Hummel Report on BCWA Executive Director
Jim Hummel has done an investigative report on circumstances surrounding the BCWA's new executive director's departure from her previous position at the Providence Water Authority. Ms. Marchand was terminated without cause and given a severance package of over a quarter of a million dollars.
Only one of the directors at the BCWA was aware of the termination; the other directors were under the impression that she had left voluntarily.
It is interesting to note that Ms. Marchand's contract with Providence Water Authority could be unilaterally terminated with 60 days notice.
The contract with the BCWA is much more generous. Ms. Marchand can only be terminated with "Cause," which includes breach of the agreement, conviction of a felony, fraud or crime with moral terpitude, illegal drug use, loss of license as a professional engineer, or failure to comply with the written policies of the Company or written directions of the board.
The full report can be viewed at www.hummelreport.com/11.15.2012.buyout.html
What would cause the Providence Authority to spend over a quarter of a million dollars to terminate an employee?
no regr allia b
2:00 pm on Friday, November 16, 2012
Very interest question there Marina. Also why some were calling for an open vetting process. If I remember right there were also not many applications, which was kind of strange in itself. Lets hope it was not anything real bad, though I suspect we will never know as usual.
marina peterson
3:41 pm on Friday, November 16, 2012
I think what bothers me the most is that BCWA gave the new Executive Director almost an "iron-clad" contract (as opposed to the PWA contract which included unilateral termination rights) after going through a horrible fiasco trying to get rid of Delise. Am executive director's position MUST be based on performance criteria and subject to review! I can't imagine why this contract is not tied to performance, as most jobs of that position are. And some of the directors didn't even SEE the contract that was offered.
Bob Venice
6:33 pm on Friday, November 16, 2012
Marina
I can not believe that only one member of the BCWA new about the agreement made between Ms. Marchard and the Providence Water Authority. The article was in the paper months ago, and it stated, that the two sides could no longer get along and she was going to be asked to resign, and that no other reasons would be given by Ms. Marchand or the PWA upon her dismissal. It seems to me that, whatever happened, Mrs. Marchand was on the right side of something that was going on at the PWA and that is why they gave here $250,000. Please, this Woman has just been hired, and it would be nice, if we gave her a chance to show us what she can do as to the problems at the BCWA. Stop trying to make something out of nothing.
marina peterson
12:57 pm on Saturday, November 17, 2012
Yes, I agree. I wrote an op-ed when she was hired asking folks to give her a chance to see what she can do. The point is that she was given an "iron-clad" contract that will make it hard to replace her if the case that she does not accomplish her goals. That is what I am questioning. Why would the board do that after the trouble they had getting rid of Delise? Director Allio is pushing for a very strong set of articles to gauge her success when her review comes up in February.
I tend to agree with you that more of the directors knew... but they responded to the reporter that the did NOT know. And, if you remember, Director Jannitto was interviewed after the selection and said he was positive that she had not been fired by the PWA because if she was it would have come out in their vetting procedure. so.... Those are the questions.
Bob Venice
8:24 pm on Saturday, November 17, 2012
Marina
I did not know that she received an Iron clad contract. There is no reason to give anyone this kind of contract. My question is why the Town Councils of the three towns allowed the contract, if they have the power to overrule the BCWA members.
marina peterson
2:51 pm on Sunday, November 18, 2012
Good question Bob! They don't approve/disapprove the contract. They leave that to their appointed directors. Apparently most of the directors didn't know about these details. If you go to the Hummel report and view the PWA contract, vs the BCWA contract... you will see what I mean. I think that an executive director should be accountable for his/her performance and be reviewed accordingly. Many of us called for the vetting to be public and the interviews to be public... but .. no dice. This is not to be construed with any complaints of the Executive Director's performance. It is simply a question of procedure. What do you think?
no regr allia b
8:32 pm on Saturday, November 17, 2012
Would not mind seeing the new Union Contract also Marina. Just to see what has changed in that, as that was an issue in the last rate increase also.
Bob Venice
6:15 pm on Sunday, November 18, 2012
Marina
If the contract she received was given to her by the directors, without having to be approved by the Councils, then I would like to see them all removed and replaced with people that care about our taxes. No one in todays world is worth the contract she received, for with the number of people who are out of work, I believe the authority could have found someone that would have taken a lot less and would have been able to do the job.
marina peterson
11:40 am on Monday, November 19, 2012
What many of us have been saying for the last three years is that the Town Councils have just kept appointing the same old guard and have not been paying attention to what is going on at the BCWA. When we try to bring up issues at town council meetings they say we are "on a witch hunt" or compare us to the "Spanish Inquisition".
