In This Corner - Robert Slager

    The mission statement of the Wareham School Committee contains many components. Three of the most vital are “Education is a partnership among home, school, and community,” “Communication is a cornerstone to fulfilling our vision,” and “The Wareham Public Schools, in partnership with the community, provides a valuable, safe, and supportive learning environment for its most cherished resource, our children.”
    Based on what has occurred the past two weeks, the Wareham School Committee has failed in its mission.
    It began during an “emergency” school committee meeting last week. Town Administrator Mark Andrews had asked the school department if it would consider sharing a little bit of the $822,600 bounty it will soon receive as part of President Barack Obama’s federal education grant program. After all, Andrews cut the town budget to the bone this spring after the state drastically cut Chapter 70 education funding to Wareham. Andrews, being a team player, was able to squeeze his town budget enough that the Wareham School District didn’t suffer crippling cutbacks.
    After learning that Gov. Duval Patrick decided to award the federal money to local communities to make up for the Chapter 70 cuts, Andrews thought it might be nice if the school department gave some of the money back to the town. After all, the town stepped up this spring when the state education money was cut. It seemed like a reasonable request.
    Instead the School Committee treated Andrews like he was trying to steal money from the pocket of school children.
    During the meeting School Committee member Rachel Gillette said “I think that what is ultimately happening is our kids are paying for the sins of this town’s mismanagement for years, and I have a problem with that.”
    School Superintendent Barry Rabinovitch said “My feeling is when we have a budget that is passed at Town Meeting then that is our budget.”
    There’s “community partnership” for you.
    There is no doubt that school districts in Massachusetts are woefully underfunded. The importance of providing adequate education for children cannot be understated. Level-funded budgets are not the answer because expenses such as employee benefits continue to rise. No one should blame the School Committee for fighting to provide the best education possible for the children of Wareham.
    But somewhere along the way the School Committee developed tunnel-vision. They became so blinded by their own agenda that they adopted an adversarial attitude toward town government. Somehow it became “Us vs. Them.”
    The School Committee was given a large degree of autonomy in the Town Charter, a fact members remind their critics of whenever questions become too uncomfortable. But in reality the school department is not an autonomous entity. It’s part of the town budget. Whenever the school department budget is increased it leaves less money in the overall budget for town services.
    That’s why it’s particularly disheartening to hear School Committee members say things like “I think that what is ultimately happening is our kids are paying for the sins of this town’s mismanagement for years.” Yes, there has been a great deal of mismanagement in town government throughout the years. But there has also been a great deal of mismanagement within the school department as well. For years former Athletic Director Buddy Carlson stole nearly every penny of gate receipts earned by student/athletes at Wareham High School. Neither the school department nor the School Committee noticed that virtual no revenue was being generated by the athletic department. No one ever stopped to wonder why.
    Over the past year the school department spent nearly $50,000 to hire a pair of consultants, one to examine the health care trust fund controversy and the other to study school bus inspection reports. The conclusions of both consultants have been proved false. Before the School Committee starts pointing the finger at others perhaps it should make sure its own house is in order first.
    Now the School Transportation Committee has been suddenly “suspended” after members of that board began asking hard questions about school bus safety. Originally this committee was supposed to be an independent board made up of selectmen and school committee members. Somehow it morphed into an advisory subcommittee of the School Committee. The school superintendent and the school finance director were appointed to the board by the School Committee, which means Rabinovitch and Miranda were, in effect, advising themselves on school bus safety issues.
    This kind on nonsense has been going on far too long. The School Committee is not supposed to be a political board, but right before the April Town Election members suddenly decided to vote no-confidence in the Board of Selectmen. That occurred after then-School Committee Chairman Bob Brousseau publicly said no school bus in Wareham had ever failed a Registry of Motor Vehicle inspection (according to RMV records Wareham school buses failed inspection 190 times since 2008). The no-confidence vote also occurred after the School Committee’s accusations regarding the health care trust fund were proven unfounded.
    Based on recent events it appears the School Committee is playing the same old political games as usual. The school department is not a kingdom unto itself. The School Committee doesn’t exist simply to fight for school interests. It must also serve as the watchdog of the school department. The love fest that ensued after the committee gave Rabinovitch a $3,000 raise last month (which pushed his salary past $156,000 per year, by far the highest among all town employees) was nothing short of sickening. Rabinovitch may be a nice guy, but over the past 12 months the school department has been embroiled in a number of controversies, not the least of which was Rabinovitch’s clear attempt to hide school bus safety records from the public. The School Committee must represent the interest of the community and not just protect school officials from criticism.
    It's time for the School Committee and the town to embark on a new era of mutual cooperation. Andrews made the first move by protecting the school department’s budget after state aid was drastically cut. School officials responded by slapping him in the face when he asked for a little help in return.
   Perhaps the School Committee should read its own mission statement.  

Wareham School Transportation Committee Chairman Ken Fontes

    Controversy has erupted within the Wareham School District once again following a decision to suspend the School Transportation Committee, which was formed this spring following concerns over school bus safety.

    Ken Fontes, a member of the School Committee who was named chairman of the School Transportation Committee, told the Observer “I felt that we needed to take a little time off and allow (new school transportation manager Jeff) Tatro to get into his work for at least two months and then come back with a full report to us. Please do not read into this anymore than what it is, and that is just a little break for all of the members. Some members questioned ‘why are we still meeting’? I took that as a good reason for us to step back and then come back focused on some tasks at hand.”

    Two members of the School Transportation Committee – Selectman Brenda Eckstrom and citizen-at-large Michael Schneider – didn’t exactly see it that way. Both accused the school department of trying to stifle the influence of the committee after Eckstrom and Schneider challenged a school bus safety report issued by a transportation consultant hired by the district.

    “I find it very disingenuous to suspend the committee at this stage,” Schneider said. “Personally I feel we were used by the school department. I was optimistic something good would come of this. We wanted to make this succeed. But quite frankly I question the entire process. We were constantly told we were only an advisory committee, even though when this was first set up it was supposed to be a joint committee between the selectmen and the School Committee. Somehow we became an advisory subcommittee of the School Committee. And now the transportation committee has been suspended just as we were beginning to address the real issues regarding school bus safety.”

    Schneider, who is a member of the Move Wareham Forward organization, was particularly disturbed by Fontes’ claim that the committee was suspended because "members" asked “Why are we still meeting?”

    “I was the person who asked that question during the last meeting,” Schneider said. “It was clearly a rhetorical question. The reason I asked that question is because the school department clearly wasn’t interested in what the committee had to say. The whole thing was just one big show.”

    A joint investigation by Move Wareham Forward and the Wareham Observer this spring revealed that Wareham school buses failed safety inspections 190 times since 2008. On 147 occasions the RMV ordered buses removed from service until immediate repairs could be made. Such repairs included brakes, exhaust leaks, suspension, tires, and steering problems, among other issues.
    Brake problems accounted for 42 inspection failures, according to RMV records. Buses failed inspection 62 times because of inadequate safety equipment on board the vehicles. Exhaust leaks accounted for 50 of the failures.
    In addition, on 516 occasions specific pieces of existing equipment passed inspection but were ordered to be repaired within seven days of the inspection by the RMV.

    That MWF/Observer report came after then-School Committee Chairman Bob Brousseau publicly denied that any Wareham school bus had ever failed an inspection. School Superintendent Barry Rabinovitch refused to immediately comply with a public record request submitted in February for the inspection information. That information was eventually attained from the RMV at no charge.

    The Wareham School District eventually acknowledged the issues within its transportation department. The contract of Transportation Director Mary Jane Driscoll was not renewed this summer. Jeff Tutro was hired last month as new transportation manager.

    Both Schneider and Eckstrom believe the formation of the School Transportation Committee was a public relations tactic by the school department to make it appear the issue was being taken seriously.

    “In April I asked for a joint meeting with the School Committee and the Board of Selectmen to address the issues surrounding school bus safety,” Eckstrom said. “Rather than having a joint meeting, the chairman of the School Committee asked for a private meeting with the chairman of the Board of Selectmen, which I was quite upset about because I thought they were circumventing the transparency of the issues at hand. According to (BOS) Chairman (Jane) Donahue, it was to be a joint committee. But then the School Committee decided to make it an advisory subcommittee, which in my opinion was nothing more than a stall tactic and duck-and-cover for Dr. Rabinovitch so he could buy time and get ride of Mary Jane Driscoll and hire a new person. Then he apparently thought the whole problem would just go away.”

    Eckstrom and Schneider said the entire point of the School Transportation Committee was to review inspection failures, offer suggestions on how to avoid similar problems in the future, and to consider the feasibility of putting school transportation out to bid for private transportation companies.

    According to Eckstrom, the school department had the opportunity to put bids out in June.

    “Instead Dr. Rabinovitch posted the position of transportation manager and stalled the idea of putting everything out to bid until it was too late to do so for this school year.”

    When asked why he would do that, Eckstrom replied “they always want to keep everything in-house.”

    E-mails sent to Rabinovitch as well as School Business Director Ann Miranda did not receive immediate replies. The Observer will update this story if any response is forthcoming. Both Rabinovitch and Miranda are on the School Transportation Committee.

    Both Eckstrom and Schneider questioned why school administrators would serve on a committee after its mission was changed by the School Committee to become an advisory board for school administrators.

    "Does that mean (Rabinovitch and Miranda) are advising themselves?" Eckstrom asked.

    Eckstrom said she, Schneider and Town Administrator Mark Andrews want the committee to continue without interruption.

    “Mike and I were very critical of the consultant’s report,” Eckstrom said. “We’ve been asking if we could present our findings with the consultant present. We’ve been stalled off. We’ve been told by school officials that they want the consultant to appear before the committee, but somehow the consultant was never available."

    The paid consult – Colleen Cavanaugh – was forced to revise her school bus safety report after Schneider revealed glaring mathematical errors in her initial offering. Cavanaugh declined to discuss the issue with the Observer, stating that she was hired by the school department and that all inquiries should be made with school officials.

    “The school department clearly doesn’t want to address Cavanaugh’s inferior report,” said Schneider, who has served as both a school bus driving instructor and in school bus maintenance in the past. “It's just as bad as the first one. At one point Cavanaugh claims she reviewed 317 inspection records but she cites several other numbers throughout the report. And this is her revised report. This is her second attempt. Her numbers still don’t add up. We kept asking that she appear before the (School Transportation Committee) to explain her report, but the school department’s been dragging its feet on that. And now the committee has suddenly been suspended. Interesting.”

    Eckstrom said when she recently met with the new transportation manager he hadn’t even been given a copy of Cavanaugh’s report.

    “Apparently the school department was going to send him in blind,” Eckstrom said. “So now we’re supposed to wait for him to get his feet wet before even talking about privatizing the school bus department. One of the primary reasons the School Bus Transportation Committee was formed was to see if it would be safer and more cost-efficient to sent transportation responsibility out to bid. It’s become absolutely clear that the school department never had any intention of considering that option, certainly not right away. We were supposed to talk about the RFP issue at our next meeting on Sept. 22. Now there isn’t going to be a ‘next meeting,’ at least not for a while."

    Fontes said School Committee Chairman Cliff Sylvia has “made it clear that the committee will meet again and that this is not a disbanding of the committee as some might have thought. Again, I just felt we all needed a ‘fall vacation’ and then we can return to address some issues we still have. So this is no different than postponing a couple of meetings. I do believe this committee will meet again in November as we take a few weeks off. In the meantime I have told people if you have something you want to address please bring it in front of the School Committee.”

     The School Committee recently cancelled its Sept. 8 meeting.

In This Corner - Robert Slager

    It’s imperative for a journalist to have an inquisitive nature. Curiosity may kill cats, but it’s also the first step toward revealing the truth. If no one asks the question, the answer will never see the light of day.

    Without further ado, here are 50 questions that people just can’t (or won’t) answer. Please feel free to submit your answers to any of these inquiries by e-mailing warehamobserver@aol.com or posting a comment below.

    Why won’t hatebloggers challenge the manhood of other people to their faces?

    Why did Wareham Courier editor David Smith write an entire column about cyber bullying and never once mention the local hate web site?

    Why did Bob Brady expect to “have a seat at the table” because he supported Steve Holmes for selectmen?

    Why does Dick Wheeler keep claiming that people who support the Westfield project are on the take from a developer when an independent bid review committee will recommend a developer IF Westfield passes Town Meeting this fall?

    Why do people claim the library embezzlement scandal involves only stolen revenue from the copy machine when it has been repeatedly stated that it was only a very small part of the scheme?

    Why does Take Back Wareham keep trying to get stores to boycott the Observer while at the same time claiming that nobody reads the Observer?

    Why won’t Wareham Week publisher Anne Eisenmenger publicly explain why she attended a secret recall meeting of the previous board of selectmen a year before Wareham Week was launched?

    Why does the School Committee keep blaming everything on everyone else?

    Why is it “evil” to criticize Cara Ann Winslow for her missteps during selectmen meetings but it’s perfectly acceptable to call Selectman Brenda Eckstrom a drunk on a web site without a shred of evidence?

    When will Hamatron realize he’s hopelessly obsessed with other people?

    Isn't there a better way to spend $500,000 than to buy a shrine for your spouse?

    Why does Dan O’Connell get a pass from people who claim that you have to live in Wareham before you can have an opinion about Wareham?

    Why are Community Mini-Storage, the Friends of the Wareham Free Library, and A.D. Makepeace among the biggest advertisers in Wareham Week?

    Why aren’t people willing to sit down across a table and talk out their differences?

    When will A.D. Makepeace realize that agriculture and development are competing interests?

    Why has the Standard-Times ignored Wareham since April Town Election?

    Why can’t Nora understand the difference between fact and opinion?

    Why can’t some people understand that no one wins unless everyone wins in Wareham?

    Why can’t the library fanatics understand that they’ve hurt the Wareham Free Library in their blind quest to build Spinney?

    Why can’t the Take Back Wareham crew understand that some former town employees simply weren’t doing their jobs?

    Why are some people still against hiring Police Chief Rick Stanley when he has the support of most of his department and most of the community?

    Why would somebody want to be on the Council on Aging Board of Directors when all they’ve done is hurt seniors?

    When will Barbara Deighton Haupt go away?

    How can anyone still believe anything written on the hate site when that nonsense has been discredited over and over again?

    Why do political opponents continue to make ad hominem attacks against each other?

    Why does Michael Martin still have a job?

    When will officials begin to take the drug problem in the schools seriously?

    Why do people who hate think other people are capable of doing the same?

    When will people realize that being born into money doesn’t make you a better person then those were not?

    Why would anyone think children in the fourth grade are “fair game” because someone writes about them?

    What was Dick Heaton thinking?

    When will Take Back Wareham produce an affordable housing plan as they said they would last year?

    Why do people try to discredit the merit of a warrant article based on the process it took to bring it to Town Meeting?

    Why does Cliff Sylvia believe his arguments become stronger based on how far the veins pop out of his head?

    Why don’t more people believe in the power of faith?

    Why do some people criticize Move Wareham Forward when these folks have done nothing but try to help the community?

    Why is it taking so long for the computer audit report?

    Why do some people lie in order to support their position?

    When will P-Span stop threatening people with violence?

    Why do people read the Observer when they claim not to like it?

    Why do people equate asking questions about a proposed business to being anti-business?

    Why do people who have lived in Wareham for 40 years think they matter more than people who have lived in Wareham for 10 years?

    When will Selectman Walter Cruz explain why he flip-flopped on nearly every position he held last year?

    Why does the School Committee keep hiring consultants who don’t seem to know what they’re doing?

    Why do some people try to inject politics into every single issue?

    When will selectmen Steve Holmes and Cara Winslow explain why they launched their political careers on a web site that embraces racism, homophobia, profanity and defamation?

    When will they kill that pesky spider at Wareham High School?

    When will Take Back Wareham understand that some people just aren’t motivated by money?

    Why do some people who claim to love Wareham do everything in their power to tear it down?

    How long will it take for the hatebloggers to copy this idea?

In This Corner - Robert Slager

Try to have the final say

And the canopy of darkness

Takes your dreams away

Notice the distance between your hands

As you slowly start to pray

When the wind-swept caverns

Leave you barren and alone

And the fleeting sound of hope

Chills you to the bone

Listen to the echo in your heart

As it slowly turns to stone

When the scars of memory

Wind like rivers in your mind

And the silence of the telephone

Leaves your life defined

Open up the window; take a look outside

At what you would leave behind

If you should begin to stumble

If you should begin to crawl

If the mountain becomes too daunting

And you feel yourself begin to fall

There will always be a reason

There will always be his hand

There will be another love song

Before you make your final stand

When the prison of yesterday

Leaves you nothing but regret

Know the hope you can’t remember

Never will forget

Look beyond the mirror; see beyond the pain

Your story isn't written yet 

If you should begin to stumble

If you should begin to crawl

If the mountain becomes too daunting

And you feel yourself begin to fall

There will always be a reason

There will always be his hand

Believe in the power of faith, my friend 

And you will find your promised land

    At approximately 5:30 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 3, 2010, Wareham police officers responded to a Wareham residence for a reported disturbance between family members. Upon arrival, police were told by the victim of an assault that 20-year-old Thomas Tavares ran out of the house and was in possession of a .40 caliber handgun. 

    Officers searched the neighborhood and Tavares was located a short time later at a nearby residence where he was placed under arrest.The handgun was recovered and Tavares was transported to the Wareham Police Department where he was booked on several felony charges related to the incident. He was arraigned at Wareham Fourth District Court this morning on the following charges: 

    A&B on a Disabled person over the age of 60, Assault by means of a Dangerous Weapon, Assault by means of a Dangerous Weapon on a person over the age of 60, Carrying a Firearm without a License, Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm, Possession of Ammunition without a FID card.

    He is currently being held at the Plymouth County House of Correction on $10,000 cash bail.

Got Your Back - Bruce Sauvageau

   
    For as long as there have been human beings we have always fantasized about a perfect society where there is no hunger, no fear of others, no need for greed, no dysfunction that can destroy even the most noble of human endeavors.
    As a central concept of Hindu religion, “Nirvana” is a state of being free from suffering. The word literally means “blowing out the fires” of greed, hate and delusion. Utopia was the name of a book written by Sir Thomas Moore in 1516 about an imaginary island where a perfect community existed. Valhalla was the Scandinavians mythological vision of a great majestic hall where only the purest and bravest souls would reside, a place where there are never too many mouths to feed.
     It is no crime to want to be more, or to strive beyond what is possible because that’s exactly how the impossible becomes possible. It is right to look for what Lincoln called “the better angels of our character” when we seek to advance our society. Will we ever achieve these visions of sublime human co-existence?  Not in our lifetime. As it is said dreams are for sleepers. The rest of us who spend most of our day awake have to find practical solutions to real problems. No nation in human history has invested so much in the dream of the perfect society than this country. It’s called democracy.
    Is democracy a panacea? Winston Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others, meaning there will never be a perfect system because governments are run by human beings. If it were not for the common failings of humanity we would have landed on the moon a thousand years ago.
    Just think of the lessons Jesus could have taught us if he just had a few more years on this earth. But he didn’t have that chance because he was crucified by human beings. My grandmother once told me that if there is no answer to a question it’s generally because the question itself is flawed. She was a smart woman.
    Maybe we’re asking the wrong question. Maybe we shouldn’t be asking how we can achieve a perfect system. Perhaps that perfect system already exists. Maybe the question should be “how do we overcome our human flaws to make that system work?”
    Truth and transparency would be a good place to start. Without these things there is no foundation to support even the noblest cause. The senior affordable housing project of Westfield is and always will be a noble cause. It will provide housing to a segment of our community that clearly is sorely in need of it. It will provide hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue for many years for a town that desperately needs it.
    The proposal has recently become a focal point of unity for what was once a hopelessly divided political issue. Yet the human weakness of greed has undermined the project just as it appeared to be bringing people together. The consultant to the Westfield Study Committee has just committed what appears to be fraud against the town of Wareham. He lied to the Zoning Board of Appeals on an unrelated matter concerning a 40B project which stood to gain him tens of thousands of dollars in profit at the expense of the town.
    He also committed an act of defamation by telling members of the ZBA (in writing) that I had personally negotiated a contract with him while I was chairman of the BOS. That alleged contract would have allowed him to keep one-third of the revenue recovered from the 40B project after an audit allegedly revealed that the developer stiffed the town out of as much as $350,000.
    There was never any such agreement. In fact there wasn’t even a discussion of the matter. It is unfathomable that Heaton thought he could play both the ZBA and the BOS for fools. Ken Ferreira, the chairman of the ZBA, has been with that board for nearly 25 years now. He has seen it all by now. This one must cut particularly deep for Ferreira because the ZBA has worked closely with Heaton in a trusting relationship for years. During the entire time the BOS worked with him on Westfield none of us had any idea Heaton was capable of doing something so unethical, let alone something apparently fraudulent.
    Even though Heaton provided the town with excellent, independently verifiable information about Westfield since he came on board as an advisor last year he has more than worn out his welcome here. Opponents of Westfield are already playing partisan politics over this story, which the Observer broke Wednesday morning. They’re claiming the people who support Westfield can no longer be trusted, which is an absurd argument. Nothing that Heaton has advised the Westfield Study Committee or the Board of Selectmen cannot be verified by other independent sources.
    Yes, it is nearly impossible to comprehend the greed and arrogance Heaton displayed regarding the ZBA on the Cromesett Landing project. Did he think we were all so monumentally stupid that no one would question his claim that he had a contract with the town that could have paid him up to $100,000? The man planted the seeds of his own self-destruction and he has no one to blame but himself. 
    The people who have spent countless hours of behalf of the Westfield project are furious right now, and the have every right to be. Heaton put his own interest ahead of local senior citizens. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. But does that mean Westfield has any less merit now than it did a week ago? Of course not.
    The residents of Wareham are good people. No matter what your personal politics might be we are all in this together. Westfield is beginning to stand for something more than just housing in this community. It is forming a template of how things can ultimately get done in Wareham despite the political factions in town. Voting against something simply because you don’t like someone who supports it is ultimately self-defeating. None of us as individuals are bigger than the community as a whole. If the community suffers we all suffer.
   The disgraceful actions of one greedy man cannot be allowed to tear this community apart right now. Westfield stands for the promise and hope that this community can deliver to all its residents. It will provide dignified affordable housing, ample recreation, and a mechanism to rid us of the scourge of 40B construction once and for all.
    Are we a perfect society? No. We may never get there. But only if we continue to work together can we, as a community, overcome the worst of our human impulses. Only then can we dream even when we’re wide awake.

