#1 2009-11-23 07:41:09
There's been an increase in interest in the Spinney library project lately, so I thought I'd fill some of you truth-seekers in. A recent tabloid article claimed that the Friends/MJ Pillsbury tried to defraud the state by applying for a library building grant to build Spinney. The information came from a source at the Mass Board of Library Commissioners who verified that a grant was applied for. I claim that there was no fraudulent intent at all. It was a simple grant application. But there is more.......
You'll never guess who is "working" for the rag now. Our very own Brenda Eckstrom, member of the BoS!!! That's right. It seems that it was Brenda who contacted the MBLC about the grant application. (Applying for building grants is standard procedure in the state of MA and is how the 59 Marion Road library was built.) There is nothing wrong with applying for a grant. But my question is why is Brenda working with the tabloid writer trying to derail the Spinney project?? In my opinion it is a continuation of the vendetta against the library!! This is the same selectman who, while recently waiting for her daughter to get out of a Girl Scout's meeting at the library lurked in the picture book stacks eavesdropping on a conversation between a staff member and a former trustee!! (Pathetic and sad, I know!! She was observed by several people. Then not long after she is observed at MJP's old computer in the library director's office. Our very own cub reporter doing the investigative work for the rag?)
I believe that the BoS and the tabloid writer will be working full time to try to discredit the Spinney. The Friends have a contract with the town of Wareham regarding the Spinney. It was signed by Sauvageau, Eckstrom, Fernandes-Abott, Parola and Pillsbury, the BoS at the time. Here are the important passages from the Donation Agreement prepared for the Friends by K and P. The Friends paid K and P for this, not the taxpayers, by the way.
"Whereas, FWFL desires to renovate the building on the Premises and make the Building handicap accessible, all at its sole cost and expense, and, upon the completion of the Project, do donate the Premises, with the improvements thereon, to the Town for use as a public library."
"The Town's performance hereunder is conditional upon the Wareham Town meeting authorizing the Board of Selectmen to accept the deed of the Premises on the conditions set out in the Agreement. The Selectmen signing below covenant that they shall call such a meeting and place a suitable article on the warrant for such authorization and shall recommend the adoption of such article." (Underlinings are mine for emphasis.)
I'm also wondering why Alan Slavin is in such a tear to find out the contents of the Donation Agreement. I'm pretty sure I know, but imagine my surprise to learn about his sudden interest.
But the best part of all of this is this little nugget of truth. Imagine a member of the board of selectmen signing LEGAL DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN WITHOUT READING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is a passage from Eckstrom's deposition while she was under oath:
The "Q" is Atty. for the Trustees Mr. Zoubaidoulline (Phil Beauragard's associate). The "A" is Brenda Eckstrom's responses.
Q: Okay. Do you recall signing an agreement on behalf of the town in connection with the Spinney?
A: Yep.
Q: Did you sign the agreement?
A: Yep.
Q: Did you read the agreement before you signed it?
A: No, I did not.
And Later:
Q: So,you remember signing it though?
A: I don't remember signing it. I remember--I remember voting for it. I mean you know--
Q: And you voted in favor?
A: Hmmm hmmm.
Q: Without reading it?
A: Voting in favor without reading it, yeah.
My question is--what other legal documents has she signed on behalf of the town without reading them??? Does anyone else see this as a problem?
I will give you more truth on the Spinney project later. But the Friends were sued by the town for accepting $75,000 to build a "private" library, when in the depositions, after getting the copy of the agreement that was entered into evidence, each of the 4 deposed selectmen admitted that they knew it was being built as a branch of the WFL. (So now you understand why the consensus of the BoS was to paint over the words on the Friends' sign "a branch of the Wareham Free Library." Desperate measures.) Yet the BoS wasted tax dollars suing the Friends for a reason they later admitted was not true. Interesting, no???
Bottom line: The Friends will abide by the legal document it signed with the town, and all the attempts at derailing the Spinney project will fail. We have the law on our side!!!
Edited for a typo.
Last edited by Nora Bicki (2009-11-23 07:44:26)
Offline
#2 2009-11-23 08:04:23
nora i must confess i am not shocked or surprised that brenda signed something and didnt read it hell cronan doesnt read half the warrant articles either... and jane d complains we are doing this job for free every chance she gets a town accountant was hired with NO degree i am not shocked anymore
sad and disgusted but not shocked...
Offline
#3 2009-11-23 08:24:43
Liz, since you brought up John Cronan here is what he had to say in his deposition about the entire case which, of course, includes the Spinney. Again the "Q" is Atty. Zoubaidoulline for the trustees and now the "A" is John Cronan.
The trustees filed a suit against the BoS that they were dismissed at trustees as part of a vendetta against the library. The BoS then countersued the Trustees, Friends (For accepting money for Spinney) and Foundation. The first is the complaint, the second is the counterclaim.
Q: Do you know what the counterclaim is?
A: I haven't read it.
Q: Do you know what the Board of Selectmen, you being one of them, is seeking from my clients in this case?
A: I haven't read it.
Q: Yes. But without reading it, do you know what the Board of Selectmen is seeking from my clients in this case?
A: No.
Q: You don't know what the counterclaim is about?
A: I do not.
Q: Okay. Do you think you should?
A: Yes.
Q: But you don't?
A: I haven't yet.
Q: After two years of litigation?
A; Hmm.
Q: Do you intend at some point reading the counterclaim?
A" Yes.
Q: When do you think you're going to read it?
A: As soon as I get a copy of it.
Q: Are you indicating you never read the complaint?
A: I've told you three times, counsel, I have not read the complaint and I have not read the counterclaim. I have read neither.
Now let's see a show of hands. Should we re-elect this man in April? He was willing to continue a legal case for which he had never read any of the documents for TWO YEARS using taxpayer dollars!!!!!!!!!! And as I showed above, Eckstrom was willing to sue the Friends over a legal document that she never read but signed, all at great expense to the taxpayers. Should we recall Eckstrom in April? Neither of these people should be representing the town and spending taxpayer dollars without fully being aware of why they are spending that money!!!
Offline
#4 2009-11-23 09:15:28
nora ty for the postings.. my ?.. if brenda NEVER read it and cronan NEVER read it then who if anyone did?
Offline
#5 2009-11-23 09:25:18
Well, I'm certainly hoping K and P read it. After all, the taxpayers paid big bucks for this litigation. Two years worth. The town gets charged for every email, every phone call, every deposition, etc. etc.
Imagine what those taxpayer dollars could have been used for instead. How about keeping the library opened and staffed??!! Or hiring back the 5 municipal maintenance guys laid off? Or fixing our roads? Or hiring summer lifeguards and police officers? The list is endless.
By the way, I sure read everything as did the other trustees, friends and foundation members served papers in the case!! OUR lawyers read everything. Many of us were deposed as well by K and P. and the town's insurance lawyer, so, I have to figure they read it!!
I mean come on, if you are served papers and have to be deposed, wouldn't you have read a couple of pages?? I know they don't get paid, but to go on for two years at the taxpayers expense and not to even read the stuff? FYI: the complaint and counterclaim are not exactly War and Peace length and would take the average 8th grader maybe an hour to read!!! If I was responsible for probably close to $100,000 in legal bills to the taxpayers I represent, I know I sure would have spent an hour of my time reading.
Offline
#6 2009-11-23 11:12:54
All of the clowns are not with Ringling Brothers.
Offline
#7 2009-11-23 12:43:59
NO WONDER WHY THE TOWN IS LOSING ALL THEIR LAWSUITS
Offline
#8 2009-11-23 14:29:56
I just love the truth, don't you? Here is the tabloid writer's latest:
"But the biggest lie of all is the one the Spinney supporters have been desperately trying to hide from the public. When Spinney Memorial Inc. gave the Spinney building and land to the Friends of the Wareham Free Library very specific wording was placed within the deed. If the project does not become a public library by July 14, 2012, Spinney Memorial Inc. gets the building and the property back, regardless of any renovations that may have been done.
