Who Payed For The Recall Signs ,my Conclusion Has To Be Mike And Ellens Mwf Pack, Ellen Has Said He Was Worth His Weight In Gold.

I Here The Donahues Are Ticked That They Were Caught Putting Up The Recall Signs  With Ms Bindas , I Also Beleave That Curley Is Upset That They Will Not Be Able  To Have Stanley Living In There Rental House ,gratis From The Town Of Wareham  , Because It Was Negoiated By Andrews To Give Stanley 2k A Month To Pay Curley For The House .   He Knows The House Well As He Has Been Living There While  He Was A Part Time Police Chief.

It would be outrageous if it wasn't so evident that the two new Selectmen are clowns... bigger clowns than the two just shown the door.

They lack even the intellect that Brenda and Jane had....totally useless and will probably not last a whole year.

I fully expect schnookums to do something stupid like be discovered as a sub-contractor for school busing, or the like.

Not the brightest bulbs in the refrigerator.

Ol' pal Stewie, here, expressing a word of caution on the interpretation of the Open Meeting law. I even consulted a retired friend of mine, Notalawyer.

The presence of TWO (2) selectmen in a meeting with the T/A & Town Counsel does NOT constitute a violation of the Open meeting law. While it may be an affront to the other Board members, it does not violate the law. The law is Chapter 30A, Sections 18-25. It is clearly spelled out in www.mass.gov  -  go to the Attorney General's homepage.

The key word that appears repeatedly is DELIBERATE. If two of a 5-member board meet & deliberate regarding issues, agenda items, etc., there is NO violation. If THREE out of the 5 do precisely the same things, then it IS a violation.

there's more. Andrews was flat out wrong in saying that a third Board member, by merely being present, creates a violation. It is only a violation IF the three DELIBERATE. Therefore, if the T/A & T/C were merely updating the new arrivals on the financial situation, and a third S/M sat in on the dissertation, there is no violation. If the three began to discuss/debate the financial issues, then there is a violation. Sort of a fine line, there.

Similarly, you may recall Mr. Brady's famous meeting, when brucie and the Gang of Four 'posted' the Brady meeting so that they could attend. No need. A Board can attend such a meeting, again, as long is there is no Deliberation. that also applies to seminars, educational meetings, etc.

Or, the Board may be invited to meet & inspect a property to be developed and/or acquired. Ex. Wal-Mart, Makepeace, etc. No violation of the law if the full Board attends...unless, you know.

I happen to be involved in an Open Meeting dispute which has affected a very good friend of mine in another Town. Many hours have been spent researching & reviewing this stuff. My conclusion, based on the info supplied in this thread, is that there is not a violation of the law here,  despite Andrews' comment.

Don't worry, there will be plenty more opportunities, one suspects.

Last edited by stewie (2011-04-09 15:11:15)

stewie wrote:

Many hours have been spent researching & reviewing this stuff. My conclusion, based on the info supplied in this thread, is that there is not a violation of the law here,  despite Andrews' comment.

Two practical, rather than legal, questions.

Wareham has rehired a plainly partisan attorney at a premium to represent less than half our duly elected selectmen. Richard Bowen is also once again the deciding voice on all matters before our Town Meeting.

How do our Town Moderator and the BOS persuade Wareham's voters their voices no longer fucking matter and they should like it, that the administration of Sweet Brucey and the Donahues they rejected at the polls is still running the whole show?

As for Richard Bowen, how do we get rid of that incompetent, ethically challenged asshole?

I honestly feel if the law firm of our town attorney knew we were willing to go to the wire on his decisions he would have to be more careful. Is the law firm he works for a reputable firm.(I know the answer on him) How does one put a law firm on notice? Can they sue you for saying you think one of their lawyers may be on the take?

I don't have the brains for this.

www.mass.gov/obcbbo/complaint.htm#fyi

??Engaging in work for a client notwithstanding the existence of a conflict of interest, as defined and prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Bowen  Now The Towns Lawyer His Agrement With The Town Is You Pay  Us Double And And We Will Give You All The Paid Decesions You Will Like .

Menrva wrote:

Something really smells. Do any of you have friends who are investigative reporters?

All reporters are paid to investigate. In practice, the media in this market no longer support investigations. If a story don't walk in on a silver platter, it don't get written, grammatically or otherwise. But to answer your question, yes.

Menrva wrote:

Another thing. If you have friends or know some people who don't register to vote and don't vote you should check and see if they are registered and if they voted.

That's a terrific idea.

Last edited by billw (2011-04-10 14:32:07)