    This year's awards to Buzzards Bay watershed communities are:

    Town of Wareham (Tucy North - Agawam River Land Protection Project) - $45,000 to protect 180 acres of land in the Plymouth-Carver Aquifer, the principal sole source of drinking water for a large geographic area. The property includes frontage on the Agawam River (Glen Charlie Pond) and contains some of the best remaining pine barren habitat on the North Atlantic coast of the United States. The land acquisition will protect forested watershed lands, wetlands, rare species habitat and drinking water supplies. The land will also provide public access via a walking trail.

   Town of Mattapoisett (Decas Mattapoisett River Lands Protection Project) - $45,000 to purchase three parcels of undeveloped land totaling 63.6 acres within the Mattapoisett River Valley Aquifer, which acts as a drinking water supply source for surrounding communities. The property includes 1,500 feet of frontage on the Mattapoisett River and over 1,000 feet of frontage on one of its tributaries, Tripps Mill Brook. Completion of this project will permanently protect wetlands, wildlife corridors, rare species habitat and water resources. This project is a component of a larger effort to acquire and protect 195 acres in the Mattapoisett River Valley.

    Town of Marion (Acquisition of Rentumis Property/Rochester) - $45,000 to protect 54.2 acres of undeveloped land in the Mattapoisett River Valley Aquifer, which acts as a drinking water supply source for surrounding communities. The property includes a quarter mile of frontage on the Mattapoisett River and contains critical wetland habitats. Acquisition of this property will provide a key link to completing a solid greenbelt of permanently protected open space from Hartley Road in Rochester to south of Wolf Island Road in Mattapoisett. While the property is in Rochester, the town of Marion sought to protect it because it abuts land currently owned by Marion containing two of its drinking water wells.

     Town of Bourne (Bournedale Herring Run - Little Sandy Pond Culvert) - $45,000 to conduct the necessary survey, engineering and construction work to replace an existing culvert under Little Sandy Pond Road in Bournedale. The culvert acts as the sole access point into and out of the 376-acre Great Herring Pond and 90-acre Little Herring Pond both of which serve as herring spawning grounds. While the existing culvert is passable by fish, it is compromised due to erosion, scouring and daily traffic loads, which threaten its structural integrity. The replacement of this culvert will ensure migrating herring will have safe and available passage through this section of the herring run.

    Town of Rochester (Carr Family Bogs Land Reservation Project) - $45,000 to acquire and protect a 35-acre property on the Rochester/Marion town line. Acquisition of this parcel will provide a key link to over 750 acres of existing permanently protected land and will create a greenway from Mary's Pond in Rochester to County Road in Marion. The property contains more than 1,500 feet of frontage on Hales Brook, two potential vernal pools, diverse upland, wooded swamp, and beautiful stonewalls along an ancient way. Public access for passive recreation purposes will be provided.

    Town of Dartmouth (Dartmouth's Assessors' Parcel) - $6,500 to hire a contractor to digitize the 2009 assessors' parcel map changes, incorporate the assessors data into digital format, bring existing parcel data and updates up to state mapping compliance, and correct any discrepancies in the data. These activities will keep the town's digital data updated for multiple municipal uses.

    Town of Fairhaven (Wolf Island South Land Conservation Project) - $30,506 to acquire and protect an undeveloped 18-acre property within the Mattapoisett River Valley Aquifer, which acts as a drinking water supply source for surrounding communities.  The property proposed for protection has nearly 1,700 feet of frontage on the Mattapoisett River. Protection of this property will reduce development pressure on the Mattapoisett River aquifer, preserve critical wetlands and rare species habitat and result in a block of 210 contiguous acres of protected land. This project is a component of a larger effort to acquire and protect 195 acres in the Mattapoisett River Valley.

     Town of Rochester (Mahoney Wolf Island North Land Conservation Project) - $20,506 to acquire and protect an undeveloped 10.7-acre parcel within the Mattapoisett River Valley Aquifer, which acts as a drinking water supply source for surrounding communities. The property proposed for protection has over 600 feet of frontage on the Mattapoisett River. Acquisition of this property will ensure permanent protection of wetlands, floodplain, wetland buffers and rare species habitat. Additionally, the land would provide public access for passive recreation directly adjacent to protected lands owned by various municipalities and the Department of Fish and Game. This project is a component of a larger effort to acquire and protect 195 acres in the Mattapoisett River Valley.

     The Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) is the agency within the EEA charged with protecting Massachusetts' approximately 1,500-mile coast. Through educational and regulatory programs, CZM seeks to balance human uses of the coastal zone with the need to protect fragile marine resources. The agency's work includes helping coastal communities anticipate and plan for sea level rise and other effects of climate change, working with cities and towns and the federal government to develop boat sewage no-discharge areas, and partnering with communities and other organizations to restore coastal and aquatic habitats.   

In This Corner - Robert Slager

    Sometimes the lies that come from the Take Back Wareham crew truly make your head spin.
    None other than Bob Brady plans to try to take sewer commissioner authority away from the Board of Selectmen and put it in the hands of special interest groups. That, of course, would undoubtably create a tremendous spike in sewer fees for the people in Wareham who can least afford it.
    Let’s put Brady’s endless flow of misinformation to rest once and for all. Here are the cold, hard facts about the town’s sewer problem: There is so much nitrogen in the town’s water shed that the Department of Environmental Protection ordered the town to build a sewer system to address the problem. The two primary sources of this water pollution are cranberry bogs and septic systems along the rivers. That has been confirmed in a recent study by an independent group called Wareham Nitrogen Consensus. This group concluded that the only way to ease this pollution is for the town to extend the sewer system even further, which would require the town to build another sewer pollution control facility at an estimated cost of $50 million because the current plant is nearing capacity. 
    The federal government paid 90 percent of the cost of the existing plant. It’s highly unlikely, given the state of the economy, that such funding would be available again. That means Wareham residents will foot much of the bill.
    Brady claims that selectmen, acting as sewer commissioners, have failed in their responsibility because there is a structural deficit in the sewer operational budget. He cites their decision to cut the sewer administration fee as the primary cause for that. Brady's claim displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works.
    In the mid-1990s the town created an enterprise fund to keep the finances of the pollution control facility separate from the rest of town government. Sewer uses pay a sewer fee each year to address direct and indirect costs of operating the sewer system. The direct costs are things such as salaries, electricity and the cost of chemicals necessary for the plant to operate. Indirect costs are things such as employee benefits.
    For years sewer users were also charged for two alleged costs. One was known as PILOT, or payment in lieu of taxes. This charge to sewer users was to compensate Wareham for the tax revenue that it allegedly lost each year because the pollution control facility was on town-owned land and did not generate tax revenue for the town. The other cost was to compensate the town for work allegedly spent by town employees who assisted in the administration of the facility. Combined, these charged cost sewer users approximately $600,000 per year.
    Over the past several years selectmen, serving in their dual roles as sewer commissioners, eliminated these charges. The PILOT concept has been abandoned by many communities because of legal concerns and the fact that the PILOT is based on a theoretical number that cannot be accurately quantified. After it was discovered that town employees did very little to assist in the administration of the sewer pollution control facility (and no records were kept to chart that work) that aspect of the administration fee was also eliminated.
    That $600,000 from sewer users used to be transferred directly into the town’s operational budget. After that revenue stream ended the town was forced to cut back on expenses. There are only two town departments with discretionary budgets - the Wareham Free Library and the Counsel on Aging. All other departments have state-mandated minimums. That’s why the library budget was cut considerably. It was the only department that could take the hit and remain in operation. The alternative would have been to close the Counsel on Aging, and even that would not have made up the entire difference.
    Much of the political tension in Wareham between the former board of selectmen and hard-core supporters of the library stemmed from the decision to eliminate $600,000 from the sewer administration fee. Library supporters claimed it was done because of a personal vendetta selectmen had against the library. Selectmen believed it was immoral to charge sewer users for services never rendered and to charge them to compensate the town for theoretical lost tax revenue. They believed the $600,000 was nothing more than a slush fund, used over the years in part to increase the salaries of loyal department heads. 
    Brady claims that the elimination of this fee is what caused the operating budget of the Pollution Control Facility to run into a deficit. That is factually incorrect. The cut in the sewer administration fee had nothing to do with the sewer budget. That money never went into the sewer budget. It always went entirely into the town budget. 
     Brady also claims that the selectmen’s decision to reduce EDU (equivalent dwelling units) rate forced the town to dip into betterment fees paid in order to operate the Pollution Control Facility. That is also factually incorrect. The EDU rates were dropped when most of the sewer administration fee was eliminated (the administration fee was calculated into the EDU rates). The reduction in EDU rates had no affect whatsoever on the sewer budget for reasons explained above.
    The reason the sewer budget is in deficit is because of continued cost overruns at the plant. Town officials repeatedly told former Pollution Control Facility superintendent David Simmons to cut his budget, noting that items such as chemicals were never put out to bid. Simmons refused. In fact he often came in over-budget. Selectmen, acting as sewer commissioners, refused to raise the EDU rate to compensate for what they believed to be Simmons’ mismanagement of the plant. It essentially became a power struggle.
    In order to finance his budget, Simmons began using betterment fees from sewer users, fees that were assessed to sewer users to pay for sewer extension. Those fees were not intended to be used in the annual sewer budget but rather to pay off a $20 million bond the town was issued to extend sewer. The Department of Revenue said this wasn’t a prudent practice. Essentially the sewer budget was being balanced on credit, credit provided through betterment fees that eventually needed to be used to pay off the bond.
    Town Administrator Mark Andrews is continuing to explore how to cut the plant’s operating costs so sewer users won’t have to see their EDU rates soar. One possible solution is to ask Bourne, which uses Wareham's plant, to kick in more money for that privilege.
    Brady’s solution to the deficit issue is to insert a petition article into the Town Meeting Warrant that would create a new board of sewer commissioners. He wants that board to be appointed by Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Jane Donahue, Town Moderator Claire Smith and Municipal Maintenance Director Mark Gifford. That would mean Gifford would be appointing people to a board that he would, in turn, report to as municipal maintenance director. And Smith's husband is in the septic business. Hmmmm.
    Such a warrant article would also represent a change to the Town Charter. The Charter Review Committee is currently reviewing the charter and will make recommendations at Fall Town Meeting. It  Brady is attempting to circumvent the CRC in order to push through yet another special interest article.
    Make no mistake about it: This is all about special interest. It always has been. The water pollution problem in Wareham did not occur in a vacuum. Cranberry growers are largely responsible for the problem, a problem that has been passed down to the wallets of Wareham residents for years. But people like Brady will not admit that. He would never ask the cranberry industry and land developers to pitch in to fix the problem. That would not be politically prudent.
    There have been a number of perfectly reasonable warrant articles over the past several years asking developers and cranberry growers to adhere to stricter nitrogen-loading standards. But that would eat into their profits, so they rallied the troops and had those articles defeated at Town Meeting with the usual rhetoric and distortions. Brady’s alternative is to create a new board of sewer commissioners made up of special interest group representatives and increase sewer rates for people barely making ends meet right now.
    Someday Wareham will wake up to all this. This community cannot continue to put profits before people. The rampant water pollution will eventually destroy the very beauty that makes Wareham a tourist attraction and a desirable place to live. If the only thing people like Brady understand is money at least they should be able to understand that.
    The role of sewer commissioners is far too important to give it to an appointed group of special interest representatives. There are real people who are struggling with real financial problems in Wareham. Asking them to pay to fix Wareham’s water pollution problem, a problem they didn't cause, is offensive.

    The Observer has decided to dedicate this entire column to a recent post made by Friends of the Wareham Free Library spokesperson Nora Bicki on a local web site. Bicki provided so much misinformation that it literally fills an entire column. We couldn’t address all of her baseless claims, but here is a healthy sample.

