| Walls close in on Standard-Times ROBERT SLAGER - IN THIS CORNER
The increasingly bizarre saga over at the Standard-Times continues to grow more intriguing by the day.
On Friday senior correspondent Steve Urbon, who had written a series of absurd stories about the town government computer audit over the past week, sent me a series of unsolicited e-mails to my private e-mail account (which is not publicly known). Urbon’s first e-mail read “I want you to know that I have a recording of that encounter with (selectman Bruce) Sauvageau. I also want you to be careful of what you say about me, because I can be libeled. I am keeping track.” He subsequently told me he was a senior staff writer (he’s listed as a correspondent on the web site) and suggested I was a homosexual who had performed a sex act on Sauvageau.
It now appears that Urbon, who says he has worked for the Standard-Times for 29 years, is in heap of trouble.
Among Urbon’s hit pieces last week was an account of a verbal altercation he had with Sauvageau in the parking lot of Town Hall. According to Urbon’s story “Sauvageau flew into a rage for several minutes in the Town Hall parking lot, accusing the reporter of being a “hit man,” an “asshole” and a “punk,” and shouting that his tax problems have nothing to do with the Board of Selectmen.”
After receiving the e-mails I contacted Sauvageau to ask if Urbon had, in fact, recorded the conversation and if Urbon had asked for permission. Sauvageau nearly flipped. He said he never saw a tape recorder, was unaware he was being recorded, and that Urbon completely distorted what actually happened. According to Sauvageau, Urbon confronted him before the selectmen’s meeting, calling him a disgrace and demanding his resignation. Sauvageau admits to raising his voice in response, but insisted Urbon instigated the confrontation.
I sent a subsequent e-mail to Urbon which read, in part “In a previous e-mail you noted that you recorded your conversation with Sauvageau in the parking lot. Sauvageau is claiming that he never authorized the recording of that conversation. If that’s the case, did you illegal tape your discussion with him? Can you please provide evidence that he did, in fact, give you permission to record the conversation? If this conversation took place in the parking lot, authorization would be necessary, according to my attorney. Please elaborate on what actually happened. Thank you.”
Urbon responded by saying “Thanks for your inquiry. I was out of the office Friday and am just now picking up my emails. I don’t know what to think. Do you now believe what I tell you? Maybe you shouldn’t, you know.”
Uncertain what he meant, I sent this follow-up question: “I’m not sure I understand. There are really only three answers to the question. Either Sauvageau lied about not giving you permission to record him and you have the evidence to prove it, you recorded him without his permission, or you lied to me when you said you recorded the conversation in an attempt to harass and intimidate me into not questioning your version of events. Which is it?”
Urbon responded by writing “Thanks but no thanks.”
Urbon now finds himself in a very precarious position. If he did, in fact, record Sauvageau without permission, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 272, Section 99 states “(any person who) willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment.”
As you can see, this is a very serious charge. Contrary to what some believe, reporters are afforded no greater rights that any other citizen. Law enforcement officers may allow a reporter past a police line as a courtesy, but journalists have no greater legal access to information than anyone else. Nor are journalists immune from prosecution for violating a person’s civil rights.
There are few occasions in which a person can record a conversation without the permission of the speaker. Law enforcement officers can get court orders. Public or government meetings are also exempt. But in nearly all other cases in Massachusetts, consent is required.
I seriously doubt Sauvageau is lying to me. He was so angry about what he described as “hit pieces” printed by Urbon that he told me he would never speak to him again, and that was before their confrontation outside of Town Hall. If Urbon has Sauvageau on tape giving permission to be recorded, why would he simply not say so and provide the evidence? That way he could really crush Sauvageau by proving the selectman to be a liar.
There are only two plausible explanations. Either he recorded Sauvageau illegally or he lied about it in an e-mail to me while threatening me with litigation. If he lied to me, that’s outright harassment and it’s actionable in court. If he did so to try to cover up what really happened in his confrontation with Sauvageau, the Standard-Times should fire him immediately. His credibility will be gone. Remember, he also told me he was a staff reporter in an e-mail when the Standard-Times web site lists him as a correspondent. That’s potentially two outright lies sent by e-mail and stored on disk.
If Urbon doesn’t have a recording, things could get even worse. He could potentially be facing a massive defamation lawsuit from Sauvageau. If Urbon has no proof to support his version of what happened he’s in big trouble. Sauvageau says he has witnesses that heard Urbon screaming in the parking lot. Later that night, Sauvageau criticized the reporting of the Standard-Times in a televised meeting. It would appear Urbon had motive to write a hit piece the next day.
How long will the Standard-Times stand by Urbon as that paper’s credibility melts away? Stay tuned.
Warehamgate
Selectmen accuse Wareham Community TV
of "bugging" executive session meeting
By Robert Slager
warehamobserver@aol.com
Selectmen Bruce Sauvageau and John Cronan are accusing Wareham Community Television of illegally “bugging” an executive session meeting Tuesday evening and streaming it live over the Internet.
“Was this on purpose? It absolutely was on purpose,” Sauvageau said. “I’ve been on this board for seven years and nothing like this has ever happened before.”
Sauvageau then said he would demand an immediate investigation by Wareham Community Television.
“This is a gross violation of the confidentially of executive session,” he said. “I’m absolutely appalled.”
Cronan agreed.
“The name is spelled C-r-o-n-a-n, and I absolutely believe this was done intentionally,” he said. “There was no way this was an accident.”
Selectmen were unaware their discussion about the on-going computer audit was being broadcast live over the Internet until blogger Bill Whitehouse interrupted last night’s regularly scheduled meeting. Whitehouse asked Cronan to elaborate on comments he had made during executive session in which the selectman allegedly suggested the computer audit include the pollution control facility and municipal maintenance.
Sauvageau, who serves as chairman of the board, told Whitehouse to stop interrupting the meeting. Whitehouse left shortly afterward.
Later on his fake Wareham Observer web site, he claimed to have heard the entire executive session. Sauvageau and Cronan denied several of Whitehouse’s assertions, including Whitehouse’s claim that selectmen are targeting hate bloggers.
“We mentioned the bloggers in passing,” Sauvageau said. “They are not, nor have they ever been, the primary target of the investigation.”
Sauvageau declined to add any further details on the investigation, citing executive session confidentiality.
On Tuesday morning, Wareham Police Chief Thomas Joyce stepped down from his position (effective June 13), calling it a retirement. He denied his decision had anything to do with the computer audit. However, several police sources have told the Observer that wide-spread pornography had been found on the police department’s computer system (see story below).
Whitehouse sat next to Joyce during Wareham's recent town meeting.
The Observer did not hear the audio stream of the executive session, nor would we share confidential information obtained illegally from such an unauthorized broadcast.
Following the regularly scheduled selectmen's meeting, a Wareham Community Television technician who had operated the equipment for much of the evening declined to comment, saying only that he was "the low man on the totem pole." He identified himself as "Chris" and suggested any further questions be directed to his boss Steve Ruiz.
Jay Heard, director of Wareham Community Television, said he believes the broadcast was an accident.
“I can only tell you what I heard happened from the various web sits and from my technicians who set up for Board of Selectmen’s meeting,” Heard said. “Part of that set-up involved adjusting the microphone and audio. The technicians arrived early to set up before the executive session meeting, which began at 6 p.m., so they could make the leap from the non-broadcast portion to the going on-line with normal BOS meeting as soon as possible. What happened was somebody inadvertently left the microphones on.”
“I’m absolutely sure this was not an intentional act,” he said. “The audio was left off unintentionally. I know the people who work for me.”
When asked how he could be certain of what happened when he wasn’t present at the meeting, Heard responded by saying, “In reality I don’t know what happened. It’s something I believe.”
Heard admitted that usually only one computer technician is necessary to broadcast a selectmen meeting, saying it’s usually a “one-man job.” A second technician – Ruiz – assisted in the set up Tuesday night.
Last summer, Ruiz provided audio assistance during a secret recall meeting held by opponents of the Board of Selectmen at a local church. The Observer attended the meeting uninvited.
