TO THE EDITOR:
I am writing to declare my appreciation for the new town accountant, Elizabeth Zaleski. I was part of the screening committee for the position at the beginning of July 2009. During the interviews, the Treasurer/Collector informed the candidates that the “encumbrances” for FY09 had not completed. It did not appear to register with any candidate, except for Ms. Zaleski; her response was, “Those need to be completed by July 15th.”
As interviews continued, we were mildly impressed with the other candidates, but I believe we were all very impressed with Ms. Zaleski. At the end of each interview, Mr. Sanguinet asked each candidate, “When would you be able to start?”
Every other candidate stated various dates, again, except for Ms. Zaleski. She responded, “Well, I’d like to give a reasonable notice to my current employer, but you need to get the encumbrances completed, so if I were hired, I’d like to start right away by working a couple of nights and Saturday so we can get that completed before the deadline.”
This is a small example, but I think her comments and her subsequent actions show Ms. Zaleski’s work ethic. It is this work ethic that has enabled the town to finally begin to get a grasp on our financial situation after years of mismanagement.
Several months ago, after her attack on the town’s legal bills (which were subsequently determined to be appropriate), Ms. Marilyn Donahue of the Finance Committee decided to “look into” the Health Care Trust Fund. For some unknown reason, she suspected that the 75/25 ratio between the town and employee contributions were incorrect. It is unclear what information she gathered, or from where or whom, but she took it upon herself to draft letters for of the School Department employees and the Police Union, both of whom sent letters to the town, stating their concerns.
School Committee member, Geoff Swett, (Chairman of the Finance Committee when the Health Care Trust Fund was established) brought the concerns to the School Committee. He informed the School Committee that he had contacted the former town auditor (whose contract had not been renewed) about conducting an audit on the Fund. The former auditor stated that for $2,800 he could review the Health Care Trust fund figures. To Mr. Cliff Sylvia and Mr. Kenny Fontes’ credit, they suggested the School Committee contact the Board of Selectmen before they move forward and ask the selectmen to “share the costs.”
The Board of Selectmen thought it was inappropriate for the former auditor to review the same figures he had previously approved, so the School Committee went forward, costing the School Department nearly $3,000 to have the former auditor find fault with the same numbers he had previously blessed. To be fair to the former auditor, he did qualify his findings by stating that he only did a cursory view and that his conclusions were not intended to draw any conclusions regarding the Fund; for that, a complete audit would be needed.
Despite the former auditor’s disclaimer, the School Committee held a press conference (only inviting the Standard Times), and disseminated inconclusive, skewed data as fact, claiming the town had over-billed the town employees $1.9 million since the inception of the Fund. The Finance Committee Chairman, Richard Paulsen, as well as a couple of other members, chimed in and began demanding refunds, rebates, and apologies from the Board of Selectmen, the interim Town Administrator and the newly hired town accountant, Ms. Zaleski.
Ms. Zaleski was not shaken. She reviewed the former auditor’s findings and immediately noticed that he had not taken grant funding into account, nor did he make a distinction between contributors who pay more than 25 percent (some participants pay 50 percent, some pay 100 percent). Taking those into consideration, Ms. Zaleski stated that a preliminary review showed that the former auditor’s findings were off at least $1.3 million. Mr. Paulsen and Ms. Marilyn Donahue took no solace in her discovery, but rather continued their diatribe against the selectmen, interim town administrator and new accountant, and continue to demand reimbursement. Ms. Zaleski had employees entering her office wanting to know when they could pick up their checks for the money that the town “ripped them off.”
Ms. Zaleski’s professional knowledge, experience and integrity were questioned by Mr. Paulsen and perhaps other members of the Finance Committee on local “hate blogs.” Mr. Paulsen and Ms. Marilyn Donahue seemed to prefer sticking with the “doomsday” scenario that was based on inadequate information, despite Ms. Zaleski’s assurances that the numbers used were incorrect The Board of Selectmen, on Ms. Zaleski’s recommendation, hired an auditor to complete a full and comprehensive audit. The firm of Powers & Sullivan, assisted by Ms. Zaleski, who dug through the proverbial shoeboxes of receipts, reconstructed the Health Care Trust Fund.
Well, the facts are in. Despite “material weaknesses” in accounting practices and “sloppy accounting” over the past several years, it was confirmed that the town did not overcharge anybody; and the 75/25 split was actually a 74.9/25.1 split, which is well within anticipated fluctuations for the Fund.
The other good news is the Fund has a surplus. Seeing the town is self-insured, a healthy surplus bodes well for the town’s financial affairs, as the town is less “at-risk” of our budget being drained by an unforeseen major accident.
When the information was disseminated at the Feb. 23 Selectmen’s meeting, most of the members of the Finance Committee (Donna Bronk, Bob White, Dominic Camarraro, Bonnie Cottulli, and Dan Cheever) apologized to the then-interim Town Administrator, John Sanguinet for calling for his head. Mr. Paulsen nodded in Mr. Sanguinet’s direction and said “ditto” – I guess that was as much of an apology as he could muster. Ms. Marilyn Donahue, who began the torch and pitchfork brigade, sat uncharacteristically silent during the apologies.
