Are Ratepayers Getting All Facts?
The Bristol County Water Authority is proposing a 31% rate hike over 5 years. Do we know all the facts?
BCWA has proposed rate increases that, by the 5th year, compound out to about 31%. This is in addition to the 2010 rate increase. And all of it in a bad economy.
BCWA's alleged support for the 31% rate increase - their Clean Water Infrastructure Plan (Plan) for FY2014 to FY2033 - may not be approved until August 2013.
Here's how the review proceeds:
1) BCWA filed this Plan to the RI DOH November 1, 2012. Now, as required by the Rules and Regulations for Clean Water Infrastructure Plans, the Plan is under review by various state agencies. Rhode Island Water Resources Board (Pamela Marchand is listed as "Chair" on the RI Secretary of State's website) The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and The Rhode Island Department of Administration.
2) Agency comments (from the above-listed agencies), if any, are due no later than April 26, 2013.
3) The 30-day public comment period, four months away, is April 26, 2013 to May 26, 2013.
4) Rhode Island department of Health's final review is due no later than August 24, 2013.
Of particular concern is that at the same time BCWA is attempting to have the Plan approved by state officials, BCWA is trying to close down the state mandates under the 1992 Bristol County Water Supply Act (Act). The Act remains an incomplete 1993 initiative where state taxpayers were asked to fund development of BCWA's Massachusetts water supplies.
The basis for state funds included the requirement that BCWA complete the replacement Shad Pipeline to those water supplies. Since 1993, the pipeline never went beyond the drawing board. BCWA seems now to be trying to make an argument that, in spite of not completing the Shad Pipeline, they are entitled to these state funds anyway.
Many issues remain unresolved. A rate increase that is based on an unapproved Plan, and unapproved amendments to existing state mandates should be of great concern to rate payers.
BCWA should now fully explain the following:
1.) The $6.9 million of state funds BCWA would now like to claim are tied entirely to the completion of the Shad Pipeline - but the Shad is no longer a viable project. Is BCWA asking state taxpayers for an entirely new spending initiative that may not be approved? See the plan, page iv - "Any interim actions taken by BCWA in support of" the Plan "assumes that": "The Act" (current statutory scheme) is modified or repealed as to BCWA's obligation to maintain existing facilities, the transfers of at least $6,900,000 of prior bond funding to BCWA, BCWA implements "rates and changes sufficient to meet its" bond obligations, and BCWA gets necessary approvals - including the "bondholder consent, if necessary".
2.) How does BCWA resolve approximately $1.7 million in state funds for work on the BCWA water treatment plant in 2001, paid in advance of the completion of the Shad Pipeline, and now an apparent waste of taxpayer dollars?
3.) Why has there never been an audit of spending under the Act, and in particular, or the $5 million in cost overruns on the East Bay Pipeline being paid off by local residents?
4.) Why does BCWA need to hire more staff when the BCWA has finally admitted that they are no longer operating the Shad Pipeline, the pump stations, the treatment plant the Nayatt wells/treatment facility, etc.? This question comes in light of the fact that BCWA Executive Director Pamela Marchand was hired based on her filling the engineering role. Rate payers also recently paid to fill a "CFO" position, which was supposed to include the MIS function in the job description. It seems that there are current staff who should be capable of fulfilling many necessary functions, such as project management and "operations" management.
5.) Why has there been a lack of attention to the infrastructure in all these years (in violation of state law) even though the rates were the highest in the state?
6.) Where did all the money go, including but not limited to the $millions spent on chemicals and sludge removal, and prior bond money specifically allocated to the proposed Shad Pipeline?
7.) Why is there no adequate redundant water supply, and why has this vulnerability beenallowd to exist for years?
8.) Why has BCWA not completed the infrastructure plan/fund all these years, in spite of the Plan being a statutory mandate since 1993 under the Act?
9.) How can Ms. Marchand objectively represent the interests of the ratepayers when she has not provided proper BCWA oversight in her senior position on the RI Water Resources Board in all these years, a duty she was required to uphold under the Act?
10.) Why did those BCWA Board members who voted on December 20, 2012 in favor of retaining Attorney Sandra Mack, do so in an apparent illegal meeting? Not only is Ms. Mack's prior legal work on behalf of rate payers questionable, but why did this reappointment have to be done in a manner to block public comment?
