#2 2009-09-10 16:45:02
excellent letter.. she could teach us all how not to engage that person but point out his "minor factual inaccuracies".. SUSAN YOU GO GIRL..
Offline
#3 2009-09-10 16:54:19
Great letter, but only morons would believe what bobo wrote anyway.
Still can't believe how far off the mark he is. I hope you getting compensated well for believing everything the BOS tells you
Offline
#4 2009-09-10 16:59:38
Wonderful. Susan Gifford is a class act. She gave only facts. No name calling. Although she used some phrases about a certain person's reporting habits, I think they are words "too big" for him to understand. He may even think he has been complimented. Susan and Mark are waiting this out. If they can, so can I. Actually, we don't have a choice, so we just wait.
Offline
#5 2009-09-10 17:21:32
Susan did a fine job in her letter. I'm glad she decided to speak out.
Once again, it has been proven that a certain "shock" journalist cannot be trusted with the TRUTH.
How anyone can believe his crap is beyond me. Real journalists don't rely on anonymous emails or phone calls. Whatever happened to getting at least 2--but better to get three--sources for your news stories. We all have watched the Woodward and Bernstein movie. We didn't even have to take journalism 101 to learn that there are no true deep throats without verification of the facts.
Offline
#6 2009-09-10 17:33:34
My question about this letter is in some of the wording. Rep. Gifford states:
As state representative, I want nothing to do with that process. It will play out however the selectmen, district attorney and others decide.
Shouldn't this be the ITA, DA, and others? The audit was originally conducted by the ITA, at the request of the selectmen. Doesn't that mean that it's supposed to be the ITA carrying it out? This would seem to be a pretty cut-and-dry example of separation of duties. The board sets the policy, the ITA enforces it. The BOS should have no involvement here in the actual execution of the audit, right?
Offline
#7 2009-09-10 17:54:45
acasualobserver wrote:
My question about this letter is in some of the wording. Rep. Gifford states:
As state representative, I want nothing to do with that process. It will play out however the selectmen, district attorney and others decide.
Shouldn't this be the ITA, DA, and others? The audit was originally conducted by the ITA, at the request of the selectmen. Doesn't that mean that it's supposed to be the ITA carrying it out? This would seem to be a pretty cut-and-dry example of separation of duties. The board sets the policy, the ITA enforces it. The BOS should have no involvement here in the actual execution of the audit, right?
Yes, I would say your right, Cas. I feel there's plenty of evidence in which they interfere in "day to day" responsibilities meant to be handled by the TA, or ITA, as the case may be. I do not charge one single individual of the BOS of this. I believe they act together. There are multiple Open Mtg. violations. Executive Sessions which aren't conducted properly. It appears they intend to disregard the Charter whenever it suits them. If they don't resign (eternal optimist), I hope they are removed, somehow, some way. The sooner the better.
Great letter though. It's good to have her as Rep., in my opinion. Can you imagine if it was one of the other Bozo's in her position. I shudder at the thought.
PShooter
Offline
#8 2009-09-10 18:18:07
Susan, great letter!! As for whether it should be the selectmen or the ita, I beleive they act as one criminal organization. Hopefully they will be charged under the RICO statute. It would not get any better than that.
Offline
#9 2009-09-10 18:41:45
rukidding wrote:
Susan, great letter!! As for whether it should be the selectmen or the ita, I beleive they act as one criminal organization. Hopefully they will be charged under the RICO statute. It would not get any better than that.
Fact is, RICO is the probably the only option the DA has in this case.
Offline
#10 2009-09-10 19:37:31
I respect Susan Gifford and applaud her letter. It amazes me that she would have to write this letter. The good citizens of Wareham should wake up and realize the rantings of a person who has no viable interest in Wareham is poisonous to the future of this fine town. It's a sad day when a person who has respresented this town so admirably has to take out to deal with a lunatic.
