by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 7, 2012 |
Over at the Brandon Citizen, Susan Bromley, who has covered this story like no one else, has an account of Monday’s Brandon meeting and a bit more detail on the agreement. Much of it covers the items we mentioned in the second installment of this series. But we did learn from Bromley that Enbridge is footing the bill for the legal costs Brandon incurred during this process– and that’s excellent news.
The article also includes plenty of hollow statements from Enbridge spokesperson Jason Manshum, the same sort of boilerplate remarks we’ve heard from him for months. (We’ll grant him this much: the guy stays on message.) Honestly, after all that has happened these past few months, after all we’ve learned, all we’ve documented here on this blog, and all we have experienced, we fail to see how once again saying, “”We value our relationships with all those who live and work along our pipeline right-of-way and will be working hard to minimize the impacts on the community and the affected landowners,” is even remotely helpful to anyone. As we’ve said before, just repeating something over and over and over doesn’t make it true.
Anyway, Bromley’s article also captures nicely some of the drama of the meeting, drama which took place mainly at the very end. We’ll quote a bit of that in just a moment, but we’d also like to provide just a tiny bit of setup:
It became clear by the end of Monday’s meeting that Enbridge wasn’t going to leave without an agreement. Why? Well, our theory is this: t once federal district court Judge Cleland sent the case back to state court, Enbridge felt a renewed sense of urgency. Originally, they thought dragging the POLAR lawsuit into federal court would sink it. When that didn’t happen, they needed to scramble to ensure that Brandon did not intervene again– because a state court would be far more likely to take interest in the statutory and constitutional argument put forth by both Brandon and POLAR (and the MTA). In order to prevent further delays (not to mention to risk losing!), Enbridge needed to reach an agreement with Brandon– which explains why they were so much more agreeable last Monday than they were back in, say, August.
That’s mainly speculation on our part, though we suspect it’s reasonably accurate. Whatever the case, it was obvious that Enbridge thought matters were pretty urgent at the Brandon meeting on Monday. And that induced in us a bit of déjà vu. After all, this is pretty much how our private negotiations with Enbridge went. For months, Enbridge dragged their feet. Weeks would pass by without any word from our ROW agent. But then all of a sudden, six months in, Enbridge decided that matters were urgent. They were suddenly in a big hurry and needed to reach an agreement immediately. So they snapped into action, pressured and threatened. They were determined to get their agreement. And they did.
And this is what it was like at the Brandon meeting. Here’s Bromley’s account, which picks up after the board returned from their closed session and discussed amendments to the agreement:
When Trustee Ron Lapp said he wanted to see the finished document before he approved it, Rumball, Trustee Dana DePalma and Clerk Candee Allen all agreed. But near the end of the meeting, after Cooney spoke in support of the agreement, the board had an apparent change of heart.
“I have complete confidence in Stuart (Cooney),” said Lapp, who then addressed Curwin, Enbridge Project Manager Tom Hodge, and the Enbridge attorney, asking: “Is it going to give you heartburn to wait seven more days?”
In unison, the Enbridge representatives answered “yes,” and Axt expressed disbelief that the board was expediting the process on behalf of Enbridge rather than the township residents.
The board then unanimously approved settlement, clearing the way for phase one of the project in the township to proceed.
This was a pretty dramatic moment, to which we’ll add just one little detail. When it appeared that the board members were going to ask to see a final document before approving it, Enbridge attorney Mike Ashton jumped up, approached Stuart Cooney (who was sitting right next to us), and asked if they could finalize the language of the agreement “right now.” He and Cooney then walked out. It was after this little tête-à-tête that Cooney spoke to the board.
Now, we should be clear: we’re not suggesting something nefarious went on here, just that Enbridge put on the full court press– and it worked. Yet just like in our own negotiations, the delays that caused Enbridge to become so impatient and so desperate to reach an agreement with Brandon were always of their very own making.
