Letter in Gazette Journal

Re: the letter to the editor in this week's Gazette Journal from Susie Hammack under "Where's the Transparency?"

The closed session that Hammack - who by the way is the wife of Phil Bazzani - Teresa Altemus' campaign manager - called the 'secret meeting' was on the Oct. 20th meeting agenda so the 4 supes knew that it was scheduled and its purpose. This is unlike the secret meetings/gatherings (so-called meet & greets) that were for the purpose of hiring Lacy Smith - Altemus' long-time friend with no municipal experience, etc. to replace Mr. Whitley - per sworn testimony. Ms. Theberge and Mr. Allen knew nothing about THOSE gatherings - much less their purpose.

If the county was going to appeal, it had to be decided and filed by Oct 29th - 30 days after the judge SIGNED the order for the county to pay the 4 supes' legal bills and the county attorney had to have time to prepare the appeal before the 29th.

Ms. Theberge tried to bring up the subject of the legal bills at the Oct 6th BOS meeting, but BOS chair Ressler shut down discussion about the matter. So then there was a time crunch to file.

Hammack says that the appeal will cost the citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars. How does she KNOW the appeal will not be successful and SAVE the taxpayers over $170K?

Has anyone definitely said for the county to NOT file a claim with the its insurance company? Now there's time to explore that, also.

York Watcher wrote:

Re: the letter to the editor in this week's Gazette Journal from Susie Hammack under "Where's the Transparency?"
The closed session that Hammack - who by the way is the wife of Phil Bazzani - Teresa Altemus' campaign manager - called the 'secret meeting' was on the Oct. 20th meeting agenda so the 4 supes knew that it was scheduled and its purpose. This is unlike the secret meetings/gatherings (so-called meet & greets) that were for the purpose of hiring Lacy Smith - Altemus' long-time friend with no municipal experience, etc. to replace Mr. Whitley - per sworn testimony. Ms. Theberge and Mr. Allen knew nothing about THOSE gatherings - much less their purpose.
If the county was going to appeal, it had to be decided and filed by Oct 29th - 30 days after the judge SIGNED the order for the county to pay the 4 supes' legal bills and the county attorney had to have time to prepare the appeal before the 29th.
Ms. Theberge tried to bring up the subject of the legal bills at the Oct 6th BOS meeting, but BOS chair Ressler shut down discussion about the matter. So then there was a time crunch to file.
Hammack says that the appeal will cost the citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars. How does she KNOW the appeal will not be successful and SAVE the taxpayers over $170K?
Has anyone definitely said for the county to NOT file a claim with the its insurance company? Now there's time to explore that, also.

Interesting. Susie HB on Team Gloucester too.
Thanks YW

Susie blasted supervisors for going into closed session, called it a "secret meeting." How many meetings of this body has she attended? She thinks Mr. Wilmot, the attorney, would have gone in with them if it were illegal? That they would/could have a "secret meeting" at a board meeting? Susie's ignorance is beyond belief.
Birds of a feather ....

The only thing that is surprising is the foul four were shocked they were outmanuveured. They thought they would be able to put it off, lose the time to mount an appeal and keep the heat off TA before the election. Because it won't surprise me that AFTER the election, they vote to shut down the appeal. They don't want to pay for those attorney's fees. Watch and listen.

Myturn wrote:

Susie blasted supervisors for going into closed session, called it a "secret meeting." How many meetings of this body has she attended? She thinks Mr. Wilmot, the attorney, would have gone in with them if it were illegal? That they would/could have a "secret meeting" at a board meeting? Susie's ignorance is beyond belief.
Birds of a feather ....

What illegal meeting? Ressler announced that they would take the subject up at the Oct. 20th meeting.... If you are talking about appealing a court ruling, wouldn't this be litigation (you know.. legal stuff)that is usually what the Board goes into into closed session for? So what was illegal????

Susie called it a secret meeting--illegal--in her letter to the editor. How could she not know that the supervisors go into closed session--not secret meetings--at almost every monthly meeting?

It was not a secret meeting no more than the "closed session" that TA's board held on Jan. 2/3, 2008. When the board needs to discuss matters, they can do it in closed session as allowed by state code. The fact that the foul four choose to abstain in the vote was their own doing. They didn't want TA to vote on this BEFORE the election as they knew it would be the final nail in her coffin.

opps...I meant to say..."legal matters"...left the word legal out...my bad.

