I'm waiting for someone to put up a sign saying, "Thank you PUD Commissioners for standing up to outrageous profiteering!" But, I won't hold my breath.


From the PUD Website:

The Spradlin Rock Case

Why Grays Harbor PUD is Appealing and What The PUD has Already Paid Spradlin Rock

The signs on the Spradlin Rock trucks call for Grays Harbor PUD to “Pay Spradlin.” The signs have prompted many of our customers to ask about the billing dispute between Grays Harbor PUD and Spradlin Rock. Grays Harbor PUD is providing the following information to better inform our customers about the PUD’s position regarding this legal matter.


Background

Spradlin Rock Products Inc. is a contractor that provided road repair and rock hauling services in response to the December 2007 storm. Grays Harbor PUD received invoices related to the work and paid a portion of the charges ($1.5 million was paid in early 2008). In all, Spradlin Rock submitted invoices totaling about $5.9 million.

The PUD discontinued payment on additional invoices when a number of irregularities were found that indicated Spradlin Rock’s charges were excessive for the work conducted. The charges identified as excessive include a “fuel surcharge” that turned a $152,705 fuel bill into a $519,894 charge, or about $12 per gallon, and administrative office work billed at $98.55 per hour regular time, $142.83 for overtime and double-time at $179.36 per hour, for a total of a little over $200,000 over a 20 week period. When the District was unable to convince Spradlin Rock that the billings were dramatically inflated and needed to be more reasonable, the District terminated our working relationship.

After payments were discontinued, Spradlin Rock filed a lawsuit seeking about $6.3 million dollars from the PUD (that would be in addition to the $1.5 million already paid resulting in Spradlin Rock potentially receiving $7.8 million), the case went to trial. During the trial the PUD was restricted by the court from presenting arguments related to the rates charged by Spradlin Rock, which was critical to the PUD’s argument. The court ruled that because the utility had paid for some of the work, it created a contract authorizing the rates. The trial ended with a verdict awarding Spradlin Rock about $4.2 million, $2 million less than the $6.3 million Spradlin Rock was seeking.

The Grays Harbor PUD Board of Commissioners decided to appeal this decision to the Washington State Court of Appeals, believing the District has a good case for appeal. The basis of the appeal is the court’s decision to restrict arguments related to the rates charged by Spradlin Rock. The PUD disputed the charges in a timely manner and believes a successful appeal will provide the opportunity for a jury to hear the whole story. If successful, the verdicts will be overturned and the case will go back to court for a new trial. The appeals process is expected to take about 15 months.


Payments made to date for Spradlin Rock’s Work

The PUD Board of Commissioners had District personnel determine what would be a fair and reasonable amount to pay Spradlin Rock for work performed. The PUD determined that a fair and reasonable amount would be an additional $1.06 million. To date, the PUD has paid approximately $2.56 million for the work Spradlin Rock conducted in the wake of the 2007 storm. This is an amount the PUD Board of Commissioners believes is fair and reasonable based on past dealings with Spradlin Rock and industry standards. It does not include payment for charges found to be clearly excessive. The PUD Board of Commissioners has a fiduciary responsibility to ratepayers and recognized that, as a not-for-profit public utility, any payments made are at the expense of ratepayers.


Payments to other contractors who assisted in the 2007 storm.
Some customers have asked if the PUD simply didn’t pay contractors after the storm. That is not the case. In the wake of the December 2007 storm, more than 30 crews from a number of different contractors worked to make repairs. With the exception of Spradlin Rock, every contractor who performed work in the aftermath of the storm has been paid in full.

"The court ruled that because the utility had paid for some of the work, it created a contract authorizing the rates."


It seems to me that this statement is the critical part of this whole case which was initially ruled in Spradlin's favor. If I understand correctly, there was no firm agreement between the parties as to rates for the work to be performed. Spradlin did some work and submitted three or four invoices for payment for that work. Those invoices were approved for payment by someone within the PUD, thus establishing the rates according to the court findings.

If those initial invoices were improper or included excessive rates for whatever reason, they should never have been approved for payment. Thus, since they were approved, they established the rates for continued work by Spradlin. If the initial invoices should not have been approved, then the person or persons who approved them should be on the chopping block if not already terminated. If handled properly and with due diligence, the PUD would not be in this mess, and the PUD Commissioners would not have to stand up to protect it's ratepayers from "outrageous profiteering."

"The court ruled that because the utility had paid for some of the work, it created a contract authorizing the rates."

This, of course is the main basis for the appeal. It is the position of the PUD that the judge erred in that ruling. If the higher court agrees, rates will be discussed.

I think, in hindsight, a mistake was made in paying that first invoice. Being that it was not detailed out, it is not unreasonable to assume the rates were the same as they were one month prior when the contractor did storm work for the PUD. But, we all know what they say about assuming.

$12 deisel and $50,000 a month bookkeepers were not on the first invoice... only a dollar amount. The PUD protested early on and requested more information. Foolishly, they made a payment to a contractor that had done a lot of work for them in the past including one month prior. That was a mistake, but not an egregeous one. The contractor was a local who had done a lot of work before. Why would they think there was a possibility all prices would triple or more?

After the storm there wasn't any gas services open in the Ab area. I remember my oldest daughter having to drive to Elma before she could get gas and then it was a limited amount.

I'm assuming Spradlins trucks/equipment use diesel and if there was none available locally wouldn't the diesel have to be trucked in? And if that occurred wouldn't that lead to extra fuel charges?

We have to remember our area was on it's own for several days. How many of us couldn't even get out of our homes? My youngest daughter was in the process of moving from Oregon. I can't remember how many days she had to wait before roads opened. But even then they had to come up via 101 and it took over 8 hrs to get here from McMinville.

I can't help but think the conditions after is what raised the charges.

Nice guess. Not the case in this instance, but nice guess. How about ratepayers being billed $50,000 a month for his bookkeeper?

This was my big issue. I agree with above post that the price of fuel may be justifiable. I had to drive to Olympia to fill up my vehicle and some gas tanks for the generator.

And I can even believe that since the conditions were much worse to work in with down trees, etc. that this would have made their work much more difficult/dangerous/time consuming which would, in turn, make it more costly.

But 50K a month for a bookkeeper?

I just wish that the PUD would have been more aggressive on researching what they were being billed for. Not only at this instance, but at times prior.

If Spradlin was trying to push these charges to individuals during the crisis that ensued after the storm, or at anytime of the year, there would be an enormous outrage. A 50K a month bookkeeper, millions of additional dollars of charges, and they might win because someone in a time of crisis paid a bill? They should be embarrassed.

This is the win that they want? If this was a gas station that charged $12 a gallon after the storm, they should be looking over their shoulder for the feathers. But since it is just the PUD, wait, us, who will have to pay for this . . . . I have a bag of feathers.

This is probably explainable. Diesel is $3/gallon. A fuel truck delivering the diesel to the equipment is probably in the neighborhood of $100 per hour at straight time for the driver and truck. Overtime and double time for that driver would add much more to that cost. Not just anyone can drive a fuel truck since there are special endorsements for them.

I think we all realize that there is a giant probability that on an honor system for hours honor does not always win out. I don't know enough about this to guess if this happened but I can understand the suspicions. That is a lot of money for the time frame they worked.

"The court ruled that because the utility had paid for some of the work, it created a contract authorizing the rates."

As WC Fields put it, in You Can't Cheat an Honest Man, "never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump."

If a crisis or disaster occurs, and the price of gas (or other supplies) rises, that is called price gouging, and it is illegal, and prosecuted with vigor. Unless it happens to the taxpayers, apparently. I must admit curiosity, however, why you already have a bag of feathers. I noticed last week that one of his trucks parked in Central Park already seemed to have been tarred...

My wife has been asking me if I like licorice for years. Now, she's buying feathers like mad, telling me I'll be about to fly off of our high perched deck.

She keeps saying I need to think about licorice. What the hell does licorice have to do with flying? Well, she's convinced it will work, and she keeps telling me that I will be able to get above the clouds and get close enough to the sun to feel its warmth.

I jump this afternoon. The best news is I've learned to love licorice so much that it has become my wife's nickname for me. After this works, no more $12 a gallon charges.

Licorice Rules!

[quote=harborknight]If a crisis or disaster occurs, and the price of gas (or other supplies) rises, that is called price gouging, and it is illegal, and prosecuted with vigor. [quote]

Unfortunately, price gouging in a time of disaster is not prosecuted vigorously, at least not here. The State, through the Governor, has some ability to deal with price gouging in a time of disaster, but I can't remember that power being exercised in my lifetime. RCW 43.06.220:

1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:

(a) Any person being on the public streets, or in the public parks, or at any other public place during the hours declared by the governor to be a period of curfew;

(b) Any number of persons, as designated by the governor, from assembling or gathering on the public streets, parks, or other open areas of this state, either public or private;

(c) The manufacture, transfer, use, possession or transportation of a molotov cocktail or any other device, instrument or object designed to explode or produce uncontained combustion;

(d) The transporting, possessing or using of gasoline, kerosene, or combustible, flammable, or explosive liquids or materials in a glass or uncapped container of any kind except in connection with the normal operation of motor vehicles, normal home use or legitimate commercial use;

(e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person's place of residence or business;

(f) The sale, purchase or dispensing of alcoholic beverages;

(g) The sale, purchase or dispensing of other commodities or goods, as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace;

(h) The use of certain streets, highways or public ways by the public; and

(i) Such other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace.

I could buy this if the charges for the fuel truck were detailed on the invoices. Not so much when the gas is just charged at $12/gallon. Any bookkeeper worth their salt should know how to detail that out appropriately...especially when they're being paid $50k for a few weeks of work.

And don't forget that the bookkeeper was his wife, and supposedly, he had never charged the PUD for his wife's bookkeeping services before.

Okay, you are right, and I was completely wrong on this one. Washington appears to be the ONLY state where price gouging is apparently legal.



http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/abo...ce_gouging.html

"During the trial the PUD was restricted by the court from presenting arguments related to the rates charged by Spradlin Rock, which was critical to the PUD’s argument."


Did this come as a surprise to the PUD after start of the trial, or was this known prior to the start? And why would the court make such a restriction? Did the court error in this regard? Is there any reason to think any such restriction would not be made in the appeals process?

It's my understanding that the court's decision to restrict the evidence was made during a motion for summary judgment or a motion in limine prior to the start of the trial. At that point, I am sure that the PUD's lawyers knew that they were in trouble and would have to appeal.

My understanding is the ruling by McCauley came in Pre-Trial motions. It appears the PUD lawyers think the the ruling is in error. Once the flawed ruling was made, the trial would have been just playing for the appeal, imo. Most appeals are made with the assumption, or at least hope that the Appeals Court will agree with you.

I'm not sure that you are totally wrong. The last subsection of the RCW I cited seems to give the Governor, at least arguably, the authority to deal with price gouging during an emergency:

"1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:

"(i) Such other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace."

I just don't know that this authority has ever been exercised in the past in Washington.

How odd. You take someone to court for over-charging but you're not allowed to give examples of over-charging?

Does anybody know what legal basis ws given for this decision? It sure doesn't make sense to me.

McCauley ruled that paying the first invoice... even though it was just a total rather than itemized rates... established a contract and accepted the rates.

If that's the case, I can certainly understand why the PUD is appealing. It might also explain why Spradlin is so desparate to avoid the Court of Appeals, and is instead trying to force the PUD to settle by mounting the equivalent of a political campaign.

Are you sure that the PUD approved an invoice for payment based solely on a total dollar amount without any breakdown whatsoever for that total? That just doesn't seem like something any reasonable person responsible for invoice approval would do.

Also, I had heard that more than one invoice had been approved for payment...perhaps as many as three or four, but I'm not certain this is true.

