#1 2009-10-21 22:44:38
Apparently, our illustrious Board of Selectmen don't think very highly of our little town when this is one of three finalists they pick for the Town Administrator's position:
http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/lo … _157093809
And in case they pretend like they didn't know about it, the Standard Times version:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc … 3/-1/rss23
Oh, and as you might recall, Paul Shooter aka Bobo Shooter reported on this in the Tri-Town Rag. Guess that's what you get for letting a figment of Bobo's imagination take the lead on something.
Sigh, I don't know what is worse, that the selectmen tried to slip this one through, or that there is not a single reporter in this town that knows how to use google.
Scooped again, Bobo, scooped again...
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-21 22:45:40)
Offline
#3 2009-10-21 23:13:33
Well, it's possible that Brucey picked him because they have similar driving abilities. (Although Brucey at least does his bad driving sober).
They knew and they tried to sneak this through. It was just recently reported on in the Standard Times and took him out of the search for a Mattapoissett TA.
I guess Mattapoisett selectmen have more brains than Wareham selectmen.
Google, it's not just for breakfast anymore.
Offline
#4 2009-10-22 00:07:18
I have to tell you, of the supposed 20 or so candidates posting for the job and these three are the best they can produce!?! This just goes to show how bad Wareham's reputation has become, were only attracting the bottom feeders and ass kissers.
Offline
#5 2009-10-22 00:34:28
PShooter wrote:
Either they had no idea, or they're behind him 100%. Which way will they go?
Shooter, hard to say, but if we're placing bets, I'll have to go with they claim "we had no idea!" Hard for them to say though when their own Bobo Shooter reported on the story when this guy tried to apply for the Mattapoisett TA job.
They're crapping their pants now trying to figure out a way to spin this. I'm amazed they underestimate the public to the point they never thought this would be discovered.
Their options -
1) We didn't know! In which case, they're incompetent and should all resign immediately for letting someone like this get to a final three interview when I found it in 2 seconds with google.
2) We knew, and how dare you power elitists make fun of this! - In which case, shows some pretty poor leadership skills.
Either way, they're incompetent and should resign.
Move Wareham Forward - Call for the resignations of the selectmen that are holding Wareham back.
Offline
#6 2009-10-22 00:55:57
It seems to me that the over-riding issue here is not the DUI but the reponse to it. If this possible addition to our Bozomen had led off his presentation by telling us about his infraction and had "gone public" with a humble/positive plan to deal with the rest of his life...I think our forgiving nature would have "kicked in". As we have seen at the national level, it's the "cover-up" factor that is the "turn-off" for Americans of all stripes.
Offline
#7 2009-10-22 03:42:55
I guess this thread will work for this. Contestant #1..
Patriot Ledger: Marshfield’s Maresco in contention for Wareham job
http://www.marshfieldforums.com/phpBB3/ … 1&p=416125
A Google search for Contestant #2, came up with these:
http://www.capecodtoday.com/downloads/r … tement.pdf
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs. … 9/-1/rss02
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-22 03:57:43)
Offline
#8 2009-10-22 05:23:21
GWELL I AM SURE BROCTON BRENDA WAREHAMS OWN DWI BOOZE HOUND QUEEN WILL WILL GET ALONG WITH HIM JUST FINE , A DRUNK EN SELECTMAN AND A DRUNKIN TA, GEE WE HAVE SANQUIST WHO LOOKS LIKE A DROWNED RAT OR PASS THE BOOZE TA , WHAT A SHITTING TOWN WAREHAM HAS BECOME.
Offline
#9 2009-10-22 06:06:12
I AM A BOOZE HOUND , PASS THE BOOZE SAYS BROCTON BRENDA,IS IT TRUE THAT BRENDA ASKED THE TOWN ADMINTRATOR CANDIDATE IF SHE VOTED FOR HIM COULD THEY GO OUT BAR HOPPING AFTER SELECTMAN MEETINGS , THAT SURE WILL BE COOL.
Offline
#10 2009-10-22 07:33:27
OMG TOO FUNNY, THIS IS WAREHAMS TOP FINALIST? WHERE WERE YOU ON THAT ONE BOBO? IF YOU WERENT BLOGGING LIKE A NUT ON THE COURIER SITE CONSTANTLY AND DID SOME JOURNALIST WORK, YOU MIGHT HAVE GOT THIS ONE.
Offline
#11 2009-10-22 08:26:14
Dick Wheeler wrote:
It seems to me that the over-riding issue here is not the DUI but the reponse to it. If this possible addition to our Bozomen had led off his presentation by telling us about his infraction and had "gone public" with a humble/positive plan to deal with the rest of his life...I think our forgiving nature would have "kicked in". As we have seen at the national level, it's the "cover-up" factor that is the "turn-off" for Americans of all stripes.
Dick, you are right, the cover-up is very troubling, and Andrews should have been up front about it with the public during his interview and the selectmen should have been up front about it as well. Sadly, given this board's track record of secrecy and a lack of transparency, this is troubling, but not suprising.
But, and I hate to disagree with a person as wise and knowledgeable as yourself, but I'll have to disagree with you on another point. Even if he or the selectmen had been up front on this, my forgiveness factor still
would not have kicked in, and I believe many others' would not have kicked in as well.
Drunk driving is just too serious a crime to ignore.
Here are some very concerning quotes from the June 6, 2007 Lawrence Eagle Tribune Story to consider:
Arresting Officer William Steeves said in his report that Andrews was unsteady on his feet and was unable to follow simple instructions, such as touching the top of a light pen. Asked to recite the alphabet, Andrews repeated "A" to "G" twice, then could not get further than "P," according to Steeves.
That's pretty damn drunk.
Andrews was arrested April 21 in Newburyport on charges of operating under the influence of alcohol and a lanes violation. It was his second drunken-driving arrest in 15 months.
A first arrest is bad enough, but when the first arrest isn't enough to "scare you straight" and you go out and have another one, that makes me have serious concerns about his ability to excercise good judgment as the top administrator in our town. Frankly, it also calls into question the ability of the selectmen to make rational judgments when they choose someone like this to be a top three finalist.
During the arrest, Andrews struggled with Steeves, causing the officer to physically turn Andrews around and forcefully place him in handcuffs, according to court records. During the arrest, Andrews told the officers to call his brother, a police detective in Lawrence, Newburyport police said.
So let's put this in perspective. On the same night that Sweet Brucey gave his phoney apology to the police department, on the same night that the selectmen pledged they try to treat the police department better than they have in the past, they also interviewed their choice for a top three finalist - someone who, according to this article, "struggled" with a police officer. Is this someone that we really want working with the police department?
