#1 2009-07-15 21:29:29
I suppose I should start this thread by telling you that I have been embroiled in the Maple Springs Road mess since it started in november 2007. We (my wife and I) were sitting at home when a friend watching the Selectmen's meeting on TV informed us that pictures of our child were on TV. As part of the Bindas presentation, she had sat across the street from the bus stop and taken photos of the children getting on the bus. Now, keep in mind, she was sitting on Makepeace property while taking the pictures. She took it upon herself to present the photos and spoke of the safety of the children. She didn't ask our permission to use the photos nor did the Selectmen ever ask if she had asked the parents. Just to recap, she used pictures of children no older than 8 years old getting on the bus and didn't bother to consult the parents.
Two of the parents attended the hearing for Brock and looked at the pictures after they were entered into public record.
In December, I spoke during Citizen Participation, asking the Selectmen to return the pictures to the parents, but the TA (McAuliffe) said they could not do that for fear of a lawsuit. However, they would keep them in the vault located in the TA's office. We were also told that eventually the pictures would be returned after the issue was settled.
Now, the same person concerned for the safety of our children called the police when two of those children and their mothers were walking down the private road in front of their house. She informed them it was private property and they should walk on the main road. I guess her concern for their safety was a fleeting thing????
Let's fast forward to June 2009. I visited the town hall with my wife to get a copy of the november 6th, 2007 meeting and also to view the pictures. My first stop was the TA office to ask to see the pictures. Mr. Saginet was in a meeting, but I asked the Admin assistant if it was possible to see the pictures and she said she would ask Mr. Saginet. We then went to the Selectmen's office and asked about the DVD of the meeting. There was a note on that DVD directing anyone who wanted a copy to the TA. We returned to the TA office and found a black book of photos laid on the Admin Asst's desk. As I was perusing the photos, I couldn't find any pictures that clearly showed the children. My wife said there is another book, but the Admin Asst and the ITA both said that the book we were looking at was the only book they had. I asked about the DVD and was told I could not have a copy. I asked if I retained a lawyer could I get a copy and was told he would tell the same thing to the lawyer. My wife was adamant about there being another book and called one of the other parents who viewed the photos on 11/27/07 and they agreed there was another book.
We were given a copy of the 11/27/07 meeting and there were two books. So, where is the other book? I decided I would try the Chair of the Selectmen to get answers. I emailed him and what followed was the most bizarre "back and forth" I have ever been a part of. I was hoping to get answers and all i got was misdirection, rude comments, and denials. I offerred to meet with the Selectmen and the ITA to clear this up, but was told that wasn't going to happen. I told Mr. Sauvageau that I would bring it up during the Citizen's participation and he flatly told me that was HIS agenda and he owned it. I would not speak and he would have me removed if I try.
I will post the emails in the next comments. I have removed the email addressess for personal reasons, but the rest of the email is untouched. If anyone denies it. I have the emails on my computer and will forward them. I have sent copies to a few people, including the AGO office.
There is a problem here! This is not how government for the people should work.
Someone informed me that I might face problems if I published the emails, but I have the truth behind me. I have nothing to hide and please feel free to ask any question you like.
Next: The emails
Offline
#2 2009-07-15 21:39:18
Please read from the bottom up! I have removed the email addresses, physical address and phone numbers. Nothing else was changed and if anyone disputes that, I have the actual emails to prove it.
From: bruce sauvageau
U.K., we're done here. Don't contact me again on this issue.
As to the proceedings, if you would like to test your theory as to who's proceeding it is, feel free to give me the opportunity to have you removed.
You apparently have no problem calling other people liars, but fall to pieces if you think you are called one. No one has told me you are lying, why so sensitive ? Whatever, It does not matter to me. Next contact, I hit delete.
--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Larry McDonald wrote:
> From: Larry McDonald
> Subject: RE: Request
> To: "bruce sauvageau"
> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 1:03 PM
> Mr. Sauvageau,
> I can ASSURE you, this is not a waste of time. The mere
> fact you consider it a waste time speaks volumes about your
> concern for the citizens and their right to speak. You may
> oversee the proceedings, but it says citizen's participation
> and as a citizen, I have a right to question the Selectmen
> and Town Administrator considering there is a dispute over
> the facts. I cannot think of a better place than in front of
> the Selectmen. That gives the Town Administrator, the
> administrative assistant, and the other parties present, a
> chance to get the facts straight. I certainly don't like to
> be called a liar and if the Town Administrator disputes my
> story, then that is essentially calling me a liar. I am
> confident of what transpired and it obviously different than
> what he is telling. As a citizen and taxpayer who's taxes
> help pay the salary of Mr. Saginet, I would like to give him
> the opportunity to discuss this.
>
> Actually, the residents who are most affected by your
> decision live in the subdivision across the bridge. These
> are the same residents who put logs and signs on town
> property that state it is "private property and do not
> trespass". I would think you would scold the residents who
> are doing that? I had no problem with the trucks. One of the
> reasons we purchased in the area was because of the Bogs.
> It's comforting to be surrounded by nature. The owners and
> drivers have been cordial and proactive in reference to the
> safety of the children. They have also been responsive to
> any concerns voiced. In the end, the bogs aren't going
> anywhere, and it still is a great place to live.
>
>
> Larry McDonald
> >
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bruce sauvageau
>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:39 PM
> To: Larry McDonald
> Subject: RE: Request
>
>
>
>
> Let me state it again. You are not coming before this
> board on any issue without being recognized. Let me
> assure you I do in fact understand. No I don't own the town,
> but as long as I'm chair I own the agenda, and I'm not
> wasting the PEOPLES time on this. I'm done with
> it. Pursue it any way you like.
>
> As to Maple Springs road, as a resident who has been vocal
> on the issue, I assumed that you had an interest in the fact
> that as "elected officials" we took direct action for the
> benefit of "taxpayers & residents".
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Larry McDonald
> wrote:
>
> > From: Larry McDonald
> > Subject: RE: Request
> > To: "bruce sauvageau"
> > Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 10:07 AM
> > Mr. Sauvageau,
> > First, if you bring up an issue of child abuse, you
> > certainly misread the email. As far as missing
> records, I am
> > quite confident the facts support that either the
> public
> > record is missing or the Interim Town Administrator,
> the
> > Administrative Assistant, and the Selectmen's
> Secretaries
> > have lied. I would certainly welcome the opportunity
> to sit
> > down with all parties and see if we can't clear the
> > confusion.
> > I'm not sure you understand, but as an elected
> official,
> > you have a duty to the taxpayers and residents of this
> town.
> > It's not your town, it's the taxpayer's town. I will
> > research the process and find a way to bring this in
> either
> > a Selectmen's meeting or in some other forum.
> >
> > I personally would like to put this matter to rest,
> but
> > that will not come until we get to the bottom of the
> > situation. In reference to the closure of Maple
> Springs Road
> > (for commercial traffic), that has no effect on me. I
> do not
> > operate a commercial operation or vehicle.
> >
> > Enjoy your day,
> >
> >
> > Larry McDonald
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bruce sauvageau
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:43 AM
> > To: Larry McDonald
> > Subject: RE: Request
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think I misread it, and I'm not aware that a
> record
> > is missing at this point. That's what i mean about
> two
> > versions. Anyway, we won't be discussing this at
> the
> > selectmen's meeting because I won't take time out of
> the
> > agenda for it. I.E. I won't recognize you for that
> > purpose.
> >
> > On a separate matter (or is it ?) the BOS closed
> Maple
> > spring Road last night to commercial traffic, or any
> other
> > purpose except residential.
> >
> > Have a nice day.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Larry McDonald
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Larry McDonald
> > > Subject: RE: Request
> > > To: "bruce sauvageau"
> > > Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 3:32 PM
> > > You obviously read the letter wrong.
> > > I also have two witnesses to the encounter with
> Mr.
> > Saginet.
> > > My point was the pictures of the children are
> missing
> > and
> > > according to the Town Administrator and his
> secretary,
> > they
> > > are not in the possession of the those photos.
> They
> > were
> > > submitted as public record, so where are the
> pictures?
> > If
> > > Mr. Saginet wants to dispute my version, I guess
> we
> > can do
> > > this at the Selectmen's meeting. I have not
> accused
> > anyone
> > > of child abuse nor have I made any statements
> toward
> > such a
> > > claim. I will state that if an item is received
> in
> > public
> > > record and cannot be located (per Mr. Saginet,
> his
> > > assistant, and the Secretaries in the
> Selectmen's
> > office),
> > > there is a possible violation of the law. If you
> don't
> > think
> > > so, then perhaps you should site the law that
> allows
> > public
> > > records to disappear?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Larry McDonald
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: bruce sauvageau
> > >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:21 PM
> > > To: Larry McDonald
> > > Subject: Re: Request
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your stated facts are in direct contradiction to
> the
> > ITA's
> > > version of events. I do not see any violation
> of
> > the
> > > law here. If you can site any MGL the prevents
> > > pictures of anyone (including children) please
> let me
> > > know. You may inspect public records, but have
> no
> > > Right to possession of them. If you're accusing
> > someone of
> > > some kind of child abuse, then say so
> specifically.
> > I
> > > don't see the issue here and will not pursue it.
> > >
> > > I am in further receipt of your wife's demand for
> a
> > > personal phone call regarding Swifts Beach as
> well.
> > My
> > > response to that is that she is not entitled to
> a
> > personal
> > > response other than the public record on this, or
> any
> > other
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Take whatever action you think is appropriate.
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 7/7/09, Larry McDonald
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Larry McDonald
> > > > Subject: Request
> > > > To: Bruce Sauvageau
> > > > Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:12 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Sauvageau,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I want to bring to your
> > > > attention a string of events
> > > > that are quickly leading to very bad
> situation.
> > In
> > > December
> > > > of 2007, I came
> > > > before the Selectmen during citizen’s
> > participation
> > > > to implore the
> > > > Selectmen to return photos of elementary
> school
> > aged
> > > > children that were taken and
> > > > submitted to the Selectmen by Ms. Bindas. I
> was
> > told
> > > by the
> > > > Board and former
> > > > Town Administrator that the pictures would
> be
> > returned
> > > to
> > > > us at a later date
> > > > and held in safe keeping. In June of 2009,
> my
> > wife and
> > > I
> > > > visited Town Hall to request
> > > > a copy of the November 6, 2007
> Selectmen’s
> > meeting
> > > > and were referred to
> > > > the Town Administrator’s office. Mr.
> Saginet,
> > the
> > > > iterim Administrator
> > > > told me I could not receive a copy of the
> > recorded
> > > meeting
> > > > and would have to
> > > > obtain a lawyer in order to “attempt”
> to
> > > > receive a copy. It was at
> > > > this time I requested to inspect the
> pictures and
> > was
> > > > granted access to a black
> > > > portfolio of pictures. My wife, Liz
> McDonald,
> > informed
> > > me
> > > > that these were not
> > > > the pictures that she had seen at the
> November
> > 27,
> > > 2007
> > > > meeting. She
> > > > stated that the pictures that were of the
> > children
> > > were
> > > > contained in a red
> > > > portfolio. It was at this time Mr. Saginet
> and
> > the
> > > > Administrative Assistant,
> > > > Mrs. Green stated that this was the only
> book of
> > > pictures
> > > > the town had. My wife
> > > > checked with the Selectmen Secretaries and
> they
> > > confirmed
> > > > that the black book
> > > > we inspected were the only pictures the Town
> had
> > in
> > > their
> > > > possession. After
> > > > reviewing the November 27, 2007
> Selectmen’s
> > > meeting,
> > > > it was clear that
> > > > two books of pictures were submitted for
> public
> > > record. It
> > > > clearly showed both
> > > > books and as my wife and another parent
> were
> > viewing
> > > the
> > > > pictures, Ms. Bindas
> > > > approached Mrs. Eckstrom and asked that they
> not
> > be
> > > able to
> > > > see the picture. In
> > > > a clear voice, Mrs. Eckstrom informed Ms.
