SPSA to get new board by Jan. 1 under new law

Yes, the comments by most posters reveals a profound lack of knowledge, yet given the sensational articles and headlines in the Pilot and elsewhere, it is easy to understand why most readers simply resort to condemnation rather than trying to understand the situation. Frankly, I had been optimistic that we could complete the course of action set by the board, but it quickly became apparant to me that certain members would prefer that SPSA fail rather than meet their obligations. It took the Governor to tell them they would pay or else to make them come up with the most recently proposed short term fiscal plan, but that does not deal with the continuing issue of the disparity in tip fees. The new board will be dealing with these same issues, and until the parties agree to renegotiate the agreements, we are destined to fight the same battles over and over again.

Never give up. The rest of this comment ended up being about 18,000 characters so, I've shortened it a bit. Basically, I think, aside from the contract issue, part of SPSA's problem now is one of public relations. Judging from conversations I've had and from reading the many comments here, I don't think most people understand how SPSA operates and because of that, they do not trust or would not trust that it is well managed or ever could be. The "people" own SPSA so to speak but, they don't feel it. They see it as they see most government "things"; It's just some sort of big bureaucratic money sucking chimera, it's out here and it does something with trash, don't know what exactly, blah blah blah. You know what I mean? Now maybe I'm being overly idealistic or naive or maybe just plain upidsta but, I think if most people did understand it (and the contracts were "fixed"), it would be easier to overcome part of that ill will. How, I don't know; Maybe some Ross Perot style pie charts on WHRO would be a good start. HaHa I don't know, maybe it's too late now anyway but ya gotta try, right?

What should the new board do? First, assuming the sale of the RDF/WTE plants is complete on January, the debt should be significantly reduced, but the tip fee for the six jurisdictions that represent 20% of the waste stream will still be very high. Frankly, other sales of assets will wipe out the debt, but tip fees will not be greatly reduced. That will be a continuous source of irritation and conflict. No one cares that the contracts were written that way, they just want them changed. No one cares that SPSA is open today and disposing of the region's solid waste because VB was willing to make an unsecured loan of fifty million or so to keep the doors open until the sale is complete. If the sale is jeopardized, then we have a real problem. The basic solution is to renegotiate the agreements over a much longer term so new capacity can be developed, but ill will is so rampant that I don't think that will happen. Sorry for the pessimistic view.

I'm not so sure I'd use the term "suspect" but, the opinion of an involved party, in any situation, not just SPSA, should rightfully be seen in a different light than one uninvolved. This not necessarily a bad thing; just different. When I read your bit about a "renegade city" I couldn't stop myself from picturing Cosgrove as Reno Raines sitting on a Harley. HaHaHa - Anyway, and you may not think it appropriate to answer here or now but, as an insider so to speak, what, if anything, could be done to salvage the situation either with or with out the state's "assistance" or is SPSA taking a wait and see attitude? It sounds as though what SPSA has been missing here lately is a good PR campaign to clear up all the confusion that abounds. I think more than few people believe you guys are getting paid huge salaries for one thing.

Yes, any defense of SPSA by a current or former board member is certainly suspect. In fact, as one in that category, I have been most critical for many years, yet find what has occurred recently to be an over reaction to a situation that was solvable by the eight members who created the organization. Instead, a delegate from a renegade city wrote an piece of Legislation that in my view fits your description, yet given the hysteria surrounding the "highest tip fee in the nation" it got passed with nary a second thought. Now, the members are faced with a situation in which they may not have a representative who is supposed to represent their interest. Some may think that is not a bad thing, but I don't think Chesapeake would be one of those. We may see the dismantling of an organization that actually works pretty well yet never could get over the public anger over the disparity in municipal tip fees.

I believe Montaigne was correct in saying "It is a very great doubt, whether any so manifest benefit can accrue from the alteration of a law received, let it be what it will, as there is danger and inconvenience in altering it; forasmuch as government is a structure composed of divers parts and members joined and united together, with so strict connection, that it is impossible to stir so much as one brick or stone, but the whole body will be sensible of it." Sadly, Chesapeake has not only stirred SPSA, they have put it in a blender. HaHa I'd guess it's about to get worse. We'll see. My only point of contention with BarryC is that, in my opinion, when he or anyone, for that matter, speaks in defense of something that they are directly related to or responsible for it seems deceitful to do so in a way that is not very clear to anyone who may hear them that such is the case. Without, by the way, the need for any "investigative research". "BarryC" could have been "Barry Codpiece" for all anyone knows. HaHa

Yes, sometimes it is difficult to respond to the content and not let the "attitude" dictate the response. In point of fact, the statement by one of the posters to the effect that the new board will simply change the agreements is to reveal the continuing ignorance of the basic situation at SPSA. The agreements with Suffolk and Virginia Beach are legal, binding agreements. Just ask Chesapeake who has tried to have them overturned in court but was soundly rebuffed. Failing in their legal strategy, they have chosen a legislative strategy, and that appears to have prevailed, yet frankly, they may be most disappointed if the new board is more committed to SPSA and less to the members. That of course remains to be seen, but in my personal opinion, it proves that legislation written in anger and rectitude is often bad legislation.