Andrews, a Lawrence native, was also arrested in January of last year in Amesbury on charges of operating under the influence of alcohol, but he was acquitted, officials for the District Attorney's Office said.
Andrews' driving history, provided by the state Registry of Motor Vehicles, shows no traffic violations other than the two drunken-driving arrests. In both cases he refused Breathalyzer tests, according to the Registry.
I don't really care that he was acquitted, to be arrested twice on this is troubling, and the refusal to take the breathalyzer is, in my opinion, troubling.
Drunk driving is just too serious of a crime and leads to too many fatal accidents a year to ignore, and is too serious a crime to forgive. When you can a) stay home and drink if you really feel the need to drink yourself silly or b) call a friend for a ride or take a cab home or c) at least find a place to sit down until the booze leaves your system...with all of these options, I just personally believe that drunk driving is unforgiveable.
Also, keep in mind, that at least according to the Tribune, another employer had a problem with it:
HAVERHILL - Mark Andrews, vice president of administration at Northern Essex Community College, has been asked to leave the school following an arrest on drunken-driving charges, said the chairman of the college's trustees.
"I don't know whether he is still getting a paycheck, but he was asked to leave a week ago," said Chairman Joseph Edwards, who declined to comment further.
Andrews' name has been removed from a directory of employees on the college's Web site. He has been making $112,654 a year there.
Here is the million dollar question: Why, in this harsh economy, when there are so many good qualified candidates without crap like this in their background, why are our selectmen choosing this person as a top three finalist? Why, when there are so many other people out there to choose from? How can this possibly be the best the world has to offer Wareham?
Keep in mind too, that according to the Standard Times, this guy was rejected by Mattapoisett, our neighboring town which is much smaller and has fewer problems, and that was when they had about 30 candidates, he never made it near their top 3.
No, I'm afraid this calls into question the judgment abilities of our board of selectmen. I think it is obvious what they are trying to do.
Look at McAulliffe. When he was hired, he had a lawsuit ongoing due to something that occured while he was Town Administrator of Somerset. Now, look at this current candidate's problem. I think it is obvious what the selectmen are trying to do - they are looking for candidates who they can control - they want people who have black marks on their record, who are going to thank their lucky stars that they were given a job and who are going to do as they are told and not ask questions for fear of having to go out and look for a job with that black mark still hanging over their head.
It backfired with McAulliffe, I wonder if maybe he was confident that he was in the right regarding the lawsuit and thus was not going to let the selectmen hold that over him. That's speculation, but in any event, it didn't work. But this current candidate has a problem more serious than a lawsuit.
PShooter, not to be confused with Bobo's retiree, I'm still debating how the selectmen and their lackey, Bobo, will go on this. The problem with saying "we didn't know!" is that they would then be admitting to not performing background checks on final three candidates. The problem with saying "we did know, but we don't care" means that they are saying they don't care about drunk driving. Either way they go, there will be a ton of egg on their face.
My opinion, they knew and they were hoping we'd never find out. In the age of Google, guess again.
Finally, to end this longwinded tirade, this is a sad day for Wareham's Press Corps. When this information was so easily discoverable through google, when Bobo (I mean Paul Shooter) and the Standard Times had already reported on it, there really is no excuse for them to have not reported on it in Wareham by now.
If Bobo does anything short of give the selectmen a scathing ass wooping, he should hang his head in shame and resign.
If the selectmen insist on hiring this guy, then they should all be recalled.
And that a lowly blogger scooped them all when this information was so readily available, well...it'd be funny if it weren't so...aww, you know the rest.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-22 08:34:58)
Offline
#12 2009-10-22 08:38:32
And Bobo, just some free advice, if you hadn't been so busy getting into verbal fisticuffs with the Courier bloggers and writing Paul Shooter's retirement column, you might have scooped everyone. (That's assuming this isn't something that you, like the BOS, didn't want the public to know about).
Get those priorities straight Bobo. Stop worrying about Paul Shooter, stop worrying that a Courier blogger might get in an unchallenged crack about Sweet Brucey, take the bagel out of your mouth for five seconds, and get your ass onto google once in awhile and you might not be scooped by lowly bloggers in the future.
Offline
#13 2009-10-22 08:41:58
I only have my 25+ years to fall back on, but if you have a contentious situation with little upside, you are not going to attract the best and brightest. Having said that, you MUST consider the hiring authority as part of the reason. If you have well qualified professionals doing the hiring, you certainly tend to have finalist that meet or exceed what you are seeking.
If you listened to the questions that were asked by the Selectmen (reported to be questions from the "staff" and citizens) it sounded very much like they were hiring a mid level management position. Truly, this is not what we seek. They, the hiring authority, do not want a new TA that will clash with them or work outside their agenda. That also limits the pool of candidates.
That said, we have to consider that several positions are open and the same hiring authority is going through the process with these positions. If that isn't scary enough, consider they want us, the townfolk, to convey approx 20 acres of prime property to them "so they can act in the best interest of the town".....
Whew....April does not come soon enough.
Offline
#14 2009-10-22 08:48:20
OK, let's start a countdown... how long will it take Bobo the Scooped Hobo to churn out a spinjob on this fiasco? Place your bets, how long will it take? I love it, Bobo and the BOS are scrambling. I hope I didn't keep them up all night last night trying to figure out how to spin something that is this un-spinnable.
It's 9:00 am, do you know where your Bobo story is?
Offline
#15 2009-10-22 08:52:51
Larry, it's funny because watching the interviews Tuesday night, the BOS seemed very glowing and lovey dovey with contestant #3, which seemed odd at the time, but now makes a lot of sense.
There's no doubt in my mind they were or possibly still are planning to hire this guy. If they don't, it's because this info was brought to light. If they ignore it and hire the guy anyway, they should all be recalled.
And you make a good point, perhaps given the crap the BOS has put this town through, perhaps this is all this town can attract, but even so, that this candidate made it into the top three shows serious concerns about the selecmen's judgment skills. It should also call into question the sincerity of their pledge to try and work harder with the police department, when this is their candidate.
They should spare themselves and the town any future embarrassment and resign immediately.
In conclusion, ha ha nanny nanny boo boo, Bobo was scooped.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-22 08:55:15)
Offline
#16 2009-10-22 08:56:01
Nay, the whole Wareham Press Corps was scooped...
Offline
#17 2009-10-22 10:03:52
So let me get this right. If this is one of the top three candidates then how good are the other two? If this is the guy that will hire a contracted police chief ( if the article passes) then how can that chief support the arrest of a drunken TA? If the BOS hires the police chief (again if the article passes) then how can that chief support the arrest of the chairman of the board? Either way keep the police chief civil service!!!!
Offline
#18 2009-10-22 10:20:15
Hamatron: You are dead-on right on all counts. Wareham doesn't need the baggage this guy is carrying, and the BOS have perhaps made the biggest screw-up of them all. Even Bobo won't be able to lie those liars out of this one. They HAD to know about this.
What we need, actually, is a search committee to find selectmen replacements.
Offline
#19 2009-10-22 10:33:17
Just an opinion, but the method and order of the interview process tells me all I need to know. The last candidate is clearly their top choice. He was more prepared (maybe on purpose?) and seems to have established a connection with the Selectmen. That said, he has the highest hurdle to clear as he has violations that go beyond the job. I am always willing to give someone a second chance, but it appears that this is a third (?) chance? My father taught me that the first time it's a mistake, the second time it's a habit.
I can't see candidate #1 as a likely choice. He has no desire to move and spent more time rambling than answering questions. Candidate #2 was too careful and spent more time processing responses, which is a sign of indecision and second guessing. Candidate #3 was crisp and prepared, but again, he has more baggage.
I am just floored by all the short people ! :) Where are all the tall candidates? Is that an immediate no if you are tall? Should I be contacting the ACLU and discussing the obvious bias against tall people? Where is the silent protest? Can I start the Citizen's for a taller TA?
Tall people unite!
Offline
#20 2009-10-22 10:34:21
Re: Canevazzi.
It seemed odd to me that he left Dennis in 2008 with the intention to relocate to the Left coast in a similar position, according to an article in the Cape Cod times from last year.
He was a finalist in the Town of Sherbornlast year.
As of today, he is a finalist in the City of Gloucester, MA.
www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_st … 30551.html
What's with the gap in the resume?
Offline
#21 2009-10-22 12:00:36
That would have been one of the questions they should have asked during the interview. Generic questions do nothing to get a true picture of the candidate. One question I was asked at each interview going back a LONG time was, "What are your strengths and weaknesses". As much as I disliked answering that question, I find it to be a good measuring stick for how a candidate views their own "work".
I hate to provide any fodder for the halifax hack, but I were handicapping the TA race, I'd give 80% to candidate #3 and perhaps 20% to candidate #2. I think candidate #1 is out.
Offline
#22 2009-10-22 12:30:21
Why don't they keep on looking?
They already have a temp TA, so go out for more resumes and interview some more people. What will be lost? Time?
Maybe the new Selectmen will then have a hand in choosing the right candidate.
Offline
#23 2009-10-22 12:39:49
They are looking to shore up their position. Again, if you look at the hiring authority (the selectmen), you can get a feel for how they view the position. :)
Offline
#24 2009-10-22 12:48:20
The Spin Clock continues to tick...tick tock tick tock...it's 1 pm, do you know where your BOS/Bobo spin job is? I guess they are still at a loss of for words for what to say to explain their inexplicable unexecusable incompetence in allowing this candidate to get to a final three spot.
The people of Wareham demand apologies and resignations! Why do the selectmen think so little of this town that they think this is the best person to sit in the town's highest management position? Have they considered the ramifications or do they care? Under these clowns, Wareham has not, repeat NOT had a full time permanent administrator in 4 years. In these choppy economic seas, they keep throwing our captains overboard. Wasn't a 1.9 million dollar shortfall enough of a wake up call to these turkeys to realize that Wareham needs the best town administrator they can find? They need to start thinking with their brains, not with their egos. They need to pick someone who is going to lead, not someone with a black mark hanging over their head that they can control.
What will be the spin job? That's the big question on everyone's minds now. There's no explaining this other than gross incompetence, but no doubt they will try to spin and the spin will be laughable, hilarious, and pathetic. Will they say they had no idea? Will they say they know and they support the guy anyway? Will they somehow try to blame the power elite? Will Bobo reach into his bag of tricks and pull out the old "write a column demanding the selectmen resign if they dont apologize" so that he can save face?
Inquiring minds want to know...put on your 3D glasses, because the spin will be hilarious...
Offline
#25 2009-10-22 13:24:53
I looked into my crystal ball.....
I predict the Selectmen will say that this was discussed during the first round of interviews and they are assured it was a mistake that won't occur again. The halifax hack will write a colum stating this as a direct quote from Brucey.
In a surprise move, they will offer the job to Alan Slavin :)
Offline
#26 2009-10-22 13:25:34
FYI: Canevazzi is a TA candidate for the town of Rockport (pop 7700) not the mayoral City of Gloucester (pop 30,000 ) which is next-door.
Offline
#27 2009-10-22 13:27:34
Wait....isn't the Halifax Hack looking for a career change? Perhaps he could be the new TA?
Offline
#28 2009-10-22 14:13:51
edit
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-22 20:46:11)
Offline
#29 2009-10-22 14:25:16
Dick Wheeler,
Thanks for correcting me on that, it is definitely Rockport. For my penance, I will attempt three times to produce a painting of Rockport's famous Motif # 1 from memory. I know that paint-by-numbers set is around here somewhere.....
and BTW, Mr. Canevazzi was a recent finalist for the same job in Randolph, where they just went thru a charter change. the dude does get around.
But, I'm still curious about the resume gap from August, 2008 (end of Dennis contract), to today. 15 +/- months. Wassup?
Offline
#30 2009-10-22 14:30:48
Bobo, FYI, the guy's name is Mark, not Michael, please stop busying yourself with writing Paul Shooter's resignation and fighting with Courier bloggers and take an active interest in the community and at least learn the name of the guy that's applying to be town administrator, you lazy bagel biting bastard.
That's right Bobo, put the bagel down and get to work on this stuff. Maybe if you drop the cream cheese once in awhile, you'll catch things like this in the future.
Lackey.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-22 14:32:08)
Offline
#31 2009-10-22 14:39:41
Replay of Marky Mark's interview playing right now, Sweet Brucey and Brenda kissing his ass, "excellent job, your energy and enthusiam shows, we very much appreciate you being here, blah blah blah" says Brucey. "When can I start Mr. Chairman?" says Marky Mark.
He's already found a realtor, Brucey says he'll get a phone call soon.
Wink wink...don't pay attention to them, they laugh all the time. He comes up and they shake hands, butt smoochy smoochies all around.
Jesus Christ, they were up this guy's ass the most. They're going to hire him, or at least undoubtedly were going to until this site told the good people of Wareham the truth that they deserve to know.
Thank God for this site, the last refuge for the truth in Wareham.
