4/4 11:20pm   I am shocked by Mr. Kulesza's denial of being bankrupt. I am not sure if he truly believes what he says or if he just thinks that we are just ignorant. In his defense, I actually don't think he understands the definition of bankrupt. Mr. Kulesza says in his post, "my business DID NOT file for bankruptcy, but after 23 years of business filed for Chapter 11 reorganization." Surely he is kidding. By this admission he apparently filed for protection under the "U. S. Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11: Reorganization." This is filing for bankruptcy. The Merriam Webster online dictionary defines "bankrupt" as "a person who has done any of the acts that by law entitle his creditors to have his estate administered for their benefit." Sorry, Mr. Kulesza, but I think you are trying to double-talk us and in doing so have stretched your credibility. Merriam Webster also defines "bankrupt" as "one who is destitute of a particular thing." After reading your posting and reviewing your website I believe that not only is your credit bankrupt, but so is your credibility.
The most incredible part of your denial is your placing blame not on yourself, but on other external circumstances. You state that, "During 2002, economic conditions for my entire industry changed dramatically and staying solvent became more and more of a challenge." This resulted in your filing for bankruptcy in March, 2005. However, economic conditions for everyone else, including the town, also changed dramatically in 2002. But we personally survived and the town survived as well. We did so by good management, good fiscal planning, and necessary belt tightening. In fact, from 2002 to the time of your filing for bankruptcy in 2005, the town did not resort to an override to solve its many financial problems. We solved our problems the old fashioned way, by cutting costs and raising revenue.
This appears to be overlooked in a number of postings that try to chastise Mr. Advani. Actually, Mr. Kulesza's opponent Ramesh Advani was an integral part of that fiscal planning. In fact, if I were still on the board in May of last year, I would not have called for an override at that time either. I find it difficult to comprehend how Mr. Kulesza can invoke "economic conditions" for his personal and business failures and, at the same time, claim that the town did not provide responsible fiscal planning during the same difficult period when in fact we did. In particular, how can he or his followers fault Mr. Advani for surviving and managing the 'economic conditions' when he denies his own failures? This is Orwellian doublespeak.
Despite this incongruity, Mr. Kulesza's website declares that the town needs "strong leadership from the Board of Selectmen" and "proactive, deliberative, and responsible fiscal planning." I agree with MH who says, "Mr. Kulesza, come back in three to five years when you can prove personal fiscal restraint." In fact, I will take it one step further and quote 2 Kings Chapter 20, "Thus saith the LORD: Set thy house in order..." before you challenge our successful work with your undefined "plan."
Also, please note that it is often difficult for a selectman to avoid the pressures of the electorate when they say `put it to the vote of the town.' The selectmen did just that last year and the voters passed the question. It is the electorate, not the selectman, that approves an override.
N.B. In recent postings...
RG: Your assertion in your posting stating that, ``we're in the bottom 1/3 of the ENTIRE State when we fund public education!'' is incorrect. Actually, we are very generous. The data that is posted by the state for Norfolk, Wrentham, and Plainville is for the elementary school only. King Philip is not included. The towns you compare us with are higher because their costs are for a combined elementary, middle and high school system. You also state that, ``overrides are necessary EVERY YEAR,'' when they are not. We went four years without an override when I was on the board of selectmen.
SM incorrectly states, ``Remember the CPC members are appointed by the Selectmen.'' Again, this is not true. The selectmen appoint only four of the nine (one citizen from each precinct). The other five are appointed by five other boards from their membership.
Those who insist that we are negligent and that we must put an emphasis on commercial property development are ignoring the fact that we have. For example, in FY 2001 the total value of commercial property in Norfolk was $20.5 million. In FY 2004, only three years later, it had more than doubled to $44.5 million. In the same time span the value of the residential property during this period of high property value growth increased only 45% from $782 million to $1,135 million.

- Jack McFeeley, Selectman, 1981-1984, 1999-2005

Home