11.) Why is the Anawan Club now apparently forced to sue the BCWA for dam repair work, especially since the BCWA Plan includes funds to fix the dam? How much will the legal fees be for this issue (including, apparently, attempts by the Anawan's to resolve the matter before going to court)? Why did BCWA accept FEMA money (for which BCWA made written application to FEMA) but did not use the money as it was supposed to be used in this matter? See also, Plan, page 3-2: The Massachusetts Dam needs repair. The report says that FEMA money will be obtained for part of the cost. BCWA already applied for and received FEMA money.
12.) Why are rate payers being asked to "Renovate 2nd floor: $150,000. Basement Locker rooms: $50,000"?
13.) BCWA must explain how there are 233 miles of water distribution mains, of which 57 miles have been replaced a a cost of $18,000,000. That's $315,789 per mile. The Plan is to replace 60 additional miles at more than $750,000 per mile, at a cost of $46,694.800. The doubling in costs is not sufficiently detailed in the document.
14.) Office equipment: $330,000 (Vehicles & Office Equipment total: $2,180,000.)
15.) Where are the cost savings quid-pro-quo for the expenses in the Plan such as $1,960,000 in a new computer system, shutdown of all water production facilities, etc.? This question deserves a thorough review given that BCWA agreed to a "no-layoff clause" in the new union contract and Ms. Marchand appears to desire a significant amount of staff expansion at a high cost to rate payers.
16.) Plan, page 6-2 - BCWA proposes yet another study, this time for $225,000.
17.) On January 25, 2011, a forum was held to air public concerns about our local water supplier, the Bristol County Water Authority (BCWA). In response to a question as to whether BCWA's emergency backup connection in East Providence would work properly, BCWA's Executive Director at the time, Pasquale DeLise, said : "I could turn it on tomorrow". Then, due to lingering concerns about that East Providence connection, BCWA paid to have the engineering firms of Camp Dresser McKee (CDM) and PARE Engineering, do a top-to-bottom analysis of the emergency connection. The Conclusion? "The existing emergency interconnections with East Providence can adequately supply water to BCWA under emergency conditions."
But now BCWA seems to be indicating that $millions more must be spent to make the previously-certified emergency connection work properly.
Does anyone really think that we have enough accurate information to approve a 31% rate increase? Or to support any legislation that would finagle a way to take the $6.9 million that was specifically ear-marked for the Shad completion and re-allocate it?
I don't think so.
Marina Peterson Bristol, RI
Gary Morse
11:17 am on Monday, December 31, 2012
Excellent summary Marina!
Where is it shown that to correct the sins of BCWA's past, they are shaving costs to the bone?
Quite the contrary. In fact, BCWA appears to be doing an "in your face" response to rate payer concerns with the reappointment of their controversial attorney, Sandra Mack.
BCWA's historical high costs and mismanagement can be linked directly to bad, or non existent, legal advice over the past two decades.
BCWA's response - Keep their attorney by holding an illegal vote by the board on Dec 20th taken under the cover of the week before Christmas.
After that vote, I am convinced we must be under PUC jurisdiction.
In B&E's 2011 Performance Audit, B&E recommended to the Tri Town Council that “an independent consultant” be the arbiter of rate hikes in place of the PUC. There is no Independent Consultant who arbitrated this requested 31% rate hike, just work by a consultant to tell them how to build the rate steps.
Why has BCWA completely ignored the recommendations laid out in the Tri-Town Councils own study?
Jean C. MacCorison
4:24 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Marina and Gary, you perform a great public service in your analysis of BCWA issues. Thank you. Jean Mac
Gary Morse
8:08 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Thank you Jean!
BCWA's problems also lay at the doorstep of the town councils.
In defense of the council, it did have the appearance that BCWA was turning a corner. But after that illegal vote on Dec 20th to reappoint Sandra Mack, all the trust and goodwill went out the window.
The town's spent a lot of money to do the 2011 Performance Audit. There were a lot of recommendations, one of which was the issue that an independent consultant, and not the Board, arbitrate the rate increases as an alternative to the PUC.
Obviously, there must have been too many embarrassments the BCWA Board didn't want public.
marina peterson
12:32 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Thank you Jean!
Bob Venice
7:20 pm on Monday, December 31, 2012
Gary, the BCWA is not only doing a "in your face" response to the rate payer, but also to the Town Councils of all three towns. Why arn't the councils dismissing the people they appointed to the water authority, with people who will no longer put up with such a corrupt authority. Gary and Marina or any one else please answer to why do you think that the people who were selected to the board, keep agreeing with everything the BCWA does. These are the ones that should be questioned. They had to agree with Pam Marchand on the no cut contract, the rehireing of Sandra Mack, and the extra help at a cost of $200,000 to do what, add chemicals ?
marina peterson
12:30 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Bob, I wish I knew. The two deciding votes for retaining Mack were new directors, Joe Demelo and Robert Allio, who voted for "institutional knowledge", which has been BCWA's downfall in the past.
Most of us were energized by the new directors and were hoping for the best. The rehiring of Ms. Mack was a slap in the face to all who were trying to support the "new" BCWA.
no regr allia b
1:59 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Heck of a disgusting way to start a New Year.
John Tattrie
11:48 am on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
@ Bob Venice, Bob not to stick up for the Councils, but most of the entire Board was replaced with the exception of two or three members. So with that being said, these guys haven't been there long at all, some just coming up on their first complete year. Some of these people were wanted by the ones looking for a change, so I guess my question is" How did they each vote"? To go on another rampage changing everyone again in less than two years is crazy...How about we all just fess up to the fact that the issues have gone beyond the control of all those involved, missing money, faulty budgets, unfinished projects, questionable procedures and the list goes on. I for one am miffed that nothing seems to ever get better. Perhaps the only thing left to do is convince one of the Councils to seek and investigation by the Attorney General or the State Police, No one can seem to put their finger on where an abundance of money was spent or were it went. I've listened to this stuff for three years now, and quite frankly there are more questions than answers. So since no one can seem to answer anything put forward, maybe this is the only way to end the nonsense. I for one don't think throwing more money at this place is the way to fix it, at least not with any promise of progress. Hopefully 2013 will be the year some issues will be resolved.
marina peterson
12:26 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
John, that is what is so discouraging. Sylvia and Jannito were not there. Allio and DeMelo voted FOR Mack which was very disappointing. If they had joined Palmieri and Fitta against Mack, the result would have been different. The only reason I have been given is that they wanted "institutional knowledge". I personally believe that a new legal firm would uncover things in the past that BCWA does not want unveiled.
Bob Venice
4:26 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
John, I have to agree with everything you have said. An investigation would be nice, but I don't think it will happen.
marina peterson
12:16 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Bulletin…today (New Year’s Eve) , the BCWA added more information to their website (see below). But it is important to note that they didn’t disclose this stuff until the Blacks got it from the RIDOH. Now that they know we all have it– they are disclosing it – on New Year’s Eve.
You can see that the real work (distribution system fixing the water mains, Pawtucket) is mostly in the future.
They were caught by the ratepayers who were forced to work on Christmas Eve, Christmas, vacations, and New Year’s Eve to try to keep them honest.
BCWA did not post this until the Blacks sent them record’s request & then BCWA read (Marina’s Letter/Blog & comments) in the news that the East Bay Four had this stuff – so THEN they put it on the website. Folks, aren’t you getting tired of being “jerked around” and having to constantly check and double-check to see if you are getting the correct information?
And Director Gosselin want folks to give the BCWA a vote of confidence!?
http://www.bcwari.com/bcwa/images/PDFs/5_Year_Capital_Plan_Summary.pdf
http://www.bcwari.com/bcwa/images/PDFs/10_Year_Capital_Plan.pdf
http://www.bcwari.com/bcwa/images/PDFs/20_Year_Capital_Plan.pdf
marina peterson
12:19 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Also posted today:
http://www.bcwari.com/bcwa/
http://www.bcwari.com/bcwa/boardofdirectorsagenda
A Public Hearing is scheduled for January 3, 2013 at 6:00 pm at the Warren Town Hall, Council Chambers, 514 Main St, Warren
A Board meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2013 at 5:15 pm at the Bristol County Water Authority, 450 Child St, Warren
Wonder how much they are adding to the budget to record the meetings? They felt $40.00 a meeting was an exorbitant amount to be paying the high school students.
They may be utilizing the Child Street plant only for emergency back-up…. but they still plan to hire another union operator???
DownTown
4:14 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
The three towns need to dissolve the BCWA.
That is the only way all this nonsense they are pulling will finally come to an end.
Stop trying to fix it and start trying to make it disappear.
If they are really broke putting the BCWA into receivership will cause an independent receiver to take control. That would be the first step to dissolving it.
marina peterson
6:15 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
I concur!!! We cannot continue to throw good money after bad. Ratepayers can't afford, and the towns can't afford it.
To request a rate increase and then not be honest and transparent about how the funds are going to be used is not acceptable. Just end it!
no regr allia b
8:22 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
The dissolution of the BCWA should be the first thing the General Assembly looks at this year. It is a dangerous burden to the tri-town area and the whole of taxpayers in this State.
Upon dissolution all records should be confiscated by the Department of Justice and gone through with a “Forensic Audit” back to its inception. All operations should be turned over to the State Water Resources Board and the legislative enabling Legislation should be made null and void along with all Contracts the BCWA currently has with any entities anywhere.
All electronic and paper communication between the BCWA and any person or persons should be impounded for review independent outside of this State individuals. The General Assembly should not have a hand in any investigation due to possible collusion. This did not happen over decades without some very high level help.
No judge in their right mind would allow the so called treatment plant to continue to run just because of a regulation, when the water is coming 100% from providence already treated and the other sources are not being used along with this Shad fiasco. It is this constant excuse of the enabling Legislation being used to maintain this “cash cow” in the name of accomplishing nothing but the rape of the ratepayers and taxpayers period. Dissolving it tomorrow would be a great way to start the New Year.
mohamed j. freij
10:13 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
BCWA indicated that the average yearly water bill is about $480 and the lawyer for the BCAW was getting paid $475/ hour for the last few years! Does any one know what the new rate for this lawyer? Did it go to $500/hour? So the average household in Bristol county pays in annual fees what their lawyer makes in one hour...fuzzy math!
-raising the rate will cause people to use less water and will not solve the problems of BCAW, they need structural changes that must include sending all the mangers and board members home. The providence Water could take this over and cut our rate in half right away. Water supply must come from the Providence Water and forget all the adventures from Pawtucket and Rehoboth.
Town Council please get involved and "help provide an answe"
Happy new year.
Gary Morse
10:55 pm on Tuesday, January 1, 2013
MJF,
When BCWA attorney Sandra Mack left Hinkley Allen to go to Cameron & Mittleman, the Board reappointed her as General Counsel in a vote on April 13, 2011.
In that vote, they lowered her rate to $375 per hour, but additional litigation is a separate issue. This was the controversy of why she chose to contest the 2011 BCWA meeting violations complaint with the AG at a cost to rate payers of $65,000,
The worst that could have happened from that complaint would be a $1000 fine, and all BCWA had to do was adopt legal meeting announcements.
The irony here is that BCWA did it again on Dec 20, 2012 when the board voted to reappoint her in an unadvertised meeting. They were posting virtually the same meeting notice month after month right up to the night of the vote.
marina peterson
1:02 am on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
This unadvertised vote for legal counsel on December 20th has really enlightened many ratepayers as to just how little regard their water authority has for them. All of the directors and the officers of the BCWA knew quite well that this vote would infuriate those who have been following the money that has been spent on legal fees for BCWA. Nothing shows total disregard for the ratepayers as strongly as this surrepticious act. Please attend the rate hearing on January 3rd at the Warren Town Hall and voice your concern.
no regr allia b
2:00 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
This can only end with dissolving the BCWA to restore faith and integrity to quasi-government Company gone mad.
mohamed j. freij
5:30 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Mr. Morse,
Thank you as always for the great information.
The lawyer for the BCWA charged $65,000 to defend a case with a fine of $1000!
$65,000 divided by $375/hour equals 173.3 and if this lawyer worked 8 hours a day we should conclude that this lawyer spent 21.7 days full time working on this case just to create more billing time rather than solve a problem by making a tel call to the BCWA and saying .... It is the law that requires that public information be available to the public to view....
Now Iam very concerned that this same lawyer is advising the agency in trying to deal with the new $300,000 case that was just filed against The BCWA....how much money is this lawyer going to charge?
To my town council members again; please get involved and solve this problem before it is too late! Iam seriously considering drilling a private well on my lot with a cost of $3000 and never having to deal with BCWA.
Bob Venice
6:02 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Wait,Wait,Wait. It can not be possible. If Gary Morse has stated facts about paying Sandra Mack $65,000 to fight a violation that had a fine of $1000, she should be let go immediately. Did she not advise the BCWA that it would be better to pay the fine because of the cost, or did the Board, or Director, even ask. Gary, are you possitive of the information you stated. It has to be the most unintelligent thing that any bussiness could do!
Gary Morse
9:05 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Bob,
You can read part of the story at:
http://barrington.patch.com/articles/bcwa-spent-65000-to-fight-charges
The part that isn't widely known was that BCWA could have even avoided paying the $1000 fine if all they did at the start was say they made a mistake with their public notice postings, and won't do it again.
That would have been sufficient for the AG, and Jeff and Janice Black, who filed the complaint back in 2010.
Instead, BCWA dug their heels in with a litigate, litigate attitude which the Board went along with at a final cost to rate payers of $65,000.
After the case (and the $65,000), Sandra Mack attended a board meeting with a box full of documents to show how hard this fight was.