Offline
#32 2009-10-22 14:43:51
Brucey saying town meeting would be improved if beer is served...yeah probably contestant #3 agrees Brucey. Was that an inside joke?
Offline
#33 2009-10-22 14:53:41
What's the rules for recall? Are we too close to the next election? Any selectman who votes for a candidate with two DUI arrests should be removed from office, either by recall or at the general election. Anyone who votes for this guy is unfit to serve. Drunk driving is too serious to write off as a "little mistake."
Any selectman who votes for this guy to be TA should be removed from office.
Offline
#34 2009-10-22 15:35:30
During the arrest, Andrews struggled with Steeves, causing the officer to physically turn Andrews around and forcefully place him in handcuffs, according to court records. During the arrest, Andrews told the officers to call his brother, a police detective in Lawrence, Newburyport police said.
="Do you know who I am?"
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Offline
#35 2009-10-22 15:36:48
What happens if you vote to eliminate the salary of the Town Administrator when the budget is submitted at Town Meeting?
Town Meeting is a very strange and wonderful place. Lots of strange things happen.
Offline
#36 2009-10-22 16:00:04
Hamatron5000 wrote:
Here is the million dollar question: Why, in this harsh economy, when there are so many good qualified candidates without crap like this in their background, why are our selectmen choosing this person as a top three finalist? Why, when there are so many other people out there to choose from? How can this possibly be the best the world has to offer Wareham?
No, I'm afraid this calls into question the judgment abilities of our board of selectmen. I think it is obvious what they are trying to do.
Funny, Brucey said one of the "perks" for eliminating Civil Service was the wider selection of potential candidates, "anyone, someone from Arizona..", he said, or something.
Westfield, the Library, the Chief of Police, the Town Government. They want it all. In addition to appointing boards & committee's with pretty much whoever they want, or having significant influence, on those appointments. Pretty tough to swallow when you have ZERO faith in their abilities to manage the Town well...and the powers being implemented, and pursued by the current administration aren't what I want any BoS to have. Forget the "potential unlimited power" of a TA, as is warned in the Town Charter's "Minority Report". I'm concerned with the "take over" being effected by the BoS.
NOON5
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-22 16:11:14)
Offline
#37 2009-10-22 21:01:35
:::cough cough, do-over, cough cough::::
BREAKING NEWS: BOBO THE CLOWN EARNS A SPOT IN THE BOS LACKEY HALL OF FAME!
Ok folks, if you guessed "The Selectmen will remain deafeningly silent, but Bobo will acknowledge that they KNEW of their TA candidates' problems, then YOU WIN!
(Ham, in haste, earlier reported that Selectmen were saying they had no idea, but apparently Selectmen are hunkering down in their bunkers, not saying a word, and leaving Bobo flapping in the breeze on his own.)
Mark Andrews has been thrown under the increasingly crowded undercarriage of the BOS bus.
FROM BOBO THE BRUCEY BOOT LACKEY'S LATEST JEER:
Michael Andrews (he later changed it to Mark when Ham pointed out his error, but Ham will be kind and not bill him for the free proofreading )– This may seem a little harsh considering he hasn’t been offered the position yet, but one of the three candidates for the new town administrator position has a skeleton is his closest we wish he would have addressed during his interview Tuesday night. Andrews was one of the top two candidates for the TA position in Mattapoisett when it was learned he had twice been arrested for driving under the influence. We are not revealing a secret. This was covered by several papers are the time, including the Tri-Town Observer.
Then Bobo, you BOS flunky, you admit you knew, so why didn't you ever raise this issue before the interview and do your job as a reporter to alert the public to this information?
If Andrews had just acknowledged his past issues and explained why they shouldn’t be a factor now we wouldn’t have such a problem with it. Everyone has made mistakes in their past. But the fact Andrews didn’t offer this information during his public interview when anyone could easily find the information on the internet does concern us a little bit.
You slimey BOS rump swabber, this is serious! Read my lips! DRUNK DRIVING IS SERIOUS AND INEXCUSEABLE! You cannot, repeat CANNOT allow someone with two DUI arrests to take the town administrator's position. This isn't a simple little mistake. This isn't accidentally taking an extra dime in your change from the store. Two alleged drunk driving arrests. Two. Not one mistake. Two mistakes. You can't let someone with judgment skills like that become the TA, and Bobo, if you "wouldn't have a problem with that" then you should resign immediately.
Bobo, Mattapoisett didn't want this guy. According to the Eagle Tribune, Essex College didn't want this guy. Be honest Bobo. Would you advocate for this guy to be the town administrator of Halifax? Of course not. Then why say you'd be ok for him to be the TA for us Wareham chumps? You are such a spineless BOS lackey it is unbeliveable.
It’s safe to assume the selectmen knew about his past.
Hell yes it is more than safe, it is certain that these clowns knew and why the hell didn't they be open and honest with the public? Why did they try to play the people of Wareham for a bunch of fools and try to slip this under the rug? Why aren't you bashing them for doing it?
There's no doubt in my mind the BOS knew and tried to slip this one under the rug. Bobo the BOS insider admits they knew. And one day has passed since this info came to light and the selectmen refuse to say anything publicly about it. Pathetic and shameful.
It’s also understandable why they wouldn’t single him out for a specific question after asking the same questions of all three candidates.
It is not understanable. He never should have made it to be a top three finalist interview with this in his background. The least they could have done was address it publicly rather than let the people of Wareham find this out on their own.
But each candidate was offered a few minutes to talk about themselves. That’s when Andrews should have publicly acknowledged his past issues. The fact he did not is troubling.
So they throw Andrews under the increasingly crowded undercarriage of the BOS bus by saying he should have talked about it. Yes, he should have, but the selectmen should have too...but aside from that, this man never should have made it to a final three interview. This town can do better than this. If the selectmen think this town can't do better than this, then they don't belong in those selectmen seats.
Please people, for the good of Wareham - Move Wareham Forward by calling for the resignations of the people who are holding it back.
This town cannot suffer one more day under this scumbag regime. This whole fiasco is undeniable proof of the selectmen having absolutely no ability for making rational judgments and decisions.
The people of Wareham should fight this. Any selectman who votes for this guy should be recalled or voted out of office, or they should save the town the embarrasment and resign immediately.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-22 21:06:08)
Offline
#38 2009-10-22 21:46:16
I missed the interviews with these men. It is troubling that for people (BOS & BoBo) who repeatedly claim that they love Wareham, obviously don't care anything about the men, women and children in this town or they would not invite an alleged drunk into our community to potentially cause harm to our families. If this man has been caught twice driving drunk, it is safe to assume that he frequently drives drunk.