    Claim: Town leadership fired former Town Administrator John McAuliffe because he testified publicly that they were interfering in day-to-day business.

    Fact: Although this is a technicality, McAuliffe wasn’t actually fired. He resigned after the Board of Selectmen approved a resolution to terminate his contract. Multiple reasons for terminating his contract were listed, but the core issue was that McAuliffe refused to acknowledge a decision by selectmen to reduce the sewer administration fee. He placed that expected revenue into his town budget even though selectmen, as sewer commissioners, are responsible for setting sewer fees. He publicly tried to make a policy decision he was not authorized to make. That act of public insubordination ultimately led to his departure.

    Claim: Former Town Accountant Bob Bliss was fired by the Board of Selectmen.

    Fact: The Board of Selectmen does not have hiring or firing authority over the town accountant position. Bliss was fired by then-acting Town Administrator John Sanguinet following an independent investigation by special town counsel. Bliss had signed off on a request by former Town Administrator Michael Hartman for $30,000 in back sick and vacation time without verifying the legitimacy of the claim and without getting the signatures of members of the Board of Selectmen on a payroll warrant, which is a violation of state law. Bliss eventually sued the town and received a $20,000 settlement. Town official said that was a less costly alternative than allowing the case to go to trial.

    Claim: Town Accountant Elizabeth Zaleski is unqualified for her position.

    Fact: Zaleski has every certification required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to hold the position.

    Claim: Director of Inspection Services Director Myles Burke is unqualified for his position.

    Fact: Burke held a similar position in Lawrence for nearly seven years. Code enforcement has doubled since his arrival, according to town records.

    Claim: The former Board of Library Trustees was dismissed by the Board of Selectmen.

    Fact: After town counsel determined that the former Board of Library Trustees was not properly appointed under state law and the Town Charter, the Board of Selectmen asked the trustees to re-apply for their positions. Members of the former board refused and filed a lawsuit against the town and against the selectmen as individuals, claiming their civil rights had been violated. The trustees later dropped that claim.

    Claim: Wareham Police Officer Don Bliss was fired over a fabricated “uniform” wearing story.

    Fact: Don Bliss was terminated for using town equipment to run a private alarm installing business while on duty as a police officer. On his business card he listed his town-issued cell phone number. A private citizen testified during a Civil Service hearing that Bliss tried to solicit business for his company while conducting an alarm inspection as a police officer. Civil Service has not issued a finding more than a year after Bliss’s termination.

    Claim: Town Meeting voters will be asked to approve a $4 million town senior center addition to the Westfield project.

    Fact: On Monday a member of the Westfield Study Committee asked if a potential developer might consider footing the bill for a new senior center. The majority of the committee agreed that a developer wouldn’t likely support such a proposal. There was no discussion at all about asking Town Meeting voters to authorize the construction of a new $4 million senior center.

    Claim: Using CPA funds to settle a lawsuit over Swifts Beach property taken by eminent domain is “illegal.”

    Fact: No legal authority has ever ruled that the town’s use of CPA funds in this manner was illegal.

In This Corner - Robert Slager

  
     A beautiful thing happened on Monday at the Multi-Service Center. Six people put their political differences aside and began crafting a proposal that could help hundreds of local seniors currently living in squalor.

    There was no rhetoric spewed back and forth. There was no grandstanding. The Westfield Study Committee simply sat together to move forward with a plan to create a senior affordable-housing project on the town-owned Westfield project.

    Of the six committee members in attendance, three had previously opposed the Westfield project during April Town Meeting. Each attending member had the opportunity to offer input on how to best craft a citizen’s petition article that will be placed on the Fall Town Meeting warrant. No suggestion was summarily dismissed. No voice was silenced simply because of past political viewpoints. Nothing was decided based on the personalities of individual committee members.

    For a few short hours Wareham was at its very best.

    Dick Heaton sat among the committee. The housing consultant is offering his services at no charge to the town. He simply wants to help Wareham do something very important for local seniors. He has repeatedly said Westfield would be one of the best projects he has ever seen. On Monday he did not impose his personal beliefs on anyone. He was simply there to answer questions and offer solicited advice from committee members.

    The Westfield project has been shot down at Town Meeting numerous times in the past. First opponents tried to claim the deed to the property would restrict any housing development (a claim Town Counsel has repeatedly rejected). Then opponents claimed the town should focus on improving existing housing at Agawan Village, even though that development is run by the state and the town has no control over it.  

     Opponents also claimed that the term “municipal use” does not apply to housing, even though the towns of Sudbury and Chelmsford have already built affordable-housing developments on town-owned property.

On Monday the Westfield Study Committee put all that nonsense in the rearview mirror. There is no legal obstacle whatsoever in leasing town-owned land to a developer in order to building a senior affordable-housing project. The town will never get stuck holding the bag if the developer goes into bankruptcy, as previously claimed by opponents. Heaton made it crystal clear on Monday that if such an unlikely event were to occur the Department of Housing and Urban Development would take over the project until a new management company could be found.

    The committee will require any potential developer to revitalize and maintain 17 acres of recreation land adjacent to the development. That means generations of children in Wareham will have wonderful baseball, football and soccer fields to enjoy. That means seniors living at Westfield will have the opportunity to walk a short distance to witness the unbridled joy of youth once again.

    On Monday Finance Committee Chairman Donna Bronk, who serves on the committee, finally articulated what many have known for a long time. Westfield didn’t fail at Town Meeting based on the merit of the proposal. It failed because of who was making the proposal. It failed because some people simply couldn’t get past partisan politics. It failed because some people simply didn’t like members of the Board of Selectmen who supported Westfield and therefore voted against it.

    That’s precisely why the committee itself will not present the warrant article at Town Meeting. Bronk, who strongly opposed Westfield in the past, said the vote should have nothing to do with personalities. The proposal will be submitted as a citizen’s petition article by committee member Chris Smith.

    Westfield has always made perfect sense for the community. It would provide desperately needed senior affordable-housing. It would bring an estimate $5 million in revenue to the town over the next 20 years. Nearby residents would get free sewer tie-ins because the town sewer system would need to be expanded to accommodate the development. A senior affordable-housing project would not overburden existing social services because residents would not have children in the school system. Most new development in town is occurring in West Wareham, which would be accessible to the residents of Wareham. GATRA has already agreed to provide bus service to Westfield.

    There is no coherent argument left to oppose this project, but that isn’t stopping the Take Back Wareham crew from trying. On Monday one Westfield Study Committee member asked if a potential developer could include the construction of a new town senior center on the property, noting that the infrastructure would already be in place and the town wouldn’t need to foot the bill. The committee discussed the suggestion and decided that such a requirement would likely be opposed by a developer, especially at a cost of $4 million.

    Take Back Wareham has absolutely spun that discussion, claiming that the committee is trying to sneak a new senior center into the proposal, which would require the town to pay $4 million. That isn’t even close to what happened on Monday. A member made a suggestion. The committee weighed the merits of that suggestion and decided it wouldn’t be realistic to expect a developer to assume the cost of a new senior center. It was specifically noted that the town could not afford to build such a project on its own dime. That was the very reason the suggestion was made to have a potential Westfield developer pick up the tab.

    Take Back Wareham is also claiming that the committee was formed to study the Westfield issue, not create a warrant article in support of it. But the committee itself will not be presenting the article. It will be done by a private citizen, as is the right of any private citizen in Wareham. All Chris Smith needs to do is get 10 residents to sign a petition in support of the article and it will be placed on the warrant.

    There is no doubt opponents will once again claim that supporters of Westfield are on the “take.” They will ignore the fact that an independent bid review committee will be formed once developers begin to bid on the project. They will say anything to oppose Westfield because they have to protect their egos. They will never understand that there is more power in creating something than in destroying it.

    Opponents of Westfield, who have never provided a viable solution to the senior housing crisis in Wareham, are angry that an independent group of citizens did not bury the Westfield question in committee as many expected. The entire notion of “studying” Westfield was absurd to begin with. The topic had been examined ad nauseam for years. It took all of one meeting for a diverse group of Wareham residents, three of whom opposed Westfield in the past, to cut through the lies, rhetoric and politics. They looked at the facts and decided to move forward as a group to do something wonderful for the senior citizens of the community.

    And that’s a truly beautiful thing.

   
    Wareham will need to sewer more neighborhoods and add another pollution control facility if the town hopes to reduce nitrogen pollution in its watershed, according to a report presented to selectmen Tuesday night at the Multi-Service Center.
    A committee of 50 individuals, including representatives for the septic and cranberry industry, was formed in December to study the issue of nitrogen loading into the town’s watershed. That committee determined that septic systems and cranberry bogs are primarily responsible for the poor water conditions in the Agawam and Wareham rivers.
    Mark Rasmussen, the president of the Coalition for Buzzards Bay, spoke for the committee on Tuesday but emphasized he was not representing the Coalition.
    “We are seeing some very poor water quality near the Narrows,” he told selectmen, later adding “People agree that something should be done.”
    Rasmussen said Wareham has been “wrestling with this nitrogen problem for a very, very long time.”
    “It’s time to start thinking about another sewer plant,” he added, noting that the town may need to sewer as many as 2,000 additional homes to bring the nitrogen problem under control. "We need to bring more sewer services to more dense neighborhoods.”
    Rasmussen said The Gateway Shores neighborhood, which rests along the river off Route 28, should be a priority.
    According to Rasmussen, nitrogen pollution is damaging to the town’s eco-system. It causes water to turn murky and promotes algae growth. Such growth is harmful to fish and shellfish.
    Several suggestions were outlined in the committee’s action plan. Rasmussen emphasized the need to pressure the state to provide Wareham a Massachusetts Estuary Project study of Buzzards Bay, a report that was supposed to be finalized six years ago.
    “The towns that are getting reports are the ones clamoring for them,” Rasmussen said. “It doesn’t make sense to clean up old problems and allow new problems to develop.”
    Rasmussen said one of the town’s biggest problems is mobile home parks, which he said have inadequate sewer systems. He used Garden Homes Estates as an example.
    “650 units, if brought adequate sewer, would make a big difference,” he said before acknowledging the potential expense to bring mobile homes into state compliance.
    Rasmussen noted that state law now requires developments that use more than 10,000 gallons of water per day to reach a “nitrogen-zero” standard, meaning that new developments not on town sewer have to provide private systems that won’t add additional nitrogen to the town’s watershed. Rasmussen said smaller developments will become a problem.
    “(The nitrogen-zero) model is something we want to encourage,” he said.
    Rasmussen said many studies have been done on septic discharge into watersheds. Few studies, however, have explored the nitrogen impact of cranberry bogs. He suggested that a long-term study involving multiple bogs be launched. Rasmussen also recommended that a bog upgrade program be explored, with $500,000 in federal funds matched by growers.
    Rasmussen said the committee has simply created a road map for the town to follow. Addressing the nitrogen issues will require a town-wide effort between the Board of Health, the Planning Board, cranberry growers, septic installers, and town and state leaders.
    Jane Donahue, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, said it has become increasingly clear that the town needs to begin planning for a new pollution control facility in the future. Fellow selectman Steve Holmes commended the work of the committee and suggested the town take the recommendations seriously.
    “I don’t want to see this die on the vine,” he said.
     For more information on the committee’s action plan, visit www.savebuzzardsbay.org/wareham. 

    Wareham police officers have apprehended several suspects involved in a home invasion on Monday afternoon. 
    The suspects reportedly stabbed one of the occupants of the home and beat him with a crowbar. Police are now saying the victim, who has a record of drug offenses, may have been targeted by his attackers.

