To the editor:
In the Nov. 16 edition of the East Bay newspapers, the front page contained a story about the Bristol County Water Authority’s (BCWA) Chairman John Jannitto and their outside attorney, Sandra Mack, gathering information about four residents (the “East Bay Four”) who have been critical of BCWA.
Thankfully, in that same edition, the editorial column is strongly critical of Chairman Jannitto and Attorney Mack for their unjustified actions against the East Bay Four. Operation Clean Government (OCG) and the Rhode Island Statewide Coalition (RISC) endorse the concept that it is reprehensible for any official to attempt to muzzle any private citizen trying to shine light on the questionable management practices of BCWA.
Incidentally, OCG and RISC have been in the forefront in the campaign to reform BCWA, and both should be included on any list of organizations credited with taking a concerned and critical look at BCWA.
For more than a year, Gary Morse has been a spokesperson for OCG and RISC. Mr. Morse has supported this collaborative effort to review project spending at BCWA. The OCG and RISC investigation found numerous problems with millions in state funds directed into BCWA projects. We are still greatly concerned that, there has been no qualified audit of project spending since 1993. We are also concerned that there may be instances of spending that do not comply with statutory requirements.
In 2010, the Tri-Town Council of Bristol, Warren, and Barrington — which is responsible for BCWA oversight — watered down the B&E Consulting Performance Audit by eliminating financial matters from the audit. OCG and RISC requested that the RI Water Resources Board (RIWRB) initiate a first-ever audit of project spending. In March 2011, the RIWRB voted unanimously to complete a legal review to ensure projects were being funded in full compliance with the law. That audit is not yet completed.
OCG and RISC believe that many issues remain unresolved at BCWA, including the reconciliation of millions of state dollars in project spending. We believe that BCWA’s use of resources to investigate those who seek to bring transparency and foster open government is a disservice to all.
Silencing debate while a cloud of controversy still hangs over BCWA creates the distinct impression that there remains something to hide. We hope that Rhode Island taxpayers will join and support us and the East Bay Four in continued scrutiny of BCWA, especially in the face of these unwarranted scare tactics from certain BCWA representatives.
Margaret Kane
Operation Clean Government
Harry Staley
RI Statewide Coalition
Comments
NiceTry 6 months ago
Thank you to OCG & RISC for standing with the East Bay Four.
Support and action from the Tri-Town Council and the full BCWA board is necessary now to assure that BCWA will finally address the need for a new Chairman at the helm of BCWA and the need for a new, prudent, objective attorney.
galt 6 months ago
I would like to thank OCG and RISC for their support and for issuing the above statement/letter.
The actions of the Board of Directors of the BCWA, along with their attorney, is nothing more than a last ditch effort to prevent any additional information from surfacing and to stifle all comments from the public.
It has been a trying few weeks but we are NOT going to be intimidated into "shutting up".
We all need to watch and see what action the three town councils take on this thuggery. Will they condemn it? or will the condone it with their silence? Three of the town council members, Tony Teixiera, Scott Lial, and Bill DeWitt, have been straightforward about their concern for these acts of intimidation. Where do the others weigh in?
GaryM 6 months ago
In 2010, the Tri Town Council had intentions to complete a financial audit of BCWA. During negotiations between the Tri Town Council and BCWA on the financial audit, BCWA attorney Sandra Mack informed the councils that if the financials were included, BCWA would not participate.
Following the completion of the B&E audit (minus the financial audit portion) several council members mistakenly remarked that they were happy that no financial problems were discovered during the audit forgetting that they themselves agreed to remove the financials out of the audit (I will spare naming the council members who made this observation).
To put this into perspective, the $ millions in spending under the 1993 Bristol County Water Supply Act have NEVER received an audit.
Consider for example that in the 1997 time frame, BCWA entered into a contract with a drilling company for the East Bay Pipeline and agreed to a clause that rate payers had to make unusual add on payments for drill sharpening. That clause ended up costing rate payers an extra $5 million in cost over runs which we are still paying off today.
How that clause ever found it's way into the drilling contract was never investigated given BCWA had paid a second company to vet the terms of the drilling contract. Nor was BCWA's attorney Sandra Mack ever asked to go back to the vetting company asking for recovery of a portion of the $5 mil for not properly protecting rate payer interests.
Fast forward to 2011. Since 1993, BCWA has still NOT completed an audit of the spending under the Act. How many $ millions have gone into the Shad Project and we are still no further along with long term agreements for the water rights in Mass (which still appear to have the danger of a taking by eminent domain).
We have at this point put total faith in BCWA's attorney Sandra Mack and have NEVER had a second opinion as to whether or not rate payer interests are being protected by this very expensive attorney.
In January 2011 at the BCWA forum, Sandra Mack told rate payers that they should appreciate the taste of the chemicals in the local water since she herself does. What she left out was that at the time, her law firm was making around $475 per hour for work on those tasty BCWA projects.
