Some ideas to improve MEA election packet

Saturday I picked up the packet of election materials MEA sent to me and other fellow member-owners.

First of all, I was glad to see the advisory votes as part of the election ballot. I advocated this in the written testimony I submitted during your May 2007 board meeting on the power plant controversy, and I hope this kind of dialogue continues.

And I would like to commend you on the in-depth profiles you provided on each of the candidates.

However, I also have some feedback that I hope you and my fellow member-owners will find enlightening. I imagine I am not alone in my assessments.

a) The glossy mailing. I am concerned about the expense that must have been incurred in producing this glossy magazine, “Looking Out for your Comfort Zone,” as the packet of election materials was titled. My comfort zone would have been better served with an inexpensive enclosure printed in blank and white on recycled paper.

b) The five candidate questions. The candidate questions, while consistent, were largely unintelligible without reading the answers, perhaps due to the fact that the questions were not written in sentences. Here are my interpretations:

1. Future Challenges for MEA? probably means

What do you think are the most important future challenges facing MEA?

2. Campaign Disclosure? probably means

Have you filed your Campaign Disclosure materials?

3. Conflict of Interest? (Contact with IBEW? and Contact with Chugach Electric?) probably mean

Do you have a conflict of interest due to significant contact with IBEW? and Do you have a conflict of interest due to significant contact with Chugach Electric?

4. Integrated Resource Plan? and Fossil Fuel Plants? probably mean

Are you in favor of an Integrated Resource Plan? and

Are you in favor of Fossil Fuel Plants?

5. Percentage of Cost Increase? probably means

What level of rate increase do you feel is warranted for power coming from renewable energy?

c) The bylaw amendment. This is the only ballot issue containing a statement directing voters to the Official Notice for the 2008 Annual Meeting, which I correctly assumed meant the packet of election materials, as well as to MEA’s Web site, www.mea.co-op. The voter would have been better served with a simple summary of the proposition in place of this statement on the ballot.

d) The four advisory votes. I assume that MEA is interested in obtaining informed opinions from its member-owners. But the wording in all four is quite poor, and the information needed to make an intelligent choice on several sorely lacking. Here are my suggestions:

1. Local Generation or Power from Chugach Electric? (pick one) could be reworded to Are you in favor of obtaining power through local generation, by importing power from Chugach Electric, or some combination of the two? This recognizes the possibility, for example, of building a gas-fired plant and retaining a purchasing arrangement with Chugach.

2. In order to promote renewable energy, how much more are you personally willing to pay for electricity? (pick one) could offer choices based on percentages rather than absolute dollar values. This would facilitate the analysis of responses from the variety of customers MEA serves; an individual home owner might be willing to accept the same percentage increase as a hotel served by MEA, but not necessarily the same dollar increase.

3. This question involves the business structure of a future Railbelt-wide power supply organization, and could be reworded as Which business structure would you like to see investigated if a Railbelt-wide power supply organization were formed (select one or more)? Without detailed analysis, an informed choice is difficult.

4. This question involves whether transmission and generation assets owned by the State of Alaska should be exempt from or subject to oversight by the RCA, and could be reworded as Should MEA investigate making transmission and generation assets owned by the State of Alaska subject to oversight by the RCA? Without detailed analysis, an informed choice is difficult.

e) Referendum petition support. Gathering sufficient referendum signatures does not equate to a mandate from MEA member-owners, so the MEA board sponsoring such a referendum appears disingenuous and outside what could arguably be considered the responsibilities of a cooperative’s board.

The referendum petition support arguments printed in the mailing have a tone decidedly different and more biased than the rest of ballot materials (“Reduce government red tape … prevent more bloated government. … Alaskans do not need laws imported from California”), and there is controversy about some of the estimates provided.

With regard to the last three items, the MEA board would be well advised to consider offering opposing perspectives on all advisory votes, propositions, and referendums it chooses to construct, much like transparent corporations do for their shareholders.

In conclusion, I have no problem making my candidate selections, I can find the exact wording for the bylaw amendment, but I cannot in good conscience respond to any of the advisory votes as worded. And the referendum petition support seems entirely out of place in the election packet.

Emily A. Northam,

Palmer