Bagel Boy in the Cream Cheese Gazette wrote:

After current BOS Chairman Jane Donahue denied ever signing such an agreement, Heaton then claimed the agreement had been made with former chairman Bruce Sauvageau. As evidence he presented the ZBA an Agreement for Services between the Town of Wareham and H&H Associates Consulting Services, dated Oct. 29, 2009.

    That contract, however, was not signed. Sauvageau strongly denied making any agreement with Heaton.

“I don’t recall us even having a conversation about it,” Sauvageau said.

I don't think we can take Sweet Brucey's word alone for this.  There should be an investigation.

He JUST appeared with the Westfield Committee as a "free" consultant that was heavily reported by all of the media, legitimate and not....
Westfield is dead...
Hire a damn grant writer and turn the property into what it should be: a place for the people of Wareham and visitors to enjoy for eternity in it's beauty and pristine environment...

Bobo Black Sox wrote:

Heaton has been working pro bono as an advisor on the Westfield proposal for the past few months

Why does the Bagel Biting Brucey Bitch feel the need to spin?  He may have been working pro bono for the past few months, but he's been paid alot of money by the town in the past!!!

When they start trying to divorce Heaton from the Westfield Project (he was hired to plan the whole thing but he had nothing to do with it!) just remember these quotes from Sweet Brucey in a Q an A with the Wareham Courier August 26, 2009:

Sweet Brucey or the aptly initialed "BS" in a 2009 Q and A with the Courier wrote:

WC: Do you feel the town should have gotten approval from Town Meeting before spending the money on a consultant and other expenses?

BS:  We did get approval. The body voted to "further study" this project because they wanted full details such as a schematic design and building renderings, financial analysis, needs analysis, developer credentials, etc., etc. Frankly, it was an obvious response, and one we took very seriously. That type of information costs money, and if we can achieve a community benefit, it will be well worth it. It has not cost much relative to the investment ($30 million), and we have spent very little on this issue up to this date. (i.e., in comparison to open space and historical preservation, for example)



WC: How are Heaton's consultation fees being paid?  How much money has already been spent preparing this project for Town Meeting?

BS:   He is paid from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (currently with a balance of approximately $120,000). It is funded primarily from private developers who pay a fee in lieu of building affordable units within their projects. We have expended about $30,000 to date. This should represent the bulk of this expense since we are at the RFP stage. After that, the developer awarded the contract will bear the development costs, and Mr. Heaton's role will shift to an advisory role as needed. We have also accepted applications for three trustees of the trust and will seek two more. They will then assume oversight of this account.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-09-01 13:00:12)

I agree with Dick.  This has "damage control" written all over it.  Looks like they figured it'd come out sooner or later so why not get it out and spin it their way?  No doubt there are more layers to peel away on this story.  Hopefully investigations will ensue.

IF HEATON WILL LIE ABOUT ONE PROJECT THEN HOW CAN YOU TRUST HIM NOT TO LIE ABOUT ANOTHER PROJECT LIKE SAY WESTFIELD, AND THE LEADERS WHO BROUGHT US WEDTFIELD OUR BIG LIARS, KILL WESTFIELD AND VOTE THE LIARS OUT ON THERE ASSES.

I just read the former Chairman's latest piece about himself...oh...I mean Heaton.

Quite amusing, really. Fascinating. I wonder what comes next?

Sweet Brucey wrote:

The consultant to the Westfield Study Committee has just committed what appears to be fraud against the town of Wareham. He lied to the Zoning Board of Appeals on an unrelated matter concerning a 40B project which stood to gain him tens of thousands of dollars in profit at the expense of the town.

Yeah Sweet Brucey, and YOU hired him!  What's that say about YOU?!

Sweet Brucey wrote:

He also committed an act of defamation by telling members of the ZBA (in writing) that I had personally negotiated a contract with him while I was chairman of the BOS. That alleged contract would have allowed him to keep one-third of the revenue recovered from the 40B project after an audit allegedly revealed that the developer stiffed the town out of as much as $350,000.

Did he?  We're supposed to take YOUR word for that?

 

Sweet Brucey wrote:

Yes, it is nearly impossible to comprehend the greed and arrogance Heaton displayed regarding the ZBA on the Cromesett Landing project. Did he think we were all so monumentally stupid that no one would question his claim that he had a contract with the town that could have paid him up to $100,000? The man planted the seeds of his own self-destruction and he has no one to blame but himself.

And thank God that two of the selectmen that hired him were tossed out of office.  The remaining two should either resign or be thrown out of office.

After re-reading the story, there's something fishy going on and more than what we are being told by the rag.

Question - Is Heaton the Santa Claus of housing audits?  Does he just run around auditing projects with no promise of money in place?  Would someone engage in work without some kind of promise for payment?  Are we to believe he audited a housing project out of the kindness of his heart without an agreement for payment in place? 

And if someone is mistaken about a belief they are owed money, is that really "fraud" to ask for money?

Something 'aint quite right here.  Ham of Peace hopes that more reputable news sources will give us real answers.

I believe that someone is about to be indicted. I think that the word came down that the former Chairman and Heaton are being indicted for fraud and conspiracy. The former Chairman is saying that Heaton claims that they had an agreement and a contract that would allow Heaton to make more than $100,000.00 and that the former Chairman would some how benefit.

Who has been saying "follow the money"? EVERYONE on this site.

It's about to hit the fan, and it should be interesting, especially if it can be proven that the troll had some participation in the alleged scheme.

It is a case of "he said;he said".

Now...it will be a question of credibility and EVIDENCE of some kind. That is why I certainly would not accuse either man of a crime at this point, or even a civil infraction.

I, like the rest of you, will wait with baited breath until a real newspaper or news source gives us the real story.

Bottom line is that the former Chairman of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Wareham has been accused of participating in fraudulent activity that would benefit him or others.

He has been accused, in the news media (?), by a consultant of a crime, and the consultant is admitting a crime as well.

Interesting, eh'....

I am somewhat amused by the headline stating Mr. Heaton mislead the Zoning Board.
Misled?
How about: lied to ...

Nota:
Bobo has never been very good at math, that is usually where his stories fall to pieces for example The Great Nickel Scheme.

If one were to believe Bobo, that the late MJP made 3 million off of photocopies then let's see what it would take to do that:
60 MILLION COPIES! That is right folks. Now let's follow the scientific evidence, if it takes the copier approximately 1 second to produce each copy the machine would have had to have run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 695 days, wow, that is one busy copier. Now let's think about the amount of paper, toner, etc. Where are the bills Bobo? Bullshit is what that was and what his claim to Westfield is. But funny how quick sweet Brucey throws Heaton under the bus. Something is going on here. I did hear that Jane spent quite a bit of time last night in the parking lot sitting in her car talking to Bobo.

Don't be fooled by the term "pro bono" !!!  Mr. Heaton doesn't do anything for NOTHING.

"Heaton has been working pro bono as an advisor on the Westfield proposal for the past few months. On Monday The Westfield Study Committee approved the language for a citizen’s petition article that could bring a senior-affordable housing project to the town-owned Westfield project."

He makes a living at this affordable housing consulting gig.  In fact I'll go on record to say he's already pocketed greater than $60,K from Wareham on the Pig in a Poke we all call "Westfield".  Initially he was contracted, as reported, for $15,K.  His first invoice was submitted and paid ILLEGALLY by our former ITA (interim town administrator) with the approval of the former BOS to the tune of nearly $28,K from the Wareham Affordable Housing Trust Fund to which no (ZERO) Trustees had been appointed; another illegal act in itself.  Subsequent to that another invoice was submitted and paid for an additional $25-26,K for continued "Pig in a Poke" services.  Finally the former BOS members covered their ass's, so to speak, by finally appointing Trustees to the Affordable Housing Trust, who by the way are governed (limited) BY LAW to spending no more than 10% annually from the balance of the Trust Fund.  BUT...it's been proven and documented by their (formers) actions that they don't read or comprehend the laws that govern us.

Today I can also go on record to say that NOTHING has changed since April 6th, 2010.  We continue to be poorly managed and poorly led.

In fact, does anyone wonder like I do as to: Why the new Chairman (woman) of the BOS is pushing this agenda so vigorously, just like the last one did ???  Now we're going to be asked to agree to the definition of "municipal purposes" to mean "AS LONG AS IT BENEFITS WAREHAM".  Well...I would HOPE that anything proposed by our leadership would benefit Wareham.  Therein lies the reason Westfield has FAILED so miserably for three years now.  SOoooooooooo...instead of the BOS proposing the Article for October's warrant, they'll make it appear as a citizen's petition with the required 10 signatures, which was crafted, by the way, by said consultant Heaton (pro bono).   (: )

Like I said, don't be fooled.

C'MON April 5th, 2011

SO I LIVE IN A  ZOO REPORTS THAT JANE AND BOBO WERE IN A CAR LAST NITE FOR AWILE, WHAT CAN WE CONCLUDE FROM THIS IS THAT JANE WAS LEAKING INFO ON HEATON TO BOBO AND TODAY LIKE MAGIC ITS IN BOBOS PAPER AND  THE SPINING BY BOBO GOES  FOWARD.

Zoo wrote:

I did hear that Jane spent quite a bit of time last night in the parking lot sitting in her car talking to Bobo.

The plot thickens...

Heaton wrote:

This includes the audit from MassHousing, letter to MassHousing from Mark Andrews, communications with the ZBA and the BoS including my agreement for services and history of the project that includes the ZBA decision and communications with the applicant.

Any chance of getting our hands on all those documents?

Heaton wrote:

Mark Andrews sent a letter to DHCD requesting supporting information to verify these conclusions, but to my knowledge has not received a response from DHCD.

Andrews is writing letters about  the info Heaton obtained, but there was no agreement with the town (as the Bagel Muncher claims)? 

Something...fishy...goin...on.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-09-01 18:58:43)

I believe that Heaton, according to the troll and the former Chairman of the BOS, meant he had the approval of the past Chairman, not the current one.

I was just sent some ravings from the troll's site. I think that his columnist, the former Chairman of the BOS, in his usual wonderfully written column said that Heaton accused him. Not ME...HEATON...
What ingredients are in bagels in your area?

By the way, usually at this time of year you would be looking at us getting a storm. I hope the hurricane avoids you, and I hope that you all take precautions.Anyone who has been through a hurricane knows it is no laughing matter.

Best wishes to you all...I am praying and hoping you all stay safe.

Let me make this clear. I am NOT accusing Brucie of anything with this post. Many of you have already read this, but since new people join this site regularly, some may not have seen it.

This is why I am always going to be suspicious about anything Brucie says about agreements, contracts, documents etc.  This is Brucie on 3.29.09 swearing under oath in a deposition during the library litigation.  (By the way, for the newbies, Jane, Brenda and Cronan also testified similarly and I also have little faith in anything they say about documents, contracts or agreements.)

Here it is:

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.

After a good night's sleep, a long walk with my dog, and a cup of black coffee..... the Sauvageau-Westfield Project smells worse than ever.  It's not about 40B, it's not about performing good deeds for the elderly....it's all about money.

And don't think for a minute that our old pal Bobo isn't in this stinking swamp up to his neck..... Consider again that the resurgence of Westfield happened at the same  time as the resurgence of The Observer. Coincidence? I didn't think so last December ,and I'm more convinced now that the possible "deal maker" has come out from under a rock.

Every time I bring this up, Bobo has a conniption-fit and blabs that I've accused him of taking a bribe.  No Bobo, that's not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that I'm offering the opinion that there's a developer who has been led to believe that keeping The Observer alive would increase his chances of making the Westfield Project a reality. No bribes...You aren't in it for personal financial gain....all you wanted was  to have those pesky printing bills go away, and someone who knows how some developers operate with "public relations" funds made it happen.

The proof will come when we kill Westfield in its present form, stick it in a bucket of cement and drop it off near Cleveland Ledge. Within a month The Observer will be "belly-up".

Ham of Peace here.

As I said before, I'm reluctant to accuse anyone of illegal activity based only on the reportings of the Worst Newspaper in the History of Journalism, so I won't be doing that.  Hopefully some more reputable news sources will start digging and get us the answers we need.  There are alot of questions and we need answers.

It just seems odd to me that someone would put so much work into a housing audit report without getting some kind of a promise of payment before following through with it.  A house painter doesn't put his brush on your wall until you've told him you agree to his painter's fee, a mechanic usually won't start ordering new parts to put in your car until you've told him you'll pay for it, and even Burger King won't hand you a box of fries until you reach your hand through the window with some cash.

So I just am skeptical about the concept that this person would perform a housing audit without first obtaining an understanding from someone in an official capacity that he'd be paid for it. 

I have no idea what happened so I'm not saying anything happened, but, no one will know what happened until there's an investigation and all the facts are in - facts from a reputable news source, not a bagel chewing lackey.

Questions we need answered are - Did any Hypocrite Elitist/town official agree to this?  If they did, is that proper protocol or should the entire board have been consulted first?  If they didn't, has this individual done something wrong (tried to get something he shouldn't), or is it just a case of bad judgment (did work before getting proper approval of payment, mistakenly thought he was owed something)?

Again, not accusing anyone, just pointing out some questions that we need answers to. I'm not saying anyone did or didn't do anything.   I have no idea what the answers will be, who did what, or what happened until someone in an official capacity starts looking into it.

All I know is there will be a stain on the Westfield project from now on that will be impossible to wipe off.  It creates alot of doubts, alot of uncertainty, I'm just not sure we can trust anything that has been said about this project.  It has been rejected numerous times, now there is cause for concern...time for it to be scrapped so the town can move on.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-09-02 08:36:23)

Heaton may have misled the ZBA but the proponents of Westfield mislead the public constantly..This project will only benefit the developer and anyone in it's pocket, NOT the seniors of Wareham..Good luck to anyone on the Housing Authority waiting list in what would be a lottery..There's also the issue of those folks even being able to afford the units..enough is enough on this, can we finally do away with Westfield?

I'm not sure what to make of this comment of Jane's in the tacky tabloid:

"When asked why the topic wasn't brought up for discussion during Tuesday night's selectman meeting, Donahue said she hadn't seen Heaton's retraction because she is on vacation from work this week and has been out-of-town. She only returned to Wareham on Tuesday to attend the selectmen meeting.
    "The issue wasn't placed on the agenda because we were all still trying to figure out what was going on," she said. "I knew I was going to be away on vacation and thought the matter needed more investigation before a public discussion."


Who does she mean when she says "we were all still trying to figure out what was going on."  Who is the ALL??? Surely, the BoS didn't have any behind the scenes discussion (deliberation) on the subject because that would violate open meeting law.

Remember it was the previous BoS that had 14 violations of open meeting law which included both Bruce and Jane.

Jane also admitted under oath that she did not read the contract that was the subject of litigation (read using tax dollars for legal fees)  Again, this is just my opinion, but I'm not sure I trust Jane to carefully read documents, agreements etc.

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.

"A person who won't read is no better off than a person who can't read."


Thanks, Nora, for reminding us of the unique blend of ignorance and arrogance of  some of our elected leaders.   The transcripts of the deposition say it all.

That is a GREAT idea! How can we make it happen?