MEA board frustrated with media coverage

PALMER -- Matanuska Electric Association board members, at their monthly meeting last week, discussed their frustration with how area media has, in their opinion, misinterpreted orders recently handed down by Palmer Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler.

"Do we have any intention on devising a corrected response or an in-depth response to the [allegations] that we are dragging our feet," board member Linda Shattuck said of an Anchorage Daily News story regarding Cutler's decision.

MEA General Manager Wayne Carmony said a response such as Shattuck was requesting was not presently in the works.

"They say that doing battle with the folks that buy ink by the barrel isn't a good strategy," Carmony said. "But I will take that under advisement."

Board President Bill Folsom said something may be done, but didn't reveal what it was.

"We tend to make corrections when there're errors out there because there's way too much of that," Folsom said. "We plan to do something about that … in a very benign way."

Cutler recently ordered MEA to pay Scott Waterman's attorneys the costs associated with scheduling and holding a deposition for two MEA board members, Shattuck and Wes Pollock -- depositions that MEA attorneys and board members did not attend.

The lawsuit stems from MEA's 2001 board of directors election, in which Michael Janecek won a seat on the MEA board. At the board's April 30, 2001, meeting, board members decided 5-2 not to seat Janecek, claiming his campaign disclosures were inaccurate and did not demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with MEA bylaws.

Shortly after the decision, Scott Waterman, a member-owner of MEA and would-be constituent of Janecek's, filed a complaint and subsequent request for a restraining order and injunctive relief against the decision.

Carmony told the board that, despite their disagreement with the ruling, it's not likely the cooperative will launch a motion for reconsideration.

"We actually see that the expense associated with asking for a reconsideration of that doesn't justify," Carmony said. "It's a few hundred dollars and it would cost us more than a few hundred dollars [to challenge the decision]."

But Shattuck said she would rather see the matter addressed in a public forum, giving MEA officials a chance to share their side more than the story allowed.

Cutler decided MEA attorneys should have at least given Waterman's attorneys the courtesy of informing them they didn't plan to attend the deposition.

MEA's attorneys assert that Waterman's attorneys had no reason to believe they would attend the deposition, as they believed the deadline for depositions had passed.

"Since the deadline passed for taking depositions, your client has not had the 'right' to depose any of MEA's witnesses," wrote David Mayberry in a Nov. 2, 2001, letter to Mary Pinkel of Ingaldson Maassen, the firm handling the case for Waterman.

"The deadline for depositions to end was Aug. 31," said MEA spokesman Mike Pauley. "From our perspective, we've been cooperative in that we immediately agreed to an extension of the deadline."

Waterman's attorneys, as reported previously, maintain they had to hold to the depositions as scheduled -- or face the same decision MEA now faces.

"If we didn't show up at the deposition and they're there, we would have to pay all their fees and costs," Ingaldson said, "and we'd probably never get a chance to depose [that witness]. We had no choice but to show up."

Cutler also ordered Janecek to hand over a list of names of people who had contributed under $100 to his campaign. That list, according to Cutler's order, will be reviewed by her in her chambers, where she will decide whether it contains information that may be vital to MEA's case.

Cutler, in her order, said she doubts the relevancy of the documents.

"It appears to the court highly unlikely that the persons who made contributions of under $100 are fact witnesses to any material or disputed facts," Cutler wrote.

She will review the list, however, because MEA attorneys have suggested that Janecek may have committed other campaign disclosures "such as misrepresenting whether those contributors truly gave less than $100." MEA attorneys also suggested that those under-$100 contributors may be "witnesses to possible conversations with Janecek about other campaign disclosure violations."

Pauley explained that several of the campaign donations of $99 in cash -- an unlikely sum, he said, for large numbers of people to have readily available.

Janecek explained that a number of his donors, due to possible discrepancy of whether $100 was a reportable donation or a confidential donation, requested to stay under that limit.

"They wanted a dollar back, so that they're sure to be listed as a $99 contributor," Janecek said.

In light of the two suggestions made by MEA attorneys, Cutler is in the process of reviewing the list of names and contributions. When she has decided whether that list of names will be revealed, whether it be revealed publicly or as a confidential document, both sides will get a chance to speak their minds.

"Before any release of information, the court will give notice to the parties of its intent to act and give the parties an opportunity to respond," Cutler's order states.