Think about that for a moment. If Spinney is renovated at an estimated cost of $600,000 and town meeting voters do not accept the project as a branch library at some point over the next 2 ˝ years every single penny donated to the project will go into the pocket of Spinney Memorial Inc."
Truth: Spinney Inc. legally released the Friends of the Library from the reverter clause earlier this year. It was done with lawyers from both sides, and the forms were filed as required. The Friends did not want to start building knowing that it might be possible that the town did not accept the property through town meeting. So, "the biggest lie of all" is absolutely false. We have not been "desperately trying to hide" anything from the public. If the town does not accept the building, it will remain the property of the Friends. I did notice that while I am quoted in the latest tabloid article, there is no mention about our less than esteemed BoS and their lack of understanding/reading of the Spinney donation agreement or anything to do with the litigation. Selective reporting? Nice try at trying to "derail" the project, but no prize.
Plus, I'm shocked that the alleged Friends informant snitch or the two trustee informant snitches didn't mention the release of the reverter clause. We all knew about it!! It was announced publicly at a Friends meeting too. Could it be the non existent informants forgot to mention it??!!
Offline
#9 2009-11-23 14:46:10
Sock Puppets that hide the truth.....on the next Oprah!
:)
Offline
#10 2009-11-23 15:35:48
Larry McDonald wrote:
Sock Puppets that hide the truth.....on the next Oprah! :)
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
Offline
#11 2009-11-23 16:37:58
Time to think about what I preach, Nora.
Keep government out of the Library business.
Spinney may be your salvation to prohibit government interference.
Offline
#12 2009-11-23 17:00:35
Nora Bicki wrote:
I just love the truth, don't you? Here is the tabloid writer's latest:
"But the biggest lie of all is the one the Spinney supporters have been desperately trying to hide from the public. When Spinney Memorial Inc. gave the Spinney building and land to the Friends of the Wareham Free Library very specific wording was placed within the deed. If the project does not become a public library by July 14, 2012, Spinney Memorial Inc. gets the building and the property back, regardless of any renovations that may have been done.
Truth: Spinney Inc. legally released the Friends of the Library from the reverter clause earlier this year. It was done with lawyers from both sides, and the forms were filed as required. The Friends did not want to start building knowing that it might be possible that the town did not accept the property through town meeting. So, "the biggest lie of all" is absolutely false. We have not been "desperately trying to hide" anything from the public. If the town does not accept the building, it will remain the property of the Friends. I did notice that while I am quoted in the latest tabloid article, there is no mention about our less than esteemed BoS and their lack of understanding/reading of the Spinney donation agreement or anything to do with the litigation. Selective reporting? Nice try at trying to "derail" the project, but no prize.
Nora and others,
At this point I feel compelled to share a little tid bit to show just how desperate Bobo and Co. are in their attempt to derail the Spinney effort.
I was in Onset village last night sharing some good "cheer" with others in a fund raising effort for the Cape Verdean Festival. As I walked from my vehicle to Stevie's along Union Ave., there on the side walk, rolled up with two wire ties was a copy of the latest puppy poop paper with the BIG BOLD HEAD LINES "Unraveling the Spinney mystery" face up. So someone went to great lengths to TRASH our sidewalk with this continued nonsense. Any guesses ?
My guess is the presidente/editor/reporter/journalist/rag delivery boy. That this wasn't bad enough, another stack was set on the bench just outside the entrance to Stevie's fine establishment. How convenient.
So if I took all of said stack, would I be stealing ? And from who ? Stevie? He would have been outraged if he knew so I kept it to myself but I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer. Now you all know. (Don't tell Stevie.)
Bobo's obsessed. He thinks he's got some earth shattering info and so far, as usual, it's just a whole lot of hot air.
While we're on the subject, does anyone know for certain that BOS member BE is in fact working for said tabloid ? And, if so, does anyone else see this as a conflict where the Town pays $$$ to advertise our legal notices in the same tabloid (of general circulation) ? I guess sidewalks count...
