#1 2009-10-29 09:05:16
I am deeply offended by our Selectmen's comments that town meeting isn't representative of the will of the people. Town meeting is an open meeting and every single voting member of this community is welcome and encouraged to attend. The fact that only a small number of people do, is sad. But that opportunity is given and if people choose not to come, then shame on them.
Why does Mr.Savageau think voting at the polls is any more representative? We have a population of somewhere between twenty two and twenty four thousand people, do we not, and in Wareham and voter turnout at the polls falls somewhere in between two and three thousand people. Is the will of two or three thousand people any more indicative of the wishes of twenty thousand? I think not.
Mr. Savageau, your Democratic committee members were making phone calls over the weekend. You were just as guilty at trying to get your "special interests" there to support Westfield. In fact, telling seniors that they would not have a place to live if they did not vote for Westfield. But, do you know what? They did come and they listened, and they voted against it. Several in the row sitting behind me commented that they had been led astray.
It's time to organize folks, really organize and revolt. This Board of Selectmen just don't get it. They want want they want, not what the community wants. We are being led by a Board of Selectmen who have not made good personal choices in their own personal lives, which is why they are where they are and having difficulties in their own lives. Don't let them make bad choices fo us.
Offline
#2 2009-10-29 09:42:50
Maturevoter, thank you for your wise words. In fact, the entire country has about the same turnout on most elections. Considering the population of the registered voters in this country, turnout is often very low unless there is a major crisis or war going on. Considering the voting population of the state, those elections also have considerably fewer people turning out to the polls. Does that mean we should toss out our very own beloved democracy at the national or state level? Of course not. Then why toss it out at the town level? Because they can? Too much power abuse if you ask me.
The people who turn out to vote will ALWAYS be the people who truly care about how the town, state, or country is run. To disregard the voice of the very people who care enough is criminal in my mind. Don't ever tell me that my vote doesn't count.
I haven't always won at the polls or at town meeting, but you don't see me stamping my foot, calling people names and trying to subvert the system. Instead, I will work towards change for the better. After all, that's the way it has been done in this country since the Revolutionary War.
Offline
#3 2009-10-29 10:00:42
mature: I have great respect for all of your posts. You are going to be a key to opening the door to a renewed Wareham. BUT....It would be a great mistake for us to make this local problem into a national party battle. I've said this before and I'll say it again: The Wareham DTC does not represent the values I vote for. We won't win in April if we seem to be having a R vs D battle. The WDTC has zero support in the higher reaches of the party. AND.....Bruce Sauvageau and Bobo are avowed republicans..The fact that the WDTC proudly call Sauvageau an "honorary" member and treat The Rag as their Bible is all you need as evidence that they do not support mainstream values any more than the "birthers" represent the mainstream values of republicans.
Offline
#4 2009-10-29 11:40:58
Before I get too wound up, I want to point out a few things.
So far, the only one quoted about the issue at hand is Bruce Sauvageau. There is no other Selectmen quoted in the article. Curious? Could this be on purpose? I think we need answers. Are the other Selectmen firmly behind Bruce's attack on Democracy? If they are not, it would be very smart of them to come out with a comment condemning his actions. If they are behind him, then they should step up to the plate and take some of the heat. This is not an issue where you can sit on the fence.
As far as the Wareham Pravda, it's interesting how many people do not read it and did not know until someone told them. If they wanted to get the word out to ALL, they would have gone through the Courier or the Standard Times. This is obviously another attempt to sell more "free political editorials".
Just something to consider amidst the other issues!
Offline
#5 2009-10-29 14:30:26
Take a look at the vote. Something like 261 to 204. I'd say that was a very split vote done in a very democratic way. Had it been an issue of stacking the meeting the vote would have looked more like 300 to165. The number of people who were there in support was almost the same as those who were there and did not support it. Bruce is just being a very sore loser.
Offline
#6 2009-10-29 15:45:09
Molly wrote:
..Does that mean we should toss out our very own beloved democracy at the national or state level? Of course not. Then why toss it out at the town level? Because they can? Too much power abuse if you ask me.
The people who turn out to vote will ALWAYS be the people who truly care about how the town, state, or country is run. To disregard the voice of the very people who care enough is criminal in my mind. Don't ever tell me that my vote doesn't count.
I haven't always won at the polls or at town meeting, but you don't see me stamping my foot, calling people names and trying to subvert the system. Instead, I will work towards change for the better. After all, that's the way it has been done in this country since the Revolutionary War.
Wise words Molly (is your last name Ringwald?)
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Offline
#7 2009-10-29 16:35:30
Larry McDonald wrote:
Before I get too wound up, I want to point out a few things.
So far, the only one quoted about the issue at hand is Bruce Sauvageau. There is no other Selectmen quoted in the article. Curious? Could this be on purpose? I think we need answers. Are the other Selectmen firmly behind Bruce's attack on Democracy? If they are not, it would be very smart of them to come out with a comment condemning his actions. If they are behind him, then they should step up to the plate and take some of the heat. This is not an issue where you can sit on the fence.
As far as the Wareham Pravda, it's interesting how many people do not read it and did not know until someone told them. If they wanted to get the word out to ALL, they would have gone through the Courier or the Standard Times. This is obviously another attempt to sell more "free political editorials".
Just something to consider amidst the other issues!
