#1 2009-03-25 21:35:11
Slager wrote:
The Wareham Observer has received a copy of the 400-plus pages of documents pertaining to the Swifts Beach eminent domain land-taking in 2004, including records of all court proceedings as well as all available executive session minutes relative to the case.
There appears to be no smoking gun suggesting any wrongdoing on the part of selectman Bruce Sauvageau, save for conflicting accusations made by his political opponents.
Last edited by billw (2009-03-25 21:43:05)
Offline
#2 2009-03-25 21:47:20
billw wrote:
Slager wrote:
There appears to be no smoking gun suggesting any wrongdoing on the part of selectman Bruce Sauvageau, save for conflicting accusations made by his political opponents.
So which is it? In the first part of the statement there's no wrong doing. In the second part of the statement it says except for conflicting accusations.
Clever wording since accusations and statements can be interchanged.
...and he read 400 pages in one day. PLEASE!
Last edited by commonsense (2009-03-25 22:34:03)
Offline
#3 2009-03-25 21:53:44
wow bob! well we all might as well shut it down and go back to bed bob says no problem there.
too bad you arent the attorney general.
Offline
#4 2009-03-25 22:26:38
Did anyone think for a minute that the Ragman would spin this in any way other than in Brucey's favor?
Offline
#5 2009-03-25 22:39:29
Former Selectman Parola, quoted in the Rag saying:
"I do distinctly recall leaving an executive session while Mr. John Giorgio of Kopelman and Paige was present as the last issue to do (sic) to be discussed was the Swift’s Beach issue and I made a comment relative to perhaps Selectman Sauvageau following my lead in recusing himself and leaving the room, and his response was to swear at me as I left."
Former Selectman Tropeano, according to the Rag:
"He claimed Sauvageau was in attendance during those meetings and voted to use Community Preservation Act funds to finance the land-taking. He said Parola and Sauvageau swore at each other during one meeting."
How is any of this conflicting? Parola says Bruce swore at her as she left. So she left, and he stayed. Her testimony shows that Bruce did not recuse himself. Tropeano corrobotes that, indicating he too remembered that Parola left, Bruce stayed, and that he swore when confronted with the idea of recusing himself. Both show that Bruce did not recuse himself. Not only did Bruce not recuse himself, but he apparently dropped some naughty words when confronted with the idea of recusing himself. Tropeano affirmatively states Bruce did indeed vote for using CPA funds.
Ragman, how much smoke does the smoking gun need to give off? I guess the smoke has to be seen from space, when it's Brucey, huh?
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-03-25 22:42:56)
Offline
#6 2009-03-25 22:48:16
And that's just my take on it from reading the Rag...I'd imagine the actual DA's report or a report in a paper not run by a Bruce lackey will shed alot more light and more than likely won't be as kind to Brucey.
BREAKING NEWS! BRUCE DECLARED INNOCENT BY - BRUCE'S LACKEY!!!
Ragman, isn't it hard to see what you're writing with your head shoved so far up Brucey's behind?
Offline
#7 2009-03-25 22:51:24
Ragman, did you ever question Bruce as to the reason for his swearing when it was proposed that he recuse himself? Or did Bruce not give you permission to ask you that?
Offline
#8 2009-03-25 22:51:40
Hamatron5000 wrote:
How is any of this conflicting? Parola says Bruce swore at her as she left. So she left, and he stayed. Her testimony shows that Bruce did not recuse himself. Tropeano corrobotes that, indicating he too remembered that Parola left, Bruce stayed, and that he swore when confronted with the idea of recusing himself. Both show that Bruce did not recuse himself.
Renée Fernandes wrote:
Bruce never recused himself. He voted and participated in EVERY executive session. As a matter of fact, talk to Cindy Parola for verification. She and Bruce had a massive disagreement one night about his Swift's Beach participation.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#9 2009-03-25 22:53:35
So then, all three corroborate the facts that when Bruce was told he should recuse himself, he apparently let loose with some nasty expletives deleted.
Only the Ragman would find that conflicting.
Offline
#10 2009-03-25 22:58:00
Bahhhh, this is probably pointless to get into verbal fisticuffs with the Ragman...Jesus himself could come down, declare that Bruce voted for it, then put it into writing and it could be witnessed by the Pope and the Ragman would still argue against it.
What Ragman has to say is meaningless. I imagine we'll be hearing more and more reports from less biased sources in the next few days, and that will shed more light.
Offline
#11 2009-03-26 04:25:50
did i hear slager kissing brucies butt tonite,it seems slager lips are permantlly sutured to bruces ass. you cant beleave anything slager says about bruce. did we beleave that slager would spin it any other way concerning bruce.it is superising how fast slager got his copy of the report considering that bruce could not find the records in the first place. did he get a free copy or did he pay for a copy. slager is a permant reliable butt kisser for bruce. do they go out to dinner at least once a week?
Offline
#12 2009-03-26 04:37:38
three former selecten say that bruce would not recuse himself and that bruce swore at cindy,she recused her self and he didnt. we all know bruce has a temper and can swear up a storm, just ask barabara ford who says bruce said fuck you barabara, she sued him for it,he also swore at a patron at the libary , swore at the librian at the library. why who hasnt heard this maniac not swear. he should not be in the position he has . i say this maniac should resign now.
Offline
#13 2009-03-26 19:02:51
It is unfortunate that there will always be a cloud of doubt over this issue. Hopefully all meeting minutes will be properly transcribed and filed from this point on.
I will say as to comments on Mr. Savageau's swearing, Mr. Tropeano is no slouch in that area himself. Watch him around the Little League field sometime. On numerous occasions I have witnessed (or have heard from others) him berating parents in front of kids (theirs, his, kids he coaches-what a fine example). He was even observed swearing and harrassing a mother in front of her kids and kids from his team (while in his Coach's cap) at the press box dedication for John Wylde.
Also, as to comments regarding Ms. Eckstrom's drinking, was I only the only one to observe a less than sober Ms. Fernandes (while a sitting member of the board) stumbling into a Candidate's Night.
The current board may not be perfect but from where I'm sitting neither was the past board. I don't think we'll ever get a "perfect" candidate, but one can always hope (or at least build a nice fallout shelter if things keep going the way they are).
Offline
#14 2009-03-26 19:49:37
warehamhuh wrote:
The current board may not be perfect but from where I'm sitting neither was the past board.
Bruce leveraged what he knew of their own questionable side deals in exchange for making them culpable and complicit in his own crimes. Note how little, after 400 pages, each of them have to say about the Swifts Beach deal.
Offline
#15 2009-03-27 06:53:45
a lot of people swear but do they swear in their offical cappicity as a boss like bruce did that is the question here also cocerning the other board of selectmen why not list some of their ethical problems under than what slager says because he just makes it up. also he sucked the other members of the board of selectmen in on the swifts beach deal .the takeing by eminant domain of the swifts beach property was his idea and he didnt reveal his conflict of interest. by the way i dont doubt you when you say tropeaano swore but it doesnt compare with bruce swearing at a subbordinate barbara ford who he worked with calling her the f word.
Offline
#16 2009-03-27 08:16:41
The 1,000 pound gorilla in the room nobody is talking about is perjury. Has Bruce gone on the record saying he didn't vote for the taking? What did he say in the Haupt trial? What did he say to the Ethics commission? And here you have a former selectman saying he did and another former selectman saying he refused to recuse himself...then that's an issue that the authorities should at least be looking into.
Offline
#17 2009-03-27 15:38:07
Hamatron5000 wrote:
The 1,000 pound gorilla in the room nobody is talking about is perjury.
We have a bigger problem than lying and thieving selectmen.
Citizens for a Better Wareham have decided this is no long an issue they want to discuss and have deleted all references to it from their web site.
What's worse, Timothy J Cruz, District Attorney for the Plymouth District, has reviewed this horror show for 5 years now and has failed to take ANY meaningful action.
He's either corrupt, lazy, or incompetent. Or all three.
Write or give him a call and let him know what you think.
District Attorney, Plymouth District
32 Belmont St - PO Box 1665
Brockton, MA 02303
voice: 508-584-8120
fax: 508-586-3578
Offline
#18 2009-03-27 22:55:50
The link is still on the site, it is just no longer on the front page:
http://www.onewareham.com/index.php?opt … &Itemid=67
Offline
#19 2009-03-27 23:57:57
FrogsRule wrote:
The link is still on the site, it is just no longer on the front page:
http://www.onewareham.com/index.php?opt … &Itemid=67
Thanks, my mistake and my apologies.
Offline