There’s just one last story to tell in this series until we see the final agreement: our conversation that same night with Hodge, Curwin, and Ashton. That’s coming soon…
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 6, 2012 |
We’re still awaiting details on the final agreement between Brandon Township and Enbridge; it’s probably going to be several days at least before its language is finalized and the document made available to the public. Yesterday, in our first installment of this new series, we provided as much detail as we could– and we hope other townships were paying attention. In fact, we encourage you to contact your township supervisor and insist that they also get an independent construction supervisor and that they know about Enbridge’s environmental stewardship program. After all, Enbridge insists that they treat stakeholders “fairly and consistently.” Let’s make sure they do.
While we’re waiting for the finalized agreement, we thought we’d bring you some other stories from Monday night’s meeting, where the agreement was reached. It was, to to say the least, quite interesting. Of particular interest were the stories that a couple of landowners shared with the trustees. We’ll tell the story of landowner Bill Aldrich in a different post some time in the coming days. This morning, we want to tell you about Tony Amico.
Prior to Monday night’s meeting, we’d never met Tony. He is a landowner in Brandon Township near the Line 6B route. Enbridge has no easement on his property, although they did need to use a portion of his land for temporary work space. Like most of us, Tony was perfectly willing to work with Enbridge; he had no plans (or desire) to obstruct the project. Tony was simply concerned with minimizing the number of trees– very old, very large trees– that Enbridge removed from his land. So he struck an agreement with a ROW agent (whom Tony trusted): prior to any construction activity on his land, a construction manager would meet with Tony to discuss, among other things, which trees would or could be saved. Now just imagine Tony’s surprise when he arrived on his property one day to find that Enbridge had already, without any such meeting, cleared a swath of his land, taking down some 75 mature and valuable Black Walnut trees (among others). When Tony contacted his ROW agent about this violation of what he thought was a good-faith agreement, he more or less just got a shrug of the shoulders in reply. And that was it.
Like so many landowners, Tony was unhappy, frustrated, and angry– and had no idea where to turn. Tony’s experience shows clearly that despite what Thomas Hodge has told the MPSC, landowners absolutely do not “know they have an avenue to escalate the issue if they are not getting satisfaction from the land agent that they are dealing with.” In fact, landowners generally have no idea where to turn once trust with their land agent has been broken. And often (as in our personal case), even when they try to move “up the chain” (as Hodge puts it), they are ignored or dismissed.
Which is why, after weeks (maybe months) of anger and frustration, Tony came to the Brandon board meeting to tell his story. And what was so interesting about this is that during the break in the meeting (a coffee and cookie reception for the newly sworn-in board), Tom Hodge and Mark Curwin were all over Tony. They wanted to hear his story. They gave him their cards. They made an appointment to meet him at his property the very next morning. They seemed to want to make things right.
Now, in fairness, we think that is a very good thing. And we’re not going to doubt the sincerity of Hodge and Curwin when they say they want to make things right with Tony Amico. We don’t believe– nor have we ever said– that people like Hodge and Curwin (ROW agents may be a different story, however) don’t care about landowners or aren’t willing to be responsive. In fact, if anything, what we’ve said–not about Hodge and Curwin specifically, but about Enbridge executives generally– is that they don’t care; we believe they just don’t know about all the Tony Amicos out there. And we’ve further said that they also seem to us rather unwilling to acknowledge just how many Tonys actually are out there. And the sad fact is that if Tony didn’t just happen to be at that meeting where Hodge and Curwin had no choice but to hear his story (in public!), Tony would STILL be angry and unhappy.
It shouldn’t have to be this way.
So once the meeting resumed, we wrote down the remarks we planned to make during public comments. We wound up saying other things– for reasons we’ll describe in a different installment of this series (stay tuned!)– but here’s what we wrote:
For every Tony Amico or Bill Aldrich who is here tonight where Enbridge can make a public show of their responsiveness, I can tell you first-hand– because I’ve heard their stories– that there are dozens more landowners along the Line 6B route who feel abused and mistreated, who feel like they have no recourse or voice, nowhere to turn, who feel helpless and alone and who have NOT been made whole, as Enbridge promised they would be. So my question for Enbridge is simply this: how many stories like Tony’s does Enbridge need to hear before they are willing to squarely and honestly face the fact that there is a serious problem with the way they have dealt with landowners on this project?
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 5, 2012 |
As we reported yesterday, the Brandon Township Board of Trustees voted to approve an agreement with Enbridge at the end of a very long meeting Wednesday night. The agreement, the precise language of which has yet to be finalized, puts an end to any litigation against Enbridge on the part of Brandon. We attended the meeting– all five exhausting hours of it. And while we have not seen the agreement document, we can provide some details based on the information presented and discussed at the meeting. But since there’s so much to report, we’re launching it as a new series. This is our first installment.
The Enbridge representatives who attended the meeting were Project Manager Thomas Hodge, attorney Mike Ashton, and General Counsel Mark Curwin. We were struck by the absence of any of Enbridge’s public relations representatives (what ever happened to Joe Martucci, anyway?), which was a pretty clear indication that at this meeting, Enbridge meant business– and also perhaps an indication that in previous meetings with Brandon, Enbridge did not really mean business. After a brief presentation to the Board by Tom Hodge restating the basics of the project, the new Board was sworn in. They then conducted their regular business and then convened a closed session– which lasted nearly two hours!
(Teaser: It was during this break that we introduced ourselves to Curwin, Hodge, and Ashton; we’ll make that encounter the subject of another installment of this series.)
We assume that during the closed session, the township attorney walked the board through the terms of the drafted agreement. It is our understanding (based on discussions that proceeded when the Board returned) that the agreement is based on a “Sample Enbridge agreement” that has been circulated to townships by the Michigan Townships Association. We happen to have a copy of that document. It’s not clear whether the MTA created it or initiated its creation–it reads to us as if it were written by Enbridge– or why the MTA would want to create such a thing, especially given that a month ago they filed an amicus brief in federal court in support of POLAR’s attempt to enforce the Michigan Constitution’s “consent” requirement. Whatever the case, the sample agreement says this:
WHEREAS, the Township of ____________, (hereinafter referred to as the“Township”), a Michigan municipal corporation whose address is _______________ asserts that pursuant to Article 7, Section 29, of the 1963 Michigan constitution and MCL 247.183 consent to cross certain roads and/or public rights-of-way within the Township for purposes of installing underground pipelines is required to be obtained from the Township (hereinafter referred to as the “Consent”), which Consent is not to be unreasonably withheld by the Township…
But then a little farther down, it says this:
WHEREAS, Enbridge asserts that the provisions of Article 7, Section 29, of the 1963 Michigan Constitution and MCL 247.183 do not apply to Enbridge’s Line 6B pipeline system, nor the Project; that to the extent Township consent is required that consent was given to Enbridge upon initial construction of the pipeline in 1969; and that the Township has waived any right to assert these requirements at this time.
So what we have here is a document that evidently has townships giving consent even though the document does not insist that Enbridge is actually required to seek that consent. Of course, one could argue that this is a nice compromise measure; we would imagine that this is what Enbride would say. However, the obvious problem with that is that most of us don’t get to craft compromises when it comes to complying with the laws of the state; we just have to comply.
Aside from making it clear that Enbridge is NOT agreeing that they are legally required to seek consent, the agreement doesn’t really do very much. It says Enbridge will pay the township a thousand bucks, will have insurance, and will behave during construction. And that’s pretty much it.
