Meet the April 3 election candidates

Mar 22, 2012

The April 3 town election features contested races for a three-year seat on the Board of Selectmen, a possible two-year position for the Selectmen seat vacated by Michael Schneider, and races for seats on the School Committee, Board of Assessors, and Housing Authority.

Wareham Week is sitting down with the candidates in the weeks leading up to the election. Check back here for candidate profiles as they come in!


Board of Selectmen:

The election has three Board of Selectmen candidates vying for one three-year seat, vacated by Selectmen Chair Walter Cruz, who did not seek re-election.

Former Selectman Bruce Sauvageau of Swifts Beach Road, active volunteer Alan Slavin of Oak Street, and Board of Assessors member David A. Smith of Pinehurst Drive have thrown their hats into the ring for the position.

Bruce Sauvageau

Alan Slavin

David A. Smith


The election has two Board of Selectmen candidates vying for the two-year seat created after the resignation of Michael Schneider. Amit Johar of Cranberry Highway and Peter Teitelbaum of Oak Street are running.

Amit Johar

Peter Teitelbaum


School Committee:

The School Committee race features three candidates vying for two seats. Incumbent Geoff Swett is seeking re-election, while Lynne Burroughs and Michael Flaherty are looking to bring their expertise to the committee.

There are a number of budget challenges faced by the School Committee, town officials, and the community in the coming months. School officials are looking for a Proposition 2 1/2 operational override and debt exclusions -- both of which would raise property taxes -- to prevent teacher layoffs and pay for textbooks and other needs.

Click on the names to learn about the candidates and the issues.

Lynne Burroughs

Michael Flaherty

Geoff Swett, incumbent


For more on the April 3 election, visit the related links below!

Comments (48)
Posted by: WarehamThinker | Mar 09, 2012 14:35

Questions for the Candidates:

1) Sweet Brucey - why do you continue to insist that you don't owe any taxes, when anyone can go to the website and do a search that provides them with the truth? 

2)  John Donahue - An article from The Providence Journal, entitled "State board found exagerrated figures at assessor's previous post, states, "In 1994, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue had taken control of Wareham's assessing office, the only such takeover which DOR officials say they are aware. 

"Wareham's assessors had repeatedly exaggerated both the assessed values of newly developed properties in town and the expansion of the town's tax bases, according to a report written by the DOR.  As a result, Wareham taxpayers had been overtaxed by $1.3 million."  (Providence Journal).


My question is - based on this and other articles written about you, why on earth should anyone give you another chance to get back into the assessing office?


Posted by: Spherebreaker | Mar 09, 2012 14:54

Makes you wonder if the reason Ms. Eckstrom is running for Assesor is to follow the path of one of her cohorts and inflate values to assult us in yet another way.

Posted by: Spherebreaker | Mar 09, 2012 16:57

Mr Beiber, I guess your comment confirms the rumor that you are a meat eater, I always thought you were a vegan. My neice will be so disappointed. NO OVERRIDE!!!!!!

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Mar 09, 2012 17:50

Bieber, not my name, as I said in another thread, when you rely on info from your tin hat friends, you just make a fool out of yourself...more so than usual. 



Posted by: seriously? | Mar 10, 2012 16:44

I think you people should stop all this foolishness because there are important things to be discussed about the people running for office and you are making the elections in Wareham look like just a bunch of silliness/.


I am looking forward to meeting all of the candidates and I am looking foreward to hearing what they have to say about how Wareham and what they would do to make things better here.

Posted by: Mr. M. | Mar 11, 2012 08:32

Is this the same seriously? who posted a story of Mr. Brady being arrested at the health board meeting last week? Who is making politics look silly?

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Mar 11, 2012 10:05

Bruce is a candidate for selectman.  He claims that he owes no taxes, yet a visit to the begs to differ.  This is relevant to a discussion of the campaign


Donahue is a candidate for assessor.  According to a series of newspaper articles, when he was assessor in Wareham, the DOR had to take over the office and Wareham taxpayers were overcharged by $1.3 million.  According to these articles, he did a pretty bad job when he was a Swansea assessor as well.  How he did as an assessor in the past is relevant to voters trying to determine how good an assessor he would be now.


Despite the best efforts of some people to crush it, free speech is alive and well in Wareham.  This is relevant information the people should hear.

