MEA members have spoken -- now they'll need to watch the results

Frontiersman Editorial Board

The voters have spoken -- and they seem to have said, "We like the way things are going." Results from the recent MEA board elections were announced at Raven Hall on the Alaska State Fairgrounds this Saturday, and the incumbents claimed the lion's share of votes, and then some.

That means the board will continue to have a split make-up, and that's probably a good thing. Four of the members are pro administration. They feel the administration is on the right track, and they feel supporting MEA's management is the best way to represent the cooperative's member/customers.

Three of the board's current members, on the other hand, posses inquiring minds. They tend to question proposals coming down the line from management, and they raise a lot of questions before giving approval to those decisions.

While that arrangement tends to cause friction on the board, it also strikes a balance that serves members better than a more homogenous make-up would. If the entire board were likely to rubber stamp every proposal made by management, there would be little protection for members. If, on the other hand, the entire board consisted of devil's advocates, the process could become bogged down. As things are, members get a fair amount of balance from the board, and that will now continue for the near future -- unless someone is betrayed by their hair.

The voters also strongly supported the proposals to modify -- and toughen -- the board's bylaws. One change will require board members to submit 11 campaign disclosure reports each year, and essentially report the name and employer of anyone donating even one dollar to their campaign effort. If you think that's a reasonable request, try filing your taxes once each month.

A second bylaw change requires board members to submit a hair sample for drug testing. If they refuse to do so, or if they test positive, they will not be seated on the board. Even members of Congress or our own legislature don't have to submit to such hair-splitting requirements.

Changes like these should raise a few questions. They are so specific, it's hard to imagine there isn't some political agenda at play. It will be interesting to see how the campaign contribution rule is applied to each member.

This rule is so specific, there is the danger that it will be difficult to monitor across the board, and that could lead to the rule being unevenly applied. The fact that board members will have to submit so many reports, and that they'll have to report even the smallest donations, has the potential to cause minor infractions that could carry serious results. Rules of that kind can sometimes be used as a weapon rather than a tool.

It will be something members should pay close attention to -- we will.