Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Understanding what REALLY happened & why re: termination of the Town Administrator

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Understanding what REALLY happened & why re: termination of the Town Administrator

    I realize that nearly all of the posters here are firmly entrenched in their belief that the 3 Selectmen broke the Open Meeting Law and that what they did was tantamount to treason, however, I'm sure there are also those with an open mind who actually want to hear a bit more of the full story and who might have a sincere interest in learning why this happened, I would encourage people to visit http://www.waylandtransparency.com/perspectives.php .

    In addition to the ideas expressed on that page, there are two links at the bottom that will help provide some additional understanding - one to Tony Boschetto's letter to the Crier and the other to a WVN Newsletter on the topic.

    Bottom line, it's not what you've been hearing. There is MUCH more to the story.
    Last edited by John Flaherty; 09-08-2013 at 12:58 PM. Reason: Clarification
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    117

    Default

    John - in the recent school committee meeting you asked Jim Powers, the senior partner in the audit firm that was retained to perform a defined procedure review of specific school accounts, to look into who had opened certain bank accounts 20 to 30 years ago by people who are not now employed by the schools. Jim Powers responded that was no way you could pay him enough to do that research. What did you hope to do if you learned the names of the people who opened the account? Public caning? Stockades in the town center? Unlimited persecution by waylandtransparency.com?

    The video of you asking multiple times (although you do your best to not identify yourself including when Jim Powers asks you your name and you respond with either John or Sean and no last name) is online here http://waycamtv.pegcentral.com/playe...3147ba7c7f4e79 and the relevant section is at 2:16.45 to 2:21.40.

    Commented as a citizen of Wayland not as a member of the audit committee.
    Last edited by BTDowns; 09-08-2013 at 08:36 PM. Reason: To clarify that I am speaking as a member of the public not as a member of the audit committee

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BTDowns View Post
    the relevant section is at 2:16.45 to 2:21.40.
    Relevant to what, Ben?
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    John, you titled this thread "Understanding what REALLY happened & why re: termination of the Town Administrator."

    One of two things "really happened:"

    1. Some subset of the BOS--and more precisely, some subset of Selectmen Leard, Boschetto, and Collins (the "BO3")--discussed the termination of the Town Administrator outside of public meeting.

    2. The BO3 terminated the TA without (substantive) discussion.

    I have know of no evidence that suggests that the first option happened. That's good, I guess, since option one is far more egregious than option 2 (which, we know, "really happened" as seen on the damning video (transcript here).

    Even if option 2 is all that happened, it was a failure nonetheless ... a failure of process and failure to lead with appropriate respect, duty to constituency, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default

    The bottom line, is that although people can write about "all the things they can't say" , the truth is all one has to do is view an unaltered segment of the video to see what transpired. Plain and simple, although the selectman have the right to fire the TA, it was handled in an unprofessional, devious way. WATCH the video, plain and simple. I can't imagine the BO3 can be proud of how they acted when watch it.


    Kathy Cleaver

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    By all means - watch the video.
    The part about the termination begins at 27:20, though it is also referrred to at the beginning of the meeting, when Mr. Correia states that the Chair did not respond to his email requests as to what this is about. Mr. Leard says that in fact he did reply by text. This exchange occurs at 2:02. Correia's anger is curious. Would he get that worked up if the item was about, say, streetlights? He seems to already know what's about to happen. Which suggests that this was in fact NOT a surprise at all.

    But then, don't stop there. Read up on it to try to understand why. A good place to start is here:
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/perspectives.php

    Because there's more to this story than the 3 Selectmen are allowed to say. When you understand, your anger will quickly dissipate. I promise. And if you truly understand, you'll actually thank them.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    John, you titled this thread "Understanding what REALLY happened & why re: termination of the Town Administrator."

    One of two things "really happened:"

    1. Some subset of the BOS--and more precisely, some subset of Selectmen Leard, Boschetto, and Collins (the "BO3")--discussed the termination of the Town Administrator outside of public meeting.

    2. The BO3 terminated the TA without (substantive) discussion.
    Jeff, would it be a violation of the Open Meeting Law for two Selectmen to discuss termination of the Town Administrator outside of a public meeting?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DHBernstein View Post
    Jeff, would it be a violation of the Open Meeting Law for two Selectmen to discuss termination of the Town Administrator outside of a public meeting?
    According to the Open Meeting Law, no*. According to the Attorney General, perhaps yes**.

    Here are some key excerpts from the OML itself, which is contained in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A, Sections 18-25 (emphasis added).

    Quote Originally Posted by OML
    SECTION 18 - DEFINITIONS
    "Public body", a multiple-member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within the executive or legislative branch or within any county, district, city, region or town, however created, elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, established to serve a public purpose; ...

    "Quorum", a simple majority of the members of the public body, unless otherwise provided in a general or special law, executive order or other authorizing provision. [In the case of the 5-member Board of Selectmen and the 5-member School Committee, a quorum is obviously 3 members.]

    "Deliberation", an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction; ...

    SECTION 20
    (a) Except as provided in section 21, all meetings of a public body shall be open to the public [Section 21 is not relevant here].

    SECTION 25
    (b) The attorney general shall have the authority to interpret the open meeting law and to issue written letter rulings or advisory opinions according to rules established under this section.
    * Okay, "nearly no." Section 25(b) gives the Attorney General the right to pretty much alter the legislation as it sees fit. In my opinion, this is a huge giveaway of power by the legislature. That said, they apparently have indeed given that power away.

    ** In 2009 or so (in advance of a major change to the OML that went into effect in 2010), I recall seeing a communication from either the Middlesex District Attorney, the Attorney General, or a law firm providing guidance to boards to the effect that an email communication between non-quorum members of a board (e.g., 2 of 5) was not permitted because that email might end up being forwarded to other members such that a quorum is reached. However, I cannot find any record of this communication.

    All of that said, nothing in the OML explicitly forbids 2 members of a 5 member board (as long as they are not a sub-committee) from privately discussing a matter before the board.

    In the case of the hasty, ill-considered, and ill-advised Boschetto-Laird-Collins ("BO3") ambush of the Town Administrator, all three assert that they had no conversations with any other board member on the subject of the firing prior to the August 26, 2013 meeting in which they lowered the boom.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •