Questions MEA committee practices

To the editor:

I accompanied Bill Folsom to the Matanuska Electric Association headquarters where Bill was to be interviewed by the MEA Nominating Committee.

I was interested in seeing the interview and listening to the questions being asked. My intent was to hear the type of questions to determine if they pertained to the present relevant issues facing MEA today. To my surprise, I was told I could not attend the interview process. I can understand why the committee might want an executive session to discuss the relative merits of a candidate, but I fail to see why a member could not witness the interview. If we are not allowed to attend the interview, how can we determine if the interviews are fairly and equally applied to all candidates? How would we know if there is a common set of standards being followed? How would we know if the questions are even relevant?

This appears to be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. I can understand the merits of an executive session when discussing a candidate’s fitness to serve, but I do not believe a legal executive session does not provide for secret interviews of prospective board candidates. Further, a committee of this type may not be able to even legally hold an executive session under any circumstances. We, as members, are entitled to hear the questions asked potential candidates and the answers they give. Questions and answers of candidates do not meet executive session criteria. They are, in fact, of great interest to the MEA membership.

I was shocked to learn that Bill Folsom was not nominated by the committee to run for the board. I was even more shocked to learn an MEA employee, Cheryll Heinze, the manager of public relations, lobbied the committee extensively not to put Folsom’s name forward. How does any MEA employee have a say in the committee’s deliberations, especially in secret deliberations that violate our bylaws and state statutes requiring open meetings?

Cheryll Heinze or any other MEA employee has no business lobbying our nominating committee for or against any candidate. This is obviously a tactic by the administration of MEA to control the election of its directors and preserve the present board majority dominated by IBEW union sympathizers.

This whole process of nominating candidates to run for the board of directors is now highly tainted and should be thrown out. All the present applicants who meet the criteria required by the bylaws must now be approved.

Aaron Downing

Wasilla