They need outside counsel to verify the decisions made by their board about the work of their inside counsel as it relates to the advice she has given them about the violations that have happened as they try to vote to appoint legal counsel.

Phew!

This is like the old Keystone Cops movies.

Gee when you read the by-laws it clearly state a simple Majority for this vote, which far as I know is 5 out of 9. Oh just for clarity a super majority vote, required for the budget I think is 7 out of 9. We really need outsie legal advice to explain that? I mean REALLY!!!!

Well, it appears that there are times when the Bristol County Enabling Legislation is a "good thing" .... from BCWA minutes "That the Annual Report in the form presented at the meeting be, and the same hereby is, accepted; and that in accordance with the Bristol County Water Authority enabling legislation the Executive Director is hereby authorized to mail a copy of the Annual Report to
all members of the Town Councils of Barrington, Bristol and Warren."

And there are times when they're not so sure and need to consult an outside attorney. Here is the section in question: "Except as otherwise provided herein, five (5) directors shall constitute a quorum and any action to be taken by the Authority under the provisions of this Act may be authorized by a resolution approved of not less than five (5) at any regular or special meeting at which a quorum is present."
Seems pretty clear to me. Why do they need to pay outside counsel to interpret this? ( Note that when it mentions "except as otherwise provided" it is referring to times when seven (7) are required.)

Not to mention the numerous time the Board has explained that to me and others over the past decade including the Current chairman, past Director, past chairmen and various other board members, town councils and I have been at town Council meeting where that was asked and explained by Board members and mack, teitx, ursillo etc. what the heck is so hard about reading rules for the BCWA. WERE THEY NOT WRITTEN TO BE FOLLOWED.

After over 20 years this is a question they need clarified? Will this invalidate 100's of other past votes. Stay tuned folk, same bat time same bat channel. What a cluster............

The vote for Ms.Mack's firm was 4-3. This does not comply with the Bristol County Enabling Legislation requirement of five (5). Let's not turn this into a circus. She did not get five votes. Take a look at the other two candidates.

Michael McElroy of Providence, is currently president of the 2012-2013 Rhode Island Bar Association, a former three-term Chairman of the Superior Court Bench/Bar Committee, and is a member of the House of Delegates and the Executive Committee. He is a Fellow of the Rhode Island Bar Foundation. He is a member of the Rhode Island Association for Justice. He is a former Special Assistant Attorney General and is currently Legal Counsel to the Rhode Island Personnel Appeal Board.

Keough & Sweeney represent and counsel Water, Wastewater and Renewable Energy clients in all aspects of the regulatory process before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission and the Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers. Their areas of expertise include Water Utility Law, Wastewater Utility Law, and Renewable Energy Law.

The BCWA board of directors opened the voting process on the 16th with the statement that they had three well qualified firms to choose from and that any one of them would be able to handle the job well. From the qualifications mentioned above we urge the directors to give serious consideration to cost and qualifications and give less weight to "institutional knowledge".

This is a no-brainer!

Perhaps the two remaining law firms looking for the job of BCWA counsel would have the correct answer to Ms Marchand's question.

They appear to be very qualified to give a correct answer, something Ms. Mack at $375 per hour could not deliver (her prior rate before 2011 was $475 per hour) .

Dishonest delay tactics.

Seems they read the latest Patch "comments" and realized that the latest "re-do" meeting means that Mack is out.

Now they don't know what to do now, so they are resorting to stalling tactics...

There's so much dishonesty at BCWA that they have to change the lies on the website from one day to the next.

Their latest "story" is that they are looking for "outside counsel", and then "The Board will take appropriate actions..."

The truth is that Mrs. Mack was the $375 per hour "outside counsel", and she has had 26 years to review the laws and By-laws and "insure compliance".

Mrs. Mack had a front row seat at the January 16 meeting, and she quietly let the Board think that the 4 votes was enough.

Today their new story is that there is a legal question about the January 16 vote that needs an outside opinion.

But the truth is that there is no complicated legal issue. The law is clear that 5 votes are required for a majority.

Mrs. Mack should have spoken up and told the directors a the January 16 meeting that 4 votes was not enough to install her, and that they needed to move on to the next candidate.

She should have given this honest legal advice, and then bowed out gracefully as the Board moved on to consider the other candidates.

Now BCWA is caught and exposed in a tangle of dishonest lies.

Different lies from one day to the next.

The Bristol County Water Authority Act was approved on May 12, 1981. It is the statute that governs the operation of the Bristol County Water Authority. It clearly states that five (5) votes are required to pass a resolution. If the attorney/s who compiled the BCWA by-laws neglected to pick-up on the requirement that five (5) votes are required to pass a resolution, and did not transfer that information to the BCWA by-laws then they made a mistake. I believe that the statute trumps the BCWA by-laws.

Again, I ask... how many resolutions have been passed with less than 5 votes? Did they just find out about this part of the statute today? Who is supposed to know and advise BCWA on this? Does the right hand even know what the left hand is doing here? What part of "the statute is the law" do they not understand?

Tell me again, you need outside counsel why?????

When Pam Marchand ask another Law Firm for advice, I hope it is not another $65,000 question.

The 4 members of the board demonstrate how little they care about rate payers and instead their own selfish interests. This has been a "skull and bones in the closet" club for too long.

The councils have to get involved since they are part of the problem here.

And the citizens keep electing the same councils. Go figure.

We will never see and end to this BCWA scam unless the State is made to wake up and dissolve it. That is the only solution to prevent the liabilty this BCWA has put on the Ratepayer, Tri-town area and the taxpayers of the entire State who will all be affected whether they live in the tri-town area or are are ratepayers. In the end all taxpayers in the State will have to pay for this scam under the guise of "good of the people or State taxpayers". That is the dirty large secret of all of this in my opinion.