In a brazen show of contempt for both town political policies and procedures, as well as the duly recorded will of the voters of the town of Wareham, the chairman of the Board of Selectmen announced yesterday that the board would continue spending time and money on the Westfield housing project, and insert the item again on the ballot in April.  After a series of controversial articles inserted into the town warrant by or at the request of the Selectmen drove the highest town meeting turnout in years, voters denied the selectmen their agenda without fail.  "The Westfield proposal lost by 12 percent" said one town resident.  "That may not sound like a lot, but to put it in perspective, only two presidential elections since 1964 have been decided by more than 12%.  Obama won by 7% and Bush beat Kerry by less than 3% (in popular vote).  Twelve percent is a pretty big deal when it comes to politics"  Mr Sauvageau has been quoted multiple times as saying that it would be a bad thing if a minority of voters ignored the will of the majority.  It is unclear at this time what his thoughts are on a 5-member board going against the will of 261 voters at town meeting to further what many people consider a "pet project" of the board chairman.

In what appeared to be a clear show of frustration at a lack of progress on projects promoted heavily by the selectmen, members of the board referred to town residents after the meeting as "***holes" and people who are "ugly" and have "black hearts".  After the heavily controversial Westfield and Civil Service articles were both voted down, Selectman Eckstrom attempted to dissolve town meeting, preventing votes on any further articles, including one which would allow a Habitat for Humanity house to be built for a local family.  Eckstrom later stated "They were against everything so what was the point?...All the things we’ve tried to do to move Wareham forward they came to stop."  When asked to comment on this, one local resident said "What the selectmen don't seem to understand is that opposition to their agenda does not mean opposition to progress.  Saying that voters were 'against everything' because two of the items on the selectmen's agenda were strongly voted down just shows the arrogance of this board. I'm not against everything, but I am against things that are bad for my town, and I believe those two articles would have caused more harm than good, especially with this board."

The decision to insert the Westfield proposal into the April ballot was announced on a controversial Halifax blogger's website.  Both this blogger and the chairman of the board have been strong proponents of the Westfield.  The blogger went so far as to make 1,000 printouts of his blog and pass them out for free around town, in what appeared to be a clear effort to influence the vote on the Westfield proposal.  This blogger has even made accusations that a "deal" was struck between a group called Take Back Wareham (which does not actually exist) and supporters of the Bay Pointe proposal.  No evidence of such a deal has surfaced other than this blogger's claims, but Sauvageau still cited this alleged deal as a reason why the Westfield article was voted down.

Selectman Sauvageau used this meeting as an example of why the town meeting format is inappropriate for the town of Wareham.  A longtime Wareham resident responded to this by saying "That's ridiculous.  This town meeting was contentious, and there were times that it seemed out of control, but the people in the meeting, the citizens and voters of Wareham, can all tell you that town meeting worked, and worked well, before this current crop of leaders came into office."