Just in case it disappears....

EDITORS NOTES: COMMAS AND KARMA by David R. Smith
www.wickedlocal.com/wareham

The envelope, addressed to “Wicked Local Wareham” with no return address, landed on my desk late last week.

The letter – unsigned, of course – noted, “Wareham is in a sewer of horrible and personal politics.”

Who would – or even could – argue with that?

The documents included with the letter were the types of things an editor dreams of receiving – a damning e-mail and a copy of an order to repossess a vehicle that appeared to contain false information that would suggest fraud on the part of a well-known and little-liked selectmen in town.

Any guesses who I’m talking about?

The alleged (I’ll get to that in a second) e-mail appeared to have been sent from Selectman Chairman Bruce Sauvageau’s private e-mail account to Acting Town Administrator John Sanguinet’s work address.

The “e-mail” was dated Aug. 18 of last year, and the subject was “RE: FY09 Budget.”

The supposed correspondence listed what was being passed off as Sauvageau’s suggestions for ways to reduce the fiscal 2009 budget.

The suggestions, if true, would have provided the evidence so many have hoped for to prove that the selectmen’s policy decisions were rooted in personal vendettas against town personalities and institutions.

In other words, the copy of the e-mail seemed to be too good to be true, and you know what they say about something like that.

Although Sauvageau denied he ever sent such an e-mail, that’s not really why I question its validity.

First off, it just didn’t look right. The font was funny, and, to use the technical term, it just wasn’t very e-mailish looking.

Another problem was that under “From” and “To” was the “Cc” line. Generally, and you can test this yourself, “Cc” doesn’t show up in a printed sent e-mail unless someone has actually been copied to the recipient’s list. No one was listed next to “Cc.” The only other thought could be that there was a name there originally that was whited out on the printed copy. The copy of the copy, though, doesn’t show any discoloration in the blank “Cc” line to suggest that.

The most telling bit, though, had more to do with what wasn’t there.

The date of the e-mail, as printed, was written this way: “Sunday, August 17 2008 11:31 AM.”

Anyone see the problem here? Check how the date is written on your own e-mails.
I’ll wait…

It should have been written – and is on the numerous e-mail services I checked – as “Sunday, August 17, 2008,” with the comma after the date and before the year. This is an automatic feature, and not one subject to the user’s grasp (or lack thereof) of proper punctuation.

The other form, which is a familiar issue to those who are obsessed with town politics, also had some essential information missing (such as Social Security and license numbers) that should have been filled in. The URL printed on the bottom of the page takes a visitor to an auto recovery Web site that requires a username, password and security code to enter, which at least in my minds narrows the list of who would have access to such a site.

If the e-mail is as invalid as it appears, then shame on the person who would try to put my credibility and the paper’s credibility at risk. If the e-mail is valid, then I would like to know how it was obtained and why there was only the one sent to us. Surely, if someone unfriendly to the current board had access to either Sauvageau or Sanguinet’s e-mails, there should be a whole stack of fascinating material to send our way.

I have never been an apologist for the current board or any of its individual members (OK, one time, maybe, and even that wasn’t 100 percent). I would still like to see the DA weigh in on the computer audit (and Wareham as a whole!), but it is, as always, the residents who should and will have the final say on how it handles the eventual implosion of the town.

And to the person who sent the letter, call me. You won’t be identified, but I do have some questions for you. Maybe you can prove me wrong, and I would more than welcome it

Final note

I think we’re all used to one paper in town trying to pick a fight with its competitors, and most of us are used to it amounting to little more than shadow boxing (I only respond to people whose opinions mean something to me, and only if those opinions are based on something other than assumptions, misinformation and outright lies).

As we watch two of those papers conduct very public war on each other, here’s a bit of reworking from George Washington. I have substituted the word “newspaper” for “nation” in a letter Washington wrote to Henry Laurens (as quoted in Richard Brookhiser’s Rediscovering Washington). The reworked sentiment applies equally well to newpapers’ treatment of each other as to the politicians and figures they cover, especially with all the “agenda slinging” going on.

“The (newspaper), which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”

Any bets on whether David sent it to himself? No one that I know who opposes this board needs to make anything up about them. They provide plenty of factual information themselves.
Bruce is using his private e-mail, I know because I e-mailed him a question last summer and got a response from his private e-mail. For the record, it wasn't a very nice response.
Brenda is also using her private e-mail. These are big NO NO's, but hey, unless your caught......
My money is on the Courier looking to createsome controversy for themselves. They choose not to ride the tsunami brought on by the s-t and have made it obvious to their readers that they choose to print only the nicy nice stories. Too bad for them.

Well this wasn't vey nice and it puts the courier on the same caliber as the rag.   It gives BoBo information to use to support his headless doll nonsense.

Is there another possibility? Could a disgruntled bagel eater have sent it to the courier? Or a bos supporter looking to make the bloggers look bad?  You have no proof that the courier "sent this to himself" or is making it up.  Smith is no fan of ragboy and even mentions it. I'm just tossing out other scenarios.

The comment I find the most interesting from Smith is this:"The supposed correspondence listed what was being passed off as Sauvageau’s suggestions for ways to reduce the fiscal 2009 budget.

The suggestions, if true, would have provided the evidence so many have hoped for to prove that the selectmen’s policy decisions were rooted in personal vendettas against town personalities and institutions."

This screams library to me--vendettas and budgets etc. And who just enlarged one of his freebie blurbs about the library litigation into a full fledged and somewhat bizarre article? The increased focus on the library sure tries to distract people from the audit.

I smell something fishy.

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Molly,  Smith would not do something like that.

David Smith has already done something like that on this site. Wake me up when he's not blowing speculative smoke.

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

Last edited by billw (2009-06-27 05:57:27)

indianchief wrote:

Think about this really hard, I can mention only once..... it came from attorney of fired town accountant!?!

Am I missing something?

I suppose the former accountant would have access to an email from Bruce to Butt-Monkey.

Since David Smith mentions that the CC was whited-out, wouldn't it make sense that an email about the 09 budget would also be sent to the Town Accountant?

Hmmm, more conspiracy theories will continue to develop on this I'm sure.

Mixie wrote:

That might depend on which software program is in use.  The date on my email appears like this:
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:34:20 -0400

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of different email clients and most of them are configurable to look any way you like.

A friend and I wrote one ourselves exactly twenty years ago.

TBL wrote:

He is trying to prove or disprove the information he had mailed to him.

On the evidence... Oh, wait, there isn't any. He's not protecting a source, but we still don't see what he's got. Maybe I'm too used to getting peddled self serving bullshit in this town but the local press is a primary part of our problem. David Smith has had 7 years,  at least, to figure out exactly who and and what Slager is and he's never once challenged him without wishy washy qualifiers. Note the Courier continues to give Wareham's Selectmen a complete pass. I'm honestly surprised it's still profitable enough to publish.

FrogsRule wrote:

Why would anyone have to create evidence against these morons?

Good point.