BCWA board members Allan Klepper (left) and Lloyd Matsumoto, shown at an event in Barrington, attended an executive session meeting on Nov. 2 where they discussed possible litigation against a few individuals.
EAST BAY — The Bristol County Water Authority board of directors met behind closed doors on Nov. 2 to discuss “possible litigation” against a handful of individuals.
According to official BCWA meeting minutes, board member Lloyd Matsumoto, a Barrington resident, asked his fellow board members on Oct. 27 to go into executive session to “consider possible litigation against three individuals.”
Board member and fellow Barrington resident Allan Klepper reportedly told his fellow directors that it would be improper to hold a private meeting then because the item was not on the Oct. 27 meeting agenda.
Instead, the board met again six days later and convened the executive session to discuss the possible litigation.
Mr. Klepper and BCWA board of directors chairman John Jannitto said they would not comment about the private meeting. (Mr. Matsumoto did not return a phone call for this article.)
Legal counsel for the water authority, Sandra Mack, said the minutes from that meeting are sealed.
“Any discussion of potential actions by the water authority does not relate to any individual’s right to exercise their first amendment rights. The water authority welcomes that involvement,” she said.
Barrington residents Gary Morse and Jeff and Janice Black, and Bristol resident Marina Peterson — vocal critics of the water authority — feel that they may be the targets for the potential lawsuit. Mr. Morse, the Blacks and Ms. Peterson, nicknamed the “East Bay Four,” have publicly challenged and lambasted some of the actions of the water authority and its board.
In turn, Mr. Jannitto sent a letter in late October to numerous state agencies including the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the Rhode Island Department of Health and the Rhode Island Water Resources Board, requesting all e-mails, text messages and print letters that the East Bay Four had sent to the agencies. Mr. Jannitto’s letter also requested “notes of any phone calls or meetings with any of the individuals.”
Mr. Jannitto said the BCWA board is trying to gather information about Mr. and Mrs. Black, Mr. Morse and Ms. Peterson because the board believed those four people have cost the authority unnecessary money and obstructed the board from its normal duties.
“They cost us time, energy and finances in all these things we’re trying to do,” said Mr. Jannitto in a Nov. 17 interview. “I’m just trying to gather what it may have cost us. ... They have directly impaired our operation.
“I think we owe it to the ratepayers. ... I’m not sure it will deter them (the East Bay Four).”
Ms. Mack said it would be improper and premature to speculate about the details of the possible litigation. She then said that some important information was being ignored during the discussion of the East Bay Four.
“The point that’s getting lost in all of this, is that Bristol County needs a redundant source of water. Right now the only water servicing the East Bay is from the East Bay Pipeline. And one thing is certain, that that East Bay Pipeline won’t last forever,” she said
“As a result of the Shad Pipeline and other problems, the water treatment plant is currently off-line and receiving no water from its existing sources.
“The most important work for this water authority is to plan for and obtain state funding for a redundant water source and if there is agreement among town councils and various state agencies that there is a better, more cost efficient redundant source to be developed, it’s the water authority’s objective to pursue that. Once the new executive director is in place that will be their number one priority.”
In an apparent reference to the discussion of litigation by the board, Ms. Mack finished with: “If the interests of the water authority are harmed, then there’s a proper investigation.”
Comments
GaryM 6 months ago
BCWA thinks it is appropriate to ask for a 12% rate hike, post zero backup study data or information on the BCWA website supporting the 12% rate hike request, hold meetings with the town councils explaining the rate hike which the councilors then characterize as Yogi Berra-ish (2-1-10 statement by Barrington councilor Jeff Brenner) and then complain that residents are asking for too much information.
BCWA has NEVER had an independent audit completed of the $ millions in project spending on those projects covered under the Bristol County Water Supply Act, had a $5 million dollar cost over run on a "pay as you go" Cross Bay pipeline contract (also never audited), never submitted a statutorily required plan laying out how much these projects would cost, spent over $1 million on a water treatment plant before the Shad Pipeline was even permitted, and then complain that residents are asking for too much information.
The list goes on. The BCWA complaints go on. Sandra Macks legal bills go on.
GaryM 6 months ago
Mr Jannitto, Mrs Mack, there is a crisis in confidence in the community over how BCWA is being managed and you are doing little to fix it.
We don't buy it that you think we should be happy to have heavily processed local water because as you say "I like the taste of the chemicals". (Mack - Jan 25, 2011, BCWA Forum).
