Sad that such an angry man is now sitting on the board of selectmen:

By: mike9f on 12/20/09
Hi, All. I saw one of the blockheads from the other site made the following post:

"Here is a mysterious statement :)
Why would the IRS (and now DOR) be interested in a certain failing business? Could it have anything to do with specific laws governing contributions? You just never know"

Please! So some folks sent the Observer contributions/funds to offset the costs of operations. If those funds are reported on the appropriate tax return as income, there is no problem. Just because some individuals used the term contribution does not mean that the Observer was engaged in fundraising. The blockhead probably did call the Mass DOR and IRS but will ultimately get nowhere. If the blockhead is as smart as he thinks he is, he already knows that. I'm sure he also had to stretch the truth just a bit so he could keep them on the phone for more than 30 seconds.

This guy always seems worried about the rag's well-being, and calling people "blockheads?"  Not very mature and responsible.

Bobo's Best Buddy:

TO THE EDITOR:
    It’s that time of year again when The Standard-Times’ editorial board decides the paper’s endorsements in Wareham’s Town election via its editorial section.
    Hunting season in Wareham is officially upon us.
    Editorials are the opinion pieces, written by members of the editorial board of the paper. They reflect the stance of the paper and, in the case of the Standard Times, are nearly always inclined to find fault or to judge with severity the Town of Wareham’s incumbent government, particularly the Board of Selectmen. The lopsided nature of the reporting often found in the Standard-Times is absolutely astonishing.
    It’s obvious that the Standard-Times, through its editorial board, will use the editorials on the opinion page to overtly attempt to discredit the opponents of the candidates the Standard-Times editorial board will covertly support in the coming elections. Of course, one selectmen - Bruce Sauvageau, who has been a consistent target of the Standard-Times, will remain its primary target.
    One thing is certain though. Not one word will be uttered by the Standard-Times about the candidates in Wareham that have posted on a public web site that exists solely as a forum to tear down Wareham’s incumbent board and anonymously engage in smear programs and propaganda that employ tactics similar to those employed by Adolph Hitler and his machine. That public web site comes complete with Swastikas and insults that no member of our community should suffer. Most recently, the bloggers on that site have engaged in an attempt to label the publisher of the Wareham Observer a pedophile.
    I shudder at the prospect of a Board of Selectmen in Wareham that will reflect the views of the posters on that web site. So should the Standard Times.
    Who exactly are the hunters on the Editorial Board of the Standard Times?

Michael Schneider
Wareham

Waaah, my best buddy got banned, waahhh...

By: robertslager on 2/28/10
Hi, coach. Did you watch the hockey game? I think we should declare war on Canada. After all, they subjected our country to Bryan Adams.
By: mike9f on 2/28/10
Hello, Coach and Robert. A very interesting weak this has been with Robert being banned by Wareham Week and then reinstated for some unkknown reason.
By: robertslager on 2/28/10
Hi, Mike. To be accurate it was banned, reinstated, and then mostly banned.
By: mike9f on 2/28/10
So, Robert, why exactly were you banned in the first place?

By: mike9f on 2/28/10
Look, the CBW/TBW have consistantly touted that the Board of Selectmen have been fiscalyirresponsible, have terminated capable depatment heads, and spent unnecessary legal fees. That's in addition to thefalse personal attacks on them. The Truth is, The Board of Selectmen has just saved this town from a 4 million dollar mistake. How? by hiring a competent Town Accountant.

How'd that "competent" town accountant work out?

By: mike9f on 3/29/10
Very good article, Robert. I truly do appreciate your dedication to this community. You could have sold the paper. With it would have gone alot of unnecessary stress and anxiety placed upon you and your family by others. A 100k would be tempting for anyone. However, there are some things money just can't buy. Unlike you, Robert, some people will never know exactly what that is. You have certainly earned my respect.

What a clown.

It will always be disturbing that someone who once wrote to the ITA to beg for bucks for Bobo now sits on the board of selectmen:

By: mike9f on 4/18/10
August 25, 2009


Mr. John Sanguinet
Interim Town Administrator
Memorial Town Hall/Administration
54 Marion Road
Wareham, MA 02571
Re: Legal Advertising for the Town of Wareham

Dear Mr. Sanguinet:

I have recently learned that the Town of Wareham is spending nearly double what it should be paying for legal advertisements in local newspapers. As I understand it, tax dollars are being wasted due to your practice of calculating the cost of legal advertisements on a weekly rather than annual basis. Because of this weekly calculation, your assumption is you are afforded discretion as to which media outlets you may place the advertisements with because calculating the advertisements on a weekly basis keeps the amounts below the $5,000.00 threshold required for competitive bidding.

First, please explain to me why you feel it is in the best interests of the
Town of Wareham not to allow competitive bidding for the placement of legal advertisements within local newspapers.

Second, the Town of Wareham adopts an annual operating budget not a weekly budget. Please explain to me exactly what benefit is derived from calculating legal advertisements on a weekly rather than annual basis.

I understand that from a procedural point of view and from a legal standpoint, you have discretion over these matters. However, the Wareham Observer has informed me that there would be a 50% savings to the Town of Wareham if it were allowed to bid the legal advertisements on annual rather than weekly basis. Using a benchmark of spending $75,000 per year in legal advertising, a 50% reduction in costs would result in the town saving $37,500. Please explain to me how you justify why the town is not taking advantage of this significant savings.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Schneider

But wait, there's more!

By: robertslager on 6/1/10
That's outstanding news, Michael and Ellen. Anything I can do to help, please let me know.

By: mike9f on 6/1/10
Robert, Ellen Begley and I have thought long and hard about taking this next step. We have received a tremendous amount of encouragement from the community and we are truly grateful for the support we have received from everyone on this site.

Bobo wants to help Move Wareham Forward?  And what was that last sentence, Mikey?

Mikey wrote:

...we are truly grateful for the support we have received from everyone on this site.

As in "the rag site."

By: mike9f on 6/27/10
I've got to be up early in the morning. Good night everyone. Robert, let's touch bases this week.

By: robertslager on 6/27/10
I'll be stuck at home most of the day tomorrow, Mike. Give me a buzz. Thanks.

Mikey and Bobo - best buddies.

Last edited by GuyIncognito (2011-06-27 09:06:59)