| Second secret recall meeting set for July 17 In This Corner - Robert Slager It appears the war has begun in earnest.
Following their pre-designed three-step program – boycott, recall, lawsuit – the political partisans who hope to regain control of Wareham’s government are threatening the Observer with a lawsuit because we printed details of another secret recall meeting, which will be hosted by Geoff Swett on July 17 at an undisclosed location. During this meeting, candidates for the recall will be chosen.
Of course, everything has proceeded exactly as we have reported. This recall effort has been secretly planned for months, long before the selectmen fired former town administrator John McAuliffe. We published a front-page column detailing their plan while McAuliffe was still employed by the town.
The Courier blogs lit up like a Christmas tree after we included information about the new secret meeting on our web site early Saturday morning. We decided to print the guest list for the secret meeting as well. We felt the public had a right to know exactly who is behind the attempt to overthrow the duly elected board of selectmen. The following list includes many former town officials and individuals involved in the former library trustee lawsuit against the town. Alan Slavin, Anne Eisenmenger & Patrick Lester, Anthony Scarsciotti, Bill Heaney, Bob Brady, Bob Gleason, Cara Pillsbury, Carl St. Pierre, Carol Coulture, Charles & Phyllis Decas, Charles Rowley, Cindy Parola, Claire Smith, Dan Cheever, Dan Goodchild, David Frederickson, David Shaw, Debbie Forand, Dick Kent, Dick Wheeler, Don MacIver, Don O’Leary, Earl Darlrymple, Fran & Dorothy Vicino, James Shepley, Jane Gleason, Janet W. Cooke, Jim Mellon, Jo Jeffries, John & Deb McGonnell, John & Patty Wydle, John C. Decas, John H & Sally A. Browning, John Nyman, John W & Pamela L. Smith, Judy Swett, Kenneth R. Ferreira, Kerry Mello, Linda Gay, Linda Jackson, Louise & Jim Hardiman, Lynne Burroughs, Mack & Cathy Phinney, Margaret Ishihara, Marjorie Teitelbaum, Mark Dean, Martha Maguire, Mary Crowley, Mary E. Cormier, Mary Lou Payton, Mary McFadden, Mary Nyman, Matt Pillsbury, Matthew & Jo-Ann Finn, Mel Lazarus, Michael R. Kennedy, Michelle Rose, Nancy J. Miller, Nancy McHale & Kathy Pappalardo, Naomi Arenberg, Nicholas Memoli, Pamela Jennings, Pamela Kiernan, Patricia A. Rumney, Patrick Lester, Paul & Diane Yarrington, Paula F. Mangum, Peter Baum, Peter Conroy, Priscilla Porter, Robert L. Brousseau, Ronald & Anglea Dunham, Sandee Fleet, Sandrea Besse, Sherbie Worthen.
Most of these folks attended the previous recall meeting, which was held in a public place (a church, no less) with members of the public invited to attend. They signed the guest list. They also signed the petition calling for selectmen to reconsider their vote to fire McAuliffe. When that petition was formally presented to the town, it, along with their names, became public record.
Well, our story has thrown the recall crew into a complete tizzy. Not only are they claiming we invaded this group’s privacy, but they’re also insisting we published the e-mail address of these folks on our web site as well, for the sole purpose of harassing them.
Now they’re threatening to sue us.
Shocking. First of all, I knew absolutely nothing about any e-mail addresses on the Observer web site until I read about it on the Courier web site Sunday afternoon. I immediately accessed our web site to see if somehow e-mail addresses had mistakenly been posted. I saw no evidence of any hyper-links and could find no way to access anybody’s e-mail address. Just to be certain, I decided to reflow the entire story back on our web site in the highly unlikely event that some hidden code was somehow embedded in the story. Again, I found no evidence to support the claims of these anonymous bloggers.
I was immediately suspicious because no one had contacted the Observer with these concerns. We had received no phone calls nor any e-mails claiming there was a problem. Still, I went on the Courier site and explained exactly the steps I had taken to investigate these serious claims. I even apologized if, for some unexplainable reason, e-mail addressed had temporarily appeared on the site. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone could access private e-mail addresses from our web site. I can’t see how that would be remotely possible. We have to create the hyper-links ourselves. There was nothing but normal Times New Roman type throughout the entire story. If anyone can access any private e-mail addresses from our web site, please let me know how you are doing it, because I’m absolutely baffled. Several readers have told us they visited the web site over the weekend and saw no such links.
