I'm glad you started this thread as the other was getting quite long and this one can focus on Mr. Paulsen's comments. I commended Mr. Paulsen on his post there. I reread it to be sure I had the information right. Then I started fuming.

That long rant by Jane D. at the bos meeting claiming they were blindsided etc. was all a big act. But worse, in my opinion, she was plain and simply lying.  It's not the first time she's been caught in a lie, but this time there were enough witnesses so that she can't deny it. How dumb do they think we are. We, the all powerful bos say it is true so it is true.

This kind of bos behavior has got to stop. Only two selectmen are up for election in April. But they all should go. I've lost my patience with Cruz too. We keep giving him a pass, but he had to know about this, and he let Jane rant on and he let Bruce pontificate. He was on the 6 minute video about the computer audit and didn't oppose that either. Sorry, to those on this site who have supported him, but I can no longer give him a pass.

We, the citizens should not have to put up with this. Thanks to people like Mr. P. telling us the truth, and the ST for publishing documents and articles that are balanced, and well researched, we are learning the facts.

Let's get through town meeting and then keep our focus on our next challenge. Let's throw the bums out.

THANK YOU MR  PAULSEN.  I AM SORRY YOU AS MANY OTHER GOOD HONEST HARD WORKING PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HURT BY THESE HORRIBLE INCOMPETENT BUMS THAT ARE DESTROYING THIS TOWN ONE LIE AT A TIME.

I have not written before on this blog, but with so many issues cropping up, I thought it best to respond and set various records straight. And I am using my own name, probably a mistake, but I am not much of a one for staying in the shadows.

First, although I am Chairman of the Finance Committee, what follows are views that I hold as a citizen of the town, not as the Committee Chair.

Let’s look at five different issues, which while separate, are in fact, intertwined.

•    The issue of the Health Trust dating back to early July
•    What happened subsequent to September 24, 2009 when Dr. Rabinovitch delivered his “letter?”
•    Whose “man” am I
•    Bob Slager “losing respect” for me
•    What to do

In early July, the FinCom and the BOS were made aware of the fact that there might be an issue, and when Bob Slager called me, I told him that “Until we know what the numbers are there is no way of knowing if this is even a story.”  I said that and would say the same thing again today, but please note, and he got this right, the use of the phrase “what the numbers are” 

From that point forward, I became increasingly interested in the issue, as did the FinCom.

Bruce at the outset was on the same page, and as I have publicly stated, he was quite firm with the ITA, “write the DOR-don’t call-write”   Perfect. We were in harmony singing the same song.

But the drift started almost immediately, the ITA did not immediately do as he was instructed.  It was perhaps two weeks later that after my repeated requests, that he did send the letter and on August 7, 2009, the DOR response came back-more on that later.

On July 6, 2009, I sent an email to John Sanguinet and copied Bruce

“For the three years 2007, 2008 and 2009, could you please supply us with the dollar amount contributed by the Town for all employees health care….so that we can add up the percentages.  If they come out at 75:25, then we apparently have no problem, and that is what we want to see.”

On July 14, 2009, on an email from me to Bruce, I said in part

“We need the letter and we need numbers, specifically, what where the amounts of premiums that came from various entities in each of the last three or four years.

I told the Observer almost two seeks ago that we needed the numbers, I hope not to respond the same way if asked again.”

Please note the reference to “two weeks,” I will stand by my assertion that the drift was underway.  Nothing had been done

On July 22 in an email from Bruce to me:

“By the way, our auditor already incorporates this trust find like all others into his annual report”

My response in part, was

“My personal hope, perhaps misplaced, is that we can get this taken care of on our own, before the union hits us with an unfair labor suit, with the  attendant publicity and cost.

You and I have a different opinion on the gravity of this.  It will be interesting what the DOR says, maybe not definitive, but interesting none the less.”

But now-and thank you Bruce-I had a clue as to where to look, and look I did

And I would add that the “drift” was now complete, and I am mindful of the observation by Mae West, “I was Snow White, but I drifted.”

From an email to the FinCom dated August 23, 2009 and using the 2008 audit:

“This is kind of interesting and troubling (if I am correct)

On page 25, there is a section that deals only with the what is called the “Internal Service Funds” in which the town paid $5.5 MM and employees $2.1 MM, a ratio of 72:27

To bring the ratio to 75:25 would mean the town would have put in $5.694 MM, or about $200,000 more then we did.

Now it is possible that some bargaining groups are mandated to contribute more, so what I am about to suggest should be viewed with that in mind.  And I am also assuming that the total amount in this account is for Health premiums

If the ratio is in fact to be 75:25, then in this one year, we are down by, as noted, $200,000.  Then you get into the question of how many years has this been going on.  My understanding is that this may go back five years, to Hartman. Our liability again if 75:25 is the benchmark, would be that the Town would have to make up perhaps $700,000, give or take.”

Now please remember, I was doing this on my own but in effect at Bruce’s suggestion.