Hmmm, it seems the sarcasm I had hoped to convey in my previous response to what I considered a rather priggish comment from BarryC was not interpreted as such. So, if I may ... Despite any personal views one may have of Mr Barrett or the job he is doing at SPSA, I don't think he has ever taken such a priggish tone in any of his comments and that is, in part, the reason I personally look forward to reading whatever he writes. Thus far, unfortunately, this has not been the case with BarryC who's username is not his whole name and who has not written enough or commented enough on Pilot articles or been with SPSA long enough or done enough outside of Franklin for everyone to know or care who he is; Yet. Now, I'm sure the SPSA board is somewhat stressed by the current situation but, for some members to take even a mildly hostile tone will in no ways endear people to their cause. But, hey, what do I know? Perhaps I am the rere BarryC supposes I am. Perhaps I should rethink my position which, coincidentally, ironically I think, is similar to or at least sympathetic to BarryC's.

Yes, HarveyMilk, I would agree with you. A number of new board members have been appointed recently who seem less encumbered with past grudges and who accept the agreements that exist and wish to comply with them while at the same time seeking longer, more permanent and equitable arrangements that will benefit their taxpayers/ratepayers. Regretfully, these members will leave office on December 31st, if, of course, a new board can be constituted as provided in the Cosgrove's bill. What will be the motivation of these new members? Will they represent the city that included their name as one of three on the nomination list? Will they answer to the new Governor who did not appoint them? Will they represent the VRS? Or will they seek the nomination and appointment because they have some undisclosed connection to the waste management industry? Frankly, no one knows, but Chesapeake may have created a much worse situation than they had ever intended.

By his comments, Mr BarryC shows us that he is just the sort of eloquent, dignified, clear minded, rational, levelheaded leader everyone hopes for. 295 voters in Franklin thought so; Now, so do I.

I think, as a SPSA board member, Mr Barrett must have either the worst job in the world or, if one enjoys snickering to oneself, the best one. I'm not sure which.

I don't think there are too many people out there that won't agree that changes with SPSA HAVE to happen. For SPSA to work correctly for the region, ALL parties have to come to the table and ALL contracts and aspects have to be put up for change. Until it is all balanced out and worked out, what we've got is a badly damaged ship that IS sinking that the current band-aid solutions aren't solving. The governor is at least trying something different instead of going with the same system that hasn't worked in the past.

Well aalto, that post is really confusing. I have been condemned herein by many posters, and frankly, other board members, because I have pushed too hard to preserve the present arrangements that clearly favor Virginia Beach and its citizens over the other members, yet you say the opposite. And you condemn my membership on the board also because I am not an elected official, yet the change made by Cosgrove's bill and signed by the Governor will require that only business people like me, and not elected officials, be appointed to the Board of Directors. So either you are totally confused, which given many of your past posts is not at all surprising to me, or your personal enmity to me simply blinds you to the facts. Either way, perhaps you ought to find out the truth before you reveal your ignorance in such an obvious fashion.

My only concern is that the representative from VB is NOT Barrett. We need an elected voice at SPSA that has the citizens of VB at heart, and will ensure we are not screwed. From the Barrett perspective, we in VB are the bad guys in tidewater, and need to pay more. Go away!

Yes, the current board strategy is to sell off assets in order to reduce debt and to assess the effect of the sale on the municipal tip fee. The first sale, now being negotiated under a PPEA, would be for the RDF/WTE plants, with a service contract with the successful bidder to accept SPSA waste with a set fee. The board will assess the effect of this deal before approving it, and if it is positive, then we will also assess whether further sale of assets with service contracts is warranted. SPSA is now required to hold up their end of the agreements with the eight members which do not expire until February 1, 2018. Even if assets are sold, the service agreements allow SPSA to dispose of the municipal solid waste through the companies that buy our assets.

Whether they like you or not Mike I appreciate your input on clearing up some of the comments that lack all the facts. Many editorials insinuate that SPSA is intending to sell off all of its assetts such as the landfill, transfer stations, recycling, etc. If this is true why would SPSA even need a board in the future? Are the insuations accurate that SPSA's Board will try to sell off all of their assests in the very near future?

Yes, Santa, the residents of Chesapeake should thank the Governor as by signing Cosgrove's bill, they have taken a step toward winning by Legislative action what they were denied in the Circuit Court. But as stated previously, watch out what you wish for, you may get it. Frankly, the way the Legislation is written, I am not sure who represents the members, and frankly, who votes, and how many votes constitute effective action on any item, especially those actions necessary to pass a budget. Now, for better for worse, the designated representative votes on behalf of the member, or in the designated representative's absence, the alternate votes. In this new statute, who votes and what represents a majority is simply not clear. Further, if the city appointed representative and the Governor's appointee differ, whose vote counts or do both votes count? I certainly hope the new board members (if a new board can be constituted) will vote collectively to operate an efficient and effective organization, but as HarveyMilk points out, the same contracts and agreements remain in place. This could get interesting.

Remember it was also Mike Barrett that said this latest audit was not needed either...

Bankruptcy of SPSA would mean all contracts could be cancelled, forcing Suffolk and VB to pay a fair share. It would also mean immediate removal of all over compensated executives in SPSA, who haven't donw their jobs. A new board would also change the way things work and get rid of deals like that with Suffolk and VB that are, frankly, stupid.

Gee, HarveyMilk, how did you ever figure out it was me BarryC and Barry W. Cheatham of Franklin talking favorably for the SPSA board. Great investigation work. I have never tried to hide who I am or what I stand for. If I had I would not have written the articles in the paper about the tipping fee etc. I also make no qualms about saying that changing a board that has already changed in the last 8 months (before Cosgrove proposed the legislature) and is already heading in a new direction is not necessary.
So yes it is me and you should not of even thought you had to guess!

I've got a $100 that says BarryC is Barry W. Cheatham.

SPSA Board member from Franklin.

What say you, BarryC?