#1 2011-04-06 01:40:37

Town Moderator Claire Smith on Wareham Week wrote:

Posted by: csmith | Apr 05, 2011 21:28

Congrats to our newly elected officials.  Please watch tonights Selectman's meeting and learn how not to conduct yourselves.

Thank you, Madam Moderator.   

-Bill Whitehouse

BOS - 2011-04-05 Tue 7:47:48pm
BOS - 2011-04-05 Tue 9:25:04pm
BOS - 2011-04-05 Tue 9:25:07pm
BOS - 2011-04-05 Tue 9:25:09pm
BOS - 2011-04-05 Tue 9:26:46pm
BOS - 2011-04-05 Tue 9:29:27pm

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs



#2 2011-04-06 07:26:09

How can anyone call her (Brenduh) a class act?  The (former) chair should have put a stop to it, she once again had no control.  Nice way to leave Brenduh, showing your true colors - on the way out!



#3 2011-04-06 07:40:25

brenduh classless to the very end.



#4 2011-04-06 08:03:57

Cara Winslow and Claire Smith inform me the csmith quoted above is someone else, not our town moderator.

Neither commented on last night's performance, which I assume means we can expect them to sanction much more of the same rotten behavior... just like last town meeting.

Don't anyone bother asking why turnout was so low yesterday.

Last edited by billw (2011-04-06 08:05:13)



#5 2011-04-06 08:06:00

For those of us that missed it, can we get a brief rundown on the nastyness?  From what I hear Brenduh and Janey were their usual selves up to the very end?



#6 2011-04-06 08:17:39

GuyIncognito wrote:

For those of us that missed it, can we get a brief rundown on the nastyness?  From what I hear Brenduh and Janey were their usual selves up to the very end?

I was more focused on taking pictures in a war zone but Brenduh seemed to think Cara Winslow was behind Liz MacDonald's Open Meeting Law complaint.



#7 2011-04-06 10:06:14


As reported in the Courier

By Ashleigh Bennett
Wicked Local Wareham
Posted Apr 05, 2011 @ 11:12 PM
Last update Apr 05, 2011 @ 11:24 PM
WAREHAM Brenda Eckstrom went out with a bang at her last Board of Selectmen meeting, wrapping up old grudges and bringing to light new accusations. Tonight was Eckstroms and Margaret Jane Donahues last night serving on the board.

Tempers flared at the end of the meeting as Eckstrom first responded to an open meeting violation from a Wareham resident over the November issue debating whether or not to vote at the public schools. Eckstrom then ended the meeting by expressing how she felt betrayed by a letter Selectman Cara Winslow wrote to a local paper about the finance committee, before everyone had had time to read the paperwork and talk about the issue.

In the grand finale of the night, Eckstrom announced to the room that Police Chief Richard Stanley has an agreement made with some members of the Board of Selectmen, including Mark Andrews, which is why he hasn't signed any paperwork yet. "The financial agreement is all worked out," said Eckstrom, "but Andrews has got an agreement with Stanley."

The meeting as adjourned after this accusation, with no further comment.



#8 2011-04-06 10:17:32

How is it possible for a potential town employee to have an agreement made with "SOME" members of the board of selectmen without there being a violation of the open meeting law?

This town makes no sense.  Brenda and Jane didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being re-elected, but the town elects two carbon copies of them.

Just call this election "The Attack of the Clones."



#9 2011-04-06 10:37:03

AF wrote:

The meeting as adjourned after this accusation, with no further comment.

This last sentence isn't entirely accurate but otherwise, it looks like the Courier finally assigned Wareham a credible reporter. Roll the video for Brenduh at her batshit worst.



#10 2011-04-06 18:42:36

Open question. Have y'all seen enough revolting meeting photos or is this worth challenging?

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs



#11 2011-04-06 19:09:20

They are scared of you, Bill. Don't know why.



#12 2011-04-06 19:28:11

I'm asking for a reason. The Town Moderator banned photos altogether. The Board of Selectmen never fail to raise chickenshit objections.

It's all the same to me but I'll find more productive amusements if most of you don't care either way.



#13 2011-04-06 19:36:08

I say take the damn pictures.

The Selectmens' meeting is public.

If they ban YOU from taking photographs, they must ban EVERYONE from taking them, including the occasional TV cameras from news organizations, and WCTV.

The meeting is BROADCAST.

Take the damn pictures.



#14 2011-04-06 19:50:42

Thanks, Dan but still doesn't answer the question. Before I piss away any more effort I want to hear this site's consumers on the subject.

