Don Bell in his Daily World "My Turn" column on Sunday, writes, "I guess the opinions of our own people and courts aren’t good enough for our PUD" and "Maybe the PUD ought to pay theirs to avoid a big penalty with our money" and finally, this because "they'll surely lose" and "Mr. Spradlin donates to Logger's Playday". This is in reference to the jury trial in GH Superior Court in which the ruling went against the PUD.

To suggest the PUD should not appeal a decision they think is wrong because someone creates jobs or donates to community events is laughable.

Imagine Don Bell's letter to the editor slamming Lovely or the Commissioners if they were to follow Bell's incredible suggestion. He, and others would be blasting the "good ol' boys" and "poor management" and "lousy Commissioners" because "they knew the bill was too high and the ratepayers were being ripped off but they let it go because he donates to the Logger's Playday and creates jobs".

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how well that would go over?

If the Commissioners thought, or think the evidence isn't there, then pull the plug. But, if they are still convinced a Contractor abused the process and substantially overcharged the ratepayers, then follow through. I heard or read the Judge would not allow rate information in court because "there was agreement to the rate once the PUD paid a portion of the bill". I think the rate info will be reviewed on appeal... or in a new trial.

Many naysayers, including the linemen Mr. Bell cites were saying the Commissioners shouldn't sue BPA. The Commissioners did and they won the first lawsuit ever won against BPA.

I hope the Commissioners continue to do what they think is right.

While I also question how an emergency repairs bill can climb well into the millions of dollars so quickly, if the best argument on appeal is the rate charged as you have stated, then PUD's chances of prevailing on appeal are slim to none.

The appellate court will almost never reverse or remand on a factual basis or dispute. determination of facts is entirely the purview of the trier of fact--i.e., the jury.

An appellate court will reverse or remand when it finds an error in the application of the law. Accepting and paying the first invoice for emergency work that is outside the scope of any written contract is called 'estoppal'. Depending on the circumstances, other contract theories might apply.

If PUD believed Spradlin committed fraud, that issue should have been raised and proven in the trial. If it wasn't brought up there, it can't be raised on appeal.

I'm not suggesting that is their "best argument". I just thought that was odd.

All I know is what I read in the paper. I've only skimmed the articles on this, and it's entirely possible, if not likely, that the reporter(s) did not capture the real meat of either position.

It did strike me that Jon Parker was overstating the PUD's odds on appeal at 30%. That could mean they (PUD) have a real argument, but there are a number of, basically, presumptions, working against any appellant.

What PUD should do, if they pursue an appeal, is get a court order authorizing paying the judgment amount into an interest-bearing trust account, pending dispersal on the outcome of the appeal. That way, the only extra cost to either party is the actual cost of the appeal. BTW, loser pays the cost of appeal, so long as the prevailing party timely and properly asks for attorney fees and costs (which is often overlooked by inexperienced appellate attorneys).

I would recommend everyone read the article in the only newspaper we have on the Harbor and that would be Leif Nesheim's article in the Vidette last Thursday. The story is balanced and it would appear that he actually read the court documents.

From the PUD Website:

The Grays Harbor Public Utility District (PUD) Board of Commissioners has voted to appeal a recent jury decision directing the PUD to pay a local contractor about $4.2 million, saying the contractor’s charges were “clearly inflated.”

“This was a case where the charges were excessive for the work conducted and we feel it is in the best interest of our ratepayers to appeal. We believe an appeal will provide the opportunity to focus on the rates charged by Spradlin Rock Inc. which is critical to our argument,” said Truman Seely, Commission President.

“We found a number of irregularities that indicated Spradlin charged the PUD far too much,” Seely said. “For instance, Spradlin charged a fuel surcharge that turned a $152,705 fuel bill into a $519,894 surcharge.”

The PUD was restricted by the court in the recent case from presenting arguments related to the rates charged by Spradlin Rock, Inc. The court ruled that because the utility had paid for some of the work, it created a contract authorizing the rates. “We disputed the charges in a timely manner on all the invoices and anticipate, on appeal, we can make our case,” Seely said. “We wish we could have come to an agreement with Spradlin Rock, Inc. without legal action but as Commissioners, we have a responsibility to our ratepayers to ensure charges are fair, accurate and reflective of the work,” added Seely.

The PUD will appeal the jury verdict to the Washington State Court of Appeals.