#1 2010-10-19 20:28:09

Sad that Bob Brady was turned down for a seat on the CEDA Board tonight.  We have an open seat and a person willing to volunteer his time and he was turned down for disagreeing with Janey and Brenda.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-10-19 20:42:27)

Offline

 

#2 2010-10-19 20:31:34

Yup again another disappointing showing by brenda and jane. Continue to involve their personal feelings on appts.

Last edited by IHATESLAGER (2010-10-19 20:45:47)

Offline

 

#3 2010-10-19 20:43:40

As bad as Holmes performance was, the Weasel's was far WORSE!!..how long must our citizens be degraded by our Chairmen?

Offline

 

#4 2010-10-19 20:45:24

And, did you catch the outright belligerence from the Chair?

One has to presume that if you are "outspoken", then you are out o' luck.

They have to go. Period.

Offline

 

#5 2010-10-19 20:45:34

Jane came off like basically she wasn't going to vote for Brady because he refuses to tow the line.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-10-19 20:52:29)

Offline

 

#6 2010-10-19 20:47:48

Chris Riley, the second CEDA director ousted under Janey's watch, announced his resignation in August, but Janey said that the position has only been open for 5 weeks.  If he put his resignation in early August, and it's now mid-October, that's more than 5 weeks' notice for the town that they needed to hire someone.

The position should have been posted by now.

Offline

 

#7 2010-10-19 20:49:40

And, did you catch the outright belligerence from the Chair?

For the record nota, the Weasel is the Chair...

Offline

 

#8 2010-10-19 21:08:45

the Weasel, yes indeed.

if you listened to Mr. Brady's presentation and his addressing of relevant questions, you would have to wonder how any reasonable person would NOT want this guy on the CEDA board. Do you agree with all of his points? Maybe not. But,  he has ideas, has thought about it, and is willing to put in the time.

Isn't that what this Town, ANY town, needs from its citizens?

Not according to Bren-duh & the Weasel. Please, do the right thing next April. Delete them.

Offline

 

#9 2010-10-20 07:30:06

Sorry you didnít get the appointment Bob. Wow Jane made it crystal clear, if you disagree with what the board and the TA are doing, you will not be appointed to any town board because you will be deemed to be to negative.

I think Jane is still holding a grudge against Bob for holding his meeting, which was the beginning of the end for her hubby's job as town moderator.

Offline

 

#10 2010-10-20 08:49:07

Too funny.

For those that witnessed, it was a most interesting "interview".  I'm not at all disappointed as it's everything I expected.  I knew our newest "leader", Mr Holmes, was going to be the swing vote and he performed to his true colors. He clearly had a predetermined disposition and used some nonsense excuse that wasn't even relevant to the appointment, proving once AGAIN that he doesn't do his homework and doesn't understand his role as a policy making elected official.

What's ironic is that I was acused of being the "negative" one and the only one negative last night for all to see was the chairman of the board herself.
In fact she was down right nasty. 

Bottom line, how dare ANYONE question their performance and decision making.  They truly have lost site of who they serve.

As for the management, I make it known that POOR decisions are being made and it started long before Mr Andrews arrived.  Since his arrival, it's only gotten worse.  He's too busy in Boston smooching up to those who may be able to advance his state house opportunities.  He's a politician through and through and has ZERO experience managing a community.  Oh sure, he's got all his A-team players and a "task force" for just about everything but what he doesn't have is a clue.  Sadly, he's our town administrator and we're stuck with him for now.

Offline

 

#11 2010-10-20 09:46:31

I was confused by Mr. Holmes' reasoning. Filling or not filling a board position should have nothing to do with hiring consultants to help with the grants. The rules say there must be a board for CEDA. The board must be filled. So I'm not buying that flimsy excuse. If he didn't want to appoint Bob for personal reasons, he should have said so. At least Jane did that much.

I am not at all surprised by what happened last night. This board believes it is better to fill committees with the same people who all think alike and tow the bos line of thinking rather than have someone with an opposing viewpoint. That won't change until we get a bos that understands that people with differing opinions can often be more creative in problem solving that a group of people who can only see through tunnel vision.