During the regularly scheduled portion of the selectmen’s meeting, Sauvageau said he had received many phone calls from residents regarding the computer audit.
“This audit is a lawful audit,” he said. “The private sector does this all the time.”
Sauvageau then took the Standard-Times newspaper to task for what he called “baseless” stories written over the past week regarding the audit. He said the town is not looking for private data from the assessor’s office and brushed aside claims that the computer audit team told library employees selectmen were looking for their own names on library computers.
“The technicians signed a confidentiality agreement,” Sauvageau said. “I know for a fact they would not make those kinds of statements. It’s ludicrous."
Following the meeting, Sauvageau said a criminal investigation should ensue over the illegal broadcast of the executive session meeting. “I have no doubt in my mind that this was done intentionally,” he said.
On Wednesday morning, Sauvageau said Town Counsel is drafting a letter to be sent to the Plymouth Country District Attorney's Office as well as one to be sent to Wareham Community Television, requesting a full investigation.
Police chief steps down
By Robert Slager
warehamobserver@aol.com Embattled Police Chief Thomas Joyce announced his “retirement” to his staff Tuesday morning while a computer audit of all town-owned computers entered its second week.
Joyce’s “retirement” will be effective June 13.
The police chief recently served a five-day suspension levied by the interim town administrator, reportedly for insubordination. Joyce’s resignation comes on the heels of the audit, which reportedly is focused on the police department.
The Observer received the following fax from Interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet this afternoon:
“It is with much sadness that I have accepted Chief Thomas A. Joyce’s Letter of Retirement effective June 13, 2009. During my short tenure in Wareham I have established an outstanding working relationship with Chief Joyce and respect him for his integrity, ethics, professionalism and friendship. Chief Joyce has had a distinguished career with the Town of Wareham over the last 35 years. Beginning his career in June of 1976 as a Special Police Officer, he was appointed full time Patrolman in May of 1979, Sergeant in 1984, Lieutenant in 1988, and to his current position of Chief effective July 1, 1989.
“During his tenure as Chief, Chief Joyce has developed a strong department that is able to deal with many of the diverse issues facing the community. This has occurred through three down turns in the economy, budget reductions, and staff reductions. Even through these difficult times, Chief Joyce has maintained his focus, as always, on providing the Public Safety required and expected by the residents of Wareham.
“I thank Chief Joyce for his service to the Town of Wareham and wish him well in his retirement.”
Joyce is currently within six months of receiving 80 percent of the maximum amount of his retirement benefits. Joyce will reportedly continue working for the Onset Fire Department, where he is currently a lieutenant.
According to a local business owner, several Wareham officers told him that the computer audit revealed wide-spread pornography on police department computers. A police source has confirmed that claim. When contacted by phone on Tuesday, selectmen Bruce Sauvageau and Brenda Eckstrom each declined to discuss the findings of the investigation, which they called on-going.
The Observer has learned that the computer audit will reveal other abuses of police computers as well. We have agreed to allow the investigation to be completed before reporting further on that matter.
On Friday, May 22, Sanguinet, along with an outside computer consulting firm and Town Counsel Kopelman & Paige, began a town-wide audit of town-owned computer systems, copying each individual hard drive. Joyce’s suspension had ended the day before and he was taking a vacation day when the audit team arrived. According to police sources, he quickly arrived at the station in street clothes to object.
An e-mail sent to Joyce as well as to Lt. Irving Wallace this morning received no immediate reply. Joyce was quoted in another publication claiming his decision was unrelated to the town’s computer audit.
According to one officer, Joyce saw the writing on the wall.
“There are a lot of nervous people in the department right now,” the officer said. “This audit is going to make some people in the department look really bad. But some of us are frustrated that the chief is taking the easy way out and not standing by the department as a whole.”
Joyce had come under repeated criticism over the past few years from selectmen as well as residents of both Onset and Wareham. A group of Onset residents organized for meetings after Joyce eliminated summer bikes patrols in 2007. Joyce claimed the decision was motivated by budget concerns, but money was located in the police department budget a few months later. Last year Onset residents met again over allegations of excessive force and racial profiling of Cape Verdeans.
