#1 2010-09-28 21:54:36
You may recall that the chairman of the Finance Committee came on this website and told us that Article 3 was voted 4-4-1, if I recall correctly. Article 3 has to do with the Wareham Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and its funding.
It appears that Art. 3 calls for $96, 864 to be transfered to the WPCF. But, what for? You won't get it straight from Sanguinet, Andrews or anyone else. There was a mention that the WPCF "overspent" for FY2010. Is that the same as running a deficit? One would think so. So is the $96, 864 to cure a prior year's deficit? Remember, an Enterprise Fund is supposed to be self-sustaining.
And, in the middle of this, a mention was made of an increase in the EDU rate of $12.00. is that for FY11? Sanguinet said the WPCF was "short" for FY11.
This is why the FinCom deliberations on the Town Meeting warrant should be telvised. Better debate, better answers.
Offline
#2 2010-09-29 03:51:31
VOTE IT DOWN , RAISE THE SEWER RATES TO COVER THERE LOSSES.
Offline
#3 2010-09-29 07:11:36
the question to ask is if it was overspent, what was it spent on. if the money was spent to keep the place running then it had to be spent. if it was spent on pizza parties-just joking- then you can complain. was his budget underfunded to begin with. all questions not asked and not answered. they hated the director so much that they fired him then hired a guy to do the same job. are we looking at another law suit that will cost us much more than 96 thousand?
Edit. he wasn't fired. the director was laid off if I remember. sorry about that. they introduced his replacement last night.
Last edited by watchtower (2010-09-29 09:06:11)
Offline
#4 2010-09-29 11:21:52
If the former director was laid off, shouldn't he then be asked to come back? There's a BIG difference between laid off, fired and resigned. Which one was it, does anyone know?
Offline
#5 2010-10-01 21:26:27
He was laid off in leiu of being fired. If memory serves me on this site it was mentioned that the state issued a complaint against the town for this whole mess. I smell a big check coming out and Mr. Simmons getting a nice nest egg ofr his retirement.
Offline
#6 2010-10-02 12:31:09
Let me get this straight.
First the town laid him off---unemployment benefits
Then he retires---retirement pay plus health benefits (since he is relatively young (retirement wise), I'm thinking many years of $$$$)
Now we hire a replacement---salary and benefits
Plus, if his complaint against the town goes his way-----$$$$$$$$$$$$
Is this what our current administration call a WIN-WIN situation???
Wasn't the reason given for his lay off as financial constraints? Somebody needs to donate a calculator to these people. It doesn't add up when I do the math. Nota--I defer to you on this one. Do I have this right?
Offline
