#1 2009-11-13 09:04:49
The settlement document for the recent litigation is in the public domain as Civil Action No. 07-11807-RGS. I received a copy of the settlement document from our lawyer quite some time ago. You can imagine my surprise when I recently read in the local tabloid a comment by the Chair of the Board of Selectmen. I also heard Mr. Cronan at the last meeting claim that the library people were not keeping up their part of the bargain. Perhaps this current BoS did not bother to read the document even though they agreed to all aspects of it after 10 hours of mediation in the federal courtroom of Magistrate Judge Sorokin. Or, perhaps K and P (Atty. Randazzo) never forwarded a copy of the settlement to the BoS, their clients. For whatever reason, you can read the truth for yourself.
Here is what the Chairman said in the tabloid "According to Bruce Sauvageau, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, the former trustees were also supposed to turn over all their financial records to the town. He said that has not occurred.
“I believe they have stated they would not transfer that money until there is a signed agreement between the parties,” Sauvageau said. “They have added a particular requirement in that agreement that wasn’t part of the initial settlement. They're trying to craft an agreement outside of the scope of what we agreed on. They don’t have the legal authority to do that.”
Sauvageau said the trustees have no reason to withhold the transfer."
Here is the settlement. Notice that NO WHERE does it say we are supposed to turn over all our financial records. Mr. Sauvageau should read the settlement. Further, the issue was never discussed as part of the mediation during the 10 hours. Also, no library party has added any "requirements" to the agreement that was crafted by our lawyers and signed by all but K and P. I assume the agreement has not been read by the BoS either. I have a copy of that as well. Here it is:
THE COURT: This is Magistrate Judge Sorokin. We’ve just finished the mediation in Wareham Free Library, et al v. Town of Wareham, 07CV11807. We don’t have the members of the Board of Selectmen because one by one they had some commitments, and I let them go and the last ones left but after the issues with the town were resolved. So while the - what I’m about to say is subject to two, the agreement I’m about to describe is subject to two caveats. The first caveat is that 0 on behalf of the town it has to be formally approved by the 1 Board of Selectmen and while counsel expects – (inaudible - 12 #6:41:29) - with that it’s not done until it’s formally approved.
And the second caveat is the plaintiffs requested, and I agree it makes sense and the other parties are content with that, that till the end of close of business tomorrow to decide which of two options to accept that I’m going to describe. And plaintiffs’ counsel will call, he’ll call the other counsel and let him know as to which option you’ve taken and, Mr. Gallitano, I’ll designate you to contact me once that’s done to let me know it’s settled and which of the two options.
The terms of the settlement are as follows. The Library Corporation will be dissolved with the execution of the agreement if it’s a global settlement and if it’s a, the declaratory judgment action is preserved, it’ll be dissolved once the declaratory judgment action is finally resolved, but all other terms I’m about to describe will be the same either way. The Town of Wareham Library trustees will be appointed pursuant to the town charter which everyone understands at the present moment would be by the Board of Selectmen.
The monies that are held by the present, for lack of a better term, plaintiffs, the library trustees as well as the funds that are in the foundation will remain with the foundation except that the plaintiffs will issue a check or checks in the amount of $50,000 to an account designated by the defendants to the, under the control of the library, the new library trustees appointed by the town for purposes of library trustees and the manager of the public library.
The foundation will amend its bylaws to provide that all of the present money that it has after disclosing the $50,000 will be earmarked or used solely for the purposes of the public library of Wareham which is presently understood to mean the one existing library in Wareham that’s a public library. If in the future the Spinney Library becomes a library of the town of Wareham, a public library under the jurisdiction of the trustees, the town’s library trustees, or any other branches ever opened at any time in the future as a library, then those funds that are earmarked for the public library of Wareham can be used for not only the named branch but these other branch or branches. But until such time those funds cannot be.
The $75,000 with the Friends stays with the Friends.
The future donations will work as follows, any donations to the foundation will be to the foundation for its use and purposes for any purpose that it wishes consistent with the intent of the donor. The, if there are donations to the Wareham Free Library or the Trustees of the Wareham Library or the like, whenever the will was written, those donations that are received after today I suppose will be for the Trustees of the Public Library appointed pursuant to the town charter.
The Foundation, as is obvious I think, will have no formal advisory authority with respect to the library. And the attorneys’ fees of the plaintiffs will be resolved in the following fashion; either the plaintiffs will accept a $40,000 payment from the defendants toward their attorneys’ fees in which case this is a global resolution of all claims of the parties or they will decline to accept any funds from the defendants in settlement of attorneys’ fees, in which case this is a settlement of all claims and parties accept a third party claim against MIIA, in which case that declaratory judgment action will proceed to its normal resolution and all the rest of the case and parties with all the other claims are settled. They’ll be releases and stipulations of dismissal with prejudice of all the claims and releases of all the parties either globally if plaintiffs elect the global resolution or in all regards except with respect to the declaratory judgment action between those parties to the declaratory judgment action if they elect that option. And plaintiffs will,plaintiffs’ counsel will let all other counsel know as to what they’re going to do by close of business tomorrow?
MR. BEAUREGARD: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Gallitano, then if you’ll then if you let me know by the next day what resolution was reached, I will then advise Judge Stearns to do one of two things. If it’s a global resolution, issue a 60-day settlement order of dismissal with respect to everything, or issue a 60-day settlement order of dismissal with respect to everything other than the third party complaint against MIA.
Yes?
MR. BEAUREGARD: Just two quick small points. The formal approval of the Board of Selectmen will be forthcoming I take it by the end of tomorrow?
MR. MONTGOMERY: They do have a scheduled meeting tomorrow, we’re going to do I best. I don’t think it’s going to be a problem though.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Okay.
THE COURT: That’s why I said 60 days--
MR. MONTGOMERY: We had all five of them here and they’re all on board.
THE COURT: If some reason it took time, then and if 1 it unwound it would be within 60 days under the settlement. I don’t expect any issues, but if there are I’m happy to see everybody here.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well the expectation is that they know everything and that it’s not unwinding. We--
THE COURT: Right.
MR. BEAUREGARD: We’re relying on the fact that this-
THE COURT: Yeah, no I’m not expecting it to unwind either. MR. BEAUREGARD: Okay. And the second thing is when we talked about the funds that would come into the foundation in the future, the earmark does not apply to those.
THE COURT: No. The funds that come to the foundation, the earmark applies to those funds that were done issuing as now.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE COURT: And anything that comes into the foundation is for whatever the foundation chooses on its own discretion or in negotiation with whoever gave the money.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Exactly.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Your Honor, has this been – are we live?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Okay. So in the event notwithstanding all our note taking there is any--
THE COURT: You can order a transcript.
MR. BEAUREGARD: --disagreement we can order--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BEAUREGARD: --a transcript of--
THE COURT: Call Ms. Simeone and she can get a transcript.
All right, everybody who is counsel agree that those are the terms of the settlement to the extent that it’s fully executed and not to the extent it’s not?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Agreed, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. RANDAZZO: Agreed, Your Honor.
MR. MARAVELIS: Agreed, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BEAUREGARD: Agreed.
MR. GALLITANO: Agreed for the Friends.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. MARAVELIS: Your Honor, just for the record can we agree that Mr. Beauregard will either, will let me know tomorrow by the close of business.
MR. BEAUREGARD: I will call you.
MR. MARAVELIS: Right.
MR. BEAUREGARD: You can be sure.
MR. MARAVELIS: Thank you.
CERTIFICATION 1
I, Maryann V. Young, court approved transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official digital sound recording of the proceedings in the
above-entitled matter.
/s/ Maryann V. Young September 11, 2009
Offline
#2 2009-11-13 09:14:26
I am writing this as as separate posting. I have been accused of lying about the documents that need to be signed. After August 3, when mediation was finished, the case was done. I said before that even though the BoS and Slager claimed that it was not finished until a document was signed, the mediation was in no way contingent upon a document. The case was finished when the above statement was read into the record on August 3rd. The 60 days passed and now we are working on the release document.
The document that we are waiting for K and P to sign now, is done AFTER a case is dismissed and it releases the parties. It also sets a time limit on when the parties comply with the settlement such as the transfer of money to the town's trust and the payment from the town's insurance company to our lawyer. The only person who has tried to add something to the settlement in this document is Atty. Randazzo from K and P. I have emails that prove that.
You might find it interesting to note that on day 57, our lawyers called us to say that they heard from the town's attorney and he said that his clients wanted him to pass along the message that if the library parties were willing to give an extra $25,000 for a "climate control unit" for the preservation of historical records, the BoS would let the 60 days run out. Two other library party members, myself and two lawyers participated in this conference call. We were utterly shocked at this last minute attempt to get more money out of the library parties when the settlement had been finalized 57 days prior. Some people might even call this extortion. Obviously, we declined. The 60 days ran out. Case closed.
Offline
#3 2009-11-13 10:02:36
Nora Bicki wrote:
Civil Action No. 07-11807-RGS
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bz … ZmQ4&hl=en
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Offline
#4 2009-11-13 11:55:15
Good for you Nora.
The shame is that you went to Court at all.
I will always say, as you know, keep government out of the Library business.
This is a prime example why, and one has to wonder when and who the BOS are going to appoint as Trustees.
Has anyone been appointed yet. The case seems to indicate the BOS where anxious to appoint new Trustees and just move on with life.
It is shame you had to go through that and what you are going through now.
I think I speak for many people when I thank you for your posts and information, and for your service to Wareham.
Offline
#5 2009-11-13 13:00:50
Interesting point Dan. The trustees have not been appointed yet. At the last BoS meeting, they said they would be appointing a 9 member board of trustees. I am sure they will stagger the appointments as all "new" boards should be so that their terms don't all expire at the same time. That way there is experience and continuity on the board.
We had to wait for the 60 days to run out for the case to be totally dismissed from the courts. Now we are waiting for K and P to sign the release documents. In it, is the clause that states we have 30 days to turn over the $50,000. By the way, the first week of August a check for $50,000 was deposited in the lawyer's escrow account and he is just waiting for this final phase to make the check out to the town. He is also waiting to be paid by the town's insurance company who also has 30 days to pay up when the forms are signed.
Here again, I speak only for myself. After what we saw happen with the housing trust fund where the BoS spent over $30,000 in trust fund money INSTEAD of appointing trustees who have the sole authority for spending those trust funds, and after they spent more than the 10% allowed of the total on consultants, in my opinion, I would be hesitant to turn over any money to a Library Trust Fund without a Library Board of Trustees in place. Again, let me reiterate, this is just my and my opinion alone. I am not speaking for anyone else when I say I am a bit distrustful of this BoS's handling of trust fund money.
Offline
#6 2009-11-13 13:06:07
Nora Bicki wrote:
Here again, I speak only for myself. After what we saw happen with the housing trust fund where the BoS spent over $30,000 in trust fund money INSTEAD of appointing trustees who have the sole authority for spending those trust funds, and after they spent more than the 10% allowed of the total on consultants, in my opinion, I would be hesitant to turn over any money to a Library Trust Fund without a Library Board of Trustees in place. Again, let me reiterate, this is just my and my opinion alone. I am not speaking for anyone else when I say I am a bit distrustful of this BoS's handling of trust fund money.
You might be saying it for yourself..but it pretty much says how I feel as well..
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Offline
#7 2009-11-13 13:52:15
NORA THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK
Offline
#8 2009-11-16 07:52:02
This is what I don't understand. Our highest elected official, the Chair of the Bos, was quoted in a local tabloid as saying the library trustees are violating the terms of the mediation agreement by not handing over their financial records. I cut and pasted the settlement, and furthermore on this thread, the original settlement was also posted (just in case anyone thought I was "fabricating" the story!!) There is no mention of turning over financial records in said agreement. That's a FACT!!!!
Did anyone see a retraction anywhere? Did anyone see ANY of the local papers covering this? Why does Sauvageau get to disparage the former trustees with a "flat out lie" and get away with it? Anyone reading said tabloid, who doesn't read this blog, will believe that story is true. That is simply not fair to the trustees. Mr. Sauvageau should apologize to the former trustees at the next BoS meeting. (I won't waste my time asking for a retraction in the tabloid!)
This is very frustrating to me and I'm sure to the former trustees who have done everything according to the law. All three library parties are waiting for K and P to sign the release agreement. None of the library entities are adding anything to that document as claimed by Sauvageau either. Why does he get to tell "flat out lies"??? When the release agreement is signed, Attorney Beauragard will send the town the $50,000 settlement which has been sitting in his escrow account since early August. According to the release agreement, the former trustees will have 30 days to comply. The longer it takes for K and P to sign the form, the longer it will take for the new library trust fund to get the money. The BoS should appoint new trustees asap.
(By the way, the K and P attorney added sections to the release agreement that simply "copy" lines from the settlement transcript. Our lawyers didn't see any need to quote some sections since the whole transcript is attached as part of the agreement. My take on it?? K and P gets to bill extra hours with this back and forth between the lawyers. Taxpayer dollars anyone????)
WHY ISN'T THIS NEWS IN ANY LOCAL PAPERS?? WHY DO WE ALLOW FLAT OUT LIES TO BE PERPETRATED WHEN THE TRUTH IS AVAILABLE???
1. The BoS ordered Municipal Maintenance to trespass onto private property at the Spinney site and deface the sign (see that thread on this blog). A police report was filed. Jane Donahue admits to this is her deposition. Nothing in any newspaper.
2. The BoS claim we are not following the settlement agreement (see above). The public document settlement agreement is clear. Nothing in any newspaper.
3. The Bos tried to get the library parties to pony up an extra $25,000 after the settlement agreement was final which, in some people's opinion might be considered extortion (see the settlement thread). It can be proven with a few phone calls since 2 attorneys in addition to the town's attorney and three reps from the library parties were involved. Nothing in any newspaper.
WHY ISN'T THIS BEING INVESTIGATED BY LOCAL MEDIA????????????? Instead we get deluged with a phony embezzlement scheme. The truth is the BoS and their lawyers had every chance to examine the financial documents as part of the case. I have copies of the depositions. Some of those documents were introduced into evidence as part of the depositions. So excuse me if I am perplexed as to the current obsession with these records. The BoS members who were deposed claimed either outright they never read any documents relating to the case, or they had "no intention" of reading the financial documents or they let their attorneys deal with all of that. It is not the library parties' fault if the documents were made available and the town reps chose NOT to look at or examine them!!
I agree with others that these current allegations about the library is simply an attempt to get financial records that had been completely available to them since August 2007 when all records were in the custody of the library entities' attorneys and the town's attorneys were invited to the library attorneys' office to review all documents. Not surprisingly, the town's attorneys declined and instead a counter suit was filed against the Trustees, Friends and Foundation. The rest is history.
The BoS and the local tabloid are in no way interested in "healing" any animosity it has with the library, especially not now that the TRUTH has been revealed. I absolutely believe that the former trustees would have won their first amendment case that claimed the dismissal of the trustees was based on a vendetta by the BoS that began with Mary Jane Pillsbury and continues to this day. You don't need ANY of the local media to see that is the case.
Offline
#9 2009-11-16 08:02:24
I hope I have the privilege of meeting you some day, Nora.
I always enjoy being in the company of people who have dedicated their lives to improve their community without any expectation of anything except the good of the Town of Wareham.
Thank you again for your service, and we all apologize for the way you have been treated by people who fall far below the rung of respect that you hold.
Offline
#10 2009-11-16 11:19:06
IT BAFFLES ME THAT THE OTHER NEWSPAPERS DONT COVER THIS STORY PROPERLY AND I AM SURE IT IS DISOURAGING, SLAGER PAPER LIES ALL THE TIME , WE ALL KNOW IT AND HE WORKS HAND IN HAND WITH THIS COURUPT BOARD OF SELECTMAN , WE NEED TO KICK THESE CRROKS OUT IN APRIL , BOT WE CANT BEAT THEM WITH NOBODY AND I HOPE WE WILL HAVE GOOD SELECTMAN CANDITATES ,AND SLAGER LIES SO MUCH , WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE TRUTH , WHAT IS UP WITH THIS CLOWN.
Offline
#11 2009-11-16 11:23:35
Everyone, let's try a new breathing technique! Okay..ready????
Breathe....IN with jesus.....OUT with satan......come on folks.....all together....let's have a positive week!!!!
Offline
#12 2009-11-16 14:13:37
Larry,
I'm sure you don't mean to be patronizing. But while you were accused wrongly of keeping a few elderly from receiving the tabloid newspaper, by my very connection with the Friends and the Trustees from 1995-2005, I have been implicated in this embezzlement scheme.
According to the tabloid writer (and yes, I am attributing these words to him from his online article posted Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009 at 10:52 am) "The remaining amount [of embezzled money] was then split evenly between Pillsbury and the board of library trustees and the Friends of the Wareham Free Library."
I have every right to be livid over these false and baseless accusations. Note that he did not say "allegedly....." No, he claims this happened. I know it did not. He has no proof to the contrary.
I will continue to tell the truth about this total fabrication. I have already disproved the copy machine allegations. Why would anyone believe any of the rest is true? How many times can people be lied to before they will begin to doubt? I'm completely baffled by that.
Offline
#13 2009-11-16 14:41:12
I apologize if you took that wrong. I was referring to the fact that we have allowed a complete non-resident to upset us with his bias form of journalism. I was hoping we could all take a deep breathe and think positive. I realize what he is doing is a very personal attack and I encourage you to continue to get the truth out, but remember to breathe!
You know I think you are the best! Sorry if you took that wrong!
Offline
#14 2009-11-16 15:02:08
Larry, I'm a bit sensitive right now, so I will say I'm sorry that I over-reacted. I've taken so many deep breaths I'm feeling way too light-headed lately!!
I'm sorry to all of the rest of the bloggers who want to totally ignore these allegations made by the tabloid writer. In the past, I too said I would join the rest in the reading boycott of said tabloid. But now I know how others felt when they were falsely accused and how important it is to the person to get the truth out. So, let me apologize now to those who think we should ignore him. I will continue to tell the truth about this horror show!!
No apologies needed Larry!! And thanks for the kind words and thoughts.
Offline
#15 2009-11-16 15:31:05
Nora:
Donating your time and expertise to the library should never have created a situation in which the BOS instigated the need for a lawsuit, and now a tabloid newspaper forces you to defend your good name. You have every right to be hurt and angry, and I agree that the issue cannot simply be ignored.
I said before that we need to get the truth out, and Mr Slager accused me of planning a major PR campaign. I have no such plans, but I do not understand why the Courier and the Standard Times remain silent. What can we do to help you spread the truth?
Last edited by gogatemen (2009-11-16 17:27:49)
Offline
#16 2009-11-16 15:37:40
Nora,
The sad part is that you have to defend you and the others who served so graciously on the board for years. Good people that have their heart in the right place have to come out and battle a person who has evil in his heart. Notice I said evil and not anger? I think you are doing a fine job of refuting his baseless claims.
Offline
#17 2009-11-16 18:06:56
Nora: I'd like to think that the two" Goody-Goody Two Shoes " people who "tut tutted" us in Letters To The Editor (Ms Begley,and Mr Schneider} are following your release of the definitive documentation of the library travesty . If they possess the character they accused us of lacking, they will send follow -up letters of retraction. Don't hold your breath until they convert....
Offline
