MEA board to look into deposition

PALMER -- Matanuska Electric Association scheduled a special meeting this afternoon, but what the meeting is specifically about has not yet been revealed.

According to a memo sent by Board President Bill Folsom to the cooperative's board of directors, the meeting, set for 4 p.m., pertains to campaign disclosures filed by board member Linda Shattuck.

The memo states that the purpose of the meeting is for the board to receive a supplemental briefing from MEA Chief Corporate Counsel Steven Ellis. The briefing, according to the memo, concerns "disclosure issues associated with Director Shattuck's compliance with … the Association's Bylaws …" and may result in "… further actions as may be appropriate."

Although Ellis had not submitted his briefing to the board earlier in the week, MEA spokesman Mike Pauley said the briefing will likely have to do with a Jan. 15 deposition given by Shattuck.

Shattuck was recently ordered by Palmer Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler to give a deposition in the Waterman vs. MEA case in which she is listed as a defendant.

In the deposition, Shattuck said when she ran in the 2001 election to retain the Eagle River seat she held at that time through appointment, she did not obtain a copy of MEA's candidate handbook, but simply filled out the pre- and post-election report forms that went along with that handbook.

Election campaign rules that state "if the candidate is going to receive contributions or spend more than $100 of his or her own money on the campaign, he/she must open an individual bank account for the campaign." But Shattuck deposited $2,450 raised throughout her campaign into a personal account not opened specifically for the election.

Shattuck also said in the deposition that she did not maintain records of those who contributed to her campaign -- such as copies of the checks of more than $100 given to her throughout her campaign, or any list of names of those who contributed less than $100 to her campaign. MEA's campaign regulations state that candidates required to report "… shall maintain detailed records of all contributions received and advertising expenditures made in accordance with uniform methods of bookkeeping."

The campaign regulations also state specifically that the names of contributors of less than $100, "… along with the amount and type of his contribution, must be recorded and maintained by the candidate, for comparative purposes …" but Shattuck said she had not kept such records.

When asked by Waterman's attorney Bill Ingaldson whether she had maintained a list of those contributors, Shattuck answered "No."

Shattuck, when asked whether she was aware that MEA bylaws require that she open an account specifically for the campaign, said, "No, I'm not aware of that."

Earlier in the deposition, Shattuck stated she never received MEA's Election 2001 Candidate's Handbook, which details how candidates should fill out their reports and what records they are required to keep. Shattuck did not state and was not asked in the deposition why she did not receive a copy of the handbook.

Pauley said he did not know what issues Ellis planned to address in today's briefing.

"All I know is that, after reading the deposition, he felt the need to provide supplemental information to the board," Pauley said.

When asked why Ellis did not mention the information revealed in the deposition in his April 30 report given to the MEA board in an executive session, Pauley said Ellis' initial review was not comprehensive.

"His report on April 30 was what we call an at-face-value review," Pauley said. "There's a level of review that, say, … assuming everything that's reported is true, does the math work?"

Pauley was reluctant to say how the board will approach the issue, as the group has a broad range of choices before them.

"They could take no action, or they could decide to [take action]," Pauley said. "You just don't know. The board has all sorts of options at its disposal …"

A message left at Linda Shattuck's home Wednesday afternoon was not returned by press time.

The Waterman v. MEA lawsuit that Shattuck gave her deposition for dates back to MEA's 2001 board of directors election, in which Mike Janecek won a seat on the MEA board. At the board's April 30, meeting board members decided 5-2 not to seat Janecek after reading a report compiled by Ellis about all the candidates' campaign disclosures. The board claimed Janecek's 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.

At the April 30 meeting, Ellis, in his report to the board, found that Janecek had not disclosed advertising that was done before the election on his pre-election report. Ellis said Janecek's explanation that the advertising was not disclosed because he had not yet been billed was simply not acceptable.

"I don't find that explanation credible," Ellis said at the time, and pointed out that Janecek complied with a "rather obscure" requirement that the address and identity of the bank being used for the campaign account be disclosed -- something that Shattuck and Rose Marie "Tiny" DePriest, also winning candidates in the 2001 election, both failed to do. Ellis, at the time, added that, since Janecek was a candidate in the recent Mat-Su Borough Assembly election and had to file Alaska Public Offices Commission reports that require accrued expenses be accounted for, Janecek should have understood the requirements on MEA's disclosure forms.

"These factors all go against Mr. Janecek's good faith as an aggravating factor," Ellis said at the time.