If this is true, then someone wasn't doing their job.

Let's say I'm driving out in that storm and my car goes off in a ditch and the only tow-truck driver available charges me $1000 for hauling my car out of the ditch. Desparate, and with no other option, I pay it. Does this mean that every time I need a tow, if that same tow-truck driver is the only one around, I'm obligated to pay him $1000 because we, supposedly, now have a contract for that amount?

Well, if you were stupid enough to call him again, I'd say yes. But, in this scenario, the "tow truck driver" pulled you out of the ditch last month for $100... and had pulled you out many times before for a hundred bucks (you sure are a crappy driver!). Then, he called during a storm and said, "I know you have a lot of cars in the ditch. Do you want me to get them out?"

"Sure!" you say.

Then, you call a while later... there are still a lot of cars in the ditch... and say, "Are you going to send me a bill?"

"Yes", the tow truck driver says, and keeps on working.

Finally, you get a bill for $3000 dollars. You assume he's pulled out nearly 30 vehicles and pay him saying, "You need to get me a detailed invoice." The unspoken word here is, "You've done work for us in the past so, we're satisfied. But, we're still going to need the documentation for the auditors."

Later, while work is continuing, you get more bills for $3000 and $4000 and $5000... along with invoices saying the charge is $500 per vehicle, plus a surcharge for tow-strap cleaning, plus $98.50 per hour for 16.5 hours per day for his bookkeeper, even when she's getting her hair done.

You say, "No!" and stop work.

The Judge says, "You agreed to $500 per car when you paid the first bill."

In this case, you didn't "call him again". You just didn't stop him from towing vehicles soon enough.

Further, all along, you say, "We need to talk about this bill." But, the tow truck driver will not talk or change the bill. He goes to court and sues for his money.

I started typing something similar to this, and my wife wanted me to check our email. I did and came back to your reply. Thanks for saving me some time.

That is a better analogy, Stash. Crappy driver that I am, I think it illustrates the stupidity of the court case quite well. I just don't get the judge's decision at all. There may be legal precedent behind it but no logic, imho.

Wow.. Thank goodness for AAA...

AAA-Plus here.

Well, yeah. That goes without saying. Who wants to only be able to be towed 5 miles?

I am wondering why every time I drive by the PUD and Spradlin is there he is driving an exempt plated truck? Then I go to Splash festival and there it is again... Turns out it is from his Fire District where he is the chief... I wonder if the tax payers in Fire District 6 know that their Chief and Board member is using their equipment to conduct his private business. Doesn't seem like Fire District 6 was covering Splash or checking out the truck in Central Park or going to PUD Board meetings. With all the stories about McCleary and the alleged mis-use of taxpayer dollars all over government, where is the Daily World on this one?

IOKIYAFDC

Sorry Lumberjack, not sure what that means

I am guessing that is its okay if you are a fire district commissioner? If so, I'd disagree, if he or any commissioner are on official business, not a problem, but the case of Spradlin vs PUD does not appear to be fire related, but I guess I could be wrong

Welcome, dkc. Hope that you have more posts in the future. I don't really know a whole lot yet concerning use of FD 6 for this political campaign. I would be interested in finding out more about it. As far as LumberJack goes, I assure you that was sarcasm and that he doesn't see it as okay... If I'm wrong he'll correct me...

Well done, but I was being facetious.

I agree that private use of public assets (particularly when the private use is to pursue a lawsuit against the public) is, at risk of understatement, inappropriate. I am simply unsurprised that no one affiliated with that public agency realized it.

You've got a sharp eye. I saw the truck at Splash but averted my glance, I've long since become bored with his signs.

Amen, I understand he feels he won round one, but the PUD has every right to appeal and should if they feel they have issues with the decision. What would Spradlin have done if the court had ruled the PUD owed him far less?

In regards to the cost of a gallon of diesel during a disaster...I am sure the PUD received copies of invoices for this time period through the discovery process at trial. I am sure the spokesperson would not put that out unless they had the documentation to back it up...

Some guy named Jim Eddy wrote a great letter to the editor yesterday in response to John Straka's letter to the editor. One has to wonder why Straka cares so much about helping Tim Spradlin. He even has magnetic signs all over his pick-up demanding that the PUD "Pay Spradlin" and "Fire Rick Lovely."

Can't trust anything that yahoo writes!

Of the four candidates for PUD Commissioner, only Al Smith supports the PUD's decision to appeal the Spradlin verdict. The other three seem to think that the "public" is on Spradlin's side, and that it will get them votes to side with him. We will see. Most people I have talked to do not side with Spradlin, but maybe it's because the people I know are a little more aware of the facts of the case and realize that Judge McCauley's pretrial order basically gutted the PUD's case.

When a candidate states "I believe in the judcial system and would accept the jury's verdict" I have to laugh. The appellate courts are part of the judicial system. Trial judges make mistakes -- all the time -- that's why we have appeals.

"...Judge McCauley's pretrial order basically gutted the PUD's case."


Do you happen to agree with the judge's pretrial order, or if you disagree with it, why do you think his order is in error?

I'll let the Court of Appeals decide whether he was in error. That's why it exists. All I will say is that I have read some of the pretrial pleadings and briefs in the case and the pretrial order does not make a lot of sense to me. My guess is that the PUD and its lawyers believe that it was in error, or the PUD would not be spending time and money on the appeal.

I take it from your response that even having read some of the pretrial pleadings and briefs in the case, that deciding whether the pretrial order is in fact an error is difficult. If it's that difficult to determine, I surely hope the PUD and their lawyers have a high degree of certainty that an error did occur.

"A high degree of certainty"? What would that be, anyway? 100%? 90%? 50%?

I happen to know there was a high degree of certainty that the origional case was pretty good. No one, except Parker perhaps, expected the pre trial ruling. If the Commissioners or Manager should only do or fight or disagree with issues they have 100% (again, how high degree of certainty is appropriate?), then not much will get done.

I heard a caller on the radio this morning during Al Smith's interview: "Well, I think those commissioners are representing the PUD, not the public!" I did a spit-take.

I certainly would not take it to appeal without a better than 50/50 chance of winning. So what degree of certainty do you think they should have before pursuing the case further? For sure they must have more than a hope and a prayer.

I think that's fair. I think they have a better than 50/50 chance. But, they MAY lose. That doesn't mean it was wrong. Standing up to injustice, even when it is only screwing the ratepayers is always a good thing.

But, there is also the opportunity for settlement. By paying the whole shibang, the opportunity for settlement would be lost. Sometimes an appeal is an opportunity to continue talking.

No one, except Parker perhaps, expected the pre trial ruling.

A key point.

The PUD's attorneys should have expected that some sort of estoppel argument would be presented at trial by Spradlin's attorney--whether in the form of a motion, as did occur, or in the jury instructions, as probably also occurred. Yet, it seems, the PUD attorneys were caught with their pants down.

I am regularly in the position of reviewing a case in progress, or just tried, to consider taking over, or doing the appeal. There is always more to the story than the prospective client tells you. And there is always more to a story than might be properly covered in the local media. But what I have heard of what happened in this case does make sense to me as a trial lawyer.

While I have not reviewed the case file, and I would expect to find more of an untold story after having done so, I certainly don't consider a pretrial legal ruling applying the law of estoppel to limit the facts presented to be unexpected or out of line.

Estoppel is an equitable remedy that requires "clean hands." I am curious to see what the Court of Appeals will do with the pretrial order.

"While I have not reviewed the case file, and I would expect to find more of an untold story after having done so, I certainly don't consider a pretrial legal ruling applying the law of estoppel to limit the facts presented to be unexpected or out of line."

It seems that FUBAR, who has reviewed the pretrial pleadings and briefs, thinks the judge's pretrial order makes little sense.

FUBAR "I'll let the Court of Appeals decide whether he was in error. That's why it exists. All I will say is that I have read some of the pretrial pleadings and briefs in the case and the pretrial order does not make a lot of sense to me. My guess is that the PUD and its lawyers believe that it was in error, or the PUD would not be spending time and money on the appeal."

I'm wondering if this case is a bit difficult to understand, or if the facts are in question, or if the judge acted properly with the pretrial rulings. I'd like for trials be about a search for the truth rather than about winning or losing. It seems the PUD lawyers feel the judge's pretrial order prevented them from presenting "their" facts.

The Whole thing stinks of price gouging! The other day in the Daily World, One of the people running for The PUD Commish seat made notice that the other 3 running all said "Pay it up and let's get on with other business" (or something similar!) For me, they just shot themselves in the foot, cuz I don't want anyone handling the peoples money that way!! We put them in that position to spend our money in the proper way and be on the lookout for these scammers!

Well, I sure agree.

I had issues with Timmons running anyway. Being next door neighbors with the General Manager and having a blood feud that needed to go to an out of County court to resolve makes me wonder why he ran to be the GM's boss.

Jennings is kind of a loose cannon, if you ask me. In my only run-in with him, he presented himself as a real jerk. If he should happen to win, I hope it was just circumstantial, but I don't think so.

I've no issues with Frank Gordon at all. Barely know the guy, but haven't heard any real concerns.

As you indicated, Al Smith is the only one that said he supported the Commissioners standing up to the outrageous rates that were charged.

Even if they lose in court, I agree they needed to stand up to this on behalf of the ratepayers. He seems to be the only one to get it.

****prediction***

Just on name familiarity, I'll be surprised if it's not Timmons and Gordon in the General. If that's the case, I'm a Gordon fan.

Looks like your prediction was correct.

All bet most of Grays Harbor made the same prediction. It seemed pretty obvious. Neither Jennings nor Smith had the name familiarity and Smith couldn't have run a worse campaign if he'd been "Pancho Villa".

two thoughts-
If PDU attorneys know that they won't be able to present their arguments they would have two choices. Settle or take it to trial and hope to get a lesser judgment and appeal. It sounds like Spaldin wanted 6 million dollars and if he got his motion his way he would have less an incentive to compromise. Pdu took it to trial and got a judgment of less then 2 million that was asked for. Plus at least a third would go to spaldin's attorney, which would be less money to go straight to spaldin.
Second, there has been allot of discussion on why the fuel costs were so high. There were 30 other crews out there. Did they have the same fuel issues and costs?

No. Other crews did not have the same fuel costs. Nor did they have $98 per hour bookkeepers for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. Nor did they double and triple their normal prices. The PUD let it go to trial because, as we've read in the paper, there were no realistic opportunities for a reasonable settlement and protecting Grays Harbor ratepayers from outrageous profiteering is what they are supposed to do.

So now the appeal has been heard and time is passing. Why the delay? If this had been a jury trial, I can't imagine they would be taking nearly this long to reach a decision. Why would a judge who is supposed to be familiar with the law to begin with take so long to come to a decision?

I think it's still in process. The case was on the Court of Appeals 09/16/2011 docket for oral arguments.
Comparing filing dates with decision dates, looks like it takes 12 to 18 months for a case to work its way through the process.

Do you understand "the process?" What happens after the oral arguments that takes 12 to 18 months to come to a decision? That appears to be an extremely lengthy time line, but then I don't know what all the judge needs to do to come to a decision. You can certainly get a whole lot done in a year and a half!

Probably not

We can get some idea from the listed duties of appellate court clerks :

• Reviews records of cases to determine whether they support the facts of the case. Reviews cited authorities, laws and statutes and conducts original research. Consults with judges, commissioners, or staff attorney. Prepares prehearing memoranda, summarizing the facts of the case and authority cited, with conclusions and comment; may recommend disposition of the case. May attend oral argument of cases coming before the court. Prepares draft opinions supporting the decisions of the court as directed by the judge or commissioner, may prepare draft dissents. Prepares memoranda on motions to modify and motions for reconsideration. Reviews records of cases to determine whether they support the facts of the case.
• Reviews cited authorities, laws and statutes and conducts original research. Consults with judges, commissioners, or staff attorney.
• Prepares prehearing memoranda, summarizing the facts of the case and authority cited, with conclusions and comment; may recommend disposition of the case.
• May attend oral argument of cases coming before the court.
• Prepares draft opinions supporting the decisions of the court as directed by the judge or commissioner, may prepare draft dissents.
• Prepares memoranda on motions to modify and motions for reconsideration.