> Bindas
> > that
> > > the
> > > > pictures were public
> > > > record and they had the right to see the
> > pictures.
> > > The
> > > > video CLEARLY shows the
> > > > two books and two eyewitnesses saw the
> pictures
> > of
> > > the
> > > > young children in the
> > > > book .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Today, my wife was once again informed
> > > > that no red book is
> > > > in possession of the town. This is a
> problem. If
> > that
> > > is
> > > > the case, then we have
> > > > public records missing or unaccounted for.
> To
> > make
> > > matters
> > > > worse, the missing
> > > > book has pictures of very young children in
> a
> > clearly
> > > > marked area. This is a
> > > > very serious matter to my wife and me! I get
> the
> > > distinct
> > > > impression from the comments
> > > > and inaction of Mr. Saginet, that he is
> either
> > > > unaware of what is at
> > > > stake or he just doesn’t care. We have
> entered
> > a
> > > > written request for
> > > > public records (time stamped by the
> > Selectmen’s
> > > > office) and the 10 day
> > > > period for a reply has passed many days ago.
> I
> > had
> > > hoped to
> > > > bring this to a
> > > > conclusion without involving the Attorney
> > General’s
> > > > Office and lawyers,
> > > > but we keep running into denials (or lies)
> and
> > lack
> > > of
> > > > response. I hope you can
> > > > help us to bring this issue to a conclusion.
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Larry McDonald
> > > >
Offline
#3 2009-07-15 21:41:12
I should point out that a private citizen gave us a copy of the 11/27/07 Selectmen's meeting and not the Office of the Selectmen. Sorry, but I don't have the ability to edit!
Offline
#4 2009-07-15 21:57:02
Thank you Larry. This only proves what we've been saying FOR YEARS..... the BOS will work with no one! And Bruce is an A**ho**!
Offline
#5 2009-07-15 21:59:23
I want our good friends Pink and Hooray to read this and dispute it.
Offline
#6 2009-07-15 22:12:43
Oh my goodness. He is unbelievable! Is the Attorney General's Office concerned with these events. That is pretty scary for someone to take pictures of someone's young children. You don't need to be saying that any one is engaging in child abuse. It is your job as a parent to keep your child safe. To know there are pictures of your child floating around - who knows where - is unnerving. He's not the least bit concerned about your concern. How frustrating for you!
Offline
#7 2009-07-15 22:18:43
I guess during this weeks "not televised workshop" a shouting match was exchanged by Bruce and Brenda each yelling at each other that they were not prepared for the meeting. Looks like the are self imploding on themselves.
Offline
#8 2009-07-15 22:25:34
Mixie,
The strangest part is that I never mentioned child abuse, nor did I accuse anyone of child abuse in the emails. I don't know how he came up with that>???
Offline
#9 2009-07-15 22:34:24
Instead of his looking at the facts and remaining neutral, he got defensive and struck back rather than to try to solve the problems. Apparently, he has control issues.
What d'you think IHL, do you thing sweet brucie has used the pictures to throw plastic forks at?
Offline
#10 2009-07-15 22:35:23
Mixie,
That is correct, it is our job as parents to protect our children. It is very frustrating when someone else is deciding whether your child is safe or not and then putting them in harm's way.
There is more to this story, but I want to wait a bit to post more. I just want to show that the Chair of the Selectmen has decided that my child's safety is not important enough to discuss it. and the ITA is not interested in clearing up the issue even though he disputes my version of the story. Of course, I have witnessess that would back my side of the story :)
Offline
#11 2009-07-15 22:38:50
One would think those women would be a little more careful about what they do around children.
Offline
#12 2009-07-15 22:42:02
Too late now :) And, as the story goes, I'm no longer going to try to handle this is a quiet fashion. Maybe if we shine a bright light on the Selectmen and their "friends", the rest of the town will stand up and say, "NO MORE".
Offline
#13 2009-07-15 22:52:43
Wow. This is concrete evidence that Sweet Brucey is a douche.
I read this exchange, and from what I gather, you were concerned that photos of your kid were put into the public domain, you were told they'd eventually be returned, you went to town hall, were told they didn't have them, so you e-mailed the Chair of the BOS to ask about it and were treated like crap.
A more diplomatic selectman (i.e. someone who gives a crap about the people) would have replied something like "OK I will look into this and get back to you."
The "child abuse" thing - who knows, but a typical defense mechanism of the Hypocrite Elite is to deflect criticism by trying to make it out like they are being persecuted.
Here's the money quote that illustrates the BOS' raging paranoia:
"On a separate matter (or is it ?) the BOS closed
> Maple
> > spring Road last night to commercial traffic, or any
> other
> > purpose except residential."
In other words, Sweet Brucey is accusing you of being some kind of Cranberry industry special agent and your using your kid to further you ill gotten pro-Cranberry motives. (On a seperate matter, or is it?)
Watch out, or Sweet Brucey will hit that delete button!
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-15 22:56:41)
Offline
#14 2009-07-15 22:55:42
On a separate issue, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the cable access channel is the place to go if you want a back copy of a meeting? Why do you have to go to town hall to do it? And since when is it legal to deny a citizen a copy of a public meeting?
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-15 22:58:44)
Offline
#15 2009-07-15 23:03:58
The Selectmen and TA put a hold on that meeting. TO my knowledge, the only copy of the 11/06/2007 meeting is in the Selectmen's office. The reason they won't allow us to have a copy is that blown up pictures of the children were displayed as part of a presentation by Ms. Bindas. If you know any one who has a copy of the meeting, I would love to have it.
We, my wife and I, spoke on Brock's behalf at a later hearing. It ended up with Bruce telling me he didn't care what I had to say. That was my first taste of the rude guy.
I also believe he was taunting me to see if he could get a reaction in the email. At any rate, I wanted to share the emails so people could see his rudeness.
As I have said, I altered nothing except removing the email addresses, physical address and phone numbers for privacy reasons. If he disputes that, he is lying. I have the original email and have no reason to lie.
Offline
#16 2009-07-15 23:15:28
Aren't his emails public information?
Offline
#17 2009-07-15 23:21:47
They are now!
