The Water Planning Group meeting Tuesday night was singularly disconcerting. A governance proposal for the reorganization of water & sewer was previously presented by the former town manager and discussed by the WPG with little opposition. I naively thought the auditor's same plan would receive the same preliminary acceptance. Instead it was met with outrage, indignation and rejection by the Commissioners as well as some, but not all, of the WPG members. What caused this furor?
In addition to performing the forensic audit, the auditor was asked to provide a governance plan based on his review of how the enterprise funds had been managed. His recommendation creates a new position of superintendent reporting directly to the town manager, overseeing the contract operators of the plants as well as the consulting engineers, and suggests combining the commissions into one 5-member appointed and advisory board. This isn't a wild new concept: it's a successful model used by many municipalities and some of our neighboring towns.
It's interesting to note that the 2004 MMA Report made the same recommendation which was soundly rejected by the then chair of the Water Commission. Two reports, 6-years apart, authored by two different independent professionals making basically the same recommendation evinced the identical reaction by our elected commissioners. Objective vs. subjective. You decide.
To me, this structure provides the town with a 9-5 professional; someone with engineering/utility management experience who could evaluate the consulting engineer's recommendations and would have department head budgetary accountability. It is sound business practice and it makes sense to put the onus on a paid professional rather than citizen volunteers.
The auditor also provided a proposal for how this might be paid for by reducing the scope of the plant operation contracts and contract services costs so as not to add additional costs to the Town.
The MMA Report outlines a job description for a Municipal Infrastructure Manager, cites recommended minimum qualifications, describes the essential duties and responsibilities and, in my estimation, is a darn good place to start our discussion.
However, it's hard to talk when you're holding your breath. I hope the naysayers will instead take a deep breath and enter into a conversation. What is needed now is solutions and the best solutions come from dispassionate debate.
6 comments:
Sounds like a plan.
I'm tired of paying the bills for mistakes made by well-meaning volunteers.
Would also like to see more financial types on the advisory committee.
Lets face it, these departments are multi-million dollar complex entities. There is no room for citizen-volunters. I know that people are well meaning, but that doesn't help me pay my bills.
I say this about all that.
We have a brilliant Town Counsel.
Every year he wins Town Counsel of the year. Are we running contracts by him? Why or why not?
One of the reasons the teacher's contract is insane is because we allow happy housewives, whose children are held hostage by the teachers, to negotiate contracts.
If I could sell my house and get out of this crazy town I'd be gone in a second. Too late. Now the rest of the world knows about Cohasset. I will die here, paying the highest water rates in the world - maybe the highest in the solar system.
By now it must be apparent to all, the current controls we have for the oversight are a failure. $700,000 shortfall last year, $1M short fall this year, no way anyone can make the case that our current system of volunteer boards is working.
The needs of understanding and following Federal and State mandates and guidelines has risen to a level that can no longer be left in the hands of volunteers.
For the same reason we went to a Town Manager system we need to hire a professional to oversee these two most critical aspects of town services.
I urge the Board of Selectmen to set aside any friendships or past relationships they may have had with the Water & Sewer Boards and take action. Merge them together as the recommendation has been made. Do not allow this conversation to drag on.
It maybe the Sewer Dept is upset at being lumped in with the Water Dept, but I fear what will happen when unqualified residents take spots on the Sewer Board and we create a similar mess in 2-3 years time.
We need leadership, please, resolve this quickly.
It sounds like selectmen need to call for a special audit of their accounting and treasury departments.
What is missing from the many comments on this subject, but I expect the final audit report will undoubtedly explain, is the role our senior town officials have plaid in creating this mess. The finances of the town are not run by volunteers; there were paid professionals in the role of CFO (finance manager) and town manager. No department including sewer and water spends funds without it running through them. This isn't just failed oversight; they failed their core function - managing the finances of the town (interesting timing on their departure don’t you think). It is wrong to add an employee to the town payroll and declare this issue fixed since it does not address one of the primary problems - who is responsible for managing our senior town employees? The Board of Selectman needs to admit their fault in this debacle and answer that question before we add cost to the town. If there is no accountability what does it matter the structure, at least elected officials terms eventually end.
Post a Comment