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Mar 11, 2012 10:29

"Excise Tax on Boats Overlooked for Two Years" - (Providence Journal, July 2004) - "For two years now, hundreds of Swansea residents have enjoyed the use of boats - and posh yachts in a few cases - without paying any excise taxes.


The town's repeated failure to assess and collect boat excise taxes in 2002 and 2003 is cited as a violation of state law in a recent report by the state Department of Revenue."

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Mar 11, 2012 10:38

FROM - "State Board found exaggerated figures at assessor's previous post" - Providence Journal, April 2004


"LATE IN THE FALL OF 2001 - shortly before the beginning of the next assessment cycle - Donahue told the local assessors that he hoped to win election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

It was during that year that Swansea's assessment of new residential construction fell behind.

Through winter, spring, and summer 2007, Donahue was out of the office  quite often, according to clerks.

One clerk, Lynne Macedo, said Donahue told her on numerous occasions that he planned on being absent because he needed to visit the dentist or attend a funeral.  She was amused.

"He would say on Monday, "I think I'm going to have a funeral on Friday," Macedo recalled.

And on days when Donahue was at Town Hall, he spent a lot of hs time out on the front steps, talking on his private cell phone, she said.

Donahue said he could not respond to Macedo's comments, because she did not provide specific dates for when she made her observations.

A review of telephone records by the Journal showed that someone also used a town owned telephone to call the homes or offices of people who made contributions to Donahue's legislative campaign during this period.  The fax machine was used to send papers, including a candidate's questionaire, to political interest groups such as the AFL-CIO."


Posted by: P-SPAN | Mar 22, 2012 15:26

WCTV Candidate video profiles -->


OPL Selectman candidates ---->


OPL School Cmte candidates --->

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 23, 2012 18:53

Mr. Swett did not acknowledge his title as President of Advantage Schools, Inc. which is a private, for-profit corporation which runs charter schools.  One would think that that position would better demonstrate his ability to speak to the issues confronting Wareham schools today, than does his position as President of dialysis centers.   Unfortunately, Advantage Schools, Inc. has run into some problems of late.  In this economy, I am not saying these problems are Mr. Swett's fault.   I think he became President in 1999, please correct me if I am wrong.

Posted by: salemsam50 | Mar 23, 2012 20:09

I would like to know who put the sighn up "Don't vote for Bruce Sauvageau"on the second Telephone pole going into Swifts Beach? How immature! I haven't decided yet who i'll vote for. But REALLY? How low can YOU go?


Posted by: Spherebreaker | Mar 23, 2012 20:32

Freedom of speech is immature? No different than putting a sign up in support of a candidate.

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 24, 2012 17:43

Sphere, immature?

Posted by: P-SPAN | Mar 24, 2012 22:04

Mike (Flaherty) was probably going to add this himself (if so, sorry Mike..don't mean to step on your toes :). He didn't do a video profile on WCTV..but he did have an "interview" on WCTV's "Daily Gumbo" show last week..which allowed for a more in-depth "look" at one of our candidates for the school cmte. --->

Posted by: PMB | Mar 25, 2012 10:49

A note to Mr. Johar.  Couldn't help but notice, as I was driving down Main Street yesterday, that many of the folks holding signs for you (Bruce and Lynn Burroughs as well), were the same folks that were holding signs for Walter Cruz three years ago.  Three years later, Bruce Sauvageau declares that Mr. Cruz is the worse selectman in the history of Wareham, and declares early on that he will challenge him for his seat this April.  What happened, and what lesson is there for you as a MWF candidate?  It seemed that Mr. Cruz supported positions, while he was selectman, that went against the MWF playbook.  (I know MWF didn't "officially" register until last year, but it is the same group that supported Cruz three years ago).  Let that be a lesson to you.  If you happen to win the election, you had better tow the line.  Move outside the MWF playbook, and you will get thrown under the bus (a school bus, I think) just like Mr. Cruz.  You are being supported to fill the "Mike Schneider seat", and will be expected to vote the way Bruce tells you to vote or you will suffer the same fate as Mr. Cruz.  And don't worry, if you win and Bruce doesn't, he will still "advise" you from the peanut gallery, just like his other ex-selectman cohorts do now with their MWF buddies.  Is it really worth all the trouble to move to Wareham, to become a MWF "sorta-independent-selectman"?  You should talk to Mr. Cruz about your "supporters".  Oh well...good luck!

Posted by: WWreader | Mar 25, 2012 11:03

I went by both the Onset post office and Main street and I also saw who was holding signs. Funny, I saw Slavin and Teitelbaum out there shaking hands and holding signs but Mr. Johar was missing. Bruce, I understand was under the weather. Still, I like to see people work hard themselves to get elected. Just sayin.

Posted by: Zephyr | Mar 25, 2012 11:10

A note to PMB.  The same could be asked of you in regards to Mr SLavin.  I remember most of the people on this site wanted nothing to do with Mr. Slavin.  Now they are supporting him   What happened, and what lesson is there for him as a TBW candidate?

Posted by: PMB | Mar 25, 2012 12:41

Oh come on now Zeph...I noticed that you didn't dispute anything I said about the relationship between Mr. Cruz and his former supporters.  Instead you resorted to the often used "Pee Wee Herman defense" commonly used on another web site.  You remember..I the one where you respond to a post with "I know you are...but what I am I?"...just like Pee Wee used to say.  You have no way of knowing who I have or have not supported in the past.  I don't think Mr. Slavin has ever run for elected office before, so it's pretty hard to "support" someone who is not a candidate for elected office.  I didn't agree with the position of the Charter Review Committee (stacked with MWF members, and their pre-determined move toward a mayoral form of government), but I did find Mr. Slavin to be the one honorable spokesman for the group.  It is interesting that anyone who ever writes anything that you disagree with becomes labeled as a Take Back Wareham person.  Please tell me, what is this group, and where do they meet?  Just a closing thought.  People from the Bay Area are familiar with the old saying that Al Davis used to use in relation to his Oakland Raiders..his motto was "Just Win Baby".  I think you have taken this motto with a slight adjustment.  Your motto should be "Just SPIN Baby!"

Posted by: Zephyr | Mar 25, 2012 13:14

Oh come on now PMB...I noticed that you didn't dispute anything I said about the relationship between Mr. Slavin and his now TBW supporters.  Instead you resorted to the often used "Pee Wee Herman defense" commonly used on this web site.

I don't know Mr. Slavin but I commend him for the volunteer work that he has done through the years and I wish him well.  I don't know anyone on MWF or TBW.  It's just so obvious that this site belongs to TBW.  You could be blind and still see that.


Anyways, You are acting too childish now for a civil conversation so have a nice day on your soap box.  Sorry, your sand box.

Posted by: PMB | Mar 25, 2012 13:38

Zeph  Sticks and stones...sorry way to childish I know.  Back to adult conversation.  I will dispute your statement about people wanting nothing to do with Mr.Slavin and no supporting him.  Yes, most on this site did disagree with the position of the CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE concerning the form of government, and yes Alan was their chairman and spokesman...but don't you get it?  The very fact that people on this site, and around town, see that his role on the CRC was to promote the ideas of the majority, even if he, personally, didn't like all the ideas, is all the more reason to vote for him.  Instead of promoting a single agenda (does MWF come to mind), Mr. Slavin did his job as chairman in a fair and honest way.  He may not have agreed with the committee, but he was willing to work with them and eventually get some of the changes passed at TM.  This issue in my original post here questioned the fact that if you are a MWF candidate, and you don't tow the line, you will be banished...just like Mr. Cruz.  I never mentioned Alan Slavin, but since you did, thank you.  Your point is well taken...He was not a favorite of this site before, but now he is.  The reason: as he runs for elective office, people who really didn't know him, have had the chance to meet him and talk to him.  The more you get to know him, the better he looks.  With his history of community service to this town by serving on endless boards and committees, he is positioned to be a very productive selectman.  One who listens to everyone, even people he disagrees with and make decisions accordingly.  The people in Town Hall might not always like what he says, but at least he won't try to fire them if they disagree..... Now it's back to the sand box!

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 25, 2012 17:40

PMB, and the people holding Slavin signs yesterday lambasted Slavin on Whitehouse's hate site last year.   It's one thing to disagree with the Chairman of the BoS, it's quite another to denegrate candidate Slavin one year and sing his praises the next as Take Back Wareham has on Whitehouse's site.

Posted by: WWreader | Mar 25, 2012 18:47

Likewise. It's one thing for the former bos including Sauvageau and their WMF followers to sing the praises of Slavin when he volunteered for all those committees. It's quite another to denigrate candidate Slavin now.


Take a look at the observer hate blog and read the nasty comments about Mr. Slavin from Bruce and soon to be former selectman Mike as well as your own. Nasty stuff. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me Nancy/touchdown/interested party/cranberry.

Posted by: frightened | Mar 25, 2012 18:57

Seriously-- time to take a lesson on being open minded. Some people listen and give everyone a chance to change their mind. Speaking of change isn't it time to change your name again? People are on to your hateful ways again. Do you even come from Wareham?

Slavin is a good choice for selectman.

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Mar 25, 2012 19:25

Gee whiz, aren't the Hypocrites always whining about how we need to put our differences aside and come together and be nice to people we disagree with?  So, we set aside past disagreements with Slavin and get behind him to support him for selectman and they whine about that too.  You just can't win with the Hypocrite Elite.


Bruce and his buddies appointed Slavin to tons of different committees and positions.  They must have thought he was a decent enough guy at one point.  All of a sudden, they don't like Slavin because he wants the seat that Bruce wants.


I really have no idea why anyone would associate themselves with the tin hats, because there is literally no one that these people aren't willing to throw under the bus to get what they want.


Posted by: WantToSeeChange | Mar 25, 2012 20:39

I will be voting for Slavin.  Why?  Is he my favorite?  Not my favorite person, that's for sure.  However, of the candidates, I am going with the devil I don't know.  The one I do know is just too much to take again. The one I don't know should just drop out.  Not a chance there.


As for Johar, he won't be getting my vote.  Why?  Because I am a TBW'er?  Nah, still haven't received my membership card.  However, I don't need to be voting for someone who seemingly knows so little about the town.  Give him a couple more years of getting to know the town and he just may get my vote.  Seems like a bright guy.  I'd like to see him in Wareham a bit longer first.

Posted by: PMB | Mar 25, 2012 21:03

Seriously-"PMB and the people holding Slavin signs yesterday lambasted Slavin on Whitehouse's hate site last year"  How did you come to this conclusion?  Please tell me.  I can't speak for everyone holding signs (and neither can you) but I can tell you one thing.  I have never written a word on any web site other than this one.  I have never be registered with either of the so called "hate sites".  I am not associated with the Whitehouse site or the Slager hate site.  You can spin and change the subject all you want, but my comment that has made many on the RS website's heads explode had no mention of Alan Slavin.  I was pointing out the FACT that the supporters of Walter Cruz in his election bid three years ago had turned on him and released the hounds (Bruce) to challenge him if he decided to run again.  In doing this, they made it clear that they were very "disappointed" in his performance as selectman.  I was pointing out to Mr. Johar to beware of who his "friends" are.  How you twist this into all the people holding Slavin signs are bloggers on the Whitehouse site is quite a stretch (to use kind words...just plain insane would be more accurate).  Again, if you can't make a valid point on the subject at hand...simply change the subject.  It's a tactic we see quite often in this community.

Posted by: SGT | Mar 25, 2012 21:45

Of the candidates for selectman, who is the one who was involved with the disputes with the police department ?  Both the Chief and one of the patrolmen?  Who was involved with the dispute with the Library and and the appointment of the librarian who would have replaced Mrs Pillsbury?  Who was involved with the selectmen going into Executive session, ad nauseum,  and then not being able to find the notes of the proceedings?  Who sis the one who brags about being involved in the hiring and firing of Town Administrators?  Who was it who was caught on tape trashing the head of the DPW?  Do we really want a return to the bad old days?  That person was part of the problem but certainly not the solutions.

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 25, 2012 22:53

SGT, it is obvious that you wish to enlighten us.  So, please do so, instead of hurling questions upon questions.  And, please provide specific answers with examples, because half-truths will not suffice.

Posted by: P-SPAN | Mar 25, 2012 23:22

C'mon Nancy.. these are easy. Anyone who's paid any attention at all knows the answer to the questions posed by "SGT"..'s none other than Bruce Sauvageau (and there's no "half-truths" about it..sadly, those are just a few tidbits of Bruce's "legacy"). How's the weather in California, Nance?


Anybody But Bruce

Posted by: P-SPAN | Mar 25, 2012 23:58

As I was saying before about Nancy (Kress)..aka seriously? (et al).. Her CA address was listed on the MWF PAC financial contribution filing last year. I must have completely missed these before.. But, the same info for Nancy was listed on the filings for Schneider and Begley last year too. I hadn't looked at them in a while (umm, about a year, I'd guess). There are a few names listed that caught my eye. Like "Johar"..Not Amit..but I'd venture a guess it's a close relative (no surprise either..Plymouth address). Interesting "read"..Check them out.. -->


A little joke. Ok.. A guy from Plymouth..a guy from Maine..a guy from Somerset..a "gal" from California..and a scumbag from Halifax are in a bar, right.. Oh, nevermind.. You probably know this one. :)

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 26, 2012 12:22

PMB: I read the Observer all the time, and I have never read hatefilled comments as you suggest.  Please give me examples because I will no longer take your word for it.
When did anyone on that other site comment on anything you wrote on this subject "You can spin and change the subject all you want, but my comment that has made many on the RS website's heads explode had no mention of Alan Slavin."
I really don't know what you are talking about.  I would appreciate it if you talked in specifics instead of vague generalities without any supporting evidence.  No one mentioned anything about you on the Observer site that I have seen.  Maybe you got your multiple anonymous names mixed up.

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 26, 2012 13:18


seriously? here.  Where did you get the information that led you to believe I was from California?


This obsession of yours needs to stop, Pspan.  I am becoming concerned for my welfare.  I don't see you going after anyone else as rabidly as you are hounding me.  It's intimidating, and it might lead me to discontinue posting on this site.

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 26, 2012 13:48

After your intimidation tactic, PSpan, I think people can understand why some of us post under anonymous names.  To keep us safe from people like you.

Posted by: frightened | Mar 26, 2012 16:11

Seriously-- time to change your name people are catching on to your nasty ways again.


Posted by: seriously? | Mar 26, 2012 18:19

frightened, you of all people should understand why I take the scare tactics and taunts from Mr. DiPietro seriously.  One would think that an adult would be able to act in a rational manner, but I think Mr. DiPietro has crossed the line from being funny to being threatening.

Posted by: Spherebreaker | Mar 26, 2012 19:36

Please stay on topic Seriously/IP/Cranparty/whoeverelse you have posted as. This is the same tactic you use again and again to move away from the real issue. I don't see anything PSpan or anyone else has said to you that is threatening, so I am not sure what the heck you are talking about. I understand you have a job to do here as mouth piece for the PAC but you need to take a break, You are beginning to crack under the pressure of standing up for such a poor slate of candidates. Is it really worth your sanity? Maybe its to late already and that is why you are supporting who you do.

Posted by: frightened | Mar 26, 2012 19:50

Seriously-- I have been one of your victims and can find no sympathy for vicious people as yourself.

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 26, 2012 20:36

Frightened, I have never called you names nor have I hurled racist comments at you.  Nor would I ever do that.  That behavior is vicious, in my book.  I don't know what you consider vicious as you have provided no examples.  If I have hurt your feeling by something I have said, I truly apologize.


But, this thread is not about you or me.  This is about the candidates and their stands on the issues.  I think Bruce Sauvageau and Amit Johar have put forth the best proposals for Wareham and they will get my support.

Posted by: PMB | Mar 26, 2012 22:28

Seriously-You nailed me with your comments above, as usual.   As to putting forth the best proposals for Wareham.. It is nice when a candidate can run on his proven track record.  We know what to expect.  Unfortunately for Bruce his proven track record is so bad he finished 4th out of 5 candidates the last time he ran (as an incumbent no less).  I don't think he has done much to polish up his image in the past two years. At least this time he will probably finish second.   We all known exactly what we will get with Bruce.  As for Amit, he doesn't seem to know much about any issues.  His "proposal" to bring in more business is rather vague, don't you think?  You just haven't had enough time to coach him up yet, I guess.  He should add he will make the town more tourist friendly..and if he really wants votes he should say he will see to it that he will lower the price of wide.  That is a promise that will get him some votes.  I realize you are the chief of the "blog police", and I will be fined for being "childish".  Sorry, add it to my tab, I guess I'm just childish, and I can't help myself.  By the way I noticed you mentioned Bruce and Amit will get your support..that's no support them with your words, and I assume with a contribution or two.  No problem with that, this is America and you should support the candidates you believe in.....what you didn't say was that they will get my "vote" you have one here?