Now that this is off my chest, I feel better! Everyone have a lovely night!
Offline
#18 2009-07-16 00:21:13
This exchange doesn't surprise me at all. I bet he has a half dozen, just like this, a day. I worked with him about six years ago, and everyone in my office ended up refusing to deal with him(no lie, like five people). We had discussions to stop working with him altogether. But he was bringing in money(and we were in business). His rudeness is his defining characteristic.
My choice of screen name says it all. Also, I have recorded a number of BOS meetings over the past few years. I don't seem to have the one you referred to LM(sorry).
Offline
#19 2009-07-16 01:52:57
Savage Joes a Dbag wrote:
We had discussions to stop working with him altogether. But he was bringing in money(and we were in business).
This is the first time I've heard anyone publicly admit Savage Joe generates an income. Who's money was he spending?
Offline
#20 2009-07-16 04:41:50
bruce is a mental case and need s to be recalled, he relly belogs in jail.
Offline
#21 2009-07-16 08:58:00
Just a bit more, for your consideration:
If you recall, I wrote a letter to the Standard Times discussing Mrs. Donahue's comments concerning the BOS and the "hate bloggers". She replied in a cordial manner offerring to discuss our differences and have a conversation. I replied that I would love a conversation to discuss our differences. The emails with Savaugeau happened after the exchange with Mrs. Donahue. I wrote her to express my frustration with the Chair and the ITA as example of what fuels my frustration with the current officials.
I haven't received a reply from her, but I wonder if my emails fueled any of the tension at the work shop?
I want to say this again, I do not like doing all this. Someone I respect told me I was a political activist, which shocked me. I would rather live a quiet life, without all this nonsense. I didn't start this fight, but I won't back down from the fight. It's what I told Savaugeau, this is OUR town, not his. We are the CEO's of Wareham, not him. The emails is a perfect example of why we need change. We need Selectmen that support the voters.
I have a feeling I'm not done with this thread, but I will give others a bit of time to get back with me. There is more to post, but I am patient!
Offline
#22 2009-07-16 09:04:45
Savage Joes a Dbag wrote:
We had discussions to stop working with him altogether. But he was bringing in money(and we were in business). His rudeness is his defining characteristic.
My choice of screen name says it all. Also, I have recorded a number of BOS meetings over the past few years. I don't seem to have the one you referred to LM(sorry).
Joe,
Unfortunately, no one seems to have the 11/06/07 meeting. Just a thought: If a group of parents wanted to file a civil lawsuit against Bindas and the Selectmen, wouldn't it be a perfect example to have that meeting on tape? It supposedly shows a certain private citizen with GIANT copies of the missing pictures on display on public TV.
Also, did you know there are 35 class II sex offenders and 12 class III sex offenders in and around Wareham?
On the other subject, how does a man with such a sour disposition get to be Selectmen? Low voter turn out. This is why we need to work together to put viable candidates in the next election. People with principle, qualifications, and a clear vision for a prosperous Wareham.
Offline
#23 2009-07-16 11:05:53
I will be tied up the rest of the day, but I am curious why our good friends Pink, Hooray, and the lovely Ms. Lilly are not weighing in on this?
Offline
#24 2009-07-16 11:45:02
Not to minimize a parent's concerns, but I think pictures of children engaged in day to day activities are harmless as long as they aren't sexually suggestive. You can see them on perfectly respectable websites, in newspapers and magazines and on TV news all the time. Generally these are published without permission.
If you think someone is taking pictures of children for nefarious purposes do not hesitate to call the police. It is better to be safe than sorry. No doubt there are pedophiles who do this and some may have broken the law just by being around children, let alone taking pictures of them. They could have their parole revoked.
What is disturbing is the secrecy about letting a parent or anyone else see part of the public record.
Offline
#25 2009-07-16 13:34:43
There are other factors, but the most obvious one, these pictures were used to state a safety issue that was no relevant to the licensing hearing. If you couple that with her calling the police and freaking out in front of the children (read above), this blows her "concern" out the door.
Yes, it is disturbing to have to deal with lies and misdirection. That leads me to believe they are hiding something!
Offline
#26 2009-07-16 13:45:56
I tend to agree that I'm not sure why the pictures being taken is a major issue. My child's picture has been in the local papers a couple of times, and I actually thought it was pretty cool. I may be missing something, or perhaps you see it differently LM. It does seem that the missing public record, inaccessibility of a resident to access it, and the general manner in which alot of people are treated by the BOS are quite serious. I support those looking for a change. Some good ideas have been raised, I believe, concerning WCTV, finding potential candidates to replace the current regime, and generally organizing a push for renewal. I hope that something comes of all the discussion that takes place here, and not just a place to blow off steam.
Offline
#27 2009-07-16 14:05:04
I don't agree! It is a major issue. The minute you circumvent my rights at a parent, you are making a mistake. It's not that they took the pictures, it's that they presented them in a public, televised meeting under the pretense of Safety. Don't you think it would be wise to notify the parents before you stood in front of the whole town and talked about how unsafe the bus stop was in relationship to the trucks? Especially after the parents had already spoken with the drivers and owners and felt comfortable with the step taken to assure the safety of the children.
How would you like to be sitting at home and get a call that some lady, who has NO connection to your child, is using their pictures in a public forum and talking about safety. And how would you feel that this is the same woman who later ordered the children and mothers to "walk on the main road" because the road in front of her house was PRIVATE property. Do you think she really cared about the safety of the children?
This was not a parade or an "event". They were just pawns in her plan to close down maple springs road.
I have a very big problem with how it happened and how it was handled.
Offline
#28 2009-07-16 14:46:00
I do sse your point, sympathize with your concern, and respect your rights. I would like to ask, Does the lady(Bindas?/I'm not familiar with her), also have a child/relative at the same bus stop? Her apparent contradiction seems to show she has personal interest, while claiming public concern. I'm with ya, I'm just trying to fill in the cracks.
Offline
#29 2009-07-16 14:54:27
They were used as pawns. I would be just as angry. I just don't think you have a legal case to object to the pictures being presented in the meeting. If one was to take pictures of kids in a situation which was really unsafe and needed them to prove it to the BOS I think that would be justified.
It just seems like this woman had an ulterior motive that had nothing to do with the children's safety. This after all is cranberry country and there are hundred of miles of roads where kids wait for school buses while 18 wheelers drive by.
I don't think your rights as a parent were circumvented. With common sense prohibitions when anyone is in a public place they can have their picture taken and published.
The private property claim for walking or waiting for a school bus is probably false. I don't think home owners actually own the rights of way along their frontage on a road up to a certain distance back. If a town wants to put a shoulder in, for example, or trim down the grass or trees, they can do so.
Public safety trumps homeowner's property rights in this case, and that would include anybody walking along a road.
Offline
#30 2009-07-16 14:55:18
Savage,
She had no connection to any of the children at that bus stop. In fact, the police were called when she parked across the street on Makepeace property for the second time (she took pictures on more than one occasion). She has approached the mothers at the bus stop on one occasion to ask them to sign a petition against the trucks and was told no. As I have stated, the drivers and owners were kind enough to discuss the situation before hand and assurances were made to keep the trucks below the speed limit. They were very cooperative.
Offline
#31 2009-07-16 18:46:57
I would like to wiegh in on the pics without permission issue.
1.) My childrens pictures have appeared in local papers as well and on Local cable access. It is more diffcult for a TV camera crew to ask for permission than the news paper. Whenever my child has a pic taken by a news reporter that reporter always asks my permission to print the picture or not. They also ask if they can use their name and age as well.
2.) This case was slightly different in so much as it was a neihbor that showed the pics with out permission at a Selectmen's meeting that was televised. The neihbor could have asked for permission to show the pics but did not. Trust me if someone ever used pics of my kids in this way without my express permission there would be hell to pay. Mr. Bindas is the one that Mr. Mcdonald should be holding accountable for that part and I'm sure he is.
3.) As far as the BOS involment, it could be very possible that they were unaware of what was included in the presentation by Mrs. Bindas until that night. The thing that defies logic to me here is that when confronted by an angry parent requesting that the photos be retured to them why not just turn them over? Would that not have solved the problem? I am quite sure that the loss of the photos would have had no signifigant effect on the presention as a whole.
4.) In my opinion where the ITA and BOS crossed the line is when they refused to turn over the pics, Minuites, and Video of the meeting upon request of Mr. Macdonald. This does not sound like this was an executive session and being that it took place back in 2007 there is no plausible excuse as to why these things should not be availible at this point. That being said Mr. Mcdonald, I would strongly suggest tryin to contact Mr. Decas if you haven't already. As you may already know he had a decent amount of success with this type of thing. Perhaps he could have some good advice on how you should proceed. I personally do not know how to contact him but pehaps someone here send you a PM if they do.
5.) My hope is that you plan on meeting with the news media to tell you story this is somthing that the pulic needs to know about. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR BY ANY BOS MEMBER OR THE ITA FOR THAT MATTER IS UNACEPPTABLE. You are right Mr. Macdonald. The Elected Officials do have to answer to the voters. This is all voters not just the ones that support them. Mr. Savengeau is very wrong. If you are a concerned Taxpayer/Voter then every thing they do concerns you. It concerns all voters. I wish you luck.
Offline
#32 2009-07-16 19:05:05
Larry McDonald wrote:
I will be tied up the rest of the day, but I am curious why our good friends Pink, Hooray, and the lovely Ms. Lilly are not weighing in on this?
Hey Larry...I don't know why Pink or Hooray are not commenting, (though I do believe Hooray might have been zapped into blogging oblivion), but I was tied up supervising a training session all day today and since we don't get to the chapter on blogging and shopping at work until page 954, I didn't think it would have been proper to skip ahead that far so soon in the training process just so I could get my chatting in...
So what am I supposed to be weighing in on?
Offline
#33 2009-07-16 19:10:07
GWB,
First, you are right, Ms. Bindas is on the agenda.
Second, the Selectmen were aware of what was included as public record. I have documented evidence that proves that.
The Selectmen and the ITA have seriously crossed the line. Not only have they refused me access, but they have also lied about it. The ITA may dispute my claim, but I have witnessess. there were also additional statements by the ITA, but I'll keep those to myself for now. In time, those will come out too.
I have not contacted Mr. Decas, but I have been in contact with two members of media and the AGO. This type of behavior is not acceptable for an elected official, and from Mr. Brady's thread, it's not the first time it's happened.
If the pictuires were returned before now, this would have been in the past and done (at least as far as the BOS is concerned).
Now, to keep this simple, I would like the ITA and the Chair of the Selectmen to resign, period. This type of behavior has no place in our town. I will continue to update this thread with additional information and at some point, hopefully, we will have garnered enough support to oust these men and there nefarious behavior.
Offline
#34 2009-07-16 19:32:09
MsLilly wrote:
So what am I supposed to be weighing in on?
Please read the thread. I told you I would eventually post something that could possibly change your mind about the Selectmen. Here it is....
Offline
#35 2009-07-16 21:26:26
Larry,
In regards to the emails: I don't think it is surprise to anyone that has watched a BOS meeting that Bruce can be rude. As I have stated in the past, even though I can understand at times why he has not been the most pleasant to converse with, that does not mean I have ever condoned it...
Before I comment on the "picture situation", I would first like to say that I will not comment on whether I do or do not view the situation as potentially harmful to your children. It is not a disputable point. If a parent thinks his child is in danger, they are.
After I finished reading your entire post, oddly enough, I came to the conclusion that the administration just might be getting condemned for doing exactly what you were afraid was not going to happen. I am assuming your children are not the only children in those photos so if you were allowed to view those pictures, or get a dvd copy of the meeting, ect. , wouldn't the other children in those photos be subjected to exactly what you don't want your own children to be? It sounds like they are not allowing anyone to view those pictures. Perhaps they are locked away in that vault, waiting for the issue to be resolved, just like the administration said they were going to do. If it were my children who were the other children in those pictures, and I felt that those pictures may put my children in danger, I would be very, very upset if your requests had been granted.
