Bylaw change wording on ballot rankles MEA’s critics

Editor’s note: A version of this story was first published online at www.frontiersman.com. Visit the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman online daily for breaking news and interactive features.

By Andrew Wellner

Frontiersman

MAT-SU — Ballots for this year’s Matanuska Electric Association election have started showing up in the mailboxes of the co-op’s members.

Lorali Carter, spokeswoman for MEA, said the ballots went out Feb. 13.

On Feb. 15, a pair of advocacy groups — the Ratepayers Alliance and UtilityWatch — held a joint press conference to decry what they called an unfair treatment of a ballot initiative on which members are asked to vote.

The initiative seeks to change the date on which new directors are seated from June to no more than 15 days after the annual meeting, this year to be held March 1 at Colony High School.

The ballot contains only a statement from the co-op’s bylaws committee, urging that members vote “no.” The ballot doesn’t offer a summary of the by-law change, but rather requests members look in the accompanying packet of information. That packet contains no pro-amendmant statement.

“It just is unfair that both sides are not presented to the members,” said Kit Jones of the Ratepayers Alliance.

Carter said previously that MEA’s by-laws do not require both views be put in the packet. Management believes the bylaw change is bad for business, she said. As to how the ballot was written, Carter said she followed exactly the format of the last bylaw change that appeared on a ballot.

Jim Sykes, head of UtilityWatch, prepared a graph showing how the 136 days MEA has to certify its elections measures up against, among other things, the time taken to seat a new U.S. president (77 days), a Mat-Su Borough assembly member (14 days) or a director of another electrical co-op (one to 21 days).

Carter said the seating of new board members takes 136 days this year because the annual meeting, at which they will be selected, is set for March 1. The co-op’s bylaws say the meeting has to be held anytime in March or April.

So, if MEA had decided to have the meeting at the end of April, the board members would have been seated only two months after they were elected. She said she doesn’t think the wait is out of line.

MEA management stands by the by-law committee’s findings, she said. The delay is needed so management has time to review campaign finance disclosure forms from candidates and process their mandatory drug tests. The bylaw change would make the bylaws inconsistent by allowing a director to be seated before the election is certified.

Sykes and Jones disputed all of these claims. Drug tests take five days to return, they say in a press release. If a director has violated campaign disclosure laws the board can vote that person off. The change doesn’t require directors be seated before the election is certified, just at a meeting before the 15 days are up.

What’s really at issue, Sykes said, is MEA management seeking enough time to find any tiny discrepancy on financial reports in order to keep directors it doesn’t like from being seated.

“The requirements that they have for financial reporting are so mixed up … the management can find anything on almost anybody,” Sykes said.

Carter has previously said that management does not dig up dirt on board members it hopes not to seat. It is not an activity in which staff at MEA is empowered or inclined to engage. Monday, Carter said she wished the folks seeking a by-law amendment had taken their proposed amendment to the by-laws committee instead of seeking to change things through a petition.

Sykes said he disputed that there even was an legally constituted by-laws committee to go through since most of its members had seen their terms expire.

The MEA board of directors discussed this issue at its February meeting where, eventually, debate ended when co-op attorney Jim Walker gave an opinion that the expiration of board members terms did not necessarily mean they were no longer committee members. He recommended the committee members remain in their seats until the board decided to take action.

Whether or not there was a committee, Sykes said that “it’s really beside the point.

A petition process is clearly available to the members. The process of petitioning a proposal should be fair and proponents should be able to make a statement.”

Contact Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiers-man.com or 352-2270.