By DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, “SNOWMAGEDDON OUR ASS,” JAN. 27, 2015) —  Ward 4 councilor Chris Connell continues to make news of the good kind, unlike, say, certain former councilors who just can’t seem to stay out of the big muddy.

Connell has urged a referendum on the building of a new high school, and, as we saw yesterday, wants to introduce a petition inviting the mayor to rescind his Administrative Order on public works, which passed by default.

In another action, he has led the drive into exploring how best to handle the water department in Pittsfield. Should the city keep it in house or should it privatize?

What’s the purpose of the probe? Here’s what our Right Honorable Good Friend said:

“I asked for a study group to be formed to review the pros and cons of keeping the water department and waste water department in house. I believe it’s a conversation that should take place at least every 5 years given the ever changing restrictions that the EPA imposes on all municipalities. The cost to municipalities seems to increase dramatically every time the EPA tightens their regulations.

CHRIS CONNELL: Water panel owes it to taxpayers to find out why the numbers aren’t adding up.

“I realize that two studies were completed in the ’80s and ’90s but things have changed. In addition to the tighter restrictions,  costs such as postemployment benefits have become more of a challenge to municipalities. The results may show we stay in house or not. Many individuals would like to know including myself what is in the best interest of the city. By the way this study is not costing the city anything, no consulting fee just a group of volunteers.”

OPEB Factor and No Cost Make Inquiry a Welcome One

There is much to like here. First, any review of operations is welcome. In fact, every city department should be subject to such an internal examination. Whether such probes can be honest given the warped politics of the city is a separate question. We are speaking in the abstract, a theoretical state imposed by experience. Second, THE PLANET l-o-v-e-s that a public official is revealing an awareness of the OPEB problem (“Other Post-Employment Benefits,” an unfunded liability of hundreds of millions of dollars hung on taxpayers by a succession of mayors, councilors, school committee members, school superintendents, and municipal unions). Third, the volunteer commission bears out what we have long said, that far too often, the city ignores its “in-house” talent and jobs out studies of this sort. The reason? To guarantee that the city gets the answers that it wants to hear.

Almost never are municipal “studies,” especially those jobbed out to consultants, done with an objective purpose. Typically, they are meant to “legitimize” a preconceived “finding.” Consultants are only too happy to take the money and present in a fancy package the preordained gospel city officials want to hear. THE PLANET urges the members of this volunteer commission to do their job and look at the question of privatizing with objectivity. Let the information and the data determine the result.

The commission consists of former Pittsfield public works chief Bill Forestell, OCD director Douglas Clark, Bob Meyers, and Bill Sturgeon. THE PLANET can personally vouch for Forestell and Sturgeon. Again, strictly from our own personal experience, the jury is out on Clark and Myers. But going in and unless we learn otherwise, we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

What, or rather “Who” is Missing from the Water Panel?

Notably missing from this panel are the co-designers and builders of the city’s two water facilities (Cleveland and Ashley). We speak, of course, of “Water Wizard” Craig Gaetani and Dr. Lawrence K. Wang. To study water and not include these two is missing out on a ready, world-class resource. Each man is widely acknowledged in the industry, and yet, despite each man residing regionally, the city seems hell bent to keep them from any deliberations on water and sewer operations. Why? It’s an intriguing question.

Notwithstanding this omission, THE PLANET nonetheless commends the water study panel. It is generally good to question the efficiency of city departments. The better question in this case, however, is “Why is the city asking this question?” It’s not every day that the city is willing to undergo a self-examiniation. Our experience tells us that there’s something someone is not telling us. We decided to poke around a bit.

Talking to a number of knowledgable sources, one theme emerges: Under public works commissioner Bruce Collingwood, so the theme runs, the city “has let the department get away from its control.” Under the previous administration, the water and sewer department was rocked by a corruption scandal. This time, it appears the department has grown fat, lazy, and incompetent. Is that so? The panel must find out.

Gaetani says when the Cleveland and Ashley plants were built, the technology, which is still current today (sand float), was designed so that the plant could run with just 25% of staffing that’s typically required of such a facility. Gaetani says and Connell confirms that the water department and the seweage facility on Holmes Road employ 44 people at a cost of $4.3 million (18 employees for water, 26 for sewer).

Gaetani says the water department could be run with two or three employees: One each for water and sewer, with a third as a “utility infielder.” Automation and technology permit that, and, in fact, the plants were designed to operate at that staffing level. When problems arise, resources can be brought in on an as-needed basis. Thus, if this is true, the city is employing 18 people to do the job that three could do. With similar ratios, the 27 at the sewer plant could be done with five. Eight employees vs. 44. Do the math.

Is that why the mayor, Collingwood, and the council have been so determined to keep Gaetani and Wang out of the Cleveland and Ashley plants? Will the designers of the facility reveal a hive of incompetence and political patronage? It’s an open question.

Panel is Obligated to Explore Staffing and Budget 

The study group is obligated to explore this issue. The first call they should make is to Gaetani and the second to Dr. Wang. Invite them into the two plants and then make a presentation on their findings. If what they are claiming is correct, the city has a whopping 36 employees on water and sewer that it doesn’t need. It’s also spending between $3.3 million and $3.8 million more each year for the routine running of water and sewer than it has to.

Gaetani says to run water and sewer at a high level but with no waste, it should cost taxpayers no more than $500,000 and $1 million a year (not including required EPA upgrades). If true, it invites a con game, one THE PLANET will warn citizens, taxpayers, officials, and the water panel about beforehand. The potential con will involve privatizing the water and sewer services.

The private company comes in with two valuable pieces of information:

(1) It knows the city’s current cost of $4.3 million.

(2) It knows what the actual, pared down cost would be: $500,000 to $1 million.

It will therefore come in at, say, $3.8 million. It then brags of “saving” half a million dollars, which politicians then tout on the campaign trail.

THE PLANET recommendation is two-fold:

(a) Invite Dr. Wang and Gaetani to make a presentation to determine if what they claim to be true is true.

(b) In any case, realize there is a flood of money being run through the spigots right now that appear to be waste, and not of the sewage kind?

If it takes $1 million to do a job, and taxpayers payers are paying $4.3 million, where is the other $3.3 million going? We ask this while noting an interesting “coincidence” — the city is currently advertising for a new pubic works big cheese. The city is advertising for a “Commissioner of Public Services.” Salary: $85,209 plus bennies worth about $22,000 a year.

Hmmmm.

Check this out: https://www.smartrecruiters.com/CityOfPittsfield/80835346-commissioner-of-public-services

Something fishy seems to be swimming in and around the waters of Pittsfield.

It’s time for this study to find out for sure.

———————————————————————————————————

“O Cupid, so thou pity me. / Spare not, but play thee!” — Thomas Lodge, “Rosalind’s Madrigal,” (1590).

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.