John Stanwix/Water Authority, blah, blah, blah
City’s Urban journal this week is all about the Water Authority Scandal again. So, here’s the thing; John Stanwix hired firm (Clark Patterson Associates) after he had officially retired as authority’s executive director (but still on payroll) then was hired by Clark Patterson Associates and remained on WA payroll. Looked into by comptroller. Comptroller can not determine if this is a conflict of interest. Comptroller has asked Mike Green to look into it.
The WA has a report of their own, prepared by former DA, Donald Chesworth which refutes findings from first comptroller’s report and concludes that there was a conflict of interest on Stanwix’s part.
Both reports seem to think that if the money is paid back from Clark Patterson Associates and Stanwix pays back the amount of his salary from that period plus some legal expenses (and it has been) then everything is fine and we can all play nicely together in the sandbox again.
I don’t think this is the case, and neither does Mary Anna Towler:
So, you might ask, what’s the big deal? The Water Authority got its money back.
First, seems to me it’s a big deal if a public official is involved in negotiating a contract that he himself will benefit from. The amount of that contract (only $30,000) isn’t the issue. And paying it back doesn’t “make things whole.” No one on the Water Authority board has been held accountable for the lack of oversight.
Second, there are numerous discrepancies between what the Chesworth report has found and what the comptroller’s office found. They can’t both be right on such things as unearned pay and benefits. The Chesworth study was done by attorneys acting as counsel for the authority. The comptroller is a representative of the public. Chesworth could be right, of course, and the comptroller wrong. But we need to know, and right now, we don’t.
Just as important is what’s at the core of this controversy: lack of public oversight. The Monroe County Republican Party continues to treat politics as a winner-take-all game. No proposals by Democratic legislators are ever taken seriously. There are no Democratic appointees on the Water Authority board, despite a requirement that clearly is intended to provide that representation.
The Democrats want the Water Authority to be abolished, with its functions taken over by county government. That wouldn’t guarantee the end of patronage or conflicts of interest. But at least the operations would get a more public exposure.
That idea, too, isn’t likely to live long.
It’s all about oversight. It’s also time to weigh in on whether the county should take over the water authority. I’d like to see it put to the voters of this county in some sort of mandatory referendum. That’s people run government at it’s best. You can vote your opinion here at City’s poll.
Related posts:
I’d love to see an interview with the former Chairman of the Water Authority who ran it without a hitch for YEARS before Magpie and company gave him the boot - his name is Paul Bringewatt and he lives in Canandaigua, NY.
THAT would be an interesting interview…
What would you ask him, in said hypothetical interview?
I’d like him to sit down with the books, and give his opinion of what level of intervention and what depth of corruption has occurred. I met Bringewatt years ago and found him to be an upstanding citizen. He was forced out of MCWA, but I’m certain he would give an honest and probably alarming review of what has happened. He’s probably one of only a few who could assess what was - versus what is.
We already have two opposing opinions based on audits. I’d like to see the opinion of someone who used to be at the helm. Sure, if it was anyone else I’d say a jaded view would be obtained - but not with Bringewatt. He’s first class all the way.
[...] could include dropping that RenSquare idea, maybe getting rid of some of the COMIDA give-aways, or absorbing the Water Authority into the county and using some of their profits as operating revenue. Hey, Maggie, you didn’t need a [...]