But Bob, there is a bright side to last night--At least you weren't called an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

Offline

 

#12 2010-10-20 10:33:37

I could not hear the final vote.  How did Walter Cruz vote?

Offline

 

#13 2010-10-20 13:48:13

There is newspaper wannabee that insists that he never, ever, under pains & penalty of perjury reads a certain website. That would be THIS website.

Yet, there is he-who-shall-not-be-named actually QUOTING directly from Mr. Brady's posting regarding his less-than-excellent experience with the Weasel and the Gang of Four. How'd he do dat? Perhaps it was thru the use of ESP, or even ESPN? Not because, of course, that he actually READS these postings. No, that would make him the lying sack of shit that most people believe he is.

And note, please, the most important item in the whole wide world to report about is the despicable treatment of Mr. Brady by the BoS. That story even preceded the computer audit fiasco; for which Andrews, the Weasel and the Gang of Four ought to be held accoutable. Yeah, right...

Meanwhile, we (TBW) are now a "group" again. What if I want to be part of a "crew"?

And, who appointed Mr. Brady as the "spokesman" for the group (crew)? What if I want to be the spokesman? Or Ham? How come this numbnuts from the wide spot in the road called Halifax gets to choose?

These issues will be brought up to the President & Board of Directors of TBW at their next meeting. for sure.

P-Span, look for a detailed memo in your inbox. Didn't say it would be there, but you can look, anyway.

Offline

 

#14 2010-10-22 09:10:05

To claim this wasn't personal is just a blatant lie.  I was curious as to what reason they would come up with.  What I got out of all of this was, If you do not agree with everyone on the BOS and voice it, you will not be given a chance to help change things.  Good lesson to teach our children.  They are telling us to either agree with them and we can join their club or disagree and we can berate you infront of everyone and there is nothing you can do about it. Nice lesson learned from the BOS.  I will have to remember that lesson next April.

Offline

 

#15 2010-10-22 14:42:16

Bosoxx, allow me to take your point a bit further.

Had the BoS been considering mr. Brady for a position such as Town Adm, police chief, etc., then perhaps the vote would make some sense. After all, why should the executive body of the Town hire someone who has been critical of them. Fair enough.

BUT, Mr. Brady was applying for a position where he would be one of a group, where he would have no more than a single vote. AND, due to the toxic attitude the BoS has displayed toward citizen/voters who want to step forward & serve, but are NOT in the thrall of the BoS; there are an alarming number of vacancies on Town boards/committees, etc. So, here is a volunteer who gets sneered at, dissed on TV and voted down. Pathetic. Meanwhile, the vacancy persists, now, doesn't it. Local gummint inaction.....again.

Question: If the Weasel (Jane on the Wane) has a personal problem with an applicant such as Mr. Brady, then why did the Weasel not recuse herself from the discussion and vote? Perhaps the voters can remember that point in, oh, five and a half months.

VOTE: APRIL 5, 2011

FINISH THE JOB

VOTE 'EM OUT

TAKE BACK WAREHAM !!!!

Last edited by notalawyer (2010-10-22 14:43:28)

Offline

 

#16 2010-10-22 23:42:46

Nota - great point!  Is it not telling that we have numerous vacancies on volunteer boards, and those that do volunteer are turned down or accepted under duress?  Take Liz and Larry McDonald.  How much BS did they have to endure all just to volunteer to HELP the town and its citizens?  Why would anyone want to volunteer when if you disagree with any of the BOS or their "friends" you will be berated?

And an even better question, which an answer would certainly be welcome:  Why did she NOT recuse herself??????   

Please remember this when voting in April!!!!!!

Offline

 

#17 2010-10-23 13:15:45

Bosoxx   -   you stole my next point!

The saga of Liz & Larry makes a perfect supporting point.

So. If any of you are to speak before the BoS, or to participate in an interview for a volunteer position in the Town, be sure to:

Genuflect
Bow
Curtsey
Prostrate
Forelock tug
Salaam

You know, exhibit total deference to the masters, The Weasel & the Gang of Four.

And never, ever admit being a member of the TBW group. or crew. or whatever.

Last edited by notalawyer (2010-10-23 13:16:52)

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.com