We don’t know how closely the Brandon agreement adheres to the MTA’s sample document. We don’t know, for instance, whether the Enbridge-asserts-it-does-not-need-consent clause is included in the Brandon agreement. What we do know is that Brandon insisted upon some modifications and amendments, which Enbridge agreed to. These are as follows (again, as best as we can piece together from discussion without having seen the final document itself):
- As a settlement with regard to the Brandon Woodlands Ordinance, Enbridge will pay the township $10,000 in addition to supplying replacement trees (80 trees per acre) for the estimated 6 acres of clearing on the township. We’ve got some things to say about this tree replacement program also, but we’ll save that for another post.
- Enbridge will post a bond in the amount of $5ok for road restoration; this seems like a very good thing, especially since the laughable bond required by the Oakland County Road Commission is for a mere $5000.
- Enbridge agreed to the use of a construction supervisor or inspector, hired by Brandon but paid for by Enbridge, whose job it will be to oversee compliance with construction agreements with landowners. This is, we think, a stroke of brilliance– something that’s been needed in Livingston and Ingham counties (and elsewhere) for a long time. Every single township should insist on the same. Brandon deserves ENORMOUS kudos for coming up with this measure as a way of helping to protect its citizens.
- Lastly, Enbridge said they were rolling out an “environmental stewardship” program that would make funds available to every township along the line. The amount has yet to be determined and it will evidently vary depending upon township population and other factors. But the money can be used for a variety of measures and perhaps even for local groups as long as it meets certain criteria for environmental stewardship. This, too, we are happy to say, sounds like a great idea. Yet– and this seems to be Enbridge’s specialty–the program is soured somewhat by the fact that Enbridge didn’t just do it in the first place, months ago. It would appear that Enbridge only acts like a good neighbor after they’ve been challenged, sued, had their construction activities halted, and received a fair amount of bad press.
Without knowing all of the final details, we would say that this is not a bad agreement for the citizens of Brandon and, perhaps, for landowners all along the route, assuming that other townships step forward and insist that they be treated similarly. Whether one is disappointed that Brandon won’t push the legal questions any further, we think that everyone owes Supervisor Thurman and the trustees genuine thanks.
We’ll fill in details as they become available to us. We hope that we haven’t got anything wrong here; we’ve had to piece these things together based on what we witnessed at the meeting. Stay tuned for more in this series– including further descriptions of our brief chat with the Enbridge reps and more details of some of the drama (and there was drama!) that unfolded during the meeting– as soon as we can get to it.
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 4, 2012 |
Major news out of Brandon Township: at the end of a very long and exhausting meeting last night, the new Brandon Township Board of Trustees voted to approve a (not quite finalized) agreement with Enbridge. Full details are forthcoming and we will, of course, write about them once they’re available. But this agreement effectively ends any further litigation (assuming Enbridge complies with all of the agreement’s provisions) on the part of Brandon. They won’t intervene in the POLAR suit again.
A lot happened at the meeting and there were some interesting new developments. On the whole, we’re ambivalent about this turn of events (perhaps because we don’t have all the details yet). It’s good in some ways and perhaps not so good in others. But one thing is for sure: it’s going to take a series of posts to get through it all. Right now, we can only offer a few teasers:
- We heard a couple of new ugly landowner stories. Interestingly, Enbridge hopped right to it with one of them. We hope to follow up to see whether and how the situation gets resolved.
- Other Michigan townships should take note: Enbridge agreed to take some very positive steps that should also be taken with regard to EVERY township along the route. You can bet that we’ll be contacting some township supervisors.
- Speaking of those positive steps, we’ll spend some time asking the obvious question: why didn’t Enbridge just do these things way back in July or so?
- Finally, we approached Tom Hodge during a break in the meeting and asked if he’d be willing to do a little Q&A with us for the blog, since he’s made himself so available to the media of late. He did not jump at the opportunity. Instead, he and Enbridge General Counsel Mark Curwin said that they’re trying to figure out who the right person is for us to talk to. We’re not sure exactly what that means, but we’re pretty sure that if we have questions we’d like to ask Tom Hodge that the right person for us to talk to is… well, Tom Hodge. We’ll see what comes of this.
Oh, residents and landowners of Brandon Township: get ready for the dozers. We suspect they’re fired up and chugging already this morning.
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 3, 2012 |
The new Brandon Township Board of Trustees is meeting tonight. On the agenda is a “presentation” from Enbridge– on what we don’t know, though we suspect it’s going to be a (frustrating) Line 6B “replacement” 101 for the new board members–and a closed session to discuss further litigation.
It is our understanding, however, that Brandon and Enbridge have recently been in talks, trying to negotiate some sort of agreement. Talks and agreements, we suppose, are good things. But it still irritates us to an end that Enbridge can treat a set of legal requirements– gathering permits, complying with local ordinances and state laws– as things that are negotiable. Perhaps we’ll try to negotiate with our township the next time they want us to get a building permit…
At any rate, the meeting is at 7 pm tonight at the Brandon Township offices. We’ll be there and we encourage you to attend as well. It could be interesting. Plus, it’s a rare opportunity for ordinary landowners to actually gaze upon the elusive and exotic creatures known as Enbridge executives. Ordinarily, they only show themselves to newspaper editorial boards.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 30, 2012 |
Oh, boy. Stuff’s happening. Which means we’ve got a lot to write about. Not least, we need to bring some much-needed perspective to the latest remarks from Enbridge’s new PR duo Stephen Wuori and Thomas Hodge. They say some things to the Livingston Daily Press & Argus that almost curled our hair. More on that this morning.
We also finally received a gracious and reasonably detailed reply from Enbridge’s Terri Larson to our question about features of the new pipeline that exceed federal regulations. She promised answers and she got them to us– which is much more than Tom Hodge can say. So we are very much appreciative to Terri for these efforts. Unlike with Hodge, knowing the ins and outs of the projects technical specifications ins’t really her job. Anyway, we’re scrutinizing her response and seeking input from some of our smart friends who know a lot more about this than we do. Stay tuned for more on that.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there’s also news out of Brandon Tonwship. We attended a meeting at the township offices last night. Well, it was a closed session meeting, so we sat in an empty room chatting with Jeff Axt. Our hope was that the board would emerge and renew their resolution to take whatever legal steps necessary to enforce Township ordinances and Michigan state laws. However, this is a new board and, as we sort of expected, they’re playing it a bit cautious. So instead of either joining or intervening in the POLAR suit, now in state court, they’re going to have a meeting with Enbridge– again (sigh!).
That meeting is scheduled for this Monday, Dec. 3. We will, of course, be there. But we mentioned to the new board last night that while a meeting is theoretically a good thing, the Township has been down this road before (as have we, in a myriad of ways). Based on that experience, what will happen is fairly predictable: Enbridge will show up, smile, talk about working together and being good neighbors; they’ll say lots of pleasing-sounding things; they’ll try and make it look like they really do want to work with the Township; they’ll also patronize and condescend (because they can’t help it)– and then they’ll leave and continue to try and do whatever it is they want. In fact, what’s so irksome about these “meetings” is that even if we were to believe that they are good-faith efforts on the part of Enbridge to work something out with Brandon, the fact is that they are treating local ordinances and state laws as if they are things that can be negotiated. And that in itself is offensive.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 27, 2012 |
This just in: Judge Cleland has finally ruled on the POLAR lawsuit and (we hate to be smug about it), it’s as just as we’ve been predicting to friends for a while: a mixed bag:
1. He ruled that POLAR does not have standing (not great news, but not a surprise);
2. He denied Enbridge’s motion to dismiss and instead remanded the case back to the state court (good news, in our view).
This ruling means that he did not have to rule one way or another on Brandon’s motion to intervene. Presumably, that will be filed in state court.