    At approximately 1:30 p.m. on Monday, Wareham police received a 911 call from a person who stated an assault had just taken place at a residence in West Wareham near the Rochester line. 

    Wareham officers and a Rochester police officer arrived within minutes and observed a 20-year-old male who was bleeding from the head. The Rochester officer stated that he observed two males running through the woods to the rear of the house. The victim told police he had been duct taped, hit over the head with a crowbar and stabbed in the head with a knife. He was transported to Tobey Hospital and later transferred to Boston Medical Center by ambulance. He is being treated for non-life threatening injuries.

    Officers from Wareham, Rochester, Marion, and the State Police saturated the area on foot in addition to K-9’s from Wareham and State Police. Within a short time, Sgt. Glen Gifford of the Wareham Police Department apprehended one of the assailants in a wooded area after a brief foot chase and placed him in custody. He was identified as 21-year-old Joseph Steele, who gave an address of 330 Pearl St. in Malden.
    Area police department officers continued a search of the area when at approximately 3:30 p.m., Wareham Police received a call from a resident of the Blackmore Pond area stating there were two men and a dog in the water who yelled out to call 911.

    Trooper Robert Gilmore of the state police and his K-9, along with Wareham police who were in the area, spotted a man fitting the description of the second assailant. The individual fled into the water attempting to escape. Trooper Gilmore and his K-9 swam out to the male and brought him to shore with the assistance of Wareham police officers Daniel Flaherty and Richard Robidoux. 

    He was placed in custody and transported to the Wareham Police Station. He was identified as 32-year-old Ramon Amado of 147 Arnold St. in New Bedford. Both men were held overnight on $50,000 bail at the Wareham Police Station and were arraigned at Wareham Fourth District Court Tuesday morning. A female, 29-year-old Tulesia Tuvale of 5 Alpine Ave., Fairhaven, was arrested at the crime scene on an outstanding default warrant. She was also held overnight and was arraigned on Tuesday morning in Wareham.
    Steele and Amado have been charged with Attempted Murder, Home Invasion, Assault and Battery With A Dangerous Weapon, and Armed Robbery While Masked. Amado is facing an additional charge of Willfully Injuring a Police Dog. 

    The dog suffered only minor injuries, according to police.

 

In This Corner - Robert Slager

   
    Time is a funny thing. Sometimes it seems to drag on slowly. Sometimes it goes by in the blink of an eye. Sometimes it seemingly does both at the exact same time.

    Five years ago Hurricane Katrina was barreling toward Louisiana with an eye for destruction. Five years ago my daughters were just four years old. Five years ago Wareham was ruled by the voting block of selectmen Mary Jane Pillsbury, Renee Fernandes-Abbott and Cindy Parola. There was a town administrator who rubber-stamped everything, a police chief embroiled in lawsuits from members of his own department, and a town-budget that was balanced on the backs of sewer users, who were paying an exorbitant sewer administration fee on top of their property taxes so department heads could get everything they wanted.

    And five years ago Wareham had just one local newspaper – The Wareham Courier, which questioned nothing that went on behind closed doors at Town Hall.

    It was a whole different world in Wareham back then. When I first walked into the Wareham Bulletin office on Sandwich Road five years ago I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I thought I did. But in retrospect I really didn’t have a clue.

    Wareham was still something of a mystery to me. As regional editor for the Memorial Press Group, the community was one of eight under my watch. While that gave me the opportunity to learn about some of the issues of the day (i.e. the proposed West Wareham plaza), there is no way to truly understand a community until you fully immerse yourself in it. 

    I spent much of the month of August in 2005 reading as many back copies of the Courier as I could. I spoke with many people. At times it felt like there was a revolving door in the Wareham Bulletin office. The phone rang incessantly. There was one common question people asked over and over again.

    Would the Bulletin tell the truth?

    I have to admit that question caught me a little off guard. I wasn’t fully aware that the Courier hadn’t been telling the truth. It wasn’t so much that the Courier was providing outright misinformation. It was more lies of omission. It was an unwillingness to tell the people of Wareham what was really going on in the community, behind the closed doors. I was asked if the Bulletin would be just another public-relation arm of town government. I assured these callers that would not be the case.

    It didn’t take me long to discover what these people meant. I quickly learned that the cranberry industry had undue influence on town politics. I learned that Mary Jane Pillsbury ran town government from her office at the Wareham Free Library. I learned that anyone who spoke against those in power was quickly slapped back into line.

    There really wasn’t anything controversial in the Bulletin for the first few months. I wasn’t seeking controversy for controversy sake. It wasn’t until I was tipped off to an un-posted zoning rewrite committee meeting in a back room of the Multi-Service Center that my eyes were suddenly pried open. A.D. Makepeace was sitting side-by-side with members of the zoning committee, crafting zoning laws to Makepeace’s liking. I was stunned.

    A few months later I learned that Pillsbury had paid the legal fees for abutters so they could fight a zoning board decision that would have allowed a proposed mini-storage business to compete with a similar business Pillsbury owned with her husband. Then I learned Pillsbury had been sued for $1 million by the rival company for allegedly using her political influence to change the ZBA decision. When I went to the library to find minutes to ZBA meetings when the issue was discussed I discovered all those minutes were missing.

    That’s when I wrote a column calling for Pillsbury to step down until the issue was resolved. It was a fair column, based on facts and my own personal viewpoint on the matter.

    Pillsbury responded by saying she wasn’t going anywhere. Her lawyer wrote me a letter suggesting that I retract my viewpoint. Then two headless dolls appeared on the doorstep of the Bulletin office, which I took as a clear threat to my twin daughters.

    That’s when I learned why people were so afraid to tell the truth in Wareham. That’s when I decided I would never stop telling the truth.

    I wasn't trying to be a hero or a martyr. I simply believed that this wonderful community deserved better than to be ruled by unethical people who used intimidation and harassment as tools to maintain their own power. Even when the Bulletin and the Courier “merged” after Gatehouse Media bought both the Memorial Press Group (which owned the Courier) and the Community Newspaper Company (which owned the Bulletin), I refused to abandon that belief. I wasn’t going anywhere either.

    That’s why Elizabeth Pezzoli and I launched the Wareham Observer. One of the ways power perpetuates itself is by controlling the flow of information. During the year I was with the Bulletin I finally understood how the Courier shamelessly distorted the truth. They printed a story on-line about a selectmen meeting during which the issue of sewer rates was debated. I remember that meeting. Pillsbury voted to increase sewer rates rather than see the immoral sewer administration fee cut. That not only potentially protected her salary but the salary of her son, a Wareham police officer.

    The only quote in the entire story came from Nora Bicki, a spokesperson from the Friends of the Wareham Free Library who spoke of the importance of keeping the library budget intact.

    The story was written by Nick Pizzolato, the son of assistant library director Susan Pizzolato. Susan Pizzolato could have been financially impacted by any potential cut to the library budget.  

    That’s the kind of thing that cannot be allowed to happen. People in Wareham deserve better than that. The Courier has improved in recent years, but now there is a new danger to the community – Wareham Week, which commits the same type of distortions and lies of omission. No one has to look any further than their coverage of the school bus safety scandal, the Wareham Fire District issue, and the Department of Revenue’s financial management report to know that paper is more interested in protecting certain people than it is in looking out for the entire community.

    So much progress has been made in this community. People aren’t so afraid anymore. That's why former Wareham High School Athletic Director Buddy Carlson was nailed for stealing more than $30,000 from teams under his watch. That's why a lot of former town employees are former town employees. That's why sewer users are no longer being robbed blind.

    Yes, there are still a hard-core group of very bad people who hide behind anonymous screen names and harass those who hold opposing viewpoints. But most of Wareham sees them for what they are now – hate-filled people who have watched their world change around them and have nothing left to do but throw an endless tantrum. Wareham is finally tuning them out now. There is only so much homophobia, racism, profanity and lies that people can take before it all blends into a juvenile rant.

    There is something I have come to realize. These people claim to hate me because I lie. No, these people hate me because I tell the truth. The truth is their enemy. The truth is what has finally begun to set Wareham free from their selfish clutches.

    I never planned to stay in Wareham for five years. But I don’t regret a moment of it. Yes, there have been some very difficult times. I’ve made a few mistakes along the way. But I have seen first-hand just how many decent people there are in this community. I’ve seen how hard they’ve worked to make Wareham a better place for everyone. They are a constant source of inspiration to me. They make putting up with all the nonsense worth it.

    Wareham deserves more than the hatred of a bitter family. Wareham deserves more than powerful people who try to manipulate everyone around them just to satisfy their own egos. Wareham deserves to watch the seeds of prosperity grow.

    Sometimes I can’t remember what my life was like before Wareham. It has become such a part of me now that it’s difficult to imagine letting it go. But that day will come. And when it does I will be proud to know I was part of a great choir, a choir that raised its voice in unison, high enough to forever shatter a ceiling of belief that once kept the truth hidden from the light of day.