We don't buy it that we should be paying one of the highest rates for water in the entire state.
We don't buy it that BCWA's current crushing debt load is entirely to pay off important projects that serve our interests.
We don't buy it that you think it proper to have never completed a qualified audit on the $ millions in questionable project spending under the Bristol County Water Supply Act, particularly on that $5 million dollar cost over-run on the Cross Bay Pipeline, to which Mrs Mack, it appears you never brought an action against the vetting company of that foolish "pay as you go" $ 5 mil cost overrun we are still paying off today (but you're willing to sue us).
We don't buy it that the recent B&E Performance Audit should have been modified by taking out an audit of BCWA's financials where it appears, at Mrs Mack's insistence and under the threat that if it were not done, BCWA would not willingly participate in the B&E audit.
And we certainly don't buy it that you Mrs. Mack should be the one vetting all of the resumes in the search for the new position of Executive Director given your financial conflict of interest as a $475/hr BCWA attorney. It just looks like you are setting up the next BCWA crony of your own choosing.
NiceTry 6 months ago
A legitimate point that’s NOT lost in all this is that it is the BCWA board, management and legal counsel that have wasted time and resources, and have cost the ratepayers unnecessary money. They have directly impaired the operation of the water authority.
The East Bay Four have exposed the problems at BCWA and Jannitto and Mack are angry about this and are now wasting more time and resources by improperly threatening the East Bay Four.
This is very, very bad.
The point that’s NOT lost in all this is that Jannitto & Mack need to resign now.
NiceTry 6 months ago
What’s Mack babbling about now?
Oh…notice how she tries to change the subject because she & Jannitto are caught now. How much will she bill for this? There’s no basis for any lawsuit.
Mr. Matsumoto’s attempt to go into illegal Executive Session was on October 12, 2011 (not October 27, 2011) under New Business, Search Committee, item 1:
“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.”
BCWA should get the free instruction on the open meetings laws offered by the AG.
Then, Mack and Jannitto sent out their October 19, 2011 “probing” letter. The board did not vote to send this letter. Mack & Jannitto are on a mean-spirited frolic.
The minutes of the November 2 Executive Session do not qualify to be sealed because, for various reasons, the Executive Session was not legal and did not qualify as a properly closed meeting– see below.
The November 2, 2011 meeting that is referred to in the article was an illegal meeting because that November 2, 2011 meeting was for the Public Relations/Personnel Subcommittee (not the full board) and had an improper reference to an improper citation:
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/3883/2011/115255.pdf
See item "5. Potential Litigation (Executive Session RIGL 42-46-5 (1))"
This is not a proper citation and the public is not supposed to have to guess about agenda items.
Matsumoto is on this committee and it got on this committee’s agenda.
Then the same illegal notice got on the full board agenda for November 10, 2011:
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/3883/2011/115265.pdf
If Mrs. Mack & Mr. Jannitto wanted to try to use RIGL 46-5(a)(1)), they were required to comply with the statute and give the East Bay Four the statutorily required written notice and the chance to be at the meeting in open session so the public could observe. But BCWA did not send any such written notice to the East Bay Four.
Even though this same item was on the full board November 10, 2011 agenda, the board did not go into Executive Session at all. Maybe by then they had realized that it was all illegal. What a mess. What are they paying Mack for?
GaryM 6 months ago
This is the same Director Matsumoto who has previously misrepresented issues to the Barrington Town Council in the monthly reports such as:
"We cannot do anything about the pension plan" (Truth-o-Meter says FALSE! The management and non union pension amendments could have been implemented anytime the board wanted to make a change. Perhaps the board really felt it was OK that BCWA continue to have one of the most lucrative pension plans in the entire state at rate payers expense).
"We have a completed plan for the Shad Pipeline" (Truth-o-Meter says FALSE! BCWA was still working on the final plan at the time he testified that it was completed as confirmed by Sandra Mack's own testimony to the Rehoboth Water Commission on the same night Dir Matsumoto told the Barrington Town Council it was completed. And at this point, funding looks questionable since the state has informed BCWA that state funding has dried up for this project)
NiceTry 6 months ago
EXCERPT from RIGL § 42-46-5 Purposes for which meeting may be closed … (a) A public body may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to § 42-46-4 for one or more of the following purposes:
(1) Any discussions of the job performance, character, or physical or mental health of a person or persons provided that such person or persons affected shall have been notified in advance in writing and advised that they may require that the discussion be held at an open meeting.
EXCERPT from RIGL § 42-46-4 Closed meetings. – (a) By open call, a public body may hold a meeting closed to the public upon an affirmative vote of the majority of its members. A meeting closed to the public shall be limited to matters allowed to be exempted from discussion at open meetings by § 42-46-5. The vote of each member on the question of holding a meeting closed to the public and the reason for holding a closed meeting, by a citation to a subdivision of § 42-46-5(a), and a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed, shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the meeting. No public body shall discuss in closed session any public matter which does not fall within the citations to § 42-46-5(a) referred to by the public body in voting to close the meeting, even if these discussions could otherwise be closed to the public under this chapter.
(b) All votes taken in closed sessions shall be disclosed once the session is reopened; provided, however, a vote taken in a closed session need not be disclosed for the period of time during which its disclosure would jeopardize any strategy, negotiation or investigation undertaken pursuant to discussions conducted under § 42-46-5(a).
EastBayAnonymous 6 months ago
There is no basis for any lawsuit against the East Bay Four.
That’s why there is no lawsuit against the East Bay four.
And, that’s why Mrs. Mack had to change the subject, and the Directors would not talk.
Mr. Jannitto and Mrs. Mack were caught on a highly improper frolic, and now they don’t know how to get out of it.
It is unethical and outrageous for Mrs. Mack to be involved with helping Mr. Jannitto send out improper “probing” letters, and make threatening comments about “possible litigation”.
Doesn’t Mrs. Mack know about the RI anti-SLAPP statute? Does she care?
The East Bay Four exposed Mr. Jannitto’s negligent miss-management, and now he is obviously quite angry.
Mr. Jannitto should not be using BCWA resources to further his petty desire for revenge.
Mr. Jannitto should just resign and go away quietly now, and take Mrs. Mack with him.
galt 6 months ago
I would like to publicly thank all those who have called, emailed or sent letters of support to us over the last few weeks. It is appreciated more than you know. Thank you ALL.
What started as a simple request by ratepayers/residents for answers to some very important questions, has evolved into a barrage of attacks and threats by the BCWA against the "East Bay Four". No matter how you feel about the issues being discussed, I am sure all will agree that the intimidation and thuggery must stop.
For the BCWA directors to gather information on residents through the Freedom of Information Act for a goal that they "are not at liberty to discuss" smacks of underhanded goals. Trying to piece it together.... Mr. Matsumoto requested an executive session to discuss litigation against 3 individuals on October 12th. The FOI request went out on October 19th. They had an executive session listed on the Secretary of State's site for the meeting of Nov. 2, but it was not properly referenced, so they repeated it for the meeting of November 10th. At this meeting they decided NOT to go into executive session. Somewhere I got lost. When did they have the LEGAL closed executive session? ... The private meeting that they admit that they had but the minutes are sealed???
JackBaillargeron 6 months ago
This is utterly disgusting!!! Just when you think the BCWA has reached the bottom of a pit, and hope they are finnaly going to do the right think and climb out, you find the pit turns out to be bottomless and they go back to the same tactics of secrecy. Now we know why Mr. Jannitto would not answer in details the questions at the Warren Council meeting asked by Councilman Lial.
http://www.townofwarren-ri.gov/newsupdates/towncouncilmeetings.html
There is obviously a concerted effort by the BCWA and lawyer Sandra M. Mack legal Council to the BCWA, to silence and get retribution on citizens, who brought forth the real story going on at the BCWA in my opinion.
There should be public outcry of these kinds of tactics being used against citizens. Remember when one citizen rights are taken away or suppressed, all citizens’ rights are diminished.
For a board that talks about turning a corner and getting the BCWA to fiscal responsibility and efficiency, this smacks of a serious breach of ethics on the part of the board and collusion with the Legal Council of the BCWA to attempt retribution against individuals who did nothing more than ask questions in my opinion.
The time has come for a house cleaning, to include an independent State or Federal investigation in just what has and is going on in the BCWA for the last 20 years! The Ratepayers and Taxpayers not only deserve this, but many of us demand it. My Opinion anyway.
NiceTry 6 months ago
Mrs. Mack is so illogical. She just talks all around in circles when she's caught.
This ridiculous "investigation" is NOT proper. The meeting was illegal and there was no board approval.
And why didn't she give them proper legal advice about the open meetings problems? Maybe she WANTS more open meetings complaints? So can she can make a few more $65,000 photocopies to drive around Providence.
There is no basis for a lawsuit agains the East Bay Four.
The other board members should comply with the July 5, 2011 directive from the Barrington Town Council and do that RFP for legal services.
It is Jannitto & Mack who have harmed the interests of the water authority so maybe they should sue themselves. For years they've spent lots of money but they left ratepayers without the required redundant water supply and they did not comply with the law in other ways as well.
GaryM 6 months ago
Mrs Mack's arguments that BCWA is working hard to get a redundant source of water are laughable.
Mrs Mack knew that since 1993, completion of the Shad Pipeline was a statutory priority under the Bristol County Water Supply Act. May I repeat, since 1993 it was a priority. Now suddenly that the community is asking what went on in that period from 1993 to 2011, she is shocked, shocked, to find out they have made little progress. And now BCWA has been told that funding under the Act is over. So to summarize Mrs Mack's legal accomplishments:
Still no long term agreement to take the water from Rehoboth, Ma. Still no long term agreement for the Anawan Reservoir (currently a 1 year lease). Still no final plan with costs for the Shad Pipeline. Still no final costs for the mandatory water treatment plant upgrades. Still no way to fund the above projects since the state has now told BCWA to go away.
And for this chaos we paid Mrs Mack's law firm $475 hr in legal advice for more than a decade. I want to be a BCWA lawyer.
NiceTry 6 months ago
Again Mr. Klepper shows that he knows right from wrong. And he didn’t need Mack. Perhaps Mr. Klepper could handle a term as Chairman of the Board?
Mack & Jannitto are a very provocative duo. They wrongfully defame the East Bay Four, threaten to sue, violate open govt laws. Mack & Jannitto have no basis to sue the EB4, and there’s other considerations as to Mack.
It’s high time to ask: Is a rainmaker lawyer running this water authority and no one’s realized it?!
Is Mack using Jannitto's petty desire for retribution to feed a secret desire to harm the East Bay Four so they will sue BCWA & taking the new open gov complaints right to court?
Because Mack probably knows that lawsuits can take years. All that discovery (depositions, records...). Legal fees for years to come?! Look how she turned those recent open government violations into a year and a half of driving $65,000 worth of redundant photocopies (that nobody asked for, no less) around Providence. Imagine what Mack could do with an ACTUAL lawsuit!
Mack tripping on naked greed? LOL. Mack doesn’t care. She gets paid EITHER WAY, right? EITHER WAY! LOL!
Oh… but there’s another problem for Mack & Jannitto - the EB4 are being so darn nice & patient about being wrongfully dragged through that manure-pile-with-the-cow-on-top in public. Maybe nobody will sue anybody…. Uh oh…that could be Mack’s worst outcome! How will she maintain her billings? Doesn’t a partner just HAVE to bring in a certain amount or….or….or else? They’re not paid the big bucks for altruism now are they? There are the realities of the partnership, right?
Well, that’s another of Mack’s problems right now. ;-)
Hey, who SHOULD be running the water authority?
Is the Board working for Mack?
The Board should comply with the Barrington Town Council's July 5, 2011 directive & put out that RFP for a new lawyer.
'Course, they'd have to stand up to Mack & Jannitto. And Mack already TOLD that Board in no uncertain terms that SHE'S not doing THAT RFP. Oh no.
EastBayAnonymous 6 months ago
BCWA’s 2007 Clean Water Infrastructure Replacement Plan filed with the RI Dept. of Health, included a $2.4M “Five-year water main replacement Program”.
The 2009 PARE report found that BCWA needed to maintain a water main replacement program, because of an old leaky system, including asbestos material. But BCWA has not completed the water main replacement project.
Other RI towns obtained “stimulus” funding for their water main replacement projects. But BCWA management said applying for stimulus funding involved “to much red tape”.
June Swallow, RIDOH said the following (excerpt from recent article):
“Aging water infrastructure can pose risks to public and environmental health. June Swallow, a drinking water infrastructure expert at the Rhode Island Department of Health explains that breaks, leaks, worn spots and holes can introduce pathogens from soil into drinking water mains (the reason for “boil-water” alerts during main breaks). Those pathogens generally disappear after repair, but there is a possibility, Swallow says, of them “finding a home” in biofilm, or slime, that sometimes exists inside a main. Even when pipes do not break, they can develop tuberculation, corrosive buildup resembling barnacles, caused by a chemical reaction between treated drinking water and metal pipe. According to the EPA, bacteria growth in tubercles can cause health problems. Swallow says that tuberculation is not the most pressing issue in water mains – the issue is that so many mains are “reaching the end of their useful life” simultaneously, creating an epidemic of failure.”
http://www.metcalfinstitute.org/dl/whats_on_tap.pdf
The Barrington Town Council issued 4 directives to BCWA on July 5, 2011. BCWA has not complied. One directive was to provide a status report of infrastructure projects “on hold”.
