Election Results- 2010

My apologies.  This was posted on my cow blog for the better part of a week after the election.  The cows were not impressed!

You can click on this image to get it bigger if you need.

In addition to the results I thought it interesting to see what was spent to influence the election and where the money came from.

In my election I contributed $400 cash and raised $1155 from individual friends for a total of $1555.  Monday I closed out the campaign account and reimbursed myself $153.

Bill Tull contributed $2500 personally and raised $3455 from individuals and $500 from MEA Ratepayers Alliance for a total of  $6455 received and spent directly.

Additionally, he shared with Karie Hurley the endorsement and campaign efforts of the MEA Ratepayers Alliance that totaled $9578 over and above the direct contributions.  There is no hint of where this money came from- only that it was spent on mailers, radio spots, etc.

Additionally the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers  sent out at least one mailer of endorsement for both Bill and Katie at an estimated cost of $5000.

Additionally,  The Classified Employees Association sent out at least one mailer endorsing Bill and Katie.  Estimated cost $1000.

Additionally, the Matanuska Susitna Employees Association sent out a mailer endorsing Bill and Katie.  Estimated cost $1000.

Total expenditures for the campaign of Bill Tull- $23,000.00.

Correction

Director Kit Jones pointed out last night that the contract referred to in the posting "Costly Decisions" was a five year contact, not a four year contract.  I appreciate her diligence to research that and bring it to my attention.

 I do not apologize for suggesting that there was an appearance of a conflict of interest because they were voting to directly benefit a group that had endorsed them and assisted in their election.  At a minimum those potential conflicts should be acknowledged and ruled on in due process.

For illustration sake take one of my contributors- Dave Cruz of Cruz Construction.  If something came up at a meeting that directly affected Dave Cruz (such as a construction contract) I would be obligated to disclose that he had contributed to my campaign and the chair should rule if there was a conflict that rose to the level of requesting me to recuse myself on that vote.  Those issues are rarely brought to the light of day on the MEA board and I believe that is an area in which we should improve and a problem we should try to protect with our bylaws to the maximum degree practicable.

The driver behind every Director and every decision  every Director makes should be the broadest spectrum of the Member/Owners.

Costly Decisions

Let me illustrate how in the last year and a half the composition of the board yielded to special interests at the expense of the broader membership.

 There was a motion at a board meeting Sept 8, 2008 to stop supporting the advertising to repeal the Borough ordinance that imposed California style permitting restrictions  on all power generation in the borough that exceeded 20 megawatts.  Two independent reviews of that study indicated that the cost of that single ordinance alone would be $9 million dollars over the thirty years life of a generation plant.  The annual expense of complying with the permit alone was over $500 thousand dollars.  Director Katie Hurley put it on the agenda and Director Janet Kincaid made the motion.  With almost no debate and without answering my question, "How is this motion in the interest of MEA?", the motion passed with only David Glines and David Dahms and myself dissenting.  Subsequently, after skillful manipulation of the language on the ballot by the borough attorney, and tens of thousands of dollars spent by out of state environmental agencies in alignment with Friends of Mat Su, the Borough vote to repeal failed.

You can year the audio of this part of the meeting here- it gives a lot of insight to the dynamics of the board:   Borough Power Plant Repeal audio.


Now for another example of costly special interest voting.  Just before the last annual meeting (Feb 9, 09), the board voted to give the IBEW linemen a 24% raise over 4 years.  Normally actions of this magnitude are thoroughly debated.  With almost no comment, the motion passed- again, with only David Glines and myself in dissent.  The five yes votes were not surprisingly all Directors put on the board with the endorsement of the IBEW.  Two of them were actively in a campaign for their seats with the help of the IBEW at the time of the vote.  They got elected and the union got its inflated raise in an economic environment that was actually  deflating.

Vote NO on Proposition 2

I am voting NO on the proposed bylaw amendment proposition two.

Last year the membership voted by a significant majority to tighten the qualifications for being on the board.  There were good reasons for those concerns.

 If passed as proposed Prop 2 would allow an IBEW member to be on the board.

It would also allow a board member or board member's relative to be doing up to $250,000 of business with our coop.  That is a lot of money and I think our members had it right last year when they set the threshold  at $10,000.

Voting yes on Prop 2 would allow MEA to knowingly open the door to legal corruption that will be a lot more costly than $250,000.  That would all be paid for by your electric bill.

A constituent has pointed out that the the wording under section e of proposition 2 requires that we submit a positive hair sample!

Integrated Resource Plan

The MEA Final 2009 IRP came out just a few days ago.  I have not digested it enough to comment on it but will post the link for now.

MEA Final 2009 Integrated Resource Plan

I am also going to post the State Regional Integrated Resource Plan which was posted yesterday.  This addresses the IRP concerns but on a global scale including the entire railbelt.  These two documents set the stage for the options for future generation potential.

http://www.aidea.org/AEA/regionalintegratedresourceplan.html

The Future of Natural Gas

Natural  gas generates most of our electricity and heats a lot of our homes.  The graph clearly explains why we have a huge problem right at the time we should be coming online with our own power and why we will probably have to buy imported LNG from some third world country.  The following study commissioned by Chugach Electric Association,  Enstar, and Municipal Light and Power from Petroleum Resources of Alaska is pretty clear.

http://www.akrdc.org/membership/events/special/luncheons/prareport.PDF

The following link is the study released by DNR that comes to the same conclusions:

http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/programs/resource_evaluation/res_eval_pub/Cook%20Inlet%20Reserves_DNR.pdf

The following link is another independent study on gas by Commonwealth North:

http://www.commonwealthnorth.org/documents_cwnorth/Energy%20for%20a%20Sustainable%20Alaska,%20the%20Railbelt%20Predicament.pdf

Cooperative Agreement with Chugach

Following is the link to the GRETC (Greater Railbelt Energy and Transmission Corporation) Cooperative agreement that we signed with Chugach in November.  I am still waiting for numbers to show how MEA coming back under CEA's crushing debt load is in our interest.  It doesn't look smart to me and I voted against it.  You read it and judge for yourself.  Most folks think this is the GRETC legislation but if you keep reading you will see it is much more.  Among other things it has imbedded a Power Sales Agreement with Chugach.  All you need to do is copy and paste this link into your browser to open it.

http://mea.coop/images/stories/greater-railbelt-cooperation.pdf

To actually view the current GRETC legislation (HB 182/ SB 143) use the following link:

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/26/Bills/HB0182A.PDF