Dr. Mick Jones - The Public Good

    Any company considering where to locate will expend considerable resources to make sure their decision has the highest possibility of success. In no particular order the factors they will analyze include demographics of the population, utilities, infrastructure, quality of life, taxation, regulation, transportation, customer market concentrations, raw materials, and of course the availability of suitable land or existing facilities. The topic of this article is the availability of a location for the business that meets both the needs of the company and the community.
    First let’s consider what it must be like to be an analyst at a major corporation who is responsible for selecting new sites for the company to meet its expansion goals. Owners of small businesses will likely be their own analyst. Companies like Dunkin Donuts, Wendy’s, or Shell Oil (refueling stations) are constantly expanding and contracting, moving in and moving out, and constructing buildings and selling buildings. As an analyst with the responsibility of selecting locations for one of these companies you would collect information about a variety of sites and score them. Some sites wouldn’t make it to the top of the list. It’s just another day in the life of a business analyst but it also means the loss of jobs and amenities for a community that didn’t make the cut.
    Next let’s think about the impact on a community when they are one of the locations chosen. For those locations that get selected the work to build a facility, hire employees, and stock the shelves is watched eagerly. A community with construction projects going on looks and feels like a vibrant, improving place.
    However, it doesn’t always work out for the best. We’ve all seen it before. Sometimes the business doesn’t do well in the location they selected and they decide to close that branch and sell the property (assuming they owned and not leased the property). So now we have a building that looks like a Dunkin Donuts but is empty. The immediate concern for the new or existing owner of the building is to get another business into the location. It is usually the community’s reaction, too.
     This is a critical time and the decision is usually good for the owner but bad for the community. The owner leases the facility to some business at a reduced rate. That business weighs the “reduced rate” too heavily in their business analysis and quickly discovers they can’t do business at that site any better than Dunkin Donuts did. In the mean time the owner has sold the property to another investor as soon as they lease it to the second occupant. Then the second occupant eventually closes the business at that location and the cycle repeats itself. Each time the value of the property declines compared to similar properties in good locations. The end result is a rundown facility with a parade of businesses where each successive business is a higher risk business for the community. This continues until the property is sitting empty or occupied by a business that brings down the quality of life of the community like a porn store or some other shop that sells goods or services that is demanded only by people the community would rather not have nearby.
    Unfortunately there isn’t much a community can do about the first couple of cycles of this downward spiral. The regulations a community could and should implement would target buildings sitting empty for several years, not kept up to code, or in severe disrepair. Once the facility becomes a public nuisance (according to well written regulations) a process should be initiated that will result in demolishing the building and restoring the property back to an empty lot that will be noticed by owners of potential businesses. Those regulations should make it possible for citizens in the surrounding area to initiate the process as well as government officials.
    The costs of restoring the land will be paid by the government initially. Then the government would place a lien on the property to cover all costs plus interest. If the cost to restore is greater than the market value of the restored land then the government could have the option to take possession of the land and sell it immediately. These regulations have the added incentive whereby owners would keep their property in the best condition possible because they don’t want to lose their land.
    Once the building is gone and the land has been restored the process can start over. The land can once again get onto the list of a business analyst. With some luck this time the business that selects the land will be able to do well at that location. But we shouldn’t leave it to luck.
    The town needs to have a comprehensive plan for the entire town. It should show the organization of the community in an ideal configuration complete with transportation, utilities, industrial sectors, residential areas, shopping centers, and all the other elements of a desirable place to live. This means a professional product done with input by all the citizens but balanced against the needs of future generations. This plan should be kept up-to-date and used to make decisions about zoning and guidance for local economic development officials. These officials should identify facilities that are located outside of their ideal zone and work with land owners to make land swaps to achieve the goals of the comprehensive plan.
    This doesn’t mean the officials become developers. They act as guidance councilors for the community. When a business is getting ready for a major improvement to the property but its current location is not optimal according to the comprehensive plan then the economic development officials should work with the business owners to find another location. These business owners should not be forced to go along with the recommendation. If the official can find someone in the targeted sector that would benefit from the swap (maybe it gets them closer to their consumer market) then the swap could benefit both businesses and not cost them any more than what they would have spent anyway. It is possible this will improve their profits and therefore be a net gain for both businesses in the long run. Also in the long run the community continues to progress toward the goals of the comprehensive plan and a higher quality of life.
    The recycling of land combined with community planning would be a huge benefit to the entire community. What we do now is recycle buildings. Again, this eventually leads to a downward spiral for the property and the surrounding neighborhood. The downward spiral happens to residential as well as to commercial properties. It isn’t good enough to wait for someone to come along and buy the property and demolish the building so they can build what they think is best. By the time that investor comes along many other properties in the neighborhood have declined too. If it had been empty land that decline might not have happened, but because the building was in decline it brought down the neighboring buildings. So the investor isn’t going to get a nice new building in an up and coming neighborhood. They would be taking the risk of having their investment fail because the neighborhood was too far gone. Still, people generally don’t like to tear down old buildings.
    Demolishing an older building is especially difficult when there is even a hint of historical or architectural value. Buildings that should be saved for historical or architectural reasons are rare. One test for historical value that is often overlooked is this: Has a group organized to raise the money to save it? That money should not come from government, especially local government. If there isn’t a natural advocacy group for the building with enough seriousness to raise adequate funds outside of the community then the building doesn’t have historical significance.
    Architectural value is extremely rare. To have value architecturally the building needs to rise to the level of art. It needs to be unique in some way and very well preserved. Just because a building is made of a known architectural style doesn’t make it valuable. There are many building of each architectural style and they are all better than a building that has gone unnoticed for decades. Furthermore, old buildings made of brick or stone last a long time and often have nice architectural features, but it doesn’t make the building valuable as architecture.
    Many communities make this mistake, and in the northeast United States it is especially prevalent. With the transition away from old industrial businesses there are many buildings made of brick and stone. They are often very large, old and have some interesting architectural details like arched windows and fancy columns inside and outside of the building. Often a movement within the community organizes to make sure the new owners of the property don’t just tear down the buildings. So the old buildings sit empty. You see them in every town. Some have been turned into condominiums and others into office buildings.
    So now you have a residential building right in the middle of a declining industrial sector of town. One nearby example is the cordage factory in Plymouth. It is a huge facility with ocean frontage you can’t find any more. There are several large factory buildings made of brick and timber on the site. One of the buildings has been turned into a professional building housing medical offices and related businesses. The site has been partially improved too. But look out the window of your office toward the ocean and instead of water you see the empty shell of a factory building. Apparently the developers are concerned about having too much office space so they are waiting to develop the rest. Years have passed and it still sits there empty and obstructing the view.
    The developers should have torn down the buildings and recovered as much building material as possible. Then, using these materials and a comprehensive design for the site, they could have built a professional complex that takes full advantage of its location. A good architect could have used the materials in the design for the new buildings. A few years after the new buildings are completed most people visiting the site would see the old brick and industrial age styling and become convinced that the original building was still standing there in front of them. They just have a new use now. This is recycling buildings in a very productive way. The material could have been recovered and the site restored to open land. The materials don’t have to be used on the same site. Recycling land can include recycling building materials.
    In summary, empty lots are an essential part of attracting economic development. By recycling land you can still have development without the worry of running out of land some day. Lots of development could occur (bringing needed employment and amenities) in a community without ever using land that is currently open. Development does not have to mean loss of open land. Some well written laws could make it possible to get rid of neighborhood blight and encourage people to build new facilities on the recovered land. Businesses and homeowners could have new buildings with all the amenities they can afford rather than learning to live with the amenities they can retrofit into an old building. Those new buildings would be built to modern standards and save energy. Those new buildings would improve the quality of life in the community while preserving open land.
 

Got Your Back - Bruce Sauvageau

    In Dante’s classic masterpiece “Inferno” he wrote that the deepest place in hell is reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality.
    Unfortunately this occurs in every community in the country. I’ll bet that 80 percent of the residents in most communities stay on the sideline and don’t get involved on any level in what occurs in their communities. If they do they support the “man on the hill” looking down at us like so many useful things. It’s like a feudal system in many ways. The “man on the hill” has people in the fields picking his crop. The “house help” sits on important boards and committees ready to do his bidding.
    We all know this man, even if he has no name and no face. There are many just like him in too many communities today and throughout history.  In many respects this might as well be Selma, Ala., circa 1950 because we are all just crop pickers on this plantation called Wareham.
    You can set your watch by the time it will take the man’s apparatus to start crying racism by me, the Observer, Move Wareham Forward, etc. after they read this article. The over/under is about four minutes.
    But that is entirely the point here. There aren’t many more words in the English lexicon that invites more distain than the words “racist” or “racism.” It is absolutely right to fear the ridicule and scorn of being accused of it. Of course, fear is the operative word here.
    The weapon of those with real power has always been fear. In the 10 years that I invested in Wareham public service my tires have been slashed multiple times along with several surrounding family members. My home has been egged so many times that I sometimes wonder why I even wash it off anymore. I have had to suffer web-site operator Bill Whitehouse peering through the windows of my house, scaring my wife half to death. I’ve had to suffer Whitehouse accusing me of beating my wife on live television during a selectmen’s meeting. I’ve had to suffer Whitehouse taking volumes of photos of me on every conceivable occasion.
    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. I have been personally sued by a selectmen’s assistant (the case was dismissed). I was arrested minutes after a five-hour selectman meeting (case dismissed). My wife had her car impounded by a Wareham police officer early one Sunday morning (case dismissed). That officer is now suing me for $500,000 in a defamation claim. Interesting to note that I once suggested that his mother had some very serious ethics issues to resolve and recommended that she recues herself from the BOS until that resolution, for which I was promptly publicly removed as chairman without notice (the Plymouth County District Attorney ruled that a violation of the open meeting law).
    I have been publicly accused of criminal acts of graft (without a shred of evidence) by the husband of a former library trustees who sued me and my BOS colleagues personally in Federal Court. I was grilled by a grand jury prosecutor for 2 1/2 hours for the heinous crime of asking for a forensic audit of the town’s computer systems, an act done by many communities in this country every year (the Grand Jury dismissed the case).
    I have been contacted by the State Ethics Commission for every kind of absurd allegation so many times that I used to get letters from them informing me that a complaint had been resolved without even first being formally advised of one. Finally my former colleagues and I on the previous  BOS were demonized and ridiculed so often by the local media, hate bloggers and the “It was ours and we will take it back” folks over the last several years that I even thought about voting against myself.
    If you think all this was painful to read just think what it felt like to experience it first-hand. I’m not asking for sympathy. I don’t want any. As Dante noted, there are worse things than trying to stand up for an ideal. That’s why I ran for office again in April. I didn’t want anyone in this community to ever fear running for selectman no matter what they might have to endure.
    There are many among us in this community that care deeply about the value of public service. There are others who believe that the public is there to “serve us.”  They get you to serve them in a number of ways - votes, money and donations to groups that are merely unregistered political action committees. They get you to co-opt the noble and valued Community Preservation Act process by placing conservation restrictions to prevent development on the “right side of town” while simultaneously trying to destroy the same protections on land not fitting their political agenda.
    But there is hope. There is a reason not to be so afraid anymore. There is no longer a five-member BOS in lock step. The library is no longer a political Mecca. We have people of integrity at critical positions within town government. The playing field has been leveled for all residents of this community. Access is no longer granted based on who you know or what you support.
    A case in point is the recent Memorandum of Understanding between the town and the “Friends” of the Wareham Free Library. An MOU is a legally binding contract. That means that the parties hold a solemn responsibility to honor the letter and spirit of the agreement. The importance of that is not just what the MOU states but that an MOU was required in the first place.  Does anyone seriously believe that could have ever happened just a few short years ago? That is called progress.
    These are rules of conduct with serious consequences for violating them. Why the Friends felt it necessary to once again “lawyer up” and take many months of negotiations in the form of various MOU drafts is a question that goes to the point.  Nevertheless we now have clearly defined guidelines in place, and it no longer matters who is a “friend” and who is a trustee. The MOU is in force for only one year and must be revalidated by the library director, trustees and TA each year, which gives ongoing oversight. The trustees are appointed by the BOS without question (instead of being self-appointed, as was the case in the past). Everything is now spelled out in black and white.
    Progress can and is happening despite those that wish to throttle it in the crib. But it will continue to take fresh new voices with the energy and integrity to cleanse this town. Will those who step forward be subject to personal attacks? Count on it. The “man on the hill” has no other weapon at his disposal.
    But it will be well worth it.  Patton said a “hero” is the “scaredest guy on the field, but saves lives anyway.”
    Courage is not the absence of fear. It’s the willingness to face it. Many have risen to that challenge.
    Will you?

