This is a giant shitstorm.
Pardon the vulgarity, I won't make it a habit. But no term comes close to matching the conditions.
Today, the Daily News was kind enough to lay out most of the pertinent issues and questions in its editorial, so I'm going to step aside. Here you go.
Our view: What a mess
Where do you begin when describing the problems with Newburyport's water billing fiasco?
Water bills as high as $18,000, which is more than 35 times the norm. Faulty meters, misread for years. Angry taxpayers. A meter reader who wasn't doing his job — and was disciplined — then promptly retired on a taxpayer-funded pension.
Accusations of mismanagement flung by a city councilor whose daughter works for the Water Department. Accusations flung back at the councilor that he's trying to get a favor for his daughter.
The end result is this — the Board of Water Commissioners wants to wash the problem away by forgiving $670,000 in bills, including a bill owed by one of the commissioners.
Now the decision is in Mayor John Moak's hands.
It's such a murky mess we may never know exactly who caused it, or even if there is a single "who" at whom to point. But that doesn't mean the city shouldn't continue to look.
Anything less would be unfair to the two groups who should matter most — the few hundred people who are facing these outrageously large bills, and the majority of residents who have been apparently paying their fair share for years, and unknowingly subsidizing those who haven't been paying their fair share.
There are many questions that ought to be answered. For example:
Who was managing the employees who gathered the data and compiled the bills?
Is it true that some people called in their meter readings, yet they were not properly recorded? If so, whose responsibility was that?
Why does an employee who admitted to not doing his job get to earn a pension?
Why is a commissioner voting to dismiss his own water bill? Aren't there ethics laws in play here?
Were thousands of people overpaying, for years?
What controls are in place now to prevent it from happening again? And are the Water Department employees qualified to make sure it doesn't happen again?
This is arguably the biggest case of mismanagement the city has experienced in several years. Washing away $670,000 and calling it a "lesson learned" is irresponsible.
The mayor has said that he'll examine the water commissioners' recommendation, and aptly points out that "it is not just a money issue; it is also the methodology issue we have to look into."
It's also a management issue. Can Newburyporters feel confident in their water department? The mayor needs to make sure they can.
I've got some concerns. I received one of those phantom notes on our door after being home all day and wondered how the hell we didn't hear someone at the door when my dog barks at anything that comes close to knocking.
The good news is I've only lived here a year and a half, so any overcharge would be slight. Or would it? What about the two owners who owned the house for the previous 25 years? How religious were they about calling in their numbers or checking their bills to make sure they're right. I have no idea.
Rightly or wrongly, it'll be difficult for voters to separate this issue from other city financial matters (re: override) until many of those questions are answered. So, I return to my initial point.
This is a Category 3 Shitstorm, and it's probably going to hit 4 or 5 before it's all over.
1 comment:
Tom,
I hope for your sake that a physical meter reading was done at the time of your closing.
Unfortunately, there are some people using the failings of the W&S dept as an excuse to avoid paying for water they used.
Post a Comment