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!

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)

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.

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."

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

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

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.

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?

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)

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.

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

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)

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

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)