Ooops! Doing your homework before grandstanding!

Below, is an exchange that was posted on the Middleborocasino site.
Of particular concern to me are the matters that Selectman Bond has ignored.

While it is wonderful that at least SOME of the current Selectmen have chosen to support Selectman Bond in his campaign to be Town Manager, regardless of the lack of qualifications, education and experience, shouldn't we at least consider those matters that Selectman Bond ignored before we blindly follow his campaign that might violate Ethics Commission regulations? (They're posted on the web site. Check them out for yourself and do your homework about 'Ethics.')

80%-90% of the Town's budget is personnel costs. Shouldn't that be an area of focus and concern?

Former Selectman Rosenthal was on the BOS when contracts were negotiated that provided the following increases: 0% 0% 0%, and 3%, 3%, 3%.

Selectman Bond was on the BOS Selectmen when CERTAIN union contracts provided:
36%, 4%, 4%.

I have previously posted comparative pay rates --- rates that compare CERTAIN Middleboro employees with 'comparable' towns and indicate that Middleboro is paying MORE than those 'comparable' towns.

For my calculations, I used towns with comparable populations only.

That included some affluent towns, like Sharon. And Middleboro was paying more!

Why would Middleboro pay more than Sharon?

Instead, the Chairman of the Personnel Board protested that I had used affluent towns and promised to do a wage comparison that has not been forthcoming.


Since the Selectmen are currently negotiating contracts and you, the taxpayer, have no idea about the comparable pay rates (nor do the Selectmen), shouldn't that information be public, widely circulated and posted on the Town's Web Site?

Adam
Registered: 10/04/07
Posts: 21
Yesterday at 12:14 AM #1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Recall Blog On Casino Facts wrote:

In his campaign for Town Manager, Selectman Bond seems to be making a great case for why the Recall should have been supported.

He also seems to be making a great case for supporting the Finance Committee.


First, I am not making a case for the Fin Com to be supported, I am making a case for the Town Charter to be followed. The Fin Com is to advise on the financial issues of the Town.

As to the Recall, in my opinion, the reason it failed was timing and message. The Timing caused the recall to become, in essence, a casino no confidence vote as to the Selectmen. It was the single most dominant issue floating in the minds of the citizens and the press. Had the recall succeeded, the papers would have screamed "Middleborough Selectmen Ousted Over Casino Deal." Much as many people would like to think otherwise, there was a significant and very committed group of citizens in favor of the casino--even more than showed up on the 28th. The original message got lost in the larger event, and the leaders of the recall were unable to adjust their message in a way to compensate for the new political environment.

The Recall effort was run as if it was a regular election--not a Recall. A Recall is a punitive measure, and the question that needed to be addressed was what did the three Selectmen do that cried out for them to be punished by removal from office and a two year bar from Town Government. This was, for all intents and purposes, a public trial where the burden of proof was on the challengers. The burden did not even come close to being met.

The challengers merely explained flaws with decisions and why they would be a better candidate, and it all came down to the perception of challengers simply saying "I would do a better job." That is what regular elections are for. Also, in the wake of the casino issue, the challengers' credibility suffered as they were viewed as being closet anti-casino people--whether they claimed to be neutral or supporters of it.

I am not making a case for anything other than the same issues I have raised previously (were you watching?), whereas now, with a more involved group of citizens, I might be able to make some headway on some of them.

Empty room when I dealt with the Eagles Club. Empty room when I moved to discuss the Precinct Street sale. Empty room when I moved to have a referendum. Full rooms after the casino. Lets keep those asses in the seats people, and don't keep watching...do something to move the issue by sheer force of will and testicularity. Jessie is right about one thing. It is incredible what a small group of motivated people can accomplish with the right leadership and plan.

Any thoughts?

__________________
Adam Bond



therealraven

Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 164
Yesterday at 12:26 PM #2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I view the recall as an "attention getter" in the context that some folks are very uncomfortable about the general management of the town and the BOS became the poster boys (and girl) for that. Obsevationally I'd say it had an impact. The linkage to the casino was enevitable and that was costly. Seems like the recall vote was parallel to the Town Meeting From Hell vote? IMO if that linkage was off the table the recall still would have failed.

When I see the voter turnout for a recall or a 2 and 1/2 override it is shameful. My own daughter is a typical example: "I can't be bothered." Oh well, so much for constructive parenting.

Interesting trivia. George Wallace first campaign apppearance in NE for his ill fated presidential bid was in Middleboro!


JPowell
Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 16
Yesterday at 01:33 PM #3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empty room when I moved to discuss the Precinct Street sale.

Oops!

Political opportunism seems to have clouded your memory!

You voted for the land auction.

You never publicly commented about the Town Planner's memo that addressed a number of parcels that was ignored, nor did you EVER comment or suggest that other departments should review the proposed auction list.

It was not until a group of voters questioned the land auction, that you considered involvement.

You may recall that Bob Lessard addressed the parcels that had been scheduled for auction by the town, but previously voted at 2001 ATM to the Conservation Commission.