She wanted to show by the pound what rate payers got for their $65K which was a box full of documents, nothing more.
marina peterson
12:41 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Yup Bob, it's true! She was also hinting at suing "the East Bay Four" because we asked too many tough questions and were inhibiting their progress. They actually did a records request for all of our emails and phone calls!
Gary Morse
9:25 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The BCWA meeting to reappoint Sandra Mack can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKj7mJ8LEVg
Of interest is Director Fitta's statement about why Ms Mack should not be rehired (starts at the 12 min 14 second mark). Director Palmieri was also very eloquent in his reasons for not rehiring Ms Mack.
There was no public notice to show there would be a vote taken in the meeting on the 20th, a legal requirement under the open meetings laws.
BCWA should have known of that requirement given their previous complaint with the AG.
no regr allia b
10:23 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Yopu know Gary, I have watched that 3 times now and still can't figure out the reasoning for hiring Mack. I heard not one pro thing about her that and her associate that would make me pick her over the others that bid on it. It makes no sense at all.
The constant excuse of well she has been around a long time for the BCWA so we that makes her the best choice is like saying "well thats how it has always been done". Oh wait they say that all the time, never mind.
mohamed j. freij
9:43 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
So what hope do we have for a structural change at the BCWA If no one is willing to stand up to this club?
As I said before the higher the rate for water the less people will consume... It is simple economics, BCWA must be taken over by Providence Water and the rate will go down in half. The town Council must work with the state to change the law and dissolve BCWA.
no regr allia b
10:17 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Have to disagree with the rate going down. The infastructure has been so ignored for so long that it must be replaced. The problem is as you say it must be dissolved because it is quite obvious the towns cannot run this. It is now no more than a pumping station for Providence masquarading as a water utility. Just the fact that if the State took it over you would get rid of so much of the waste that happens at the BCWA.
You not have to update the management side at all as it would be done by the Providence then. You would not have to have the old school anymore nor upkeep. The treatment plant could be sold for scrap. The reservoirs, deeds land managment in Mass, could all be scraped and the town of warren would benefit greatly from all that.
Of course those are only dreams of mine ;-}
no regr allia b
10:09 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Amazing as usual that here we are with another rate increase and a public meeting on it, knowing that in 3 weeks by law according to the last meeting they have to have the budget approved or be in default of their agreements. Obviously we must assume the approval of the 12% increase plus the total of 31% over 5 years is in that. Which means that any complaints at the meeting tomorrow we have about the rate increase are null and void, they have made their decision and the ratepayers be dammed because they will not change anything based on the ratepayers concerns. This meeting should have been done in the summer not a few weeks before they must approve the budget. they did the same exact thing on the last 9% increase 3 years ago.
Having said that, I hope a heck of a lot of people show up tomorrow for this and at least have our voices heard. The one three ears ago was so filled they had to ask the employee's to go to another room to allow more ratepayers in because it was standing room only and over capacity of the fire code.
We cannot just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well". We need to stay on them and be very vocal that we are sick and tired of this raping of ratepayers because of a BCWA that cannot run a manure farm with a shovel. Though they are very good at shoveling manure. This is not just a problem of one part of the BCWA it is the whole of it and everyone involved in it all the way to the General Assembly. It is broke no-one can fix it locally. Dissolve it.
mohamed j. freij
10:51 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
I just watched the YouTube that Gary included, thank you for that.
Now Iam more scared of what is happening there once I saw the club in action...Iam not surprised why Mr. Gita is leaving...he is too smart of an engineer for this circus!
at least they said on record that they picked Ms. Mack to continue to provide legal work while the other law firms provided bids with 25% less cost! I guess they are so incompetent that they could not even negotiate with Ms. Mack to bring her rate in line with the other firms! And they need money desperately...good luck
b kcaj
11:22 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Hey Jack-If you and your buddy Morse have such a bone to pick with the water company, why don't you two Einseins apply for the board of directors? You think you know so much, put your money where your mouth is and step up to the plate and throw your name in the hat.
Gary Morse
5:53 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Obviously You didn't attend the first rate hearing meeting held two weeks ago.
The picture of the glass of polluted water in Ms Marchand's presentation from the Mass supplies was a picture of what BCWA was processing for decades.
The prior BCWA board, the town councils, and Ms Mack, claimed everything was fine with that water. Now we know the truth.
Getting that supply finally shut down was the work of residents, not the board or the councils. There is a place for both groups.
b kcaj
8:01 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Once again Gary, you and Jack seem to have so much time on your hands dissecting, scrutinizing, and harrassing the water company 23 out of 24 hours per day, why didn't the two of you apply for the vacant positions on the board of directors? Instead, you would rather sit on the sidelines and throw rocks all day.
