Sorry for the delay. The last response I received stated that any type of investigation takes time and to establish any validity to my statements will not happen overnight. I guess that means "Don't call me, I'll call you". Oh well, I tried.

Slager's latest crap reads:     The more important question is why would any of these bloggers be listening to a live stream of an executive session meeting if they didn’t know it would be broadcast in advance? If the executive session meeting was, in fact, “bugged” it represents a terrifying new era in Wareham politics. Selectmen who are investigating potential corruption in town government now have to wonder if their executive session meetings are secretly being transmitted to their political opponents, who may be town employees and potential targets of the investigation.

Huh? I turned my tv on the local station at 7 pm. But the bos were in executive, so I got the usual loop until they came out of exec. and convened the regular meeting. Here's a little logic. Commonsense turned his computer on to the live stream at 7 pm expecting the regular meeting, only he got to hear what was being said because it was LIVE. How could that possibly be considered knowing about it in advance? The meeting was posted for 7 pm. The dialog that occurred and was overheard came after 7 pm. If he had been tipped off, he would have told others so there would be many people out there who heard it and recorded it and can verify it.  Duh. Doesn't take Clark Kent to figure that one out.  Talk about a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Well, it won't work this time ragman. You can ignore what was heard all you want and rant on and accuse Steve Ruiz without any proof (oh right, guilty until proven innocent in Wareham), but that won't make it go away. Your blind loyalty is pathetic.

And why would blogging be mentioned by the bos "in passing" at all during exec. session? If it isn't about this blog, then there would be no need for the selectmen to talk about it. What do they think we are, stupid?

Molly wrote:

Huh? I turned my tv on the local station at 7 pm. But the bos were in executive, so I got the usual loop until they came out of exec. and convened the regular meeting. Here's a little logic. Commonsense turned his computer on to the live stream at 7 pm expecting the regular meeting, only he got to hear what was being said because it was LIVE. How could that possibly be considered knowing about it in advance? The meeting was posted for 7 pm. The dialog that occurred and was overheard came after 7 pm. If he had been tipped off, he would have told others so there would be many people out there who heard it and recorded it and can verify it.  Duh. Doesn't take Clark Kent to figure that one out.  Talk about a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Molly, that's exactly what happened.  I tuned in just around 7 on my computer.  His delusional conspiracy theory is based on the fact I said the mics were on during executive session.

I didn't say at what time, and he knows when it started, so he assumes anyone that heard it, heard it from start to finish.  I willing to bet everyone that heard it, heard it from 7pm and on.

He's also too stupid to realize that people stream the broadcast EVERY WEEK.  You know you can't get local TV stations with a satelite dish.

Last edited by commonsense (2009-06-03 19:18:28)

If you are looking for evidence to submit a complaint to the Plymouth DA, you only have to look at The Wareham Observer article. There are quotes from Bruce and the headline discusses an executive session. Therefore, the BOS and their trusty sidekick have both admitted the were in an illegal executive session.

Ooops, I believe the BOS and the boy wonder reporter have just made a mistake. :)

I wish I could write more about what is coming down the pipe, but I do believe  it will make for a more interesting read when it all comes out. I believe it was the eloquent editor of the BOS Observer who said the truth shall come out, but I don't think he had a clue it was going to a profound statement.

NO, NO, NO and, uh  - oh yeah NO!!!!!

MsLilly, you have deluded yourself, and your attempt to delude others is below feeble.

Monsieur leBrucie cannot, under the rules, merely stand up and "announce" an executive session. Please reread the MGL you cited. it REQUIRES that there be a roll call vote in an open meeting to go into executive session, recorded in the minutes (you will pardon the joke), and that the presiding officer cite the reason for the executive session. Your post seemed to omit those grubby details.

The law and the rules are quite clear, and easy to follow for honest people trying to do the right thing. They are, however, a nuisance and impediment to the weasels trying to circumvent and/or ignore the spirit and intent of the law.

This BoS has made its choice. Honest? dubious. Weasels? - let the facts speak for themselves.

Molly and NAL...did you actually read my post?  I asked a question and instead of a civilized attempt at an answer, you merely attacked...boy, doesn't that sound just like what a certain selectman was accused of doing to that poor ST reporter...

I have not read the "official" version of the MGL, just the versions cited here...that's why I asked the "timing" question...I wanted to know if it is legal for the session to be announced at the end of one open meeting, but not officially opened with the vote, roll call, reasons cited, etc. and business completed just prior to the beginning of the next meeting ...that is exactly what seemed to have happened the week before and no one has said anything about that session being illegal...that is my question...if it's the timing of the meeting that makes the Warehamgate session illegal, why isn't the prior weeks illegal also...

ILIAZ....I was hoping my favorite rocket man was going to ride in on his shiny shuttle to save me with an educated response...thank you...

...and as much as I completely agree with your honey sentiment, couldn't you have gone with bees instead of flies?....ohhhh, how much more fun for you to be able to make reference to me as a "B----" without the threat of any sort of retaliation....now wouldn't that have been truly "sweeeeeet"...

Okay, any idea why no one has yet to make a stink about the illegal meeting the week before?  Or why no one even noticed?

Their comments on gifford and simmons just shows once more how their decisions are based on emotional responses rather than on factual observable behavior.  Can't fire someone because you don't trust them as far as you could throw them with your injured shoulder (oh isn't he cute, funny and bright NOT).  So what will they do instead...conduct a witch hunt with the hopes that something will be found that they can use against these two.   There's another reason for the town to be sued....

Molly...my issue isn't with whether or not they have gone into executive session prior to a regular meeting...we already know they do ...they announced they were doing it at the end of the prior week's meeting...if it is illegal to do that, why wasn't everyone screaming foul when Bruce made the announcement they were doing it...wouldn't that have been the time for something to be said? ...or maybe everyone just decided to give the BOS a free pass on this supposed illegal meeting to give them a break from all the bashing they've been subject to lately...just trying to be more like all their other  "blind fans" by turning a blind eye for a change...yeah, that must be it...

I agree with Mixie, I was unaware as well. Regaurdless, The Board chair is more than aware of the fact that Executive sessions are to be called after a posted and conviened open session. If I were him I would be upset that I was caught holding an Illegal meeting and would be doing everything in my power to try and distract from that Issue. Also If this event had taken place prior to spring town meeting, I am quite sure that Article 55 on the warrant would have been taken a bit more seriously. That article would have required written notice of executive sessions.
     Using an executive session to discuss Important Town buisness is one thing. Using an Executive session to micromanage the day to day operations of the Town in violation of Town Charter is totally different. This board needs to be held Accountable.
     The selectmen are supposed to set policy and the Town Administrator is supposed to implement it but that is not what has happened with this Audit. Common sence would tell you that if A comprehensive computer Audit policy was already in place then this Audit would not be a surprise to anyone.
      I have talked to some people that work for the town and they have told me that while there is an Internet policy  nowhere does it mention Audits. That is what is troubling. Time and time again this board has chosen to get itself deeply involved in employee management issues. By charter this is not thier responsibility it's the Town Administrators.

GWB, that speaks volumes about how this town is run. If you have an interim TA, you can control him much better than one who is hired to actually perform the duties of the TA.  The other issue is Town Accountant. What company runs without a Controller or at LEAST an Accounting Manager to oversee day to day? This is absolutely a travesty and any accounting professional would shaking their heads at this point.

One has only to look at the real person running this town and his past performance to see where we are heading. The sad part is WE are the shareholders and WE have the right and ability to put a stop to this.