Same BCWA Issue, Same Outcome
The Bristol County Water Authority board splits 4-3 to retain Cameron & Mittleman, specifically partner Sandra Mack, its longtime attorney, as its legal counsel.
Photos
The board of the Bristol County Water Authority did a do-over Wednesday evening for the hiring of its legal counsel. Nothing changed.
The outcome was the same as the first time last month – although the vote of the board members was closer, 4-3. It was 5-2 the first time. Two members were absent both times.
The BCWA voted to retain Cameron & Mittleman, specifically partner Sandra Mack, as its legal counsel in a special meeting in Warren. The second meeting was set up after the first meeting was challenged as a possible open-meetings violation.
Mack, who has been providing most of the legal services for the BCWA since 1986, said she had “no reaction” – several times -- to the split vote by the board. She watched from the audience as the board and several “watchdogs” batted around her previous service to the water authority.
The board members who voted to retain Cameron & Mittleman were the chairman, Allan Klepper of Barrington, John Jannitto of Warren, Paul Bishop of Bristol and vice chairman William Gosselin of Warren. They offered similar reasons to retain her.
Jannitto, a former chairman, said: “I’m convinced we have good, competent legal services.”
Bishop said: “She’s done an excellent job in the one and a half years I’ve been on the board. I see no reason to make a change.”
Gosselin said: “I understand the passion” of those who testified against retaining Mack. But, he said, he had to support her after he asked Executive Director Pamela Marchand how important Mack was to her.
“Cameron & Mittleman knows the players that I think would be difficult for a new firm” to get a handle on,” said Marchand.
Klepper, who spoke last and, in effect, broke a 3-3 tie, said: “She understands all the players and issues that we will confront in the future. She has the most thorough grasp of the issues, and she has agreed to a cap” on her compensation.
The board members who did not support a motion made by Jannitto to retain Mack were Kevin Fitta of Barrington, Ray Palmieri of Warren and Robert Allio of Barrington. They offered similar reasons to go in a different direction.
Palmieri said: “I cannot support Mack” because “her costs are higher than other firms ($375 an hour typically), there was a lack of detail in her invoicing, and her advice on open records led to litigation.”
She also drafted what he termed an inappropriate letter seeking information on three ratepayers who were trying to get information from other sources because they couldn’t get it from BCWA on her watch.
“We’ll get the business-as-usual mode,” Palmieri said.
Fitta said: “All the firms we talked to are qualified. So we should consider rotating professional services over time.”
“There also is a public perception issue, rightly or wrongly,” he said. “And the other firms are less expensive.”
Allio said: “All organizations need to pay attention to new perspectives, and look elsewhere for that.”
Gary Morse of Barrington, one of the watchdogs who was a target of the so-called inappropriate letter, asked the board to consider the fact that a strategic plan called for under the Bristol County Water Act was never completed on Mack’s watch.
Jeff Black of Barrington, another watchdog who filed open-records litigation against BCWA with Mack on retainer, said: “We had to pull teeth to get information. There was a total lack of transparency.”
He also said other firms have lower fees, which “bothers me a lot because these fees were paid while the infrastructure was deteriorating.”
Marina Peterson of Bristol, the third watchdog, said: “With her as counsel, we had to dig so hard to get the truth, and that’s very disconcerting.”
The other firms interviewed twice by the board are Keough & Sweeney, LTD and Schacht & McElroy. Petrarca & McGair could not do a second interview, said Klepper, but asked to be reconsidered. Adler Pollock & Sheehan also could not do a second interview.
Gary Morse
6:45 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
It's time for Barrington to begin thinking about divesting itself from Bristol / Warren cronyism at BCWA, and linking up with East Providence.
Our water is now 100% from Scituate, the backup will come via East Providence, and the pipeline goes right past our pumping station.
There are few technical problems with this arrangement, and East Providence is a much better run water authority with rates about 40% less than BCWA's
http://www.wrb.ri.gov/data_ratesurvey/Water_Rates_Survey_2010.pdf
The big problem will be in the future infrastructure warts facing Bristol and Warren that BCWA will expect Barrington residents to subsidize, and have subsidized in the past.
Consider that the recent Bristol Hope Street project to put in new residential water hookups to the historic homes was paid in part by Barrington residents. Why should Barrington residents be sharing in such costs? These Bristol Warren subsidies will get much worse in the future.
And that $5 million dollar cost overrun in 1998 on the East Bay Pipeline was due in large part to the Bristol directors, and buried without an audit.
BCWA now has their Bristol attorney to provide cover to these warts.
BCWA has been, and will always be, crony central for Bristol and Warren local politics. Barrington needs to find a new partner before things get really out of hand.
Manifold Witness
7:15 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Excellent idea. Let’s get a proposal from East Providence. It would involve some infrastructure changes, but that has to happen anyway and this would cost Barrington less than subsidizing Bristol & Warren like we do now, including Bristol’s high-paid lawyer.
Barrington could continue to pay for Providence Water on our own. Reactivate the Barrington wells as an emergency source (as was suggested in one of those fancy studies we paid for).
There are a lot of options for Barrington, let’s stop thinking that our thinking is limited by what the BCWA board can think up.
And the most recent debt (with Sandra Mack as bond attorney) is for Bristol projects.
Let's go!
Bristol County Anonymous
5:20 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
RE: Redo the Redo -
From the BCWA website:
“Therefore, in order to concur with both the By-Laws and the BCW Act, the Board of directors of the Bristol County Water Authority will hold a new vote on the legal services, whereby five (5) votes will be needed to take action.”;
http://www.bcwari.com/bcwa/index.php
Mrs. Mack was in the front row on 1/16, watching the latest illegal "Redo" meeting.
The “old-guard” directors -
Jannitto said: “I’m convinced we have good, competent legal services.”;
“Klepper, said “She has the most thorough grasp of the issues”;
Bishop said: “She’s done an excellent job in the one and a half years I’ve been on the board.
http://barrington.patch.com/articles/new-meeting-on-legal-services-same-outcome
How bad does it have to get before the Town Councilors get involved?
Gary Morse
10:33 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ex-BCWA attorney Sandra Mack! Let me repeat, ex-BCWA attorney Sandra Mack!
According to the BCWA by-laws, she needed 5 votes but didn't get 5 votes, only 4. So she's voted out by a legitimate vote by the BCWA Board to NOT rehire her.
NEXT CANDIDATE PLEASE!
Manifold Witness
7:16 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Mrs. Mack was voted out on January 16, 2013. We think she knows it.
A vote of 4 to 3 is a “no” vote for Mrs. Mack. She didn’t get the 5 votes required for the motion to carry.
Mrs. Mack must have known that, so she had “no comment” at the meeting, and she let the Board think they had properly reappointed her.
Even though she was sitting in a front row seat, Mrs. Mack apparently didn’t want to advise the board at the meeting. Had she done her duty, and advised the board, the board would have had to move right on to entertain a motion for the next candidate on the list, and so on.
Until one of the others received the necessary 5 votes.
The agenda says:
“Discussion/Action: Vote ,
1. Legal Services Selection”
The first one to get 5 “yes” votes wins.
But Mrs. Mack had a conflict of interest. So she didn’t speak up to advise the board the board to go on to the next candidate.
The same board members who did the interviews and voted on 1/16/13, will now have to reconvene and continue the voting process.
The meeting must reconvene right away after proper public notice.
(Did the board members decide in advance to make the vote look like it was close – and so they went with 4 to 3? Was Mrs. Mack horrified as THAT played out right in front of her? And is THAT why she was uncharacteristically quiet? She couldn’t exactly pipe up and tell them “No! Somebody had better make a 5th vote here for me now or I’m OUT!”?)
Ouch.