It's time for you, Jack, and Marina to do something more constructive with all your spare time, such as getting a JOB.
Gary Morse
9:14 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Given a 31% rate increase, and that it's going to be applied largely to day-to-day operations, not fixing the infrastructure, it's obvious that there's still a need for residents to speak out.
Are you suggesting that one person will make a difference on the board? Great idea! Maybe you follow your own advice and apply!
Lorraine F
10:12 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
b kcak,
Your posts are always the same - lacking in any facts, critical without any merit to the criticism.
I commend those who have stuck their personal necks out on these matters. They have obviously put in a huge number of unpaid hours to help the community understand the truth behind the curtain.
So can we get some facts from you? I doubt it.
marina peterson
11:42 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
I hope that many ratepayers brave the cold tonight to show up at the Warren Town Hall for the final rate hearing. I would think that if the BCWA wants trust from it's ratepayers then they will certainly agree to rescind the recent vote for legal counsel and redo it with proper notification.
marina peterson
11:55 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Not only is there no notice of the December 18 meeting where interviews occurred, but at that meeting they discussed and reached consensus as to the top candidate. The Dec 18 was an illegal meeting. The story of happened during the illegal Dec 18 meeting is revealed during their subsequent Dec 20 public meeting when they discussed the Dec 18 meeting (see video summary below).
And, as we already know, the Dec 20 notice deficient as it did not specify sufficient detail to apprise the public that there would be a vote on the legal RFP. The Dec 20 notice did not reveal that that they would formally vote to reflect the selection that they had decided upon already during the illegal un-noticed meeting on Dec 18.
The Dec 20 meeting video where they discuss the illegal Dec 18 interview meeting wherein they had already decided upon the law firm that would be chosen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKj7mJ8LEVg
Summary of video:
Mr. Klepper asks Mr. Allio to sum up (the unnoticed meeting on Dec 18 where interviews occurred): Mr. Alio (responding to Mr. Klepper's request) said that at the last meeting (the un-noticed interview meeting on Dec 18) we interviewed 5 candidates for legal counsel. After extensive discussion, we reviewed their proposals, and we concluded that the firm of Cameron Mittleman was best qualified and we agreed to bring it for formal resolution here tonight. (Note:Cameron was also HIGHEST bid)
To be continued...
marina peterson
11:57 am on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Then, after Mr. Allio's summation of the un-noticed Dec 18 interview meeting, they later proceeded during the Dec 20 meeting with a formal vote. Mr. Palmeiri and Mr. Fitta voted against. Mr. Palmieri noted that Mrs. Mack was not member of Massachusetts Bar, but others candidates are members of the Mass Bar, and this will be an issue in the future because of Anawan.
Mr. Fitta made a statement for the record. said that change of lawyers would be good. He noted that there has been the same legal counsel for 18 to 20 yrs. Change in legal counsel would be a fresh start. Common practice in industry to rotate professionals. Another reason is cost.
Mr. Fitta said that the Cameron and Mittleman had considerably higher hourly rates that the other firms. The other firms were 25% to 45% lower.
Mr. Allio made motion to appoint Mack's firm with billing structure "to be negotiated".
to be continued....
marina peterson
12:04 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Then more discussion occurred.
Joe DeMelo did not say much of anything. But did suggest that they wait until more directors were in attendance.
Ray Palmeiri and Mr. Fitta made outstanding / impassioned arguments as to why Mrs. Macks firm should not be selected.
Mr. Klepper acknowledges that (at the interview meeting on Dec 18) they took a survey of the directors to see where the candidates rated, and Cameron Mittelman was highest. Mr. Klepper indicated that he said at the Dec 18 meeting: "Robert, give me your number one and number one choice." We tabulated that (the choices of each director). I thought it was very clear at that point. That's why we are where we are at now.
To be continued...
marina peterson
12:06 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Mrs. Marchand said that the Board had unanimously agreed on the top 2 candidates. Mr. Gosselin indicated that Mr. Ursillo was one of the candidates.
Mr. Klepper said that he has always received good counsel from "Sandy". At about 31, Mr. Klepper pointed out that Sandy keeps BCWA historical "records" at no charge. Mr. Palmieri then pointed out that this may be "locking" BCWA in with Mrs. Mack. Mr. Klepper then became irritated and back-tracked and said that was not one of his primary reasons.