In This Corner - Robert Slager

    It took years of ducking, denials and deception, but the Friends of the Wareham Free Library have officially admitted it believes it can use donations for the benefit of the private Spinney Memorial Library project.
    Of course the admission, which was (pardon the pun) long overdue, came wrapped in the same degree of distortion that had become par for the course when it comes to the “Friends.”
    Last week Wareham’s Library Board of Trustees finally reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the “Friends” that will allow the “Friends” to resume fundraising activities at the library. That privilege was temporarily halted early this year after Town Administrator Mark Andrews created a new policy that requires all non-profit organizations using town property to sign an agreement with the town.
    Andrews created a MOU template for all such organizations, but the “Friends” decided they wanted one tailored to their own wishes. Several versions were presented over the past few months to the library trustees but were rejected. Finally last Tuesday, after the “Friends” hired an attorney to help create a new MOU, an agreement was reached that lays out the process in which the “Friends” can donate money to the Wareham Free Library.
    According to the MOU, the trustees will share their goals and initiatives with the “Friends” at the beginning of each fiscal year to determine how the “Friends” can best support those goals. That will include a trustee “wish list.” The “Friends” will supply a form for funding requests. The “Friends” will receive a detailed report on how money it gives to the library was spent. “The “Friends” will be given storage space in the library. And, with the permission of the library director, the “Friends” can use the library to raise funds. In return the “Friends” agreed to comply with all federal, state and local laws.
    Some might say the “Friends” pretty much got everything they wanted. But it’s important to note that the MOU requires the “Friends” to obey the law. That should have gone without saying, but the fact that it was included in the MOU is pretty interesting.
    That MOU does represent a major step forward for the Wareham Free Library. It’s stunning that such a logical agreement would take so much time to finalize, and require the hand of a private lawyer, but then it’s the “Friends” we’re talking about here.
    Of course nothing involving the library can occur with the requisite spin. According to “Friends” spokesperson Nora Bicki, the MOU “basically gives us permission to use the premises with the approval of the Director to raise money to support our work.”
    Later in her statement, which she made on her favorite local web site, Bicki wrote “We will continue to use the phrase suggested by our attorney for our fund raisers - Proceeds support the work of the Friends of the WFL. Anyone who does not agree with the work of the Friends need not support us. Plain and simple.”
    Wow. Never has a statement been so deceptive and so revealing at the exact same time. The “Friends” are now officially using the phase “Proceeds support the work of the Friends of the Wareham Free Library.” That “work” includes raising funds for the private Spinney Memorial Library project. Bicki later admits that when she wrote “The Friends have the final decision on how we will use funds raised, according to the Attorney General's office and our attorney.”
    Bicki has finally answered a question the Observer has posed for nearly two years – can the Friends give money donated to their organization to the private Spinney Memorial Library project? According to Bicki’s own words, yes they can. Of course it's possible that she's distorting what the AG's office actually said. That wouldn't be a first.
    The issue over where the "Friends" are allowed to send donations has been one of the primary reasons there is so much mistrust involving this organization. The very name of the organization “Friends of the Wareham Free Library” suggests that its mission is to support Wareham’s public library. But a few years ago they quietly changed their mission statement to include support of “any library” in Wareham. They never publicly announced this change. The fact that a lawyer told them to use the phrase “Proceeds support the work of the Friends of the Wareham Free Library” may give them a layer of legal protection, but it is no less deceptive. How many people know what the “work” of the “Friends” actually entails? How many know that such "work" now officially includes the private Spinney Memorial Library project? And yes, it is a private library at this point, and it will remain a private library unless Town Meeting voters approve it as a branch of the Wareham Free Library.
    Bicki is also being deceptive when she writes the MOU “basically gives us permission to use the premises with the approval of the Director to raise money to support our work.”
    The MOU makes no mention whatsoever of the new legal disclaimer. It makes no mention of the Spinney Memorial Library, either. Bicki is clearly trying to suggest that the MOU allows the “Friends” to raise money for Spinney if they choose. The MOU never even addresses that issue. If anything, the MOU's focus on the Wareham Free Library would suggest the opposite.
    Local resident Peter Baum, who was a strong vocal opponent of the previous Board of Selectmen, responded to Bicki’s statements with a few of his own. On the other web site he asked Bicki to publicly release all versions of the MOU drafted by the “Friends” after Bicki wrote that the final version is “the only version that should be of interest to anyone.”
    “I am very interested in the versions between the template and the final,” Baum wrote. “One reason is that I had a conversation with Steve Holmes about the MOU and he blames the Friends for not signing previous versions and thus delaying their ability to raise funds. My contention is that asking the Friends to sign these previous versions was completely unreasonable and that Mark Andrews is to blame for the delay. The truth of this matter will be clear if the interim MOUs are made public.”
    Bicki responded by writing “The final MOU is a public document. The previous ones that were CREATED by the Friends belong to the Friends, so NO, I will not post them. And I am interested in truth and honesty which is why I made the original post but I don't see any benefit to continuing this conversation. How does this in any way help the Friends? It doesn't.”
    Baum later replied, “This is a problem I have had with you in the past. Although we often have the same goals, I don’t like your willingness to be manipulative and bend the truth in service to what you think is a good cause. The issue I am raising is about the truth, not about how to help the Friends. I don’t trust that you have been honest and truthful.”
    Bicki never responded to Baum’s final statement.
    What possible reason would Bicki have to refuse releasing previous drafts of the MOU? She implied that doing so wouldn’t help the “Friends.” Why? What is potentially damaging to the Friends in those draft copies? 
    This has been the problem with the “Friends” all along. Everything has been clouded in secrecy. There has never been any transparency. And Bicki has been one of the chief reasons for that. She has constantly distorted the truth, using a local hate site as her forum. Why the “Friends” have continued to allow her to be their mouthpiece is simply beyond comprehension.
    Baum has strongly supported the Take Back Wareham ideology, especially in a series of columns he wrote for Wareham Week. Now even he is questioning Bicki’s honesty. That's how bad this has become.
    Bicki said that anyone who disagrees with the "work" of the "Friends" doesn't need to donate. Perhaps Wareham should take her up on that. Donations to the Wareham Free Library can be made directly through the town treasurer. Until the "Friends" wake up and realize that having Bicki serve as their spokesperson is incredibly damaging to the Wareham Free Library they don't deserve another penny from this community.

   Tonight's Board of Selectmen meeting has been rescheduled for Thursday, Aug. 19 at 7 p.m. The agenda was not posted in the required 48 hours prior to the meeting.

    Former selectman and current Wareham Observer columnist Bruce Sauvageau had his vehicle temporarily impounded after he reported a road rage incident to a Wareham police officer early Thursday evening.

    Sauvageau’s registration had expired 12 days earlier.

    “I screwed up,” Sauvageau said. “I wasn’t aware my registration had expired.”

    Sauvageau said he had flagged down Sgt. John Walcek on Main Street after a man on a motorcycle began honking at him and driving close to his bumper.

    “I had no idea what the guy’s problem was,” Sauvageau said. “All of a sudden he was right on top of me. It was just dumb luck that I saw Sgt. Walcek on the side of the road.”

    Neither driver was charged in the incident.

    “It was just bizarre,” Sauvageau said. “The guy started telling me he knew me from Vietnam (Sauvageau did not serve in Vietnam). I had never seen this guy in my life.”

   After Walcek followed proper procedure by running the plates on both drivers he learned that Sauvageau’s registration had expired. Walcek reportedly apologized after informing Sauvageau he had to impound the vehicle.

    “I have nothing but respect for Sgt. Walcek,” Sauvageau said. “I don’t blame him at all. It was my fault my registration has lapsed. He was very nice about the whole thing. He even gave me a ride home.”

    Sauvageau said his vehicle was impounded for about an hour.

    “I went home and re-registered it on-line,” he said. “It was completely my fault that I let it expire. It just slipped my mind. I screwed up. It was 100 percent my fault.”

    Walcek told the Observer he could not comment on the incident publicly until he speaks with the department’s public information officer.

    “There is a protocol that has to be followed,” he said.

    Walcek did not dispute Sauvageau’s version of what occurred.

    The Wareham School Committee gave embattled Superintendent Barry Rabinovitch a $3,000 raise Wednesday night during a meeting at Wareham Middle School, pushing his yearly salary to $156,140 per year.

    Rabinovitch remains by far the town’s highest paid employee. Town Administrator Mark Andrews currently earns $101,000 per year.

    Rabinovitch has been under fire over the past year for his role in a number of controversies, including the school bus safety scandal, the health care trust fund debate, the multiple school bomb threats, the high turnover rate among administrators, and the School District’s continuing struggles with MCAS scores.

    Little of that was evident on Wednesday, when a composite review of his performance by School Committee members labeled him a man of “integrity,” “empathy,” and "transparency."
    School Committee Chairman Cliff Sylvia noted Rabinovitch’s “empathy and the way he deals with people.” Sylvia rated the school superintendent “high satisfactory” in most categories. 

    Fellow School Committee member Geoff Swett praised Rabinovich for the way he “reaches out to the community.”

     Rabinovitch was rated based on a formula he negotiated into his own contract. Four categories – student achievement, community partnership, resources and technology – were considered by each school committee member. Each member assigned Rabinovitch a grade in those areas, with the combined scores not to exceed 100 points. Rabinovitch’s overall composite score was 71.5 out of 100, which Sylvia described as “in the high range.”

    Each committee member was also invited to add comments to their individual evaluations. Those comments were combined into an overall report that Sylvia read aloud on Wednesday.

    The comments were mostly glowing. Rabinovitch was called “a fine man working during a difficult time.” He was said to “encourage transparency.” His fiscal management skills were also lauded by the School Committee.

    There were some criticisms mixed in. The report stated that Wareham High School has not embraced the "K-12 philosophy.” The fact that the school district is still below state levels in MCAS scores was also noted.
    One comment credited Rabinovitch for “discovering the inequities of the heath care trust fund.”

    The controversies that have marked the last year for the superintendent were briefly mentioned with little elaboration. The health care trust fund controversy began after school officials erroneously claimed that school employees paid more than their fair share into the town’s health care trust fund and were due a rebate. The School Committee, with the authorization of the superintendent, hired an auditor with whom the town had previously parted ways. That auditor confirmed the initial claim. But the town then hired its own independent auditor who determined that the entire controversy was essentially a mirage created by poor accounting practices by the former town accountant.

    Controversy surrounding Rabinovitch reached a peak during the school bus safety scandal after a joint Move Wareham Forward/Wareham Observer investigation revealed that hundred of school buses had failed Department of Motor Vehicle inspections over a three-year period, despite a claim by former School Committee Chairman Bob Brousseau, who public stated that no buses had ever failed inspection.
    Local resident Ellen Begley filed a Freedom of Information request with the School Department seeking copies of the DMV records. She was rebuffed by Rabinovitch, who said the records would cost Begley $800 (a figure that was in violation of state law). The DMV ultimately provided copies to Begley at no charge, as did the town administrator.

    When reached by phone on Wednesday, Begley said she was shocked that Rabinovitch was given a raise.

    “It’s ridiculous,” she said. “I don’t think he deserved one. I think the teachers deserve a bigger raise than 1 percent. Dr. Rabinovotich tried to out-price my Freedom of Information Request and never did comply. The lack of transparency in the school department is appalling and it needs to charge.”

    Selectman Brenda Eckstrom, a mother of four who took the School Committee to task for giving Rabinovitch a raise last year, called the School Committee’s decision “infuriating.”

    “In the last year, with the accusation that the schools made about the health care trust, the denials that there were bus issues, and the knowledge that Chapter 70 is being cut, I think it’s short-sited and selfish that Dr. Rabinovitch got that money.”

    Following the meeting Sylvia said he did not know Rabinovitch’s current salary. He also declined to provide a copy of the evaluation summary to the media, claiming he had only one copy and couldn't part with it.

    In an on-line poll on the Observer Media web site regarding Rabinovitch's role in the school bus safety scandal, nearly 90 percent of those who responded said he should be fired.

