Cheers for Eckstrom TO THE EDITOR: Congratulations to Brenda Eckstrom for articulating her concerns regarding the lackluster performance of Mr. John McAuliffe.
Shame on her long-standing critics for responding by saying they don’t think she was capable of composing such a concise, thoughtful treatise on her own. That is incredibly insulting. The Board as a whole should be very grateful to her. Her resolution allowed them to move from a dismal, counterproductive situation- where the chief executive was thwarting their direction. So I say congratulations to the other three members of the Board for voting to adopt the resolution to place Mr. McAuliffe on unpaid administrative leave until final resolution of his employment status. They demonstrated courage, conviction and decisiveness with full knowledge of the political consequences when the question to fire Mr. McAuliffe was put to them.
Despite the fact that they had once considered Mr. McAuliffe capable of following the elected Board’s policy decisions and directions and competent enough to execute them, they could not and should not tolerate Mr. John McAuliffe’s disobedience and obvious insolence. I’m sure the Board of Selectmen will now work in unison to find a suitable replacement. Now it is time to move on with the important business of the Town of Wareham. Sheila M. Monaghan West Wareham Clerk didn’t break trust TO THE EDITOR: I have received several inquires regarding (The Wareham Courier’s) latest speak out, "Lips not sealed." It appears that someone is under the impression that I intentionally sought out the press to report the Chairman of the Finance Committee’s visit to my office regarding recall information.
To clarify for the public and the person calling speak out, I was called by the newspaper, who stated to me that they had intercepted an e-mail regarding a concerned group in Wareham pushing for a recall. I was asked to verify that the Chairman of the Finance Committee had indeed come into my office for information as was learned by the reporter. I stated that he had, and that was the truth.
At no time during our conversation did the chairman of the Finance Committee indicate that the inquiry was confidential, neither did he ask to enter my office so he would not be overheard by anyone passing by the window where this inquiry took place.
The day that the Finance Committee Chairman visited my office, it so happened that a selectperson was there conducting research of past town reports. The Finance Committee chairman was aware of this and it did not discourage him from asking questions or stating who might be recalled. Maybe I am mistaken, but this has been very public for several weeks now. As a professional who is ethical and appropriate, this inquiry is a public concern and will impact all involved.
This type of attack gives the impression that this is common practice in the Clerk’s Office, and that is not true. However, we try to be as honest as one can be when asked a question, regardless of who is asking.
I would question one’s reason and morals for a public attack, which is secretly cloaked in speak out. Mary Ann Silva, Town Clerk Stop cranberry pollution TO THE EDITOR: The recent closing of White Island Pond in Wareham; water quality issues with other ponds in this immediate area; and the documented problems at Blackmore Pond in West Wareham have laid bare what cranberry growers, their paid lobbyists and the scientific community within the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Affairs (DEP) have known for some time. Namely, that the pollution of our rivers, ponds and streams by cranberry growers is profound and worsening.
Yet the general public appears to be unaware that cranberry growers intentionally discharge high levels of nutrients, phosphorus in particular, into local water bodies at levels that often exceed, by a factor of 10, levels that are permitted to be discharged from sewer treatment facilities. This nutrient loading can destroy water bodies and significant scientific proof exists to show that this is exactly what is happening. Of additional concern is the fact that the growers use our natural resources for free, make a profit and then pay only about 15 percent of the real estate taxes paid by other property owners.
In the 1920s cranberry growers were originally granted licenses to take water from ponds and streams, to be used for irrigation and flooding activities, only on the condition that the water taken is returned to its source unimpaired (i.e. un-polluted). More than 80 years later neither the cranberry growers, nor their lobbyists, nor the DEP, have paid proper attention to the sensible guidance established by their wise environmental predecessors.
Instead, for example, Eagle Holt in Wareham continues to return massive amounts of phosphorous and other nutrients to Blackmore Pond. Even more maddening is the fact that this harm is exacerbated by the fact that Eagle Holt has added 22 more acres of bog into production, apparently without proper permits.
Enough is enough. Cranberry growers and their lobbyists have had their way with the DEP for much too long, and our rivers, ponds and streams are now paying the price.
It would be responsible journalism for this publication to report what the cranberry industry, their lobbyists; and the DEP have been afraid to address for decades. That the cranberry grower’s pursuit of increased profits exceeds their commitment to protect the water bodies which serve as their free working capital.
Sincerely, James B. Murphy, Blackmore Pond Homeowner’s Association Makepeace responds TO THE EDITOR: I am writing to correct several errors of fact published in your newspaper in the past several weeks.
1. Your June 19 article, deceptively entitled "Makepeace throws up roadblock on Maple Springs," began and ended with error. Most notably, the headline suggests, well, that Makepeace was throwing up a roadblock on Maple Springs. In fact, we appeared before the Board of Selectmen in order to propose that we pay for road repairs we are not obligated to make, and nothing in the article you published suggested that anyone was throwing up any sort of roadblock. But it certainly was an eye-catching headline.
Your article concluded with the statement that a Land Court document we discussed at the meeting was "not available at the meeting." In fact, during a five-minute recess following our appearance before the Board, our attorney made copies of the document for anyone who requested one.
2. In your June 5 article, "Tucy back to battle selectmen," your reporter erroneously stated that the A.D. Makepeace Company "indicated it also plans another subdivision beyond Maple Springs II, one which will connect land they own and are developing in Plymouth."
The fact is that Makepeace plans no subdivision beyond Maple Springs II, and owns no land which would permit a "connection" to the River Run village in South Plymouth. As we indicated to the Board of Selectmen on June 17 and repeatedly to the Planning Board in the past, Makepeace plans to conserve some 800 acres north of Maple Springs II if and when the Town enacts a Transfer of Development Rights bylaw. Linda Burke, Director of Marketing and Communication A.D. Makepeace Company |
