How they are going to blame Hartman for this when they threw him out four years ago is beyond me, but these people are masters of passing the buck. They couldn't have caught this in the four years since they canned Hartman? Bobo is even trying to make it out like the entire school department is part of the evil power elite now too.

Selectmen, either take some responsibility and stop passing the buck or resign immediately.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-10-10 09:03:37)

When was this started?  2006?  Bruce was on the board then, Brenda was on the board then.  When they started steamrolling people left and right so they could bring their own lackies in, they had a responsibility to inform the numerous town administrators that they kept sending through the revolving door (for not puckering up hard enough for Sweet Brucey's butt) to keep an eye on this fund.  They didn't, and that's why they have the most responsibility, as they are our town's two most senior selectmen.

I am just wondering. What kind of hell was it like when Mr. Foster was ITA? Can you just imagine? A rock and a hard place comes to mind. He was doing his own job and doing the bos's bidding as ITA. That could be a valid reason for not taking care of the health insurance bit. I'm not giving anybody a pass, but I have to respect someone who takes responsibility for his actions or inactions.

As someone recently said to Tom Brady--it's time to take your skirt off and play football.  Maybe sweet Brucie as bos chair and long standing selectman should--oh never mind.

Liz: Thank you. I'm trying not to read BoBO's rag so I missed it.

SLAGER YOU ARE A LIEING SHIT.

Huh? Mr. Foster begins his post with TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. I wouldn't call this a "reasonably good job of getting the facts both straight and out."

Mr Foster,
Thank you for coming out and stating facts. Too often, the facts are mixed with opinion which distort and give the wrong impression (That's my way of saying Slager spins his story to support the Selectmen's position).

Mr. Paulsen,
I have a question for you. I know of quite a few people in this town that have an excellent grasp of the Charter, MGL, and possess many skills that the town can utilize on specific committees. However, the same people I am speaking of rarely get an interview or make it past the application process. I watch the Selectmen's meetings and they constantly talk about the lack of applicants for committees and boards. There seems to be a disparity between what the Selectmen and the facts. Why do the Selectmen overlook or bury good citizens when the town could utilize their backgrounds and talents?

PShooter wrote:

I agree with you Ms. Lilly (see, it can happen). Except I would have said, "..that will help us take it back".

Touche` Pshooter...

Take back...move forward...take back...move forward...great taste...less filling...

Thanks Larry, I wasn't real sure of that. I haven't been reading the Rag very much, and may have missed that. In any case, I'm thankful for his views, and am hopeful that others will visit us here, and in his attempt to get us "the rest of the story"

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

It's funny that the people behind Move Wareham Forward make statements such as above, and yet Mr. Paulsen makes his "declaration" on a site that is more about Take Wareham Back. The citizens of this town deserve a break from the dysfuntional government we have experienced over the last few years. The common thread is the direction and management skills of the Selectmen. Poor hiring practices, no personnel department, underqualified ITA and Accountant, committee appointments that do not reflect the diversity of the people in this wonderful town. Isn't it time we Take Wareham Back?

I also want to thank Dick P and John F for sharing.

The health insurance trust fund is an extremely complicated issue. I may be repeating others in this ost but time is of the essence and I wanted to help out here if I could.

It is my understanding that Wareham has accepted the provisions of MGL Ch. 32 (B, I think off the top of my head), this means all employees pay the same percentage split (in this case 75/25), the Town must bargaining claaboratively to make changes to the health plan, etc etc. So, we know that all employees pay the same contribution rate, 25%.

Keep in mind that being self insured is essentially being a health insurance company, the Town is responsible for paying out on all medical claims. Of course there are exceptions, the Town most likely has "stop gap" insurance so if they receive a catastrophic claim (in excess of $100,000.00 typically) they are not on the hook. If they don't have it they should, but I am sure they do, I am pretty certain someone told me they did.

They Town also employees a consultant, they consultant reviews the plans, useage, claims, etc. Because the Town can't (you know, all those privacy laws). The consultant makes recommendations to the INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (IAC). The IAC makes recommendations for rates, etc.

Then the Town has a plan administrator (like Blue Cross/Blue Shield) who processes all the claims and handles member issues.

