#1 2010-10-15 10:30:02

Our Chairman of the BOS has taken it upon herself to submit the "subject matter" to consider and vote on the development of the infamous Westfield land.  The Westfield "Study" Committee did NOT vote to do so and because the citizen petition to do the same did not get submitted by the set dead line (Hurrican Earl), she decided to submit it on her own. 

Abuse of Power ?  I think YES.

C'mon April 5th, 2011

Last edited by bbrady (2010-10-15 11:12:19)

Offline

 

#2 2010-10-15 11:30:45

The defeat of the Westfield Article at Town Meeting will be so overwhelming that the Chairman will realize she is on her way out.

Make it happen!! Please!

Save Wareham.

Offline

 

#3 2010-10-15 12:35:25

SHE IS A CROOK ,THE ARTICAL IS ILEGAL AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DEFAETED , AS  SHOUD SHE BE DEFEATED IN APRIL , WHAT IS UP WITH THE DONAHUES CANT THEY DO ANYTHING THAT IS LEGAL, SHAME ON THEM, VOTE THEM OUT IN APRIL,AND RID WAREHAM  OF THE STAIN OF COURUPITION THAT HAS CLOUDED WAREHAM  FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS.

Offline

 

#4 2010-10-15 13:18:03

I don't even think the Article should be considered. 

It should be withdrawn. Period !

See Article #20 from last town meeting.
As moved by Irvin Russell :

"I move to refer Article Twenty to a Study Committee made up of one member of the Finance Committee, one member of the Wareham elected Housing Authority, one member of the BOS, one member of the Council on
Aging and three citizens at large to be appointed by the Appointing Authority, to come back to the Fall Town Meeting with a report.

Period !

The recorded vote was 136 - affirmative & 109 - negative.

Offline

 

#5 2010-10-15 14:58:04

Is this true ?

If it's true, the chairman of the board must be held accountable.
If she's not held accountable then our community has gone to hell in a hand basket.  How then can all others be expected to abide by our laws if the "top official" knowingly does not ?
Lead by example and abide by the oath of office.

This is such a shame.

Offline

 

#6 2010-10-15 15:55:52

The Westfield article is a sham.

Follow the money.

If it is defeated, the money will dry up and you will never hear about Westfield again, unless it is in the situation it should be in: a recreational area, helped to be developed by "green" money from the Feds, and State,.a jewel for everyone to enjoy forever.

Offline

 

#7 2010-10-15 17:18:00

Bob do you think there is a good chance that it will be withdrawn?

Offline

 

#8 2010-10-15 18:25:08

THIS ARTICAL SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED AT TOWN MEETING,          AND JANE SHOULD BE CENSURED AT TOWN MEETING.    SHE SHOULD THEN VOTED OUT NEXT APRIL.

Offline

 

#9 2010-10-15 22:37:51

witchunter wrote:

Is this true ?

If it's true, the chairman of the board must be held accountable.
If she's not held accountable then our community has gone to hell in a hand basket.  How then can all others be expected to abide by our laws if the "top official" knowingly does not ?
Lead by example and abide by the oath of office.

This is such a shame.

If it weren't true, I wouldn't have posted it.  I researched it and there is no record of any votes or any signatures to submit the Article.

I've heard that it will likely be a topic for discussion at their next meeting on Monday evening.

Offline

 

#10 2010-10-16 11:05:32

I don't know how we can be expected to vote for Westfield when even the supporters of Westfield say the Westfield consultant they hired can no longer be trusted.  They're the ones who said that, not us.  If the man who put together all of the Westfield information can no longer be trusted, then how can that information be trusted?

Nay, I think there are too much behind the scenes doings afoot.  Best to vote it down.  If you can't trust the consultant, then you can't trust the project.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-10-16 11:06:08)

Offline

 

#11 2010-10-16 11:43:18

Don't forget the same consultant accused the former Chairman of criminal fraud as he admitted his own guilt.

Offline

 

#12 2010-10-16 16:43:32

THE ARTICLE SHOULD NEVER COME UP. THE ARTICLE WAS ILLEGALLY INSERTED AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE VOTED ON.

Offline

 

#13 2010-10-24 05:36:28

marny wrote:

Bob do you think there is a good chance that it will be withdrawn?

Good day.
As an update, I talked with one of the citizens "at large" on the WSG (Westfield Study Group) yesterday after I attended the CEDA "Community Development" input session and was told that they had a last minute meeting to address the submission of the Article (#84).  A motion was made to WITHDRAW it because of the unofficial authorization (NO VOTE) to submit it.  It was "argued" that in fact there were two signature pages totaling 13 or 14 signatures for a citizen's petition.  WTF ?  Looks like a CYA in progress.

The warrant reads "Inserted by the BOS at the request of the WSG" and now it's being suggested that there are registered voter signatures on file supporting a "citizen's petition".

Like I've said, SOMETHING STINKS !

VOTE DOWN ARTICLE 84 and let's be done with this Westfield saga for good !

Offline

 

#14 2010-10-24 08:08:15

It would be too late to submit an article now regardless of who submits it, correct?

If the WSG is not even supporting it themselves, it should be DOA.

How were you received at the CEDA meeting, Bob? I know they wanted you on board, but your good friend  cast the final vote to not appoint you.

I am glad you attended anyway. I believe it demonstrates your commitment to the Town, and shame on those who refused your appointment based solely on politics.

Pay back is a bitch!

April 2011!

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.com