Warren Town Council member Scott Lial questioned BCWA board chairman John Jannitto over a letter he sent out requesting information about four East Bay residents.
EAST BAY — At a meeting earlier this month, Warren Town Council member Scott Lial questioned Bristol County Water Authority board of directors chairman John Jannitto over the letter he sent to various state agencies requesting information about four East Bay residents.
Mr. Lial opened the exchange by asking Mr. Jannitto if the authority had been requesting documents from state agencies, including the Water Resources Board. Mr. Jannitto said it had.
“Why?” asked Mr. Lial.
“It’s general information we’re trying to gather,” Mr. Jannitto replied.
“There must be a goal,” Mr. Lial said, to which Mr. Jannitto replied: “I’m not at liberty to discuss that.”
Mr. Lial then expanded his questioning.
“Who’s paying?” he asked.
“The water authority’s paying,” Mr. Jannitto said.
“So that would be the ratepayers, right? I’m just curious why that information is necessary,” Mr. Lial added.
Mr. Jannitto then offered his final comment regarding the issue: “We may have a purpose for it later on. There’s no extra money being spent in this request.”
Letter was ‘retribution’
Joseph Demelo, a member of the BCWA board of directors who represents Bristol, said that the inquiries put forth by Mr. Jannitto were discussed during executive session, but were not made on behalf of the board.
“That was straight from John Jannitto,” Mr. Demelo said of the requests for information
“He never spoke to me about it.”
When asked what the motivation behind the inquiries might be, Mr. Demelo, who also questioned BCWA activity prior to his appointment to the board, could only speculate.
“I guess he’s maybe looking for, I hate to say it, retribution.”
— With reporting from Ted Hayes and Eric Dickervitz
Comments
GaryM 6 months, 1 week ago
Councilor Lial should be thanked for standing up for transparency and open government. On the other hand, freshman Council Chairman Chris Stanley should be held accountable for building roadblocks to transparency.
While Chairman Stanley gave ample time in last week's council meeting for residents to speak on other matters, he blocked ALL public comment on BCWA matters. He also took the additional step to limit the questioning by council members to matters they submitted ahead of time to BCWA.
Chairman Stanley should consider that this has already created an atmosphere of crony politics the Republican party is supposed to stand against. Perhaps he may wish to reconsider his current position.
NiceTry 6 months, 1 week ago
Thank you, Councilor Lial & BCWA Director Demelo! Brave is beautiful.
And thank you, Mr. Klepper, for not allowing an improper Executive Session on October 12, 2011. Excerpt from subcommittee minutes:
“Director Matsumoto stated that he would like to go into Executive Session under 42-46-5(a) to consider possible litigation against 3 individuals. Director Klepper stated that the item was not on the agenda and could not be considered at this time. Director Matsumoto asked that it be on the agenda for the November meeting as an item for executive session.”
(The "3 individuals"- Marina Peterson, Gary Morse & "the Blacks". ??)
So the Executive Session did not occur until a November 2, 2011 subcommittee meeting (alas, with illegal notice). This was AFTER the October 19 letter. Did Mack & Jannitto act on their own? Or have an illegal walking/rolling meeting of a majority of the board? Either way, this is very bad for them.
Good for Mr. Klepper, Mr. Demelo & Mr. Lial.
Very bad for Ken "Spanish Inquisition" Marshall, Chris "Jannitto's Buddy" Stanley, Jannitto & Mack.
Some free education from the AG for Mr. Matsumoto!
Why are the BCWA ratepayers paying Mrs. Mack?
MrsB 6 months, 1 week ago
It's not the ratepayers who are looking for dirt on the East Bay 4, it's the BCWA. I suggest they pay for the investigations and leave us ratepayers OUT OF IT!
galt 6 months, 1 week ago
I would like to thank those that have called, emailed and written with their support on this ridiculous pending "suit". Thank you to the East Bay Newspapers for their support as well. And thank you Councilor Lial, Councilor DeWitt, and Councilor Tiexiera for asking the hard questions at town council meetings.
It appears that Mr. Jannitto acted on his own, in concert with Ms. Mack to collect (FIOI) information on the "East Bay Four". Ms. Mack, apparently felt so compelled to pursue this avenue that she agreed to do it "pro bono" ????
Don't they have other things to expend energy on?????
I sincerely hope that the recent actions of the BCWA will not hinder anyone from coming forth on town and municipal matters and asking questions. Do not let them frighten you! You are not alone!
OnwardsandUpwards 6 months, 1 week ago
Is there finally light at the end of the "unending, polluted pipe line? Honorable, dedicated, well informed citizens have spent years challenging the BCWA for a litany of illegalities, corrupt policies, exhorbitant rate hikes, unnecessary legal fees....AND NO WATER! BCWA and their inner circle are now outraged to find that the twenty year honeymoon is "on the rocks". Just follow the money, and benefits, to unearth the culprits! Miracles can happen! The East Bay Four deserve our gratitude! Some of our government officials are finally reacting to the scandal, and actually representing the rate payers! Why did it take so long?
NiceTry 6 months ago
This is bad for Mrs. Mack-
Article V, Rule 8.4(c) of the RI RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT for lawyers states: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:… engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”.
No. 5 in the Preamble states: “A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.”;
Mrs. Mack helping Mr. Jannitto with the improper “probing” letter is “dishonest conduct”- 1) Dishonest purpose of letter; 2) Mr. Jannitto acting without required Board action for his letter on BCWA stationary signed in his capacity as Chairman; 3) Executive session discussions without the required agenda notice; 4) Mr. Jannitto’s lies, etc. 5) And her conduct involves helping Mr. Jannitto to “harass” and “intimidate others”.
http://www.courts.ri.gov/AttorneyResources/ethicsadvisorypanel/PDF/EthicsArticle5.pdf
JackBaillargeron 6 months ago
I submit that, it is illegal for this gathering of information to have been done without the blessing of a vote by the board. No matter what the cost and there is cost, be it time involved by any board members or legal services, stamps, supplies etc, which reflects and gives the appearance of the blessing of the Board and therefore the BCWA.
I am very concerned that the legal arm of the BCWA has been used in this as is my understanding since the BCWA legal Services representatives name is on the request forms for information on ratepayers. This in it self is collusion and misuse of the Chairman’s position for what has the appearance of retribution for a select few ratepayers speaking out for redress from the BCWA’s Board and Management.
To Councilman Stanley I would say, it is not micro-managing the BCWA on such a serious incident as this apparently taken by the Chairman of the Board on his own with help from the BCWA lawyer. It was a question that should have been answered by the BCWA chairman as this situation reflects on the whole Board of the BCWA and the Tri-Town councils who oversee this Board. Also if a ratepayer is to be able to have redress, is not at a meeting the BCWA presenting a report, when the ratepayer should be able to make a comment? I fail to understand the logic of refusing to allow that ratepayer to speak. To tell the ratepayer to talk to the BCWA and not the Council who are the final arbitrator on all things BCWA is wrong.
The ratepayers are not only ratepayers but taxpayers and have every right to ask or comment at a public meeting.
DownTown 6 months ago
That's right Jack WE own the water company. They believe that customers and taxpayers are a nuisance that they grudgingly supply water to.
Reports! We don't pay any attention to reports!! No one understands how to run a water company except us!!! Stop asking us questions!!!!
Hey!!!!! We told you to stop asking us questions!!!!!! We're going to investigate all of you because we are the all powerful water company!!!!!!!
We don't care how much we pay our employees or for chemicals while we run the pretend treatment plant BUT we care about getting the $400/hr we pay for our lawyer to run the copy machine!!!!!!!!
For the love of god go away and stop asking us questions!!!!!!!!!-
DownTown 6 months ago
"I'm not at liberty to discuss that"
Sure this must be Homeland Security related like the $75,000 for janitorial overtime. The adult equivalent to 'the dog ate my homework'.
Edge 5 months ago
The Bristol County Water Authority. Who thought up that one. It has and always been the water company. A Rose by any other name is............ It's like calling a janitor a "environmental engineer" Call a spade a spade!
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID