An MEA scorecard

To the editor:

We members have the responsibility to make certain the MEA board follows the proper mandate to provide electricity at the most reasonable cost. We fulfill our membership responsibility when we vote for board candidates. This year there are four candidates running for the two open seats on the board. Two are incumbents, Lois Lester and Katharine “Kit” Jones. They both are members of a five-member majority who are presently directing the course of MEA through their board actions.

Let us fill out a scorecard of these board incumbents. Under A., we will list their actions that cost us money. Under B we will their list actions that saved us money.

A. Present Board Actions that cost you money:

1. Board expenses have risen by more than 350 percent. (Estimated at well over $300,000 per year).

2. Board takes over management of MEA and tells the professional management to no longer advise them on any issue unless asked. If management does offer advice they are subject to insubordination and could be fired. (At risk are millions of dollars from bad business decisions. Not one person of the board majority has any experience running a $125 million-a-year enterprise the size of MEA. Board incumbent candidates Jones and Lester have never run a business.)

3. Board hires its own private attorney who could cost the MEA members well over $100,000 a year. (MEA already has a full-time attorney on the staff, but they won’t let him talk).

4. Board enters into disputes against MEA by others without proper background or understanding of the disputes. (These are normally high-risk, large dollar disputes that require considerable experience and training to amicably resolve. The board majority has neither the experience nor training in the disputes at hand).

5. Board enacts a “Whistle Blower Policy” and immediately 17 whistles are blown, 16 against the board for their state law and MEA bylaw violations. All must be investigated according to the policy. (Unhappy with the board being subject of most complaints, they have given their private board attorney a blank check to rewrite the policy more to their liking).

6. Board rejects a perfectly legal member petition thereby causing another lawsuit against MEA. (A previous lawsuit, very similar to this, cost MEA an estimated $300,000 in legal fees and court costs.)

7. Board takes future clean coal generation off the table which could cost you tens of millions of dollars over the next 40 years even if a coal plant is never built. (No successful business will ever take an option off the table until a final decision is made.)

8. Board hires outside consultants to facilitate board harmony within itself at an estimated cost of over $100,000. (At least they recognized they need to seek outside mental health).

9. Board makes many violations of the Open Meetings Act and Roberts Rules of Order in the conduct of board business. (If the Board is ruled out of order for these discrepancies then much of their work may need to be redone necessitating more legal fees and more meeting expenses to clean up the mess).

10. Board tells the manager to give the IBEW Union what the union wants in their labor negotiations. (Average MEA lineman makes well over $150,000 per year in wages and benefits. Total estimated increased cost of over $30,000 per year per lineman).

Scorecard total cost increases: At least $900,000 of identifiable increase over your present electric bills and potentially millions more in future years.

Now the other half of the board scorecard.

B. Present Board Actions that saved you money:

1. None. No cost decreases. (There was a small rate reduction announced effective April, but this reduction was based on past performance that occurred as a result of previous board’s cost saving actions).

The scorecard reads; board increases….10 and member decreases….Zero.

The scorecard clearly shows the incumbents do not deserve to be re-elected.

Aaron Downing

Palmer