Did anyone else hear quite clearly that, in light of the many violations noted, that the computer audit was and is, in fact, nothing more than a WITCH HUNT based on hearsay ?  This sort of "fraud, waste and abuse" of
the public trust and resources cannot and should not be tolerated.
Regardless of any findings, OUR leaders have caused more embarrassment and hardship to the name Wareham than ever in our history.  They have in a few short years destroyed the value of OUR community and WE must bring about change (and I don't mean by way of a change in the form of government).  I mean THROW THE BUMS OUT !

C'mon April 6.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc … 015/TOWN14

if the link doesnt work here is the story......

OUR VIEW: Legal ignorance plagues boards

June 17, 2007 12:00 AM

When reporter Brian Boyd wrote this week that Wareham selectmen had hired a new town administrator behind closed doors, we were alarmed. We wondered what they had to hide and why they would risk getting caught violating the state's Open Meeting Law.

Now the truth has come out, and it's not as scandalous as it might have been: All but one of the board members are serving their first terms, and they simply didn't know the law.

Therein lies the problem. New selectmen and city councilors often begin their terms with little or no knowledge of the laws that govern municipalities. As their long-term predecessors leave office, the newcomers are left to fend for themselves, sometimes even rising to the chairmanship in smaller towns, where boards can consist of as few as three members.

In the Wareham case, two of the five selectmen have direct experience with an Open Meeting Law mishap last year. Selectman Brenda S. Eckstrom — now chairwoman — reported an Open Meeting Law violation to the Plymouth County district attorney's office after three other selectmen voted to remove Selectman Bruce D. Sauvageau from the chairmanship.

The DA's office determined that the trio had violated the law, even if the conversations in which they planned the ouster happened two members at a time.

For Mr. Sauvageau and Mrs. Eckstrom to still not understand the Open Meeting Law seems inexplicable. The former has served on the board for four years, the latter, two. None of the other members has served more than a year.

Mrs. Eckstrom told The Standard-Times that she believed taking a vote in executive session to hire a town administrator was allowed under reason No. 3, which involves contract negotiations, because the employee in question, John McAuliffe, would eventually work under a contract.

When asked about reason No. 8, which allows preliminary screening of applicants in executive session but specifically excludes meetings to consider applicants who have already passed such a screening, Mrs. Eckstrom said she never read down to No. 8.

After consulting town counsel and the DA's office, she admitted the board violated the law and apologized profusely. To remedy the situation, she pledged to re-vote the hiring in public and to try to re-create their discussion in open session, as well as to release the executive session minutes at the next meeting.

Mr. Sauvageau, for his part, coldly said the newspaper was making too much of the issue. We think not. The voters of Wareham deserve a board that operates according to the well-established requirements for public meetings.

News organizations, including The Standard-Times, are proud to be watchdogs on behalf of the public, and the Wareham selectmen certainly needed watching. Ignorance of the law, as the saying goes, is no excuse.

Unfortunately, ignorance of the Open Meeting Law is quite common, because many towns never conduct training sessions for members of their boards. While town clerks are required to distribute copies of the law to newly elected officials, the nuances of its application are not always evident.

Some district attorneys, who enforce the Open Meeting Law at the local level, have held briefings for city and town officials. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz would be well advised to do so, as would Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter, if he does not already.

In the meantime, long-serving board members and town administrators should make a point of passing on their knowledge to the newcomers, rather than forcing them to learn from legal violations that run counter to the public interest.

Last edited by LIZdaGNOME (2010-02-22 02:05:19)

And don't forget Jane admitted to the BoS breaking the law during her deposition. The police report that was filed by me on behalf of the Friends clearly demonstrates that the BoS ordered the ITA to have MM go onto private property and deface our sign. Both the property and the sign belong to the Friends of the WFL.

This was never announced/discussed during an open meeting, so it must have taken place during an executive session. The ITA told me that it was the consensus of the entire board to have MM take this illegal action.

I'm sure the DA would say that this edict had no place in an executive session as it did NOT pertain to the litigation per se which only involved the $75,000 given to the Friends by the former trustees and did not meet any of the other sanctioned reasons for meeting in executive session.

I would call this yet another violation of open meeting law but of course, that is just my opinion!!

The nut of the story is this:

"We're considering that matter still open," said Bridget Norton Middleton, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Timothy Cruz. "We're reviewing the board's response. Beyond that, we'll decline to comment."

It's good to see the District Attorney is not backing down on this.  Sweet Brucey, let that be a lesson to you - you don't declare when the DA's investigation into your open meeting law violations is over, the DA decides that.

Here's a quote from Bobo the Brucey Bitch:

Bobo the Loyal Brucey Lackey wrote:

During Tuesday night’s selectmen meeting Sauvageau said voters will have to weigh the importance of these alleged open meeting law violations. He’s right. While some of these violations are not exactly a feather on the cap of the board, voters will need to determine how much procedural violations of open meeting law actually mean in the big picture. From this perspective, it’s not anywhere close to the importance of stabilizing the town budget, hiring good employees and ending corruption in Wareham.

Yes, Bobo, from the perspective of a guy with his head up Brucey's butt, the 14 open meeting law violations doesn't seem like a big deal.  From the perspective of someone who doesn't live in Wareham, the Wareham board of selectmen violating the open meeting law doesn't seem like a big deal.

But for the rest of us - people who live in Wareham and live in reality, the selectmen violating the open meeting law 14 times is a big  deal.

And if you were really a reporter and not just a wannabe pretending to be one, you'd think it was a big deal too.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-02-23 08:27:38)