Even though there is no law prohibiting the listing of e-mail addresses, I would never dream of publishing such a thing. Not only would I consider it unethical, it’s simply not good journalism because such information would have nothing to do with the story at hand. If it was my desire to pass along these e-mail addresses, I could simply send them out to the 5,000 e-mail addresses on our database. That would be a whole lot more subtle than putting them on our home page for everybody to see.
The partisans are now claiming that I am a monster who is trying to bring harm upon them. Actually, I’m starting to think it’s the other way around.
When I first heard about these claims, I was legitimately concerned that somehow we messed up and had accidentally published these e-mail addresses. But after spending a few minutes reading the vicious attacks now being levied against me and the Observer on the Courier site, I’m seriously questioning if these claims aren't just another partisan attempt to smear the Observer and bring forth a bogus lawsuit during the recall process. It's interesting to note that one of the people on the recall meeting guest list - Anne Eisenmenger - is also the director of audience development for Wicked Local, the host of the Courier's web site.
On Tuesday afternoon one of the Courier's bloggers claimed he saw e-mail addresses on the cached version of our web site on Google. We invite anyone reading this to see for themselves. The cached version is indeed an earlier version of the web site. There are no links to any personal e-mails anywhere on the site. Don't take our word for it. Check it yourself. That is Google's property. We have no ability to change it.
Nothing these people do would surprise me anymore. Clearly they are furious that another secret meeting has been exposed. They are equally furious that we’ve revealed the people behind all this. Now, apparently, they plan to create a bogus issue as justification for attacking us.
If for some inexplicable reason, e-mail addresses were temporarily accessible from our web site, I sincerely apologize. But if political partisans are just inventing these claims to damage our credibility prior to a recall effort, they should apologize to us.
No one should be harassed for taking a position on town issues. I will never endorse any such harassment by any of our readers. We published the recall meeting guest list as a matter of public interest, not as a means to harass anyone. When the stakes are as high as the future of Wareham, there is absolutely no reason for secrecy. There should be nothing to hide. Dear Friends,
We wish you a safe and happy holiday weekend. This year, the significance and lessons of Independence Day resonate not just in Washington, but right here at home in Wareham as well.
We write first to thank you for attending the June 27 Meeting at Fellowship Hall and for circulating and signing the petition requesting that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) rescind its unsubstantiated and poorly timed decision to fire our town administrator. In just three days time, nearly 1,300 residents signed that petition.
On July 1, citizens presented the signed petitions to the BOS. Regrettably, Board members chose to publicly dismiss the effort, to question the integrity of the signatures and disrespect the 1,300 residents who petitioned their government to be heard. One board member even went so far as to publicly proclaim that in his view the outcome of Mr. McAuliffe's upcoming public hearing was a foregone conclusion-- before the case is even heard.
Clearly, we must speak louder and with greater consequence. We will gather on Thursday July 17 at 7:00 p.m.to present a plan for recall of members of the current BOS and to introduce new candidates.
Please mark your calendar for this important milestone on the road to restoring government of the people, by the people and for the people of Wareham. Details and location to follow. Geoff Swett Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson Selectmen won't budge
on McAuliffe vote By Robert Slager
warehamobserver@aol.com As expected, the Board of Selectmen flatly denied a request from a group of residents to reconsider the termination of former town administrator John McAuliffe’s contract.
During a regularly scheduled selectmen meeting Tuesday night in a packed room at the Multi-Service Center, selectmen questioned the legitimacy of a petition presented by former state representative candidate Margaret Ishihara, which was allegedly signed by 1,288 residents. After several speakers spoke on both sides of the issue during the citizen’s participation portion of the meeting agenda, selectmen voted 4-0-1 to deny reconsideration of their June 18 vote, which terminated McAuliffe’s three-year contract. Chairman Jim Potter, who cast the lone vote not to fire McAuliffe, abstained from voting for reconsideration. Prior to Tuesday night’s vote, selectman Jane Donahue claimed that some of the petitioners provided false information in order to gain signatures. Donahue said she heard several reports that citizens were told the decision to fire McAuliffe will cost taxpayers $250,000. “That is absolutely untrue,” she said. Donahue also claimed that no one from the petition group had contacted her for information prior to collecting signatures. “I find that very disconcerting,” she said. Donahue said that while she respects those who exercised their rights to sign the petition, she added that there is no way to verify the legitimacy of many of the signatures. “I suspect the silent majority (of residents) will vote to uphold our decision and respect the board,” she said.
Many residents believe the petition calling for McAuliffe’s re-instatement is a precursor to a potential recall of members of the board of selectmen. Although that wasn’t stated explicitly during Tuesday’s meeting, the possibility hung over the entire meeting. Selectmen Bruce Sauvageau, a favorite target of political opponents of the board, said he has received a lot of feedback over the past few days. “A lot of people are disgusted by us and our behavior and others have told me we should stick to our guns,” he said. Sauvageau rejected claims that McAuliffe was treated unfairly by the board. “Mr. McAuliffe will get his due process rights (in a public hearing),” he said. "For me, I’m looking forward to it because the story hasn’t been told yet.” Sauvageau declined to elaborate, saying it wouldn’t be fair to bring up specifics without McAuliffe being present to defend himself. Sauvageau insisted that terminating McAuliffe’s contract was the right thing to do. “We did not have a good relationship with our town administrator,” he said. “We did this because this town elected us. We’re not cowards. Cowardice would have been to do nothing. It would have been easier to defend our hiring decision.” Sauvageau said it was time for the board to move forward. “McAuliffe isn’t coming back anytime soon,” he said. During citizen’s participation, Potter demanded the crowd maintain a civil tone. He allowed six residents to speak on the issue. Contrary to what the petition would suggest, four of the six speakers spoke in favor of the selectmen’s position. “To my utter amazement I’m quoting George W. Bush,” one resident said, recalling the president’s famous words that “I am the decider.” “When push comes to shove, you are the decider,” she said. The resident then said if McAuliffe had a problem with the direction of the board, he should have simply resigned. “We elected you to make decisions and run the town,” she told the board. “But when push comes to shove, you are the decider. (McAuliffe) should have fulfilled the policy. It was right and appropriate to send him packing.” Ishihara disagreed. She read from the petition, which quoted a portion of the preamble from the Massachusetts Constitution that suggests citizens have a right to change their government if that government isn’t serving their interests. “(McAuliffe) was a dedicated official who worked in the best interest of the community,” she said. Another resident said the board was elected to conduct itself in a professional and ethical manner. She said that did not happen by firing McAuliffe at 12:15 a.m. at the end of a selectmen meeting. “How can you justify the manner in which this happened?” she asked. “How can we trust the board when the conduct themselves in a sneaky and underhanded manner?” Selectmen later contended that point, saying they followed town charter and agenda protocol by waiting until the “other town business” portion of their meeting. Resident Ed Pacewicz came to the defense of the selectmen. “Underhanded and sneaky is not what comes to mind,” he said. “This occurred in a public meeting that was on television.” Pacewicz later commended the board for taking action before more damage could occur. “You hoped you had hired somebody who would carry out the vision of the board,” he said. “It’s not the TA’s vision. Anyone watching the selectmen on TV knows he had his own agenda. We didn’t elect McAuliffe. As an employer once said to me, ‘It’s my way or the highway.’” Jim Eubanks said the TA didn’t dance with the people who brought him to the prom. “All the TA’s promises went down the drain.” McAuliffe blamed for Somerset lawsuit By Robert Slager - Observer Dossier Sometimes karma, and timing, means everything.
An internal investigation commissioned by the town of Somerset has found that former Wareham town administrator John McAuliffe was responsible for failing to implement that town’s sexual harassment policy while serving as TA there, resulting in a $600,000 lawsuit against Somerset.
In a long-awaited report that was released this week, McAuliffe received the lion’s share of the blame for a $600,000 sexual harassment judgment against the town stemming from a case brought by a former employee of the town’s highway department.
McAuliffe served as town administrator in Somerset for nine years before resigning to take a similar position in Wareham last year. His contract was recently terminated by the Wareham Board of Selectmen by a 4-1 vote for repeatedly violating the terms of his contract.
During his tenure in Somerset, McAuliffe was accused of covering-up a sexual harassment claim made against the town by Kimberly Pelletier. Pelletier was awarded $1.2 million by a jury before the judge in the case reduced the damages to $600,000.
During the trial, Pelletier claimed other department workers inappropriately fondled her while she was working. She also said she was shown pornographic magazines and movies by other employees.
The report, which was prepared by attorney William L. Cloran of Newton Center at the town’s request, laid most of the blame on McAuliffe for failing to implement the town’s sexual harassment policy. The report states that McAuliffe did not follow proper statue when he failed to regularly distribute the sexual harassment policy to town employees. The report also states that the former town administrator failed to provide adequate training in sexual harassment policy to department heads.
The report also noted McAuliffe’s "insensitive" management style.
We find that very hard to believe.
