MEA moving out of its dark ages

Issues for Matanuska Electric Association that first came to light in our pages years ago made it to court this past week, and so far the proceedings have been illuminating.

While the legal wheels were set in motion by fired MEA executives Bruce Scott, the company’s IT director, and head of human resources Tuckerman Babcock, it’s the former general manager who continues to haunt the member-owned cooperative.

Scott and Babcock have settled their claims, but MEA has turned the tables on Wayne Carmony, suing the former manager for allegedly giving senior executives secret sweetheart contracts without the board’s OK. MEA’s current general manager Joe Griffith has been brutally up front about the state Carmony left the co-op in June 2009.

What has come to light since is a shocking example of abuse of power among MEA’s top management (pardon the pun) and confirmation of speculation by many during Carmony’s regime that he was more interested in looking out for those good old boys rather than operating openly and transparently for the benefit of its member-owners.

For the record, Griffith, former general manager for Chugach Electric Association, has done an admirable job cleaning up the mess Carmony left. And, unlike his predecessor, Griffith goes out of his way to be candid and available to the co-op’s owners — us.

Earlier this month, Griffith spoke out about the contract issue in detail in a Spectrum piece on this page. He said that Carmony gave five of his favorite executives sweetheart contracts that included language that said only Carmony himself could fire them “at-will.” If the board — our elected representatives charged with overseeing the co-op — acted against their own general manager’s wishes, they’d owe each executive anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 in severance.

The reasoning was these executives deserved some protection from the whims of the board, whose members could oust the general manager and those executives at any time.

But it is not unusual for managers to change their management teams. The makeup of the board of directors can change, too, depending on who MEA members elect. Responding to those member-owners could conceivably include changing management to reflect the direction the board deems appropriate. Changing management isn’t unprecedented. When we elect a new president of the United States, the new Commander-in-Chief chooses new top officials to fill key spots in the administration. In professional sports, a fired head coach also often means his assistants are on the chopping block as well.

In short, it’s the nature of the business. As with MEA, MTA, or any other member-owned cooperative, their boards of directors are charged with the health and growth of those enterprises. That includes employing management that can best reflect and carry out the board’s vision.

But while we can appreciate a manager looking out for his guys, Carmony stepped way over the line when he put the personal welfare of his buddies over the best interests of the cooperative and ignored the law.

Along with shedding light on what some have come to call MEA’s “dark ages,” when Carmony seemingly preferred to operate the company with the public in the dark, Griffith and the continuing litigation are also positive signs.

Of course, we don’t relish the idea of suing a former general manager or spending more member-owner dollars on legal fees than absolutely necessary. But holding management accountable is necessary, and this is a concept Griffith seems to fully understand.

“Nothing about the contracts served MEA’s interests,” Griffith wrote in his Spectrum piece, adding they were “self-serving employment contracts designed by the former general manager … to protect him against the cooperative, his employer.”

It was the board, Griffith says, that terminated Scott and Babcock when they discovered the contract cover-up, and directed Griffith to terminate the remaining sweetheart contracts when he came aboard. He concluded by saying the board “deserves applause” for untangling “this unhappy mess.” We agree.

While we have been harsh critics of MEA at times, we applaud the steps this important local entity has taken to respond to members’ concerns and move toward transparency and openness.