[Watchdogs] The irrational issuance of checks
alfred stlouis
stlouis_98 at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 2 14:50:16 CST 2009
I agree it is senseless to issue checks rather than simply crediting each member's account.
The bottom line is the monthly bill for electricity. I would like to see mine go down! I already think I am paying too much for the cost of service ($22.50 per month), and this bloated fee exceeds my electic usage bill during mild weather (Oct to April).
Is this just another example of executive grandstanding, much like the highly touted My Use software program? Sounds like a selling point, simply to distract the membership from the bloated costs and the overpaid management. Al
> From: watchdogs-request at pec4u.org
> Subject: Watchdogs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 2
> To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:10:49 -0600
>
> Send Watchdogs mailing list submissions to
> watchdogs at pec4u.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> watchdogs-request at pec4u.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> watchdogs-owner at pec4u.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Watchdogs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page B-2,
> Utility to issue Member's checks (Paul Langston)
> 2. Re: Charity donation? in Statesman (Pat Scott)
> 3. Re: news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page
> B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks (Bob Wittmeyer)
> 4. Re: news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page
> B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks (Milton Hawkins)
> 5. Re: PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page B-7,
> PHILANTHROPY (Paul Langston)
> 6. Re: Charity donation? in Statesman (Paul Langston)
> 7. Sending out checks for $1.01 and paying $1.50 for post and
> handling (Paul Langston)
> 8. Re: Sending out checks for $1.01 and paying $1.50 for post
> and handling (Milton Hawkins)
> 9. Re: news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page
> B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks (Bill Christensen)
> 10. Re: Sending out checks for $1.01 and paying $1.50 for post
> and handling (Bill Christensen)
> 11. Re: Hybrid Single-member and At-Large Board of Directors
> (Merle L. Moden)
> 12. Re: Hybrid Single-member and At-Large Board of Directors
> (Merle L. Moden)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:43:37 -0600
> From: "Paul Langston" <langston at zeecon.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman,
> 10-31-09, Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
> To: "PEC Watchdogs" <Watchdogs at PEC4u.org>, "\"Juan Garza\""
> <juan.garza at peci.com>, "\"Renee Oelschleger\""
> <renee.oelschleger at peci.com>
> Message-ID: <4CC49C97184D44049B7140B15988DBD8 at langston>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
>
> PEC is going to issue up to $4 million in dividend-like payments to eligible members, with many receiving the money in the form of a check..for the first time.
>
> My opinion: It took a lawsuit, lots of time and effort of the Member-Owners to extract these Capital Credits. The management of PEC simply held on to these Capital Credits for ever-so-many years BECAUSE the king-fish said that they needed the money more than we did. They paid no interest.
>
> Question, couldn't you save a bundle of our money by simply crediting our monthly accounts? The postage alone will be $80,000 to send out these checks. The office overhead to send out these checks will be more than $50,000.
>
> The article in the Statesman ends with," The Co-op also said that its Board (of Directors] put a three- year contract in place for Garza that will run through 2012."
>
> Opinion: I must have missed that Board meeting. Pretty important stuff. Maybe the decision was made out in the middle of that cow patch at mid-night.
>
> For a long time, I have complained about our Mr. Garza working under a contract that was lovingly fashioned by Bennie R. Fuelburg Jr. and his platoons of PEC-paid lawyers.
> I am sure that Mr. Bud Burnett and his Board of appointed Directors had feed into that contract of Mr. Garza.
> I have never thought that Mr. Garza was anything like free to do his job to his ability. Rather, he was severely constrained by that Contract, the written part, the added-on side agreements and the secret verbal asides.
> I an so happy to hear that Mr. Garza is at last free to work solely for the Owner-Members of PEC.
>
> We owe a big thanks to the new-elected members of the Board.
>
> Sincerely, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/b190d5c8/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:26:31 -0800 (PST)
> From: Pat Scott <sanleanna at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Charity donation? in Statesman
> To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Message-ID: <345323.60286.qm at web112019.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thanks Paul, I was wondering that myself - is it from the employees, or we owner/rate payers?
> Pat Scott
> District 7
>
>
> Pat Scott(semi retired)
> The Earth Is Full - Go Home.
>
> --- On Sun, 11/1/09, watchdogs-request at pec4u.org <watchdogs-request at pec4u.org> wrote:
>
>
> From: watchdogs-request at pec4u.org <watchdogs-request at pec4u.org>
> Subject: Watchdogs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 1
> To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 12:00 PM
>
>
> Send Watchdogs mailing list submissions to
> ??? watchdogs at pec4u.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> ??? http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ??? watchdogs-request at pec4u.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ??? watchdogs-owner at pec4u.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Watchdogs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> ???1. PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page B-7,??? PHILANTHROPY
> ? ? ? (Paul Langston)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:39:11 -0600
> From: "Paul Langston" <langston at zeecon.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page B-7,
> ??? PHILANTHROPY
> To: "PEC Watchdogs" <Watchdogs at PEC4u.org>,??? "\"Juan Garza\""
> ??? <juan.garza at peci.com>,??? "\"Renee Oelschleger\""
> ??? <renee.oelschleger at peci.com>
> Message-ID: <4942778712484A908DC6A85E1D4B8BAF at langston>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> A lot of you may not take the Statesman.? I thought this article was thought provoking.
>
> The article says that PEC raised $55,000 for the American Heart Association.? The Co-op raised more than any other any other company for this year's Austin Start Heart Walk.?
>
> The Co-op's General Manager Juan Garza will serve as the event's co-chairman next year.
>
> My Opinion:?
>
> I would really hope that none of the $55,000 came out of the PEC coffer.? PEC gives away millions of dollars every year, without asking the Member-Owners for permission nor direction.
>
> ? I really thought that Mr. Garza had enough to keep him busy.
> The mess at PEC is going to take a full time effort from Mr. Garza.
>
> Sincerely,? ? ???Hollis P. Langston? ? 830-598-1322
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/77b62411/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>
>
> End of Watchdogs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 1
> ****************************************
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/3234e4fc/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:20:35 -0500
> From: "Bob Wittmeyer" <bwittmeyer at longhornpower.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman,
> 10-31-09, Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
> To: Watchdogs at PEC4u.org,juan.garza at peci.com,
> renee.oelschleger at peci.com,langston at zeecon.com
> Message-ID: <20091101162035.1700 at web005.roc2.bluetie.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> "Question, couldn't you save a bundle of our money by simply crediting our monthly accounts? The postage alone will be $80,000 to send out these checks. The office overhead to send out these checks will be more than $50,000."
> Paul I have to disagree with you on this one. While you are right in that it would probably be cheaper just credit the bills, it does not have the same effect as receiving a check in the mail.
> When I asked my friends and neighbors last year about the credit we received for the first time, most did not even realize we got a credit. Most people it would appear, just read the bottom line and mail a check without ever reading the details.
> I am fully supportive of mailing check even though it costs a little more. I think it will cause the average Member/Owner to stop and think about why they got a check, and what it means to be a member/owner of a Coop. After all isn't that primarily how thing went wrong, members/owners not understanding what it meant to be a coop owner and not holding management accountable.
> I am happy to pay my share to mail those checks out, and educate my fellow members/owners.
> I think PEC got this one right.
> Bob Wittmeyer
> 512 762 8895
>
>
>
>
>
> riginal Message-----
> From: "Paul Langston" [langston at zeecon.com]
> Date: 11/01/2009 12:44 PM
> To: "PEC Watchdogs" , ""Juan Garza"" , ""Renee Oelschleger""
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
>
>
>
>
> PEC is going to issue up to $4 million in dividend-like payments to eligible members, with many receiving the money in the form of a check..for the first time.
>
> My opinion: It took a lawsuit, lots of time and effort of the Member-Owners to extract these Capital Credits. The management of PEC simply held on to these Capital Credits for ever-so-many years BECAUSE the king-fish said that they needed the money more than we did. They paid no interest.
>
> Question, couldn't you save a bundle of our money by simply crediting our monthly accounts? The postage alone will be $80,000 to send out these checks. The office overhead to send out these checks will be more than $50,000.
>
> The article in the Statesman ends with," The Co-op also said that its Board (of Directors] put a three- year contract in place for Garza that will run through 2012."
>
> Opinion: I must have missed that Board meeting. Pretty important stuff. Maybe the decision was made out in the middle of that cow patch at mid-night.
>
> For a long time, I have complained about our Mr. Garza working under a contract that was lovingly fashioned by Bennie R. Fuelburg Jr. and his platoons of PEC-paid lawyers.
> I am sure that Mr. Bud Burnett and his Board of appointed Directors had feed into that contract of Mr. Garza.
> I have never thought that Mr. Garza was anything like free to do his job to his ability. Rather, he was severely constrained by that Contract, the written part, the added-on side agreements and the secret verbal asides.
> I an so happy to hear that Mr. Garza is at last free to work solely for the Owner-Members of PEC.
>
> We owe a big thanks to the new-elected members of the Board.