I'm thinking that perhaps much of that 12 to 18 month process has been completed now that the oral arguments phase was done a month ago, and that the opinion will be forthcoming in the very near future. Not being a lawyer, it's just difficult for me to grasp the reasons for stretching out this process over so long a time frame. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge of the appeals process can help explain what could cause a delay between oral arguments and final opinion.

I think an appeal is heard by a 3 Judge Panel. I gather the timeline is estimated to include a large caseload, the deliberations amongst the judges (which can be over many meetings as each judge reviews the law), a vote, then review time (every aspect of law as it relates to every line in the decision), and the writing of the decision (including many reviews and final writing), and all of the preceeding for the minority.

Spradlin won.

Please elaborate...

http://kbkw.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3307

Interesting spin in the PUD comment--implying a new trial might be forthcoming. It is unfortunate that we will be unable to share with a jury information about the rates charged by Spradlin Rock...

The unanimous decision found the PUD's claims on appeal to be without merit. The case was not remanded for new trial. The original decision stands. Saw that one coming...

I wonder how many more of our ratepayer dollars have been wasted on interest owing to Spradlin and fees for appellate attorneys.

Don't worry about it, the Feds will pick up the check!

You mean the Feds won't???

I don't think a single dollar was wasted trying to stop outrageous at the ratepayer's expense. Had they not stood up to this, the ratepayers should have been furious. $98 an hour for 16 hours a day, seven days a week for the bookkeeper? Assuming they don't appeal, the ratepayers took it in the shorts from one of our own. Shame.

But, the may cost is the appeal. The PUD paid a large sum already based on normal non-inflated rates.

I'm pretty sure I have posted some comment previously critcizing Spradlin for exploiting the situation. If not, I say it now. But, the PUD seriously screwed up a few times here--first, in paying the initial invoices billed at outrageous rates; second, in trial counsel not clearing up the issue of admissibility of outrageous rates way before trial started; and third, apparently relying on bad legal advice that there was much of any chance of winning on appeal. I say 'apparently' because sometimes an appeal is entirely client-driven, even in the face of attorney advice that the appeal is an expensive longshot.

Should have been "to stop outrageous profiteering" and "the main cost is the appeal".

Too much spittin' and hollerin' while typin'.

As you should be, as with the rest of us also.

I don't know the facts, but how could the PUD agree to the original amounts, in the first place. I've heard it was because the Feds were expected to be paying the bill. If this is the case, shame on the PUD.

Not true. The PUD never submitted any Spradlin invoices because the PUD knew they were bad. When the FEMA yahoos were in the district looking at invoices, they came across some Spradlin invoices and sent a check for them. But, they were never submitted by the PUD. It would have been unethical to submit to the Federal taxpayers the tainted invoices submitted to the GH Ratepayers.

The unfortunate situation here is the PUD trusted a local business and, so they could pay some bills during a storm, paid a bad invoice and expected to work out the discrepencies. Big mistake. But, shame. Just shame what was done to the GH Ratepayers in the name of profit.

The response to that storm was a testament to the people in this area. I've never seen the community come together for a common good like that before. Nobody was out to gouge anybody. Everybody was here to help in whatever way was needed. It was really awe-inspiring. Save one.

Given the spirit of brotherhood that was on display, I can understand how the PUD might have thought the obvious discrepancies could be taken care of later. First things first- let's get some working cash in the pipe and gets the lights back on. But, it wasn't an oversight. It wasn't a simple mistake. It was blatant profiteering. Price gouging. Local boy makes good at the expense of his family, friends and neighbors. Shameful, indeed.

Someone is responsible for invoice review/approval for payment, and that someone has a boss. Whatever checks and balances that were supposed to be in place to catch erroneous invoice amounts were insufficient or circumvented. If Spradlin attempted to submit invoice amounts which were incorrect, those invoices should never have been approved for payment. Approval of those invoices was apparently considered to have established new price terms, and resulted in the court ruling regarding PUD evidence that could not be considered by the jury. Yes, someone at the PUD screwed up big time in approving invoices for Spradlin that should never have been approved. I trust appropriate corrective action has been taken to assure such negligent management of contractor invoices never happens again. Meanwhile the PUD ratepayers are the big losers in this whole mess.

Ultimately, the Commissioners said, "Pay the bill."



Hindsight being 20-20, this is 100% correct. However, at the time, a good local contractor with whom the PUD had done a lot of business submitted a request for payment with a total on it. As the PUD had worked with him many times before, his rates were known. As stated by mdean, the spirit in the community was incredible and helping a local contractor get some cashflow seemed like the right thing to do. Unbeknownst to the PUD, Spradlin Rock had tripled its rates and started to charge for items never before charge, like a driver. The previous rate for the truck was $X which included a driver (and, evidently bookkeeper services). When the PUD was finally able to get a detailed invoice it was discovered the truck rate was now $2X plus a driver rate of $X, and $12 a gallon for diesel and $98 an hour for the bookkeepper for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, plus, I think a 26% surcharge on top of all of it.

And, there wasn't even a bottle of wine or a reach around for the the Grays Harbor ratepayers.



Yes, action has been taken. Yes, the ratepayers are the losers. But, I think fighting it and appealing it was the right thing to do. The community would have been up in arms had the Commissioners laid down and just taken it. What I'm disappointed in is the Union members who used the Spradlin issue as a subject for their incessent discontent. They should have been as loud and as angry and as obnoxious about the profiteering at the expense of the ratepayers as they were about learning about the 32 layoffs in the paper years ago. Instead, they saw an opportunity to stir the pot with their "Pay Spradlin - Fire Rick Lovely" Signs. C'est le vie.

