BCWA to take yet another vote on legal counsel

BCWA

Will the third time be a charm for the Bristol County Water Authority?

The BCWA board of directors will reportedly have to take yet another vote on naming a legal firm, according to a press release issued on Thursday.

The release states that the board will have to re-visit the issue due to an apparent discrepancy between the Bristol County Water Act and the BCWa by-laws.

The board of directors voted 4-3 Wednesday night to retain Cameron and Mittleman as the agency’s legal firm. It was the board’s second vote on the matter after residents alleged the first vote may have violated state open meetings law.

The BCWA’s by-laws state that the board may take action approved by a majority of its members when a quorum is present. The Act, however, states an action must be authorized by not only a quorum, but five affirmative votes.

The release states the board will take a new vote on appointing a legal firm where five votes will be required to take action.

The release does not set a date for this vote.

Authors
Tags

Related posts

6 Comments

  1. Marina Peterson said:

    Do you think there are any other votes that have been taken in the past without the required number of votes? It would seem probably since the water authority was not sure of the procedure required.

  2. GaryM said:

    Ex-BCWA attorney Sandra Mack! Let me repeat, ex-BCWA attorney Sandra Mack!

    According to the BCWA by-laws, Ms Mack needed 5 votes, but didn’t get 5 votes, only 4. So she’s was voted out by a legitimate vote by the BCWA Board to NOT rehire her.

    NEXT CANDIDATE PLEASE!

    • mra said:

      hope your right gary,but wait and see if they don’t try to weasel around this little “bump in the road” kind make you wonder what’s hidden in those dark corners in the old treatment station.

  3. Marina Peterson said:

    Absolutely! Why are they entertaining another vote? Or should we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the next vote is for another candidate?

    She did not get the required minimum of votes. There was a quorum. The meeting was advertised and was legal. There were witnesses.

    She has been voted out. Let’s move on.

  4. comn sense said:

    Let me see if I have this straight:

    Three meetings were held, Dec 18, Dec 20, and Jan 16th, all for the purpose of picking BCWA’s next legal counsel; and the preferred candidate of the Board and Ms Marchand is Sandra Mack; and now it is learned that all three meetings were illegal due in part to lack of legal oversight by the preferred candidate who attended the meetings.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    One last point, one of BCWA’s objectives is in part to rebuild confidence in BCWA within the community.

  5. Marina Peterson said:

    I am at a complete loss of words, which you know is rare for me! It is beyond anyone’s wildest imagination of how dysfunctional this authority is.
    If your preferred legal counsel did not get the votes…. she’s out. It’s pretty simple! At least take votes on the other two candidates before you try and gin up yet another try for her.

Top