"Miss the forest for a tree, or a little bush..."

Okay so I’m still having a hard time getting exact numbers on how much effluent the new Power plant will consume when it goes online this coming March, but the UMass PR folks republished a couple of puff pieces that use the figure 200,000 gallons per day.

Last year Umass paid us $37,800 to feed the old steam plant at a super discount rate of $1 per 1,500 gallons (when it would have been $6 for normal potable water) or 155,342 gallons per day. So based on a consumption rate of 200,000 gallons per day it would come to $48, 666 or a 13% increase.

Just for the new, admittedly quite cool, Powerplant.

However Umass also has four new buildings coming on line in the near future that use effluent to run “chillers” (air conditioning) and their consumption is projected to about equal that of the new Powerplant.

And since the beancounters in the White Castle (Whitmore) are now keeping track of water consumption by the Athletic Department they are more motivated to start watering their playing fields with effluent.

Hence in the near future (certainly well within the five year period of the “strategic agreement”) Umass use of effluent will double. And hey why not, it’s now FREE!

Video below is Professor Kusner selling the deal.

Say What???

“Unless the matter is resolved publicly, you should be aware that we will not be able to inform you of what action we take regarding your complaint. This is because our enacting statute, G.L. c. 268B, and our procedures impose strict confidentiality requirements on all aspects of our review of complaints. We trust you can understand that protecting the confidentiality of our investigations and our sources is essential to our effectiveness, and to complainants’ and subjects’ legitimate privacy concerns.”

Okay, so let’s resolve this publicly: the 9/17 Select board free water for Umass vote was so fraught with foul ups, why don’t they just do it over tonight (with Mr. Kusner and Ms Brewer abstaining of course).

Go to Hell "Sgt." Anderson!

In a message dated 9/29/07 8:26:30 AM, x2general8@hotmail.com writes:

With a very desperate need for assistance, I have summed up courage to contact you.I am an army Sgt. from FortHood Tx. now serving with the third infantry contingent mission stationed in Iraq. I actually found your contact in a business journal. I am seeking your experience and assistance to evacuate the sum of $5.5 Million United Sates Dollars to USA or any other safe country. This is no stolen funds, and there are no risks involved.
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
During the third month of the raid here in Iraq, myself and some few other soldiers while conducting a routine search in a location near one of Saddam`s old palaces, uncovered large sums of money buried in barrels with piles of weapons and ammunitions which we believed must have been part of Saddam's hidden treasure. We agreed not to turn over the cash or declare it to our superiors since there is noting we could do having considered that there is no amount or kind of compensation that can make up, quantify, or justify the risks we have taken with our lives in this hell hole.
I was given the sum of $5.5 Million Dollars as my own share out of the large sums discovered, and had nowhere to conceal such bulk monies here, so I had to employ the services of a contact by a British colleague. The said contact facilitated the movement of the funds to a safer location entirely outside Iraq. One passionate appeal I will make to you is not to discuss this matter with a third party, should you have reasons to reject this offer, please destroy this email, as any leakage of this information will be too bad for me. I do not know for how long we will remain here, and I have survived two suicide bomb attacks by the grace of God.
It may be difficult for us to communicate on phone for security reasons, so as soon as I am sure you are willing to help, I will guide you with more information. But only when I ascertained your seriousness to commit your time in seeing to the success of this. We shall also discuss about percentage when it is convenient to do so,until I hear from you, more information shall be supplied to you.
Respectfully,
Tanner Anderson.

Tanner,

If indeed you are a member of the US Military—which I most sincerely doubt—you have embarrassed yourself, your family, and your country. And as they say in our national pastime, “three strikes and you’re out.”

To use the Iraq war and the thousands of casualties produced when men and WOMEN have given their “last measure of devotion,” as new wrapping on an old scam is disgusting.

I can only hope the Military Police, FBI and CIA are equally offended.

Disrespectfully,

Larry Kelley

Abracadabra: vanishing tax $

Frat Row Then: (when privately owned)
Total amount property tax paid Amherst in FY07: $32,309.44




Frat Row Now: (Publicly owned by Umass)
Property tax Amount will pay in FY08 and the rest of eternity: $00

Stick THAT up your "strategic agreement."

A shortsighted (blind as a bat) editorial

Perhaps I should stop referring to the Gazette as “crusty” (a term I stole from reporter Mary Carey). Yesterday’s editorial was hardly supportive…amazing! Most newspapers consider Conflict Of Interest and Open Meeting laws sacred.

And crusty--I mean the Gazette--has yet to weigh in on the ridiculous circumvention of Open Meeting Law by Umass Trustees powwowing at a private "retreat."

The editor seems to buy the spin generated by the Umass Public Relations Department (most notably former Gazette political reporter Pat Callahan) and they continue to use the $140,000 per year as the net “unanticipated revenues,” failing to factor in the loss of $37,800 with the effluent water waiver.

But the real loss is FAR greater than that. Umass paid Amherst $37,800 last year for the effluent used in their tired old steam plant (to provide heat in the winter). The new Super Plant will provide both steam heat AND year-round electricity. So their use of Amherst effluent will AT THE VERY LEAST DOUBLE.

And Amherst just increased across-the-board the water rates by 25%, so even if usage stayed the same Umass would pay $50,000 next year. But since usage will now DOUBLE the Select board with their 3-2 vote on 9/17 flushed down the toilet $100,000 per year for the next five years.

Hadley charges top water users $4.85/100 cubic feet or better than 50% more than Amherst charges Umass. If our illustrious water/sewer commissioners simply decide to institute that rate for high-end users in Amherst, Umass would pay us an ADDITIONAL $500,000 for potable water and $150,000 for effluent water this year.

Now that would really encourage conservation.

UPDATE (9/28/07): The Umass Trustee's saw the light and decided to open to the public their upcoming "retreat". Maybe Crusty had a little to do with it as they at least mentioned the controversy on Page One not to long ago (but their editorial department was asleep at the wheel)

A stinky case of conflict: the pressure builds

So the crusty old Gazette is keeping up. And I love the placement of the two related stories in today’s edition (both above the fold): ‘Early Call on Amherst gap: $1.9M’ and my conflict of interest story: ‘Complaint Widens On Board Vote.’

Yeah, it all comes down to money. And nobody in bureaucracy (that runs on tax dollars) seems to give a damn about the taxpayers.

For instance, Town Officials insist on using the $140,000 figure as an annual net gain from the Umass “strategic partnership” completely ignoring the $37,000 in effluent water freebies they gave Umass in return.

Duh! So according to this taxpayers math, Umass is only paying us $100,000--on an annual impact of well over one million.

The first question reporter Scott Merzbach asked was why I filed another expanded complaint? Well...since I did bet the Town Manager on this blog on Saturday that the state would overturn the 3-2 Select board vote of 9/17, I am simply hedging my bet in the million-to-one chance the reticent Town Manager actually takes my bet.

Now there are three good reasons that vote needs to be redone: Ms. Brewer did not file her disclosure with the Town Clerk , Ms. Brewer made the motion that night and it was seconded BEFORE she whispered her public disclosure, and NO MATTER WHAT Professor Kusner should not vote PERIOD.

And if the Select board is not trying to cover its tracks and rewrite history then why did Ms. Brewer and Mr. Kusner sneak into the Town Clerk's office two days ago to file the disclosure form they should have filed on the 17’th? I use the word sneak because if they thought there was nothing wrong with that then why not call a press conference for the occasion? This blogger would certainly have covered it.

In their own words: A conflict of interest.

State Ethics Commission, Enforcement Division
One Ashburton Place
Room 619
Boston MA 02108
September 24, 2007

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to amend and expand my original complaint filed 9/20/07. About an hour after I faxed the document the Amherst Town Clerk called to say they had found a third disclosure form filed by Selectman Kusner dated 4/19/05, (unrelated to the Umass effluent water issue voted 9/17/07). Mr.Kusner also filed another form today thus bringing his current total to four.

Curiously, in his public disclosure on 9/17/07, Mr. Kusner claimed to have a single “blanket disclosure on file” (with the town clerk). The one he filed today does have a caption "Categorical Disclosure."

I also wish to expand my complaint to include Selectman Alisa Brewer because her husband is a full-time employee at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Ms. Brewer acknowledged (although not very clearly and barely audible to the television audience) her potential conflict at the Selectboard meeting 9/17/07 but only after she had already made the motion and it had been seconded by Select Board chair Gerry Weiss (both who later voted in favor) and only after prodding from Selectman Greeney (who voted “no”).

And on 9/21/07 at http://alisaforamherst.blogspot.com/ she admitted, “While my written disclosure is not yet on file at the Town Clerk's office (and yes, of course I agree it would have been ideal to have it there already), it will be soon.” She, too, filed her (first) form this afternoon.

Since this admission shows a violation of the “appearance of potential conflict of interest” I would also ask the Ethics Commission to void Ms. Brewer’s vote taken 9/17/07.

Sincerely Yours,

Larry Kelley,
460 West St, Amherst, Ma. 01002
Amherst Town Meeting member, Amherst Redevelopment Authority, http://onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/
CC: Amherst Town Clerk, Amherst Select Board/Town Manager