Rather than wasting BCWA resources on trying to slap the East Bay Four, it’s too bad that Jannitto & Mack didn’t devote the same level of effort toward getting stimulus money like other RI water districts did. BCWA could have obtained funding to address this important project.
NiceTry 6 months ago
If BCWA sues the East Bay Four, the East Bay Four would get to do some discovery so they can show what is true and what is false, right?
GaryM 6 months ago
Nice Try -
I suspect that this BCWA Board have never been informed by their $475 per hour attorney that when BCWA decided to start taking money from the state under the 1993 Bristol County Water Supply Act, their attorney forgot to mention that the Act required that for a period of 3 years after the final check was cashed (which hasn't happened yet), ALL records from 1993 onward had to be kept readily available for inspection.
The BCWA Board might be thinking they have some sort of statute of limitations protections on keeping records available. It appears they don't.
DownTown 6 months ago
There is now absolutely NO DOUBT that those involved with this from BCWA are desperate to change the subject from them to someone - anyone else.
Has it crossed anyone's mind on the 3 town councils that having a subcontracted legal firm operate the copy machine for anywhere from $400 to $500 an hour is completely ridiculous. A full time attorney would cost less but why would they need that?
Once again I will ask someone from the BXWA why ratepayers apparently picked up most of what was probably around $1 million to convert the water pipes on Ferry Rd to higher capacity for the RWU water tower AND why the BCWA or Bristol has taken over the tower and the costs of maintaining it and the pumps at great cost to taxpayers/ratepayers and great savings to RWU. Someone benefited from that sweetheart deal. Ordinary customers who have lousy water pressure maintain any equipment themselves why isn't RWU doing the same?
Closed session? Have them gone completely out of their minds? OPEN MEETINGS????
They owe it to the rate payers to
1-come clean on why they are paying $400 an hour to someone who is apparently a full time employee.
2-Admit that they are paying an outside legal firm to operate the copy machine.
Any adult with the slightest idea of how things operate in Rhode Island HAS to KNOW something is very very wrong with the BCWA because they cannot let off wind without legal advice.
DownTown 6 months ago
One of them needs to call the State Fire Marshals office and explain why the water pressure at the hydrants doesn't meet NFPA standards.
Then they can have a closed session about that.
DownTown 6 months ago
Funny when they were selling residents on a cross bay pipeline they never mentioned its apparently short lifespan. $40 - $45 million and they are already sounding the warning about needing to replace it.
Move over Block Island and Jamestown Bristol County is looking to take over the title for the most expensive water in the state.
We should have built a desalination plant in. It works in Saudi Arabia and it works in Tampa and it works in Swansea.
JackBaillargeron 6 months ago
Well worth looking into Downtown for a variety of reason, as a flagship to supply many others in the state and take pressure off our current land supplies. We have a low population in this area, making it idea for a plant to work the bugs out etc. Private and state involvement would be ideal in job creating also. Plus, once on line dissolving, selling, etc, all assets of the BCWA, and have that put toward infrastructure repair. I could easily support that.
Israel is now desalinating water at a cost of US$0.53 per cubic meter. Singapore is desalinating water for US$0.49 per cubic meter. Many large coastal cities in developed countries are considering the feasibility of seawater desalination, due to its cost effectiveness compared with other water supply options, which can include mandatory installation of rainwater tanks or stormwater harvesting infrastructure. Studies] have shown that the desalination option is more cost-effective than large-scale recycled water for drinking, and more cost-effective in Sydney than the vastly expensive option of mandatory installation of rainwater tanks or stormwater harvesting infrastructure I.E reservoirs.
JackBaillargeron 6 months ago
Also I should say that a major problem with the BCWA is that they live in the past, not only when it comes to the financial adventures, but to how they havebeen addressing the infastructure and treatment problems. New technology needs to be looked at. It is foolish to keep doing the things that either will not work or only put off the inevitable.
