Mack Apparently Out..... Who's In?
It appears that Sandra Mack of Cameron and Mittleman has been ousted from her position as legal counsel to the BCWA. At a special meeting of the board on Wednesday evening, January 16th, Ms. Mack failed to garner the five votes required to secure the position. The state enabling legislation requires a minimum of five votes to pass a resolution. The vote was 4-3.
BCWA has scheduled another meeting the last week of January to continue the voting process. The other two candidates are Michael McElroy and Keough & Sweeney.
Michael McElroy of Providence, is currently president of the 2012-2013 Rhode Island Bar Association, a former three-term Chairman of the Superior Court Bench/Bar Committee, and is a member of the House of Delegates and the Executive Committee. He is a Fellow of the Rhode Island Bar Foundation. He is a member of the Rhode Island Association for Justice. He is a former Special Assistant Attorney General and is currently Legal Counsel to the Rhode Island Personnel Appeal Board.
Keough & Sweeney represent and counsel Water, Wastewater and Renewable Energy clients in all aspects of the regulatory process before the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission and the Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers. Their areas of expertise include Water Utility Law, Wastewater Utility Law, and Renewable Energy Law.
The BCWA board of directors opened the voting process on the 16th with the statement that they had three well qualified firms to choose from and that any one of them would be able to handle the job well. From the qualifications mentioned above we urge the directors to give serious consideration to cost and qualifications and give less weight to "institutional knowledge".
Gary Morse
3:20 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
The two remaining candidates have excellent credentials, and I believe the community would welcome either to represent BCWA.
BCWA Executive Director Marchand should recognize one of her goals in the BCWA Strategic Plan is to "restore public confidence".
http://www.bcwari.com/bcwa/images/PDFs/strategic_plan.pdf
At the moment, Ms Marchand appears to be treating this important goal as little more than a punchline.
Ms Mack's long history of placing the community behind her own interests demands that she be replaced as BCWA's legal counsel.
Three of the BCWA board members took the right step in voting Ms Mack out.
Jack Baillargeron
4:32 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Sounds like they have the qualifacations to me. I also bet they can read the open meetings law and any cases of the past and current litigation creating no delay in legal services. ;-}
Manifold Witness
4:38 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Wow! These other 2 candidates are very impressive indeed. It would be nice to see BCWA hire one of them and get on with business.
All this controversy swirling around Mrs. Mack - over laws that allegedly are "unclear" to Mrs. Mack, and bylaws (did she write them or just forget to review them periodically?) that don't comport with state laws such as the Enabling Act or the Open Government laws, etc, etc, etc, is just about derailing the BCWA.
Mrs. Mack has been with BCWA since the early days, so this must be a reflection on her lack of “institutional knowledge” as well.
Not to mention all the violations and upheaval and votes and redos and redos and talk of more redos and press releases that go up on the BCWA website (admitting that 5 “yes” votes are required for the motion to carry) and then come down only to be replaced with a notice that BCWA has to hire yet another lawyer to give them advice that they can't seem to get from the high-priced Mrs. Mack.
And, frankly, we are having to spend way more time than we would like drafting comments.
It would be nice to have one of these well-qualified gentlemen in the job so we can all focus on more important work.
Please volunteer
6:55 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Hear, hear!
DownTown
9:05 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Watching the BCWA stumble along is a real laugh. Incompetence in action.
Much of this is due to the poor legal advice they have been getting. How they can say they've been getting good legal advice is like watching a child lie about why they couldn't do their homework.
Manifold Witness
8:12 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
This is the time to support the GOOD men on the BCWA board. They need to continue the meeting (after 48 hours public notice) and get the vote done on the other 2 candidates.
Are there 5 good men?
Bob Venice
7:14 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I do not understand why people are saying thar Mack is out. All the Board has to do is not give fivee votes to the two remaining Law Firms, and then take a vote to start all over again with the first of the three firma to obtain the 5 needed votes is elected. They will then vote ffor Mack again, and she is assured of getting the votes needed. We, can not beat the BCWA, we have been trying and we have lost each time. Remember, The Board has already voted for new management hirings, and also for a pay raise for all of Management. We do not even treat the water. The BCWA, is becoming a greater joke then ever in the first year of the new Director and her no cut contract. No wonder Providence was willing to give her $250,000 to walk away from the job. Enough is enough.
Jack Baillargeron
7:55 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Agreed Bob, the correct title should be out for now in the selection process. Will surely still be considered in the next round of "Keystone Cops" episode this has become. Funny thing or sadest thing is she is still their legal counsel and responsible for all this in the first place as the BCWA legal Counsel.
Pretty inept when you cannot even advise the Board and Management on the proper way even get your old Job back, when you look at the bottom line of all this. Just saying lol.
marina peterson
4:35 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
title reads "apparently" out. She di not garner the votes required. Votes need to be taken for the other two candidates, and if there is no consensus, then the procedure would have to begin again. I agree with your supposition that they will probably just keep re-voting for Mack until they get enough votes. Hope people speak up!!!
Manifold Witness
8:18 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Mack didn't get enough votes. She's out of the pool. If neither of the other two get the required 5 votes, then BCWA needs a new pool. Rejected applicants don't keep applying in the same hiring cycle once a potential employer has said, "no" via a legitimate process.
The other 2 candidates appear to be very well qualified. Which one goes to a vote first?
This process seems to be taking them an awfully long time. What are they waiting for?
Tick tock.