Janecek seated on MEA board, sparks fly

PALMER -- There was no shortage of sparks at Matanuska Electric Association's March 11 meeting, as newly seated board member Michael Janecek wasted no time in fulfilling campaign promises made more than a year ago.

Janecek, who had pledged before the 2001 election to question the role of Stephen Ellis, MEA's chief corporate counsel, and find out more information about MEA's lawsuits, kept his word Monday, with a little help.

Janecek, at Monday's MEA board meeting, was sworn in per the orders of Palmer Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler. Cutler ruled last month that, based on her interpretation of the cooperative's bylaws, the MEA board had no grounds not to seat Janecek after apparent campaign disclosure violations in relation to last March's annual election.

Minutes after being sworn in, when board member Lois Lester requested an agenda change, Ellis interjected, suggesting that Lester's request was out of order. Janecek interrupted Ellis, stating his belief that staff, during meetings, should wait until questioned to speak.

"First of all, I'm not a member of staff," Ellis said, "… but I am a parliamentarian and I do advise the board of procedural issues."

Ellis and Janecek squared off numerous times over the course of the nearly three-hour meeting, with Janecek, backed by other board members, questioning Ellis' parliamentary judgment. When the subject of board member Linda Shattuck's campaign disclosure violations came up on the agenda, Ellis stated she was not able to amend or vote on the matter, since it directly concerned her. Janecek asked Ellis where that language was found and Ellis replied, "In Robert's Rules of Order."

Lester objected to Ellis' ruling, stating that the board had previously broken that policy.

"We have broken that rule, and we broke it back in April," Lester said. "Mrs. DePriest voted … to seat herself and Mrs. Shattuck voted to seat … herself."

After a five-minute break to determine whether Shattuck should be allowed to amend a motion to conclude the investigation into Shattuck's campaign violations, Shattuck opted to air her clarifications to the motion by speaking to the motion instead of making an amendment. That did not, however, stop the debate over whether or not Shattuck could vote on the issue or its accompanying amendment, and board president Bill Folsom eventually ruled that Shattuck must abstain from voting.

"If we made an error back then, that means we should make an error again?" Folsom asked. "Mrs. Shattuck is not allowed to vote on this."

Folsom's ruling was appealed, but there were not enough votes to overturn his decision. Shattuck's campaign disclosure violations were ultimately considered corrected through a unanimous vote of the board.

But that was not the last time hackles were raised between Ellis and Janecek. Moments later, when the board was in the process of discussing the board's responsibility when lawsuits are entered into or appealed by the cooperation, Ellis made a side comment to Folsom. Janecek immediately requested that Ellis make any discussions with board members public.

"I can advise whoever I want," Ellis shot back.

Aside from confrontations between Ellis and Janecek, the board discussed a number of topics over which members had expressed concern. Lester requested the board discuss how the decision was reached to launch or appeal lawsuits, and how to go about relinquishing MEA's title of the most litigious cooperative in the state. As a start, she requested that the board make decisions on whether or not to appeal or institute lawsuits.

"I read in newspapers that … we might appeal," Lester said. "[And I think] 'Wait a minute, whose job is this?'"

Board member Wes Pollock expressed concern that the board, by instituting a policy to check off on legal moves, may cross the line into micromanagement, but Lester said she didn't see it that way.

"We get blamed for doing all of this stuff, but we don't have any say in it," Lester said.

Lester spoke of a letter she had received from a Charleston, W.V., law firm that mentioned a case she was not aware of. She questioned why an Outside law firm was handling the case and why she had not previously heard of it.

MEA spokesman Mike Pauley said Lester was speaking of MEA's federal lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. MEA alleges that, when IBEW workers went on strike in 1999, they did so illegally.

"The strike had the illegal objective to defeat open and competitive bidding," Pauley said.

Since the matter involves federal law, Pauley said MEA hired a law firm that is highly experienced in federal labor laws. The case, he said, is being heard by U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick.

Pollock added that requiring the board to make decisions on pending lawsuits could be asking too much.

"I don't really think that the board is … competent to judge on this type of matter," Pollock said.

Folsom added that such a requirement could put the board in a compromising position by allowing attorney-client privilege to be violated.

"Some of this cannot be discussed in public," Folsom said. Other board members said they simply wanted to be kept abreast of legal issues.

"Maybe staff can call the board members on something like this," said board member Jim Hermon. "If you're going to appeal a case, I think we should know, and I think that's where it should stop -- right there on appeal."

Ultimately, Lester's motion resulted in a tie vote. Folsom cast the tie-breaking vote against the motion, stating that he would change his vote if Lester modified her request.

But that wasn't Lester's only motion on the table that evening. She also requested a breakdown of MEA's legal expenses since 1994, including the names of firms, individuals and amounts paid out in each case. Lester added that she wanted the material presented to MEA members and the board within 15 days.

"For the last three or four or five months, maybe a year or so, members have been coming forward and asking for [this]," Lester said.

Some MEA members who have come forward requesting to know the amount of MEA's 2001 legal fees have received letters from MEA General Manager Wayne Carmony, listing just over $1 million paid. According to one such letter, IBEW-related litigation -- including grievances, strike-related litigation and general labor practices -- cost $373,199. Litigation related to wholesale power supply matters -- including regulatory issues, contract enforcement, litigation and contested rate increases -- cost MEA $358,245. Regulatory commission filings and "other matters" totaled $192,154, and board matters reportedly cost $82,841.

Carmony said Lester's motion was a tall order.

"1994 is a long time to go back," Carmony said. He added that some reporting procedures have changed since then, making it likely that the information is not available in the same manner that far back. Carmony said he felt the motion was an "arbitrary request."

"I believe there were very few of you involved in this co-op at that time," Carmony said.

"You just made a statement that proves that we need to know," Lester said. "Just like I said here, I was not on the board, but this law firm is sending me letters."

The board amended the motion to allow MEA staff 30 days to collect the data, which will include the cause for litigation on each entry. Despite Folsom's comments that he saw the motion as having a "design to it," it passed with just Pollock's vote in dissent.