Dependence on the water sources is foolish as the only one viable and realitic is the eastbay pipeline, however it has a shelf life, where desalinating water only will become ore efficient and fiscally viable with time and improvement of the technolgy. Our State and Washington politicians should be pushing this for Rhode Island, as we aresmall enough to work out the kinks as they say and exspand it to all the coast of the US.
I was once told the Great Lakes contain 1/5 of the world fresh water, Common sense dictates, population increase will demand these new technologies period.
Morry 6 months ago
I'm a resident of Providence, but a friend suggested I read about this issue because it would be interesting to me. So I did, and it was.
From reading the articles as well as the responses from both sides, I made one observation immediately: That in the posts from both sides, the arguments from the critics of the BCWA are where 90% of the factual information on the topic is to be found, whereas vague claims and implied threats are to be found 100% exclusively in the comments from the BCWA.
This is one of the reasons I've formed the opinion that the "East Bay Four" are almost surely the good guys in this controversy, and that the BCWA people are the villains. There are many more reasons for this opinion, but even at a cursory glance I think the above observation would be quite compelling evidence to any objective observer.
Below are a few of the other reasons why my tentative opinion on this topic (after reading the articles and the posts from both sides) is that (a) the East Bay Four are probably people to be admired, and even deserving of some kind of award from tax and rate paying citizens, and (b) that there is ample reason for suspicion that the BCWA is corrupt or incompetent or both. Please note that I used the world "suspicion." It's just the picture which the available facts appear to paint. I'm pretty sure that picture will eventually prove accurate, but I will have to keep my mind open until there's proof. Anyway, here are a few more reasons for my opinions, suspicions, and conclusions as of the current stage of this controversy:
(CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST BELOW)
Morry 6 months ago
CONTINUED . . .
Morry 6 months ago
CONTINUED ...
FIVE:. I was particularly struck by Ms Mack's statement that "If the interests of the water authority are harmed, then there’s a proper investigation.” If I've ever heard a statement of unmitigated arrogance, that's it. What are the East Bay Four seeking? Only the truth. They want to know whether things are being done right, and they're defending the public's right to know the truth, the public which pays for BCWA's product, which is BCWA's sole customer base, & which is also the source of state tax money which helps pay the salaries & pensions of BCWA employees. Ms Mack seems to suffer from a misconception of her role in this matter, one which seems to be getting more & more common in recent years. Ms. Mack's job exists and was established FOR the people, BY the people themselves. The BCWA may be a unique or uncommon type of agency in certain technical ways, but the root of its essence is that it was established by the people, via their government which the people had also established for themselves, Their intention was to provide a service that they, the people want & will pay for by both a rate system and state tax revenues. The employees of the BCWA may not routinely answer DIRECTLY to the public, but ultimately, it is the who has hired them and who pays their salaries. BCWA was CREATED by the people (or their delegated agents), FOR THEMSELVES. Now Ms Mack seems to be suffering from the upside-down view that she's the boss and that if the people want to know how the entity THEY established and pay for is doing, well, that's an ILLEGAL imposition on HER time. Those who pay the bills and her salary & benefits, and who actually OWN BCWA, are meddlers in her affairs when they ask "what am I getting for my money?" SHE is the one with rights, and the people who are responsbile for the very existence of her job, must kowtow to HER needs or face legal action. Sojmehow, this point of view doesn't sit exactly right with me. It just seems like one of the most arrogant examples of pure, unmitigated gall I've ever heard of.
I'm from Providence, so forgive my ignorance in having to ask this, but I'm just curious to know: is Ms Mack by any chance a recent immigrant from Russia whose previous job experience was with the KGB? I ask because I know that the KGB used to threaten bringing the force of law against citizens who asked too many questions, too.
Well, I'll omit the remaining reasons. I'd like more information from the BCWA side so I can correct any inaccuracies in my current impressions and form some conclusions based on thorough information. I guess I'm trying to do in my role as one observer what the East Bay Four are trying to do as a service to the ratepayers. I'd like to have the WHOLE truth before drawing final conclusions. I do wish the BCWA didn't resent requests for the truth so much -- they could have saved me all the time it's taken to write this post.
GaryM 6 months ago
Morry,
The East Bay Four are in your debt! Unbelievable summary and observations of what is really going on here.
If there are any facts you have an interest in knowing more about, we can cite the source.
Perhaps you can adopt a new login as the "Providence One".
Thanks
Gary Morse
JackBaillargeron 6 months ago
WOW Morry, Thank you so much, youput in to words a thoughtfull and what I consider anyway, an un biased approach to the situation, since you are not a ratepayer. It is so heartening to know that "We the People" understand our rights better than those elected or appointed to oversight of the BCWA.
