MEA explanation ‘misleading’

To the editor:

The Cheryll Heinze letter to the editor of March 6 is incredibly misleading.

As Matanuska Electric Association director of public relations, she asserts that a leading reason Bill Folsom was not nominated by the MEA Nominating Committee was because of an inappropriate comment using the term “sugar daddy.” This term was used by Mr. Folsom in answer to a question presented by the MEA Member Advisory Committee and will appear in the voting pamphlet accompanying the ballot to be mailed by MEA to each MEA member.

To set the record straight here is the Member Advisory Committee question followed by Mr. Folsom’s answer as they will appear in the voting pamphlet.

MEA MAC question:

6. In your opinion what is the most important issue facing MEA today?

Mr. Folsom’s reply:

Alaska’s future economic uncertainty is MEA’s most important issue. We all realize that oil production is dwindling. When the pipeline shuts down about 90% of our present state income will evaporate. This means we, as a state, must turn to our abundant natural resources and promote other sources of economic development to replace the income that oil now produces.

MEA’s role in this issue is twofold. 1. It must have abundant low cost electrical energy available to support new economic development and 2. It must immediately launch on a program to deeply cut present operational costs so that lower rates are in place for our members when the full force of the predicted economic downturn surfaces. The economists all agree we are in for some tough times ahead if we do not prepare now. We cannot afford to continue to be the Sugar Daddy to special interest groups. We must make the hard choices and I am willing to make those hard choices for the good of the whole membership.

A stark contrast is that current MEA board member Janet Kincaid was approved and nominated by the nominating committee. There was no attempt by Heinze to advise the committee concerning very relevant issues surrounding Janet Kincaid. Heinze did not inform the committee that:

1. Kincaid was formally reprimanded by the board for releasing executive session material to her son knowing it would give him a business advantage in obtaining MEA construction contracts.

2. Kincaid, as Audit Committee chairperson, oversaw the audit conducted by the auditing firm, Moss Adams, to determine the misuse of and missing material from MEA’s warehouse. There is allegedly $100,000’s worth of missing or misappropriated MEA material that she swept under the rug.

3. Kincaid, who was heavily supported by the IBEW in the last election, led the charge to increase the wages at MEA by 24 percent that increased our cost by a minimum of $2.5 million over the life of the labor contract and will cost us a minimum of more than $ 1 million ever year forever — unless changed by a new board.

Not one of the above issues concerning Janet Kincaid was furnished by Heinze to the nominating committee. But Bill Folsom was turned down by a reference to the term “sugar daddy.” It is painfully obvious that the present management of MEA is biased in favor of Kincaid and will hide important facts from a resident committee in order to dupe its members into supporting MEA management’s preferred candidates.

I suspected these nefarious acts might occur, which was my reason for wanting to sit in on the nominating committee hearings. I was not allowed to witness the meeting nor was any other outside MEA member allowed to witness the meeting. The above incident is one of the very reasons our bylaws and state law require open meetings, which Heinze summarily rejected.

The members of the MEA Board of Directors are our representatives at MEA. They have the fiduciary responsibility to protect our interests. We expect them to act to support Folsom’s nomination and determine an action to be taken with MEA management for inappropriate and misleading manipulation of our nominating committee. We shall see what the board does to rectify this mess.

Aaron Downing

Wasilla