Board considers investigation into Light & Water's borrowing history

Board considers investigation into Light & Water's borrowing history

Previous complaints, record requests by board have cost thousands in (needless) legal fees

Eryn Dion
News Staff Writer

TEMPLETON — The state’s Inspector General may be brought in to investigate borrowing conducted by the Templeton Municipal Light and Water Plant to fund the construction of the John R.S. LeClerc Wind Turbine behind the Narragansett Regional  School.

The action comes as a response to a letter received by the board in January stating that the TMLWP operates under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 164 and therefore cannot borrow without a town meeting vote.

Selectmen Julie Farrell, who placed the item on the board’s Monday night agenda, stated that there is no record with the Town Clerk that the borrowing for the wind turbine – an amount of around $3.8 million dollars – ever went before the town for a vote.

“I don’t know if it needed to, but I would like the Inspector General to look into this,” she said.

Ms. Farrell explained that she believes, if the borrowing was done incorrectly, the town may be responsible for the money.

“I believe there exists a liability on the town that can come back and haunt us,” Ms. Farrell said.


At the time, Ms. Farrell, who was serving as a Light and Water Commissioner, was told by Town Counsel that the borrowing to fund the wind turbine did not need to go up for town meeting vote. The letter from the DOR appeared to contradict that fact, and Ms. Farrell decided to seek an investigation to protect the town.

Former Light and Water Plant General Manager Sean Hamilton explained that the TMLWP never borrowed the full $3.8 million and that after several grants and clean energy bonds, the total loan amounted to about $993,000. He then said that TMLWP was part of a cooperative with the town of Princeton and, according to M.G.L. Chapter 167 section 47c, had the right to borrow the money for the turbine without permission from the town.

In the midst of a financial crisis, Mr. Hamilton, current Light and Water General Manager John Driscoll, and several board members were not clear on what an investigation would accomplish and might result in the town being responsible for more money than it can afford to pay.

“What is the ultimate goal?” asked Vice Chairman Kenn Robinson. “If the Inspector General comes in and says ‘yes, this was done incorrectly, that loan was no good give them back their money’ – then what do we do?”

This is not the first investigation into the Light and Water Department’s operations.

Ms. Farrell has filed several records requests and open meeting law violations, the latest of which was submitted in November of last year after the department increased its water rates by 23 percent.

Ms. Farrell alleges in her complaint that the decision made by the TMLWP’s commissioners to raise rates did not occur during a public meeting and requested the price hike be delayed until a properly posted hearing was held.

According to the document, Ms. Farrell attended the October 8 TMLWP meeting, where a rate study was discussed but no action taken.

She then received a letter dated November 5 signed by Mr. Driscoll informing customers of the rate change, despite the next posted meeting of the TMLWP commissioners not occurring until November 12.

The complaint was received by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General on January 19 on this year and reviewed by the Division of Local Government, who responded in a letter dated March 3 and signed by Assistant Attorney General Hannah Rush.

In this letter, Ms. Rush stated that the rate change was approved during a TMLWP Commission meeting held on Oct 23 at 5:00 p.m. in the Light and Water Office.

The meeting is listed on the town’s website and was posted on Monday, October 21 at 9:14 a.m., well within the 48 hour time frame for notice required by Massachusetts Law.

“The Commission discussed and voted on the water rate increase during a properly posted meeting on Oct. 23, 2013,” Ms. Rush wrote. “The topic listed on the Oct. 23, 2013 meeting notice, ‘Old Business: FY 14 Water Rates’ was sufficiently specific to notify the public that the Commission planned to continue to discuss the Fiscal Year 2014 water rates.”

Ms. Rush then concluded that the TMLWP did not violate the Open Meeting Law and considered the matter resolved; however a note at the bottom of the letter states that anyone aggrieved by the order may file an action in Superior Court for a judicial review, to be filed within the next 21 days.

Ms. Farrell has filed four open meeting law complaints between the years 2012 and 2013, which, according to Mr. Driscoll has cost the department over $10,000 in legal fees.

Mr. Driscoll explained that such complaints, and subsequent records requests, require a response from the plant’s attorneys and represent unforeseen legal expenses that have to be recovered from light and water customers.

No official action regarding an investigation by the Inspector General was taken during Monday’s meeting but the item may be revisited at a later date.