Though I am quite biased on the BCWA, ( I want it desolved, investigated by Federal Law Enforcement and exposed for what it has been from the start) A boondoggle an scam on the ratepayers and taxpayers of this State.
Without Transparency intimdating tactics, secrecy, closed or missing documents etc, the public can only assume illegalities and cronyism, not to mention the ineptitude of financial distruction of the BCWA, in my opinion.
How sad we have come to this not because of some storm of the century, but because our local government has run amoke on this issue and still seems to not wat to do what must be done. That also gives appearence o collusion in all matters of the BCWA, also shamefull.
NiceTry 6 months ago
Morry, you are amazing. Thank you for taking the time to write these thoughtful comments. It certainly helps puts things in perspective in a very intelligent way.
Morry 6 months ago
Thanx, guys for the exaggerated compliments.
BTW, when Ms Mack speaks of "harming the interests of the water authority" as justification for doing an investigation of a few citizens and threatening legal action against them, it makes me wonder what she means by the "interests" of the water authority. I have failed miserably in my attempt to think of any proper interest of the BCWA that isn't identical with THE INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYING, RATEPAYING PUBLIC.
If I imagine myself employed at BCWA, I would consider that IN MY ROLE AS EMPLOYEE, my interests were 1. To obtain the best quality water 2. which is reliably available with minimal chance of interrupted availability 3. at as reasonable a cost as possible subject to the above 2 considerations.
If Ms Mack thinks the water authority has other valid interests which it has a right to protect against interference from the people, I'd like to know what they are, because I can't think of a single one.
The only other interests of the water authority I can think of would be the personal self-interests of the BCWA personnel, and they're OK to have, but they have nothing to do with the BCWA's job. The above 3 together constitute the one & only reason for the BWCA's creation, and the one & only justification for its continued existence.
Every man has a right to pursue what he needs to live, which includes water. Every citizen has the right to seek the most reliable source of the best quality water at the lowest cost that he can find or obtain. And THAT is the ulitmate and ONLY justification for the BCWA's existence. The citizens have a right to join together if they wish, govern themselves, and hire or build a facility like BCWA to help them in exercising their right to pursue this interest. And that is how and why the BCWA came into existence. It has no rights, it has only permissions from the people to help them in the exercise of the people's rights. The citizens are the employers and the BCWA is their hired hand. And the people have the right to fire the BCWA and replace it if they choose.
Morry 6 months ago
CONTINUATION OF ABOVE: Sure, the employees of the BCWA have rights too. They can hire and fire people to help them secure their individual personal rights just as anyone else can. And just like everyone else, when they are the employers, they can assign and rescind the delegation of their rights or the granting of their authority to their employees. And where they are in the position of employees, their employer can assign and rescind the delegation of his rights or the granting of his authority to them..
In this case, it seems Ms Mack in particular has somehow stood this relationship on its head. From her statement, it appears that she thinks she's the one with the right to dictate to her boss, and that her boss is the one who needs permissions from her. Well, she does have the same rights as anyone else. If her boss refuses to follow her dictates, she can quit and try to find a job with an employer more to her specifications. But no one has the right which Ms Mack seems to be claiming: to assert that as an employee she is superior to her employer in matters directly pertaining to her performance of the very job the employer is paying her to do.
It seems clear to me that the ONLY interests of the water authority which it has a right to protect against harm IN THE PROPER PURSUIT OF ITS JOB are the above 3. And the reason is because those are the interests of their employer, the people, who have created the BCWA's job for that express purpose. Any other "interests" the BCWA or Ms Mack may think they have IN THE COURSE OF DOING THEIR JOBS are properly theirs ONLY at the permission of their employer, the people -- ie, the same means by which the BCWA and its employees acquired the right to pursue the 3 above-listed interests.
Again, I'm not omniscient and I may be overlooking something or commiting an error in my reasoning. If so, I would appreciate any enlightenment from Ms Mack as to the specific water authority's interests she's referred to, which she in effect claims are exempt from the above reasoning. Until she provides that information, I won't know what she could possibly be talking about, and I will have to stick with the above view, and consider her statement to be the words of someone who has no concept of what rights are in the American form of government. She seems to interpret the word "authority" as an elevated position above others, over whom she has power, rather than a permission or "authority" to make decisions in a limited area for the people who are her bosses. The latter is the view commonly embraced by wannabee tyrants which we often see in petty officials with small minds and a need for power over others to bolster their own feelings of inadequacy. If this is in fact Ms Mack's view of the BCWA's water "authority," then perhaps she is not the right woman for a job in a government agency, at least not in this country.
Morry 6 months ago
correction to above
In the last paragraph above, near the very end, I mention the two different ways people envision the meaning of the word "authority." AFter mentioning the two, I sat that the latter view is . . . etc when in fact I should have said the FIRST view.
NiceTry 6 months ago
No exaggeration about it Morry...merely the due level of appreciation for your brilliant synthesis of the facts.
Please accept these sincere thanks.
GaryM 6 months ago
Morry
The roots of this problem go back to when the legislation of the 1993 Bristol County Water Supply Act were first crafted. The roots were noble: provide a reliable and clean source of water to the residents and businesses of the East Bay. The legislation did make sense in 1993.
The downfall was that it was surrounded by initiatives to provide state funding for "clean water" and who can argue with that. It appears some cleaver people knew that nobody would be watching the 1993 quest for state funding of "clean water" and thus nobody would ever be auditing the progress of projects. It appears to have been corrupted by lack of state oversight and insiders who knew how to pick low hanging fruit.
18 years after 1993, we have not completed the main initiative which was to use state and rate payer money to develop the Mass water supplies into reliable long term sources of water. In 2011, the state has run out of money, the projects to enhance the Mass supplies remain incomplete, and unfunded, and now the BCWA insiders have been exposed.
BCWA's long time $475 per hour attorney Sandra Mack has become the consummate story teller. Instead of stories, residents want the truth. An uncompromising audit would reveal that truth, but she and the BCWA Board stand in the way.
The B&E audit of 2011 itself became corrupted. Certain council members believed that without notice they could amend the audit. "Attestation" was a word I had never heard of until the B&E audit came along. Certain council members congratulated themselves for a "half job" well done. What residents wanted was a complete audit. That remains to be seen.
And now we have the consummate story teller Sandra Mack vetting all the resumes for the new Executive Director position. The BCWA Board is pretending they have a blind point system they will use to judge the applicants. Recall another blind point system under the "Code of Points" used in the 2002 Olympic Winter Games figure skating scandal? Cronyism remains a huge problem at BCWA.
Thank you for your continued interest.
citizenaudit 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Coming from northern Rhode Island, and reading all of this blog, I feel it is imperative to state what you are all abdicating; that citizens should routinely audit the activities of government. We see nationally and in every city and town that when government or other public agencies are left to make decisions, those decisions are not always in the best interest of the taxpayer and/or ratepayers in this instance. The general public is a source of amazing subject matter experts that can audit proposals and referendums presented to city and town government, as well as post award audits, and voice our expert opinions. It's our right to expect transparency, to know all the facts being considered, and not considered, on decisions that impact the taxpayer. Only arrogance can separate the taxpayer from the truth and you don’t have to look any farther than the pension crisis to know that the levels of expertise needed to determine the sustainability of any long term decision in terms of cost to the taxpayer for a contract negotiation or of a project can’t be left in the hands of just a few. Forgive my ignorance for not knowing the history of the East Bay, but the BCWA seems to operate much more like a special interest group rather than an appointed administrative body having a well defined objective and a charter to protect the safety of its citizenry. Since it seems apparent that BCWA struggles with the salient aspects of the East Bay Four’s original request [truth], one can only ponder, as many responders have, that something seems disingenuous.
Vote 0
Add photo Post reply
galt 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Thank you for your post! More and more people throughout the state are realizing that this is a microcosm for issues that are in each town and city. We appreciate your support!
galt 5 months, 4 weeks ago
The cavalry is on the way! :-)
Dex 5 months, 3 weeks ago
Folks, are you not totally sick and tired of unelected public officials who abuse the public trust? What is happening here is utterly unbelievable! Is this not the United States of America? Do we not have a shred of honor and integrity left in public service anymore? Who the Hell do these people from the BCWA think they are? Thugs and gangsters extort and threaten people not public officials who work for taxpayers. The East Bay Four are ordinary concerned citizens whose only interest is the knowledge that our taxes are being properly used in accordance with the law. If the BCWA has nothing to hide, then come clean, but stop the thuggish behavior or move to Cuba. That's what they do over there to keep their citizens silent. Stand strong, East Bay Four, we stand against corruption, abuse of power and we stand with you!
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID