This says it all.

"Paulsen had been rebuffed in an attempt to address the board on the issue of the estimated $1.9 million owed to employees from the trust. He said he was told by Sauvageau and Selectman Jane Donahue that citizens' input time was off limits to town officials"

Gee, I wonder what else they do this with, hidden agenda? back door dealings? Since we are all on a need to know basis, I wonder what we DONT know about "Westfield".

Bobo is going to be pulling an all nighter' to spin this.

ITA,  BOS please resign.

Thank you

BREAKING NEWS: Bobo throws Paulsen under the bus!  He calls him a flip-flopper and goes to town on him.

Always entertaining when the Hypocrite Elite devours one of their own.  These people turn on each other at the drop of a hat. 

Paulsen committed the cardinal sin of criticizing Sweet Brucey and Bobo had to defend Brucey's honor.

It's getting awfully crowded under that bus.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-08 09:57:04)

It is to be expected. Anyone that defies the all powerful Bruce is to be written about immediately!

Remember the prediction? They are like a pack of dogs, when they get no food, they turn on each other.....

BillW - thanks for posting this article. Some salient points.

While the BoS plays dumb (not too hard for them), it seems that all kinds of info was swirling about regarding this problem. both from the school, AND THE TOWN SIDE. the article does not date Dick Paulsen's direct attempts with the BoS to get some action on this, but we have plenty of dates logged by Superintendent Rabinovich in attempts to address the issue.

But, the date that leaped off the page to me was August 7, 2009, just over two months ago. That is the date of a letter from the Department of Revenue; in which, the article states, "Sanguinet had received a written ruling.......addressed to Sanguinet".

Let's parse this one, shall we?

1. The DOR is a big place. Just where did this written ruling come from? the Bureau of Accounts? well, that would be very interesting, as the ruling could have an impact on the FY2010 tax rate. Did it come from the DoR's legal eagles? very likely that they were involved, to some degree.

But, in order for the DoR people to issue a "written ruling", it is necessary to REQUEST such a ruling. that would be prior to 8/7/09, of course. And, since they are not known for being speed demons in responding, it may be fair to presume that any such request came WELL before August 7.

Who knew & when did they know? They all did and clearly prior to the issuance of a ruling from the DoR.


2. "...the ruling makes clear that Town appropriations will have to be made to restore the 3-1 ratio in the trust fund".

Well, the law (MGL 32B, Section 3A) is silent on the issue of rebates, even tho they were discussed in the article. the law specifies that "the subdivision (i.e. the Town) SHALL (my emphasis) adjust FUTURE (my emphasis) contributions......to adjust for the inconsistency".

Is FY2010 (7/1/09 thru 6/30/10) considered the future, for this purpose? Does it go over to FY2011. What if the required adjustment(s) EXCEED the employees' contribution for, say FY2010; does the balance of the adjustment automatically roll forward to subsequent fiscal years? Is the Town allowed to cut a deal to correct over a longer time frame, say 5-10 years.

Sure would be nice to read the written ruling.

3. Bob Bliss? that rapscallion is at it again. Its bad enuf that he was responsible for the great molasses flood in the North End of Boston, for the tornado that touched down  in Worcester, and of course, Hurricane Bob; but now he is  the devil incarnate, responsible for this fiasco. What? did he put a spell on the (i)TA? Did he hide figures so that the Trust fund custodian (specified in the law) couldn't add 25% & 75 % to yield (where's that calculator) 100%? Did he issue a report in euros with no conversion factor? what?

spin, spin, spin. It took months to come with Bob Bliss as the spin? pathetic!

4. Grants? I'll grant you this, its about as murky as it gets right here. Are people who work under Fed/St grants entitled to Town benefits? If yes, and they are in the health insurance pool, then would the Town deduct the health insurance premiums? If yes, then isn't that already in play in the auditor's numbers? What is the (i)TA suggesting regarding these grants?

Questions, lotsa questions. And a stunning dearth of answers.

I may not have the ace investigative reporting skills of say, Rip Dinkle, but I will do what these old bones can.

Just to reiterate, Sweet Brucey's defense for the selectmen not looking into this is, translated, "We couldn't investigate  this because we're in litigation with Bob Bliss and since it is all Bob Bliss' fault, it wouldn't look good if we investigated.  We can, however, without ever conducting an investigation, tell you it was Bob Bliss' fault.  Because that is how Sweet Brucey logic works."

Brucey, get a job and pay your taxes.

Perhaps Steve Urbon of the Standard Times should request all emails sent from the Board of Selectmen from thier personal home computers regarding any correspodence regarding this matter. Even emails from home computers are a matter of public record if they contain anything at all about town business.  The S-T may find that this was discussed between the Board earlier than they have admitted?

Last edited by Maturevoter (2009-10-08 14:45:56)