Lawsuits test legality of new MEA bylaws

MAT-SU -- The members of Matanuska Electric Association may have approved two groups of bylaw amendments at the 2003 annual meeting, but two lawsuits were filed last week, challenging the validity of those amendments.

Matanuska Electric Association, Monday, filed a suit in Anchorage Superior Court, asking Judge Mark Rindner to enter a judgement against former MEA board member Michael Janecek and a second defendant, listed as John Doe No. 1, and upholding the recently passed bylaw amendments.

A few hours later, a lawsuit was filed in Palmer Superior Court by Rowland Scott Waterman against MEA, asking for a temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunctive relief to reinstate Janecek to the MEA board and halt MEA's implementation of the new bylaw amendments until they were proven lawful.

Waterman, listed in court documents as an MEA member who voted for Janecek in the April 6, 2001, election, also served as plaintiff in a lawsuit against MEA now under appeal. In that lawsuit, Palmer Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler ruled that the board had erred in refusing to seat Janecek for alleged campaign disclosure violations.

There has already been action in the recent Waterman case filed in Palmer. Monday, Palmer Superior Court Judge Eric Smith issued an order denying the temporary restraining order filed by Waterman, stating that motion violated a rule of court by being filed late, not allowing the defendant enough time to respond. Friday, a request by MEA to halt the briefings on the injunctive order was also denied, according to information from Waterman's attorney, Bill Ingaldson of Ingaldson Maasen.

MEA spokesman Mike Pauley said the co-op has also filed a motion to consolidate the two cases, a motion Pauley said could help reduce eventual legal fees. When asked why MEA filed the Anchorage suit, although letters sent from Ingaldson Maasen indicated the firm would be filing against MEA, Pauley said it was a matter of timing.

"We don't have any control over when someone files a lawsuit," Pauley said. He mentioned that, in the initial Waterman vs. MEA case, several weeks passed between the date the board refused to seat Janecek and the date a case was filed. And, Pauley said, the member-approved bylaws must be implemented.

"It creates a level of uncertainty about the legality of those amendments that the members approved," Pauley said. "We just want to move this along … so there won't be a cloud hanging over the process."

If consolidation is allowed, several things would happen. Both propositions that were recently passed by MEA voters would be a matter of focus for the court. Currently, the Waterman case in Palmer only discusses alleged violations of common law, the state constitution and state statutes as a result of the passage and implementation of proposition two, the proposition pertaining to drug testing. Pauley said he was expecting to see more.

"In communication from Mr. Ingaldson to our attorneys, he made it abundantly clear that Mr. Janecek's complaints went to both issues," Pauley said.

He mentioned a list of items referring to proposition one, which tightens bylaws pertaining to campaign disclosure and conflict of

interest that were brought up as topics that may be matters of litigation, and said concerns over proposition two were mentioned, but only briefly, at the end of the other issues. "We were expecting a challenge on both of them," Pauley said.

Ingaldson said to keep watching. The initial filings, he said, were meant simply to find a way to get Janecek back on the board while the other proposition is challenged. It will be a different battle than was waged during the last lawsuit, Ingaldson said.

"This is a little bit different than the last one. [It has] broader issues that are obviously very important to Mike and to other people," Ingaldson said. "We want to give it a chance to be tried, to see if these are lawful bylaws."

Ingaldson said the matter is not about Janecek not wanting to give a hair sample or being afraid of a positive result.

In correspondence to MEA, Ingaldson said, he has offered to have a lock of hair cut and placed under seal with the court, to be tested if the court upholds the bylaw amendment.

That offer, Ingaldson said, has not been accepted by MEA.