Images to follow, nothing spectacular. Same old kangaroo court.

2011-05-19 Thu 7:15:41pm

2011-05-19 Thu 7:15:43pm

2011-05-19 Thu 7:15:52pm

2011-05-19 Thu 7:15:59pm

2011-05-19 Thu 7:22:30pm

Last edited by billw (2011-05-19 20:47:42)

Bill Did Anyone Scream That You Were Taking Pictures.

I went to the "hearing" and a lot of people were there, including Mr Slager and out of curiosity I went to the Observer to get his "spin" but as you can see, he did not spin it, quite the contrary. What follows is my repsonse back to him on his article.

"My congratulations on the "story,"  I totally agree that Mr Andrews should have recused himself.  Given that he apparently used to make Ms Zaleski his  deputy  when he was otherwise occupied, might he, when he is called as a witness-and I assume that he will be- turn the responsibilities of being the presiding judge over to her, after all she is still a town employee?

But back to the issue that you raised, it seems to me that plain common sense would dictate to Mr Andrews that he should have recused himself.  Simple logic leads to the conclusion that there are one of two paths open.  One is "I was wrong, welcome back" and the other is the polar opposite, "I the judge say that I  the judge was right."  And then let the fun begin because then we will go before a real judge who may  see things differently.

And we can't even interview for a new accountant until this matter is settled, and as I see it, that condition is partly to blame perhaps even totally to blame for what we are dealing with here today, and that is that we had no accountant for several months.  Yes a "temp," but no one who was permanent after Bob Bliss left the scene and in that time frame, one assumes that things started to go off track.

This should have never gotten to where we are now.   

Dick Paulsen"

And not so much by the way, Bob Bliss seems to have been absolved as I heard Mr Powers speak to that, maybe not totally but close  enough not to make a big issue out of it.

There was an interesting comment in the proceedings that apparently an attempt was made to re-hire Ms Zaleski after the fact.  If true, and again I point to "apparetnly," then one could arrive at the conclusion that "oh, oh, I made a mistake, best I cover my tracks as best I can." But then having been rebuffed best I go forward and try to control the situation, oh I know, I can be the judge, and then I can be the jury and then I can be the jury foreman and hand in the verdict and then I can race back to the judge's bench to hand down my edict. 

If in fact Mr Andrews did in fact try to hire Ms Zaleski back, then I will repeat what I concluded in the email to Mr Slager, we should not be here right now. If you are wrong, then you are wrong, fix it and get on with it.

I wonder, could one have a memorandum of understanding with onesself?

I think at Fall Town Meeting there should be an article giving the Finance Committee appropriate authority. The division of power in this town has deteriorated over the last few years and it has gotten us in a big hole.

Without the proper balance of power you allow any one group to control the town and that is not good no matter who they are.

We have allowed Andrews and those who pull his strings to ride rough shot over this town too long.

It must be hard to be a tin hat these days.  They supported the hirings of both Biz and Andrews, and turns out, neither one of them is doing a good job. 

Now Biz and Andrews are squaring off against each other.  Who will the tin hats support?  Who will they betray? 

Heavy is the head that wears the hat of tin.

If you ask me, seems like the best option is to can them both.

Let me continue my  dialog as to whether we-the FinCom-should have been "rung" in by  the auditor.  We were not but he did commuicate his "80 %" concerns back in November now almost 6 monhts ago to Mr Andrews and in the intervening time until March (when Mr Powers became 99% certain), Mr Andrews conveyed not a word of his concerns to the FinCom.  As to who should have done this, the auditor or the TA, someone should have said something and nothing was done.  And even when the odds ratcheted up in March, we were not told anything until that fateful meeting with Mr Powers.

We are going to be asked to pass a budget on Monday, Mr Andrew's creation, and I would argue that rather than being balanced, it is out of balance by at least several hundred thousand dollars up to perhaps 1.5 million dollars.

Let me provide some examples.