Posted by: P-SPAN | Mar 29, 2012 22:15

Candidate for the two year selectman seat Peter Teitelbaum's recent appearance on WCTV's "Your Daily Gumbo" video --->

Posted by: P-SPAN | Mar 30, 2012 11:21

3/29/12 WCTV Candidates Debate video --->

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 30, 2012 15:15

I am curious as to why Alan Slavin keeps denying that he favored the Mayoral form of government when he sat on the Charter Review Committee.  His support of this type of local governance certainly explains, even in a joking fashion, his public reference to himself as the Mayor of Wareham.

Posted by: WWreader | Mar 30, 2012 16:46

Let's see. Last night he said the vote was 6 to three in favor of mayoral government at the charter review committee. He was in favor of representative form of government. I'm going to assume he was one of the three since he clearly said he was not one of the six. Simple math.


He said he was chair of that committee and the majority voted for a mayor system. When you are in the minority you are out of luck. You have to abide by the majority. I got this from watching him last night. I don't know what you were watching but if you missed this exchange, take a look at the debate again. If you have proof to the contrary, that is if you can prove that Slavin was one of the six, show us. Otherwise, keep your curiosity to yourself. It's as bad as spreading rumors.

Posted by: AustinSpeaks | Mar 30, 2012 20:34


The members debated several of the issues for more than forty minutes. Alan stated that he felt we should narrow it down and chose a course of action. We would then be able to assign members to research their respective city governments. Jack made a motion to select Form B. The motion was moved by Ed and seconded by Mick. Alan called for the vote and it was recorded as unanimous.


AS: The observer is claiming this is where Mr. Slavin says he's for Mayoral form of government. (IMO) What I see is that the group votes unanimously to reasearch mayoral form of government not that anyone had actually given their opinion yet.





The members then discussed the need for a change in town government.  It was discussed that Plan B would be the most plausible.  Alan then polled the board to see who was in acceptance of moving forward with Plan B.  All members, except one were in favor.  Jack Houton made a motion to support acceptance of Plan B, it was seconded by several members.  Alan then called the vote which was 6-1-0 in favor of supporting Plan B.


AS: The very next meeting it was 6-1-0, in favor. Meaning someone disagreed. Could it have been Allen like he's been saying all along. Maybe, but it doesn't say. The rest of the time, as he's stated, for the rest of the process he played how the chair played. He disagreed, but the board voted in favor of it. However, this is just my opinion of reading the facts of both meetings. True its not the 6-3-0, like Alan misquoted, but if it was 6-3-0 there would have been 9 members there. There weren't there were only 7. Maybe he was paraphrasing for what he knew others would have wanted to vote. Who knows? Who cares? Not me.

Posted by: P-SPAN | Mar 30, 2012 21:46

Lin Gay was the "1" vote, Austin. Alan said from the beginning that he thought a representative town mtg was his first choice. Here's a link to Alan's (and other) interviews when the BoS were deciding who to appoint to the Charter Review Cmte.. Take note of Sauvageau's comments. He was pushing for the committee to strongly consider the option of changing the form of government..rather than simply a review of our current charter and then suggest changes at TM. It was clear that Sauvageau wanted a committee that would be open to changing the form of government..and also made it clear that if they wanted to do was an option. That's what they ended up doing. Using "special acts" legislation to try and "take the easy route" to changing the form of government... The "other" way would have been to get (something like) 2500 registered voter signatures..and send it to the polls. To be clear.. Slavin "favored" (and always did) the representative form of TM.. But (as Chair) was the one who "did the most talking" (no disrespect to vice-chair Dr. Jones) in "favor" of the Mayor form..because he was "speaking for" the committee..and they (all) a committee..had decided to "go that way". See Slager (and Nancy).. No "spin" necessary.. The truth works just fine..


Oh yeah.. here's the link to the interviews (Alan..and others first comments on the "whole thing") --->  

Posted by: AustinSpeaks | Mar 30, 2012 23:17

I stand corrected. Thank you Mr. D. I'm sure the observer have corrected me too, I just haven't been to that site yet again for tonight. I did talk to a few of my friends and found out about the representative aspect, but again it doesn't make me hate the man. He seems well versed in the different forms, better than me.

Posted by: seriously? | Mar 31, 2012 13:28

So, why is Alan Slavin trying to make it look like he didn't want a mayoral form of government?

If you wish to comment, please login.