Offline
#39 2009-10-22 22:00:55
Here's a thinker - what would Bobo and the BOS do if one of the people on their hit list had 2 count em 2 DUI arrests? They'd go apeshit and have a field day. They've destroyed so many people, and not one of them had anything coming remotely close to 2 DUI arrests. Bobo/BOS hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I guess something is a big deal or just a minor mistake based on the proximity of one's lips to BOS buttcheeks.
Offline
#40 2009-10-22 22:18:36
I definately have concerns about this situation, drunk drivers kill people (unfortunately the people they kill are innocent bystanders while they survive). This is not a good thing, I am not sure I want to end up dead because this guy has a bad day and has a few at the Narrow's before he heads home!
Offline
#41 2009-10-22 22:26:16
Hamatron5000 wrote:
Bobo:
It’s also understandable why they wouldn’t single him out for a specific question after asking the same questions of all three candidates.It is not understandable. He never should have made it to be a top three finalist interview with this in his background. The least they could have done was address it publicly rather than let the people of Wareham find this out on their own.
Bobo:
But each candidate was offered a few minutes to talk about themselves. That’s when Andrews should have publicly acknowledged his past issues. The fact he did not is troubling.
Jane thanked somebody for coming up with the questions asked. So, hey, it's not their fault. Those "citizens", I think she said, why didn't they think to ask a question regarding DUI's that could be asked to all the candidates for hire.
Premeditated is the word that pops into my head.
"Hey, Future TA!! Your on your own, and be prepared to live under the bus."
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-22 22:30:10)
Offline
#42 2009-10-22 22:31:36
Most towns, when picking a town administrator, will create a search committee made up of a diverse cross-section of the community to ensure a candidate is picked who will serve the needs of the whole community, not just the egos of the selectmen. Mattapoisett, you'll notice in the S-T article, had such a search committee.
We just have the selectmen every once in awhile announcing, "This is who you got, and don't ask questions, chumps!"
A search committee would have weeded this person out. Hence, why the selectmen don't allow search committees.
Offline
#44 2009-10-23 03:22:49
BREAKING NEWS: Day 2 of Boozeygate and nary a word from the select-scum to explain this mess. Did they really think they would succeed in hoodwinking the people of Wareham by trying to slip DUI man through the back door? Did they really think we'd all forget how to use Google for the next three years? Or do they care? Who knows? All we know is their silence is deafening. No doubt these clowns intend to arrogantly ignore the concerns of their constituents and will try to push through a candidate that our Mattapoisett neighbors did not want.
Do you know how easy it is to be the Town Administrator of Mattapoisett? Your one and only job is to keep that damn 50 foot tall seahorse clean and in good repair. And even then, Mattapoisett took a pass on him. 
I don't know about you, people of Wareham, but if our Mattapoisett neighbors don't trust this guy to polish their beloved 50 foot seahorse, then I have no idea how our selectmen can justify hiring him to run our much larger, much more complex town.
Friggin seahorse.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-23 03:24:20)
Offline
#45 2009-10-23 07:36:37
Folks,
Yesterday, I did a bit more research (for lack of a better word). I saw the replay of the BOS meeting and Andrews was not just prepared, he was overly prepared. Perhaps this was to make an impression to overcome his DUI history?
Look, I've said it before, I'm all about giving people a second chance, but I'm not prepared to do that when it has become a problem. I think the question I would have for Mr. Andrews is:
Have you attended any behavior modification or rehabilitation?
It's clear we are only going to get clients that meet the expectation of our Selectmen. As a hiring authority they don't have a good history!
Offline
#46 2009-10-23 08:55:56
Larry, it would be a good idea for everyone to go back and watch the interview of DUI Man, posted above by PShooter, not to be confused with Bobo's retiree. I'll go into more detail with some observations, but three major ones right off the bat 1) the selectmen were very gooey and mushy with him, more so than the other two, leading me to believe that this was their candidate 2) there was no mention of the DUI, and it wasn't just his duty to mention it for full disclosure but the selectmen should have also made sure it came out, that they didn't shows they were trying to hide it and thought they could pull the wool over the eyes of the public.
And a big one 3) He talked alot and the BOS praised him alot about his experiences in Academia, but he never mentions the Tribune article, which quotes an Essex College trustee saying that he was asked to leave his position. The selectmen and DUI Man were trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes on that one.
Mattapoisett didn't want him, his college asked him to leave, but our dumbass BOS welcome him with open arms. Sickening.
Finally - I would like the Halifax Hobo, the selectmen, and their supporters, since they insist on saying "this was just a little mistake" - I would like them all to tell the ladies who run this fine organization to their faces that "drunk driving is just a little mistake:
http://www.madd.org/
(Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Made up of Mothers whose children have died as a result of drunk driving)
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-23 08:56:41)
Offline
#47 2009-10-23 09:03:59
I agree Ham. This was not a mistake, this was a habit. It didn't happen just once. As I stated earlier in the thread, it wasn't an accident that this was the third and final candidate. He was more than prepared for their questions and if I remember correctly, he seems to have been in contact more with the BOS than the other two candidates.
I am very queasy about this guy, but I am more queasy about the Selectmen and their hiring process. How did we end up with these 3 guys? It is difficult for me to see any of the Selectmen as professionals. Their hiring history leaves a lot to be desired. Seriously, I don't think they are the best judge of character.
If they do hire #3 and do consider going back through the process with other candidates, I think we may end up with more legal fees and issues. Sigh.....April cannot come soon enough.
Offline
#48 2009-10-23 09:11:05
Also, they should tell that to this fine organization, "Students Against Drunk Driving."
http://www.sadd.org/
In fact, if Bobo wants to keep writing that drunk driving is just a little mistake, and if the selectmen plan on going the "it was just a mistake route," then I challenge them to hold a meeting with Wareham's local chapters of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Students Against Drunk Driving, call them all into one big room, and explain to them why this is just a little mistake and that someone with two DUI arrests on their record should be rewarded with the town administrator's position.
Apparently, Essex College and Mattapoisett have better leaders than Wareham could ever dream of having.
Offline
#49 2009-10-23 09:18:12
Larry, you and the readers turning into this blog might also note that he told the selectmen that he had already been in contact with a realtor and found a condo he could use. So, yeah, there's been some uh, outside open meeting discussions, at least that's how it sounds if you ask me.
Contestant #2 is the only one with experience even being a town administrator. You would think that anyone without town administration experience would not make it near the top three position.