Time to Occupy Spradlin Rock!

Hello all, first time poster long time watcher.

I’ve had a few problems with this whole thing but the top 2 are: Number 1, I think the contractor took advantage of a situation and gouged the rate payers. Number 2, the pud dropped the ball on oversight by paying 4 separate invoices and not questioning the charges, just the format of the invoices.

In looking at the PUD’s response, looks like they want a jury to vote with their conscience and reject spradlins charges, which means they are trying to cover up their own mistake of paying invoices (that in effect established a contract on the rates). I hope all officials and staff at the cities/utilities/county government/et al use this as a learning experience of what not to do and why it will bite you on the ass if you do.

You are spot on with the exception of the "cover up their mistakes" assertion.

The PUD screwed up and has never denied it. So much for trusting the locals. We were treated much, much, better by the out of town contractors.

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.

They could have in the original lawsuit or as a counterclaim to Spradlin's lawsuit. Now, they can't because the statute of limitations has run.

While there probably were difficult legal or factual hurdles that caused such a claim to not be raised, it certainly would have been a legitimate avenue to make the regular and disaster rate invoices relevant and admissible. I suspect there is more to the story as to why such a claim was never raised. There are hints in the Court of Appeals opinion--stating as fact that a PUD employee assisted Spradlin on revising the invoices before acceptance. Negligent counsel could also be the reason.

Perhaps culpability isn't mutually exclusive.

If I were the person who forgot to set the alarm, I would anticipate that I'd be able to watch the trial of the bank robber between job interviews.

I disagree with the analogy; it’s more like one of those absurd times where the government pays large sums of money for a hammer to some contractor without questioning it. If we pay for it, how does it suddenly become illegal? I get more irked by the fact that there is a classic case of deflection, “yeah we screwed up 4 times but…..”. I’m sure the old saying doesn’t go, fool me 4 times shame on you. Each time they deflect back to the overcharges, they shine less of a spotlight on how much they screwed up. They need to do a better job of showing how this will never happen again.

Personally, I’d like to see the spradlin name like a scartlett letter and no agency would want to use them and no contractor would want to sub-contract work to them. Take the judgment/retirement plan and git.

PUD had a chance with the first invoice but as the courts said

"the PUD's conduct in closely reviewing, rejecting, negotiating, and ultimately paying Spradlin's invoices on their third submission manifested its assent to be bound by the clearly displayed rates and charges in Spradlin's invoices; the paid invoices became part of the parties' contract. "

From what I read earlier in the thread, the PUD did not really review the invoices.

There seems to be some misinformation going on.

I believe Madi is quoting from the Court of Appeals decision. The spin is coming from the PUD.

That's correct, I'm getting my info from the Court of Appeals opinion and not from press releases. Takes longer to read but has loads more info.

That's the way things normally work. There are consequences resulting from our actions or our inactions. I'm assuming that holds true in this case as well, and that such action was taken quite some time ago when it was first noted. Other heads may roll as well when the misinformation has been eliminated and all the facts become known. Internal controls are paramount, and one of the major duties of senior management of any organization is to ensure those controls are in place and that they are followed to the letter. We will all pay the price for these failures, but it is of some comfort to know that actions have been taken so that this will not happen again, and that the people responsible have been replaced.
A few comments back Bogus Bill asked the following question:

"My question to the PUD: Do we have better people or procedures in place so that this never happens again?"

I have been assuming this has already taken place, but I hope someone will provide the answer so we can be certain.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A02/404150%20respondent's.pdf

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/40415-0.11.doc.pdf



This is from Spradlin's brief, but he seems to say there would have been no problem if FEMA would have paid the bills.

Another bummer from this verdict is we will be longer without power the next big storm because the PUD can't just tell its contractors go fix the problem and we will settle up when the time is right.

Thank you Spradlin.

It is my understanding that no invoices were submitted by the PUD to FEMA. There may (I have no idea) have been a conversation in which someone said, "FEMA won't pay these without more information." But, the PUD never submitted invoices from this contractor to FEMA as the PUD felt the invoices were in error and it would have been inappropriate to submit them.

Much truth here. As Brit has been requesting, understandably and appropriately, all the paperwork will be completed before any private contractors are dispatched in a future situation. Public entities, of course, already have mutual aid agreements in place.

Did any of this go to Spradlin?
http://kbkw.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=960

I read in the paper that the PUD had been paid by FEMA for some invoices. As I had been under the impression no invoices were submitted, I asked. It was confirmed that some went to FEMA, but they had not been submitted by the PUD. The FEMA Auditor when on-site came across a couple small invoices and included them and, consequently sent some small payment (small meaning like $150,000 or so). But, the PUD had not submitted any of the invoices. The PUD has paid some $2.3 million so far.

Before they're dispatched or before the next storm? We know there's going to be a storm, we know there's going to be damage. Agreements should be worked out now, not after 5 PM, on a weekend, in the dark.

Much truth here. As Brit has been requesting, understandably and appropriately, all the paperwork will be completed before any private contractors are dispatched in a future situation. Public entities, of course, already have mutual aid agreements in place.

[/quote


Is there something preventing the PUD from having mutual aid agreements in place similar to those of the public entities?

I think he's indicating that other public entities (such as the county) already have mutual aid agreements so they'd be the top number on the speed dial in case of emergency.

Bogus, have I missed a response to your question about actions PUD has taken as to now having in place better people and better procedures? I believe Stash has responded to a prior comment to say that improved procedures are now in place, but I don't believe you have an answer yet as to whether better people are now in place. I had assumed all along that those responsible would have been dealt with quite some time ago, but I believe your question is valid to assure the ratepayers that appropriate action has been taken by top management, and that the replacement(s) have been fully trained and made aware of the importance of fulfilling their duties even during emergency situations. If no such actions regarding responsible personnel have been taken, then I would certainly question why the General Manager has been so lax, and why the PUD commissioners have not required the General Manager to do so.

