Spectrum

MEA's bylaw debate continues as election nears

I have been asked to rebut the Tuesday, March 11, Spectrum article submitted by Larry DeVilbiss. He asserts that I "failed to comply with Matanuska Electric Association's existing campaign disclosure rules that prompted the Bylaw Committee to propose reforms." When I filed those reports in 2001, I was caught in a Catch-22 situation. By abiding the bylaws, the board told me I broke the campaign disclosure rules and refused to seat me; but if I had followed the campaign disclosure rules, I would have broken the bylaws, resulting in the same punishment. This is what the court called an "estoppel" situation. This contradiction is what MEA was remanded to address, among other discrepancies and actions.

It is interesting to note that this problem had not been an issue prior to my election. In an effort to discern how I should have completed the forms, I looked at other elected board members' reports from 2001 and prior. Imagine my surprise to discover that none of the filed reports were complete (including Bill Folsom's) and some board members had not filed at all. And of the incomplete reports, none had reported "contributed advertising," (advertising paid for by someone other than the candidate) as specifically required in the existing bylaws. This lack in the face of the fact that each candidate had had a group called REACH paying for all of their advertising, consisting of many thousands of dollars. Determination of noncompliance seems to be an arbitrary condition and circumvents voting co-op members. As to Mr. DeVilbiss' statement that I "still have refused to disclose all of the names of individuals who contributed" to my 2001 campaign, per the bylaws, that information had to have been recorded but was not required to be reported. And he may well take my criticisms of the bylaw amendments "with a grain of salt." This from a board member that was not elected by the members but whose appointment by the management-directed majority of the board broke Robert's Rules of Order in the process. It was not in any way professional behavior.

I did specifically vote against Lee Jordan being named to the Bylaw Committee. Nothing against Mr. Jordan, but the committee was already stacked with lackeys of the MEA management. They had an agenda far removed from Judge Cutler's court mandate to "fix the bylaws." I thought we should have a more balanced committee to include a few MEA members with no special interests.

I supported the Bylaw Committee's supposed function, however: remove or clarify the conflicting language, make the campaign disclosure rules match the bylaw directives, make groups participating in the election process disclose their big money contributors and assure that the reporting forms correspond to the bylaws. When the committee presented the amendments, I felt that some were good, some needed a little work and some were downright infringements of First Amendment rights. After a great deal of discussion and a few false starts, the board was forced to formally consider the amendments as a block deal. It was all or nothing. I believe that half done is not good enough and I could not support these amendments. Mr. DeVilbiss takes me to task about some legal opinions I have brought to some board meetings. I have found some MEA issues that raised alarms: issues of legality, responsibility, personal liability and proper Robert's Rules of Order proceedings. I strive to have a good grasp on the issues with which we are allowed to be involved. I do my homework and access many sources for information. Isn't that what I was elected to do?

He is also in error when he said that my service on MEA's board appears to be "an unhappy experience." I am not unhappy. I am extremely disappointed. I have hopes that MEA can get on with the business of providing dependable, reasonably priced electricity to our co-op members. Our rates are lower (from $.08912 in Oct. '90 to $.08676 now, giving us a 2.65 percent difference per kilowatt hour, not accounting for inflation) but I attribute the success of our co-op's function to the hard-working, dedicated, non-management employees. To be even more fiscally responsible, I suggest we stop dumping money down the attorney drain and use that resource for facility, maintenance and safety.

Now, regarding the upcoming election: MEA management has admitted the printing error of conflicting instructions on the ballot envelope. This may present some voting problems, should someone take exception to possibly having their ballot declared invalid due to a signature on the card. Stranger things have happened with this MEA management. They have access to the names of every voter as the ballots come in (see board minutes for the March 10 meeting.) This is a dangerous loophole in the election process. The management has used that knowledge in the past to make targeted efforts to remind like-minded members to cast their last minute votes. Why is this allowed?

Here are two interesting ideas: 1) revamp the whole campaign procedure; MEA could give each candidate forwarded by the Nominating Committee or by petition, $3,000 (or some such equal amount) to use as needed in their campaign … no questions, no reporting, no more, no less, no MEA ads and no outside sources of any kind allowed. This would save a whole lot of time and money and would be cheaper than the current setup. 2) Require Breathalyzer tests before each board meeting, levels not to exceed .001, to assure sober, cognitive thinking when dealing with MEA's multi-million dollar decisions.

As a postscript, MEA should not be "Carmony Electric" but Wayne Carmony, general manager of MEA, does have the authority to overrule board decisions. Look it up.

Michael Janecek is a member of the MEA Board of Directors.