And, for whatever it's worth, Veolia has givne a large chunk of business to B&T. But they've farmed out different matters to all the large firms. The reason? Protection. Lots of firms do it. If I want to oppose Veolia, and hire a lawyer, and if I had unlimited resources, I could not hire one of the big firms. Conflict of itnerest.

Which is why I want 5% of the net proceeds put aside for a Marion County Office of Utility Consumer Counselor. A properly-funded professionla office, with money for rate case consultants/ analysts and extra lawyers, would give me a much better security blanket.

The state OUCC is well-intentioend, but woefully under-staffed.

I don't trust this on the surface because I don't trust our government to put our interests first. Had they put our interests ahead of their own, we would not be here now for the sewers would never have been allowed to get into this state of emergency.

But hey, we've got that Oil Can playground for the politicians' favorite billionaire, Ir$ay.

In particular I don't like citizens gas and their outrageously high “service and delivery” fees which aren't based at all in reality.

Further, I don't like it that city council president Ryan Vaughn is pushing for this deal when he works for Veolia's law firm which stands to make a lot of money should they have to oversee the paperwork for their client.

it's OK now tho

I want to try to be more global about this thing: it is a rare opportunity. And over my lifetime, almost five decades, I've watched closely when utility rate cases go to the IURC.

The IURC is packed with hacks. Always has been, always will be. Hell for years Vi Simpson's husband, a former state senator, was on the IURC, and he had zero experience in the field. Nice guy, attorney…but no experience. Govs. Bowen and Orr were notorious for putting pro-utility guys on the (former) PSC. And after their IURC service, guess where they go to work?

And every single time I delved into a rate case, there was one common thread: the utilities were well-prepared, with million-dollar lobbiysts, consultants and attorneys…and the Utility Consumer Counselor was like a limp noodle. It's not always just rate cases. Sometimes it's a construction issue–think Marble Hill. It is almost impossible for a poorly-funded Utility Consuemr Counselor to provide adequate arguments.

If this is truly a citizens' corporation, I think we have the chance to properly fund a good UCC of our own, on the local level. Five percent of the sale proceeds would be about $23 million. Properly invested, that would return $1-1.4 million a year. Enough for a handful of good staff persons and consultants. And we'd never touch the principle.

Considering my opinion of local government, I can't just blindly trust any of these people to do so – on faith alone.

Sure, maybe this deal is the best thing available, but since I can't judge that for myself, I am leery of the entire process.
If I were allowed to read over all of the documents returned from all of the RFIs, then perhaps I would agree with the Administration's conclusions. But, I can't, so I won't.

You expect me to provide an alternative or shut up? That is just cheap. Why? I'm not the one entrusted with (or paid to) “analyze” whatever options the Administration received. Further, I couldn't do so even if I cared to (remember, no info – the MOU hardly counts).

All I know is this. The more the Administration tries to fog the process, the more they act indignant about criticism, then the more I will be suspicious about the whole “deal”. If that includes further criticism (which is a sure as sunshine), then so be it. If the Administration can't stand the heat, then they should get out of the kitchen.