THIS MORON SENDS THIS LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE ST:

There is more to the story of Wareham politics

I was very disappointed that you omitted so many pertinent facts from your string of articles disparaging our beautiful community of Wareham. You risk ruining our property values with these degrading stories, and I know I am not the only one who is tired of it.

As the late radio commentator Paul Harvey used to say, "Now for the rest of the story."

You could have mentioned the date of the land taking, 2003, and differentiated the current Board of Selectmen from that previous board. You could have identified those previous board members who were responsible for the taking of Swifts Beach.

You could have listened to the tapes of the Town Meeting from 2003 and heard Rose Renee Fernandes Abbot expounding the virtues of taking Swifts Beach for conservation and recreation. You might have mentioned that she is currently employed by the city of New Bedford and was the sole signatory on the warrant for the very controversial payment of $35,000 to the former town administrator, based on a scrap of paper.

You might have mentioned the late Mary Jane Pillsbury, former library director, who was sued for using her political position to protect her business interest. And last but not least, Cindy Chamberlain Parola, wife of the Wareham harbormaster, cousin to John Decas (who, incidentally, your stories continue to quote as if he were on the Finance Committee and School Committee last year rather than 20 years ago) and daughter of Georgia Decas Chamberlain, who was also paid for the Swifts Beach taking.

Those missing minutes you refer to were lost or whatever by the clerk of the board, Patrick Tropeano. The current board has nothing to do with those "missing minutes."

You might have used the words "conservation property" or "open space" in your article. You failed to mention that of the 54 miles of shoreline in Wareham, only seven are accessible to the public. You did not say that Mr. Decas has his own private shoreline and that his property is surrounded by conservation land.

It is no wonder that the townspeople voted to uphold the taking for conservation purposes and to ensure a little more open space along the shoreline. In summary, what I am looking for is balanced, factual, objective reporting. Please give it a shot.

Thomas J. Monaghan

Wareham




FIRST BRUCE WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN THE SWIFTS BEACH LAND WAS TAKEN. IF BRUCE HAD MENTIONED THAT HE HAD ENGAGED IN A PREVIOUS ATTEMPT AND HAD A P+S TO BUY THE LAND AND THEN THE DEAL FELL THROUGH. HE NEVER MENTIONED THAT TO THE PREVIOUS BOS AND IF THEY HAD KNOWN ABOUT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER TAKEN THE LAND IN THE FIRST PLACE. BRUCE VOTED ON IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND YELLED AT CINDY PAROLA WHEN SHE COMMENTED ABOUT HIS VOTING. SO YOU THINK SPENDING 3 MILLION ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS PADLOCKED AND NO ONE KNOWS WHO HAS THE KEY A GREAT INVESTMENT TO THE TOWN?

YES MS ABBOTT SIGNED OFF ON THE WARRANT. TOWN COUNSEL SAID YOU MUST PAY HARTMAN OR THE TOWN WOULD BE HELD LIABLE IF THEY DIDNT. IF THE OTHER SELECTMAN AT THE TIME HAD THEIR WAY THEY WOULD NOT HAVE PAID HARTMAN AND HE WOULD HAVE SUED AND SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS AND WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY HIM ANYWAYS. EVEN TO THIS DATE NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT HARTMAN WAS NOT OWED THOSE MONIES HAVE THEY? IF HARTMAN STOLE 35,000 FROM THE TOWN WHY HASNT ANYONE WENT AFTER HIM ? WHY BECAUSE HE WAS OWED THE MONEY.

MRS PILLSBURY WAS SUED. RAGMAN WAS SUED ALONG WITH NUMEROUS PEOPLE. THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT THEY ARE GUILTY. THIS STATEMENT IS THE MOST MORONIC. THEN YOU HAVE RAGBOY PUT THAT SHE WAS SUED IN HER OBITUARY. THAT SHOWS THAT HE IS LOWER THAN ANYONE COULD EVER GO AND THEN WONDERS WHY THEIR IS HATRED BY THE TOWNS PEOPLE THAT LOVED HER TOWARDS HIM........REMEMBER SHE WAS ELECTED OVERWHELMING OVER FIVE TIMES SERVING THIS TOWN 17 YEARS.

THE MEETING MINUTES WERE IN PLACE WHEN TROPEANO LEFT OFFICE. WHERE DID THEY GO WHEN BRUCE WAS THE CLERK................. IM SURE EVERYONE HAS A GUESS

WHAT SHOWS ME THAT YOUR AN IDIOT IS THAT YOU CRITICIZE THE PAPER FOR REPORTING ON NEWS STORIES IN THE TOWN OF WAREHAM. SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT YOU ONLY WANT POSITIVE STORIES TO BE REPORTED SO IT DOESNT HARM THE TOURISM INDUSTRY? YET YOU BRING UP THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN 2003? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? SO LETS LET THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF CROOKS DO WHATEVER THEY WANT? SORRY BUT IM A TAXPAYER UNLIKE BRUCE AND IVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS BUNCH AND I WILL BE ATTENDING ON THE 30TH . SIR I DONT KNOW YOU BUT IT MUST BE TOUGH TO GO THROUGH LIFE BEING AN IDIOT. GO BACK TO BEING #4 ON THE THEWAREHAMOBSERVER MEMBERS.