We’re in a rush. More tomorrow. But at least the suit lives on…
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 20, 2012 |
Last night was the final meeting of the current Brandon Board of Trustees– the principled and courageous bunch who decided not to allow Enbridge to run roughshod through their municipality. We chose not to attend the meeting, but to leave them to their peace for once; they’ve surely (understandably) wearied of sitting through our “public comments” month after month. They deserved a quiet final meeting (we hope it was quiet).
But we do want to once again thank the outgoing trustees– Cheryl Gault, David King, and Tom Stowell– as well as Treasurer Tyrone Beltramo and Clerk Jeannie McCreary. Their thoughtfulness, their mettle, their responsible stewardship of the public interest, and their protection of the township’s natural resources have made us wish they were our township trustees. The whole state of Michigan owes them tremendous thanks. We wish them all well.
Trustee Dana DePalma and Supervisor Kathy Thurman (a true leader) will continue on. We trust (and hope) that the new board will follow their lead.
It bears repeating here once more that Enbridge has STILL not answered any of the questions they promised to answer at the “workshop” with this Board more than two months ago. We find this completely outrageous and can’t figure out why it isn’t a major local news story: four Enbridge representatives sat in front of the Board, smiling and insisting (repeatedly) that they just wanted to be good, friendly neighbors, and promising answers that it now appears they never intended to provide. At this point, it’s hard to see their failure to deliver on their promise as anything but a deliberate affront to the Brandon board. Rather, it is Enbridge thumbing its nose at a local municipality. In our view, this may be the starkest illustration we have of the contempt Enbridge has for its stakeholders, the clearest example we’ve seen of how the things they say simply cannot be trusted.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 6, 2012 |
Yesterday, Brandon Township filed a “motion to intervene” and a “complaint in intervention” in the POLAR lawsuit in federal court. We have copies of both in our possession and, in our non-legal-professional opinion, the latter is excellent. Not only does it seek to enforce the local consent requirement of the Michigan constitution. It also seeks relief from the court (that is, an injunction against Enbridge) until Enbridge complies with the township’s Woodlands ordinance and other township ordinances.
If we can find some time, we’ll try to post more details. But there are plenty of other matters we also want to get to:
Apparently, we were mistaken about the absence of an Enbridge ad in the Free Press this week. We can’t explain why we couldn’t find it in the copy we bought, but we now have a transcript of it, though not the actual ad. You won’t be surprised to learn that we’ve got plenty to say about it (as we have with the others).
We’ll wrap up our series on our conversation with Enbridge VP Mark Sitek. In our view, our last conversation was on the whole very disappointing (and disheartening), though it was instructive in important ways. And there is one tiny piece of reasonably good news to report.
The Pipeline Safety Trust conference is this week. There will surely be plenty to report.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 5, 2012 |
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: no local reporter has done such excellent work on the Line 6B story as Susan Bromley of the local paper the Brandon Citizen (why The Oakland Press, for instance, has completely ignored Brandon Township we will never understand). Bromley’s latest covers the exciting development of Brandon Township’s decision to take legal action to require Enbridge to comply with the state Constitution. Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman:
“We will be requiring that Enbridge obtain consent to cross our roads,” said Supervisor Kathy Thurman. “Article 7, section 29 of the Michigan state constitution says a utility needs to obtain local consent. They are running a pipeline, so in that regard, they are a utility… We also want them to abide by ordinances.”
And on the Brandon Township woodlands ordinance:
The woodlands ordinance states that no person of any nature, for whatever reason shall develop any parcel in the township without providing a survey of woodlands on such parcel. Enbridge has not complied with the ordinance.
And finally, something we’ve said here repeatedly:
“We definitely want to see the pipeline replaced, but we are concerned that it be done in the proper manner,” said Thurman. “Enbridge does not appear to be sincere in what they have communicated to the township. They have made statements that they will get information we have requested, but they have not produced it for us.”
One more thing we’ve said repeatedly: the courage and leadership of Thurman and the other Brandon board members is an inspiration.