McAulliffe had a large lawsuit going on from his Somerset job when they hired him. Then they go for this new guy. The strategy is obvious - find someone with a black mark hanging over their head who is going to be so happy you gave him a job that he'll be a good lackey and do whatever you say. It didn't work with McAulliffe, he apparently believed he was in the right regarding the suit and didn't allow the selectmen to hold it over his head in doing the right thing, and ultimately he did find another job after the selectmen did their midnight firing.
So, with this guy, I guess they want someone who can't really go anywhere else and will do as told. I wonder if even he really knows what he's getting himself into.
Offline
#50 2009-10-23 09:47:57
Don't fund the position until you are satisfied with the candidate.
Offline
#51 2009-10-23 09:51:10
Ham, When you compare this guy to McAuliffe you have to remember that McAulliffe actually disclosed the Somerset suit to the selectmen and the public at his public interview. He was very up front about it and never tried to hide it. That was a mark of professionalism that I admire. This guy tried to sweep it under the rug here and I beleive he tried to sweep it under the rug in Mattapoisett as well.
Offline
#52 2009-10-23 10:11:40
Were getting bottom of the barrel candidates because of our SELECTMEN and the laughing stock they have turned our town into!
One of the major points that the BOS use during a liquor license violation hearings is "we dont want someone leaving your establishment, getting into an accident and killing someone." This is part of their scolding process they deploy, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing. They all become very harsh towards the license violators and pour on the guilt, yet TWO OUI'S!! and its a mistake???
The TA has to do alot of the leg work involving these violations and I feel its a major responsibility of the position. For this candidate to be a part of this process would be like not paying your taxes and telling people to pay more...wait, yyeeeahh, anyway....
Time to do what every other normal town does, form a TA review committee and do some real research to fill this position. Our BOS's eyes are bigger than their stomachs and AGAIN they put to much on their plate AGAIN!
Last edited by wareham pride (2009-10-23 10:22:17)
Offline
#53 2009-10-23 10:50:38
We don't need any more proof that #3 hasn't changed his behavior than the fact that he didn't bring it up himself. Had he looked at Wareham square in the eye and said,"Sooner or later you will learn of a huge problem in my past history. When I was arrested for drunk driving for the second time in 2006 , I finally faced up to the severity of my drinking problem, thankfully before I hurt somebody. I joined AA, found religion, and I have had the support of a loving wife and wonderful children ever since, and I am proud to say that I have been sober for two years and 246 days."Had he made that kind of presentation the BOS might have been able to get away with it.
Far fetched? Remember GWB in 2000?
We all know that being open about it is an integral part of the recovery process. Candidate #3 is still in denial. It's sad and scary at the same time.We don't want him.
If the BOS were to shove him at us I can just about guarantee you that Walter Cruz would resign and join the rest of us in a protest march on town hall. Helll....even Bobo would march...He'd be with us for the first time on this one.
What worries me more is that the BOS will miss their own opportunity to turn this disgraceful mess into a victory by making an abject apology and announcing that they have decided to re-open the search, this time aided by a search committee comprised of people from town government, MWF, and TBW.
Dream on, Kayak Kook !
My guess is that they will make a very lame reference to "the problem", and then go on to say that Robert Cenavazzi has been their favorite all along, which is why they didn't dig as deeply into #3's past as they "probably " should have.
Last edited by Dick Wheeler (2009-10-23 10:53:40)
Offline
#54 2009-10-23 11:40:05
Ahhh, if only they thought enough about the future of this town to include every day citizens and not just cronies. We will continue the trend of "settling" for what we can get instead of pursuing top notch candidates. Do we really want this group of Selectmen calling the shots for us?
Offline
#55 2009-10-23 15:58:46
During one of the meetings I posted semi-recently, I recall Brucey all "high & mighty" on his stance against drunk driving. I can't remember right now which one, but he was very adament. It had to do with Liquor licensing, and previous offenses with one of the liquor stores in Town. Say one thing today, and another tomorrow. Cause for a day.
Oh, I'm guessing he's going the "I didn't know" route, or maybe the "He's in/done rehab and the public doesn't need to worry about it." I don't think this is just something to rule out this one candidate. You all (southern, for you Larry) are right. What hiring competency? Flush 'em.
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-23 16:09:20)
Offline
#56 2009-10-23 16:34:22
PS,
It's ya'll, not you all...geez, you have much to learn young patawan!
Just my personal opinion, the selectmen aren't hiring for the best candidate. They are looking for someone that will further their agenda. Hope that makes sense. So, maybe we should look into what Dan said? If we can Veto the Town Administrator's salary as a line item, we can send them the message we won't accept just any candidate they want.
Offline
#57 2009-10-23 16:52:46
LM: Yes Sensi, I prefer that to Master (nothing personal)
..and thanks for bringing up Dan's (another Sensi), great advice.
danoconnell wrote:
Don't fund the position until you are satisfied with the candidate.
Work it.
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-23 16:54:03)
Offline
#58 2009-10-23 18:08:07
This whole situation is regrettable on many levels.
First, the BOS made a error I believe in bringing this gentleman forward, and then they compounded it by giving the impression that it is not an issue, at least to them. And therein lies the proverbial "rub." One thing I learned in a long-note I do not say distinguished-career was that if you have an issue that will be viewed as a negative, then you bring it up, address it, and deal with it. If you lose, you lose, but you are far better off then letting someone else make the issue their own, as is the case here, or so it would seem. You don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight.
So, what to do? What the town needs is vision-technical skills yes-but vision above all. My suggestion, would be put together a search committee as has been suggested, and re-advertise the position, but get away from the idea that you need "x" number of years in order to qualify. I would go to the other end of the spectrum, and try to find a young energetic person who has some experience, but more then that can articulate a plan for our future, and that frankly includes a future which right now is a bit murky. And I would also make sure that we got a second in command that shared that vision. I think that one of John Sanguinet's problems was that he was overloaded, and we should not allow that to happen again.
Let me share something with you, just as a thought. There has been a good deal of consternation about "legal fees" in town, and last year the FinCom promised to try and rationalize the numbers, to start to probe deeper into the genesis if you will of where the expenses are coming from. For instance we now know, labor related legal expenses over the past three or four years have gone from 1% to about 15%. A fair question to ask would be, not only why, but are the expenses coming-perhaps-from one department, perhaps one person? There are some "ifs" here but isn't that what life is all about? Those are the kinds of questions that can and should be asked and to do that one needs intellectual skills and curiosity.
Take another example, we have a big yearly problem with snow and ice, why not consider paying contractors a flat annual fee. If it didn't snow, then the contractor makes out quite nicely, if it snowed everyday, well you made the deal.
