 08:25:50
If you missed TBL's posts (go back to yesterday:21:48, and 22:02) I urge you to track them down.
For me, those two posts are the best that have been written regarding the civil service issue.
Offline
#77 2009-10-21 09:52:01
billw, so Brenda sent his wife roses, was those for Brenda's public comments about his wife? I am sure if we could look back to the meeting where George Dionne took the selectmen to task, that Sweet Brucie committed to sending Officer Pillsbury a letter of apology. I just don't know if it ever happened. The only point here is that Sweet Brucie's apologies are a dime a dozen. He says whatever it takes when the camera is rolling but then never puts into action what he commits to. He is an opportunity seeking liar.
Offline
#78 2009-10-21 10:03:01
I missed the first half of last night's meeting. What did Sweet Brucie apologize for?
Offline
#79 2009-10-21 10:06:12
Who paid for the roses that Brenda sent? The town or her?
I didn't know what the apology was in reference to either.
Offline
#80 2009-10-21 10:16:52
What BS is doing is putting a whitewash on his prior behavior without being specific. Unless he musters the character to say, for example: "I was dead wrong in the way I dealt with the Wareham Library. I see now that I was motivated by my childish desire to punish Mary Jane Pillsbury for driving a car that was better than mine. Also, I was wrong to accuse the innocent WFL trustees of mishanding public funds. I knew they had no access to public funds, but I thought I could scare them into folding. I should probably resign."
The only thing wrong with this "pipe dream" of a revised statement is the word "probably."
What we are witnessing in these shallow "apologies" is the preamble to announcing that he feels compelled to run for re-election in April.
Offline
#81 2009-10-21 10:29:05
I know no one here is hood winked by this fake persona with all the humble apologies. Bruce doesn't have a humble bone in his body. This charade is
ONLY because he needs to win back some votes for his (their) agenda (Westfield, civil service, computer audit, etc.). They have destroyed ALL credibility and anything they are responsible for proposing is not worthy of any consideration.
See you all Monday evening.
Offline
#82 2009-10-21 10:48:18
It is obvious from last night's charade that someone on the Hypocrite Elite side with half a brain cell got a hold of Sweet Brucey, gave him a metaphorical kick in the butt and said, "Look dumbass, you're dragging us all down with your bullshit and you need to start pretending to be a good boy."
It's an interesting strategy but it's not going to work. Next April, the only thing the Hypocrite Elite has to offer Wareham is a tax cheat and a dirt thief. They know it and they are obviously scared of that, but no amount of fake, phoney baloney Brucey mea culpas are going to change the fact that next April, their political asses will be handed to them on a silver platter.
Too little, too late, Sweet Brucey. Too little, too late.
If they really want Wareham to "Move Forward," they should start by calling on this polarizing politician to resign.
Offline
#83 2009-10-21 10:56:10
I said this earlier on the Courier thread, the tactics of the Selectmen and the Halifax Hack is to cry out to the masses when anyone voices an opinion that does not agree with them. The whine and cry about bully tactics and violating their rights. WHen they call you out and you reply, they then claim you are opposed to their free speech and using bully tactics.
It bothers me that these people assume the citizens of Wareham are not aware of their games. If you buy the kinder and gentler Bruce, I have emails that demostrate the levels this man will sink to. There is enough video out there to show exactly what Bruce is.
If you think there is no connection between Bruce and Halifax Hack, you only need to watch last night's meeting and as they went to break, who was up there chatting with bruce? You guessed it!
The only way to fix the problems in this town is to eliminate the cause!
I look forward to Monday!
Offline
#84 2009-10-21 10:58:05
It is the classic "bully" scenario - dish out abuse all day long, but when someone finally gets fed up and fights back, they run crying to teacher with bruised egos and little tears streaming down their cheeks.
Bullies - they can dish it, but they can't take it.
Offline
#85 2009-10-21 11:16:59
Frankly,
I"m sick of it. I look forward to the day we have Selectmen who work in the best interest of the town and the Halifax Hack is flipping burgers at McDonalds.
I think they should state the truth, "We are only open and honest when we need the citizens votes"
Offline
#86 2009-10-21 12:10:49
It is not civil service that protects one from political interference, it is the Town Accepted Strong Chief provision. Since Chief Stanley arrived morale is comming back and some shake ups are happening. The officers I talk to feel that they are being treated with respect by a completely competent Chief. His style is nothing more than keeping the BOS in the loop. He also believes in the Team Concept and holding people accountable for their actions. He does not judge people by what people tell him, biut judges peple by their character and performance. All Chief weather Civil Service or not must develop a relationship with the Town Power Brokers, BOS, Finance Committee, TA, and the community.