I concluded that if the amount was $700, 000 for two years that a reasonable guess would be $1.5 million for four years.

The next day August 24, 2009, in an email that went to the BOS and the FinCom

“Let’s think about this a bit more.

The ITA refused to pay half the cost for the “audit” and I think that was a mistake.

Let’s assume that what I surmised below is on the right track: that the town did something that was inappropriate (and I might add illegal, although that is not my point, but read on).

With what the ITA did in turning the school committee down, was to cede control of the whole process to them. Investigation. Conclusion. Portrayal.  We have no voice in this.

And so when the report comes out the headline the next day might be along the lines, “Wareham Town Officials Engaged in Illegal Activities” and go on from there pointing out, among other things, that the town refused to participate in an examination of the issue and that the cover-up is now made visible.

And you know what it would be true, slanted, but true. (I would take exception to any inference of “cover-up” but once out there, the process is hard to stop)

So, what to do?

My suggestion is that the BOS instruct the ITA that he is to reverse course; offer to up pick half the tab and if the town is at fault, the town will pick up the whole tab.

That way the town has a voice in this and a seat at the table.

The result might be the same (that is that we were in error), but the tone would be entirely different.

And this should be done quickly, the report should be here soon, like in a week or so.   And you should be very public about this.

What if I am wrong.

Well, then consider the $1,500 spent to be kind of an insurance “premium.”

And if I am correct, it is both the fair thing to do and sensible.

Dick

No response from the BOS, but clearly a sense on the part of the FinCom that we were in dangerous waters. The drift was continuing.

On September 20, 2009 in an email to Bruce, Jane and Brenda:

“But it is what it is and we have to face the financial consequences. 
If the August 7, 2009 DOR letter has not been circulated on the BOS, I would suggest that everyone either read it or review it as the case may be.  The part about the town “as requiring that the town contribute a specific percentage of the previously determined premium of rate amount, at least by year end,”  was and is definitive.


The issue is to be discussed at the School Committee on Wednesday, but there is an opportunity for a small sub-committee of two people from the School Committee, two from the BOS, a similar number from the FinCom and the ITA and Barry to get together on Monday or Tuesday to try and figure out how to handle this financially.

Bruce you wanted to wait until the numbers are in, and as noted above, they are.  I am not privy to what they are, but they will be a major problem.

Brenda, you and I talked about this and Jane you are being rung in since you are one of our liaisons as well as a BOS member.

The bottom line is that the town got a break for the last several years, and now has to make this up in some manner.  The issue is how.

Please let me know what you want to do.”

Let’s say for the sake of argument that they did not believe that I was correct, but with this email they should have gone into high gear.  But did they?  I think not.

On September 24, the letter to John Sanguinet is delivered to him with the results of the audit.  That letter contained a suggestion paralleling what I had been saying all along, let’s sit down and talk.

Now, things get murky, The Selectmen say words to the effect that they knew nothing about this and Sanguinet to date has not responded to three requests as to the “time-line,” particularly as to when he told the BOS about the letter and its contents.  It is possible that they did not see the letter, but when where they told of its contents, that is the question?  For me it is difficult to believe that Sanguinet sat on this for almost two weeks, possible I guess, but unlikely. But that is what we are led to believe.

But putting that aside, and it is important, the BOS knew something important was afoot, they had my warnings and in public session the School Committee made it known that the report was out. So, did no one on the BOS ask Sanguinet anything? Did they ask anyone?  At best this is an error of omission; one of them should have picked up the phone and asked-there is no excuse for not having done so.

Look, how hard would it have been to do what Barry suggested, but not in this town, no way and that is what I am critical of.

But hold the presses, now I am told, “that, oh sorry, we did know on September 29, but did not see the letter, just the numbers.  But we went ahead on October 6 and excoriated everyone in sight, well just because.”

And separately, hard on the heels of that,  from Bruce asking that we attend a joint meeting on Tuesday with the BOS, the School Committee and the FinCom.  The School Committee has already turned them down because, in part, of inadequate time to prepare.  Our response was that we want to know what conclusion they arrived at.

And one of my FinCom members really hit the nail on the head: “Kind of feels like being a pooper scooper.”

Bruce in his own Bruceikian manner said and I quote “The purpose of the meeting is to begin the dialog between all parties”   “Begin?” Now that the union-sorry “cat”-is out of the bag, let’s “begin?”  Kidding does come to mind. And he refused to talk to the point that the FinCom is requesting what we believe is legitimate information; what specifically are your conclusions (almost four months into the process?)

I am sure that he will look us in the eye and say, “why,yes, of course it is a holiday weekend and people may be gone, but this is important, important do you hear me!!”  But might not someone ask “who brought us to this point?  Who made it “important?”

To the issue of whose “man” I am-one blogger said I was their man-well, I am not a betting man, but I bet if you asked the Selectmen, the best you would get is a roll of the eyes.  And if you asked them the same question six months ago, the response would have been more temperate but the message would have been the same, he is very independent. “Our man, hardly look what he is doing to us-but then in an aside, not that we don’t deserve it?”

