I agree with Bill W. A group of you should go to the DA's office and sit and wait until he sees you. Then tell him to do his job and investigate anything BoBo has said and demand that he require him to release the names. If he doesn't, let him know his days are numbered too. He's a public servant...get off his ass and do his job.
BoBo had better produce this time or I see him in jail.

Dan,
I think it is best to ignore Slager. He craves attention, that much is clear. So much of what he has written about or had his flunkie Andrea Smith write about is based in opinion or twisted lies around a smidge of truth. His business is very much in decline. He has lost his office, and his audience has shrunk to a few lost souls (Ellen Begley, are you listening?). He provides no documented evidence (are you surprised?) and paints a sinister picture that includes threats to his life. Get serious! He is just trying to sell more copies so he can pay his overdue bills.

Let's just concentrate on what is important and let numbnuts rave about the "end of the world". The elected officials and their blunders should be our focus.

Last night, here, I read about Bobo & his hateful reporting about the library tax evaders and Mrs. Pillsbury.  Disgusting.   Late last night, I read on southcoasttoday.com of the Labor Board siding with the union - against the Wareham BOS.  Going to cost us a little in back pay, I believe, but what is right is right.    Today-front page news.  DA asked to investigate E.S. as secret meetings in Wareham.  Wow.  I knew Steve Urban would come thru.  I was also a little disappointed that it wasn't spread to previous meetings, not about hiring a new TA, but all their private social teas.   I think she is going to concentrate on one thing at a time.  My opinion.  I think I would do the same thing - hone in on one thing first.  Once a finding is determined, then she can proceed on the other illegal E.S.         I started only a short time ago, on this site.  Does anyone have all of the taped meetings where they took illegal E.S.'s on tape/video.  Can they all be put together to produce to the AG or the DA's office?  What about other issues,  the library and the total mess caused by budget cuts, the trustees - total library business.  How about both Bliss's stories in order.  We need to have all the facts about each separate problem, including town meeting.  I would hold off a few weeks and then let the DA or AG's offices be bombarded.  As many duplicate complaints signed by the voters and residents of town.  Everything in order.  Can we do that?

Good morning,

the article by Steve U. in the S-T, and the one posted this AM in the Courier make an interesting pairing.

first, the S-T states quite clearly that the deliberations for the selection and vote for the Tn Adm be in OPEN session. And yet the Courier article states with equal clarity, that Brucie and the Gang of Four voted to go BACK into Exc session to deliberate & vote on the new TA (this is the way I heard it as well); an ES which was convened in direct disregard for the specific procedure delineated in the Law. the procedure was accurately described in the S-T article.

Second. The DA, like it or not, is the person specified inthe law as the one to enforce the law. The S-T seems to have the ball rolling there.

Third. An omnibus complaint covering many meetings will not likely do the job. Here's what might, and in fact it dovetails with the S-T. Draft a formal complaint regarding Tuesday, November 3, 2009, and ONLY that date. Have it signed by TEN (10) taxpayers, at least,as specified in the law. Give the DA as much FACTUAL detail as possible regarding the events of the evening, starting with the posted agenda, the ES being convened at 6:30, not after the opening of the meeting in open session, the topic of discussion as stated by the Chaiman in open session, etc. And submit.
This might be the equivalent of a "double-down" in blackjack.

Fourth, If you want to submit complaints about prior violations, do each one individually, and in the manner described above. The DA may choose to lump them into a single, overall complaint, and that's OK. But, the submission of multiple complaints regarding repeated violations will have the best chance of getting their attention, and perhaps even action.


The Town of Plymouth took several weeks, but the BoS has voted for a Town Manager. IN OPEN SESSIONS. Their initial votes were 3-1, and their votes were discussed IN OPEN SESSIONS. In the final OPEN session last Tuesday, there was more discussion, and after some time, a final vote of 4-0 for their new TM. All of it in OPEN SESSIONS. And, there were comments in the press regarding some of the votes by some members of the BoS. Imagine!

You might want to contrast the Plymouth experience v. Wareham's, point-by-annoying-point. And keep in mind as you do, the two newspaper articles cited above.

When is that election day, again?

bbrady wrote:

Does anyone uphold the laws anymore ?

The ability to circumvent them appears to be what they're looking for in their hiring process(es)..

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

NAL wrote:

An omnibus complaint covering many meetings will not likely do the job. Here's what might, and in fact it dovetails with the S-T. Draft a formal complaint regarding Tuesday, November 3, 2009, and ONLY that date. Have it signed by TEN (10) taxpayers, at least,as specified in the law. Give the DA as much FACTUAL detail as possible regarding the events of the evening, starting with the posted agenda, the ES being convened at 6:30, not after the opening of the meeting in open session, the topic of discussion as stated by the Chaiman in open session, etc. And submit.
This might be the equivalent of a "double-down" in blackjack.

If you want to submit complaints about prior violations, do each one individually, and in the manner described above. The DA may choose to lump them into a single, overall complaint, and that's OK. But, the submission of multiple complaints regarding repeated violations will have the best chance of getting their attention, and perhaps even action.

PShooter wrote:

I called and ended up having to leave a message for a Mr. Flanagan..hopefully he's better at returning phone calls than our "leader's" are...

Please, fellow "bloggers" make the call..make the call..

I got a call back..and NAL is totally right. Complaints need to be made for each violation seperately..only thing different than what you wrote is, it doesn't matter if it's one of us or 20 of us. If it warrants looking into, and is carefully explained with as much possible detail/supporting evidence then they'll check it out. Any complaint needs to be written, signed and either mailed (check Bill's link above for address) or faxed to the attn: of Mary Lee, Asst. DA @ 508-586-3578. The person I spoke with is Tom Flanagan.


P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Last edited by PShooter (2009-11-05 16:36:20)

sorry, but please indulge me for two more things.

1. time is of the essence, as the lawyers like to say. In this case, the S-T has made contact and gotten a response. NOW is the time to piggyback on that. The DA's people have been alerted, but they need the push from CITIZENS. Yes, they are no doubt smart enough to play nice with a newspaper that is big in the voting district (Plymouth County), but they should be even more responsive to people who, ya know, VOTE. And, people who take the time to complain about open meeting violations most likely are voters.

2. Read carefully the article by Steve U. The response from the DA's office was to our close personal friends at which law firm? If you guessed K & P, then you get a gold star for following the bouncing ball.

But (yeah, it still follows, wherever I go), in effect then, Plymouth County DA has responded to the S-T complaint about open meeting law violations to the ones accused of the violations, through, their own private attorneys. What's that, the TAXPAYERS foot the bill for K & P? True. So, who among you got a phone call from the K & P attorneys seeking your input on how this complaint regarding these violations should be handled?

BillW?  DanO?  LarryM? DickW?  Anyone?

Let's try another group: Brucie? Brenda? Janie? Cronie? iTA?

guess wrong, and you have to give up the gold star. sorry 'bout that.

All the more reason to strike now. At this point, its a cozy conversation between and among lawyers (and one who aspires to become one). those annoying taxpayers, citizens, voters are OUT OF THE LOOP. Just the way K & P and the BoS like it,as the billable hours are racked up.

the only way to get in the game is to GET IN THE GAME. Otherwise, you can virtually write the forthcoming report after the lawyers determine they have milked this one to the max.

Say a good Act of Contrition, 3 Hail Mary's and two Our Father's.
Go, and sin no more....

Yeah, right.

Not to throw water on this party, but I am lead to believe the violations of Open Meeting law do not carry any substantial penalty. In fact, it is more of a Slap...don't do that again type thing. So, if they are found guilty of violating Open Meeting law 20 times, they would still be sitting in those seats flaunting the fact they got away with it 20 times...Please correct me if I am wrong.

LarryM makes a good point as always. It is a political situation, first & foremost, and the DA is going to take that into account. So:

"...the DA may also seek to enforce the Law by directing governmental bodies in appropriate circumstances to comply fully with provisions of the Law inthe future."

Translation: go & sin no more.

This is from "Open Meeting Law Guidelines" from the mass.gov website.

But under Other Relief, the guidelines note that a court "may enter an order invalidating any action taken at any meeting in which the Law has been violated, provided the complaint is filed within 21 days of the date the action is made public."

Further: "Such order may also include a civil fine against the governmental body in an amount no greater than one thousand dollars for each meeting held in violation of this section."

Unfortunately: " ...it is not necessary to reprimand a governmental body which has admitted to violations of the Open Meeting Law, when the governmental body subsequently took appropriate action to correct those violations."

So, here's my take. Within 21 days of the BoS announcing a decision which was arrived at within a meeting which violates the Open Meeting Law, "three of more registered voters" may bring suit to enforce the Open Meeting Law by filing a complaint in the Superior Court or the Supreme Judicial Court.  "Such a suit is to be heard with a shortened notice period of 10 days, and to be determined in speedy fashion".

Or, there is the DA.

So, there are real consquences, including the voiding of decisions, in the available remedies. But even if there is merely a slap on the wrist, is it not prime fodder for a political campaign which might take place in, say, April, 2010?

Candidates' night, late winter 2010: Sweet Brucie, the Plymouth County DA has found that the BoS repeatedly violated the Open Meeting law. Why should the voters of the Town of Wareham place their trust in an individual who espouses secrecy & back room dealings, rather than being open and honest with the citizens/voters/taxpayers?

It is a hard question to duck.

from the internet: K & P on executive sessions, in their own words

http://www.k-plaw.com/pdf/2009-03-12/op … -sheet.pdf

Two items stand out:

1. Procedures for Convening Executive Session. Would K & P not advise their client BoS of the correct procedure?

2. Rights of Individuals. ibid

Can you say, Arrogance?

from the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA):

http://www.mma.org/municipal-government … ting-rules

In this article, there is a reference to a law passed the past July consolidating ethics laws and open meeting laws. It is effective on July 1, 2010 (Damn!) And regulatory & enforcement authority passes to the State Attorney General! (double Damn!)

It will be (I'm not making this up): the Office of Open Government.

Wow! could it be? a whole new career for the one, the only (just ask him):
BRUCIE! Woo-Hoo! Who knows more about the ins and, of course, OUTS of the Open Meeting Law?

The article also notes that all government employees are to complete a training program between 10/1/2009 and the first of the year. For purposes of this law, are members of the BoS considered employees? Any training programs been scheduled, perhaps featuring everyone's all time favorites from K & P?

You know, the Town Clerk droned on, when not tripping over her own words, about something  -  was it this new law? I confess to tuning out during her show, er presentation.

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-11-06 11:01:42)

billw wrote:

notalawyer wrote:

from the internet: K & P on executive sessions, in their own words

http://www.k-plaw.com/pdf/2009-03-12/op … -sheet.pdf

Two items stand out:

Truth is, only one item stands out.

K & P purged the file in microseconds.

Hope you kept a copy.

Ahhhh, the joys of case-sensitive web servers.  Link

billw wrote:

notalawyer wrote:

Two items stand out:

Truth is, only one item stands out.

K & P purged the file in microseconds..

Hope you kept a copy.

hmmmm...How do you like that? Snakes aren't stupid. Nice catch Cas, Bill, NAL.

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Last edited by PShooter (2009-11-06 11:39:38)