Comments

Bravo Kevin wrote on May 6, 2009 1:53 AM:

" What can one say to such statements of utter lunacy, and to ludicrous accusations against Kevin Brown based on nothing?

The old Prop. 1 property argument? Again? I thought that dog died. Prop. 1 was an abomination, and based on the failed idea of the most corrupt Outsider from NYC imaginable. Thank God, and thanks also to insightful locals - that Prop. 1 - was defeated as it well deserved

Bravo Kevin for your selfless dedication to the community. And, big congrats to the new MEA board of directors. Well done, and keep up the good work. "




Dennis O. wrote on Apr 30, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Remember too, his No on Prop. 1 campaign raised $100,000 mostly from OUTSIDE radical extremist environmental groups to defeat Prop 1 that would have preserved your Constitutionally protected property rights from extremist land use ordinances. He has cast his Statist legacy is stone. "




Kevin Brown Dem Chairman wrote on Apr 28, 2009 6:39 PM:

" Kevin Brown is a whining manipulator. Hey, Kevin, so where is the list of the donors to the MEA Ratepayers Alliance? You are full of smoke and mirrors. At least 25 union donors to Lester and Jones. You are a two-faced Democrat partisan. Only after the election do MEA members get to know that you pulled the strings for Lester, Kincaid and Jones behind the scenes. "




Kevin Brown wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:03 PM:

" To Prospector: You sir, have no idea what you are talking about, relating to the money spent on this campaign. I was the campaign manager for Kit Jones, Lois Lester, and the No on 1 campaign. I could tell you where every single dime came from. Not so much as a penny from the unions. Signs, newspaper, radio, mailers, all paid for by private donors. If you care at all about the truth, try not to talk about things you don't know anything about. "




By Law Joke wrote on Apr 27, 2009 7:07 PM:

" Can we get a lawyer to take on this M.E.A. By Law ordeal man they could make a name for them selves, I’ll tell you right know the Board of Directors wont do anything at all about it because it’s there golden children on the line. “Wayne Ross where are you.” "




prospector wrote on Apr 27, 2009 1:01 PM:

" I'm surprised prop 1 passed. With all the union money put into all the signs and radio spots you'd think it would have went down ... maybe a little of the truth sunk in from other side. O' by the way who has influence over the student grants?
Bravo to Mrs. Carmony, the board my be able to stop Mr. Carmony from speaking out to defend himself but they can't stop his wife, who by the way is a truly strong Godly woman. Doesn't people see the truth. Only a small amount of valley populations voted ... too bad! "




to roberts rules wrote on Apr 27, 2009 11:10 AM:

" Wrong, Roberts makes no mention of this, thus there is no direction from the MEA bylaws. "




re Roberts Rules rule wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:01 AM:

" "...regardless of WHEN one's bylaws were amended, if the bylaws say so-many terms are the limit, that's it, even if a sitting officer already had many terms already under his belt. In other words, there is no "clock" to reset." Yep. "




hopeful wrote on Apr 27, 2009 10:01 AM:

" I can finally start to see a ray of light through the darkness at mea. People your power grid at mea is shot. wayne and his policies of doing very little maintenence have left the system very shaky! Putting unqualified people in management positions has ruined mea's warehouse,engineering dept. line maintenence, and a decrepit fleet of vehicles.Ever notice your having power outages and things burn up in your house! ask a lineman why! Leave wayne leave tuckerman and hopefully the new folks can repair your Mess "




stepnorth wrote on Apr 27, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Do hope that all those who are affected by the change of style of management at MEA have good "golden parachutes". Working for any company/business is risky. Protecting yourself is the most prudent thing you can do. First comes you and then comes the company. No matter what the changes are or the directilon it seems to be going, remember it is a licensed/legal monopoly and if you disire to have electricity you will have to get it from MEA. Good luck to those who are departing and to those who are just getting on board. "




To Mr Rules wrote on Apr 27, 2009 9:16 AM:

" Wrong, three limits from the time the bylaw was changed....non debateable "




Waste of money wrote on Apr 27, 2009 7:44 AM:

" Passing out over 800 Chinese bags full of Chinese junk is a wast of our money. This needs to stop and the morons who chose to buy this junk should be fired. "




Raven wrote on Apr 26, 2009 10:33 PM:

" Big congratulations to Lois Lester, Kit Jones, and to the MEA ratepayer community who made the best choice for the future of the Valley. Lois has been doing a great job for a long time, and fully deserves to carry on. Kit has been a surprise as a firm, businesslike, and no nonsense voice on the MEA board of directors. It is so encouraging to see that things are now run for the benefit of the community at large instead of the privileged few as had been the case for far too long. "




Sir Gala-lad wrote on Apr 26, 2009 8:56 PM:

" The bible describes the fool as this in Proverbs 18:1-3, they isolate themselves and to seek their own desire and rages against all wise judgment. They have no delight in understanding, but express their own heart. With these comes contempt and with dishonor comes reproach. Ecclesiastes 10:12-14, a fools lips shall swallow him up, end of his talk is madness, a fool also multiplies words. This sounds like the very people who will not see the truth and will do and say anything to justify their way of life, "friends of MEA"! "




For Hypocrites also wrote on Apr 26, 2009 6:41 PM:

" Would the vote have been the same if Prop 1 specifically indicated it referred to relatives like great-grand children working at MEA regardless of their position? We don't know. Prop 1 was convoluted, not presented in full context (Karl Lund's testimony at the meeting) and no information regarding conflict of interest policies already in place was presented. Some members weren't sure exactly what it meant, and I had to look up the marriage statutes, word "consanguinity", and a table showing degrees of consanguinity to know. It should have been clearer. Dianne Woodruff "




Gas Plant wrote on Apr 26, 2009 5:57 PM:

" An Na moderated nuclear reactor at the Y in Palmer? "




For Hypocrites wrote on Apr 26, 2009 5:53 PM:

" If you have any proof that Kincaid has had any direct influence on the award of any contract her son has worked under, I and the rest of the membership would like to see it. Without substantiation, this is just a vicious rumor. "




Roberts Rules rule. wrote on Apr 26, 2009 5:45 PM:

" One's bylaws are to be obeyed as written. So, regardless of WHEN one's bylaws were amended, if the bylaws say so-many terms are the limit, that's it, even if a sitting officer already had many terms already under his belt. In other words, there is no "clock" to reset. -- If the bylaws limit you to 3 terms, then you are limited to 3 terms, no matter when the terms began or end.In fact, thanks to the new bylaw, if you've served 3 times already, then you may have been automatically and instantly "legislated out of office." "




8 some blossom wrote on Apr 26, 2009 5:19 PM:

" The north shore of Wasilla Beach? "




Gas Plant wrote on Apr 26, 2009 4:57 PM:

" Let's put it where the sun don't shine "




Janet will not go Directors can serve three terms from now not the past wrote on Apr 26, 2009 4:51 PM:

" No Kincaid is not off the board, it means your rates will climb for the legal battle ahead, you can't have the BOD working for the GM! That is the old boys club for sure. Nor will it apply for now, the worst case she could not run again, and as for the terms, that will start now, not for terms past served, thus from this date on anyone can serve only 3 terms, the past is the past, the new bylaws do not cover the past, sorry non legal minds. As for conflict, that is BS. "




Denny 8some2 wrote on Apr 26, 2009 2:58 PM:

" Let's put it where Lucas is "




Gas Plant wrote on Apr 26, 2009 2:34 PM:

" better n new clear ;) "




To Mark wrote on Apr 26, 2009 1:17 PM:

" The by law is what is says it is. There does not have to be any reference whatsoever to retroactivity. The newly adopted by law state's 3 consecutive terms and you are out. It does not specify a start date, Lester is gone, you caused it, get over it.
Dennis O. "




Member wrote on Apr 26, 2009 12:52 PM:

" The people voted to remove Kincaid from the board that’s what prop. 1 was all about, remove the corruption! And I didn’t see any language in the term limit prop. About it being effective after the election, Lester, By-Laws are immediate show some class and step down. As of now M.E.A. doesn’t have a governing Board, how can you pick officers of the Board with two directors that shouldn't be on the Board? "




Hypocrites wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:22 AM:

" It is all about the members...except when the members vote to oust Kincaid for conflict of interest with her son's electrical contracting business. Dianne Woodruff says MEA members are too stupid to vote right. Lester is term limited barred from a 4rth term. Janet Kincaid is done and off immediately. "




to Denny 0I812 wrote on Apr 26, 2009 11:11 AM:

" How '90s man - Lawsuits? "




Mark K wrote on Apr 26, 2009 10:33 AM:

" I was on the bylaw committee, and I can tell you first-hand that the new term limit clause is NOT retroactive.