After the judgment was rendered against the town, more than 400 Somerset residents signed a petition calling for McAuliffe’s termination. McAuliffe resigned his position shortly afterward to take the town administrator position in Wareham.
How do you suppose the political partisans will spin this one? Their bid to re-instate St. McAuliffe as town administrator has suddenly become a much tougher sell.
We’ve also had reports that the partisans visited local bars Saturday night in the hope of acquiring more signatures for thier petition to pressure selectmen into taking McAuliffe back. If anyone believes hitting up the bar crowd on a Saturday night reeks of desperation, raise your hand. These folks also reportedly told residents it will cost the town $250,000 unlesss McAuliffe is hired back. There is absolutely no evidence to support that figure. It was the same type of scare tactic these people usually employ.
At last night's selectmen meeting, Margaret Ishihara presented selectment a petition with 1,288 alleged signatures on it. It wouldn't have mattered if there were 20,000 signatures. Selectmen were never going to budge on this issue. They had every legal right to fire McAuliffe.
At least 1,400 registered voters need to sign another petition before a special recall election can even begin. The partisans will still need to win the election outright to gain a seat on the board, something they have failed to do the past two years. They have used the firing of McAuliffe as a rallying call, but they may find it difficult to gain wide-spread support for a man who was just blamed for a $600,000 lawsuit in Somerset. Even more damning was the statement that McAuliffe had an "insensitive" management style. The partisans in Wareham want everybody to believe this guy walks on water. The people in Somerset apparently feel a little differently.
The irony in all this is that Wareham partisans collected signatures to keep McAuliffe while Somerset residents circulated a petition to send him packing.
I do believe in karma. The long-awaited release of Somerset’s internal investigation is a devastating blow to those who have hitched their political ambitions to McAuliffe’s wagon. They can’t blame this one of the Wareham Board of Selectmen. A different town under different circumstances came to the exact same conclusion - McAuliffe’s warm smile masks something much colder inside.
He was recently quoted in another publication as saying he considered his first year in Wareham to be part of "the learning curve." Excuse me? Learning curve? For $100,000 a year, the learning curve ended after a few weeks. This is a guy with nine years experience as a town administrator. Learning curve? Give me a break.
McAuliffe knew exactly what he was doing from his very first day in Wareham. He was sitting on both sides of the fence in the hope of ensuring his professional survival. When selectmen began to see him for who he was, he took refuge with the other side. But as he most certainly learned this week, he can never completely outrun his past.
Observer crashes secret recall party
By Robert Slager
warehamobserver@aol.com
The Wareham Observer attended a secret recall meeting last Thursday night at the Congregational Church in Wareham and discovered the steps the "concerned citizens group" planned on taking to resume control of town government.
Led by former school committee chairman Geoff Swett, who was voted out of office in April, the meeting lasted more than 90 minutes and featured a who’s-who of political partisans, including Bill Heaney, John C. Decas, Bob Brady, Carl St. Pierre, Nan Miller, Claire Smith, Patricia Rumney, Frank DeFelice, and nearly every member of the former board of library trustees.
The group then revealed its plan to try to gather 2,000 signatures on a petition asking selectmen to reconsider their vote to fire former town administrator John McAuliffe.
Selectmen Chairman Jim Potter, the only member of the board to cast a dissenting vote two weeks ago on terminating McAuliffe’s contract, was met by thunderous applause after arriving mid-way through the meeting. Potter then advised audience members that if they hope to pressure the other four selectmen into rescinding their votes on McAuliffe, they need to move quickly. He suggested the group attend the July 15 selectmen’s meeting.
Some in the crowd suggested doing it sooner, as early as July 1. The petition was ultimately presented to selectmen on Tuesday. The board then voted 4-0-0 against reconsideration. Potter abstained.
The recall rally, which was organized by Smith, was not publicized in the media. The Observer learned of it last Wednesday.
During the festivities, the group discussed plans to assign political supporters to several well-populated areas in Wareham this past weekend in the hope of gathering 2,000 signatures. A number of supporters volunteered to go door-to-door to assist in the cause.
Members of the group said if they were unable to sway selectmen with they petition, they will meet again to discuss support for an all-out recall.
Approximately 150 residents in attendance Thursday night signed the petition, which was created by Margaret Ishihara. Ishihara, a former candidate for state representative, is an attorney who has represented A.D. Makepeace in matters dealing with the town. She has battled the board of selectmen since losing her special municipal employee status last year. The selectmen voted to do away with a long-standing policy of allowing certain town officials to keep their position even when a conflict-of-interest arises.