I meant with other PUDs. Crews from all over this state and from out of state came and worked. There were already procedures in place. There were no problems with any of the public entities OR with any other private entities. Only one tripled rates and created new rate catagories never before charged like the $98 per hour bookkeeper (16 hours a day 7days a week... thank you PUD Ratepayers!).

I think the PUD bills should have a new line saying "$__ went to pay Spradlin".

Agreed the verdict will have an impact. I'd like to think the PUD will learn from the lesson and kick-up its emergency contracting provisions, but I am skeptical.



Public Works?

Overall, their emergency contracting provisions are and were then pretty darn good. The scope of the emergency taxed those provisions. But, everything went extremely well with the exception of one profiteer.

Just checking to see if this is still accurate. I heard that a recent review of such mutual aid agreements showed that our PUD was somehow no longer listed and had not been listed for the last few years. That info may well just be a rumor, but I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those who are in the know about such things.

I'd be interested in seeing the PUD's general and supplemental conditions of the Contract used in the event. My experience is the PUD's homespun documents address only a fraction of procurement issues.

I will yield to your knowledge however as I only have personal experience with the documents related to building procurement. The line guys may have a whole different set of documents controlling the Contract.

The PUD is a public entity obligated to the Washington State Public Records Act. Richard Pitt is the attorney. Doug Smith is the Assistant Manager. A very simple form gets you whatever you want.

If the PUD knew the invoices were bad, why did the PUD wait to after FEMA denied the PUD’s claims for reimbursement to “[d]o not pay” on all Spradlin unpaid invoices?

Just wondering.

I have no idea about what you speak.

Here’s my guess from the Appeals court opinion

“The PUD approved the third submission of invoices and paid Spradlin on February 27, 2008, February 29, 2008, and March 10, 2008 a total sum of $1,578,051.12. The PUD paid these invoices with the understanding that it could review additional documentation to check for any mistakes in Spradlin's billing, but the PUD did not object to Spradlin's labor rates, equipment rates, fuel surcharge, or operating expenses surcharge listed on the invoices.”

“On March 17, 2008, FEMA denied the PUD's claims for reimbursement. On March 21, [PUD Operations Manager Ed] Pauley wrote "[d]o not pay" on all Spradlin unpaid invoices. The PUD terminated its contract with Spradlin on April 3, 2008, without paying any remaining outstanding invoices.”

No, it is not.

The PUD will pay Spradlin 4M and settle it.

It seemed crazy that that citizens/rate payers of Grays Harbor County were vilifying the PUD when the PUD was protecting OUR interests. Woohooo let Spradlin fuck us and take advantage of us in our time of crisis. What kind of ass backwards shit was that?

Now it's time to go to the Commissioners, Rick Lovely and who ever else was involved on the smack the shit out of them to teach a lesson. Then issue an demand they never contract or use the services of Spradlin Rock. Once bitten, twice shy.

It has puzzled me as well. I keep waiting for one of the lemmings with the "Pay Spradlin. Fire Rick Lovely" signs to put up one now saying, "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?"



Two of the Commissioners agreeing to pay the original invoices are gone. The other is most likely not running for re-election. Little good would be done. Going after Lovely? Sure. But, his crime was having staff committed to getting power restored to the ratepayers as quickly as possible. Everything went extremely well and efficiently with every contractor except one... a local who had done business with the PUD on numerous occassions in the past. His work was known. His rates were known. Locals were willing and able to work. He was trusted.

Hindsight is 20/20. No one could have assumed the rates would be tripled and new charging line items would be created ($98 an hour, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the bookkeeper).

The ratepayers were thrilled with the work at the time. It was done faster and less expensively than budgeted. All of the outside contractors praised the PUD for how it handled the situation. Many said they had never been treated as well by any other utility.

First, Lovely's staff trusted someone they'd worked with many times. Then Lovely trusted his staff and the contractor. Then the Commissioners trusted them all.

I was very proud of our community and the PUD (crews AND management) for how that disaster was overcome. I'll not let one bad apple taint that. I'm glad they appealed. I'm glad they've decided to cut their losses and chalk it up as a lesson learned.

From the Daily World article today:

His biggest concern was that the dispute had hurt the reputation of his company.

"We are going to re-establish our good name back in the community," he vowed, noting he's about to turn 60 years old with a long history of service in the Harbor. "We're part of the community."

Good luck with that one, Mr. Spradlin.

Given all the people I met in the stores who sided with him against their own PUD, I don't really know if his reputation was all that tarnished. He had a reputation before all this, too.

It would help if he explained what the court would not allow.

Why he charged as much as he did! Spradlin, justify your charges!

True, but those people do not generally hire road building contractors.

What are you, a communist? Spradlin just did what any good capitalist would do--wait for a market opportunity and then take full advantage, and the hell with anything besides the bottom line.

I'm surprised you're not cheering him on.

Paint it on a sign, put it on your truck, park it.

Did any employee loose their job over this?

Not to my knowledge. I think one retired right after this. Related? I don't know. But, I'm not sure anyone should "lose their job".

The goal was to get a completely destroyed electrical system back up as quickly and safely as possible. A Utility that usually has 5 crews in the field had 38 crews going. Men and women, hourly workers and management, worked around the clock for days at a time. The entire event came off on behalf of the ratepayers of Grays Harbor like a symphony. Even the situation with the injured workers needing to be transported out over roads covered with trees was handled with a cooperation between agencies that would be envied by any other community. And our citizens... the ratepayers... were gracious and grateful to our guests who came here to help us.

Those outside crews all commented they'd never been treated as well by a community as here and they marveled at how effficient the whole process worked. Power was restored and the system was rebuilt faster than anticipated and less expensively than expected.