All of the above expenses are legitimate expenses and part of the overall cost of providing the health plan. I have left out others I am sure but I have promised a certain little girl that we would watch Backyardigans so I am rushing!

If there is a surplus in the fund at the end of the year it is a good idea to roll some of it over, never hurts to have a little extra just in case. In December of 2008 (?) the Cape Cod Health Consorsium (spelled wrong I know) had such a large surplus they declared a premium holiday. That is what is supposed to happen. Keeping a surplus helps keep rates consistent.

I am not going to get into the finger pointing, there are a lot of responsible parties and I appreciate Mr. Foster accepting responsibility for his role. Suffice it to say that, regardless of who is responsible this problem still exists and must be dealt with immediately (note to those reading this site, that means TODAY!)

Basically, the Town became the "insurance company" and like an insurance company they felt entitles to the "profits", a very bad practice but Wareham is not alone in this.

It is IMPERATIVE that this issue be dealt with IMMEDIATELY, every day that goes by just adds to the problem. Forcing the employees to litigate the issue simply costs the tax payer MORE. I would expect to see a meeting between the School Committee, Board fo Selectmen, Finance Committee and representatives of employee unions before the weeks end. Someone said earlier and they are absolutely correct, how this is resolved will be the responsibility of the BOS, now is the time for leadership. Take the initiative, get it done, Dick P has some interesting thoughts on how to resolve this. JUST DO IT.

Now, off to a nice snuggle and Backyardigans which by the way teaches children appropriate social skills such as how to work together.

"I am Ms. Begley....I would like for all of you lovely people to get together next week for a lovely sit down conversation about the future of our beloved Wareham, and of course, Onset.
I am a gentile woman who believes in polite discourse, and I abhor anyone who tries to engage me or my wonderful friends in any kind of negativity.
We are going to serve tea and crumpets and we hope everyone remembers how to hold a tea cup without extending your little finger and embarrassing those of us who have been brought up to respect the ideals of Emily Post.
We do not allow swearing, cussing, bad taste jokes or coffee.
We shall succeed with our efforts because we are a lovely group of people who believe in a wonderful, lovely future based on the ideals of our elected officials.
We think that most of them walk on water.
Bless you all. Hope to see you at the gathering."
(My opinion, of course).
Ummm...let me think...oh, gosh...what is the word...oh gee...golly..oh, yes, I remember: BULLSHIT!

Dick...did you get my PM?

Cara,
I know you were responding to Dick. But, I want to say, I really appreciate the information you provide (you too, Dick). I wasn't familiar with you before, but I now find myself hopeful that you'll attempt to serve our Town again, very soon.

It's very refreshing to read things posted by individuals who truly have something to offer, unlike the "immature debate society" a few of us have been having with Slager, CoachTP, Ellen and the gang over on the Courier. DO NOT ENGAGE...DO NOT ENGAGE, I need to keep telling myself. All they seem to do is deny the fact that there are any problems, and if there are, their "pet" elected officials, and Slager, are certainly not to blame.

Thanks again:-)

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

ST: Audit ordered to determine magnitude of health bill

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

All Right, I am back, and I have just finished watching the latest episode of the BOS. Twice, it is so exciting.

Let me say again, what I have told the Selectmen, my angst is not directed at them as people, but as a collective, as a body, they had ample warning to deal with this scandal.  And they can only bob and weave, blame anyone not in sight (yes, not).

Fair enough, but let's look at the reality.

On July 22, 2009 Bruce Sauvengeau, sent me an email and in that email he said (and I qoute) "By the way, our auditor already incorporate this trust info like all others into his annual report."

Yes, that is a bell ringing.

So, I started to look, and sure enough on page 24, the veil lifts, and thanks to Bruce-though he did not intend it-in about two minutes I came to the conclusion that 2008 was out of balance by about $200,000. So, on to  2007, and that was out of balance by about $500,000, and so I then grossed the whole thing up to $1.5 million.

But then I asked myself, how would the Chairman of the BOS know this, there are over 40 pages of numbers, to zero in on that set of numbers means, what does it mean, maybe that he knew, and almost 3 months ago.

To be honest, the numbers are a bit esoteric, but once you know they exist--well the rest is history, the FinCom moved into high gear, and the BOS, well ask them?

Mr Slager said I "flipflopped" and called me a hypocrite for not immediately writing to the editor and calling this to the attention of the Selectmen.

Well, in answer to the first suggestion, why not blow the horn?  That was and is a fair question, and by defense was that I did not have the full picture, and wanted to wait to get the correct version. And that was consistent with my stated comments on this situation, I wanted the numbers.

But as to the second, tell the Selectmen, on that I did that, on several occasions. By email, in person, and if I had a carrier pigeon, he would have been pressed into duty.

Now let's turn to last night, and things that sailed off into the ether, and no one either commented or questioned some statements. That ends now.

First, statement, the matter of who will pay for audit 2 (I am going to start giving them numbers because I suspect we will see more as we go along) "Why let's have the Health Trust foot the bill, after all they have the money, and it is a Health Trust issue, right? " 

The tab, $5,000, might be $25,000.  And not commented on, how about the legal bills, that are already mounting.

So, let me see, the people who in part pay into the fund, now get to pay to investigate who, how about themselves?

But hard on the heels of that came the following.

A statement by Sanguinet, and I am taking this a bit of context, so with apologies for that, let's take this into a really troubling direction.

He said we currently have $2 million in the Trust, which sounds like a big number, but it is "big" only relative to claims or potential claims (the pertinent word is "potential)  He went on to say two things, the first was that he thought the fund has the equivalent of 2 months of cover, but immediately went on to say that he would be more comfortable with six months  because several high claims had come in or words to that effect.

So, then he suggests the Trust should be up by triple the $2 million, or by simple math but not from him, $6 million.  Now I will be the first to admit that trusting his ability to get it right is open to question, but the mere mention of a possible shortfall should immediately-if not sooner-galvanized the Selectmen's attention.

But nothing from the BOS, and as usual from the ITA no "Hey pardner, I just told you something important, did you not hear me?" 

Now to another issue, the new accountant has now joined in, and suggests that the number may only be $600,000 because ("because" an important word again) "claims history" should be factored in.  I have to admit that I am at a loss, how does claims history factor into the 75:25 ratio?  Could claims history be a factor after the fact, sure, but the ratio would still have to be 75:25. 

I suspect we are closer to $1.8 million then $600,000 but we shall see, I am not saying she is wrong, but it does not seem logical.

Now on to the seniors who paid too much, I assume that they could have used the extra $5 or $10 a month, why not give it back immediately?  Why make that group wait? 

Well the answer came back and said the following in so  many words:

"Well yes, we did it, and we are guilty as charged, but it would be illegal to pay out money directly."

Let me see if I understand this, we take money-perhaps illegally-and yet it is illegal to pay an affected group?  That is the story?

I have no problem and have not had with the numbers, they are or will be what they will be.  My ire is directed at the lack of attention, not only as this unfolded, but as late as last night-they just do not pay attention to things that might be (should be?) questioned. 

Henry Kissinger once commented that whatever one does, you are likely to be wrong  including doing nothing.

I would have thought that I recognized him if he was in town, must have missed him, because his observation does fit,

And to conclude with an observation from a real word-meister, Mark Twain

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

Dick Paulsen wrote:

Let me see if I understand this, we take money-perhaps illegally-and yet it is illegal to pay an affected group?

Thank you for verifying what I thought was said during last night's meeting...that town counsel stated that the only legal form of retribution for overpayments made to a healthcare trust fund was through "premium holidays" and not cash payouts. 

PShooter...it's mutual...

Dick P, thanks again. If I'm a betting man, I'd put my money on your figures being more accurate than Biz's. Seemed like alot of spinning going on last night. I should have the meeting up by later today, and then we can all review what was said last night. Why expect any level of accountability by the BoS? They only want to be viewed as "volunteers" who are doing the best that can be expected.

Ham, I agree. I want Urbon.

Ms. Lilly, thanks.

Courier: Second audit ordered of Wareham's Heath Insurance Trust Fund

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

regarding Chapter 32B, section 3a

It is a bit of an oversimplification to distill the single remedy prescribed in the law as legal v. illegal activities. The law requires (it uses the word "shall") that a "Where...contributions...been shared on a ratio inconsistent with the share of the contributions as provided for...the subdivision (i.e. Town) shall adjust future contributions.....to compensate for the inconsistency.

That's it.

1. It is silent on the question of refunds or rebates. that does not make reunds "illegal". Two things may be possible:
a. A wriiten request could be made to the DOR attorneys to address the specific, narrow question of refunding overpayments, if any. They would review the law, and attempt to divine the intent of the legislature. How can this be? they could review any debate in the General Court on the issue prior to passage, any amendments offered during debate, etc. And, it may just be that THEY (the DOR legal staff) drafted the legislation, a frequent occurence when there are money issues.

b. a Home rule petition to the General Court could be filed by the Town. a one-timer, if you will.

2. Timing. the law specifies that the "subdivision (Town) shall adjust FUTURE payments" (my emphasis). What does that mean? Too late for FY2010? Can only be done in FY2011? Can it be spread over several fiscal years? No guidance in the law.

3. "Premium Holiday(s)" Where did this term come from? You won't find it in the law, itself. "the subdivision (Town) shall adjust future contributions....to compensate for the inconsistency." Period. So, if a 10% adjustment will do it, fine. or 50 %. or 100%. Again, no statement as to the timing of the adjustments.

4. Cuts both ways. In the Wareham case, the discussion is on overpayment by employees, and a remedy to that situation. It could just as easily swing to the opposite direction. Thus, care must be taken in how the instant situation  is handled, as it will set a precedent for the future. Any town employees want to shell out refunds to the Town in the case of a reversal of positions?

more to come, and not just fromme,  i"ll wager....

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-10-14 11:22:14)

The other thing that caught my attention was the numbers being thrown out by the ITA and the Town Bookkeeper (sorry, I can't use accountant). It is a very important thing to quantify numbers in a public forum. Now, regardless of the reason, you better be right. If you aren't, there is a crebility issue established. After you state figures, you should not follow it up with, "we don't know what the number is". The signal is mixed and it doesn't provide any level of confidence.

I would have done everything I could to NOT give a number. If you have no idea, you have no idea. Speculation, especially at this point and time is not prudent.

I'm sure a premium holiday may be the answer for those who are currently employed by the town, but you have several former employees that will require some sort of refund. I'll be interested in how they approach this issue. Given the current state of discourse between town officials and former employees, I would suspect this may wind up a legal battleground.

I am not a fan of the "not me" approach of the Selectmen. They can point fingers but from all accounts, they knew. At this point, who cares? It's more about fixing the problem than blame.

Hi Cara,

Isn't it just the epitome of fun to go mucking around the MGL, particularly Chapter 32 and its subchapters, and its sections. Pass the popcorn, and the wine. Ok, skip the popcorn.

after printing out chapter 32B, Section 8a which you referenced in regard to refunds, I seem to arrive at a different conclusion from yours regarding this section.

"...all dividends...and...refunds accepted by the governmental unit from the carrier or carriers ...shall be deposited by the treasurer...in...the employees group insurance trust fund."

this tells me that this Section is referring to dividends from insurance carriers to the Town, and the proper procedure for handling these funds. There's that treasurer, again. the second & third paragraphs address application of the Town's costs to any such dividends/refunds. And these paragraphs are specific in the processing of any reund/dividend.

"the appropriate public authority...shall then authorize the treasurer to expend the remaining balance of the trust fund on behalf of the insured employees and retired employees to reduce...(their) share of future premium costs or BY A PROPORTIONATE REFUND TO INSURED MEMBERS. (emphasis added). and further: ..."using the ratio ...of (their) share of the total premiums which yielded the dividend."

the last paragraph of this section addresses the manner in which this section "shall" take effect: ..."in a town if a majority of of the votes cast...on the official ballot to be used at an election in said Town, is in the affirmative..."

Well, the section is brief, but chock full of interesting stuff.

1. again, this section clearly references funds coming from outside the health care trust fund, i.e dividends/refunds from insurance carriers. Do these provisions apply in the Wareham case, which is quite different?

2. does this section provide a basis for creating a refund(s) for individuals who over-contributed during a defined time period? these might include current employees, retired employees, fired employees (a rapidly growing group, it seems), employees who resigned. Did I miss anyone?

3. Again, this section is silent on the timing of any action of any kind; altho there is a reference to the "the appropriate public authority AT A DATE DEEMED APPROPRIATE shall then authorize the treasurer to expend, etc." (emphasis added). Well, what is a "date deemed appropriate", anyway? Can you say: Vague?

4. And how about the last section, hmmmm? is it saying that it requires a ballot question to expend funds in the form of a refund? Does that apply to the Wareham situation?

Whew! Lotsa stuff!

Cara, when this first came up I went the MGL and looked up chapter 32 and its progeny. This chapter covers a broad spectrum of things, way beyond the health insurance trust. My quick (make that very quick) scan led me to focus on 32B,section 3a. I will take some time to scan other sections to see if there is more stuff that bears on the current issue.

Meanwhile, Section 8a seems to address a different issue, from my reading, than the way you took it. It does, however, shed some light on the path to making refunds. We'll see.

thanks for the heads up. Will post more, to be sure.

Last edited by notalawyer (2009-10-14 19:55:53)

WAREHAM -

The town will be conducting an audit of the Health Trust Fund separate from the school department audit that determined the town has not been contributing the required 75 percent of employee health premiums into the trust over the past five years.

Acting Town Administrator John Sanguinet informed the Board of Selectmen Tuesday that the Wakefield-based CPA firm Powers and Sullivan has been contracted to perform an audit of the fund to compare results of the audit conducted by accountant Claude Boudwin at the behest of the School Committee.

Boudwin’s analyses showed a discrepancy of nearly $1.9 million.

Sanguinet, however, said his review of the data indicated the error appeared to be closer to $600,000.

“Administration is looking into correcting the problem,” he said. “We not sure how extensive the problem is.”

The selectmen had originally planned for their Oct. 13 meeting to include a forum with the School Committee, the chairman of the Finance Committee, the town accountant, the town treasurer and a representative from town counsel Kopelman & Paige to openly address the issues of the Health Trust Fund.

Selectmen Chairman Bruce Sauvageau said School Superintendent Dr. Barry Rabinovitch and School Committee Chairman Robert Brousseau were out of state and unable to attend. Finance Committee Chairman Dick Paulsen declined to attend, and Treasurer John Foster had a previous engagement.

In attendance was Town Accountant Elizabeth Zaleski and Town Counsel John Dolan.

Members of the board, along with Sanguinet, expressed concern over Boudwin being brought onboard to audit the trust fund, as he had been going over the town’s accounts for several years.

Sauvageau said there was an “ethical dilemma” about Boudwin’s audit.

“We have an auditor hired by the School Committee who has been responsible for auditing all the accounts, including this trust fund, and never finds anything until he’s brought back,” he said.

Selectman John Cronan also voiced his frustration over the choice of Boudwin to perform the audit.

“This just eats at me,” he said. “We paid the same guy year after year, and for an additional $2,900 he finds a $1.9 million discrepancy. It’s odd to me; how do you find $1.9 million when you’re the guy who’s been doing the books?”

In answering a question posed by Selectman Jane Donahue, Zaleski said Boudwin did not approach her office for any information pertaining to the audit.

“He did not come to see me on this matter,” she said.

Zaleski, who started in July, which was around the time the School Committee was made aware of possible discrepancies with the fund, said her initial response to glancing over the information she received in September about the fund was that “something was wrong.”

“And that we need to go out and have a really big audit,” she said.

She said there may have been problems with the fund since 2004, which is when the town opted to self-insure its employees.

“Everything that has gone in and out of these accounts from inception has to be looked at,” she said.

At one point, Zaleski recommended bringing in the Department of Revenue to do a “financial management review” of the town’s accounts. She also said she felt it would be “prudent” to have a forensic audit performed as well, although she did mention that unlike an audit by the DOR, a forensic audit by a private firm would “take time and will take money.”

When asked by Sauvageau how much money such an audit would cost, Zaleski said she did not want to estimate. She did, however, determine the Powers and Sullivan audit of the Health Trust Fund would range from $5,000 to$25,000.

Sauvageau said they would discuss legal strategies once the numbers come out.

“Once we’ve established a clear number, we’ll work through the process with counsel and the Department of Revenue.”

Dolan agreed the first step was for administration to assess the extent of the problem.

“This is a reasonable approach,” he said. “There’s a lot of benefit to having this audit done.”

Notalawyer:
You are correct after re-reading the section it is specific, my apologies.

Dick Paulsen wrote:

Biz has come out and said that she feels that the amount is closer to $600,000 then the $1.8 or $1.9 million.

And she suggested that some grant allocations were mis-allocated.  And you know what, I believe that she is probably correct, and in fact, I hope she is, because the problem would be much more manageable.

You seem to understand y'all might have a credibility problem and the rest of us can not afford to wait. How far away is Wareham from state supervised receivership?

Dick Paulsen wrote:

But the ITA apparently did nothing.  The Selectmen said they knew nothing for several days and then they apparently did not sense the gravity of the situation. And there was still about five days to go to ground zero.

BUT THE ITA DID NOTHING-----AGAIN.  I've said it before and I will say it again, when are we going to get a qualified and competent Town Administrator?  At least part of this debacle could have been prevented if the ITA was doing his job.

One of the few jobs this bos should be doing is hiring competent, qualified people to fill managerial and leadership positions in this town. THEY HAVE FAILED MISERABLY AT THIS ONE JOB THAT IS PERHAPS THEIR MOST IMPORTANT.

Instead, we have no TA and no Library Director. We took forever to get a new CEDA director, and a new COA director, we still don't have a qualified (although I can't comment yet on whether or not she is competent) accountant. We have no town planner.

This board of selectmen are the most incompetent, irresponsible board I have ever seen in this town.  AS TAXPAYERS WE MUST DEMAND THAT THE BOS FILL THESE POSITIONS IN A TIMELY FASHION. We deserve no less.  The salary monies that are being saved by not hiring people to fill those positions is being used to offset legal bills, paying for the botched computer audit and paying Heaton for the Westfield consulting.THIS IS NOT WHAT THE TAXPAYERS DESERVE. Stand up at town meeting and be heard.

Article 1 deals with the budget. That's your tax dollars people. You are being scr***d by the current town officials. This must stop.

Let's assume Biz is correct, what that would mean is that two CPA's who had access to the "numbers" had for several years apparently missed diagnosing a problem.  And she may have solved it, if that is the right word, in a matter of a few days of digging.

Or they may have questioned it, but got no place with former administrators, but we should know shortly.

And, until proven differently, I will stand by my conclusion that she is probably on the right track.  And while I have issues with John Sanguinet, he is the one who had to instruct her to get busy on this, so for that we should be thankful, there will still be a problem, but probably a more manageable one if I am correct.

Also, please note that I used the word "apparently."  My concern was that we had a window of opputunity and it seemed to have slipped out of view, namely that there were about ten days in which an open invitation to "talk" was not accepted. The numbers will be the numbers. whatever they come out to be.  But not talking about a serious matter, leaves me puzzled.

Last edited by Dick Paulsen (2009-10-17 07:35:43)

What a nice breakfast this morn...


      HAM(atron5000) and EGG

Thanks guys!!!

Last edited by Jeb (2009-12-09 14:26:10)

Blah blah blah...Dumbass.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-12-09 15:35:34)

"Let me tell a story bout a blogger named Jeb
tried to start some shit with everything he said
and then one day he was stirring up some more
and PSpan wrote, Jeb you're a friggin bore..."

Oh no..we were wrong!!! The Town's going to be better off financially than we thought, and (what?) we're supposed to be upset about that? They still had their heads up their asses about setting up/administering the whole thing, and the reason they have a surplus is because they overfunded..I'm sure the Town employees love the fact they overpaid all this time. Maybe that $$ could have actually been used by them (and the Town..not the best "saving's vehicle")

Plus, since "premium holiday's" appear to be the only way to make it "even Steven"..how are they going to reimburse those who no longer participate in the plan, but contributed previously?

"Jeb move away from here"

P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010

biz and the ITA bashed the old auditor for not catching this and his figures....

why on earth would the new auditor start with the old auditors figures then???