#1 2010-05-21 08:06:42
Oh, a Brenda vs. Janey spat. What a quandry to figure out who to root for. Maybe root for neither and just enjoy watching the beautiful spectacle unfold. Grab your popcorn, let's look at the "Hypocrite Elite Civil War" with some quotes from the Cream Cheese Tribune:
The Bobo Gazette wrote:
Eckstrom responded by saying, "I just don’t like that everything is almost going on behind closed doors."
Hey, remember those 17 open meeting law violations from the board that included Brenda and Janey...yeah, based on April's election results, I'd say Wareham doesn't like things going on behind closed doors either. Always funny when one of these people claims to care about open meetings.
The Grain Based Treat Journal wrote:
Cruz then said he’s gotten more information in the past few weeks than he’s gotten from his fellow board members in the last year.
Wow, that's just the money quote right there, isn't it? Cruz is not someone they can easily write off as "an evil power elitist whose opinion doesn't matter" the way they do with anyone who disagrees with them. They were apparently keeping the man in the dark all last year and new leadership for just a few weeks has already helped him obtain information.
The Chive Report wrote:
Then Cruz made a motion to allow Donahue and Andrew to sit on the committee. When Eckstrom continued to state her case, Cruz voice grew noticeably louder.
"It’s over now. We’re starting brand new," Cruz said.
But without Brenda, who on the committee will say "Um" all night?
The Pumpernickel Paper wrote:
Donahue was forced to use her gavel to maintain order.
The Hypocrite Elite gaveling each other! Woo hoo!
The Barracuda Weekly wrote:
Eckstrom was not dissuaded from continuing. She said Donahue was being "disingenuous" by saying the selectmen failed to act.
"We weren’t afforded the opportunity to act by you," she said.
3-D glasses!!! Where are my 3-D glasses?!
Offline
#2 2010-05-21 08:34:50
edited--(see video clips below to hear what they said)
NEVER trust a Bobo quote...he hardly ever gets it exactly right..geez, the guy thinks we live on planet Eirth..
Mr. Onset wrote:
I also noticed that Selectman Cruz voted against Selectman Eckstrom's appointment to some ad hoc school committee. It was the obvious thing to do since there is so much animosity between Selectman Eckstrom and the School Board.
What were Holmes and Winslow thinking? Thank you Selectman Cruz for your no vote. The only thing I can think of is that Selectman Winslow, Selectman Cruz, and Selectman Holmes want nothing to do with the ad hoc committee; very appropriate, in my opinion, because it is strictly a School Board issue. Not only did Selectman Donahue add another member from the BOS to the ad hoc committee, she made herself co-chair. My reaction, if I were the School Committee, would be to uninvite any involvment by the BOS.
Bingo..
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-05-21 11:55:35)
Offline
#3 2010-05-21 08:54:41
I usually enjoy a good cat-fight and this could be entertaining..we'll exclude the jello, oil, or mud that's usually involved for these two lovelies (yuk!)
Offline
#4 2010-05-21 09:18:52
Brenda and Jane "going at it" was "interesting"..but in the end..it is the two of them who are on that "committee"..the highlight for me was when Mr. Cruz lost patience with Brenda (and his "no" vote..to her "appointment")...Losing patience with Brenda (or Bobo..or Brucey, etc)...is something I think many of us have felt..Totally understandable Mr. Cruz. Now in that instance..that was a guy "representing" this voter's "take" on Brenda's "Crusade".
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-05-21 11:56:53)
Offline
#5 2010-05-21 11:43:41
Here's the portion of the meeting when they discussed forming the (School) "Transportation Review Committee" and "Crisis Appointing Committee"..(it gets "good" at about 4:00 of Part 2)..Bravo, Mr. Cruz....Brenda..Pleeeeeeease resign.
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-05-21 13:57:41)
Offline
#6 2010-05-21 13:46:36
Whoa, Nelly !!!!!
Part 2 of 3, shortly after ms. winslow recuses herself.
1. first, isn't it refreshing to see someone stand up and recuse themselves due to a potential conflict?
2. Mr. Holmes asked the chair if the meetings of the transportation review Committee were public, open to anyone.
3. the chair's response? " No, they don't have to be public and posted.....not a quorum of either Board."
SAY WHAT ????????
Please, Madam chair, cite the exception in the Open Meeting Law that allows an ad hoc commiittee to ignore the provisions of the Open Meeting law. I'll wait..........
Haven't we seen enuf of the BoS weaselin' & wafflin' about the Open Meeting Law?
Where is the outrage? where are the loud objections from this website?
ANY meeting of this committee is a public meeting, subject to postings, etc. And, if they want to meet out of the public eye in executive sessions, they have to state IN PUBLIC what the reason is for the ES and which element of the Law they are using to go into ES.
A discussion of the proper cycle for replacing worn brake linings will not qualify.
And, do you really want Uh-Brenda-Uh acting out behind closed doors? Me neither.
Last edited by notalawyer (2010-05-21 13:49:07)
Offline
#7 2010-05-21 14:04:05
Hope this is helpful.
MGL Chapter 34, Section 9G. All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this section.
Offline
#8 2010-05-21 15:41:58
The relevant Massachusetts General Law is:
Chapter 39: Section 23A. Definitions
Section 23A. The following terms as used in sections twenty-three B and twenty-three C shall have the following meanings:—
“Governmental body”, every board, commission, committee or subcommittee of any district, city, region or town, however elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, and the governing board of a local housing, redevelopment or similar authority; provided, however, that this definition shall not include a town meeting.
Chapter 39: Section 23B. Open meetings of governmental bodies
Section 23B. All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this section.
No quorum of a governmental body shall meet in private for the purpose of deciding on or deliberating toward a decision on any matter except as provided by this section.
Thus I believe the issue may hinge upon whether or not the School Board formally created a subcommittee or not. Regardless of whether or not the committee meeting must legally be open to the public, I believe it should be open to the public.
Last edited by Mr. Onset (2010-05-21 15:42:58)
Offline
#9 2010-05-21 16:46:39
Thank you Merlin & Mr. Onset for citing the relevant sections of the MGL.
their citations add support to my assertions above. there is no known exception for ANY governmental body. There are, however, specific reasons to go into executive Session; along with specific rules about choosing to go into ES.
But what concerns me here, is the lethargic response to your chair asserting that this committee can just blow off the rules that apply. This, after 16 +/- violations of the Open Meeting Law referenced by the Plymouth county DA.
the recent election clearly called for a new direction, Yet, here we have a bit of the 'same-old, same-old'. the only way that a new direction will be achieved is for drivers of that philosophy to press the issue.
Speak up. Speak up NOW. Let your elected officials know that the time for the Town of Wareham to be lampooned in the headlines of the press (make that the REAL press, no pretenders allowed) is O - V - E - R.
Make Jane & uh-Brenda-uh COMMIT to following the law; to finally showing some measure of respect for the Open Meeting Law, as well as for the citizens/taxpayers of the Town. Make them step up NOW.
Pick up the phone. Make the calls. Communicate the desire to change the thinking & actions of the BoS.
You will not have a better opportunity to effect change, by affecting the residual thought process of the members who think that the rules do NOT apply to them.
Do it. Do it NOW.
You know that you will thank yourself for making the effort.
Offline
#10 2010-05-21 19:29:01
Publisher's Note: In an earlier on-line version of this story, as well as in this week's print edition of the Wareham Observer, it was stated that Dick Paulsen did not properly file a disclosure form stating that he loaned $10,000 to a fellow member of the Finance Committee while the recipient of the loan did file the appropriate form. Paulsen did, in fact, file the appropriate form. It was the recipient of the loan who did not. Because of an editing error, that information was accidently transposed. The Observer regrets the error.
Bobo taking another one for his master sweet brucey
Offline
#11 2010-05-21 21:15:11
xxx
Last edited by mama bear (2010-05-25 00:12:30)
Offline
#12 2010-05-21 21:37:23
Another fine job by the halifax hack reporter! If it werent for Bill Whitehouse's Wareham Observer site the people that actually read Slagers garbage would be filled with misinformation. His articles have been proven time and time again to be corrected because of us on THIS site. I cant for the life of me understand how any of you still believe his nonsense!!
Attention, Attention: May I have your attention, Tin Foil Hat Crew, have you noticed that your fearless leader continues to make your cause look more and more worthless everyday? I would bet "all the tea in China" that the organization "Move Wareham Forward" would have taken off like a rocket if you had not been involved with the Halifax hack. I urge all of you too come to your senses and to cut ties with the out of town hack that is disrupting our beautiful town. Slager, for the benefit of the town PLEASE LEAVE, Its in my opinion that your paper is useless at this point, you and your cronies have destroyed the election that the TFHC had everything riding on, you tried to destroy the library, you flip flopped on your view of town government because your kool aid drinking friends didnt get in, so then you wanted a mayor, you took a shot at Mr. Cruz because he did not defend your sweet brenda, and where is all your earth shattering evidence?
It sounds like your just trying to sucker people into buying your paper, but we all know the truth, the truth that your papers are not moving. You are not the "investigative reporter" you think you are.
On a separate note, your paper did work well for lighting my chiminea this evening, we all enjoyed a cozy fire and i got to catch up on the real news in Wareham Weekly.
To our good friend Mixie, I am sorry for falling off the wagon on trying to ignore this heel but I had to say it. I will now get back on course and IGNORE SLAGER AND HIS BULLSHIT!!
Offline