Offline
#13 2009-11-23 17:10:35
bbrady wrote:
While we're on the subject, does anyone know for certain that BOS member BE is in fact working for said tabloid ? And, if so, does anyone else see this as a conflict where the Town pays $$$ to advertise our legal notices in the same tabloid (of general circulation) ? I guess sidewalks count...
And didn't the town issue a memo prohibiting such conflicts? Not to mention the State Ethics training forbids it too. Awesome leaders we have! Transparency my ass
Offline
#14 2009-11-23 17:28:01
Tabloid writer updates his story thanks to ME. And NO, I'm not working for the tabloid. It's just that he is addicted to this site and can't seem to do his own investigative research. After I informed everyone on this site about the release of the reverter clause for the Spinney library agreement, the tabloid writer tripped over himself in a hurry to add this to his online article:
"When it became clear that time was running out the Friends and the Wareham Free Library cut a new deal this past July in which the Friends would get to keep the building and property for themselves if the town does not appove turning it into a branch library."
Typo is NOT mine. I guess that is what happens when you rush to make corrections in your article so you don't look like a lying tabloid writer who wouldn't know investigative journalism if it bit you on the.... Try proofreading. I believe in the world of REAL journalism it is done all the time.
Bob, so he's giving the rag away for free by leaving piles of it around?? Can't sell it; can't give it away.
And I really don't think I "rant." I'm offended that he keeps saying that about me. What do you all think? Am I ranting?? Or simply telling the truth?
When I see him write about the defaced Spinney sign and the trespassing on the property by order of the BoS, or the admission that the BoS didn't bother to read the litigation claims, or the fact that Bruce and John made false statements about the settlement issue (not turning over financial documents when that was not in the settlement) , then I will maybe, maybe stop calling him a tabloid writer. But don't hold your breaths. Real news is not "newsworthy" to a tabloid writer. (Did that sound too ranty?)
Offline
#15 2009-11-23 18:00:36
Nora...I love you!
So does anyone else that matters!
Offline
#16 2009-11-23 18:15:38
Ranty? ah, Nora. I love it when we bring new words into our ever-evolving language.
To address your question: It is never a rant to expose the foibles, mis-statements, and outright fabrications of the harlot of Halifax. If there is one thing he is good at, it is lying and obfuscation, leading to, well, rants.
You are hardly alone.
It seems to me that a reverter clause, as you describe it, is fairly commonly found it deeds such as this. This is simply for the protection of the Grantor (seller), and provides options should a future event fail to occur, or should circumstances change over time.
It hardly constitiutes some nefarious scheme to defraud, mislead, or take advantage of another party. If, however, you are a mindless idiot reading such a deed (no names, no, no), then it comes as no surprise that the meaning and intent of such a clause is lost on you.
Nora, Keep up the good work. It is appreciated, far more than you can know.
Offline
#17 2009-11-23 18:40:52
Nota...you are a "Pissa'"
Offline
#18 2009-11-23 18:48:50
I don't see it as a rant. You are simply pointing out the factual inaccuracies in his editorials. There are so many, that it takes time and effort.I know I appreciate your effort and enjoy reading the truth. Imagine how many people would be left in the dark if they only had the puppy paper to count on for information?
Offline
#19 2009-11-23 21:19:55
Bobo historically and inevitably describes any response to his bullshit as a "desperate rant." The only desperate one is Bobo. Bobo, what's it been, a month since you tossed out this bullshit and you still haven't walked through the doors of a law enforcement building to report your bullshit? Oh right, I keep forgetting, filing a false report to the police is a bitch of a charge.
What's all this about Bobo having a new worker? What's he pay her with, stale bagels and diabetes complaints?
Offline
#20 2009-11-23 21:34:28
Nobody cares about what this asshole says about anything except the handful of his nut followers.
Offline
#21 2009-11-23 21:34:33
By the by, Bobo calling other people liars will always be funny.
"Waaahh I have diabetes waaaahhhh the library is evil and I have diabetes waaaahhhh..."
Offline
#22 2009-11-23 22:42:09
No slager claiming he was a boxer in his youth and that he met Jesse Jackson in the locker room will always be funny. It like he watches a movie or a tv show and he thinks it happended to him in real life
Offline
#23 2009-11-23 22:42:46
Slager if you are an ex boxer I'm an ex priest
Offline
#24 2009-11-23 22:43:15
You can box with diabetes?
Offline
#25 2009-11-23 23:14:50
What name did he box under? "Kid Brucey Bitch?" "The Bagel Brawler?" "The Diabetic Dynamo?"
Offline
#26 2009-11-23 23:37:17
Rocky Bagel-boa? Cassius Creamcheese?
Offline
#27 2009-11-24 07:13:37
Bobo boxing is almost as funny as Mr Moderator playing football!!..we all heard how Dr Finn treated him for his football injuries before the second night of Town Meeting..
Offline
#28 2009-11-24 07:39:00
SLAGER THE LIAR WAS A DIBRTIC BOXER,KNEW AND WORKED WITH THE REPORTER IN THE ZODIAC KILLER STORY, HIS PAPPEY HATED THIS FAT LITTLE BASTARD, NOW HE SITS IN HIS HALLIFAX SLUM , TURNING OUT FICTION STORIES,
Offline
#30 2009-11-24 09:44:59
That would explain the punch-drunk approach to journalism :) Remember Randal Tex Cobb? He had his butt whipped so many times it made Howard Cosell quit announcing......
And there you have it...head injuries=Halifax Hack
Offline
#31 2009-11-24 10:47:30
I have a hard time picturing a loser lackey bitch being a boxer, but if he took any blows to the head during his boxing years, that could explain his lousy reporting skills, not to mention his butt ugly hideous vomit inducing face.
Offline
#32 2009-11-24 11:19:06
I still can't figure out why Eckstrom called Boston to get the info that she and the tabloid writer are trying to use to derail the Spinney project. Here is a bit more:
Q: So, tell me, please, Miss Eckstrom, why did you vote in favor of approving the donation agreement?
A: It sounds like a good idea. I don't have any objection to having a branch library over in Onset. I live in the Onset area. That would be nice.
Q: Do you think even to this day that it would--funds permitting--it would be a good idea to have a branch library in Onset?
A: Funds permitting? Yeah, I don't see anything against it.
Q: That was your view back in 2005 right?
A: Yeah.
Q: Is that your view today as well?
A: Yeah. Yeah.
So, why the effort to get alleged "dirt" on the Friends to destroy the Spinney project? I'm sure, since she swore an oath to the court, that the above Q and A represents the truth!! She thinks it would be "nice" to have a branch in Onset!!! I'm stumped on this one. I understand the vendetta and all, but imagine telling the court one thing and acting in the total opposite way.
I do know that many of the people in Onset have wanted a branch library there for years. Bringing library service to the families in Onset WILL be a good thing. Many of the donations to build came from Onset residents. Many of the businesses in Onset supported the fund raising activities and sponsored some of them. My thanks to all those people. We will need your continued support in the future as you can clearly see, we have an uphill challenge here.
Offline
#33 2009-11-24 15:47:17
Sour grapes make for a loud "whine" and Bobo and his tin foil hat buddies are whining overtime these days.
Offline
#34 2009-11-24 22:01:49
So I guess since slager allows posting of our comments on his comment section of his website I can post from his website to here. Lots of nuts to expose. What's fair is fair , if slager can do it
Offline
#35 2009-11-24 22:10:57
IHATESLAGER wrote:
So I guess since slager allows posting of our comments on his comment section of his website I can post from his website to here. Lots of nuts to expose. What's fair is fair , if slager can do it
Right, as the "goings on" here are the primary fodder over at the cuckoo's nest, and (I believe) they quote us routinely..turnabout is fair play.
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
Offline
#36 2009-11-25 00:50:26
Nora, you are not ranting. You are telling the truth and it is very refreshing.
I look for your posts and I know that what I read is not going to be foolishness. I believe they are afraid of you, imagine that. Some people have reason to fear the truth.
Brenda, Slager and co. are not nice people and some day they will have to answer "to a higher authority" who will probably put them on the long stairway to Hell. Nora, people like you give us hope. PLEASE, keep writing. PLEASE keep us informed and if you feel the need to RANT, by all means -
DO IT! (kidding)
Love to read posts by you and Larry. You two have a gift. Thank you.