It now appears Sandra Mack's law firm is vetting the resumes for the new Executive Director. Chairman Jannitto has asked the community to just get out of the way during the search for a new Executive Director to allow BCWA to do their "taste testing" for the new executive.
Transparency remains a huge problem at BCWA.
warrenite 6 months ago
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter from OCG and RISC. The action by Chairman Jannitto and the BCWA board is a transparent act of desperation. They claim the action is “on behalf of the ratepayers” – “looking out for the welfare of all the ratepayers” because the accusers caused the authority to spend “unnecessary money and had obstructed the board from its normal duties. We’re trying to show the public that.”
So, this tactic will show the public how much time and money BCWA has been forced to waste on frivolous and fraudulent accusations and demands for transparency? What level of responsibility, if any, are they (BCWA) willing to take for actions (and inactions) that drove these individuals to pursue the issues so vehemently? Do they really expect the ratepayers they claim they are looking out for to believe that the motives of the complainants are entirely without merit? What possible motives could cause these individuals (and the public supporting them) have to pursue the issues (countless) so doggedly? Are we to understand that it’s a case of an irrational overzealous fixation on the BCWA?
First it’s plant as much of the blame as possible on the outgoing director and now it’s time to discredit the complainants. It’s a desperate and pathetic diversion on their part.
DownTown 6 months ago
We are paying the third highest rate for water in the state and it appears the eventual goal is to be number one.
It is evident that the water company's mission is to come up with more and more ways to spend money that they are not accountable for in any way shape or form. I remember when this all started and they were Fedexing packages filled with copies made by their contract attorney. Imagine using Fedex to send copies to a Bristol County resident.
If you've lived in this state long enough you know what is going on here and why they need a lawyer as a buffer zone.
Something is afoul at the BCWA and they want the questions to just end so they can return to whatever they are trying to hide.
I've lived here long enough to be able to know when something isn't quite right and this situation is far far beyond that.
Shut the whole thing down and with the savings tie into another system so that when the cross bay pipeline needs replacement we'll have a source while that pipe is being sleeved or replaced. End of story - end of BCWA.
Meanwhile if you are a Bristol County resident with low water pressure ask yourself why the BCWA paid for the upgrade to the Ferry Road feed to RWU and why Bristol or the BCWA agreed to take on a lifetime of maintenance costs for the RWU water tower. Call and say 'Hey if you're going to take over maintenance on their equipment then you need to do the same for me.'.
GaryM 6 months ago
Since the May / June time frame, the Tri Town Council's have asked the BCWA Board to deliver the list of unfinished capital projects at BCWA. In any normal business, that would be a document tied to the company business plan and thus able to be provided in a couple of days.
But this is BCWA. In all this time, the Board has failed to provide that important document.
What is the reason it cannot be delivered? Is there embarrassing news the board is trying to cover up? Is the search for a new Executive Director tied in some way to finding someone sufficiently skilled in continuing this practice? Is this why BCWA attorney Sandra Mack was hired to do the "inside job" of vetting the resumes?
The list of unanswered questions keeps calling into question the transparency at BCWA. If ever there was a need for full transparency, it is now during the search for a new Executive Director. Unfortunately, this is not how it is being carried out.
DownTown 6 months ago
Right on the money there Gary. There is no doubt that this is why the search is being done 'in house'.
They are scared to death that whatever they are hiding will come out.
I remember at one point reading that they had spent over $600,000 on chemicals during a year when the pretend treatment plant was not operating.
"Is the search for a new Executive Director tied in some way to finding someone sufficiently skilled in continuing this practice? Is this why BCWA attorney Sandra Mack was hired to do the "inside job" of vetting the resumes?"
NiceTry 6 months ago
Jannitto & Mack are perfect for each other.
Jannitto so wants retribution against those who asked questions. But he's got no basis to sue the East Bay Four. And HE'S not going to pay Mack. He has to try to get the board to vote put BCWA ratepayers on the hook to pay Mack so he can try to get his retribution.
Mack is a partner at Cameron & Mittleman. One has to think that she has to have a certain amount of billings every year, year in and year out. A lawsuit! Wouldn't that be nice for billings? After all she made $65,000 for driving redundant photocopies that nobody asked for around Providence for a year and a half in response to BCWA's open goverment violations that she should've fixed with an hour's worth of work.
Jannitto & Mack are perfect for each other.
But can the ratepayers & the rest of the BCWA board afford to go down this path with those two? No. Mack should be fired & Jannitto should resign.
galt 5 months, 4 weeks ago
The cavalry is on the way! :-)
DownTown 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Ratepayer Question: Can you tell us why the BCWA paid to upgrade the pipes on Ferry Road for RWU??
BCWA Rep: (whispers to high priced contract attorney) We refuse to answer that on the grounds that it may incriminate us.
Ratepayer: This is not a grand jury please answer the question
BCWA Rep: (whispers to high priced contract attorney) That information is Homeland Security related so we are not allowed to speak about it.
Ratepayer: Can you tell us why chemicals for the pretend treatment plant costs so much?
BCWA Rep: (whispers to high priced contract attorney) Look I've had with these questions. We are the water company and no one on the planet knows how to run a water company except us!!!
For God's sake PLEASE STOP asking us questions!!!!
Ratepayer: Can you tell us why the search for a director is being done by a law firm rather than a personnel agency?
BCWA Rep: Oh, you are STILL asking us questions are you! We'll sick our $400+ dollar and hour lawyer on you NO MATTER WHAT it COSTS ratepayers!!!! We don't care about any other costs except those related to questions we don't want to answer!!!!
Ratepayer: Why are you paying a receptionist an engineer's wages?
High Priced Contract Attorney: That concludes this evenings question and answer period.
NiceTry 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Brilliant, Down Town (as usual)!
And don't forget this gem from January 2011 public forum hosted by the East Bay Patriots, RISC & OCG (see the video). The guests on the stage were invited by the hosts. All except for the high priced attorney who at first grabbed all the microphones & put them all on BCWA's table. Twice.:
Brave Ratepayer in the audience: Is it true, Mr. Delise, that you said BCWA didn't get any stimulus money because it involved too much red tape?
BCWA Rep Mr. Delise: Looks at high-priced (uninvited) attorney and refuses to answer.
High Priced Attorney grabs the microphone (again).
Brave Ratepayer in the audience: No, I'm asking Mr. Delise. You answer, please, Mr. Delise. Did you say that or not?
BCWA Rep: (Finally has to admit because, well, it's in the minutes in black & white) - "Yes".
And maybe the worst part is that neither the Tri-Town Council or the BCWA board had any problem with this. Even though the BCWA could have used stimulus funds to replace the old, deteriorated water mains that could be posing a health hazard. Other Water Authorities in the state got millions.
NiceTry 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Not to mention that Bristol Town Council Chairman Ken "Spanish Inquisition" Marshall was in the audience at the January 2011 forum. He had no problem with Mr. Delise's answer. In fact Mr. Marshall attacked the public representatives and accused them of conducting a "Spanish Inquisition" on the high priced BCWA attorney.
Ken "Spanish Inquisition" Marshall has made it clear where he stands. He is interested in preserving the old status quo at BCWA.
Among other things, Bristol gets curb-to-curb paving that is subsidized by the ratepayers of Barrington & Warren.
And see this excerpt from February 16, 2011 Bristol Town Council meeting minutes under “old business”:
“Ms. Peterson again informed the Council that all she wants are '“straight answers'. Council Chairman Marshall stated that he is concerned that there are too many people calling and raising red flags indicating problems when no problems exist.”
We are thankful that, in spite of another of Ken "Spanish Inquisition" Marshall’s rebuke, Ms. Peterson continued looking for “straight answers”.
Because the B&E report proved Ms. Peterson right.
And Mr. Marshall wrong.
RhodeIslandCitizen 5 months, 3 weeks ago
RINGS OF A SLAPP SUIT RING RING... Is this the echoing of the 1993 legislative findings which inspired the "Limits on Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation?"
§ 9-33-1 Findings. – The legislature finds and declares that full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern before the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies and in other public fora are essential to the democratic process, that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances; that such litigation is disfavored and should be resolved quickly with minimum cost to citizens who have participated in matters of public concern. History of Section. (P.L. 1993, ch. 354, § 1; P.L. 1993, ch. 448, § 1.)
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE9/9-33/INDEX.HTM
galt 5 months, 3 weeks ago
I would like to share a note that I received recently. It says it all!
Dear Marina: One issue that will resonate with management-level business executives in the three towns is the ongoing evidence that a law firm has captured and subjugated its client. This fact is disgraceful evidence that the sum-total mind of the client is weak beyond recall. Not only has the law firm captured its client, but it has even been so brazen as to have itself named as the search committee for replacing its departing client leader -- ongoing evidence that the client will remain subjugated. This demonstrates arrogance off the chart which no business executive would stand for. When an organization cannot bestir itself in its most basic responsibilities without relying on its $425.00 an hour law firm, that in and of itself reveals a low level of intellectual capacity-- and shows a gross waste of money being taken from the citizens of the three towns. Keep up the good work Marina.
galt 5 months ago
Here is a link to an archived clip of a 1978 demonstration outside the Bristol County Water Authority. This is the water that the BCWA, if they had their druthers, would have us drink!!
http://video.turnto10.com/v/49830074/flashback-dec-16.htm?q=this+day+in+1978+december+16
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID