DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER

Well, here I sit licking my wounds after what I can only describe as a beat down. Last night the BOS came to the finance committee meeting to face off with one of its members, namely me.

Charlie was first and furious. He started by challenging my characterization of his last outburst at the BOS meeting as a “tirade”. Then he showed me what a tirade really was. Charlie was obviously well prepared for the confrontation. He claimed that all my facts and figures were wrong, which is curious since those figures came from the town employees and officials. He said that I was slandering the auditor. I simply asked if we should hire someone with this much baggage. I was told by Mary that Dan Haynes was the actual auditor that would be doing the audit; then last night she informed me that she was wrong and Mr. Haynes was not assigned to the case.  It wasn’t clear to me who will audit our books, but I guess I’ll find out.

Charlie said so much so fast that I can’t remember a lot of what he said. He did say three times that he wanted me to resign and Mary agreed, so I’m pretty sure they don’t want me on the finance committee. YA THINK? They may try to have me removed for cause, although I don’t know what that cause would be. I told them that I have no intention of resigning. However, I don’t think my chances of being reappointed are very good when my term is up; especially since even some of the finance committee members are in agreement with the BOS. I guess it’s time to shoot the messenger.

The main complaint Charlie had was that I write about public information publicly. It is his opinion that we as “public officials” should never speak of what happens in the public meetings outside of the public meeting. For the record Charlie, open meeting is not defined as open only to the people who get off their asses and show up; it means that anything you say can be used against you in the court of public opinion. Words have meaning and you are judged by your words. While it is unfortunate that some people have distorted my words, I am confident that any objective reader will say that my words are fair and accurate to the facts that were quoted at the time the statements were made.

Now let’s get to the real issue, the unaccounted for water fund monies. This boil has been festering for a long time. It has been studied and restudied ad nauseam. The argument has always pitted the users against the non using taxpayers. I simply pointed out the fact that there were tens of thousands of unaccounted for dollars. The way I was castigated at last night’s meeting you would think that I was the person responsible for the unaccounted for funds; not the person exposing the fact that the funds are unaccounted for.

The BOS members, speaking as private citizens, accused me of putting out incorrect numbers. In my defense I am only quoting their numbers. I didn’t write the numbers in the annual report. I didn’t write the numbers in the annual audit. I didn’t read the water meters, or sign the warrants for the water company. I just used the numbers supplied by the people who kept the numbers. What surprises me is that it took this long to discover such a simple problem, that the billing numbers do not line up with the revenue numbers. This problem can’t be solved in a dark room; it has to be brought out into the light. Without transparency this problem will only get worse. We as a town have a problem to solve. Let’s solve it.

  

FEB> 19th BOS meeting Notes

BOARD OF SELECT MEETING REPORT

PART 1

 

Other than the fact that seven of our town police officers showed up in full regalia, the Selectboard meeting started off with the usual ho hum. With so many officers, I had to wonder if the BOS was expecting a highly contentious meeting.

When the chair opened the meeting to citizens time Charlie Proctor asked the Selectmen to place an article on the warrant for a town bi-law to have a moratorium on growing pot in Egremont. With Massachusetts legalizing medicinal marijuana Charlie had nightmares about hemp fields sprouting up all over the town. We can’t have that now, can we? Note to long term planning committee: we were looking for ways to expand business opportunities in the town, marijuana is the most profitable crop per acre. The board voted to not place the article on the warrant. I guess they wanted to keep all the options open.

When the meeting was opened to town officials I read the finance committees citizen request to ask the Selectboard to place on the warrant an article to have the Selectmen act as the water commissioners. Mr. Flynn answered by chastising the entire FC for, are you ready, violation of open meeting laws! Déjà vu all over again! He said that we were in violation of OML because the request to remove the commissioners was not on the FC agenda. This is odd because it was a citizen that prompted the request. How could we have anticipated the request if it was prompted by a citizen? Suffice it to say that this article will not be put on the warrant by the BOS.

Then Mr. Flynn turned his guns on me personally. He went into a tirade about how I was a public official and didn't have the privilege of going public with “this information”. He was referring to my email campaign in which I informed people of the unaccounted for water fund monies. I assured Charlie that I prefaced my letter with a clear statement that I was speaking as a private citizen and did not speak for the FC, or in any official capacity. I also stated that all the information was on public record and statements from public meetings. This did not assuage his irritation.

 The BOS was also concerned that many people in town were speculating that there was something nefarious going on at the town hall and this matter was getting blown way out of proportion. Now I can’t tell people what to think, but I made it a point that any emails alleging anything other than the fact that monies were not accounted for were answered with the stern caution that we can only say that the money is not accounted for. We have to look at this matter objectively and without emotion. We’re not going on a witch hunt, we are simply asking for accountability in our town government. As for me, all my words are established, on the record and preserved if anyone wants to challenge the issue.

The Finance Committee also requested that the town approve sufficient funds to pay for a detailed audit of the Water Company. This was a moot point however, since the BOS had already voted to task the FC with drafting a list of questions directing the auditor to investigate whatever we thought necessary to accomplish this end. Mr. Turner said that the previous auditor has retired and the town has retained the services of another auditing firm. Mr. Turner also commented that in light of recent events it will be good to have a new set of eyes looking at the books.

When we moved to the accountability issue Mr. Turner presented a document that was said to be generated by the town accountant and addressed most, if not all of the funds in question. Mr. Turner announced that this document shows that all these discrepancies were abatements. One concerned citizen stood up and expressed her disbelief that all these unaccounted for funds could be explained away by abatements. She wanted to see the abatement forms and check out the evidence. She was told she could get the documents from the town accountant. Since representatives of the water commissioners and finance committee were going to meet with the accountant anyway we thought it would be a good idea if she sat in. I’ll be sure to tell you how this meeting turns out.

As if all this wasn’t exciting enough we then moved on to why there was such a dramatic police presence. However, this will have to wait until part two of the Selectboard Report

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT 02/13/13 PART 2

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

02/13/13 PART 2

 

          The second citizen action that was proposed at this meeting was an action that has failed in the past and will likely fail again. While I voted for this as a FC member and signed the citizens’ petition at the country store; I will vote against it as a citizen at the town meeting. This may sound hypocritical but let me explain. As a FC member I do not vote for myself, I vote for the citizens of Egremont. It is the right of the citizens to have the choice to vote on this issue. If I voted no as a FC member I would be denying the citizens right to choose this action. This is why the BOS should allow this article to be put on the warrant without delay. For the same or similar reasons I signed the petition at the country store. If the BOS or citizens petition places this action on the warrant it preserves the people’s right to choose. The following is the text to the petition and letter to the BOS.

 

To:   

Board of Select

          Town of Egremont

          Egremont Ma. 01258

 

From:

          Finance Committee

          Town of Egremont

          Egremont Ma. 01258

 

Mr. Chairman

          The Finance Committee voted 6-0 to request that the Selectboard take whatever actions are necessary to place on the warrant for this year’s annual town meeting, a vote pursuant to chapter 41 section 21 of Mass. General laws to have the selectmen act as water commissioners.

          Time is of the essence, because this action requires 60 days’ advance notice.  The Finance Committee requests that the Selectboard promptly consult with town counsel regarding the steps necessary to accomplish it.

          We understand that citizens are in the process of preparing a petition to accomplish this same action in the event that the Selectboard fails to do so.

 

Respectfully Submitted

 

____________________________

    Kevin M. Zurrin

    Secretary

 

Now as a citizen I would vote against this action because it wouldn’t change a thing. The water commissioners are unpaid elected officials who are there to keep a check on the water companies operations. In my opinion they are doing a fine job. I would challenge anyone to prove that the commissioners and employees could run the plant more efficiently. Rumors to the contrary are what have created a smokescreen that has divided the town for years and taken the focus off of the real problem which is the accounting practices.

I would argue that the BOS would not do a better job of running the WC because it would just add to the work they have to do already. It will be suggested that the BOS could appoint someone to administer the operations; and that is true. But how is that any different than an elected board of commissioners? It will be argued that the BOS can be directed by the voters at the annual town meeting and would be more responsive to the voters. REALLY! The voters already have the option to direct the commissioners with the same vote; and I’m sure the commissioners would be responsive to the voters if directed.

We the people of Egremont have a problem to solve with the water company. The solution has to be equitable for all of us. We can solve it together with the provisions that are already in place. We have to look at the problem from an objective perspective and take reasonable actions. We the citizens have to take our civic responsibilities seriously and run our town the way a democracy should be run. The more people who participate in the governing; the more the actions reflect the heart and soul of the town. We are after all a community.

KevinZurrin

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

02/13/13

 

As you know there was a Finance Committee meeting on Wednesday; which lasted a little longer than usual. While the meeting is usually held in an echo chamber there were citizens who actually attended and participated. These citizens were genuinely interested and had valuable input. I love to see democracy in action as opposed to democracy inaction. The latter promoted by the lack of citizen participation.

I could bore you with the details of the agenda items but you can read about that in the FC minutes which will be posted upon approval. The main items I’ll share with you are about the topic of the day, the water company. After discussing many of the problems with the water company accounting procedures we resolved to initiate a course of action. This action will likely be added to the town meeting warrant. I’ll post the proposed letter to the BOS and give my own thoughts. Then perhaps as a community we can press the “reply all button” and have a civil discussion on these matters.

The first action was to request a detailed audit of the water fund. Now some would comment that we have an audit done every year and they would be correct. However, you would have to ask yourselves why this discrepancy has never been uncovered by the auditors. The answer is; we need to spend a little more money for a more detailed audit. What follows is the proposed letter in its entirety.

 

 

To:                                                                                          February 13, 2013

Board of Select

          Town of Egremont

          Egremont Ma. 01258

 

From:

          Finance Committee

          Town of Egremont

          Egremont Ma. 01258

 

Mr. Chairman

 

In light of recent events concerning the billing, collection and accounting practices for the Egremont water company, the finance committee finds that it is in the best interest of the water users and the taxpayers of the town of Egremont that these matters be fully investigated.

Therefore, the Finance Committee has voted (6-0) to request that the Board of Select approve sufficient funds to pay for a detailed audit of the Water Company current and past practices regarding revenue collection, billing, receivable aging and other enquiries as requested by the Finance Committee and the Board of Select.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted

 

____________________________

    Kevin M. Zurrin

    Secretary

 

 

When this request is submitted it is left to the Board of Selects discretion as to whether or not to call for a complete audit. We as the finance committee can only make the request. However, it would seem to me that in the interest of transparency and accountability that the BOS would want the town to know all the facts. We’ll find out at the next BOS meeting when I submit the request. Hope to see you there. Another citizen action was proposed but I’ll post that in a follow-up report either tonight or tomorrow.

SHOW ME DA MONEY

          As you know, if you follow my updates, the meeting was held last night. This meeting was initiated because the Water commissioners wanted to ask the Selectboard to have the towns taxpayers take over the debt service for the water company. When one commissioner told me this it prompted me to start an email campaign to inform the towns’ people of this developing situation. As promised here is my report of the facts surrounding this issue.

          This is an informal report based on the facts that I’ve uncovered during my own investigation of the Egremont Water Company. When I began this investigation I thought the water company was grossly mismanaged by those in charge, i.e. the commissioners and employees of the water dept. This impression stemmed from rumors that flooded the town to explain the constant subsidies that had to be given to the water company to cover revenue shortfalls.  The more facts I uncovered, the more I realized that the commissioners and water company employees were doing their job quite well. While they were not perfect they have done their best to make the water company operate as economically as it can. I commend them for taking a pig in a poke and turning it into an efficient water company that provides clean healthy water to the users.

          I was also lead to believe that the users were being charged far less than it cost to bring the water to the house and that the water commissioners refused to increase the fees. This impression was also based on rumors circulating to explain the reason for the shortfalls and subsidies. The fact is that the fees being assessed to the users have been increased steadily and should be more than sufficient to cover the costs of getting the water to the user. In a worst case scenario, if the numbers are correct, the water company might need only a small subsidy. Rather than opine about the things that are wrong with the water company I’ll just lay out the figures. To quote an old expression, “figures don’t lie and liars don’t figure”, not that I am calling anyone a liar. Now let’s get into the numbers.

Let me preface this by saying these are not my figures. These figures are based on public records and figures that were quoted at the Selectboard meeting on Feb. 4^th 2013. According to Jack Muskrat there are 214 meters being read each month and there are 179 accounts. The reason for the difference is that some accounts have multiple meters. If an account has more than one meter the account holder is assessed only one debt service fee and pays for the water that passes through all meters. Jack claims that there are only a few of these accounts and that this has little effect on revenues. The minimum cost for the individual account is $76.82. This allows for 1000 gallons per month or less and the price includes a debt service fee of $32.22. The water price goes up in 1000 gallon increments and the various amounts are outlined in the attached fee schedule.

Now let’s do some math. There are 179 accounts and each of these accounts are assessed a debt service fee of $32.22. That means that the monthly collections for debt service should be 5767.38. Multiply this by 12 months and we should collect $69,208.56 for debt service alone. The minimum rate assessed for water is $44.60. Multiply this by 214 water meters and we should have $9,544.40 per month in water revenues. This means that the water company should collect at a minimum of $114,532.80 for water revenues. Therefore, at the very least, the amount of revenue reported in the annual report should be $183,471.36.

Let’s go to the annual report. In 2012 the actual revenue reported was $136,618. This means that there was $47,123 unaccounted for. In 2011 the actual water revenue reported was $120,086. This leaves $63,385 unaccounted for. This is if all water users were charged only the minimum fee and debt service. Let’s say for the sake of argument that all users are billed at the minimum. This way the big users who are billed for over 30,000 gallons per month will balance out any that might not pay for any reason.

The following chart shows the previous four years numbers. The numbers in the chart are high because it is based on 217 accounts. I was told that we had this many accounts before I prepared this document for the meeting. As you can see by the above numbers, which were prepared after the information was clarified by Jack Muskrat, there is still a tremendous shortfall.  A copy of the following document was given to the Selectboard members at this meeting and a full copy is as follows.

 

EGREMONT WATER DEPARTMENT NUMBERS

Year	Revenue Budgeted	Actual Revenue	Operating  Budget	Operating  Expense	Fee/1000g	Number  of Users	Projected Billing
2012	$156,346	$136,618	$234,245	$225,376	$76.82	217	$200,039
2011	$145,000	$120,086	$220,455	$213,696	$76.82	217	$200,039
2010	$148,000	$155,190	$214,390	$207,175	$73.31	217	$190,900
2009	$173,300	$122,698	$193,300	$221,557	$73.31	217	$190,900

 

These figures are based on the actual figures found in the annual reports for the years listed. The following is a clarification of the columns above. NOTE: The above chart may not show on your computer as each operating system id different. If you want a full copy of the report I will email a copy to you. Email me at KevinZurrin@aol.com.

·        Revenue Budgeted is the projected revenue for the year listed.

·        Actual Revenue is total revenue collected in that year.

·        Operating Budget is expected cost to run the water company for the year listed.

·        Operating Expense is the actual cost to run the water company in the corresponding year.

·        Fees/1000g is the monthly user fee billed to the user and includes both the debt service, which is a constant $32.22 based on the outstanding loans taken on by the water company and the operating expenses which vary year to year depending fluctuating costs and needs.

·        Users are the number of accounts billed each month.

·        Billing is the amount billed based on the fee schedule multiplied by the number of users. This figure does not include any users who may have used more than the 1000g minimum or any added fees and penalties.

QUESTIONS

1.     Why doesn’t the budgeted revenue equal the projected billing which is based on the fee schedule multiplied by number of users?

2.     Why isn’t the operating budget based on the actual expenses from the previous year, or an average of the accumulated expenses of several preceding years?

3.     Why is the actual revenue not only so far from the budgeted revenue, but even further from the billing amount based on the fee schedule?

 

 

Fortunately most people who were present at the SB meeting caught the fact that my point was to make them and the town aware that there are big gaps in the revenue numbers. When you see a 60 thousand dollar gap in how much was supposed to be billed and what was actually collected there is something drastically wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if many in town demanded an investigation. At the very least there is gross mismanagement of funds. Now I want to believe the best about our town employees and I wouldn’t accuse anyone of anything, but numbers this far off demand answers. We should not stop asking until these questions are answered.

KevinZurrin