Offline
#36 2009-07-16 22:02:14
Ms. Lilly,
First, the children in the picture are family friends. They are also involved in this, but staying in the background for now. Second, you glaze over the point that we were told they only have one book. You can spin that any way you like, but that is not blocking us from viewing the photos, that is telling us they don't have the other book. Are you just choosing the points you can spin, or are you reading the entire recount of the event? I was told by not one, but at least two people in that office that there was only one book. In my emails, all they had to do was sit down and discuss this and show me the book. If it was as simple as you seem to think it was, they could have solved it by saying we cannot let you view the pictures without the consent of the other parents. Then all the parents would have walked into the office together. As you can read, that is not how it was handled. I've seen these kids since they were small, so it's not like a stranger is wanting to look at the pictures. The administration lied or the pictures are missing, and if you want to spin that, I am very disappointed.
Offline
#37 2009-07-16 22:33:05
It is time. We can't wait nine more months! I think a recall election will attract much more local attention than a regular election.
Offline
#38 2009-07-16 22:41:46
First of all, I am not trying to spin anything. I thought you were upset that you could not view the pictures at the admin's office or get a dvd of the meeting ...
And please know that this remark is in no way aimed at you but just a qualified bit of advice... when you want to protect your children from those that can inflict the most possible harm on them, you should start by keeping a very close eye on the "family friends" or people that have known "them since they were small"...children usually refer to them as "uncle so and so"...you want to protect your children? Start from there and work your way outwards...relative strangers trying to get a glimpse of your child in a photograph are the least of your worries compared to them...
I apologize for thinking that your problem was with someone being able to view the pictures of your children. I would not care the reasons given by the TA's office as to why you can't view them, I would just be thankful that no one is, not even other parents.
Offline
#39 2009-07-17 06:38:07
MsLilly wrote:
.... but just a qualified bit of advice... when you want to protect your children from those that can inflict the most possible harm on them, you should start by keeping a very close eye on the "family friends" or people that have known "them since they were small"...children usually refer to them as "uncle so and so"...you want to protect your children? Start from there and work your way outwards...relative strangers trying to get a glimpse of your child in a photograph are the least of your worries compared to them...
Stranger sexual abuse gets a great deal of publicity, and it certainly should. There ARE predators out and about trolling for potential victims. However, BY FAR most of the sexual abuse is as MsLilly describes.
Furthermore, children are way more likely to report strangers than family and friends of family.
Offline
#40 2009-07-17 07:24:19
Someone posted earlier that parents need to give permission for photographs of their children to be made public, that is true. Several times my daughter has been in the paper and the reporter always asks permission. For her dance and daycare we sign releases about her being photographed and those pictures potentially distributed. We can say "no"!
The point is not who is the most dangerous predator, but whether the children were photographed by a stranger to them who later showed blown up pictures of the children during a public meeting, without parental consent.
The proper way for this to have been handled would have been to call all the parents involved to a meeting where the photographs were returned to them.
Now at least one book is missing and the DVD is too, there needs to be accountability here.
I have no idea what type of civil and/or criminal action the parents may be entitled to file, or if there is actually any law broken, but I do understand that in this day and age with a high number of sex offenders living in the community the concerns of all the parents involved. And, I share them.
Sex offenders are deviants who many experts in the criminal mind believe have an extremely high potential to re-offend. I did a paper on this in college and remember being stunned at the rates of recidivism (sp?). While it is true that a large percentage of offenders are known to the child, any offender is dangerous to any child.
Many also have certain fetishes such as blond haired children or a particular age they prefer. This does not mean that they will not deviate from known behaviors. Finally, keep in mind that while the sex offender registry is a great tool, it is incomplete. I say that firstly because there are predators out there who have never been caught, secondly because the system puts a criminal on the honor system (yup, that is an oxymoron) to register. Many times we hear about offenders moving without registering.
All parents need to remain vigilant at all times with their children.
Offline
#41 2009-07-17 07:33:58
Good points Cara. And don't forget that those missing photos could possibly get posted on the internet for other sickos to "enjoy." The fact that Larry was told the book was missing is what is very disturbing to me.
Who is in charge of keeping such things? Sounds like someone is responsible for this. But taking responsibility for one's actions takes moral fiber.
Offline
#42 2009-07-17 08:14:25
Let's not forget. These women asked the parents to sign a petition to join in their fight. The parents refused. The Bindas women took it upon themselves to go ahead and engage the children in their fight. If the parents refused, it was pretty bold of these women to sneakedly take pictures of the children. If they truly felt the children were endangered, why didn't they offer to set a bus stop on their private road?
Offline
#43 2009-07-17 09:03:15
Not to sidetrack this thread but I want to make two points so everyone gets their facts straight.
Someone posted earlier that parents need to give permission for photographs of their children to be made public, that is true. Several times my daughter has been in the paper and the reporter always asks permission. For her dance and daycare we sign releases about her being photographed and those pictures potentially distributed. We can say "no".
That's because the pictures at dance class and daycare were taken on private property where everyone has an expectation of privacy. Reporters don't have to ask for permission to publish any pictures of people taken on public property, but often do because they want to be able to publish the names of those they photograph. They also may do so out of simply courtesy. But they aren't legally obligated to do so. Candid pictures of adults and children in public places are published all the time.
On sex offenders, the type of offense someone committed is still the best predictor of what they will do again. Most sex offenders who are close to the victim and who carefully groom them over time aren't caught. Their offense frequently comes to light years after it occurred, often when the victim is in therapy.
Many pedophiles are sexually aroused by certain kinds of pictures of children, readily available on pedophile-oriented websites even though child pornography is illegal. While we all know about specific child porn I expect there are websites devoted to pictures taken of unsuspecting children engaged in everyday activities. Each is focused on a particular type of pedophilia.
The only way to stop this is for law enforcement to crack down on such websites and prosecute those involved.
There must be hundreds od millions of totally innocent images of children posted online, so I rather doubt pedophiles will waste time perusing them. They will go directly to specific websites that cater to their particular perversion.
Offline
#44 2009-07-17 09:17:40
Let's not confuse the main point. I have tried repeatedly to find out the location of these photos and have been told THEY DON'T HAVE THEM! They are avoiding the issue. I have given them every opportunity to resolve this in a calm and logical fashion. If you have the pictures, say you do and show me the book so that I can be sure you aren't lying. If I need the other parent's permission, I will bring them with me. They also are concerned about the book!
Look, I don't have a clue why Ms. Lilly wants to head down the child abuse road at this time. Let's focus on the facts. We all know the stats on child abuse and who commits it. We also know more particulars about this case than I want to disclose at this time. The reality is that either the public records are missing or the ITA and staff are lying. It's not more complicated than that.
I sat right in front of the Selectmen in Dec 2007. I was told that the photos would be returned when the issue is resolved. The safety portion of the Maple Springs Road debacle has been resolved. We still do NOT have the photos. I can assure you that just because I'm speaking up, it doesn't mean I'm the only parent involved. In fact, if the ITA and Selectmen want all the parents to come to a meeting, I can arrange that.
Somehow the concern of parents to protect their children has become, "let's protect the children by lying and misdirection. Let's site examples of child abuse among relatives and family friends". If we had or even thought we had that kind of problem, we would have addressed that outside of this forum. This is about the pictures, where they are, and the Selectmen/ITA's rude behavior while trying to hide records from the parents. Notice the plural on parent?
I do care about not being able to view the pictures because they are children that are either family or family friends. I care because they lied to me and because I have no clue if they even have the pictures, which troubles me a great deal. I care a great deal about people taking pictures of my child and professing concern for safety and not even bothering to ask my permission to use those pictures. I care about a group of Selectmen who didn't even consider whether the parents of these children wanted any say in the displaying or use of these pictures to further an agenda. I REALLY care about the way we have been dealt with on this issue.
As I have stated, there is more, but that is for lawyers and other people to bring forward.
Offline
#45 2009-07-17 09:35:40
A big issue to think about is a citizen of this town, as is his right, asked the BOS chairman for help, and was treated rudely. It's an example of what I've said before and will say again - This town does not have a board of selectmen that represents everyone. They only represent themselves and their own. If you've ever spoken out against them, if you voted against them, then you have no government representation and you're on your own.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-17 09:36:08)
Offline
#46 2009-07-17 09:38:31
I agree Larry, let's stick to the point. Thread drift is common when a hot side issue is brought up. I have trouble not clarifying side issues on subjects I happen to have particular knowledge about. Sorry...
we need to address the matter of town officials who LIE.
and don't deserve the positions of responsibility they have.
Offline
#47 2009-07-17 10:12:42
urneighbor...thank you for the additional clarification..."A+"
Larry, I headed down the child abuse road because I must have misunderstood the concern you had regarding the photographs of your children being displayed at a public venue...such concern is generally due to the fear of a potential sexual predator taking notice...I apologize
Perhaps your anger would be much more beneficial if you made a slight adjustment in its direction...I happened to have dreamt last night that I had moved to a neighborhood where I was the most horrible, abnoxious person I could be...you have no idea how relieved I was when I woke up this morning and found that the 5 tons of the smelliest, most disgusting manure that had been deposited on my front lawn by an unmarked, plateless commercial vehicle in the middle of the night had only happened in my nightmare...
Offline
#48 2009-07-17 10:52:24
Ms Lilly,
Again, I understand where my anger or frustration is directed. As far as the "act", I know where that belongs. As far as the run around, that is the Selectmen and ITA, plain and simple. I suspect the majority of the conversation should take place in private, but rest assured, I'm competent enough to know where the issues reside and who is responsible.
I guess we will return to private messages! :)
Offline
#49 2009-07-17 11:03:40
I did not intend for my remarks to come across as questioning your compentence...
Offline
#50 2009-07-17 11:05:28
where the heck has my spell check gone?
Offline
#51 2009-07-17 11:17:17
Will BillW please address the alleged BOS and ask where these photos have gone!!!!!!
Offline
#52 2009-07-17 11:37:37
Hasn't BillW gotten himself in enough trouble?
Offline
#53 2009-07-23 10:04:13
Okay, after a short break, I want to add a bit more to the story.
After my letter to the Standard Times, I received an email from Jane Donahue. I felt is was a decent and rational approach requesting a meeting. I told her I would be interested in a meeting too. BUT, after I forwarded a copy of the exchange with Sauvageau, I haven't heard a word from her. Now, what does that mean?
My first thought is that she didn't want to get in the middle of the exchange, but I have seen her stand up to Sauvageau, so that didn't make sense. Last week, I ran across a person also deep in the Maple Springs Road conflict and after sharing my story, I was informed that perhaps Mrs. Donahue was a major backer of my neighbor. I never thought of this, but it might be why I haven't heard from her.
The next post is the exchange with Mrs. Donahue. Again, the actual text is not altered, only the removal of the email addresses and personal information.
Offline
#54 2009-07-23 10:09:40
Mrs. Donahue,
Thank you for your reply. I certainly appreciate your response to my letter to the editor. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss my concerns with you. I was extremely upset with Mrs. Eckstrom’s comment and after reading her explanation, I continue to shake my head. I realize we are human and sometimes our emotions get the best of us, so I think it was a wise thing to apologize. As far as Mr. Whitehouse, I have encouraged him to apologize, but I do not know if he will or not. I made it clear to him that behavior like that furthers the divide that is growing in Wareham. I want to also state that I’ve seen Mr. Sauvageau and Mrs. Eckstrom do their own fair share of bashing, so it appears both sides need to calm down. In any case, this is not helping to resolve differences and it certainly is not in the best interest of Wareham.
As far as the website, there are many constructive and information filled discussions in the content. There are very few angry people with no real direction and making rude comments, but I have encouraged Mr. Whitehouse to clean that up as it detracts from the point of the website. He is making an effort in that direction. If anything, I apologize to Mr. Sauvageau for having to endure that type of question or comment. I think he showed a great deal of resolve to control his emotions.