I also see only Bruce's name and his remarks. If they were not truly from his mouth, Slager would have been dragged into court on a temporary cease & desist order or whatever it may be called. He would have called Steve Urban for a true report of how he felt and would deny Slager's reporting.
I am not accusing anyone of anything. But, there was (jokingly) talk about who paid for the ink for the extra papers, Bruce would be able to sell insurance to all the seniors at Westfield, etc.. In reality, I wonder if there would be jobs coming forth for a manager position or office staff after Westfield is built. Bay Pointe is private. Civil Service is not going to allow them to put in whoever they want as Chief. I know they aleady have someone for the job - I just feel it.
Wouldn't it be nice if all that Slager has quoted as Bruce saying, is just an evil comeback for all the "rags" that were "stolen" prank. We can only hope.
Offline
#9 2009-10-29 17:09:46
Born, you are right on when you say "I know they aleady have someone for the job - I just feel it." I was about town today and overheard a conversation between two long time residents. One was obviously a selectmen supporter and the other seemed to be non-commital. The selectmen supporter was describing how they wanted the civil service article because Stanley was retiring soon from his real job. This guy was saying they want to be able to put him in as chief. While Stanley may have some qualities, I think the jury is still out on that, he is definately a selectmen lackey.
Offline
#10 2009-10-29 18:16:40
PShooter wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and it might not mean $#it) but I think it was Andrea Smith's name at the bottom of "that" article.
How 'bout that?
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
In small letters Andrea Smith's name was written under the article with smaller letters that said "2 Quotes".
Offline
#11 2009-10-29 19:34:31
rukidding,
If you truly mean "retirement", then he would only be allowed to work 19 hours a week. Retirement would mean filing papers with the Essex County Retirement Board, and collecting retirement pay. That would trigger restrictions on future public employment, the primary one being a limit of 960 hours per year (19 hours per week) in a public position. There are penalties for exceeding the limit.
A more likely scenario: simply resign from N. Andover, and take the Wareham position, then switch the retirement issue to Plymouth County. No restrictions, and the retirement pot keeps growing.
this might make sense if you were looking to live in the area when you actually do retire. After all, Buzzard's Bay, South Coast, Cuttyhunk, and that other place....oh yeah! Cape Cod. Wouldn't a job in Wareham for a few years make for nice transition?
Last edited by notalawyer (2009-10-29 19:35:18)
Offline
#12 2009-10-29 19:56:23
RU KIDDING A selectman lackey ? Are you kidding.? I don't know how they found him but he has done more to help that dept. and raise moral in two months than Joyce did to bring it down for 20years. When did Joyce go to selectman's meeting and give them the run down on the situation? NEVER! He knows his job and he is not afraid to do what needs to be done. Anyone who saw his power point presentation had to be impressed. The officers showing up to support him speaks volumes. They did that on their own free time. Supporting him after working for him for only a few months. Impressive. He's what this town needs. LEADERSHIP!!!!
Offline
#13 2009-10-29 20:11:21
big John
I don't know how much support the interum chief has among the force. I have not heard any real negative things aginst him . but are you saying that even though he currently works under Civle service he could not apply for the wareham position. I tend to agree he does not seem to be a selectman lacky. He has done some superfical changes that are very visible but what has he done behind the seans that really count. Is the union behind him if not what are there problems? There are a lot of questions????
Offline
#14 2009-10-29 20:21:50
Big John, Does Wareham need/deserve a full time chief? Even discussions on this site the night he gave his presentation showed we liked and appreciated what was presented. The changes being implemented and proposed all sounded great. He seems efficient and able to be a good leader, in my opinion.
But...He's the full time chief in North Andover, drives a cruiser, isn't near enough, I believe he said he clearly consider's North Andover to take priority over Wareham. He has to be making a significant salary/benefits. I'd like a chief who's nearby when the "big stuff" comes up.
Because he is "interim", and a Chief under civil service (I believe) could not have been removed had Article 5 passed. I believe, him voicing his support, regardless of his past experience in dealing with the issue, was inappropriate. I suppose as a courtesy, allowing him to say his piece is fine, and the body still soundly defeated the Article. I know for me, my opposition of Article 5 was in part, a personal attempt to give support to the police officer's in Wareham. I would say everyone I've ever read or spoken with through here has shown alot of support for the Wareham police. In fact my old geezer buddy DanOHamatron comes to mind (even the old fella's deserve some appreciation), and he would never allow it to be otherwise. He need not worry, we're behind them (or you) if it applies a hunnert percent.
Hope you don't mind me tossing in my two bits..
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-29 20:24:14)
Offline
#15 2009-10-30 11:41:30
Posted this in the wrong thread,
From the Moderator at the MWF meeting, Ellen Begley
Westfield lost because of a 'scratch my back I'll scratch yours' plan with Bay Point. The behavior of some at TM was disgraceful: demonstrating the lack of civility and respect of many. For those that are rightly concerned about the appalling state of Agawam Village: Susan Gifford has office hours in Wareham tomorrow. I would expect 261 people will be there asking HER what she has done to secure funding for renovations.
Does this sound like the company line? I have asked her to clarify her statement or provide proof. She has yet to reply. Again, Ellen Begley has been the first to jump to Slager's "call of duty". First the letter to the editory over the OVM situation and then she wrote to Susan Gifford. I think we can see the agenda here. MWF is actually, "Mover over Wareham, Selectmen agenda coming through!"
Offline