Should we start to really work on improving our neighborhoods by vigorous code enforcement, offering incentives to people to spruce up their property, but be very firm in also enforcing edicts that improve the character of neighborhoods? Yes, do it or else-and the sound of the bulldozer could be heard in the background.
And to our young whippersnapper, I would say at the end of the year, "look you saved us $300,000, we are giving you a bonus of $50,000, and our thanks." And I would suggest opening bonus opportunities to all town employees.
The point that I am really trying to get across, is that we have to have people in place who look for options, people who can see the nuances, the shading and then once the facts are in, convey a sense of meaning.
Experience is a wonderful thing, it enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again. So, a nod to experience, but only that.
Offline
#59 2009-10-23 18:21:01
Mr. Paulsen,
You may be on to something. I know that with years of experience comes years of politics. With a "youngster", we may get someone who is actually bright and can look past the politics. We certainly need a visionary. The current state of the town is very dismal and not likely to improve in the short term. My only problem with the search committee is that we all know who will be picked for the search, and therein lies the problem. When will this group of Selectmen learn to trust the citizens who have experience in executive searches?
I learned a long time ago, the hiring authority dictates what you get more than anything else. if you consider who is making the decisions, you see the problem here.
Offline
#60 2009-10-23 19:53:16
THE PLOT OF BOOZEYGATE THICKENS!
BREAKING NEWS: Selectmen appear to be, are you ready for this? You should all be sitting down for this and should have a barf bag handy.
Ready? If Bobo's latest rantings are any indicator, then the selectmen are going to go with....
:::drumroll please::
THE - "WE WERE JUST TESTING HIM" DEFENSE!
Yes, feel free to go puke and then come back for the full analysis below:
MORE BREAKING NEWS!
Hamatron5000, Wareham's premiere investigator and exposer of selectman shenanigans is jeered by the Halifax Hobo - a sad state of affairs when Ham is jeered for shedding light on important information that the Hypocrite Elite was desperately hoping would never see the light of day.
A sad state of affairs when Ham gets jeered for exposing the Boozeygate scandal to the masses, while the selectmen get a free pass for trying to sweep yet another secret under Wareham's already overly lumpy rug.
Fear not, truthbloggers. Ham is unmoved by Bobo the Blowhard's Bagel Biting Bloviations! Nay, for when you are a truthblogger, a jeer from the Barracuda Boy is a badge of honor to wear proudly. Because if you're not pissing off the bad guys, then you're not being a good truthblogger.
Let's look at this sorry excuse for a jeer from this Sweet Brucey Stooge.
And grab a sandwich, because Bobo's jeer is a 10 pager, so it will take awhile:
Hamatron - We've gotten so used to his idiotic political rants that we usually just tune him out now. But his recent diatribe about one of the candidates for Wareham town administrator is so absurd and such an obvious attempt to distort the truth that we simply had to respond.
Ok, first, I demand to know who the "we" is when he says "we." Bobo, in America, under the Constitution, people have a right to face their accusers. I demand to know who the we is. From now on, spell out the names of the people who you are including in the "we." Are you saying this jeer reflects every individual listed on your paper's masthead? Either start spelling out who the "we" are, or be a normal person and start saying "I."
And where are you keeping the "we?" You have a Halifax bathroom office. It's just you and the old lady you pulled out of retirement. That's it. There's no "we." It's all you. Jesus, even Paul Shooter bailed on you. You can't even keep your fantasy friends happy.
And how dare you call Ham an idiot? That's not very good behavior for the Halifax Spokesman of the Mature and Responsible Debate Society now, is it?
In the jeers below this one we explain the issue we have with one of the candidates. Mark Andrews, the finance director for the city of Lawrence, was twice arrested for driving under the influence. This issue was reported in the Tri-Town Observer this summer after Andrews became one of the two finalists for the town administrator position in Mattapoisett. For Hamatron to title a post on a local web site as "Breaking News" about this issue is laughable.
OK, and this from the guy who calls other people elitists. This is really the brainless story you want to go with? Let me break it down for you then.
There are roughly, what? 20,000 people in Wareham? Of those people, a small percentage pays any attention at all to town politics. That small percentage of people are the only ones who pick up and read the local papers. Of that group, an even smaller group, a handful of people, bother to look beyond Wareham into what's going on in other communities. Most news readers pay only attention to their own town's news.
So let me see if I have your story straight. Because several months ago, a small blurb was printed in the ST and the Tri-Town rag about something that happened in Mattapoisett, you think that means that the people of Wareham were completely and properly informed about this matter?
I'm sorry but....::cough cough::: BULLSHIT!!! ::cough cough:::
It doesn't matter that it was reported on in Mattapoisett months ago. The selectmen and the local news media had a duty to inform Wareham residents of the troubling background of one of their TA candidates and they failed miserably in their duties. If it were not for this site, there is no doubt for me that the public at large would still be unaware.
Hamatron is now claiming the Observer is trying to downplay Andrews' past. That's absolute nonsense. We're the only local newspaper who even reported Andrews' history following his interview in Wareham on Tuesday. As you can see in the post below we jeered Andrews for failing to share his controversial past in his public interview.
You BOS toady, you only mentioned it after Ham threw it up on this site. And if you reported on it in the Tri-town, then why the hell didn't you inform the people of Wareham about this before the interview even took place?
Here are the facts. Andrews was twice arrested for driving under the influence. He was acquitted following one of the arrests. Andrews said the second arrest was "adjudicated."
Hamatron claims the Observer called Andrews' problems "a little mistake." That is an outright lie. As you can see below what we wrote (and it's in the print edition as well) is that if Andrews had acknowledged his past history we wouldn't have as much of a problem with his candidicy because everyone has made mistakes in their past. Nowhere did we say driving under the influence was a "little mistake." It is a very serious mistake. That's why is was especially important for Andrews to publicly explain the circumstances surrounding his arrests.
Oh my head. Bobo, you toolbag. Why, when there is so much facing this town, why are you wasting my time, your time, and the people of Wareham's time with your pathetic and childish word games?
Do you understand the concepts of parody and sarcasm? I'm sorry, if you didn't understand what I meant by the "little mistake" reference that you took way too literally because you're a dumbass, let me break it down for you.
There are two issues in this fiasco. 1) The coverup. 2) That the selectmen would be so incompetent as to allow this guy to make it to a final three interview in the first place.