Mrs. Marchand gave her opinion that she concurred with Mr. Klepper, and then she went on raving about the positives of Mrs. Mack's contacts, etc and that Mrs. Mack would be :most efficient cost effective"
Mr. DeMello compared Mrs. Mack and Mrs. Marchand to Tom Brady and Belichick and said he supported what Mrs. Marchand wanted. The formal vote occurred, with 2 against (Mr. Palmeirie and Mr. Fitta)
Directors Palmieri and Fitta are to be commended for remaining true to supporting the wishes of their town's ratepayers and for voting their conscience.
;
no regr allia b
12:28 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Like others above I too thought we needed to see what the new Director would come up with to present to the Board on her plan to fix the past problems and get the BCWA on track. I was very pessimistic that she could come up with a plan that would address the numerous problems of 20 years of inefficiently and disregard for the ratepayers concerns.
This plan is nothing more than the same old manure. The fact that yet again; it has the excuse of day to day operations, and more deficits of millions of more debt for the ratepayers and taxpayers to be liable for. Short on specifics and long on projections with no facts to support these long term plans are even feasible.
It is filled with assumptions based on if’s and’s and but’s. No different than past plans of which failed miserably. It is so hard to think of anything to say to them that has not been said and ignored time and time again.
Throwing money into this endless pit is a fool’s folly. The answer is State control where the resources and expertise are more adept at solving this.
John Tattrie
3:08 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
I thinking along those same lines, If the everyday operations can't be run and the present income, or their planning on a loss in the next year...this indicates to me that there is a serious financial issue at hand. Bigger than ever expected. While I don't hold any blame against Mrs Marchand, she has to ask for something in order to move forward, she was obviously left with nothing at all to work with. So what did Pasqual and the past Board do with all the money, where was it spent. If we are being told that suddenly this place has no operational funds for everyday expense then this increase is nothing more than a band-aid. I view this as,a one foot is already in the grave with little or no hope of long term survival. The next big problem is the guys that worked hard in the field for the past 20-30 years fixing breaks etc. are most likely gonna be the ones whom get hurt in the long term.This whole issue is like a movie with a really bad ending, with no hope of a hero coming to the rescue!
no regr allia b
3:10 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Got that right John!!!
You can't fix Stupid and this BCWA continuing is just plain stupid.
no regr allia b
12:45 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
The facts are this BCWA cannot be run by the 3 towns anymore as it is a total failure that has cost millions of dollars and is debt up to its ears and most people realize that no increase is going to change that now or in the future. The root problems are not being addressed. If you do not investigate the reasons it got to this point i.e. a forensic audit of the last 20 years. How the heck can the ratepayer (The Owners) or the management there make an informed decision on a solution?
Where is the political will by our politicians to admit it must be dissolved and replaced from the ground up? This BCWA is not too big to fail; on the contrary it is to failed to continue to be a government entity run by local towns.
A board member said at the high school meeting in December that things need to be explained in simple terms to the public on the rate issues. Well that may be true, but mostly as a member of the public I want to see your itemized financial records of this plan and just how you plan to spend the money. Same as I do when I review the my towns budget and not after the fact but months before the fact so we the people can make an informed choice on whether we think these increases are warranted.
Town budgets itemize cost right down to office supplies. Why can't the BCWA do this.
no regr allia b
12:59 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
I also know of no organization more adept at not getting the word out to its customers on what it is doing and especially on the meetings that are so important like this one.
I still do not understand this lack of computer skill over there for record keeping. It is always they need so 10's of thousands of dollars for software to do simple taskof list of customers and an emoergency call program, email notifacation of issues like this etc. All that can be done on Excell or many other programs that are even free like sun office.
Simple training classes for office personel can handle that. Why do they complicate things so much?
Bob Venice
1:33 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
b kcak, why don't you get off Jacks back. He , as Gary and Marina have made great statements on this article, and have backed them up. And everone knows who they are. As for yourself, I would have to believe you are either on the Board of Directors of the BCWA, or work for them in Management. Man up and give your real name.
no regr allia b
2:26 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Leo Aikman - Atlanta Constitution
The body of every organization is structured from four kinds of bones.
There are the wishbones, who spend all the time wishing someone would do the work.
Then there are the jawbones, who do all the talking, but little else.
The knucklebones knock everything anybody else tries to do.
Fortunately, in every organization there are also the backbones, who get under the load and do most of the work.
Problem at the BCWA is there are no backbones there who will admit they are a failed Company and there is no load to lift.
no regr allia b
3:32 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Frankly I agree with State Rep. Raymond E. Gallison Jr. on the article that is posted on the patch, that this meeting should be canceled and rescheduled for February.
http://bristol-warren.patch.com/articles/gallison-calls-for-delay-in-bcwa-vote-no-word-from-agency
The BCWA should put out an itemized plan of what exactly the problems are and where exactly the funds from the proposed (done deal) rate increase are going.