For me, the jury is out as to whether she is doing or will do a good job. That remains to be seen. But the position requires accountability for one's actions and the necessity of performing. Why that wasn't demanded is a serious question. And is it true that the directors did NOT see the details of the contract before it was executed.
no regr allia b
11:54 am on Monday, November 19, 2012
True Marina/ It would seem there has been a mentality at the BCWA for quite some time by certain individuals that subscribe to the "Pelosi" theory of with contracts and most of the dealings, "we have to approve it so we can see whats in it". Just saying
marina peterson
1:26 pm on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
I want to make clear that I am not judging the performance of the new Executive Director here. The main point is the procedure... it all comes down to the procedure. The directors chose to hire someone who was fired from another similar position, and felt she might be a good fit. But they should NOT offer a contract that is NOT performance-based! And the ratepayers had been repeatedly assured that the hiring of the nest Executive Director would be transparent. It was NOT. It took seven months to obtain the information regarding the old contract, new contract, etc.
John Tattrie
7:25 pm on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
@Bobby Venice, the three Town Bodies do not have the power to over-rule the BCWA Board in their contract decision. There is no mechanism in the order of things for that to happen. In fact she hasn't even been there long enough for any of the Town bodies to be finding fault with her performance. As for the process for hiring her, that is a whole other story. The BCWA Board makes that decision, and I find it hard to believe that the Board members don't know the content of her contract. If in fact they, don't then shame on them for not reading the material that they all are supposedly working on together. As far as a performance based contract, it probably should have been something along those lines.....but that ship has sailed. And there is little if anything that can be done until her present contract ends. I think it's a bit early in the big picture of things for anyone to be predicting what the future of the BCWA is going to be. As far as the Boards actions, well....those guys need to stay on the straight and narrow if the don't want to be beaten up again publicly by everyone.
marina peterson
12:34 pm on Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Good points John. It is discouraging that it took seven months to gain access to copies of the contracts in question and to know what was offered. This was supposed to be 'transparent"...?? It is too late to do anything about the contract; this is true. But it is not too late to let folks know that this occurred, and question why. Do you know for sure that all of the directors were provided an advance copy of the contract? I don't know if they were or not. One director told me that he never saw the contract. Mr. Jannito has gone on record as saying early on that Ms. Marchand was NOT fired from her last position because if she had been it would have come out in the vetting. And she was .. and it didn't...
Again, when you are hiring someone who has been terminated by another facility you would normally protect your company by having a contract based on performance.
no regr allia b
7:52 pm on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
I agree Marina, the problem here is that those who have been keeping a close eye on things should rightly be concerned about the vetting that went on. There was a call for an outside entity to do the search and vetting of applicants. That however was ignored.
It is also a concern that this came out now. However it is what it is and the opportunity to give the new director time to prove her worth to the Board and the rate payers is still on going. The contract is a concern, because of the lack of controls, no penalties, no review process pointed out etc.
As in most companies in this day and age, these controls are always tied to performance and are there to protect the stockholders (in this case the ratepayers are the stockholders). The ambiguity in the contract makes for a lawyers dream in my opinion should a need arise to terminate it. Without teeth in the contract it tends to take away incentive and fear of Board if the new director should for lack of better words (screw up). Has nothing to do with who the new director is per se, but any director in my opinion.
Controls must be in place so the Board can do its job and have the power to intercede. This Board is not advisory. This current contract in my opinion has ceded quite a bit of power to a lawsuit rather than themselves where it should be. Reminds me of the last Union contract which was very one sided and the cause of numerous grievance’s for in my opinion.
Bob Venice
7:54 pm on Tuesday, November 20, 2012
John, I have nothing against the hiring of Ms. Marchand, what i am disgusted about is the contract she recieved from the BCWA Board. It is a contract that never should have been given in these times. The Town Council is doing everything that they can to keep our taxes down, while it seems like the people they place on the board don,t care, Like I stated before, in these times there are many people seeking jobs, alot of them mostly for the benifits, and I just feel, that they could have hired an experienced person, for much less then the package they gave out to Mrs. Marchand.
John Tattrie
5:30 pm on Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Irony is, she has a abundance of expierience...as far as her contract goes, The Board needs to pay better attention to what they are doing. Or their gonna find themselves back in hot water again. Funny thing is most of the Board has changed...? Im not interested in why she left to be honest. I just want her to perform her duties here and straighten out the issues at hand. I somewhat feel she has enough of a background to handle the job. Next time the contract comes up, perhaps the question can be addressed again.
no regr allia b
7:52 pm on Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Good points John.
b kcaj
7:53 am on Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Jack Baillargeron blabbered:
"Would not mind seeing the new Union Contract also Marina. Just to see what has changed in that, as that was an issue in the last rate increase also."
As usual, Jack "The Union Hater" Baillargeron has to get his two cents in and take a swipe at the unionized workers.
Here's an idea for you Jack, seeing that you love to bash unions, why don't you bash the firemen's union at the Newport Navy Base, the same union that sends you your pension check every month.
Talk about the true definition of a hypocrite-you sure fit that profile Jack.
b kcaj
7:56 am on Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Jack Baillargeron also posted:
"Reminds me of the last Union contract which was very one sided and the cause of numerous grievance’s for in my opinion."
So Jack, does the water company union contract remind you of the navy base unionized firemen contract that pays you your pension and allows you to sit on your fat behind and criticize unions all day and night?
Did you ever think of getting a job Jack?