[Watchdogs] PEC Board Action - SB921

Fri Apr 10 13:46:28 CDT 2009

Mr Williams,

Since you have recently sent several posts to the Watchdogs at PEC4U.org 
discussion list, I have made the assumtion (perhaps incorrect) that 
you intend them to be sent out to the subscribers of that list. 
Rather than my having to approve each one as they come in, I've 
subscribed your peci address to the list.  Typically, only 
subscribers may post to the list.  You may certainly unsubscribe 
yourself at any time, as can any of our subscribers.

You are welcome - and I personally encourage you - to use this email 
discussion group to explain anything about the internal workings of 
PEC more fully to your fellow members.  You may get a lot of 
questions.  We're all here to discuss PEC.  And of course anyone who 
doesn't wish to take part in the public discussion can contact you 
off-list by email or phone, as you've mentioned.

At 11:32 AM -0500 4/10/09, Williams, James wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>	boundary="_000_15951D734D1C3643BC5DF5F732C14D403609BB24A2mail01pecicom_"
>
>Mr. Higgins,
>
>Thanks for the suggestion that I respond on your forum but that was 
>not the intent of the offer to discuss the issues.  The intent was 
>to open dialogue with members on a more personal basis -- one-on-one 
>-- that had a question or concern on this topic.  I am not a member 
>of your forum yet it appears that this method of communication works 
>fine.  Secondly, I wouldn't want to assume that everyone that 
>communicates with me prefers the open format.  And finally, the 
>proposed forum appears to me to be more of an electioneering and 
>campaigning venue.  Since I am not running for election I am not 
>certain it would be appropriate to post on your site.  It may be 
>considered to be an influence or hindrance to the PEC election 
>democratic process. 
>
>To your question - The House and Senate bills were not presented in 
>their entirety at the meeting.  However, there had been discussion 
>in the recent past regarding the proposed offerings from both Fraser 
>and Rose.  Typically, it is the Board members responsibility to 
>review on their own time the relevant information.  Based on my 
>memory of what occurred at the meeting, only Director Cox admitted 
>to not reviewing both proposals.  All others were either silent on 
>the issue or answered in the affirmative that they reviewed the 
>proposals.  I will tell you that I have reviewed both proposals and 
>that these reviews happened before and after the open session.
>
>I have included the link to the April Board video.  Although it was 
>an open session, it appears after reading some of the posts 
>forwarded to me that the full story may not be known by some.  It is 
>here  <http://www.pec.coop/CorpProfile/BoardVideos.aspx>http://www.pec.coop/CorpProfile/BoardVideos.aspx. 
>Your forum members may refer back to it if there are any questions 
>with what occurred. 
>
>Thank you,
>
>James E. Williams
>Director - District 2
>
>Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any 
>attachments, contains or may contain confidential information 
>intended only for the addressee. If you are not an intended 
>recipient of this message, be advised that any reading, 
>dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or other use of this 
>message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately 
>by reply message and delete this email message and any attachments 
>from your system.
>
>
>From: Carlos Higgins [CarlosTX at sbcglobal.net]
>Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 12:01 AM
>To: Williams, James; mhawkins at tstar.net; watchdogs at pec4u.org
>Cc: kathy at planningworks.biz; Cox, Patrick; valsmith at moment.net; 
>Tenorio, Blas; Tesar, Charles; Garza, Juan; bobreed at gmail.com; 
>och44 at verizon.net; Hilgers, Paul; Williams, James; Davis, Jeanell; 
>Allen, Rusty; Vi Cloud; lramage99 at yahoo.com; Felps, R B
>Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] PEC Board Action - SB921
>
>James Williams:
>
>I believe it would be more helpful to all of us if you would respond 
>to questions via this forum, so that all of us who are interested 
>might have the benefit of seeing your responses to the questions of 
>others.
>
>I believe you should also respond to questions about your stand on HB 3820.
>
>Did you read both SB 921 (identical to HB 1390) and HB 3820 before 
>entering into the discussion at the Board meeting?
>If not, have you read them since that meeting?
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Carlos Higgins
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:james.williams at peci.com> Williams, James
>To: <mailto:mhawkins at tstar.net>mhawkins at tstar.net ; 
><mailto:watchdogs at pec4u.org>watchdogs at pec4u.org
>Cc: <mailto:kathy at planningworks.biz> kathy at planningworks.biz ; 
><mailto:PatrickCox7 at gmail.com> Cox, Patrick ; 
><mailto:valsmith at moment.net> valsmith at moment.net ; 
><mailto:blas.tenorio at peci.com> 
>Tenorio<mailto:blas.tenorio at peci.com>, Blas ; 
><mailto:charles.tesar at peci.com>Tesar<mailto:charles.tesar at peci.com>, 
>Charles ; <mailto:juan.garza at peci.com>Garza, Juan ; 
><mailto:bobreed at gmail.com>bobreed at gmail.com ; 
><mailto:och44 at verizon.net>och44 at verizon.net ; 
><mailto:paul.hilgers at peci.com>Hilgers<mailto:paul.hilgers at peci.com>, 
>Paul ; <mailto:james.williams at peci.com>Williams, James ; 
><mailto:Jeanell.Davis at peci.com>Davis, Jeanell ; 
><mailto:rusty.allen at peci.com>Allen, Rusty ; 
><mailto:vicloud at nctv.com>Vi Cloud ; <mailto:lramage99 at yahoo.com> 
>lramage99 at yahoo.com ; <mailto:R.Felps at peci.com> 
>Felps<mailto:R.Felps at peci.com>, R B
>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 5:41 PM
>Subject: [Watchdogs] PEC Board Action - SB921
>
>Anyone who has questions and concerns about why I voted as I did in 
>regards to the proposed legislation, SB 921, can call or email me to 
>discuss. While we did openly debate this at length at the last board 
>meeting, I understand many could not attend.
>
>I encourage everyone to educate and inform themselves on all sides 
>of any issue prior to forming hardened opinions. I am open to 
>discussing the pros and cons of all the proposed legislation and any 
>other cooperative concerns you have.
>
>If you don't wish to speak with me you may contact any of the other 
>board members. Renee Oelschleger, the board secretary, can be 
>reached at (830) 868-4916 and she can help you contact the other 
>board members.
>
>You can reach me at this email address or call me at 512-686-0481. 
>If you call I recommend calling between 6-9pm weekday evenings. If 
>you get my voicemail please leave a message and I will return your 
>call.
>
>Regards,
>
>James E. Williams, District 2
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Watchdogs mailing list
><mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org>Watchdogs at pec4u.org<mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org>
><http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs>http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>NEW INSTRUCTIONS: To remove yourself from this list, please send an 
>email to <mailto:watchdogs-request at pec4u.org> 
>watchdogs-request at pec4u.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT line. Or 
>go to <http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs> 
>http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>and follow the instructions at the bottom of the page.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Watchdogs mailing list
>Watchdogs at pec4u.org
>http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>NEW INSTRUCTIONS: To remove yourself from this list, please send an 
>email to watchdogs-request at pec4u.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT 
>line. Or go to http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>and follow the instructions at the bottom of the page.

-- 
Bill Christensen
<http://greenbuilder.com/contact/>

Green Building Professionals Directory: <http://directory.greenbuilder.com>
Sustainable Building Calendar: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/calendar/>
Green Real Estate: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>
Straw Bale Registry: <http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>
Books/videos/software: <http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/>