[Watchdogs] Proposed Legislation affecting PEC

Sat Apr 11 18:47:44 CDT 2009

April 11, 2009

Mr. James Williams
PEC Board Member, District 2

First, just to avoid any misunderstanding about my status or role and contrary to your assumptions, I have no forum, nor am I a member of any forum other than to use it as a means to communicate to others who are interested in PEC issues.  You, of course, have that same opportunity.

It seems to me that the typical PEC member would prefer to see your responses about PEC legislation made available to other members, rather than to confine them to personal conversations, and that you would be comfortable and willing to do just that. 

I believe it would be entirely appropriate for you to express your positions on PEC matters in any open forum, whether or not you are currently a candidate.  As a member of the Board and as a representative of us, the owners, your positions on issues affecting our PEC are of great interest to us, the owners.  I do not believe you expressing your views should be considered to be an unfair influence or hindrance in the coming election.  They would be your views.  Candidates could agree with you or disagree, and the voters would then presumably be better informed and better prepared to elect new members who would work in the best interests of the PEC and its membership.

You (and others at the PEC) have expressed support of HB 3820.  I have attached my analysis of that Bill, in comparison to the Bills authored by Senator Fraser and Representative Rose.

Please review this analysis, re-read the Bills, and then reconsider your support for HB 3820.  I request that you let your constituents know whether you continue to support that Bill, and if so, why.  If your support is the result of misunderstanding or misrepresentations made to you, now is the time to let us know that you have erred but now realize that the Fraser/Rose Bills merit your support, and that on behalf of the PEC membership, you cannot support HB 3820.  

Please leave no room for doubts about your stand on this proposed legislation.

Respectfully,

Carlos Higgins

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Williams, James 
To: Carlos Higgins ; 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 ; Davis, Jeanell ; Allen, Rusty ; Vi Cloud ; lramage99 at yahoo.com ; Felps, R B 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: PEC Board Action - SB921

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.  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: Williams, James 
To: 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 
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
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. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://103.greenbuilder.com/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20090411/2197c192/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Analysis of HB 3820.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://103.greenbuilder.com/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20090411/2197c192/attachment.doc>