Offline
#11 2009-09-10 19:38:25
What a great letter. I think it is about time that these journalists are held responsible for their outright lies that are touted as information from "reliable" sources!
Offline
#12 2009-09-10 20:20:12
rukidding wrote:
Susan, great letter!! As for whether it should be the selectmen or the ita, I beleive they act as one criminal organization. Hopefully they will be charged under the RICO statute. It would not get any better than that.
Well, put. We can only hope.
Offline
#13 2009-09-10 20:26:29
I agree. Excellent letter.
I only wish she didn't feel she had to refer to Robert Slager without using his name, and instead characterize him as a semi-journalist. While he deserves the jab, I think that is approaching getting on his level since it is an obvious insult.
I can understand not wanting to call him a journalist.
I would have simply referred to him by his name and what he does, which is own, edit and publish The weekly Wareham Observer. That says all that needs to be said (although adding the paid circulation would be an added touch).
Last edited by urneighbor (2009-09-10 20:28:06)
Offline
#15 2009-09-10 20:38:03
here is exception 1 under LEGAL es rules as it pertains to the comments made in es by our bos some people really need to read this..
1. To discuss the reputation, character, physical condition or mental health, rather than the professional competence of an idividual, provided that the individual involved in such executive session has been notified in writing by the governmental body, at least forty-eight hours prior to the proposed executive session. Notification may be waived upon agreement of the parties. A governmental body shall hold an open meeting if the individual involved requests that the meeting be open.
The purpose of this provision is to strike a balance between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right of access to the governmental process. This is consistent with other statutes which recognize that, "A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy." G.L. c.214 s.1B and which protect against disclosure of information, "which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." G.L. c.4 s.7 clause 26(c).
It has also been recognized that the exception is designed to enable a public body to engage in candid discussion about the character and reputation of an individual who is the subject of potential action by that public body.
Along with the permitted executive session, an individual's rights are protected within this exception by the right to be present during discussions or considerations which involve him, the right to have counsel, and the right to speak in his own behalf.
It is clear that the exclusion of discussions concerning "professional competence" from this exception is a recognition of an overriding public right to be informed of the qualifications of individuals who are being considered for, or who are actively engaged in public service. The public's right to know is superior, in this instance, to an individual's preference that his professional competence not be the subject of public discussion.
The exclusion of "professional competence" discussions from this exception has led to litigation in the area of discussions concerning applicants for public employment. The courts have recognized that the Open Meeting Law shall be in force "only so far as [it is] not inconsistent with the provisions of any general or special law," G.L. c.39 s.24. It has been argued that the provisions of statutes recognizing rights against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with privacy can be used to justify private discussion of a job candidate's qualifications.
Offline
#16 2009-09-10 21:21:57
I have some company, so I can't write much, but there are some things in Slager's response that absolutely have to be addressed. Most importantly, though, is the million dollar question: Slager ran with a story alleging improprieties by Gifford based on an email from an unnamed resident. Now we have a signed message from a State Representative denying the allegation. Is Slager going to update the original post, or write an article titled "Rep. Gifford has nothing to do with Computer Audit"? Obviously this is a rhetorical question, as Slager doesn't have the common decency and/or proper journalism ethics to do such a thing.
Observer Media believes your statements to be defamatory and demands an immediate retraction for your damaging and irresponsible claims.
If she defamed you, sue her. If you're not going to sue her, stop crying. I'm sick of empty threats coming from Slager.
In your letter you claim your husband is on “periphery of this (computer) audit.” That suggests that you have knowledge of the purpose and scope of the audit, otherwise you would not know to what extent the computer audit is targeting your husband. The only way you would know that is through the District Attorney’s office. Either that or you are simply making a statement without any factual support.
OR maybe, just maybe, her husband talks to her. And maybe they were at dinner and he said "hey, someone asked me some questions today about the audit and said I'm going to be peripherally involved." As has happened often in the past, Slager needs to update this to say either "The only way that I could figure out for you to know...." or "The only way that supports my editorial position is for you to know..."
The Wareham Observer has been investigating allegations of corruption in Wareham for well over a year.
.....and has yet to publish anything substantial about it
You state in your letter that the only reason you became involved in the computer audit was because you believed an open meeting violation occurred. As well you know, during an executive session meeting that was illegally broadcast over the internet Selectman John Cronan suggested your husband’s lap top computer be audited because Mr. Cornan considered your husband to be one of the biggest rats in town
See Liz's great point above, specifically the part about how Mr. Gifford should have been allowed to be there if he was being discussed. And again, if it was illegal, where are the charges Robbie?
Claiming that Mr. Cronan’s decision to voice a personal opinion somehow constitutes a violation of the open meeting law, especially during executive session, is ludicrous. We would expect that a state representative would have a stronger understanding of open meeting law before making such an embarrassing public statement.
It's not the fact that he called Gifford a 'rat' - it's the fact that Gifford was discussed without having the opportunity to be present. We would expect a "journalist" to have a stronger understandi.....ahh, nevermind. I mean, had Slager just read the remainder of Rep. Gifford's letter, he would have seen her specifically state it was about the right to be present: "My husband asked if the selectmen violated the Open Meeting Law and, in so doing, violated his rights to be present when they discussed him."
Your claim that the Wareham Observer pursued this story simply to sell newspapers also exhibits ignorance on your part. More than 90 percent of the Wareham Observer newspapers that are put on sale each week are purchased within three days. To suggest we printed a story about you to increase sales for one week is both arrogant on your part and a cheap political device aimed at trying to change the subject.
Well, the gaping assumption here is that such an activity happened only this week. See Mr. Brady's recent letter to the editor for other examples of irresponsible writings by Mr. Slager which clearly show a pattern of "shock journalism" (great term by Rep. Gifford) in an attempt to push page views and sales.
But the most egregious aspect of your letter is your claim that we don’t actually have a source who made the allegation against you.
I just read the letter 3 times and don't see this - she says it's based on an anonymous source, but not that there is no source. Did I miss something?
This was not an anonymous e-mail. We know the name of the source
Until you name who sent it, it's an anonymous source. You know the "name" of the "source" - but you have absolutely no credibility in this town, so we simply don't believe you.
You own not just an apology to Observer Media for your comments but also one to all the residents who asked you about your involvement in the computer audit for the past two weeks and were met with stone-cold silence.
Is this the 20 residents that post crap on Slager's pay-to-play elitist web forums? Because I haven't seen anybody else besides Slager and his 20 minions pushing this issue.
You can attempt your age-old strategy of running to the Courier and having them spin things as you wish
How the hell is this spin? It's printing of a letter to the editor, verbatim, with no commentary attached. This is just ridiculous.
I'm outta here - will write more later
Offline
#17 2009-09-10 23:20:02
Casual,
We have a saying in the south....breathe...In with Jesus...out with Satan....don't let it get to you. Just imagine a day when responsible reporting is all around us! :)
Enjoy your company and the Tennessee Titans football game......
Offline
#18 2009-09-11 00:04:50
Sorry, Larry.
Pittsburgh is is today, at least.
I think that Tennessee will go to the playoffs.
I'll come visit you if they do.