McAuliffe, who was hired unanimously by selectmen last year, had his contract terminated by a 4-1 vote two weeks ago. Several reasons were cited in a long resolution presented by Brenda Eckstrom during the June 17 selectmen’s meeting, including McAuliffe’s refusal to implement a $300,000 cut in the controversial sewer administrative fee. Eckstrom also cited what she believes are several other breaches of contract by McAuliffe, including his refusal to move to Wareham, not posting the appropriate performance bond, and not acting on a myriad of other requests made by selectmen.
McAuliffe has indicated that he will pursue his right to a public hearing, which is allowed under a home rule petition of the Town Charter. A date has not yet been set.
St. Pierre, the former chairman of the Finance Committee, recently took out preliminary recall papers against Ecktrom, Jane Donahue, Bruce Sauvageau and John Cronan. Potter was not included. To formally begin the recall process, St. Pierre needs only 25 signatures on each paper for each specific candidate. Once he turns those in, 10 percent of Wareham’s registered voters would need to sign the actual recall petition in a 10-day period. That would be around 1,400 signatures, according to Town Clerk Mary Ann Silva. Then a special election would be held, in which candidates could directly challenge those being targeted for recall. A majority vote would be needed to remove any current selectmen.
Last Thursday’s meeting appeared to be an attempt to gauge the possibility of collecting the necessary 1,400 signatures. The two candidates who challenged for a seat on the board in April – Rumney and DeFelice - received fewer votes than that combined.
Smith, who has unsuccessfully pushed for the construction of a new police station, began the evening by saying she had attended the June 17 selectman meeting but left around 11:15 p.m. to watch the end of the Celtics game. She said she was stunned when she discovered the selectmen meeting was still being broadcast past midnight on local cable access television.
"I watched in disbelief," she said. "During the past week there seemed to be pockets of people discussing the matter. I just feel compelled that we need to bring the community together on this. I didn’t know if there would be two, five or 50 people here. We needed to get a sense of the community."
Smith said that while she respects the fact that selectmen are an elected board, "If we’re not happy about their decisions we need to let them know about it."
Swett, who has pushed for an operational override of the town budget in the past, soon took over. He offered a detailed rebuttal to Eckstrom’s resolution against McAuliffe.
"The first thing to understand is that (the resolution) appears to be a very intimidating document, but actually I’m quite disappointed that there isn’t much here," he said.
Swett claimed that many of the charges made against McAuliffe are invalid and actually indict the selectmen for interfering in the day-to-day operation of the town, which Swett said is the responsibility of the town administrator. Swett primarily targeted the issue of the sewer administration fee (a surcharge levied against sewer users for work the town government allegedly does on their behalf). Selectmen believe the figure has been greatly inflated through the years as a means to help balance the town budget.
"The Board of Selectmen felt they hired a town administrator and that he would lower the administration fee," Swett said. "But only Town Meeting has the authority to do that. The Board of Selectmen does not have the authority to do that. Who has that authority? We do."
Swett said the sewer administration fee is part of the town budget, which is the responsibility of the town administrator, working in conjunction with the Finance Committee. The Town Charter isn’t clear on that issue, however. Selectmen also serve as sewer commissioners, and it’s within their authority as such to set sewer fees.
Swett then claimed selectmen fired McAuliffe as punishment for failing to carry out their will at Town Meeting. His words were met with applause.
Swett dismissed several other aspects of Eckstrom’s resolution. He claimed it’s understandable that McAuliffe wouldn’t want to move to Wareham after tension started emerging between the TA and selectmen. Swett said several other points in the resolution were "non-events that don’t belong in a termination notice."
Smith took another turn at the microphone, claiming that the audience was "a very diverse group; not a small group with an agenda."
The issue of the Town Charter then took center stage. A discussion ensued over the intention of the charter when it was first written in the 1970s. A few audience members who served on the initial Town Charter committee said they wanted to craft a document that would limit the power of the board of selectmen and increase the authority of the town administrator.
A charter review will be held in 2009.
Decas, a well-known political activist who chose to sit right beside this reporter during the meeting and offer a running commentary about the Observer, accurately predicted the current board of selectmen would not be swayed by any petition calling for the re-appointment of McAuliffe. He voiced concern about the upcoming charter review and advised the audience to focus on that.
"In my opinion, selectmen really want to change the charter," he said. "Who will be on that charter committee? You’re up against a hard-core attitude. (Selectmen) think they’re unbeatable. They have the Observer as an enabler to trash anybody who doesn’t agree with them."
