BCWA Spent $65,000 to Fight Charges
Attorney General's Office finds in a 30-page mixed decision that the water authority did violate open meeting and public records laws.
The Bristol County Water Authority spent approximately $65,000 to defend itself against charges by a Barrington couple that it violated the state’s Open Meetings Act and Access to Public Records Act numerous times in recent years.
A host of those allegations, made by BCWA watchdogs Jeff and Janice Black of Colley Court, were supported by the RI Attorney General’s office in a 30-page decision released early last week.
In fact, the decision, written by Assistant Attorney General Michael Field, states the water authority “acknowledges its agendas violated the OMA.”
At the same time, however, Field said, many of the allegations were found not to be violations. He also said that there was “no evidence of a willfull or knowing violation.”
What is the water authority’s and the Blacks’ response to the mixed decision by the Attorney General’s office?
“It is a lot of money, and the violations were minimal,” said Pasquale DeLise, the outgoing executive director of the water authority, who provided the estimate of the legal expenses.
“Numerous violations were found,” the Blacks said in a written response sent to Patch by email. “Please keep in mind that ‘agenda’ is plural and numerous counts because the violations go back in time every month for years.”
“As a result of our complaint, BCWA had made many changes to become compliant with the applicable laws and more transparent,” they wrote.
The Blacks also said: “We remain extremely concerned about the manner in which BCWA and its representatives have treated the members of the public who have dared to speak out about the problems at BCWA. The public's concerns have been proven to be well-justified.
“We continue to hope that BCWA and its well-paid representatives will now begin to focus on solving the many problems at BCWA. We note that Mrs. (Sandra) Mack (outside attorney) could have saved BCWA a lot of legal expenses by simply advising them to comply with the laws in the first place.”
DeLise said the approximate $65,000 for legal fees was compiled from the time the case started in January, 2010, until it finished. He said he did not have an exact number on hand.
DeLise also said he was very happy that the case was over.
“The legal fees were taken from ratepayers,” he said, “but that excludes the staff time put into it. We spent weekends getting documents together to cater to the Blacks’ requests. It's not like they were asking for one piece of paper. I would say we sent out about 4,000 pages of documents for the Blacks, and it takes time. They were asking for documents for the last five, 10 years. It’s not like we have those things handy.”
Because the Attorney General’s office did not find a willful or knowing violation, it concluded also that “injunctive relief is not appropriate for several of the violations identified above.”
The Blacks seem satisfied that their effort to have changes made at the water authority have come to some fruition.
“Specifically, as a result of our AG complaint, it now appears that BCWA has begun to comply with APRA requirements.,” the Blacks said. “They now, finally, have a compliant-required APRA policy (published on their website); they have eliminated the old illegal agenda scheme. BCWA is, in effect, now ‘on notice’ so that future open government infractions might very well be more likely to be viewed as ‘willful and knowing’ than were these initial violations.”
“We are also pleased with the increased scrutiny by the Tri-Town councils; the new directors; the B&E Report recommendations; etc.” the Blacks wrote. “As you know, ‘the public’ - made up of many groups and individuals all working together for positive change - has been proven right about the need for change at BCWA.
“We remain hopeful that BCWA will continue to comply with applicable laws and, in the future, will treat the public in a more respectful manner. We also hope that they will realize that one hour of competent legal advice might be more cost-effective than a year and a half of picking up the pieces after the fact.”
“We did what we did to get the organization moving in the right direction,” said Janice Black before responding with her husband in the email. “We are a couple of people who are trying to make things better.”
Gary Morse
7:07 pm on Monday, October 10, 2011
The phone rings in the offices of attorney Sandra Ka Ching, esq.
"Sandra we just got this letter from the AG that a complaint was filed that we are in violation of the open meetings law. Can you just send a simple letter to the AG that we admit we made a violation that we won't repeat? That shouldn't cost too much for a simple letter, right?"
"Hold on Pasquale. Send that letter to me. The Blacks will wish they'd never filed a complaint in the first place".
"But Sandra, we're already in hot water over that 12% rate increase. This would p_ss off the rate payers if we spend too much on this"
"No it won't Pasquale. You see, I'll file a response 6 inches thick that will take the AG and the Blacks six months to read. The AG will become so exhausted he'll exonerate some of the claims and then we'll announce we won".
"But Sandra, the rate payers are going to be furious that I spent thousands to defend something that could be taken care of in 1 hour on a table napkin".
"Pasquale, you know this kind of legal thoroughness has been going on at Ka Ching legal services for decades."
"Well you see Sandra, it's not that I'm complaining, I'm just saying that considering all that's going on right now, we might want to simply admit we made a few mistakes, send a quick letter, and save the rate payers a bundle."
Next day at the offices of Ka Ching legal. "Could someone in the office find me one of those 6" mailing boxes?"
The above is for parody purposes only!
Don't be fatuous
10:00 pm on Monday, October 10, 2011
garymm... simply hilarious! Thanks for the chuckle...
Michael Flaherty
10:09 pm on Monday, October 10, 2011
$65,000 ... this is an expensive price to pay in order to force BCWA management to conduct our business legally. It is unfortunate, but it is a cost of the management clean-up. It is also a drop in the bucket compared to the huge extra costs that these water managers have run up for the ratepayers.
Ratepayers should not have to take the necessary action to correct these problems. Our town councilors are responsible to oversee these managers, but they don't seem to be up for the job as they are slow to respond and hesitant to take the proper action.
Thank-you to the ratepayers who have taken the necessary corrective action on our behalf. Our town councilors need to get busy and manage this situation. Hire the new management team and provide the necessary rules and guidance to them to ensure that our business is conducted legally (and cost effectively).
Ignorance of the finanacial and management problems is not an excuse. The poor oversight of our water utilities by town councilors has cost us millions. We need active oversight and proper management now. If not, then it is noce to know that we have individual ratepayers who are read, willing, and able to step up and correct the situation on our behalf.
marina peterson
12:01 pm on Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Great parody Gary!! Love it! We all know that it is more truth than fiction! Sandra Mack announced at the last BCWA meeting that she was "thrilled" with the AG's findings... yeah... thrilled all the way to the bank. And why was she running the BCWA meetings (all six of them) last Thursday when Chairman Janitto was present? And, for that matter, why were there six contiguous meetings on the same night? What was the purpose of that? Anyone know?
Gary Morse
10:12 am on Wednesday, October 12, 2011
I can't seem to find any vote taken by the BCWA Board that allowed Attorney Mack to act as a proxy for Chairman Jannitto during the board meeting. Given the board just sat there with no questions, I can only assume they previously approved allowing attorney Mack (at a rate of $400 per hour) to be the Chairperson.
I don't know about you, but I feel really good about paying an attorney $400/hr to do the job of the Board of Directors. It makes me want to be an attorney too!
Jack Baillargeron
9:51 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
Nice try of the BCWA in trying to blame ratepayers who only exercised their Constitutional right for redress against a government agency. How nice for law Firm&BCWA to support dictatorship like government that allows no redress and supports no free speech.
This problem should have been solved at the lowest level, and could have been very easily. The legal fees were due to ignorance on the BCWA and the Law Firm. I find it insulting as a ratepayer that the Law firm got so much money, when all they had to do was tell the BCWA that the AG office has free classes for employee’s on how to handle OM and how to perform their duties in providing documents and what is allowed and not allowed.
Everything was sent to the Law firm by the BCWA, I was at meeting where the director said all the records were in the basement. So this means they were pulled from there and sent to the Law Firm, knowing full well they would be charged for such actions. Who is at fault for that? The BCWA. I was sent a letter stating that they were trying to fulfill my request in 10 days for the Union Contract and wages, and benefits to employees. One tucked in my front door by the BCWA at 8:30 am and at 2pm a fed ex letter from the Law firm with the exact same letter in it. Never got the benefits documents by the way.
Jack Baillargeron
10:00 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
This BCWA has been inept or decades. The fact that they are not even up to date in technology of computers is laughable. They have been around for over 30 years now BCWA. Instead of wasting money on everything from a fish ladder, 14,000 given to a non-profit who could not raise the full price, Union Picnics, and so many other wasteful things in these economic times. This could have easily bought the proper equipment and training. Not to mention the complaint by the board of chemical expenses, which I still do not know how you use chemicals in a treatment plant that is offline stated at the same meeting using the chemical cost as an excuse for the rate increase.
How about the Janitor, I think a guy could be hired at $15 dollars an hour 8 hours three days a week Monday, Wednesday, and Friday after or during regular hours as a temp. ( that makes for no benefits or pension to my knowledge and is common business practice ), they would be able to be hired in a heart beat in these times. Are they requiring a college degree for this job? It seems the job is pretty much common knowledge to clean a building. How hard is that Board members or management? By the way you do not need the law firm to advertise or review the job, think of those savings.
Jack Baillargeron
10:17 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
Lets look at the cost,
"Black v. Bristol County Water Authority - Summary from AG's website
Issued: 2011-09-19
"Access to Public Records Act and Open Meetings Act complaint that alleged numerous violations against the Bristol County Water Authority and its subcommittees. The Authority violated the APRA and/or the OMA by improperly denying an APRA request, failing to make open session minutes available in a timely manner, providing insufficient public notice, failing to record votes, and by improperly denying access to some requested records. The Authority did not violate the OMA and/or the APRA in other respects, including by requiring inspection of requested documents at the Authority's legal office."
Notice this statement!!
"The Authority did not violate the OMA and/or the APRA in other respects, including by requiring inspection of requested documents at the Authority's legal office."
The BCWA merely had to ask the AG or read the OMA, as it clearly states in simple language a 10 year old could understand, hat is and is not allowed to be released. This of course means the Law Firm should never have been needed for this review of records.
Jack Baillargeron
10:18 am on Friday, October 14, 2011
I also would add that the UNION Contract by Law must be available in the main office at all times. Try having a Union President come into management and be told they can't talk to him until they review the contract and will get back to the Union in 10 days, after they sent it to the lawyer. lol Never happen. There would be a grievance before the end of the day and rightfully so.
All matter in contracts are allways suppose to be settled at the lowest level not sent to a lawyer instantly. The is not only wasteful, but abusive to the Union and the ratepayers for cost and time loss on resolving the problem. Sure the Law Firm loves it though. They sure do not tell the BCWA very forcefully how they can do it themselves, evidently. Saying you can do it yourself and not explaining exactly how is disingenuous by this law firm. They seem to making enormous profit by allowing ineptitude they have to know is like taking candy from babies in my opinion.
Sorry for long post but explanations are not always found in short quips as the BCWA does all the time.