I have a couple of issues of concern that I’d like some other viewpoints on. The first involves how Billerica goes about selecting and hiring town counsel.
The reason this concerns me is manifold. However, I’ll concentrate on just two current events that have significant numbers of citizens feeling as though they are under seige, left to their own resources to fight big corporations. We’ve had groups of people waging expensive battles with corporations over projects such as the power plant and pentachlorophenol pole storage where the consequences of exposure could be life altering, at the very least; and potentially carry delayed existential threats as well.
These civic minded people have been acting independent of government for the most part, but also in what they perceive to be the most prudent and best interest of the town.
In the case of the power plant, a small group of people banded together from disparate political viewpoint to join in a common cause to protect the health and quality of life of North Billerica citizens in particular, and the town as a whole by working to stop the construction and operation of a natural gas fueled power plant, similar to at least three that have made the news recently for exploding due to a rush toward project completion.
Putting the explosion issues aside, the town would still have had to endure increased carbon emissions and a lowered air quality standard for little to no benefit. In fact, with the Democrat led push, nationally, for a carbon credit cap and trade economy, the plant, most likely would have Billerica residents paying even more in taxes for the privilege of breathing bad air to power AC units in distant neighborhoods.
Additionally, the power plant would have put our water supply in jeopardy by drawing an enormous daily volume from the river for cooling purposes. This cooling system would evaporate away much of the water and send a greatly decreased volume back into an already depleted river system.
With so much at risk, why is the town so content to rely upon part-time and extremely limited legal services?
“The law firm of Loiuson, Costello, Condon and Pfaff have been appointed as the new town counsel, replacing Brackett and Lucas after nine years as Billerica’s legal representation. [from Attorney Costello]
“I would love to serve Billerica,” said Costello.
Costello proposed a retainer of about $68,000, which ranged from $12,000 to $52,000 less than the other firms. Selectmen Bob Correnti and Mike Rosa both questioned this number, stating it was low. Costello explained this number was binding for the first year of service and would be reviewed next year. He added it included general legal services but not litigation, appeals or special counsel services. Rosa asked him if he felt comfortable with the retainer figure given Billerica’s history, stating that in a year, the retainer would most likely go up to the same rate as the current town counsel…“Our actual time may very well exceed the retainer,” said Costello. “ We’re willing to take a chance and we’re willing to cap it. It would be cost effective.”
I’m unsure as to how prudent the decision to hire cheap legal services is in these times. Perhaps, we are at a point where we might want to consider hiring an attorney to work as a full-time employee for the town as they would for a corporate firm. What we have now is no more than minimal legal services provided by them as an adjunct service in addition to their other legal and contractual obligations.
Call me silly, but when push comes to shove, I would suggest that in balance, the town can expect no more than to be treated as a second-rate client. Is that really the level of service the town needs? If we were talking about replacing the shingles on your home where termite problems were known to occur, would you settle for pine when you could afford cedar? I don’t know, but I’d love to hear other opinions.
Also, consider this: Recent air quality tests for PCP (Pentachlorophenol) show a five fold increase over the allowable limit under Massachusetts statue. Would we be waiting until the October meeting to have a know health hazard removed from the Iron Horse Park site if we had a full-time attorney to attend such controversial meetings as this last one held by the Board of Health? Now, imagine the full-time attorney working in concert with a full-time Board of Health Director specifically trained to at least a Masters Degree level in industrial hygiene and public disease recognition, evaluation and mitigation?
How do you suppose we would have fared with some of our 40B projects with a tandem such as this to advise the ZBA ahead of its decision making – and I’m thinking specifically about the runoff implications and documentation of the potential health and safety hazards created by such a tight density.
How much could we have saved with the Home Depot litigation had we access to good advice from experts depending on the town for the whole of their income and who as such would then hold the town’s well being as their primary self-interest?
How about tracking the payment for superfund cleanup? Who does that now? What about followup on the potential 3 million dollar reimbursement for 40B thievery? Who’s doing that now? Too expensive to consider? I don’t know…I’m just asking. How does one define “thrift” and “prudence” together?
How many “shovel ready” job funds do you suppose we are not getting from the Commonwealth because we only have a part-time legal advisor instead of a full-time advocate?
Where else may we have been benefiting with full-time, committed town counsel? Can you say “contract negotiations” or “unions”? How about “public meeting laws, transparency and training”?
How about assisting with and explaining zoning and zoning overlays to citizens to find and protect the best interests of the town in a way that safeguards the character of the town (however you choose to interpret that word)?
The old adage is true: you do get what you pay for, and this town has been buying a lot of crap over the years, either by choice or by forces too big for a part-time legal defense to fend off. Would you want the decision to amputate your leg or not made by a nurse simply because you don’t want to spend the money on a surgeon?
How about this novel idea! Instead of the government forcing towns to accept dense low income housing projects, we force those in government to find a way to fix the local economy and tax system to put more money into the pockets of low wage earners and everyone else? How about if we demand that the low wage earner extend him or herself by taking on additional work or efforts at obtaining the educational opportunities many of them pass up as teen and young adults because they think they already know it all? What about going back to the days and the ethics of personal responsibility? All it takes to break a trend is the right amount of votes. Just ask Martha Coakley.
