Access Denied

 

During this segment of the meeting, the board engaged in a contentious exchange regarding potential undisclosed infrastructure damage during the site preparation for the new transfer station. This specific interaction presents several immediate investigative angles for your reporting in The Salt Shaker Press.

Here is the precise breakdown of the exchange regarding the core drilling:

• The Incident Report: Nancy stated the SWA has received "more than one call" alleging that the contractor (referred to phonetically in the audio as "Mac" or "Jackwell") hit underground pipes while core drilling for the new transfer station.
  
  
• The Push for Transparency: Nancy argued that the board must locate the official landfill drawings and overlay them with the core drilling sites to verify whether a strike occurred, stating, "we need to verify it for the public, I mean we've got to be open with them."
  
  
• The Missing Records: Nancy admitted on the record that she has been looking "very hard" for the official landfill infrastructure drawings but has been unable to locate them.
  
  
• The Pushback: Board member David dismissed the issue as operating on "rumors and suspicions." He claimed there is "nothing buried there," asserting that he personally knows where everything is located because a former affiliate (Ed Riley) previously showed him.
  
  

FOIA Strategy for The Salt Shaker Press

Because you are auditing the SWA's transfer station bidding and operational transparency, this exchange provides grounds for highly specific West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (WV FOIA) requests to the Pocahontas County SWA:

1. Core Drilling Records: Request all invoices, core drilling logs, environmental incident reports, and contracts related to the site preparation and geotechnical drilling for the proposed transfer station. If a pipe was struck, the contractor's billing or incident logs may reflect it.
   
   
2. The "Missing" Drawings: Request the official as-built engineering drawings and utility schematics for the landfill property. If the SWA responds that no such records exist or can be located, you have documented proof of severe record-keeping failures regarding critical municipal infrastructure.
   
   
3. Internal Communications: Request all emails or text messages between board members, SWA staff, and the West Virginia DEP regarding potential pipe strikes or core drilling incidents between October and November 2026.
    
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   During the November 9 meeting, a tense exchange erupted when Nancy publicly confronted David over a text message he sent her regarding the landfill's operating status on Halloween weekend. This dispute directly tied into the broader argument about whether David relies on "rumors and suspicions" regarding facility operations.

   
   

   Here is the exact breakdown of the confrontation:

   
   

   • The Text Message Accusation: Nancy read David's text message aloud for the public record. According to Nancy, David texted her on Saturday, October 31, 2026, at 1:12 p.m., stating: "Nancy I was just informed the landfill is closed today, did we empty the boxes today?"
     
     
   • The Staffing Rebuttal: Nancy aggressively disputed the claim, stating the facility was absolutely open. She accounted for the staff's whereabouts, noting that Arty was sitting at the site and Bruce was out emptying the green boxes at that exact time.
     
     
   • The Camera Evidence: To definitively shut down the claim, Nancy stated the SWA has security cameras and that they captured footage of someone driving over the scales shortly after David's 1:12 p.m. message.
     
     
   • David's Defense: David attempted to defend his claim by stating his information came from personally "going by there," implying the facility appeared closed from his vantage point. When confronted with the camera evidence, he quickly pivoted, saying, "I'm glad it was open."
     
     
   • The Governance Implication: Nancy used this incident to officially challenge David's credibility on the board. Tying it back to his earlier dismissal of the transfer station core-drilling incident, she stated on the record: "I think we're not going to take your statement on anything and we're going to just verify it ourselves that way people can rest easy."
     
     

   For your reporting in The Salt Shaker Press, this exchange is highly valuable. It establishes on the public record that the SWA possesses active security cameras aimed at the scales, and it documents internal board friction regarding unauthorized monitoring and unverified operational claims.

   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   During the discussion about sending their current garbage truck out for alignment and potential kingpin repairs, the board debated the costs of securing a temporary replacement from "Ohio Leasing."

   
   

   Here is the exact financial breakdown they discussed:

   
   

   • Weekly Rate: Nancy recalled that when they leased a backup truck the previous November (around Thanksgiving), the invoice was $7,000 for one week. (Another member initially suggested it was $9,000 or $9,500, but the $7,000 figure was confirmed).
     
     
   • Two-Week Projection: If the truck requires serious repairs and is out for two weeks, paying the weekly rate would cost the authority $14,000.
     
     
   • Monthly Rate: The board noted that leasing a truck for an entire month costs $10,000.
     
     
   • The Strategy: They concluded that if the mechanic determines the truck needs extensive work that will take two weeks or more, it is significantly cheaper to sign a one-month lease for $10,000 rather than paying the weekly rate.
     
     

   From an auditing perspective for The Salt Shaker Press, this establishes a documented baseline for the SWA's emergency equipment expenditures. If they do lease a truck, you can FOIA the resulting invoice from Ohio Leasing to verify whether they successfully secured the $10,000 monthly rate or overpaid at the $7,000 weekly rate.

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   The November 9 meeting concluded with a testy discussion about the status of several legal contracts and the authority’s attorneys, revealing frustration over delayed legal work.

   
   

   Here is what was discussed regarding the SWA’s legal representation:

   
   

   • Missing Contracts: A board member pressed the issue that the authority still needs finalized contracts, complaining that right now "we literally come get that stuff for nothing." He insisted they needed the contracts completed.
     