According to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, three complaints have been filed against Joyce over the past four years by his officers.
Last fall Joyce sued the Wareham Observer and publisher Robert Slager, claiming that three stories written about him were defamatory. In April, a Plymouth Superior Court judge dismissed Joyce’s lawsuit. In his ruling, the judge found reasonable factual support for everything the Observer had written.
ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE
ROBERT SLAGER - IN THIS CORNER
The war has officially begun.
For the past three years this beautiful community has seen a seismic shift in its political landscape. Sewer users are no longer asked to balance the town budget so the library could receive twice the funding necessary for state certification. No longer are salaries of department heads soaring out of control. No longer are the decisions being made by a small group of spiteful, vindictive wealthy people who filled their empty hearts with the poison of power.
Over the past three years, the majority of voters have opened their eyes to new possibilities. They have rejected the old way. They are not interested in voting blocks, developers or secret recall meetings. They have seen all that Wareham could be and have entrusted their vision to five volunteer selectmen.
But the bitter, angry underbelly of Wareham has not made that easy. There are still those who believe power is a birthright. They are not interested in providing housing for the elderly or shelter for the homeless. Their world cannot be in balance unless they can manipulate everything and everyone around them.
Two weeks ago selectmen asked Interim Town Administrator John Sanguinet to commence an audit of all town-owned computers. State law allows selectmen to investigate any other town department, and in their stated quest to clean up town government selectmen have taken full advantage of their legal authority to do just that.
In the private sector, no one would have batted an eye over such an audit. Employers have every right to know what their employees are doing on company time. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy regarding company computers. Many employees in the corporate world have lost their jobs for abusing their computer privileges.
But when Sanguinet, Town Counsel and an outside computer consulting firm began copying hard drives of town-owned computers two weeks ago, the ensuing outcry from the power elite was nothing short of shocking.
Of course, the logical question to ask is if nobody has anything to hide, why is there so much panic? It’s because there is something to hide. There has always been something to hide.
This past week has been absolutely dizzying. On Tuesday, Wareham Police Chief Thomas Joyce told his department he would be stepping down. He claims he is retiring. Others in his department have told the Observer that wide-spread pornography is about to be confirmed on many police computers. Police sources also believe that recently fired police officer Donald Bliss, who allegedly ran a side-business using police equipment, will soon have some company. Apparently there is time for moonlighting while on duty at the police station.
The outright panic of the library lobby to this audit came as little surprise. These people went so far as to call their own attorney and claim the computers were donated and therefore private. That may be the most absurd argument ever uttered in Wareham.
On Tuesday night, an executive session of the Board of Selectmen (during which the board discussed the audit in depth) was illegally streamed live over the Internet as the hate bloggers listened in, an absolutely shocking violation of confidentiality. Selectmen Bruce Sauvageau and John Cronan are convinced it was intentional.
The ugliness was only beginning. In Thursday’s edition of the Standard-Times a reporter who had a verbal confrontation with Sauvageau in the parking lot of Town Hall on Tuesday wrote a story stating that Sauvageau owed $181,000 in back taxes. The writer said Sauvageau refused to explain the situation. Sauvageau said the tax issue had nothing to do with his roles as a selectman.
So the Standard-Times ran this story on the top of the front page. It was their lead story.
What the Standard-Times didn’t mention is that this story is seven years old. When Sauvageau sold his pizza business he became embroiled in a dispute with the IRS over his claim that the sale represented a capital gain. The battle has been dragging through the system for years now. The only recent news on this came 15 months ago when the IRS put a lien on his wife’s home. Absolutely nothing of note has happened since. Most of the charges are penalties and interest that could be overturned in court.
The hate bloggers have been trying to get the media to “investigate” this story for at least two years. Until now, both the Courier and the Observer recognized this tax dispute for what it was – a private matter that had no bearing on Sauvageau’s ability to serve as an elected volunteer official. Sauvageau has every legal right to dispute a personal tax bill. Selectmen don’t give up their constitutional rights as citizens once they are elected into office.
