#1 2010-05-31 01:37:16
Former Selectman Bruce Sauvageau exited the last night of Spring Town Meeting desperately seeking attention, gloating over the town's failure to reclaim a public beach from its private abutters. Sauvageau was easy to ignore. CPC head Nan Miller was more insistent, blocking my own exit until I heard her bewail her treatment on this site. As she would tell Bobo the Brainless the next morning:
"The delay (in releasing the report) occurred because I believe in a community that does not embarrass its members. The report indicated that private citizens had encroached on the beach. I told (then acting Town Administrator John Sanguinet) that I didn’t want the study released until those families have been notified that there may be a property line problem. It was a matter of respect."
So Ms. Miller baldly states says she sat on the results of a scathing, publicly financed report one calendar year in order to notify a handful of landowners; chiefly, Mr. Sauvageau and his family.
Omitted was her previous acknowledgment this report was commissioned by the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) to establish a Conservation Restriction and ban public access to Swifts Beach. That misstep, of course, came back to bite her when the report revealed gross neglect of wetlands management by the town.
Wareham created a CPC committee in 2003, appointing as members those who'd served the CPA study committee formed a year earlier; among them, Ms. Miller. It's ambitious mission - clean water, environmental protection, affordable housing, open space, historic preservation and recreation - attracted wide public support. Wareham had a lot to gain, voters were assured.
To date, the town and the state have contributed millions to that fund, and Wareham voters have nothing tangible to show for it.
Where's the outrage? Where's the public audit?
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Last edited by billw (2010-05-31 22:50:04)
Offline
#2 2010-06-01 10:56:19
Although some money has been spent to preserve some land Bill makes an interesting point. What is the total amount of money they have collected and what has it been spent on? If the money can be spent on REACREATION why can’t they give money to restore the bathhouses on Onset Beach? The Onset Bathing Pavilion Project has a web site with all the information and has beautiful drawings showing how the bathhouses could look if monies were available. That would be a tangible project that all could benefit from and may attract more tourists to the area. It would certainly improve the look of Onset Beach.
Offline
#3 2010-06-01 11:40:24
Thanks Marny... an EXCELLENT idea.
Offline
#4 2010-06-01 11:54:32
Sounds like there should be some kind of investigation here. Why was that study sat on and hidden from the public for a year? Why have none of its reccomendations to clean the beach up been acted upon?
Offline
#5 2010-06-01 13:31:58
Marny,
Great idea! I like it a lot. The people have to approach CPC with the idea though. CPC does not go looking for projects, the projects have to come to them.
Offline
#6 2010-06-01 13:57:17
Hamatron5000 wrote:
Sounds like there should be some kind of investigation here. Why was that study sat on and hidden from the public for a year?
That was done by the interim TA with his phony claim that the document could be held back due to "pending litigation" that was eventually overturned by the state. Nancy Miller was nice enough to recently take the public hit for sitting on it in Mr. Slager's recent interview, but I think the S-T's reporting of the issue pretty much nails what happened.
Hamatron5000 wrote:
Why have none of its reccomendations to clean the beach up been acted upon?
By whom and with what funds? We don't have a Beach Commission in town to deal with this stuff (hey, why DON'T we have a Beach Commission in town to deal with this stuff?).
But in any event, of more immediate concern is the draft Conservation Restriction that is far more suitable to be used for a wildlife preserve than for a town beach. Not exactly shocking, given that the restriction holder would be the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, but the Selectmen and the public need to understand exactly how restrictive the current draft document is, particularly for a beach parcel.
Last edited by Petethemeat (2010-06-01 13:58:42)
Offline
#7 2010-06-01 14:52:23
Petethemeat -
I like your idea of a beach commission.
I'm confused: you speak about a "current draft" Conservation Restriction. I thought at town meeting Nancy Miller said "the" conservation restriction was being processed by the state.
Offline
#8 2010-06-01 16:35:57
Mr. Onset wrote:
I thought at town meeting Nancy Miller said "the" conservation restriction was being processed by the state.
I checked with the state agencies involved, as have others.
Nancy Miller lied.
Offline
#9 2010-06-01 16:38:16
Petethemeat wrote:
Not exactly shocking, given that the restriction holder would be the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, but the Selectmen and the public need to understand exactly how restrictive the current draft document is, particularly for a beach parcel.
Fish & Fucking Wildlife are the only white hats I know in state government but you're absolutely right.
Offline
#10 2010-06-01 16:50:29
She provided me with a draft CR document after I requested it.* It arrived via a forwarded email from Kopelman & Paige. I'm guessing that what she meant at Town Meeting is that the draft CR document was being reviewed by the state.
* As a side note, I have known Nancy Miller for years and consider her a friend. Does she have a lot - and perhaps too much - on her plate? Yes. Does she sometimes forget to do things? Yes. Does she sometimes screw things up? Yes. Has she been forced to navigate difficult and often hostile political waters due to the acquisition of the Swifts Beach property? Yes. Has she had enough legal assistance in navigating the subtleties and vagaries of the relatively new law under which she and the CPC operate? No.
Now for the big question: is she part of some big former regime conspiracy to hose the taxpayers and gundeck information? Absolutely not - the woman is apolitical and does not hitch her wagon to any political faction. The bottom line is, there's no need for investigation: if you want information about what she and the CPC are doing, just ask her. It's really that simple.
Last edited by Petethemeat (2010-06-01 16:55:31)
Offline
#11 2010-06-01 16:55:16
If anyone wants a copy of the draft CR, then send me a PM with your email address and I'll send it right along.
And I hope to hear from many of you who would like to see it. This is an important document that should be openly discussed, so that any citizens' concerns can be made known directly to the BOS and our input heard and considered before it is executed and recorded.
Offline
#12 2010-06-01 17:00:32
Shoot, Pete, post it here or attach the draft to info@warehamobserver.com and I'll do it.
Offline
#13 2010-06-01 17:10:52
billw wrote:
Shoot, Pete, post it here or attach the draft to info@warehamobserver.com and I'll do it.
Done. Along with a couple of other participants here, I am working on correspondence to submit to the CPC and the Selectmen that identifies specific concerns with the document as currently drafted - but I claim no monopoly on common sense and would love to hear from as many people as possible.
Offline
#15 2010-06-01 18:18:33
My Dear Petethemeat,
I will grant you that Nancy Miller is not evil and, in fact, has done a great deal of good for Wareham over the years. I grant you Nan is essentially apolitical in the sense you indicate. I grant you that people make mistakes.
But... what she said at town meeting was,
“The conservation restriction is done. It’s up at the state for review.”
That statement was critical as people tried to vote rationally. The motion before the body was to form a committee “…to research and evaluate the potential uses and long term leasing of the property known as the Swifts Beach….” Nancy Miller is the chair of the CPC, and as such, her statement carried great weight. I’m sure there were people who reasoned, “If the conservation restriction is done, then it limits what any committee can consider.” In fact, this very point was made by a number of speakers: there would be nothing for the committee to do because the conservation restriction is so limiting.
The motion lost by 3 votes.
You said, “I'm guessing that what she meant at Town Meeting is that the draft CR document was being reviewed by the state.”
Yes, exactly - you are guessing.
Would you be willing to find out why she made that false statement by asking her explicitly and reporting her response to us? Would you be willing to ask her why the general public has not been asked to review the Conservation Restriction (except now through you)? Would you be willing to ask her what the process for that review should have been and what it actually has been? Would you be willing to ask her why there has been no public hearing on the issue? Would you be willing to ask her why she didn’t support the article that would have set up a committee that might have provided valuable input to such a review?
I’m not angry with you Pete. I continue to respect you and your views. Supporting friends is generally an admirable thing to do. This certainly isn’t about what should be done with Swifts Beach. I suspect that you, Nan, and I are in agreement about most, if not all of these issues about public beaches and conservation.
No, what this is about is whether or not we will tolerate people in trusted positions who make false statements in an effort to influence critical decisions by our town legislature.
Offline
#16 2010-06-01 18:30:03
Bless you, Mr Onset. I wrote and deleted two posts saying the same thing, but no where near as artfully.
Offline
#17 2010-06-01 18:42:04
If anyone is interested you can go to Onsetbathingpavilionproject.org They have great pictures of what the bath houses could look like and what they look like today (inside and out) Bill could you please hot link this site I don’t know how to hot link, thanks.
There is also a copy of the deed which puts a lot of restrictions on the town as to what they can and can’t do with the property. I wonder if the pier is included in this deed? The deed is very old and it’s tough reading for my old eyes.
Last edited by marny (2010-06-01 18:42:41)
Offline
#18 2010-06-01 19:41:46
Marny:
I just spent the better part of an hour going through the site. Certainly a worthwhile endeavor to say the least. Just another one of those revenue generating things that seems to be on the back burner.
Interestingly enough, the woman most believe to be behind the screenname "Ms. Lilly" is big into this project and if you go through the whole site you will find that our friend DOCTOR Jones took at least one of the photos that appear on the site, I always wondered how he got on the scene, but there is the connection to the Town Communist Committee!
Offline
#19 2010-06-01 21:48:51
Mr. Onset wrote:
Would you be willing to find out why she made that false statement by asking her explicitly and reporting her response to us? Would you be willing to ask her why the general public has not been asked to review the Conservation Restriction (except now through you)? Would you be willing to ask her what the process for that review should have been and what it actually has been? Would you be willing to ask her why there has been no public hearing on the issue? Would you be willing to ask her why she didn’t support the article that would have set up a committee that might have provided valuable input to such a review?
I'm not sure if this covers what you seek 100%, but I will say that during a recent conversation with her, I told her that there should be a change to the town bylaws requiring the CPC to post legal notice of a hearing any time there is to be discussion of conservation, historic or any other type of use restriction contemplated for Town property. My thinking is two-fold:
a) it would generate community input, or at minimum put us on formal notice that there were plans afoot to create and record legal documents affecting our rights in our property (and shame on us if we don't participate!); and
b) it would make life easier for the CPC by putting mandatory sunshine on their work, thus ending rumor and speculation about their activities.
She fully agreed that this would be a good idea, and my sense is if someone writes it, she and the CPC will request that it be inserted into the warrant at the next Town Meeting.
Mr. Onset wrote:
I’m not angry with you Pete. I continue to respect you and your views. Supporting friends is generally an admirable thing to do. This certainly isn’t about what should be done with Swifts Beach. I suspect that you, Nan, and I are in agreement about most, if not all of these issues about public beaches and conservation.
Thank you - but don't be afraid to bang away if you feel the need to, as my ego is plenty big enough to take a few hits. But I will tell you this: when I initially spoke with Nancy about the CR a few days before the final night of Town Meeting, she told me that I was the first person who had ever called her - in an interested citizen's capacity, anyway - to ask about it. Think about it: two and a half years after the October 2007 Town Meeting vote to appropriate $1.1 million for the property, and I was the first person to ask her about it? What that told me was that not only did I need to get more involved, but that WE need to get more involved in these processes.
Mr. Onset wrote:
No, what this is about is whether or not we will tolerate people in trusted positions who make false statements in an effort to influence critical decisions by our town legislature.
This is where we diverge a bit, because I don't think she intended to mislead anyone with what she said at Town Meeting. I do in fact believe the draft document had been forwarded to Fish and Game for their review at the time she made the statement. And I also believe there were other factors that played a much greater role in defeating the study group article, starting with the very wording of the article itself - but that's a political discussion for another day.
In any event, I do agree that she should have been more specific at Town Meeting as to the actual status of the document. And that sort of specificity is precisely the sort of knowledge we would get through the type of bylaw I suggest we adopt, if we step up and exercise oversight when the opportunity is there to do so. Then we can avoid any and all confusion about the who, the how and the what of these extremely important documents that will affect the rights of generations to come.
I doubt my response will fully satisfy you, but for the time being I've set my pitchfork and torch aside in favor of my pen. In that regard I am seeking only remedies to the issues we still face, not more controversies. I'm not saying everyone should adopt that approach, but it's the right one for me at the moment.
Last edited by Petethemeat (2010-06-01 21:51:57)
Offline
#20 2010-06-02 13:11:02
While reading the Swifts Beach CR the document kept repeating Article 97. So I looked up the article and here is a copy of it. Hopefully it will help understand the document better.
The Official Website of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
EEA Article 97 Land Disposition Policy
EEA ARTICLE 97 LAND DISPOSITION POLICY
FEBRUARY 19, 1998
I. Statement of Policy
It is the policy of EEA and its agencies to protect, preserve and enhance all open space areas covered by Article 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Accordingly, as a general rule, EEA and its agencies shall not sell, transfer, lease, relinquish, release, alienate, or change the control or use of any right or interest of the Commonwealth in and to Article 97 land. The goal of this policy is to ensure no net loss of Article 97 lands under the ownership and control of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. Exceptions shall be governed by the conditions included in this policy. This policy supersedes all previous EEA Article 97 land disposition policies. An Article 97 land disposition is defined as: a) any transfer or conveyance of ownership or other interests; b) any change in physical or legal control; and c) any change in use, in and to Article 97 land or interests in Article 97 land owned or held by the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, whether by deed, easement, lease or any other instrument effectuating such transfer, conveyance or change. A revocable permit or license is not considered a disposition as long as no interest in real property is transferred to the permittee or licensee, and no change in control or use that is in conflict with the controlling agency's mission, as determined by the controlling agency, occurs thereby.
II. Conditions for Disposition Exceptions
EEA and its agencies shall not support an Article 97 land disposition unless EEA and its agencies determine that exceptional circumstances exist. A determination of "exceptional circumstances" is subject to all of the following conditions being met: all other options to avoid the Article 97 disposition have been explored and no feasible and substantially equivalent alternatives exist (monetary considerations notwithstanding); Note: The purpose of evaluating alternatives is to avoid using/affecting Article 97 land to the extent feasible. To that end, the scope of alternatives under consideration shall be commensurate with the type and size of the proposed disposition of Article 97 land, and must be performed by the proponent of the disposition to the satisfaction of EEA and its agencies. The scope of alternatives extends to any sites that were available at the time the proponent of the Article 97 disposition first notified the controlling agency of the Article 97 land, and which can be reasonably obtained: (a) within the appropriate market area for private proponents, state, and/or regional entities ; or (b) within the appropriate city/town for municipal proponents. the disposition of the subject parcel and its proposed use do not destroy or threaten a unique or significant resource (e.g., significant habitat, rare or unusual terrain, or areas of significant public recreation), as determined by EEA and its agencies; as part of the disposition, real estate of equal or greater fair market value or value in use of proposed use, whichever is greater, and significantly greater resource value as determined by EEA and its agencies, are granted to the disposing agency or its designee, so that the mission and legal mandate of EEA and its agencies and the constitutional rights of the citizens of Massachusetts are protected and enhanced; the minimum acreage necessary for the proposed use is proposed for disposition and, to the maximum extent possible, the resources of the parcel proposed for disposition continue to be protected; the disposition serves an Article 97 purpose or another public purpose without detracting from the mission, plans, policies and mandates of EEA and its appropriate department or division; and 6. the disposition of a parcel is not contrary to the express wishes of the person(s) who donated or sold the parcel or interests therein to the Commonwealth.
III. Procedures for Disposition
Although legislation can be enacted to dispose of Article 97 land without the consent of an EEA agency, it is the policy of EEA to minimize such occurrences. To that end, and to ensure coordination, EEA agencies shall: develop an internal review process for any potential Article 97 land disposition to ensure that, at a minimum, the conditions in Section II above are met; develop, through the Interagency Lands Committee, a joint listing of all requests, regardless of their status, for the disposition of Article 97 land; notify the Interagency Lands Committee of any changes to the Article 97 land disposition list; monitor all legislation that disposes of Article 97 land, and communicate with legislative sponsors regarding their intent; recommend to the Secretary that the Governor veto any legislation that disposes of Article 97 land, the purchase, improvement, or maintenance of which involved state funds, on and for which the EEA agency has not been consulted and received documentation (including information on title, survey, appraisal, and a MEPA review, all at the proponent's expense); 6. obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of EEA for any proposed Article 97 land disposition decision prior to finalizing said decision; if recommending an Article 97 disposition, attach to all Article 97 legislative recommendations and TR-1 forms a justification of the disposition and an explanation of how it complies with this policy, signed by the EEA agency head; ensure that any conditions approved by EEA and its agencies to any Article 97 land disposition are incorporated within the surplus declaration statement submitted to and published by DCPO as required by G.L. c. 7, ss. 40F and 40F½ and throughout the disposition process, and if such conditions are not incorporated in said statement throughout the disposition process, the EEA agency head shall recommend to the Secretary that the Governor veto any resulting legislation; recommend to the Secretary that the Governor veto legislation that disposes of Article 97 land of which the agency disapproves; and ensure that any Article 97 land disposition is authorized by enacted legislation and approved by all municipal, state and federal agencies, authorities, or other governmental bodies so required and empowered by law prior to conveyance.
IV. Applicability of This Policy To Municipalities To comply with this policy, municipalities that seek to dispose of any Article 97 land must: obtain a unanimous vote of the municipal Conservation Commission that the Article 97 land is surplus to municipal, conservation, and open space needs; obtain a unanimous vote of the municipal Park Commission if the land proposed for disposition is park land; obtain a two-thirds Town Meeting or City Council vote in support of the disposition; obtain two-thirds vote of the legislature in support of the disposition, as required under the state constitution; comply with all requirements of the Self-Help, Urban Self-Help, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and any other applicable funding sources; and comply with the EEA Article 97 Land Disposition Policy. After the effective date of this policy, any municipality that proposes, advocates, supports or completes a disposition of Article 97 land without also following the terms of this policy, regardless of whether or not state funds were used in the acquisition of the Article 97 land, shall not be eligible for grants offered by EEA or its agencies until the municipality has complied with this policy. Compliance with this policy by municipalities shall be determined by the EEA Secretary, based on recommendations by the EEA Interagency Lands Committee.
* © 2009 Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Offline