I want to be as frank as possible, so there is no misunderstanding. We have an ongoing situation when it comes to the Maple Springs Road dispute. I have kept this outside the other issues I have with the current conditions of Wareham. At this point, I am very tired of dealing with lies and the denials. My wife visited the Town Hall today to request public records and was again rebuffed. The secretaries for the Selectmen, the Administrative assistant, and the Interim Administrator have denied the existence of public records we are seeking. We have a copy of the Selectmen’s meetings where those records were accepted by the Selectmen and entered as public record. We also have two eye witnesses to the documents. We recently wrote a letter to the Selectmen, which was received and stamped, and received no reply. The Interim Administrator made it a point of telling me that “we did nothing wrong”, but I don’t think that will fly when you stack up the evidence. We tried to handle this in a dignified simple manner but it appears it’s going to take lawyers and the Attorney General’s Office to sort this out. I had hoped we could avoid all this, but apparently we are not being taken seriously.
I look forward to your call and meeting with you,
Very respectfully,
Larry McDonald
From: Jane Donahue
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:50 AM
To: Larry McDonald
Cc: bos@wareham.ma.us
Subject: Re: Citizen Participation 6/30/2009
Dear Mr McDonald,
Thank you for writing. I have been meaning to give you a call. I want you to know that I read your letter to the editor and am always open to discussion and constructive criticism and was hoping to sit down and have a coffee and a chat with you.
Although I was out of town on business for this meeting, I appreciate and concur with your concerns and comments, and I think the proper thing was for Mrs Eckstrom to apologize, and she has done so.
I would add, that Mr Whitehouse has been hugely encouraged by the website you have publicly stated you support. He and others have been bashing and bad mouthing both Mr Savaugea and Mrs Eckstrom for months.
Please understand, I am not saying that two wrongs make a right. I am just saying that the website and those who continue to post to it have enabled and emboldened Mr Whitehouse's behavior. I feel he is being taken advantage of and I think it is highly unlikely that he will apologize to the Board, but again appreciate your sentiment that he should do so.
So if it is okay with you, I will give you a call in the near future..
Very Respectfully,
jane donahue
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry McDonald
To:
Cc:
Date: Wednesday, July 1 2009 11:25 AM
Subject: Citizen Participation 6/30/2009
Dear Selectmen,
I want to express my shock with what happened during the Board of Selectmen meeting on June 30, 2009. Mr. Whitehouse was clearly trying to provoke Mr. Sauvageau with personal questions that clearly crossed the line of decency. I want to compliment Mr. Sauvageau for his display of restraint. I also want to voice my displeasure with the comment made by Mrs. Eckstrom. She displayed a level of behavior that is not acceptable for a Selectmen.
I believe Mr. Whitehouse should apologize to the Board and personally to Mr. Sauvageau for his comments. I also believe Mrs. Eckstrom should apologize and/or asked to resign for her outburst. Under no circumstances should the behavior of either be tolerated or encouraged.
Thank you,
Larry McDonald
Offline
#55 2009-07-23 10:13:03
I also sent the following email after the exchange with Mr. Sauvageau. I eliminated the exchange with Sauvageau, because it was posted previously.
Mrs. Donahue,
I wanted to forward the following email conversation between Mr. Sauvageau and me. I know you have expressed interest in meeting with me to share my frustrations and to clear the air, but this is the type of exchange the adds to my frustration. There are bigger items on the Wareham agenda, but I hold a very deep personal interest in the topic discussed below. Again, I am sharing this with you in the hopes that you will understand my concerns and desire to get to the bottom of this. It is very clear there is no solving this issue through Mr. Sauvageau, so I am left considering other options. It's really simple when you look at the facts. First, are the pictures contained in the red book in the possession of the Selectmen's office or the Administrator's office? If not, where are they? These are public records and contain photos of my daughter! I want them handled with care! According to the Secretaries in the Selectmen's office, the Administrative Assistant, and the Interim TA, the only pictures they have are the ones contained in the black book. If that is the case, then public records are missing. If that isn't the case, it's a simple retraction for Mr. Saginet and a visual verification of the book and photos by myself.
The funny thing about this entire situation is that I do not enjoy this at all! I enjoy living a quiet peaceful life without all the nonsense. I can tell you I was raised to never start a fight, but to never back down when it cannot be handled in a logical way. I was also taught to make sure I have the truth behind me and my facts in order. The truth will prevail and if I am wrong, I will always apologize.
If you are still interested in a conversation, I welcome the opportunity to meet you and discuss politics and Maple Springs road (as much as I dislike the subject).
Respectfully,
Larry McDonald
Offline
#56 2009-07-23 10:17:47
Since both exchanges, I have forwarded both conversations and other documents to a contact at the State level. I will not post those replies here. I also passed copies on the Steve Urbon and another news outlet.
I really would have preferred to handle this in a simple way, but the lack of concern on the part of the Selectmen has left me very little choice. I sincerely hoped we could have put this behind us and concentrate on current events, but this will just not end!
Okay, open to comments!
Offline
#57 2009-07-23 13:16:46
MS DONAHUE ECKSTROM HAS NOT APOLOGIZED IN A PUBLIC MEETING. SHE TOLD A LIE TO THE OBSERVER. SHE DEFAMED A WOMAN IN A PUBLIC MEETING THE PROPER PLACE FOR AN APOLOGY WOULD BE A PUBLIC APOLOGY. APOLOGIZING TO THE RAG WHICH YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PAPER OR PAY FOR THE WEBSITE WITH VERY LIMITED AUDIENCE DOES NOT COUNT. WHY DIDNT YOU JANE SPEAK UP AND SAY THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE DURING THE MEETING? YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM SPEAKING UP TO AUDIENCE MEMBERS. SHE HAS NOT MADE AN APOLOGY!
Offline
#58 2009-07-23 14:27:00
IHS; Right! and Brucie should apologize for muttering "Jesus", and lying or "misspeaking" that the town gets no money from tickets, or The town has no liability because of Crimewatch, and a secret executive session was not announced properly or begun legally. This is just in the last two weeks. Make it public, don't ragify it.
Offline