And I agree completely with Ms. Woodruff. Prop 1 will never pass muster in court. It will end up being this management team's last waste of ratepayer money in court. "




Dianne Woodruff wrote on Apr 26, 2009 9:54 AM:

" The presentation of the section affected by Prop 1 was incomplete in the election materials and no one informed the public about other measures in place at MEA to prohibit family members from supervising each other or being directly involved in the awarding of contracts to family members. Several members were confused about what the changes meant; few are familiar with the fourth degree of consanguinity regarding a "legal marriage." Kincaid's opposition has not come forth with proof that she has ever had anything to do with the awarding of any contract her son has worked on. "




offsoapstone wrote on Apr 26, 2009 9:45 AM:

" I'm surprised that ballot 1 passed cause it won't pass the court test thats for sure. It will be interesting to see how much money it will cost ratepayers to fix Carmony's and his management team mistakes. "




Dianne Woodruff wrote on Apr 26, 2009 9:30 AM:

" Mr. Ewing has pointed out a situation that is cause for concern. People who work too many hours/days in a row get tired and make mistakes. Linemen have a dangerous job and mistakes can be deadly. This is not a good situation for them or their families to be in, nor is it good for members. Overtime is expensive, and worker's compensation claims for accidents can be astronomical. I hope the new board will look into this situation. Congratulations to Kit and Lois. Keep up the good work. "




Dennis O. wrote on Apr 26, 2009 8:35 AM:

" That's NOT what I said. Stop trying to excuse current corruption by pointing to the past. My earlier post will be validated in short order. Kincaid and Lester are OFF the board by adoption of Prop 1 and Prop 6, as soon as the election is certified. Prop 6 term limits are in fact retroactive unless otherwise stated, It does not, Lester is gone. "




Good Luck MEA wrote on Apr 26, 2009 8:06 AM:

" The MEA members have spoken and they want the new majority to continue to make changes. Thankfully, the members also recognized the self-serving greedy Janet Kincaid and boosted Janet off the Board because of her outrageous conflict of interest with Prop 1 passing by 60 percent. You are corrupt Janet, and the members want you gone. Or do the members only count when they vote in your favor? "




Pat wrote on Apr 26, 2009 7:27 AM:

" the board needs someone other then the two women who were just re-elected. I sure didn't vote for them or their by-law changes. "




bob wrote on Apr 25, 2009 11:55 PM:

" The good ol boys' day is done. For those who worshiped at the alter of MEA power-it's over. The constant bickering and threatening is over. Your day has passed.
It's time to improve the co-op by working together and planning for the future. From the Governor on down, everyone is saying the same thing-work together to fix the railbelt energy needs.
MEA should be a leader in this effort-let's get going! "




Mark Ewing wrote on Apr 25, 2009 11:48 PM:

" The lineman at MEA are worked into overtime and double time because their numbers have not increased in the past 10 years due to management. The population has doubled. The guys are out in 60 MPG winds restoring power working 24 hour days, 3 and 4 days straight without a break. Management does this to justify that MEA lineman make too much money. There were 30 some goons and a few carrying nightsticks, telling people where they could and could not sit. Bye Wayne. I was not able to hear the meeting upstairs at all "




4the Board-Great Job wrote on Apr 25, 2009 11:43 PM:

" Dennis, you think a general manager (Carmony) with a contract that only one or two people can see all his perks and over the top pay for mediocre management skills is good? The previous board and their conies will kill this coop one meber at a time. The current board is doing their best to better the coop. If you think the coop is doing that poor, then buy a generator and get disconnect from the service, membership is optional. "




Dennis O. wrote on Apr 25, 2009 10:37 PM:

" Wonderful, another year of secret meetings, bumbling leadership, and just plain general incontinence among the corrupt majority. No direction, No leadership, No energy. You may want to begin stockpiling cord wood and coal if you intend on sticking around. "




To Joey wrote on Apr 25, 2009 9:19 PM:

" No worries mate... You need to read the ballot measure again. No board member is losing their position over this. :) "




MEA ratepayer wrote on Apr 25, 2009 8:41 PM:

" The approved bylaw will never survive a court challenge because it disenfranchises thousands of co-op members. It's absurd.

P.S. Bye-bye Wayne. Bye-bye Tuckerman. Good riddance. "




Joey Brockhouse wrote on Apr 25, 2009 8:23 PM:

" This should be interesting since the membership voted for one member and they voted for a bylaw that would remove the same member. I think either the members changed their mind in a split second and voted her out in the next box or they didn't understand the bylaw. The bylaw should be invalid and voted on by the membership at another time with a clear definition of it's consequences. The meaning of the bylaw was unclear. "