What we have seen is ambiguous at best and merely a pie in the sky plan that has no hope of this BCWA ever become solvent. Dissolution and a State takeover is the only reasonable solution along with a forensic audit of the last 20 years to see what exactly went wrong and where the millions of dollars were spent. Included should be a review of all contracts and investments, pension etc. Like any stockholders of any company would demand when a company has failed in its fiduciary duties.
Not to mention the pay down on the cross bay pipeline and why it has a principle left that is almost what it was in the first place. It should also include why the Bond is still around 1.26 when default is considered at 1.25 according to 2011 meetings. I doubt that has changed in the last year.
Deficit spending by a company that only to continues to pay interest on its debt is bankrupt in my opinion. To continue to think ratepayers are a bottomless pit of money is lunacy.
no regr allia b
3:39 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
It is time for the State to step up and put a freeze on this debacle. No reason they cannot make a resolution that would freeze the regulations and covenates of the enabling legislation to hash this out once and for all. The Bondholders I am sure would go along with this as total bankruptcy and disolution would be the only other alternative causing a legal battle that would cost the bondholders dearly. Restructuring cannot be possible when the company is broken for 20years and no end in sight of a viable revenue and solventcy. Hard choices need to be made now, by the General Assembly.
john harker
5:52 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Let us be clear who feeds whom. The ratepayers of Bristol County are the ultimate stewards here. J. Harker
marina peterson
12:14 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
Very interesting meeting! Good turnout - good questions! Special thanks to Cathie Tattrie, Jack Baillargeron, Gary Morse, Jeff Black, Pete Hewett, Halsey Herreshoff, Frank Sylvia, Eddie Stuart, and David Frerichs who asked some terrific questions, and made some important points.
I was surprised to hear Ms. Marchand say that the BCWA was checking with counsel as to whether or not they had, yet again, violated open meeting laws on December 18th and 20th. She had sent an email to the Blacks informing that the meeting on the 20th was certainly legal. Hmmmm. Others don't seem to think so. Maybe they should check with Ms. Mack. She is an expert on the open meetings law. After all, she spent $65,000 defending the BCWA on violation charges before.... to evade a $1000.00 fine... Nice work!
There were many pleas and requests for delaying the rate hike until there has been more public notice and input from the ratepayers. Christmas is a rough (or good - depending on how you look at it) time to put something like this through.
We are all hoping that the non-compliance vote for legal counsel that was taken on December 20th will be withdrawn and will be rescheduled.
Ms. Marchand was asked to explain why she was so dismissive of the B&E report and she told us that the firm did not have the experience to do an operations report; that their expertise was in financial reports. Hmmm.. another waste of taxpayer money.... or a ruse?
no regr allia b
12:28 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
Have to agree Marina. On the B&E report, though she was not involved with it, I would have thought that she would have had great concern of what they uncovered with just a lets face it minor scratch of the surface of what has been going on there financially.
It is disconcerting that she does not address nor seem to want a full accounting of what led to the current situation at the BCWA. Nor are specifics addressed at all in the proposals. I think that like Councilor Tattrie pointed out. more needs to be done on getting on a firm footing short term rather than these long term proposals that have no basis in acuallity. They are too dependent upon unknowns, if's and's or buts.
Not to mentions studies not even completed. I did not like it when she used fear tactics and the cup of coffee or 1cent a gallon for water. Nor her comparisons to newport and other cities. It just further showed why the State needs t take it over fromthe towns for me.
Since we still have no idea what the actual cost are for these palns in an itemized way, i see no reasoning presented tonight for a 12% increase. It seems yet again it is ill thought out actual cost cutting move have not been applied. The cut to the bone statement rang quite hollow with me anyway.
marina peterson
12:28 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
I was very disappointed at Mr. Klepper's response when asked by a rateoayer at the Warren meeting if the BCWA was being sued by the Anawan Club. His response was "We have not been served". While factually true, the BCWA is well aware of the pending lawsuit. It was filed in Bristol County, MA on December 18th. There has been a delay in service both due to the holidays, and due to the fact that the Anawan attorney was in communication with BCWA asking if they could mail the service, or did they need to send a sheriff. At any rate, a more honest answer would have been to admit to the suit, and then add that they haven't received service yet.
I don't think BCWA even knows how to answer a question honestly and directly. I must add that I don't want to paint all of the BCWA employees with the same brush. There are a few who have always responded and given me direct information.