Offline
#37 2009-11-25 08:16:55
IM JUST SAYING SLAGER GOES CUCKO EVERYTIME SOMETIME POSTS FROM HIS "COPYRIGHTED" WEBSITE BUT HE HAS NO PROBLEM LETTING ONE OF HIS NUTS COPYS FROM HERE.
Offline
#38 2009-11-25 09:41:55
Not to worry. As a college professor I am well-versed in copyright standards and have taught students proper research techniques for many years. Quoting a source for discussion or as a reference point for an opinion is perfectly legit as long as you cite the original source. It is done all the time as a legitimate means of discourse. For example: pick up today's Boston Globe and see how many other sources are quoted. Your kids working on a "research" paper for high school or college will need a certain number of quotations from sources usually from a variety of publications: newspapers, magazines, online source excluding wikipedia!!
I advise my students to qualify their quotations with introductory clauses such as, "According to the local tabloid writer, INSERT QUOTE HERE"
What you can't do is take someone else's words or ideas and try to pass them off as your own. That's not copyright violation, that is plagiarism. That's a big no no in the world of journalism, academic research etc.
So, just like the tin hat brigade can quote anything I say, we can quote any online tabloid, hard copy tabloid, or blog entries that are in the public domain (even if you have to pay for it).
So, you see, when I quoted George Bernard Shaw (NOT Shakespeare as a blogger on the other site mentioned, who lived 300 years earlier!!), I gave him the appropriate credit even if he has a copyright on his play.
With the abundance of online sources, there are actually standards for citing such sources now that must be adhered to. It totally changed copyright laws.
Offline
#39 2009-11-25 10:05:20
Nora,
So after all the threats of legal action against many of us, we find that Bobo the Fabricator was blowing smoke...go figure....
I remember a professor in my grad program that would check sources and citations, so it was imperative to get them right!
We won't discuss punctuation...my biggest downfall :)
Offline
#40 2009-11-25 13:54:22
Some people have asked me if it was only Brenda and John who haven't done their homework. While my pies are baking for tomorrow's Thanksgiving feast, I'll share a bit more truth with you.
From the deposition of Jane Donahue:
Q: Earlier today Mr. Zoubaidoulline put a number of questions to you about your own understanding and knowledge of the donation agreement. That's Exhibit Number 6. Do you have Exhibit Number 6 in the stack in front of you there?
A: I think I said that I hadn't read it.
Q: Why don't you take a moment to look at that, please.
A: I think I might need longer than a moment. (She is given time to look at the document.)
Q: Mrs. Donahue, you've seen this document before today, have you not?
A: No, I have not.
Q: You have never seen a copy of the donation agreement?
A: No, I have not. This was done two or three years before I got on the board.
Q: What steps have you taken, Mrs. Donahue to educate yourself about the town's obligations, if any, relative to taking on the Spinney branch of the Wareham Library?
A: Reviewed the budget. I was on the Finance Committee. I reviewed -- I've reviewed the budgets for the last two years, and there are many projects that many people come before us continuously that they would like us to take on, and, unfortunately, the finances of the Town of Wareham are in no shape to take on -- to even contemplate taking on any additional -- we just laid off half of our municipal maintenance.
Q: I believe, Mrs. Donahue, with all due respect, you're not answering my question, so let me try --
A; I'm trying to answer it in the broader context of the finances of the town, which is where I think the focus of all my remarks are today with regard to the library and the library budgets and the library situations.
Q: Well, but I'm asking you a very specific question, and if you're able to answer that, I'd like your answer. And the question is, what specific steps did you take to educate yourself as the the town's obligation, if any, to take over ownership of the Spinney branch of the library?
A: My understanding is that the obligation of the town under this agreement rests solely on the town's financial ability to do this.
Q: Where in this agreement does it say that?
A; That's my understanding. I don't know where in the agreement it says it. I'm just telling you what my understanding is.
Q: Do you think it would be appropriate as a member of the Board of Selectmen to review the agreement that creates the legal obligation on the part of the town?
A; That's always in order.
Q: But you haven't done that yet?
A: Not yet, no.
Just a little bit more. Note she said she had NEVER seen a copy of the donation agreement on the day of the deposition 5/14/09. Here is a bit of the transcript of the July 17, 2007 Board of Selectmen meeting where Jane Donahue was present. John Foster was the ITA at the time. Members of the Friends Spinney committee were asking for an extension of the 7 years in which to offer the library to the town, included in the original donation agreement, to 20 years.
Foster: "The second item is a request from the Friends of the Wareham Free Library in a memo to the Board of Selectmen asking that the board of Selectmen authorize a revised donation agreement between the Friends of the Wareham Library and Spinney Memorial Incorporated in the town of Wareham. The main intent of this is to change turnover times which has already been authorized by all of these uh, committees and boards to take place within twenty years rather than the seven years stated in the original contract and IV'E PROVIDED THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT and also a copy of the revised contract."
I could have sworn she took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth at the beginning of this deposition!!!
Offline
#41 2009-11-25 14:05:04
Get government out of the library business.
Offline
#42 2009-11-25 14:12:10
Isn't perjury against the law? If so, can she not be held accountable (her favorite word to use when concerning others) for this obvious omission of the truth? Come on people, I truly have seen enough from these fools. They talk about fiscal responsibility while spending way over the budget on legal expenses. They also continue to ring up the legal charges without any concern for our fiscal shape. They talk about accountability, and none of them can remember from one week to the next what they have said. The speak of professional demeanor but thumb their noses at the citizens every single time they open their mouths!
Had Enough?????????
Take Back Wareham!
Offline
#43 2009-11-25 14:15:26
When is the election?
Offline
#45 2009-11-25 15:31:18
Okay, now for selectman #4's deposition: Bruce Sauvageau on 3/23/09.
Q: Mr. Sauvageau, let me ask you this. What were the circumstances that, to your memory, that led to the need for the town entering into a donation agreement with the Spinney Memorial, Inc. and the Friends?
A: I don't know.
Q: You have no memory at all today of the circumstances that gave rise to the town entering into a donation agreement?
A: No.
Q: Is it your testimony here today that the donation agreement came onto the Board of Selectmen's agenda one day and you discussed it and took action upon it?
A: I don't believe I said that.
Q: I know you didn't say that, but I'm asking you if that's the case.
A: You're asking me if that's my testimony?
Q: No, I didn't say that, sir. You've got to listen to my question carefully.
A: Can I have it read back so I understand? (Record read.)
A: Testimony. No, it's not.
Q: You've got to let the court reporter finish.
A: I heard everything I need. No, it is not my testimony.
Q: What is your testimony, sir, with respect to how the donation agreement came to be on the Board of Selectmen's agenda of business?
A: My testimony was I don't know.
And later:
Q: You've looked at the donation agreement before today, haven't you sir?
A: I signed it.
Q: And you read it before you signed it back in 2005, right?
A: No, I did not.
Q: You didn't read it?
A: I didn't. I didn't sign it the night of that meeting. It was signed sometime after with several other documents. I was not in attendance at that meeting.
Q: Do you have any reason to believe that this document was not signed in 2005 by you?
A: I have -- whatever it's dated as, that's when it was signed.
Okay folks. Am I the only one bothered by the fact that now Selectmen Eckstrom and Sauvageau have admitted under oath to signing legal documents on behalf of the town WITHOUT READING THEM??? My question from before remains. What other documents have been signed by the BoS without having read them? Should this man be re-elected in April should he run?
Offline
#46 2009-11-25 15:39:16
Remember this word, it's one of the Selectmen's favorites: ACCOUNTABILITY. It appears they don't read, but they do sign. How sad is this?
Offline
#47 2009-11-25 16:08:32
Dick Wheeler wrote:
I'll "hit" you again with that great Mark Twain line.....roll it around a bit before you swallow it to get the full flavor: "A person who won't read has no advantage over someone who can't read."
Dick, I miss you man..