The Coverup - Everyone, including this blogger, seems to be in agreement that Andrews should have brought this up in his interview. However, there is disagreement in that I and most rational people also believe the selectmen should have brought this to the public's attention instead of letting them find out on their own...while Bobo is being a good BOS boot licker and thinks the selectmen shouldn't have brought it up in the interview.
Whether this guy should have made it into the final three in the first place - I say no. I believe most rational people who care about this town say no. When there are so many people out without something like this on their record looking for work, I say no. He should have not made it to the final three.
I disagree with the idea that "oh, if he would have just admitted this mistake up front, there'd be no problem, blah blah blah." No, sorry, no dice. Even if he had admitted to it up front, I'd still have a big problem.
So, Bobo, you can play your little word games and point out you didn't write "little mistake," but try to grow a brain cell and realize that the point I was trying to make was that I disagree with your premise that had he just been up front about it, there would not have been a problem. I would have a problem with this guy's background, whether he was up front about it or not. The allegations are still serious and call his ability to be a top administrator into question.
Because Andrews failed to do so the Observer doesn't believe he is fit to serve as town administrator in Wareham. Clearly Andrews has the professional experience to excel in the position. He currently oversees a $250 million budget in Lawrence. Mattapoisett thought enough of him to make him one of its two finalists for the position.
Why aren't you pointing out that, according to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, he was asked to step down from Northern Essex Community College? It is distrubing that the selectmen sat back and allowed him to boast about his academia experience and did not call him out on this. They obviously were aware of the DUI issue, but apparently had no clue about him being asked to leave the college. That tells me the selectmen do not take their jobs very seriously.
The baffling thing about Hamatron's rant is that Andrews hasn't even been hired in Wareham yet.[ He's still just a candidate.
As I have said over and over, my gripe is that he even made it into the final three. A third candidate without something like this in their background should have been considered. And dumbass, when would you like me to complain about it? Should I wait till AFTER the guy is hired? So, if I don't think I guy should be hired, I should wait until AFTER he's hired to complain I don't think he should be hired. Wow, Bagel Biter Logic.
As one of his DUI arrests ended in acquittal that can't be held against him. In this country you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. But his other arrest resulted in something more. That can be held against him.
You can hold or not hold whatever you want in Halifax Bobo, we chumps down in Wareham will decide what we think is relavent to our town, thanks.
Should the selectmen even consider hiring a person as town administrator who once drove under the influence? That is a subjective question. Do people deserve a second chance after making a mistake, even one as serious as driving under the influence? Should Andrews be given such a responsible position after showing such poor judgment in the past? Those are legitimate questions, ones the Board of Selectmen have no doubt been wrestling over these past few weeks. Andrews clearly has the ability and background to do the job. That's why he has been a finalist for the town administrator's position in two towns in the past several months.
Please, "selectmen wrestling with these questions for the past few weeks" my ass. Watch the video. It was a mushy gushy smooch fest. Wait, Bobo, you admit they knew about this for weeks and they still have yet to tell the people of Wareham about this?
In the opinion of the Observer, Andrews' lack of transparency regarding his past is a biggest factor in all this. He clearly made a serious mistake when he drove under the influence. His decision not to share that information publicly makes us wonder if he realizes just how serious a mistake it actually was.
And the selectmen trying to sweep this under the rug makes the people of Wareham wonder if they realize how serious a mistake it was.
We expect people like Hamatron to oversimplify issues in order to smear people he doesn't like. The selectmen did, in fact, know about Andrews' personal history. We strongly suspect the board was shocked when Andrews didn't volunteer the information during his interview. Part of the interview may have been to see if Andrews would, in fact, offer the information voluntarily. If Andrews gets the position now we will be absolutely stunned.
The "it was a test" defense? The test defense. Bahhhh ha ha ha. I love it. Oh God, that's the best you could come up with? The selectmen tested the guy to see if he would bring up the DUI and he failed the test and they are disappointed him, is that the story? Watch that tape, people, there was nothing but lovey dovey love festivities going on, none of those selectmen look disappointed at all.
But we tire of Hamatrom distorting every single issue in his sad and relentless political attack against people he thinks have hurt his family. For him to suggest the Observer should contact Mothers Against Drunk Driving after he he made the false accusation that we labled Andrews' DUI arrest "a little mistake" is so far over-the-top, even for him, that he is now begining to appear unstable.
Since you have comprehension issues, I'll repeat my above point. I think you should sit down with MADD and explain to them that explaining up front about a mistake somehow doesn't make the mistake as bad. And it's also called a rhetorical device to have you consider whether even you believe your crap. Don't worry Bobo, no one actually expects you to call up MADD.
And Bobo, the thing about "hurting his family" is your same tired bullshit as always, just a red herring. He gets pissed off, he wants to lash out at people, he has no idea who Ham is, who any of the bloggers are, so he tries to falsely pin it on people he hates. As I have said many times and continue to say, Bobo the Clown, you have yet to come remotely close to guessing correctly as to who Ham is.
Sorry for the lengthy post, folks, but it takes a long time to clean up when Bobo drops a pile of horse manure this big.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-23 20:02:28)
Offline
#61 2009-10-23 20:13:33
I am HAMATRON5000!
Offline
#62 2009-10-23 20:21:50
I'm jealous...I've been written up and chastised, but I have never received a jeer. Darn you Ham, you are the best ever!
Offline
#63 2009-10-23 21:59:21
And who the hell is this bagel biting toilet monkey to complain about my use of "BREAKING NEWS?!" A blurb was printed three months ago in the Mattapoisett section of the Standard Times, and that is supposed to mean that it is not BREAKING NEWS! to the people of Wareham? What an elitist! Who does he think he is, the BREAKING NEWS! police?
BREAKING NEWS! Bobo is a D-bag!
Offline
#64 2009-10-23 22:05:23
Larry McDonald wrote:
I'm jealous...I've been written up and chastised, but I have never received a jeer. Darn you Ham, you are the best ever!
Larry, no doubt the Hypocrite Elite is pissed and out for vengeance because this blog put the kibosh on their plan to slip their top choice under the rug. Hell, I'm just the messenger and they shouldn't "shoot the messenger." This information was too readily available and was going to come out whether I put it up or not. If I hadn't someone else would have. The "Let's slip in the back door and hope everyone forgets how to Google" plan was not sound.
Bobo, Ham will start talking about Ham in the third person when you list the names of everyone you are including in your "we."
Offline
#65 2009-10-23 22:52:55
Think of it as a badge of honor. Ham, man of distinction! If only you would have made the 1000 free copy edition! I personally want to thank the Halifax Hack for the puppy pee papers! Well, not Bobo, but whoever foot the bill for the mass printing!
Offline