Offline
#87 2009-10-21 12:36:37
Capt C: I'd like to hear more about the "Town Accepted Strong Chief" provision. Is this a provision that is independent of how we vote on civil service? Is it possible to have a non civil service chief who has the Accecpted Strong Chief provision?
Offline
#88 2009-10-21 12:56:25
I feel this is a bait and switch tactic. Make the people feel the police dept. can function fine without a civil service chief. And then when they fall for it you put in some unqualified lackey. The civil service exams are still the best test for knowledge. It's not a CPA exam but at least some test of knowledge.
Offline
#89 2009-10-21 13:30:44
The strong Chief of Police simply means that the Chief falls under Civil Service and is protected from any arbitrary, capricious firing by the appointing authority. When I was a Selectman, we were Police Commissioners. The Chief, Fred Besse, was Civil Service and "strong" in that he was protected by unwanted interference in his Department by the Board of Selectmen, such as insisting on the hiring or firing of his Police Officers.
If we had a problem, we had a hearing with the Chief and the Police Officer that was being complained about and was facing disciplinary actions. We expected the Chief would present a case that we, as the appointing authority, could live with.
Chief Besse was not one to be frivolous in any actions. I can remember only a couple of actions that we took, in hearings with the Chief, and we always agreed with his decision after discussion.
Who knows more about his men than the Chief of Police?
I was lucky because I was a cop before a Selectman, so I knew who the cops were that appeared before us for disciplinary actions. I didn't disagree with the Chief in any of the cases, and I knew the cops involved as well as he did.
Who is going to know that cops if the Chief is removed from Civil Service?
This present BOS wouldn't listen to anyone and would simply act in an arbitrary manner, and it would eventually cost the Town a lot of money in Court.
Keep Civil Service for the Chief of Police position!
Offline
#90 2009-10-21 14:13:43
danoconnell wrote:
This present BOS wouldn't listen to anyone and would simply act in an arbitrary manner, and it would eventually cost the Town a lot of money in Court.
Keep Civil Service for the Chief of Police position!
That's how I feel.
Bottom line for me is, a TOTAL lack of "faith" in the "management". Their motives are suspect and track history appalling.
Seriously, how much more evidence is needed. ZERO
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Offline
#91 2009-10-22 18:41:39
First of The Strong Chief and Civil Service Chief are two seperate laws. They are independant of each other,
Under the strong Chief Statute he is incharge of his budget, equipment and manpower to use as he feels in warranted. Town meeting votes his budget. He may make general orders that the BOS have no control. If he sets policy the BOS have the right deny such within 15 days. Under former Chief Hammond all policy and rules and regulations were issued by orders to the officers keeping the BOS out of the mix. Anyone who thinks that Civil Service keeps the politics out of the position is partially right, it limits the choice to the top three. The Stron Chief Provision was accepted by Town Meeting during the Chief Hammond reign.
Offline
#92 2009-10-22 19:17:56
I stand corrected. I spoke of when I was in office. Paul is right. I guess the best way I can describe the reign under Fred Besse was he was a "strong" Chief under a system that didn't dictate it.
Civil Service is still protection from unwarranted political interference.
Offline
#93 2009-10-22 20:03:30
The chapters are 41-97 (Weak Chief) and 41-97A (Strong Chief). Paul is correct, they have nothing to do with Civil Service.
Last edited by Quahog (2009-10-22 20:03:52)
Offline
#94 2009-10-22 20:48:02
Thank you Capt C, DanO..and Qhog
Do you feel the changes proposed in the Article(2), and the "authority" it will give to the current (or any) BoS is a positive step for Wareham?
I know, I know..Basically, Do you support it or not? Obviously I respect your right not to say. But it don't hurt to ask, and I consider your opinion(s) valuable in my own considerations. I don't think I ever heard of CS three months ago.
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Offline
#95 2009-10-22 21:16:01
The only thing that Civil Service does for the Chief of Police is to offer him/her the buffer between political interference and harassment and the opportunity to appeal to Civil Service in the event of an unlawful firing.
Chiefs don't belong to unions.
Civil Service, regardless of what anyone says, is protection.
I would hate to think that anyone would want to be Chief of Police without Civil Service protection in the Town of Wareham under the current circumstances and political environment.
You'd have to be certifiably nuts!
Offline
#96 2009-10-22 21:23:09
Just a reminder people, you've seen their pick for TA, so just imagine the winner they'll pick if they succeed in taking the police chief position out of civil service.
VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 5!
Offline
