Somebody seems nervous tonight???? Wonder why????
:)

billw wrote:

Imagine having to watch Sweet Brucey pancake stuff his fat face at Clucky's.

In his pajamas!

It's Biz!!

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Hold on to your seats, people, we have our Victim of the Week!

The auditor did it.

Last edited by billw (2009-10-13 20:01:23)

Go ahead, Brenda, say 'forensic audit' again. You sound so smart!

Welp, thanks Biz for clearing it all up for us. I'm satisfied.

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Anyone else troubled that these people are selectmen and they all are suprised to hear the auditor is being paid $60,000?  Way to be on top of things, clowns.  Do some homework once in awhile.

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Anyone else troubled that these people are selectmen and they all are suprised to hear the auditor is being paid $60,000?  Way to be on top of things, clowns.  Do some homework once in awhile.

I took it as an attempt to show he's overpaid and not thorough, and to discredit the audit paid for by the school committee.

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-13 21:34:54)

jane and cronan if you cant do you jobs ie reading the information in your packets then QUIT of at the least RESIGN.. this is your job... i as your boss tell you do you job or your fired!!

LM,
You said it brother, you said it..

I'm already working on getting this one turned around, and posted. Short meeting...I'm guessing tomorrow evening. Bay Pointe to Brucie, Jane, Brenda, Biz..If you missed it, tune in tomorrow..Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel..you get the idea.

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Can they ever just once take responsibility for anything.  I have never seen them stand up and be accountable for anything, and I cant think of one positive thing they have ever done or been responsible for in the town.  They all just care about their little pet projects and revenge. They should all be ashamed of themselves, and they continually insult the intelligence of the entire Wareham community. The blame game and falsely baiting different groups or races in town is getting really old.  The whole situation makes me sick.

Well Jane you promised when you first ran that you would only serve the one year term and you broke your promise and ran again. I accept you resignation if you don't want to be an unpaid volunteer anymore. Must be getting tough being the bread winner of the household

With apologies I put this is Health Trust, so here it is in perhaps a more relevant place
***************
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."

Larry, I don't know why you guys waste your time debating Bobo and his tin foil hat squad on the Courier site.  You'd get a more intelligent response debating a toilet.  But, I can't fault you and the other Courier bloggers because someone has to expose these clowns.  The more they talk, the more they show their stupidity.

I read the thread and the actual quote about who the Move Wareham Backward moderator was, "you'll find out when you get there."  Ahh yes, we want open and honest government, now shut up and listen to fearless leader Sweet Brucey!

If they can't tell you a simple thing like who the moderator is, then my gut tells me that whoever they have chosen to moderate this dog and pony show will be hilarious.

Maybe Paul Shooter is the moderator?  "Alright, ya (edit) (edit) crap friggin (Edits)!  I'm the moderator and we're gonna have a respectable crap friggin edit debate here!"

LIZdaGNOME wrote:

my $ is they will have slager..

How much?

I hadn't thought of it until ham brought it up....but wouldn't Slager be the first choice for both Begley and Schneider?  And wouldn't the BOS have said, "Good idea, but keep it a secret?" Alan Slavin is another possibility.

I think Alan Slavin will be fielding a few questions himself, maybe not. I don't think Slager's going to do it. I don't know, but that would seem to be a poor (ya think) decision by them. Who really cares? The fact is, it's another example of what NOT to do, if their goals are what they say, in my opinion (I seem to have to add that alot).

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-14 11:12:09)

i would hope its not alan s.. i asked him a few ?'s and he lied right to my face several times...

Welcome back Cas.

Another important piece is who is fronting the rent and any other costs associated with this meeting? :)

JANE SONAHUE THE CRIPT KEEPER HAS A SPECIAL LAUGH AND A SPECIAL LOOK AND IS A MEAN BITCH, WHO TALKS DOWN TO PEOPLE , ANY ONE WANT TO SEE HER OR HERE HER LAUGH AS TOWN EMPLOYEES CONSTATLY GET SCREWD BY HER CAN SEE HER , JUST TYPE IN WWW CRIPT KEEPER .COM WHY I AM JUST A UN PAID VOULENTEER , BUT OTHER SELECTMAN IN THE PAST  WHO VOULENTEERED THERE TIME IN THE PAST DOES NOT GET THIS SAME THINKING BY JANE AND BRENDA ,    YHEY ARE FULL OF SHIT AND PLEASE DONT VOULENTEER YOUR SERVICES ANY MORE ,YOU DUMB ASSES WE CANT TAKE THE TURMOIL I N TOWN ANY MORE AND YOUR BANKRUPTING THE TOWN AS  YOU 2 DUMB SHITS HAVE.

I hope the people that showed up at the selectman’s meeting to support Bay Pointe read this blog. I thought they said they planned to skip the first night of the meeting since Bay Pointe is article 22 and probably wouldn’t be voted on the first night. Aren’t articles sometimes taken out of order? If they can be taken out of order I wouldn’t put it past the selectmen to have someone move the article up knowing a lot of the supporters won’t show up until the second night.