What? Yet another vote for Mack without voting on other finalists first???

The saga continues....  Please see the Patch article regarding the appointment of legal counsel to BCWA: http://patch.com/A-164C

As the ratepayers pointed out, the 4-3 vote was not legal. Ms. Mack was in the room at the time of the vote. The ethical thing for her to do would have been to advise the board at that time that 4 votes was not enough and to move on to vote on the other finalists.  (I know, I know..... much too much to expect...)  So, the will be voting, yet again, on the legal RFP.  (Do you get the impression that they have already decided not to make any changes?)

From the article:

"Marchand also said that the board may also recommend a contract with one of four other firms who applied — Keough & Sweeney, LTD; Schacht & McElroy; Petrarca & McGair; and Adler Pollock & Sheehan — if a third vote on Cameron & Mittleman should be unsuccessful." [emphasis added]

The above statement is totally unacceptable! There should not be a third vote on Cameron & Mittleman until there has been a vote for the other two finalists.  What are they thinking? That they can just keep holding votes, over and over again, until the get the result that they desire???  The implication here is that there has to now be a "third vote" on Mack and that there is somehow an underlying acknowledgement that "the board" really wants to retain Mack. But "they" didn't know they needed 5 votes and so let's let them have a "do over" on Mack so that they can stack the deck with 5 who will vote for her. Kind of an assumption that if they had known the real rules, they would have made it come out 5 for Mack. But the problem is that SHE was the lawyer who let them do it "wrong" over and over, including that - now we're supposed to believe that none of the board members even knew they needed 5 votes - and SHE didn't tell them!

This is outrageous folks! Please comment on the article and, if possible, call your Town Councilors and appointed directors to let them know it is time for a change!

As I have  mentioned before, we also have a scenario here where many other "illegal" votes may have been passed with less than five votes, assuming that they relly didn't "know" five was required.

I know that we all agree that, in order to get our water authority on the right track, we need competent legal counsel. Ms. Mack is way beyond the "three strikes and you're out" phase.