As a member of the Board of Selectmen, I didn’t really expect an apology for essentially being called a thief by some members of the Finance Committee, and I certainly didn’t expect any gratitude towards the Board for finally hiring a town accountant who is competent and concerned for the town. But I certainly expected a bit of remorse and gratitude towards Ms. Zaleski by the members of the Finance Committee who had undermined her since her arrival and throughout this Health Care Trust Fund audit. Mr. Cheever, thanked her, and I thank him for that.
This letter is not to embarrass Mr. Paulsen or Ms. Marilyn Donahue, they did that to themselves, but rather this letter is to publicly thank Ms. Zaleski for all her hard work and her determination to uncover the errors in our finances due to years of neglect and sloppy accounting practices. She has spent late nights, Saturdays, and holidays in her office, trying to figure out the mess that the previous accountant called our “books” when she would have preferred to have been home with her family. We know there is a long way to go before Ms. Zaleski is able to clean up the disastrous mess she walked into seven months ago. Hopefully the Department of Revenue’s Management Review (that Ms. Zaleski recommended we request) will assist in curing our accounting errors. So, thank you, Ms. Zaleski, for having such a strong work ethic and for caring about Wareham more than some Committee members do, and for having the stick-to-it-ness when lesser people would have cut and run, then sued.
Brenda Eckstrom
Wareham Selectman
TO THE EDITOR:
I am compelled to respond to the untrue allegations made against me by Mr. Peter Baum in the Wareham Courier and the Wareham Week newspapers during the week ending Feb. 21.
Mr. Baum was provided with a guest column by both papers, purportedly to debate the pros and cons of the proposal to change the Wareham Home Rule Charter and was allowed to malign my character under the guise of his so-called analysis of our local form of government. The column should have been more aptly titled, “Town Government According to Peter Baum. Who is Peter Baum and why is he considered an expert on this topic?
Mr. Baum is a known detractor of the current administration. He is also a known attendee, organizer, and speaker at the “secret” meetings held at the Congregational Church to discuss the recall of the selectmen. At that meeting he proposed a “laundry list” of potential recall reasons - so that followers would be able to find something on the list to agree with. Other attendees of that meeting included the editor of the Wareham Week and the current challenger to the position of Moderator, who “chaired” the occasion. Mr. Baum was also part of the “Bob Brady” Middle School meeting last July, where only like minded thinkers were welcome and those who were not welcome were not allowed to speak. So how do they defend of our rights of free speech?
His associates are now running against the incumbents for Board of Selectmen, Town Clerk, and Town Moderator. His associates claim to be in favor of open and transparent government - with positive campaigns - yet they have known associations with Citizens for A Better Wareham, Take Back Wareham, Recall Wareham, and Vote April 6th; all organizations shrouded behind secrecy with no names attached.
His associates are also part of the cyber-bully group, blogging on a website known for hurling insults against town officials with racial and ethnic slurs along with wild accusations of substance abuse and domestic violence. I am talking about the website that contains swastikas and language that is so offensive that one elected official called the FBI to investigate those cyber-bullies for possible violations of that town official’s civil rights and for potential incitement of hate crimes.
The gist of Mr. Baum’s editorializing suggests that our elected and appointed officials are dishonest and shouldn’t be trusted with legislative powers. Nowhere did he discuss in detail the strengths or weaknesses of the current form of government versus the proposed form of government.
In confronting Mr. Baum’s methods of distortion, I cannot ignore his criticisms of my role as Moderator, a role which I have fairly, objectively and professionally, performed in the best interests of the Town of Wareham for nearly a decade. Mr. Baum and his associates have attempted to restrict my rights as Moderator and as a citizen by introducing Charter change articles at Town Meeting that would prohibit me (and others) from performing my (our) official duties under Massachusetts General Laws and the United States Constitution. He stated in his ‘guest’ editorial of Feb. 18 that I “prevented the articles from coming before Town Meeting voters.” Mr. Baum’s statement is absolutely incorrect. Anyone who reviews the unedited tapes of town meeting will be able to discern that his statement is simply untrue.
In fact, most of Mr. Baum’s ‘guest’ column has been a misrepresentation of the facts and a demonstration of how little he understands our current form of government, let alone any proposed changes to it.
When less than 1 percent of the electorate, represented by the dwindling number of voters at Town meeting, can prevent the town from trying to protect its environment, assist its seniors, reach affordable housing goals, balance budgets, and move forward in so many directions – and do so in a less than courteous and civil manner - there is something fundamentally wrong with how we conduct our business and relate to one another.
As a longtime town meeting attendee it is my opinion that our current town meeting form of government has perhaps reached the point where it no longer serves its purpose and that the discourteous behavior of Mr. Baum and his associates is the primary causes of the recent descent into incivility towards other Town Meeting members.
It is now evident that Mr. Baum has chosen to throw stones at me and the Charter review process in an attempt to support his slate of candidates for office.
Please consider this carefully when you read Mr. Baum’s installments regarding town government and especially when you go to the polls.
John Donahue
Town Moderator and citizen
Publisher's Note: Peter Baum did not submit his guest column to the Wareham Observer.
TO THE EDITOR:
It is very clear that there is still a substantial lack of clarity about Article 2, which was on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant. Mostly, the issue centers around the belief of whether or not there is an actual legal restriction on the parcels of land that comprise the Westfield property. Some current and former town residents contend that a deed restriction was voted on and approved by a Town Meeting vote back in the 1970s. However, the deed on file at the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds purportedly lacks that restriction. Whether the deed lacks the restriction because of a failure by the then Board of Selectmen to properly carry out a vote taken at town meeting, or it lacks the restriction for some other reason, is all very ambiguous. In any event, it is irrelevant in the context of what I see as the bigger picture.
The issue as I see it, stretches a bit further than the placement of wording on a piece of paper. The facts show something a little less subtle. The whole premise of Article 2 on the Fall Town Meeting Warrant was to give the Board of Selectmen the necessary authority to lease the land at Westfield for the purposes of senior affordable rental housing, in turn giving developers a certain level of reassurance that the community would support a viable plan for affordable senior rental housing. A vote that reflected the support of the community would have given the developers incentive to make additional investments of time and resources and a reason to continue to negotiate a final plan for affordable senior rental housing. Had the vote passed, it would have superceded the vote of any prior town meeting. The vote would also have benefited a group of people through the creation of affordable housing. That group had two characteristics in common. The two characteristics were low-income and age. Often times, this particular group has a third characteristic, disability.
Arguments were made on town meeting floor that directly raised the issue of who would benefit from the development. Specifically, a question regarding the development having to accept people regarded as having a physical or mental impairment was raised during the discussion. In addition, comments were made during the meeting that indicated a potential bias against tenants of low-income housing developments. Now, I’m certain that those views expressed were not representative of all of the voters in attendance. However, it raises serious suspicion about whether or not the vote taken to indefinitely postpone the project was inherently unfair.
In addition, comments were made regarding a specific alternative location that low-income housing would be more appropriate, the area is among the areas of town that already have a significant concentration of affordable housing.
Notwithstanding the specific issues above, the issue of affordable senior rental housing is an issue that affects a specific protected segment(s) of the community and has been consistently voted for further study. The Town of Wareham has only a limited number of affordable rental housing units and they are generally in poor condition despite the efforts of the Wareham Housing Authority. There are also an insufficient number of units to meet the needs of the group. As a result, the housing choices for those seeking senior affordable rental housing in the Town of Wareham are severely limited as demonstrated by one senior citizen that spoke during town meeting and said, “ Wareham doesn’t want me.”
The very nature of Wareham Town Meeting operates to disproportionately disadvantage persons because of handicap and age. Significant barriers exist that prevent or impede members of the group(s) identified as, low-income seniors, or those persons regarded as having a physical or mental impairment from having equal opportunity to participate in issues that affect the group. Among those barriers are health, transportation, level of comfort, time, and fear.
Andrea Smith, a reporter for the Wareham Observer wrote, “How many Westfield proponents stayed away from town meeting because (knowing the reputation of Wareham’s town meetings and the fervor of Westfield’s opponents) they didn’t want to subject themselves to that kind of behavior? “ That ladies and gentlemen is no democracy!"
One must question whether or not the removal of the barriers, or a substantial number of the barriers, most likely to interfere with the ability or right of the group to vote upon the issue would change the outcome of the vote.
Andrea Smith also reported that local resident Larry McDonald suggested that Bruce Sauvageau’s support of a Westfield referendum indicates the selectman has no regard for the legislative branch of government. She quoted Mr. McDonald as saying, “There is nothing more insulting than an elected official telling the citizens he has no regard for the legislative branch of our government. To hell with democracy!”
Obviously Chairman Bruce Sauvageau sees the matter in the context of the bigger picture of democracy. By placing a non-binding referendum on the ballot, the Wareham Board of Selectmen utilize a mechanism to test the theory of whether or not the vote might have been inherently flawed and, as a result, might have produced a different result if at least some of the barriers: level of comfort, time, or fear could be sufficiently removed so the group most affected by the issue of senior affordable rental housing could more readily participate. Although the placement of a binding question related to affordable senior housing would seem a little more likely to be effective in overcoming potential claims of a discriminatory effect of the town meeting vote, the placement of a non-binding question should sufficiently test the waters without violating the sanctity of Town Meeting itself.
Chairman Sauvageau and his board should be lauded for making certain that a protected group has every opportunity to participate in a decision that might adversely affect them as a result of having their participation barred by way of obstacles. That is democracy!
The actions taken thus far could also very well indicate that Chairman Sauvageau and his board recognize that the actions and conduct of some of the voters at Town Meeting coupled with the historical failure of Town Meeting to approve this Senior Affordable Housing project might well give credence to claims of "disparate impact" were it might not otherwise exist. In other words, the bigger picture.
Michael Schneider
Wareham