Decas said that unless there is tremendous support for a recall, it would be more prudent to prepare immediately for next year’s election.
Potter closed the show by saying "I just want to point out that this is a very valid, emotional issue."
Then he added "We only have a specific time frame to do this."
|
|
|
5 Day Forecast -
|
High/Low
|
Precip. % |
Observer newspaper ads now reach 10,000 readers!
| | |
| |
Onset Fire District admits accounting mess
By Pat MacLeod Correspondent The Onset Fire District has hired an outside accountant following an audit that revealed the District’s accounting practices have been badly flawed the past several years.
Onset Prudential Committee Chairman Bob Maxim has acknowledged that the District’s books have not been reconciled for several years.
"The Onset Water District’s free cash hasn’t been certified for three years," Maxim said. "I take responsibility for waiting too long to resolve the problem. It was poor judgment on my part."
In order to have a healthy "free cash" balance, the District would have to carefully budget both revenues and expenditures, which clearly has not taken place.
According to Tony Rassias of the Department of Revenue, "the tax rate can be set by the District as long as "free cash" has been appropriated. However, if the tax rate is reduced because of that appropriation and "free cash" is less than was anticipated when it’s certified, it would be considered a "defective vote" of the Prudential Committee. In that case, taxpayers (a minimum of 10) could file a lawsuit against the District.
In 2005 the District changed the Clerk/Treasurer position from elected to appointed. Upon doing so the Prudential Committee hired Lin Gay, who is not a bookkeeper, as clerk/treasurer to monitor the District’s finances.
"We decided to hire within the District, although probably it wasn’t the best thing," Maxim said.
Maxim qualifying his statement by adding that Gay was familiar with the District. Gay had worked as a fireman for many years and served as the District’s moderator for 20 years. He also worked as assistant clerk/treasurer for six to eight months prior to being hired.
Gay’s 2008 salary is $54,631.00. His administrative assistant, Mary McCoy, earns $37,230.00. In addition, the District paid the Town of Wareham $23,900 to provide bookkeeping and clerical services to the District.
Just a few months ago Douglas Leatham & Associates performed an audit of the District’s 2007 financial records and found that "many of the general ledger account balances of the District did not agree with supporting documentation. Cash account balances in the general ledger did not agree with the reconciled bank statement balances. Accounts receivable in the general ledger, including property taxes receivable and water fees receivable, did not agree with the supporting detail records."
The auditor said the District lacks staff with appropriate accounting training and recommended the District either hire a staff accountant or contract with an outside accountant to review quarterly reports and make necessary adjustments to the general ledger on an ongoing basis.
Thursday’s Prudential Committee meeting lasted only three minutes due to a lack of quorum. Marcine Fernandes was the only member of the committee to attend. But there was a guest there, and the name Bruce Almeida was listed on the agenda under "new business." However, no one in the room would divulge any information about Almeida or why he was listed on the agenda.
When asked, Fernandes acknowledged that Almeida is an accountant. However, she avoided answering whether he had been hired to reconcile the District’s ledgers.
"You’ve caught me off-guard," Fernandes said, before referring questions to Almeida. Almeida and Gay, who was also present, declined to comment.
Maxim apologized for that on Friday.
"Almeida is a certified public accountant from New Bedford, and the Prudential Committee hired him a few weeks ago at a special meeting to reconcile the books," Maxim said.
On June 26, Bruce Almeida billed the District $11,800 for his services to the district since May 29, when he was hired.
Gay plans to retire in December of this year, and, according to Maxim, "It’s likely the Prudential Committee will seek applicants for the position, outside the District."
If Gay remains as clerk/treasurer until December, he will receive a full pension from the District, which includes lifetime benefits. Wareham track coach arrested
Tom Gabriel Jr., a track coach at Wareham High School, has been charged with multiple crimes in connection with an armed home invasion and attempted robbery Friday in Dartmouth.
Gabriel allegedly entered a home through and unlocked back door around 7 p.m. Friday, brandishing a gun and demanding money. Police say he was wearing a mask. According to a resident of the home, the suspect held a gun to his head and threatened to kill him. The suspect reportedly fled after hearing somebody else in the house.
According to Dartmouth police, Gabriel was located shortly after near the home. The officers reportedly found a loaded semi-automatic gun in his pocket.
Gabriel was charged with threat to commit murder, breaking and entering while arms, home invasion, armed assault in a dwelling, and attempt to commit a crime (robbery).
| |
