[Watchdogs] Proposed Legislation affecting PEC

[Clyde Doyal]

Thanks Pat for taking a stand on behalf of the members of PEC and also for
your service on the board.  Hopefully in upcoming elections we can provide
you with some directors who share your dedication to the member owners of
PEC and not PEC management.  Clyde Doyal  Lakeway

 

From: Patrick Cox [mailto:patrickcox7 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 7:20 AM
To: Carlos Higgins
Cc: Williams, James; mhawkins at tstar.net; watchdogs at pec4u.org; Paul Langston;
Clyde Doyal; Dave Collins; John Watson; kathy at planningworks.biz;
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
Subject: Re: Proposed Legislation affecting PEC

 

Carlos et al -  

My position on the proposed legislation - SB 921, HB 1390, Fraser and Rose
v. HB 3820, Swinford

My testimony as an individual member of PEC on Tuesday, April 7 before the
House State Affairs Committee

The primary reasons that I favor the Fraser-Rose bills - they support and
reinforce the reforms that we have proposed and adopted since the board
election at the June 2008 annual meeting.  We have adopted open
meetings/open records, ethics and financial disclosure, election reforms and
alternative energy and conservation initiatives.   Those reforms will be
retained only as long as we have a board and management that support those
policies and programs.  There are no guarantees that these will stay in
place without additional protection as proposed in the Fraser/Rose bills.
Their legislation allows direct member participation and access while their
proposal disallows closed-door decisions that should be made in public.
Executive sessions for personnel, litigation and proprietary issues are
still necessary and recognized in the legislation.

As to enforcement, the Fraser/Rose bills call for the PUC to provide
enforcement on behalf of members. The Swinford bill names the AG for this
task. I believe the PUC is more suited as a public agency to deal with
questions that arise from the membership.  The testimony presented before
the committee clearly indicated the PUC was prepared to assume this task
while the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division testified that
they were not prepared for this role.  To say that the PUC lacks expertise
in this area indicates a lack of understanding of the agency's role and
expertise.  Furthermore, as I stated in my testimony, the PUC was more
supportive during the 1970's and 1980's of member complaints on the PEC
irregularities.  

The TEC/Swinford proposal does not support open meetings and open records
policies and allows boards to hide behind executive sessions and other
methods to close their meetings to members.  Also, as I stated in my
testimony, we have extensive experience in posting the videotapes of our
board meetings on the web and have had no difficulties.  In fact, we
actually have more members witnessing proceedings and following the debates.

To state that I have not reviewed this legislation is incorrect.  I stated
to the board at our called meeting on April 6 that we had no opportunity to
review any substitute legislation or modifications to the bills.  Rep.
Swinford had changed his bill before introduction to the committee as he
testified Tuesday night.  In addition, I stated that no PEC committee had
reviewed this legislation and to date no standing committee has reviewed any
of the legislation.  Other than the summary presentation and proposed
resolutions provided by PEC staff, we did not review any of the specific
language in the proposed legislation.  Also, we did not receive any updates
or written communication from David Sibley, the lobbyist retained by PEC to
represent us at the legislature.

At the PEC board meeting, I recommended in the public session that we defer
taking action on any legislation, as this would be detrimental to the PEC.
I also offered a motion that Juan Garza appear as a resource witness at the
committee hearings which would allow him to provide information without
taking a position on any of the proposed bills.  Unfortunately no board
member provided a second on this motion so we could have additional
discussion on this option.  Instead, the board voted to endorse the
TEC/Swinford bill with my vote as the only one in opposition.

There are many other reasons that I object to the TEC/Swinford bill.  In
addition to the substance of the legislation, the board's vote on Tuesday to
support the TEC/Swinford bill contradicted all of the initiatives that we
have undertaken to reform the PEC.  To me, this is probably even more
damaging as it has placed the PEC in opposition to the very reforms we have
adopted.  And we have further alienated the very elected officials who have
publicly stated that the problems at PEC are among their primary concerns
and who have worked with us to advance reforms.   This should be abundantly
clear to anyone who attended the hearings, read the news stories and is
listening to the PEC members who are following these events.

Whatever the outcome of the legislation, we still have a large task ahead of
us to rebuild the PEC image and reputation among the members and our elected
legislators.




-- 
Patrick Cox, Ph.D
512-217-2279

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://103.greenbuilder.com/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20090413/48c56afc/attachment.html>