YOUR PUD employees were amazing and deserved the accolades heaped upon them... ALL of them were amazing and selfless. One local contractor took advantage of the situation and got away with it. That is on that contractor... not YOUR PUD employees. They were great.

/thread

"/thread" means?

End Thread.

or

/thread 338 up, 50 down
This gets used on messageboards / forums to signify that the previous post (or a post that has been quoted) is either of such high standard / very useful and answers the question of the original post / owns someone that the thread cannot possibly contain any post that's better.

Oh my. I'll take your definition. Thanks, tsunamisurfer.

Not quite...

In spite of the contentions that PUD employees were amazing and selfless (and no doubt many of them certainly were), somehow the actions or inactions of one or more PUD employees allowed a local contractor to take advantage of the situation and get away with it.

What actually happened that led the jury decision and then the appeals court to rule against the PUD and to agree with the contractor? Something is missing. Spradlin clearly was not the sole cause of this horrible situation. It required the culpability on the part of one or more PUD employees who were responsible for seeing that such inflated invoices as submitted by Spradlin should not have been approved for payment. The court simply documented the actions of the employee(s) in approving the submitted invoices, and the result is that rate payers will now have to pay huge amounts for the errors made by the PUD employee(s).

It seems that appropriate action has yet to be taken for those PUD employees who failed to do their jobs properly. As Lumberjack posted regarding the bank robber analogy by Stash:

Originally Posted By: Stash
"If the last person out of the bank forgets to set the alarm, does that let the bank robber off the hook?"

Posted By: Lumberjack
"Perhaps culpability isn't mutually exclusive.
If I were the person who forgot to set the alarm, I would anticipate that I'd be able to watch the trial of the bank robber between job interviews."

So where were those PUD employees who approved the Spradlin invoices watching the trial from? Doesn't seem as though it was done while between job interviews. Every workplace I'm familiar with has consequences based on job performance. Are lack of consequences the culture within the PUD?

First element: a contractor with A LOT of equipment
Second element: work that is being paid for by a time and material basis.

With those two elements the owner (PUD) would be totally foolish to not have a roving supervisor checking that each piece of equipment started up had an actual use or need, that the people's hours being charged were actually on the job, that the work being performed is actually necessary. Anything else would require a trust that I have never seen in contracting in the past.

Usually there are equipment lists with rates that are standard, agreed on prices.

I understand that after the storm everything was nuts with too much going on to have supervisors enough to cover. What do the government agencies do? I know some have lists of ex DOT, ex County inspectors, etc. to call on.

Does the PUD have such a list? If not, why?

Does the PUD watch over contractors like Spradlin normally?

Other than the scope of the emergency, this stuff is standard for most agencies.

If I were a commissioner I would make sure we had a list for the future and I would check out and make sure that the daily work that a contractor does is watched over or at least has spot inspections going on.

I think that if the truth was told we would find the PUD is lax on this.

BTW None of this is hindsight.

There were people out and about to the extent possible. Overseeing this particular contractor was not as necessary as overseeing all the other out-of-town contractors as THEY were the unknown. This contractor was known. Work had been performed in the past. Qualifications were known. Competence was known. Rates were known.



I'll bet you saw it lots of times with vendors, customers, or employees with whom you'd dealt many times.



As there had been many times with this contractor.



I think it's all in hindsight. Not just by you, but by everyone. Had one contractor not taken advantage of this situation and run the ratepayers through the ringer, the PUD employees and management would be exhaulted for their performance. That one contractor took advantage and got away with it, brings up some justifiable scrutiny, but does not diminish what took place during that period. Practically the entire electrical system of Grays Harbor County was made operational in a little over a week... and was virtually re-built in about 6 weeks: unheard of.

It was done faster and less expensively than expected. One contractor tainted a really, really, good thing.

You are commenting about the PUD performance overall in trying circumstances, and I agree with your overall assessment for the most part. I'm sure nearly everyone did a great job during this difficult time.

What I am addressing is the major part that one or more PUD employees/supervisors/managers played which resulted in the PUD losing the case and the appeal to Spradlin. It was a serious lapse and should never have happened.

Here is a summary of the appeal. Begin reading at page 11, paragraph E. and read through page 15. It is clear from this summary that PUD personnel responsible for reviewing and approving invoices never initially questioned Spradlin's rates, prices or the total amounts involved. "The PUD rejected the invoices only because Spradlin Rock's format would not satisfy FEMA."

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A02/404150%20respondent%27s.pdf

That is too funny. Good guess but don't confuse hobby with jobs. I know what I am talking about including having worked with Spradlin on time and material jobs on occasion.

Trust me on this: Time and material is not a big money earner to big contractors. To a certain extent there are few contractors who can be truly trusted. An inspector writes in his IDR (inspectors daily report) everything that a contractor does including times for a reason. The reason, among others, is to prevent inflating the bill because the profit is so little unless you do get every last dollar.

All that said I never knew any contractor who raped his employer like Spradlin.



No, it is procedure used all the time by public agencies that get caught doing T&M work.

Fair enough. Thanks for the insight.

One clarification: On the jobs that I worked with Spradlin we were a subcontractor. Therefore I know nothing about how those jobs were bid and, as far as I know, they were above board in billing, etc.

The point is that when a company is struggling it is one heck of a temptation to over-bill.

Another thing to remember is that Spradlin had some real costs in doing this work. Not everything they got awarded was profit.

The PUD knew that. That's why they paid approximately $2.5 million already. That would be cost plus normal profit. The rest of it, in my opinion is profit from the trebled rates and never before charged surcharges and driver costs that were always included in the truck rate before, etc.

Anyone see the article in the paper today? PUD paid Spradlin $4.43 Million and Spradlin is now complaining that it's $200,000 less than what they expected AND that they're extremely frustrated because the PUD sent the check to the court instead of directly to them. Personally, arguing over 200k when you're getting 4.43 mil is a bit much and then bitching because they didn't want to deal directly with your ass, is over the top. Hope the PUD has learned their lesson and won't deal with Spradlin ever again.