Got Your Back - Bruce Sauvageau

   One of the deepest and most problematic parts of the current national recession is the residential real estate sector of our economy. More than 15 million homes are currently valued below their original purchase price and are estimated to be “underwater” by some $800 billion (or about $50,000 per unit).
    What is the government’s newest proposed solution in a long line of similar solutions? Force Fannie May & Freddie Mac, the two largest mortgage underwriters in the country, to subsidize those homeowners in the form of debt relief and additional refinancing by at least the amount of the “lost equity” (which is the original value less the current value of the home). That is called nationalizing home ownership for all intents and purposes.
    Why is that a problem? It’s not American. It’s not the principal of independence that we, as a country, were founded upon. So, if you used your home like an ATM machine and continuously refinanced the mortgage instead of actually doing the right thing by pre-paying that debt years in advance and saving literally tens of thousands in interest and about 10 years of servitude, don’t worry because the government has a plan for you.
    In ancient Rome such a concept was known as “bread & circuses” - keep feeding and entertaining the ever-growing under-employed and idle work force in order to keep their level of contempt for the government at a minimum. If you could actually read the contract you have with society there would be a clause in bold face type that read “Warning, personal freedom comes with personal responsibility. Please act accordingly.
    Our current government thinking of kicking problems down the road instead of facing them with conviction today is exactly the type of thinking that drove the Roman Empire out of business.  It took 400 years. We don’t have that much time. During that time they devolved into a society of corruption, incompetence, greed and political elitism. But not everyone in ancient Rome was so blind to the obvious. There were plenty of voices that sounded crystal clear warnings and people who deeply cared about the future of their community. They respected the idea of generational responsibility and many of them were brutalized for it. The truth hurt then too.
    The founding fathers deeply revered many great Roman thinkers as the architects of human rights and a society that respected those rights. Yes, they had slaves, but so did some of our founders. It was their principals for an ordered, civil and lawful society that our founders studied and strove to emulate. One of those great predecessors was Marcus Tullius Cicero, a man who originated the principals of human freedoms that were ultimately enumerated in our enabling documents authored by our founders.
    Cicero called them “natural law.” Most Americans have never studied natural law and so they are often mystified by the constant reference to it by our founders. Their wisdom was in recognizing that this concept of natural law is the only reliable basis for a stable society and a system of justice. This is where Thomas Jefferson’s comment that we are a nation of laws and not men originates directly from Cicero.
    Cicero was also a very brave man. He resisted his society’s drift into dictatorship based on popular support and was eventually exiled and then murdered in 43 BC as a result despite having risen to the position of Roman Consul (roughly equivalent to our U.S. Attorney General).  The founding fathers obviously shared a profound appreciation of Cicero’s dream for society, which he wrote about in his landmark book on the “Republic and the Law." It is no mistake that our entire form of government is based on the principals of a republic rather than on any other. 
    First of all Cicero defined natural law as “true law.” He wrote “true law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, it is a sin to repeal it, nor is it allowable to alter it, and it is impossible to abolish it.  We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or the people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an interpreter of it, and there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times.”  He wrote that more than 2,000 years ago and he was thinking of us, a nation he could not have predicted and a people he could not possibly have conceived.
    Nevertheless our nation was founded on this vision. The many principals and concepts envisioned by Cicero in natural law were repeated by the founders a thousand times in their blue print for our republic by their letters and writings, as well as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its 27 amendments.  The entire concept of “unalienable rights” embodied in our Declaration of Independence comes from a single letter written by Cicero. That’s what a natural right is - unalienable. Not given by man and therefore cannot be taken by man. It exists as natural law just as gravity does.
    What are these eternal laws? These are some: the right to self governance, the right to own property, personal choice and free thinking in accord with our conscience, the right to assemble and to petition our government, free speech and a free press, privacy, a fair trial, the right to contract and make money, Habeas Corpus, the right to vote and hold office, and both the freedom of and the freedom from religion. Naturally these should all sound very familiar to us as the bedrock principals of our constitution. But we all also know the truth; Of course these rights can be taken away from us, quite easily in fact, if we let them be taken. History has also taught us that lesson too. Cicero was simply arguing that these rights were not in question. The founders argued the right to enforce them.
    So, what does all this have to do with Wareham? After all, we are just one small community out of 351 in one relatively small state. The point is we need to heed the warnings of both our founders and people from 2,000 years ago who clearly understood the means and methods for good human relations as well as they understood the natural human tendency to subjugate other people for personal benefit.  If in fact “we hold these truths to be self-evident” then how can we ignore them simply because we are small?
    Size is a matter of mind not principal. So, what are the warning signs? Well, over the course of the last several months there have been a number. The recent town audit report showed at least a dozen “material deficiencies” in the town's accounting practices. These types of glaring gaps in some of the town’s major accounts and line items indicate a pattern of inefficiency and incompetence in the previous town accountant that can have a profound impact on our ability to finance basic services.
    It is no wonder that Wareham has had a persistent structural deficit for many years now. We can’t even count our beans correctly. Material deficiency means “we can’t tell you where your money went, but we can tell you it certainly is gone.” The report also took to task the school-side of the budget by indicating certain patterns of concern within the town-side accounting of that department (and they didn’t even audit the school department books).
    How is it that the town can only audit about 40 percent of its books? Well, it’s because the school-side of the budget accounts for about 60 percent of the overall town budget (and they aren’t allowing anyone to look at their accounts these days). I’ll go out on a limb at this point and predict that an attempt at a school-side 2 ½ override is not far off.  A comprehensive and complete audit of the school department’s books should be done before any potential override should even be contemplated, starting with the school bus transportation account. We need not go into the healthcare trust fund audit fiasco initiated by the school department either.
    It should be abundantly clear at this point as to why exactly it was necessary to terminate both the last town accountant and town auditor. Nor should there be any genuine controversy as to why there is a current vacancy in the Wareham Water Pollution Control Facility superintendent position. A recent review by the audit as well as by the town accountant shows clearly why that enterprise account line item is currently a basket case. Very poor accounting practices and mismanagement of that account for a long period of time.
    The current criticism is that the elimination of the sewer administrative fee is somehow the culprit. I don’t think so. It was the millions of dollars skimmed off of that line item by the town over 15 years, as well as the counting of betterment assessments as “booked receivables” instead of accruing them over a 20-year repayment schedule that has literally throttled that account.  My next prediction is that there will be a rise in your sewer rate by a majority of the BOS who believe the most expedient way to resolve government waste and incompetence is to ply a few more straws on your back.
    Next was the DOR report on the town’s administrative function. It was enlightening in some aspects but generally not useful in my opinion. Its greatest criticism was that there was a lack of “continuity” in management because of the frequent turnover in the town administrator position.  I believe that continuity of mismanagement was not the answer either, because that would have been the precise outcome of leaving either of the last two permanent TAs in office. The reports observation that the town has not advanced the ball since 2001 was not exactly a revelation either. That, of course, is why they are not there any longer. The fact that it took some time to finally get it right by hiring what has become an outstanding administrator in Mark Andrews is no shame at all.  In fact, I believe the greatest management decision made by the prior BOS was in advancing that turnover. Hiring mistakes are commonplace. What shouldn’t be is leaving the problem to fester for the next board to deal with. 
    Perhaps the most glaring warning of recent weeks was the Wareham Water District corruption scandal and subsequent cover-up by its administration. I am not aware that the Water Commissioners have yet to comply with even a single directive of the Inspector General’s scathing investigative report. When three independent outside agencies tell you that based on their objective review your town lacks basic accounting, management and ethics skills in its most recent history it is time to apply the fundamental lessons of history that founded our concept of self-government in the first place. |
    It was clear to Cicero toward the end of his life that any community must eliminate the depravity lodged within it. He defined this call to action as “public virtue.” Of course, as Jefferson said, “Virtue is not hereditary.” It has to be nurtured.
    Let us do so.

    Wareham Week has just published a story under the headline “State financial report criticizes town leadership” based on a Department of Revenue Financial Management report requested by the Board of Selectmen last year. The Wareham Week story is so full of distortions and outright factual inaccuracies that the Observer felt compelled to set the record straight immediately. The headline itself is a distortion as the DOR report does not include editorial comments but rather an analysis of the issues and recommendations on how to resolve them.
    The follow are direct statements made in Wareham Week’s article, followed by the facts.

    Wareham Week’s story: “A state review of the town's financial management criticizes the Wareham Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee for their inconsistent and over-reaching leadership.”

    The truth: What the DOR report actually said was “First, the community is struggling under the same difficult economic conditions facing cities and towns across the Commonwealth, which have affected the ability of local leaders to adequately fund government. Second, as a result of continued turnover in the town administrator’s position, continuity of leadership and management has been missing. It appears that this circumstance has caused the selectmen and the finance committee to extend, perhaps by necessity, their involvement in municipal government beyond traditional roles.”

    Wareham Week’s story: “Over the last 3 years, the sewage treatment system has cost $1.26 million more than was collected from sewer users. To fund this deficit, town leaders chose to use betterment fees instead of raising sewer user fees, a practice that the reviewers said was "lawful, but not prudent."

    The truth: What the report states is “Over the preceding three fiscal years, the facility has relied on over $1,263,880 in retained earnings to support ongoing operations as reported to DOR, the bulk of which has been generated from betterment assessments paid in full rather than over the apportioned period. This use of retained earnings is lawful, but not prudent.”
    What actually occurred is that former Pollution Control Facility Superintendent David Simmons, when doing his annual budget, failed to take into account that revenue from sewer betterments fees would not all be coming in at one time by rather over a 20-year period. That threw his budget out of balance. The town has taken on the added expense of paying the interest on sewer loans before receiving payment from many sewer users, especially those who have not yet been assessed for sewer expansion. Town officials did not choose to use betterment fees instead of raising sewer fees. There is no evidence that other town officials were even aware of this issue until Robert Bliss was fired as town accountant last year. Simmons was instructed by the town administrator to cut his budget to offset his accounting error. He did not. In fact he came in overbudget.
     Simmons was called before the Board of Selectmen last year to explain issues with his budget.
He subsequently lost his job in March.

    Wareham Week’s story: “The report was critical of town management, the Selectmen and the Finance Committee for failing to know enough about the state of finances to prevent inadvertent overspending. Specifically: Officials thought they had taken care of a small amount of overspending in 2008 and 2009 by getting Town Meeting to approve an additional $20,850 in 2010. In fact, the state found, the total amount overspent was not $20,000 but $232,220 - which will have to be paid for with 2011 tax revenue.”

    The truth: The DOR report actually said “Overspending by departments in FY2009 created $20,850 in illegal deficits that were subsequently raised in the FY2010 tax levy. A further review of the FY2009 balance sheet and supporting documentation submitted to DOR revealed additional appropriation deficits of $202,370 in 12 separate accounts. These should also have been raised in the FY2010 tax levy, but since the FY2010 tax rate had already been set, this amount will be raised in the FY2011 levy. The effect is a reduction in available revenue and an unanticipated amount to be raised in FY2011.”
    Wareham Week’s statement that “Officials thought they had taken care of a small amount of overspending in 2008 and 2009 by getting Town Meeting to approve an additional $20,850 in 2010” is a gross distortion of the truth. The DOR report never states that the Board of Selectmen or the Finance Committee knew of these appropriation deficits in advance nor were responsible for this overspending. Neither board has the authority to become involved in day-to-day operations of any town department.

    Wareham Week’s story: “Selectmen and the Finance Committee successfully recommended that 2009 Town Meeting to spend more money from school and Council on Aging "revolving accounts" than was actually in the accounts - simply because the officials did not know how much money was in the accounts.”

    The truth: The DOR’s report states “In FY2010, the town authorized revolving fund spending in excess of limits imposed by law. Under M.G.L. c. 44, §53E½, each departmental revolving fund spending limit cannot exceed one percent of the prior fiscal year’s tax levy. Wareham’s FY2009 tax levy was $28,727,173 and 1 percent was $287,271. However, Town Meeting approved a $410,000 Council on Aging revolving fund (COA Transportation $210,000 and COA Senior Daycare $200,000) and two revolving funds totaling $695,000 by the School Department ($195,000 for an all day kindergarten program and $500,000 for special education programs).”
    For nearly a year selectman Brenda Eckstrom has publicly questioned the Wareham School Department’s policy of placing $500,000 into a general revolving account. The school department refused to respond. The DOR never sta