Welcome aboard.

Spradlins have had a rough go of it financially in recent years. The storm came and they found their own bailout, the rate payers. It was profiteering on their part, foolishness for not having better trained people on the PUD's part and an expensive lesson for all of us.

All of this is in the past. My question to the PUD: Do we have better people or procedures in place so that this never happens again?

I hope the Spradlin family chokes on their money.

Seeing as Spradlin had been a contractor for the PUD for a long time, there was already contractual precedence of rates. That the newly-inflated rates were not scrutinized more closely is a mistake the PUD has owned all along. That the rates were inflated to begin with is the real crime. The PUD trusted a local contractor whom they have done business with before. Said contractor screwed all of us for personal gain. The outcome is part negligence in the midst of crisis and part highway robbery. I know which part burns me the most. If ever there was cause for a community to boycott a business, this is it.

Per the court's opinion, both parties agreed that there was an oral agreement in place for spradlin to do the work after the storm. Precedence was out the window as a new agreement took over which spradlin appears to use to their advantage by inflating charges that the pud just paid.

In the court opinion "the parties performed under the contract, Spradlin did the road work and the PUD paid four invoices without challenging Spradlin's rates or charges detailed on the paid invoices"



Couldnt agree more.

What business do they have? They used to build log roads. They have stockpiled a little rock that never seems to shrink. They have equipment but don't seem to be out there contracting.

I think you just answered your own question.

Bears repeating.

But it doesn't really matter. This was their retirement plan.

I agree with the "crime" and "mistake" comment regarding this situation. I have no sympathy for Spradlin and what they did, however the PUD had no control over what Spradlin did, but they had complete control for what they did, or rather over what they did not do. You do not simply approve an invoice for payment without following appropriate procedures, and particularly not one from a contractor such as Spradlin.
This sorry state of affairs would never have happened without the failure of one or more persons to do their job within the PUD. Stash has indicated that corrective action has been put into place to assure the failures that happened with the review/approval of invoices do not happen again. The blame ultimately lies with the lax way the "bogus" invoices were handled. Someone is responsible for those failures. I'd like to think that appropriate action has also been taken by PUD management, with close oversight by the Commissioners, to address that issue as well. We're talking a huge amount of money here that the ratepayers will be tasked to pay because of that mistake.

Staff, Management, Commissioners, and the Ratepayers are well aware of the errors made by the PUD. The PUD, imo, has worn those mistakes on thier shirtsleeve for all to see.

I simply reiterate the real frustration I feel. If the last person out of the bank forgets to set the alarm, does that let the bank robber off the hook? You have already indicated your opinion of the complaintant. I'm waiting for the rest of the community/ratepayers to pull their collective cranial appendege out of their collective anal orifice and let this yahoo know what they think. But, I'll bet you a donut there will be letter after letter from the nutbars like Straka, Brown, Daniels, or Jennings focused on the bank employee while they drink coffee with and backslap the bank robber.

Spradlin sued the PUD for non-payment, right.

Can and is the PUD suing Spradlin for overcharging?

I would assume they can't and am sure they are not.