In the original December budget, there was a line item for "defibrillators" for $41,000 but in the May 10 budget just presented to the FinCom they are gone, but are they?  In a "proposed" side agreement with the School Department, they reappear as "Funds from Postponing Defibrillators Purchase Transferred to School Department....$41,314"

So, we start wtih "zero" right, they were "x"   out of the town budget and then magically become $41,314, I could use some of this magic on my checking account and quit pushing and shoving, I was first.  The "result" of this is that absent the $41,000, the school department will have to come up with another $41,000 in cuts.  Some will say "great,"  others "terrible," but either way facts are facts.

And paying the back salary  of a town employee? When asked about this at the last FinCom meeting, the Andrews answer was "Position is there."  Ah, but "is it funded" asks one of my colleagues?  And no it is not, so think of perhaps an  extra $100,000 there, but not coming to us, but going out the door. The $100,000 is my estimate.

On to police cars and a request for $50,000 in the budget, another of my collegues said "Wait a second isn't the full cost $90,000?"  Answer "yes."  "Well then is it your intention to come back in the fall for the remainder"  Answer: "yes"  So, as I see it (and as my colleague sees it) we are another $40, 000 short.  Why tell the people the truth.

And legal counsel, penciled in $200,000 and that is terrific down from $300,413 in 2010.  I asked why since K&P offered to do our work for $114,000 why we did not pursue that and frankly did not get a satisfactory answer.  Our legal is composed of more than one firm, or at least it has been, and the other firms apparently charged around "six figures."  So call it $75,000, that would leave $125,000 for the rest and I have my reservations about the total coming in at $200,000, seems low to me.

The Quinn bill.   We are obligated to pay the full tab now that the state has essentially said "see you later."  I asked Mr Andrews if we might exempt new-hires and he said "no, it is in the contract."  And yes it is, in the CURRENT cntract but we are negotiating a new one, so why not do what some towns have apparently  done, take a firmer  stance on new hires. 

And then to the Health Trust, ah yes.   Mr Andrews wants to take out about $1 million to plug the gap.  The state takes a dim view of that procedure.  I met with Gerry Perry, DOR Chief of Accounts, on Friday, April 29 in his office and he said the following:  "I cannot stop you from doing this, but I strongly advise against doing so and you can quote me."   

Mr Perry by the way is the final voice on setting the tax rate, he should be listened to.  And I might add that our first two tax bills will go out for June and December as they always have as "estimated."  We were certified last year in December, so we have a reasonalbe chance of getting our paperwork done by then (he says with fingers crossed)

So, what to do? 

Well, let's see how our neighbor Bourne handles this.  I know some will object but there are some similarities.  For instance according to DOR Division  of Local Services Bourne’s 1999 per capita income was $22,092 and for Wareham the comparable figure was $21,312, not markedly different, but then again that is 10 year old data.  More recently their 2011 unemployment rate was 10.2% as was ours.  Their tax bill per single family residence was $3,469 compared to our $2,333, both figures are for 2011.  On that latter point, with higher tax bills,  one would think that they would scramble to spend every penny coming in over the transom.  But do they?

In January, the TA sent me a copy  of the "General Statement and Facts-Summary-January 18, 2011"

In that he concludes that they have to cut their budget by "$1,856,000  dollars."  And further that the "Town side will see a reduction is staff by approximately 22.5 full time equivalents"  Note the reference "town side."

Oh, and to reserves, they  sit on about $8 million of reserves or put somewhat differently and to my point that they have every reason to spend, spend, spend, they don't, they truly have a mind-set to make painful decisions.

Here in Wareham, reserves, only in your dreams?  Maybe $400,000 if that? 

But maybe with Bourne cutting back on lifeguards, maybe we could hire some of theirs, what  do you think?

I realize that a lot of this is somewhat (very?) arcane, I get that, I truly  do, but the corner that we are being painted into is getting both ever smaller and more crowded.  What I  am trying to do here is present facts, and you  can disagree with my interpretation, and many do, but look at the facts as you do so.  If we pass this budget, we are probably good to go until the fall, maybe until next year, but after that we may no longer be in control of our own destiny, and please do note "may" because I have no crystal ball.

please note that mr paulsen states that  powers and sullivan states that are  accounting problems  started when bliss was let go. he was let go because the then board of selectmen had  a hit list  and bliss was on it ,we also had to pay bliss a settlement , so the facts are folks  are  fiscal problems ocured  because of the vindictive policies  of brenda , jayne , cronan and  bruce.