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
Offline
#48 2009-11-25 20:19:20
Let me remind everyone that this litigation stretched out over two years despite the library parties' repeated requests for mediation. The last request was answered by K and P atty. Corbo who said the BoS would not consider mediation until AFTER the depositions. Now the library folks knew that the cost of the depositions would almost double the previously incurred legal bills. The cost to you, the taxpayers, also skyrocketed.
All four of the selectmen quoted on this thread admitted in their depositions that they did not read documents relating to the case and two admitted to signing legal contracts on behalf of the town without reading them.
Mark Twain was a wise man. We might as well have selectmen who can't read, because if they are doing the town's business, and they WON'T read crucial documents, we are all in a lot of trouble.
On this Thanksgiving eve, I'm not feeling very thankful for the way this BoS have wasted my tax dollars. Something tells me though, that once the citizens of Wareham learn the truth about who is running this town, come April, I will be very thankful!!!
Offline
#49 2010-01-29 09:04:43
Here is a question posed to Fogcutter from the same tabloid blog that I just spoke about on the Facebook thread. This whole thread you are on now explains Spinney but I would like to answer again, this question:
"Fogcutter,
Take a look at page 5. of the Audited Financial Statements of the Friends of the Wareham Free Library, Inc., for the years ending 4/30/2007 and 2006 which state that the nature of operations relate to a single library, the Wareham Free Library.
Also take a look at page 5. of the Audited Financial Statements of the Friends of the Wareham Free Library, Inc., for the years ending 4/30/2008 and 2007 which reflect a change in the nature of operations from a single library to a library system. (Note that this change may have taken effect around the same time of the library litigation. I won't even address that here.)
Fogcutter, the fact remains that the Friends did change the nature of their operations and absent any corporate resolutions, we really have no clue when it took affect. Now, consider the donors who may have been regularly contributing to the library believing that they were contributing to the Friends under their mission "supporting the single library". Were they ever notified by the Friends of the change in the Friends mission, and were they told that their donation might be used for other purposes besides the one existing library?"
YES, not only were the members of the Friends notified, but the Town of Wareham was well aware of it when the Board of Trustees signed the DONATION AGREEMENT that was prepared by Kopelman and Paige explaining the transfer of the building from Spinney Inc. to the town. The agreement was signed, even if it wasn't read by Eckstrom and Sauvageau (as admitted in the depositions) on June 6, 2005, long before the litigation. Funds were raised solely for Spinney Inc. and that money is kept separately from the Friends general fund. Donations that are restricted are always used for the intended purpose by the Friends.
Offline
#50 2010-01-29 09:11:34
Perhaps Fog Cutter should venture over here for some answers???? Wouldn't that be grand?
Last edited by Larry McDonald (2010-01-29 09:13:03)
Offline
#51 2010-01-29 09:56:48
Be stong Mrs Bicki. These people continue to attack you because they know that they can't control you or the friends. They know no matter how hard they try they will never be able to dictate how you spend the money you raise. With all that is going on right now it is nice to know that the Friends exist. They may hate it and I'm sure they do but the reason I give to the friends and not the Town is with your track record I can be assured that the money you spend goes towards the library and not somthing else.
Offline
#52 2010-01-29 12:34:58
Bobo wrote:
They’ve surrounding themselves in a clock of secrecy and deception.
Beware the "clock of secrecy and deception.."
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
Offline
#53 2010-01-29 12:51:03
Another example of stellar spelling by the king of journalism! I'm still laughing
Offline
#54 2010-01-29 15:47:51
Bobo wrote:
They’ve surrounding themselves in a cloak of secrecy and deception.
Bobo the Assclown...if your going to take the time to change your "story" after I proofread it for ya, you might want to fix the sentence properly. Here, let me help you.
I think what you meant to say is:
"They've SURROUNDED themselves in a CLOAK of secrecy and deception"
Still not an accurate statement..but, you'd think a "journalist"..a "writer"..of your calibre would be aware of these things..Assclown.
Let's time him to see how long it takes for the edit..
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-01-29 15:48:19)
Offline
