BCWA Board Will Need 5 Votes for Legal Pact
Bristol County Water Authority Executive Director Pamela Marchand said it may be late February before a third vote is taken on the agency's legal contract.
Photos
It will likely be another month before the issue of the Bristol County Water Authority's legal contract is finally settled, BCWA Executive Director Pamela Marchand confirmed.
During a phone interview Thursday afternoon, Marchand said that, in response to a Bristol-Warren Patch inquiry, she contacted the attorney whom she had consulted about a conflict between the agency's by-laws and the state legislation that created the BCWA.
Marchand said she learned that a letter had been sent to Board Chairman Allen Klepper, but since Klepper is on vacation, "none of us knew about it."
After reviewing the state law and the by-laws, Marchand said, the attorney for Hinckley, Allen confirmed that "we will need five directors to do any actions, so that means the board will have to vote again for the legal services."
The board is scheduled to hold a regular meeting on Feb. 13, but Marchand said members may decide to vote on the legal contract at its Feb. 28 session.
"We probably would not have enough board members to get five votes [at the Feb. 13 meeting] — we'll only have six board member attending that meeting — so we'll probably wait until the 28th when we have eight board members," Marchand said.
Under terms of the BCWA by-laws, board members have to defer to the state law in cases where conflicts arise, Marchand explained.
In this case, it meant that a 4-3 vote taken at the board's Jan. 16 meeting was not enough to approve a new contract with the firm of Cameron & Mittleman, since the state law requires five votes.
The board had decided to revisit its original Dec. 20 vote on the legal contract after local residents charged that a prior Dec. 18 session to review the applicants had been held illegally.
Marchand also said that the board may also recommend a contract with one of four other firms who applied — Keough & Sweeney, LTD; Schacht & McElroy; Petrarca & McGair; and Adler Pollock & Sheehan — if a third vote on Cameron & Mittleman should be unsuccessful.
Manifold Witness
1:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
There is no "third vote" on Cameron & Mittleman. The board already voted "no" on them (the 4 to 3 vote). Next up, someone on the board makes a motion to vote to appoint one of the others.
Didn't Hinckley Allen tell Mr. Klepper this in the letter they sent to him on vacation?
Gary Morse
1:04 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Sandra Mack had her turn and should not get a second turn! She is out!
But even if she did get a second turn, can we really hire an attorney who bumbled prior open meeting laws to the tune of a $65,000 cost to rate payers. And after going through that 2011 exercise for over 1 year with the AG's office, bumbled this. This is not what I'd call resume material.
And how much extra did it cost rate payers to get an opinion from Hinckley?
Next applicant please!
Bob Venice
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
The way I read the above comment from Pam Marchand, she states that a third vote will be taken to retain Sandra Mack, before they vote fo someone else. If this is true, then Mack is retained. Again, you can't beat the BCWA. It is time the Town Councils of the three towns get involved and try to come up with a plan to do away with the BCWA, before paying for water becomes more expensive then the school budget.
Bob Venice
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
The way I read the above comment from Pam Marchand, she states that a third vote will be taken to retain Sandra Mack, before they vote fo someone else. If this is true, then Mack is retained. Again, you can't beat the BCWA. It is time the Town Councils of the three towns get involved and try to come up with a plan to do away with the BCWA, before paying for water becomes more expensive then the school budget.
Manifold Witness
1:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
There is no “third vote” on Cameron & Mittleman.
Next, the same board must reconvene the same meeting & vote on the next candidate.
Cameron & Mittleman? Voted out with the 4 to 3 vote which was effectively a “no” vote.
The board is not supposed to keep voting until Cameron & Mittleman gets the 5 vote “yes” they want. That’s not how it works.
Mrs. Mack was in the room when the board voted 4 to 3 (the effective “no” vote). She should have advised them that that was an effective “no” and that they were to move on to the next candidate. Maybe her conflicts of interest got in the way?
There is no “third vote” on Cameron & Mittleman & there wouldn't be if ANY OTHER candidate had been voted upon first & got a 4 to 3 vote. That other candidate wouldn't be getting “do overs” until he got 5 votes.
Are we to believe that the board didn’t know their own voting rules? And since their attorney (who was in the room) didn’t advise them about their own rules, the rules don’t apply? It doesn't work that way.
Are we to believe that, had the board known their own rules, they would have made sure that the vote came out differently for Mrs. Mack? Doesn't work that way.
Are we to believe that there is some unspoken knowledge out there that “the board” really, really wants Mrs. Mack and so they, therefore, get to keep voting until she gets 5 votes ?
That’s not how it works.
There is no “third vote” on Cameron & Mittleman.
marina peterson
1:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
If I understand this right, BCWA is planning to hold yet ANOTHER vote for Ms.Mack? It would seem appropriate to first hold votes on the other two candidates that were still in the running at the last vote.
Remember, Ms. Mack was in the room during the vote. She KNEW what was required. It would have been the ethical thing to do at that meeting to stand up and say, "As your legal counsel I must advise you that four votes is not enough. You need to proceed on to the other candidates." Needless to say, that did not happen.
It is imperative that all ratepayers call their Town Council members and/or their appointed directors to the BCWA and let them know that it is time for a change in legal counsel!
Please feel free to contact me at galt@cox.net if you need phone numbers.
This is very important!
Once again, the rate payers were correct in pointing out an illegal/incorrect procedure!
Jack Baillargeron
1:25 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
So let me get this straight. If the Chairman of the board is on vacation, then the other 8 members are are in the dark and nothing can be done?
I thought Roberts rules allowed for this by a "pro-tempe" chairman in the absense of the Chairmen, Usually the Secretary or treasurer to my Knowledge.
The fact that all board business is now held up is no way to run a Company, by dismissing the "RULES" you are required by "LAW" to follow. This is also a requirement that is suppose to be in the By-laws of any organization, i.e. "RULES" for meeting's and obviously must comply with "STATE LAWS AND REGULATION'S".
A simple thing any Lawyer should know not to mention the BOARD".
After 20 years of being control along with the "LAWYER" advising the Board; They do not know these simple answers!!!!!!! Nor does the new current Director who is suppose to be so knowledgable of how to run this BCWA. This smells to high heaven. The sewage plant smells like rose compared to this recent debacle, with the perception of collusion, and favortism in my opinion.
Bob Venice
5:34 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Marina, just look at it this way. Mack wuld need five votes to be retained. If the four board members that voted for her at the last meeting vote for her again, then all they would need is the support of John Janneto. Now with the 5 votes these board members can vote down the other law firms and then vote for Mack to be retained. Why do you think that Pam Marchand will not have a vote untill there are eight members present. It is unbelievable how the majority of BCWA board members will not listen to to any rate. Jack B hit the nail on the head, with his comments.