We revere those who act selflessly in the service of others, those who give their “last full measure of devotion” in service to our nation. The Medal of Honor is bestowed on those few who have demonstrated extraordinary acts of valor in the face of imminent danger. We are told to think of others before ourselves, a lesson that stretches far beyond battlefields.
Our idioms are replete with reference to selfless acts: “Jump on the grenade,” “Take one for the team,” and “Give the shirt off one’s back” are but a few examples. “Marines never leave a buddy behind” encapsulates the service’s core value of commitment to each other and to the team.
Stockbridge is assuredly familiar with these deeply admired precepts. But its recent actions are more in the vein of “throw someone under the bus” and “leave others holding the bag” than “ask what you can do for your country.” Where have you gone, Norman Rockwell?
Perhaps an explanation is in order.
On July 31, the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) approved the joint motion of Housatonic Water Works (HWW) and the Office of Attorney General to settle HWW’s rate petition. Great Barrington, West Stockbridge, and Stockbridge were intervenors in that proceeding. There was much to dislike about HWW’s petition seeking to more than double the rates paid by HWW’s customers (just as there is much to dislike about the water HWW delivers). The three towns fought the good fight, side by side, on behalf of ratepayers. To the dismay of so many, HWW was the victor.
We will not repeat here what is known by all: For the brown and occasionally carcinogenic water flowing from their faucets, HWW ratepayers will now pay the highest monthly minimum service charges in the country. That fact alone makes the DPU’s approval of the settlement suspect. Essential to the DPU’s approval of the settlement was a determination that it was reasonable and in the public interest. By a show of hands (other than the Mercers), does anyone concur that the terms were reasonable and in the public interest? Anyone? Anyone?
Perhaps most egregious, the DPU’s order found that the HWW settlement will result in just and reasonable rates. Let’s see, HWW ratepayers are facing the highest cost for the lowest quality. Anyone able to make a contrary argument?
Well, the towns of Great Barrington and West Stockbridge did care to differ. On August 20, the towns jointly filed a Petition for Appeal to address the DPU order’s manifest injustice. Astoundingly, Stockbridge did not appeal the order, choosing to sit this one out. This was not what you might call an act of “all for one and one for all.”
Stockbridge has the fewest HWW customers, just 23. West Stockbridge has 67, and Great Barrington has 757. Due to this disparity, until August 20, the three towns had worked together while Great Barrington had the laboring oar. Until August 20, the towns had common cause and were rowing in the same direction. And then Stockbridge decided to jump ship.
When a court or administrative agency issues an adverse order, it is common for the most aggrieved party to appeal and for other aggrieved parties to join at essentially no cost. The party with the most at stake carries the ball for all the parties. Conversely, it would be unheard of for one party to tackle the party with the most at stake before it can get off the line, which was Stockbridge’s play here. Let us just say it is unlikely KP Law (Great Barrington town counsel) will be inviting Harrington Heep (Stockbridge town counsel) to its holiday party this year.
On August 21, Stockbridge’s town counsel published a memorandum to the town explaining its decision not to appeal the DPU order. (The memorandum is pure artifice, as Stockbridge’s Select Board and town counsel would have agreed in executive session not to appeal, with the memorandum merely the vehicle to publicly disclose the prior decision.) Stockbridge should have decided to join the other towns because not proceeding would make Stockbridge conspicuous by its absence. Not joining the other towns yet staying silent would have been a minimally acceptable next best move. Stockbridge went with the move most destructive to the other towns’ appeal: a memorandum counting the ways Great Barrington and West Stockbridge’s appeal is likely to fail.
In its August 21 memorandum, Stockbridge announced that it believes the appeal “has a low likelihood of succeeding.” Stockbridge stated that the towns are unlikely to convince a court that the settlement was unreasonable. Without question, appeals are tough, but there was simply no reason for Stockbridge to kneecap its co-parties on the way out the door.
Stockbridge could have performed an act of grace by joining the other towns, at very minimal cost, hoping for the best appellate outcome while fearing the worst. But switching sides? Hindering any chance of success? Who does that?
We will never know how Stockbridge came to conclude that burning the house down was its best move. But we will always know that Stockbridge abandoned not only its 23 HWW ratepayers, but also the 824 ratepayers in Great Barrington and West Stockbridge. By definition, these 824 ratepayers are not Stockbridge voters, but they are friends, colleagues—they are members of a community that has suffered for years.
One town not supporting another town, that is not news. One town actively impeding an effort to prevent calamity, that is news. More than that, it is disgraceful.
Survey Monkey Questions
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Do you believe it was shameful for Stockbridge to denounce the appeal seeking to reverse the DPU’s order approving HWW’s rate petition?”
Survey Monkey Results
A recent column asked the following survey question: “Should the Town of Lee do something more constructive than pursue a frivolous lawsuit against GE Aerospace and Pharmacia?”
As of publication, 56.25 percent said “yes.”
Days Great Barrington has held Community Access Fees hostage: 180