     
   • The "Mail" Defense: In response to the demand for the contracts, another board member (likely David, given the tone of the exchange) dismissively stated, "contracts in the mail," repeating it twice.
     
     
   • Attorney Health Issues: When pressed about why the hired attorneys hadn't delivered the contracts yet, the response was that the authority's attorney had been "in the hospital until just recently."
     
     
   • Frustration with Counsel: The board member pressing for the contracts expressed visible frustration with this excuse, stating, "when you hire one that stays in the hospital that's what happens," indicating ongoing dissatisfaction with their legal counsel's availability and pace of work.
     
     

   Context for Your Research

   Under W. Va. Code § 22C-4-23, Solid Waste Authorities have the power to execute contracts and hire legal counsel necessary to carry out their duties. However, because they are public entities, their legal expenditures and the actual contracts being drafted (once executed) are public records subject to WV FOIA.

   
   

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Following the recent termination of their previous Landfill Manager in late October 2026, the Pocahontas County SWA board returned from executive session during the November 9 meeting to formally vote on two critical operational hires.

   
   

   Here are the specific details of the hiring resolution approved unanimously (4-0) by the board:

   
   

   • Landfill Manager: The board hired Evan Mosley to take over as the Landfill Manager.
     
     
   • Manager Compensation: Mosley's starting wage was set at $32.00 per hour (initially misstated as $30 before being immediately corrected on the record).
     
     
   • Manager Start Date: Mosley is scheduled to officially start the position on November 30, 2026 (noted during the meeting as being "in three weeks").
     
     
   • Landfill Operator: The board hired Cody Rexroad for the Equipment Operator position.
     
     
   • Operator Compensation: Rexroad's starting wage was set at $20.00 per hour.
     
     

   For your reporting in The Salt Shaker Press, it is notable that another candidate, identified as Jacob, was mentioned earlier in the meeting as having applied for both the manager and operator roles, but the board ultimately selected Mosley and Rexroad.

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   During the November 9, 2026 meeting, the board briefly addressed the compensation of the solid waste clerk (also referred to as the office manager) during the debate over raising the scale operator's wages.

   
   

   Here are the specific details discussed regarding the solid waste clerk:

   
   

   • Current Wage: The current solid waste clerk is paid $17.00 per hour.
     
     
   • State Benchmarks: According to the West Virginia solid waste wages benchmark for September 2026 cited during the meeting, the state range for a solid waste clerk is $17.00 to $19.00 per hour, placing the current clerk at the exact bottom of the state scale.
     
     
   • Historical Comparison: A board member noted that the previous solid waste clerk was also paid exactly $17.00 per hour.
     
     
   • Work Backlog: Earlier in the meeting, while justifying the need for new laptops, Nancy noted a performance backlog. She stated that when the current office staff came in, they inherited a system that was "about three months behind on any kind of paperwork that needs to be done," which they are actively trying to catch up on.
     
     
   • Additional Duties: Nancy also mentioned that the office staff will have to manually migrate every name, address, and green box record from a "very old, outdated system" into QuickBooks so they can begin processing yearly payments.

   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    

   The board ultimately rejected the scale operator's request for $17.00 per hour, but they agreed to a significant compromise that still placed the wage above the state's recommended maximum.

   
   

   Here is how the board negotiated and resolved the request:

   
   

   • The $17 Benchmark: Nancy noted that the scale operator specifically requested $17.00 an hour because that is what the solid waste clerk makes. She pushed back against this logic, pointing out that the clerk is at the absolute bottom of the state's $17–$19 tier, while the scale operator's state benchmark is only $13–$15.
     
     
   • The Counter-Offer: Recognizing that the employee needed a raise from his current $13+ rate, a board member proposed $16.50 per hour as a compromise, adding that the wage could be "revisited again in June."
     
     
   • The Pushback: Nancy highlighted that $16.50 is still $1.50 over the absolute maximum of the state's hourly range for a scale operator.
     
     
   • The Final Vote: The rest of the board (David, Daryl, and Gail) agreed that $16.50 was a fair compromise given current economic pressures. A formal motion was made to set the scale operator's pay at $16.50 per hour (bundled with the garbage truck driver's raise to $20.00), and it passed 4-0.
     
     

   For The Salt Shaker Press, this demonstrates that the SWA board is willing to bypass state wage benchmarks to retain existing operational employees, setting a precedent that administrative pay limits are flexible in Pocahontas County.

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    

   During the exchange over the missing financial projections, Nancy used recent IT and access issues to explain why the new office staff had not yet produced a working budget, which David immediately dismissed.

   
   

   Here is exactly how the exchange played out regarding the system lockouts:

   
   

   • The Excuse: After David requested a budget that included fringe benefits, Nancy defended the office staff's delay, stating on the record: "They're working on that. There was a lot of passwords changed and a lot of locking out."
     
     
   • The Rebuttal: David cut off that explanation, arguing that being locked out of systems is not a valid excuse for failing to produce a basic financial model. He retorted: "That doesn't have anything [to do with a] budget... there's already one done... none of this stuff's anywhere."
     
     

   For your reporting in The Salt Shaker Press, this brief exchange points to a highly disorganized—and potentially hostile—administrative transition following the recent departure of the former solid waste clerk and the termination of the previous landfill manager. It places on the public record that the SWA lost administrative access to its own systems due to "changed passwords" and "locking out," preventing them from presenting a basic operating budget to the board before voting on substantial hourly raises.