Do meeting photos add anything to the discussion?



#15 2011-04-06 20:25:07

i VOTE yes... LOVE seeing the pics bill..



#16 2011-04-06 20:32:27

LizMcD wrote:

i VOTE yes... LOVE seeing the pics bill..

Oh yes Bill, please keep taking the pictures. I enjoy looking at them, plus I need them for photoshoping.
Geeze, we had to go without blogging for awhile, not the photos too.

Last edited by Mixie1 (2011-04-06 20:33:36)



#17 2011-04-06 20:40:11

I agree, keep taking pictures.  They help me put faces with names among a few other reasons...



#18 2011-04-06 20:42:00

Take the pictures and I think you should volunteer to teach a council on aging class on photography.  Demand to pay the special Bobo rent rate, aka $0 for classroom use.



#19 2011-04-06 20:45:52

Yesireeee Bill!!



#20 2011-04-06 21:02:20

BOS - 2011-04-05 Tue 8:38:52pm

I've faced these idiots entirely alone five years now. I'm tired of it. Note mustache.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs



#21 2011-04-06 21:37:05

Doesn't look like you are alone now, Bill.



#22 2011-04-06 22:09:41

That means if someone objects to unobtrusive photography - as they always have - someone here will rise and defend the right?

Remember the response here to getting shuttered out of last Town Meeting?

That's right, squat. And the year before, when I charged John Donahue with assault after he preemptively tried to enforce his 'no cameras' policy? Ever faced before a Kangaroo Court alone?

Come on, you assholes, it's time you stood up and stop taking this shit.

I'm not doing it alone anymore.

Last edited by billw (2011-04-06 22:43:11)



#23 2011-04-06 22:58:41

Bill...if you are banned from taking pictures at the Selectmens' meetings, I will personally cut you the first check for legal counsel and will spearhead your legal fund.

I can't speak about Town Meeting, because i don't know what the rules are there. If there is a designated press section or "picture" taking section, then you are out of luck.

It is obvious that no such rule exists for Selectmens' meetings.

It appears the folks here want to see the photographs, so snap away.



#24 2011-04-07 00:06:20

I look forward to all your pictures, Bill, even if the subject makes me sick to my stomach, like the above person.



#25 2011-04-07 00:29:18

Remember a couple of years ago when Dave videotaped a meeting and everyone went ballistic. That was shown to be appropriate and legal for Dave to tape that public meeting.

If the BOS don't want their pictures taken, under ANY circumstances, they shouldn't have run and shouldn't be serving.

Public figures are fair game.



#26 2011-04-07 04:58:36

billw wrote:

That means if someone objects to unobtrusive photography - as they always have - someone here will rise and defend the right?

The Open Meeting Law "changed" (effective July 1, 2010 ..and so, after the CRC meeting I video recorded). But our rights are "still intact" it seems (On this at least, I believe). I can't find any direct reference to "photography" in the "new" open-meeting law. But I'm "confident" it falls under the sub-section (posted below). So, as long as "we" follow the rules, then "they" don't have a leg to stand on.

...and yes, Bill (of course). Mark me down as one who appreciates the photos you add (very much).. as well as your right to "click away"..but the way it's "done" needs to conform with the law..or "we" don't have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, I'm with ya..

(e) After notifying the chair of the public body, any person may make a video or audio recording of an open session of a meeting of a public body, or may transmit the meeting through any medium, subject to reasonable requirements of the chair as to the number, placement and operation of equipment used so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting the chair shall inform other attendees of any such recordings.

M.G.L. c. 30A, 18-25

A call to the AG's office should clear up any confusion about photography. Getting certain folks to abide by it..that's another matter.

Oh, and who is Andrews to speak up in that situation? That's not his role. He should have just kept his "pie-hole" shut. And Brenda?? Just watch the video. The Chair was "lax" in her duties on her final night.

Civility? Watch Brenda..and go read all the "atta girl's" she got for her tirade on Slager's site.

Transparency? Apparently Brenda (and Jane?) were in "cahoots" with Andrews as to an offer "pending" with Stanley.

How about Sweet Brucey "taking over" the Swift's Beach "discussion" ..Man, that was like a bad flashback. The phrase "conflict of interest" kept going through my mind over and over again. Jane and Brenda were typically "political" while trying (as usual) to not appear so.

Those two left as they "served". I (for one) won't miss 'em.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs

Last edited by DDPTRO (2011-04-07 16:41:37)



#27 2011-04-07 08:08:59

Now you have the baglady and snookums.



Board footer