But the Standard-Times decided that this was front-page news the day after the police chief stepped down and a confidential selectmen meeting was illegally broadcast to the eager computers of the hate bloggers.
From this perspective, the Standard-Times story was nothing more than a disgraceful smear job. The smear continued with another laughable column by Editor Bob Unger, who is apparently more content to live on Fantasy Island than in doing any actual research to back up his claims. The pandering he does to the money brokers in Wareham is enough to make a person sick (for more on the Standard-Times fiasco, click the In This Corner page).
In the terror and panic over this computer audit the power elite, with the help of their trusted media friends, have begun an all-out smear campaign against their perceived adversaries in order to deflect attention away from the investigation. They understand how politically damaging it would be for their side if the selectmen are credited with cleaning up town government. The power elite are acting out of pure desperation now, as are their media lapdogs. And apparently there is no depth to which they will not sink.
But they will ultimately lose. No matter how much shameless propaganda they spread it will all be washed away by a relentless river of truth.
Observer web site redesign almost completed
The web sites for the Wareham and Tri-Town Observer will launch the first stage of its design early next week.
In conjuncture with the redesign, which will include merging the web sites into one central location, the site will be available by subscription only.
Both the Wareham and Tri-Town Observer newspapers will continue to publish as usual.
Observer Media, the owner of both publications and their respective web sites, reluctantly made the difficult decision to begin charging for the web site after weeks of discussions.
“The unfortunate reality is that newspapers are suffering during this prolonged economic slump,” said Robert Slager, publisher and president of Observer Media. “Print costs continue to rise. Consumer spending is down, which adversely affects advertising revenue. Newspapers all across the country are suffering massive layoffs or are closing their doors outright. We’re a small company. We operate a very tight financial ship. If we make any further cuts, the quality of our papers will suffer. We don’t want that to happen.”
There will be many new features right away. Articles and photos will be archived now, and a new on-line poll will be offered every few days.
In the coming weeks, several new features will be added as well, including moderated community forums, video capability, a friends networking module, and a whole lot more.
Observer Media began charging for the Wareham Observer last November (the smaller Tri-Town Observer remains free). While the Wareham Observer retained more than half of its print readership after charging for the paper, many flocked to the free web site, which contained much of the content of the paid publication.
The Wareham Observer web site has averaged nearly 8,200 hits per week over the past month.
“Newspaper owners throughout the country are beginning to realize they are cannibalizing their paid print publications by offering the same content for free on-line,” Slager said. “There is a big move underway to begin charging for web site access. The New York Times has already begun to do so. There will come a point in the near future where all paid newspaper web sites will be by subscription only. It is an unfortunate sign of the times.”
There will be several cost options for the web site, based on frequency of visits. Observer Media has hired a consultant to assist in the necessary programming to ensure the security of credit card processing as well as establishing a system of linking passwords to individual subscribers in order to prevent passwords from being shared.
The company is considering working through PayPal but continues to explore all options. A final decision regarding payment processing will be made over the next few days.
Observer Media is very exited about the prospect of allowing Wareham residents to join polite and responsible debate over town issues in the community forums.
“Wareham is well aware of the viciousness of anonymous hate bloggers,” Slager said. “We would like to explore a way where subscribers can politely share their thoughts and viewpoints without the fear of being slandered in return.”
Slager said the chat room will not be a haven for anonymous hatebloggers.
“Although subscribers would be able to choose screen names of their own, this site will be governed through strict terms of use,” he said. “Every comment will be viewed before being published. We’re not interested in moderating anyone’s viewpoint, but personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated. Violators of the terms of service will have their chat room privileges revoked.”
Slager said Wareham needs this kind of inter-active forum.
“People should have a chance to make their voices heard,” he said. “Right now there is no on-line forum in Wareham where respectful debate can occur in a safe and polite environment. We would like to provide that for our subscribers.”
Further details regarding on-line subscriptions will be available at www.thewarehamobserver.com in the coming days.
  |
|