Think about it wrote:

The only thing that is surprising is the foul four were shocked they were outmanuveured. They thought they would be able to put it off, lose the time to mount an appeal and keep the heat off TA before the election. Because it won't surprise me that AFTER the election, they vote to shut down the appeal. They don't want to pay for those attorney's fees. Watch and listen.

I also noticed that the Four Supervisors seemed to be a bit taken aback that the others would go into a meeting without them. I could almost hear the undertones of someone saying "How Dare They...." I was thrilled to see Theberge, Allen and Riley step up and try to get a handle on this and at least get things moving in the right direction.(Although it is somewhat of an embarassment to the county that the dirty laundry gets to be aired before the Supreme Court!)

Also, I can honestly say that this is probably the most excited I've been about a local election in quite some time! I'm looking forward to voting on Tuesday! I'm anxious to see the Election Returns, and hopefully the York District vote will be decided early!

Joy in Gloucester County wrote:

<quoted text>
I also noticed that the Four Supervisors seemed to be a bit taken aback that the others would go into a meeting without them. I could almost hear the undertones of someone saying "How Dare They...." I was thrilled to see Theberge, Allen and Riley step up and try to get a handle on this and at least get things moving in the right direction.(Although it is somewhat of an embarassment to the county that the dirty laundry gets to be aired before the Supreme Court!)
Also, I can honestly say that this is probably the most excited I've been about a local election in quite some time! I'm looking forward to voting on Tuesday! I'm anxious to see the Election Returns, and hopefully the York District vote will be decided early!

I agree completely. It is exciting, and unfortunately unusual to see any politician take a stand for what is right. In fact, since I cannot vote against TA, I was considering not voting. Now I will definitely go to the polls...to cast my vote for Theberge!

Oh Granny, I really hope you get out to vote! I can't vote for Carter Borden either -- not in my district --- but I'm behind him all the way! And I think it is important to vote in support of the other canidates that I am able to vote for.....

Have a great day at the polls, Granny!

It looks to me like we're right back where we started: secret meeting/s with the four and their attorneys deciding on county business without the benefit of the remainder of the Board present. When they came out of the closed meeting, Ms. Ressler already had a prepared statement to read to the public, and they were ready to vote on it. Since the taxpayers have a county attorney to advise the Board of Supervisors, WHO gave permission for a private attorney, representing the plaintiffs, to represent four elected county officials and prepare their demands on behalf of Gloucester County? He does not work for the county, he works for them. So HE has a conflict of interest, also. Where is this going to end?

oh my wrote:

It looks to me like we're right back where we started: secret meeting/s with the four and their attorneys deciding on county business without the benefit of the remainder of the Board present. When they came out of the closed meeting, Ms. Ressler already had a prepared statement to read to the public, and they were ready to vote on it. Since the taxpayers have a county attorney to advise the Board of Supervisors, WHO gave permission for a private attorney, representing the plaintiffs, to represent four elected county officials and prepare their demands on behalf of Gloucester County? He does not work for the county, he works for them. So HE has a conflict of interest, also. Where is this going to end?

These four never stopped. Remember the septic system on county property back this summer. TA and Ressler lost that vote 5-2. When it came up again a few meetings later, it was reversed because Crewe and Woodard were reminded who was in charge.

Gawd, you guys just get dumber and dumber......

Yet bill, you are the dummiest of all. I mean, you CHOSE to move to Gloucester and based on your rants, we're all a bunch of dummies. The funny thing is you can't compete with us dummies. Sorta makes you the king of dummies, huh....*L*

Think about it wrote:

Yet bill, you are the dummiest of all. I mean, you CHOSE to move to Gloucester and based on your rants, we're all a bunch of dummies. The funny thing is you can't compete with us dummies. Sorta makes you the king of dummies, huh....*L*

Unsure why you are attacking 'Bill' but if it were me, but if i have to live with dummies, it's better to be king....keeps you out of the job.

I never thought you would admit being a dummy, but thanks. It makes everything you've said over the past year very clear.

Think about it wrote:

I never thought you would admit being a dummy, but thanks. It makes everything you've said over the past year very clear.

Boo, Boo, Boop De Doo...

Cym wrote:

<quoted text>Boo, Boo, Boop De Doo...

Why do you torture the woos so much?