In addition, more than 20 voters were present to protest the land auction.
The room was PACKED - STANDING ROOM ONLY, not empty as you claim.

You made a motion that went un-seconded to discuss the 'land auction,' but never specifically the Precinct St. property.

There were other parcels on that list that were problematic.

While Precinct St. is clearly problematic since RFPs would have amended the process, you earlier failed to comment on the Perry Property for which Selectman Andrews requested comment from the Town Planner. Have you read it? She addressed the cranberry bogs, gravel piles, and the development potential. You remained silent as the Board commented on a letter I had submitted regarding that parcel. Significant revenue was lost to the Town by its haste auctioning that parcel.

That parcel possess 400 feet of road frontage, the potential of a +7 lot subdivision. as well as bogs.

Former Town Manager and Selectwoman Brunelle were telling interested buyers that the parcel lacked adequate frontage for a building permit.

I don't have enough time right now to post other issues that you ignored that negatively impacted the town, but I'll get to them! Some of us have been watching since before the casino. And, oops! The meeting minutes are available on-line.

__________________
'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committeed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.' Margaret Mead

pcunix

Registered: 09/08/07
Posts: 196
Yesterday at 01:38 PM #4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPowell

I don't have enough time right now to post other issues



Ahhh.. makes me rethink my lack of religious belief - obviously my prayers were
answered..

__________________
Tony Lawrence
http://OakPointCommunity.org
http://aplawrence.com
Adam



Registered: 10/04/07
Posts: 21
Yesterday at 03:30 PM #5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is clear from the minutes that you reference that I raised several issues relating to the auction, including Precinct Street as well as the Town Planner's memo. Please look at the following taken directly from the minutes--which are excerpts from those meetings and not a verbatim transcript.



"Auction – Town-Owned Land

Selectman Bond said he had received a series of questions over the weekend related to the proposed auction of town-owned land. He said the issue, besides the timing of selling in a “soft market”, is that four of the parcels are ConCom properties. There was also a letter from the Town Planner advising of putting restrictions on the parcels before selling.

Mr. Healey said there are five (5) parcels that were transferred by a Town Meeting vote in 2001 to the ConCom. He said there is no record regarding this. He called the Conservation Office and spoke to Phyllis who advised that there is not a “list” of all parcels under the ConCom.

Mr. Healey said the Town Planner is unaware that Town Counsel has advised the Board in the past that restrictions placed on parcels are only good to the person you sell to. That person can sell, or form an LLC or Trust, and it would wipe out the restriction.

Mr. Healey said there has also been a question on the prices of the property. He said the assessed value was taken into consideration and an opening bid price was set. In most cases it is significantly above the assessed value.

Chairwoman Brunelle asked about the property on Tispaquin Pond.

Mr. Healey said the property is on Gibbs Road and contains 5.5 acres. It is assessed at $220,000.00. It had been held in a realty trust by an attorney for the abutters. It was lost for failure to pay taxes.

Darlene Anastas, a resident of Gibbs Road, said there are 22 people who have “deeded rights” to the property. She said selling the property would become a legal nightmare. She said she has retained a lawyer and will be speaking to him tomorrow. She said the thought that it is a “recreational parcel” is misguided.

Mr. Healey said it is not a recreational parcel. It is 5.5 acres with some upland.

Bob Lessard asked if there was a clear title to 4 of the parcels on the list that had been attempted to be sold previously.

Mr. Healey said there is only 1 site that a title cannot be found for. That is off of Wall Street.

Resident, Joe Sagesta, asked if an impact study had been done on how many buildable lots would be sold and the impact on the school system and tax rate.

Mr. Healey said no. He said he has an opinion from the Building Commissioner regarding the buildability. None are being offered with any representations. The bidder would have to do his own due diligence.

Discussion ensued on two (2) parcels of land on Precinct Street containing 125 acres.

Mr. Healey said those parcels are valued at $490,500 each. An opening bid has been set for $1.5 million. He said this property should go back on the tax roles. He said most of the frontage is wet, and said there is a considerable question as to how much of the property is buildable.



v Motion was made by Selectman Bond to have an open discussion next Monday regarding the properties for auction. There was no second.

Selectman Perkins said the Town doesn’t belong in the land business and agreed they should be sold and be put back on the tax rolls. He said issues are being raised at the “11th hour”.

Chairwoman Brunelle said the Board doesn’t have a say, explaining that the Treasurer decides what should be auctioned."



While you were watching Jessie, and Bob Lessard, myself, Lincioln Andrews and others were slogging the details of this issue and trying to sort it out, did you think that watching was enough. Do you still think that simply raising questions without offering answers moves the ball ahead to create a result. Obviously, since I had SEVERAL issues concerning the land auction my motion would not just mention Precinct Street, it would mention the auction --which included Precinct Street.



While you say 20 people showed up (which is NOT standing room only), that is not what I recall. But I will give you the semantic point that the room was not empty--it actually never is empty as Jane and Eileen are always there. But semantic games are fun, for some I guess.



I guess in short, I do not know what your real issue is other than that I disagreed with you on the casino issue, among other things. In fact, prior to the casino issue you said you would recall all the Selectmen except Adam Bond because he listens to the people. After the casino deal you wanted to recall everyone. Oops! That's right, its all in the newspapers that are on-line.



Finally, you are a host of contradictions which makes it difficult to deal with you. For example, you claim to want a "Unity Party" yet you continue to bash those people that you want to have participate in the Unity Party." Make sense...think not. You want me to take stands on certain issues, yet when I do--now that you don't like me anymore--you call it grandstanding on your blog.



I think that the easiest way to deal with you in this medium is that I will address what is civil from you, but I will not address vindictiveness. So, in the future, please do not interpret my silence as acceptance of your claims, accept is as the better part of valor.




__________________
Adam Bond


CranberryTimes

Registered: 10/09/07
Posts: 7
Today at 09:43 AM #6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam,

Did you think Jessie would just go quietly in the night? When we lost the recall did you think we would just disappear? I believe the Jessie performs a valuable public service by raising issues. Sometimes she does not do it well and some have said she can be abrasive, but she does raise issues. I do hope the Unity Event does occur. I do not always agree with the Board of Selectmen and will continue to raise questions.

Now, to my question: Why wasn’t the Special Town Meeting (STM) and the warrant on the agenda for the last Selectmen’s meeting? And with something as important as the Warrant for the STM to be discussed, why wait until after 11:00 at night to talk about it? Why not talk about it earlier when the Board if fresher?

Bob Dunphy



__________________
Http://www.cranberrytimes.com
therealraven

Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 164
Today at 11:16 AM #7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob summed it up fine on Jessie. I have no problem with a watchdog even when it is an aggressive bulldog. Some do the job I do not have the patience for. Sometimes the methods may be bombastic but at least the issue is raised and the questions asked are explained.

JPowell

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 16
Today at 01:29 PM #8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Adam's comment:

It is clear from the minutes that you reference that I raised several issues relating to the auction, including Precinct Street as well as the Town Planner's memo. Please look at the following taken directly from the minutes--which are excerpts from those meetings and not a verbatim transcript.




Adam, While I appreciate your partial 'clarification,' the following meeting minutes are the issue to which I referred that requires clarification:



SELECTMEN’S MEETING
APRIL 9, 2007

TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT

Auction Sale of Town-Owned Property

Mr. Healey provided the Board with a list of Town owned parcels that could, and should, be offered for sale.

Mr. Healey said not all parcels will be sold as many are “landlocked”. An effort will be made to notify abutters of the auction. He said, although some parcels could bring in significant cash, it won’t repair the structural deficit.

Mr. Healey also asked the Board to open the Special Town Meeting Warrant to add an article to authorize the sale of the 1.3 acre parcel on Water Street shown on Map 58H, Lot 2386, and the Rock School parcel on Miller Street, shown on Map 087 Lot 923.

Upon motion by Selectman Bond and seconded by Selectman Perkins, the Board
VOTED: To open the Special Town Meeting Warrant and add the two (2) above- referenced parcels.
Unanimous Vote.

Upon motion by Selectman Perkins and seconded by Selectman Spataro, the Board
VOTED: To close the Warrant.
Unanimous Vote.


http://www.middleborough.com/selectmen/Minutes/April%20Minutes/April%202007/April%209,%202007.mht

The list to which Mr. Healey referred included 37 parcels.

There is no suggestion in the record that other town departments review those parcels by ANY Selectmen. You did not comment at that time on the Town Planner reviewing those parcels.

As a curious footnote, YOU made the motion to add the Rock School to the STM Warrant, even though that parcel is deed restricted and CANNOT be sold.

Contained in the meeting minutes you referenced is what almost constitutes an 'attendance list' of those present at the April 17th Selectmen's Meeting (link below).

Adam's statements:
Empty room when I moved to discuss the Precinct Street sale.

While you say 20 people showed up (which is NOT standing room only), that is not what I recall. But I will give you the semantic point that the room was not empty--it actually never is empty as Jane and Eileen are always there. But semantic games are fun, for some I guess.




Jessie's Comment:

In addition, more than 20 voters were present to protest the land auction.

The room was PACKED - STANDING ROOM ONLY, not empty as you claim.


Adam,

I was deliberately specific since I was present at that meeting.

There were more than 20 people present specifically because of the land auction.



A review of the entire meeting minutes will clearly indicate that the school committee, superintendent, library director, and many others were present.

Hence, the room was PACKED.



As a footnote, the matter of the land auction is listed at the end of the meeting minutes under 'OTHER.' (4/17/07 Meeting) That is not an accurate representation of the order in which the meeting was conducted. You might recall that there was a limited 'time space' created early in the meeting and you commented on addressing the matter for which a number of people were present.



http://www.middleborough.com/selectmen/Minutes/April%20Minutes/April%202007/April%2017,%202007.mht

__________________
'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committeed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.' Margaret Mead