Offline
#19 2009-09-11 02:19:33
I READ THE LETTER IN THE RAG HITTING MRS GIFFORD , I CAN ASSURE THE PEOPLE OF WAREHAM THAT SLAGER IS THE BIGGEST LIAR I HAVE SEEN IN ALL MY LIFE AND HIS COMMENTS ARE JUST CRAP AMD MEANT FOR THE 20 OR SO IDIOTS THAT POST ON HIS WEBSITE , THESE 2 PEOPLE ARE NOT CROOKS ,THE GIFFORDS BUT I CAN ASSURE THAT THE SELECTMEN HE COVERS ARE CROOKS AND THAT SLAGER IS JUST A PLAIN LIAR AND A IDIOT . SHE OWES YOU NE APPOLIGIE ,YOU ARE A SCREWBALL, YOU DEFAME A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THAY ARE ALL LIES , YOU AND YOUR FOMER PARTNER LIZ ARE 2 LOWLIFES . WHY YOU JUST SIT IN HALLIFAX AND READ THE COURIER, THE ST TIMES AND THIS WEBSITE AND THAT IS YOUR NEWSPAPER A CUT AND PASTE JOB,AND MAKEBELEAVE STORIES , THE GIFFORDS ARE UPSTANDING PEOPLE YOU ARE A LOWLIFE SHOVE YOUR PAPER WHERE THE SUN DOESNT SHINE. EVERY ONE OF THE PA EOPLE YOY HAVE MALIGNED IN YOUR PAPER THE STORIES ARE NOT TRUE , THE STORIES YOU DONT COVER OF THE PRESENT BOARD OF SELECTMAN AND THE DISHONEST THINGS THEY DO MAKE YOU A SYSCIOPHANT AND A BOOB.
Offline
#20 2009-09-11 10:19:33
Breaking News! (key my music)........Rip Dinkle, reporting live......
If you want to know how much support a certain un-named reporter has, I have the answer! 3 people! Well, technically 2, but we are willing to go iffy on the 3. If you read "his" paper, which I don't, you will note that he called "all his troops" to rally and write Susan Gifford, our esteemed representative, and express their displeasure at his behest. A very reliable source has informed me that Mrs. Gifford has received only 3 letters/email/calls since "his" display of inept inability to rally his readers (way too many I words, but it sounded good). Actually, she received 2 negative letters and 1 letter in support. Let's just call it three supporters because I'm reminded of his rally at the Bob Brady meeting, and it appears he has once again proven how many supporters he really has! (cue the crickets chirping in an open field video here)
Okay Ham, PLEASE put the laugh sound track in for me..i'm busting a gut here and crying from all the laughing.
ANOTHER source asked me a question, which i pose to my well versed readers: "If a source tells a lie to the reporter, and the reporter reports the lie, is it still a lie? Who is responsible for the lie? (I would like 100 words or less in response, my eyes are filled with tears of laughter from the HUGE SUPPORT "he" has.
Rip Dinkle...with special shoutouts to my source and the esteemed Susan Gifford....the magic number of the day is 2.....:) Shaken, not stirred!
Offline
#21 2009-09-11 16:39:18
Nicely worded response by Representative Gifford. As usual ACO has done a tremendous job in the breakdown of Mr. Slager's meandering response. I am confused by Mr. Slager's response - and I know it is typical, so I should not be. However, I read each letter more than once and he clearly did not.
My favorite part is how he goes out of his way to say:
"We are aware of the allegations made against the Municipal Maintenance Department, as well as against other departments and individuals. Those allegations were not leaked to the Observer by any member of the Board of Selectmen. We have investigated these allegations independently."
But then he says:
"While the Wareham Observer agrees that such a comment was unbecoming of a selectman, Mr. Cronan also had personal knowledge of the Inspector General’s investigation into your husband’s activities with the Municipal Maintenance Department. He was interviewed regarding that matter personally by the assistant Inspector General. "
I am not a rocket scientist, but he sure does make it sound like Mr. Cronan, who had personal knowledge of the Inspector General's investigation which noone knew about, was not the source in finding out about the IG investigation that noone knew about. Mr. Slager makes it sound like "Mr. Cronan had the knowledge, which I knew he had, but he didn't tell me anything, but I know he knew . . . so how do you "Know he knew" if he was not a source? Unless the Mr.Cronan he refers to is not a member of the Board of Selectmen. . . . but I am pretty sure he is.
It is all so very confusing.
But I am happy Mr. Slager is being put in his place by people who I respect a whole lot more than I respect him. I hope the pattern continues and he either changes his ways, or moves on to pollute another town.
Offline