And now finally to Mr Slager, and his email to me that in part said I am a hypocrite:

“As chairman of the FinCom, why didn't you make your concerns public immediately? Where were your letters to the editor? Why didn't you bring this subject up to selectmen when you (rightfully) criticized Sanguinet for not providing the FinCom timely information on the budget? That occurred after July. You had an opportunity then and you chose not to take it.”

Ok, as to the first criticism, I chose not to bring this public, because as I said and he quoted accurately, I wanted the numbers. Did I have suspicions, suspicions that were growing, yes I did?   But I am not an accountant, so I decided to wait on the “public” part until the audit came in.  However as to his other observation, it should be clear to anyone who reads this objectively, that on many occasions and in different ways I alerted the BOS.  My numbers were correct, my calculations were correct and frankly my conclusions were correct.  Does that make me a good guy? No. A bad guy? Well depends on your point of view.  What one might conclude is that this is somebody who did some homework and was trying to quietly suggest to the BOS that they should do something, and he was unsuccessful.

Mr Slager also commented that “It sounds to me that you are simply angry that you weren't put on the agenda at the last minute on Tuesday and now you are throwing what amounts to a tantrum. Are you planning on apologizing to readers of the Observer for saying in July "At this point we don’t even know if there is even a surplus. This doesn’t have the appearance of being a really significant issue."

There were three other people there who witnessed my comments about not being able to speak publicly to the BOS at Citizens Participation, and I think if they were asked they would have to say that my tone I believe was critical but measured. It did not rise to the level of tantrum, I have been to several BOS meetings, I know what tantrum looks like.

Interestingly, and still on the subject, Mr Slager admitted that he did not know about the gag rule (Committee members and Department Heads may not speak at Citizen Participation) and asked me “are you a citizen of the town,” again in front of three witnesses, and when I said “yes,” he shook his head and mumbled something to the effect that is not right, leaving me to the impression that he thought the BOS stance on this was wrong.  And Slager being Slager, I assumed that he would make an issue of what he apparently thought was a bad policy. 

And he quoted me again correctly about it (the Health Trust issue) not having the appearance of being significant, but again and in my “defense” I would again note that I not only did say that I wanted the numbers (again) but also began to dig in to try and get more texture. And as it became clearer to me that there was an issue of significant proportions, I became more vocal to the BOS, but again unsuccessfully.  So, as he suggested I did in fact try to talk to the Selectmen, and you may judge the degree of success.

What to do?

I had four items that I wanted to deliver if I had been granted the right to speak:

1.    The BOS should immediately apologize to the town and its employees
2.    The BOS should immediately look to the senior retirees of the town, figure out how much they were owed, cut checks and mail them out to those seniors with a letter of apology.  I know we don’t “have” the money, but for the BOS to expect seniors to bear the burden is unfair. They should not be put on Wareham Lite or some sort of “holiday.”
3.    Have the ITA revamp the already just approved revamped budget, and add in the cost of the shortfall.  My guess would be that to both send out the cash and start the process of correcting the issue for current active employees might be in the neighborhood of $400,000. And while we are at it, let’s deal also with what appears to be inevitable, more cuts by the state, perhaps $200,000 to $400,000.  So the total change might be anywhere from $200,000 to $600,000. 
4.    That when a new Town Administrator is hired that the process be opened up to the town, and that the final candidates be interviewed openly by the town, no more closed doors. 

Finally, the FinCom started to discuss the desirability of trying to get younger people interested in our processes and to that end; we will be hosting a regular posted meeting on Wednesday, October 14 at the High School at 12:30 pm in the auditorium.  Because of the unfortunate timeliness of the Health trust Issue, it will be the top item on the agenda.  And unlike the Chairman of the BOS, we do allow reasoned participation without prior scrutiny by a censor-and reasoned means just that-to the point and polite.  I should add that our conversations on this date go well back over a year, so there is no “political” motive in this; it is what it is.

In addition, we will be appearing as guests of the Onset Protective League on Thursday, October 15 at 7 pm at the VFW in Onset. 

I'll be the guy with one hat (a private joke)

Dick Paulsen
Offline
Report | Quote
#119 Today 14:51:40
Molly
Mr. Paulsen, Thank you for this informative post. Of course, you know that by posting here you have come over to the dark side and you will, no doubt be punished for it in some fashion.

I hate to say this to you, but it is my opinion that when the last Fin Com quit at town meeting, this bos put in a panel for appearances sake only. They aren't willing to work with you and the fin com. To have to ask for numbers is outrageous. And yet, you will be blamed for as much as they can lay on you.

Thanks to you and your committee for trying to work in and for this town. But I don't think it will get any better.

By the way. On this site, we ignore slager. He isn't worth it. My advice to you is not to talk to him and not to read his crap.

Good luck, because you and fin com will need it.