YEAH USUALLY WHEN YOU LAY PEOPLE OFF YOU START WITH THE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM NOT THE ADMINISTRATOR. THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER

tesno754 wrote:

It Is Another Lie!  He And His Admin Assistant Were Put On Administrator Leave, Pending A Witch Hunt Into There Financial Records.

Sorry, no.  They were not put on administrative leave.  They were layed off and will not be asked back.  The reason was in regard to errors about money for the electric bill.  The only error was made by our new "town Accountant", who is not an accountant.  The selectmen wanted Mr. Simmons gone.  They have magnified every little tiny thing he has ever done to become negative.  Just ask Mr. Cronin about Simmons, "the rat".

IHATESLAGER wrote:

SO BORN HOW TO YOU "LAY" SOMEONE OFF FOR FINANCIAL ALLEGATIONS? HOW DO YOU "LAY" OFF THE TOP ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE THE WORKERS? ITS WORD SEMANTICS FOR FIRED

Sorry, I agree.  I agree with tesno also.  The man and his administrative asst. are gone.  I was told by someone close to this man that being put on administrative leave could mean they were possibly coming back and that if they were fired, they would have had to been paid immediately for salary, sick or vacation days.  The words they were given were that they were being layed off and would not be coming back.  It is semantics.  I just wanted everyone to know the term that was used.  Layed off.

IHS, if budgeting is a problem, the last man hired is usually the first to go.  This man was targeted.  The financial allegations were an excuse.  In my opinion - if he forgot to turn off a light - that would have been enough for the town to "lay him off".   I am sure that if all goes as expected or as we hope in April, we may find out the truth about a lot of things.

LAY OFFS FOR THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO BE NON ESSENTIAL PERSONNELL. YOU JUST CANT PICK AND CHOSE WHO YOU LAY OFF, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT WAS DESCRIBED AS ONE OF THE TWO BIGGEST RATS IN WAREHAM. CAN YOU SAY LAWSUIT