>
> Sincerely, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/16b75158/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:57:44 -0600
> From: "Milton Hawkins" <mhawkins at tstar.net>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman,
> 10-31-09, Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
> To: "'Paul Langston'" <langston at zeecon.com>, "'PEC Watchdogs'"
> <Watchdogs at pec4u.org>
> Message-ID: <007201ca5b3e$6dccaab0$49660010$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> You are correct about the possibility (gone now, of course) of saving "a
> bundle of our money by simply crediting our monthly accounts." In an answer
> to questioning by Director James Williams, Mr. Garza stated that it will
> cost $1.50 per check to issue these checks. At, say, 220,000 meters, @
> $1.50 per meter, that's a cost of $330,000 to send out $4 million in checks,
> some of which could be for as little as $1.01. (The figure $300,000 was
> used at the Board meeting.)
>
>
>
> Any way you cut it, that's a pretty expensive way to distribute money.
>
>
>
> Milton
>
>
>
> PS: Here's the Statesman article you reference, based on a PEC press
> release:
>
>
>
> PEDERNALES ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
>
> Utility to issue members checks
>
> The Pedernales Electric Cooperative said that it will issue up to $4 million
> in dividend-like payments to eligible members, with many receiving the money
> in the form of a check for the first time.
>
> Any member with a credit of more than $1 will get a check rather than a
> credit, which the co-op issued the past two years the program has been in
> place. Payments will go out in November.
>
> "By deciding to distribute capital credits in the form of a check, we are
> trying to give our membership tangible evidence of their financial
> participation in PEC," General Manager Juan Garza said after a special co-op
> board meeting to approve the move.
>
> The co-op, the largest member-owned utility in the country, began its
> capital credit program in 2007 to address member concerns that the co-op
> should have been issuing the payments in the past, as most other such
> utilities do.
>
> The co-op also said that its board put a three-year contract in place for
> Garza that will run through 2012.
>
> http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/31/1031ro
> undup.html
>
>
>
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Langston
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: PEC Watchdogs; "Juan Garza"; "Renee Oelschleger"
> Subject: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page
> B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PEC is going to issue up to $4 million in dividend-like payments to eligible
> members, with many receiving the money in the form of a check..for the first
> time.
>
>
>
> My opinion: It took a lawsuit, lots of time and effort of the Member-Owners
> to extract these Capital Credits. The management of PEC simply held on to
> these Capital Credits for ever-so-many years BECAUSE the king-fish said
> that they needed the money more than we did. They paid no interest.
>
>
>
> Question, couldn't you save a bundle of our money by simply crediting our
> monthly accounts? The postage alone will be $80,000 to send out these
> checks. The office overhead to send out these checks will be more than
> $50,000.
>
>
>
> The article in the Statesman ends with," The Co-op also said that its Board
> (of Directors] put a three- year contract in place for Garza that will run
> through 2012."
>
>
>
> Opinion: I must have missed that Board meeting. Pretty important stuff.
> Maybe the decision was made out in the middle of that cow patch at
> mid-night.
>
>
>
> For a long time, I have complained about our Mr. Garza working under a
> contract that was lovingly fashioned by Bennie R. Fuelburg Jr. and his
> platoons of PEC-paid lawyers.
>
> I am sure that Mr. Bud Burnett and his Board of appointed Directors had feed
> into that contract of Mr. Garza.
>
> I have never thought that Mr. Garza was anything like free to do his job to
> his ability. Rather, he was severely constrained by that Contract, the
> written part, the added-on side agreements and the secret verbal asides.
>
> I an so happy to hear that Mr. Garza is at last free to work solely for the
> Owner-Members of PEC.
>
>
>
> We owe a big thanks to the new-elected members of the Board.
>
>
>
> Sincerely, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09
> 07:38:00
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/6b482e67/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:16:12 -0600
> From: "Paul Langston" <langston at zeecon.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page
> B-7, PHILANTHROPY
> To: "richardviktorin" <richardviktorin at sbcglobal.net>, "PEC Watchdogs"
> <Watchdogs at PEC4u.org>, "\"Juan Garza\"" <juan.garza at peci.com>,
> "\"Renee Oelschleger\"" <renee.oelschleger at peci.com>
> Message-ID: <95224BF9464647F083E7B48E03F30201 at langston>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> Dear Richard: I appreciate your interest. You will note that I sent that letter to Mr. Garza and the question was: Was any PEC money in that $55,000 contribution?
>
> I see Mr. Garza as such a gentle man that he would never put the squeeze on any of his PEC people to reach his Heart Assoc. goal. I do see him as a man who would simply throw in some PEC money since there is just SO MUCH of it laying around.
>
> I do not agree that it is a good thing that Mr. Garza is leading this community effort. Mr. Garza had a platter load of work that is pending here in Johnson City.
>
> If PEC was running on all four cylinders, well maybe. But, Richard, PEC is in a pitiful shape, and I see Mr. Garza running at least a year behind in his responsibilities as the Manager of PEC.
>
> I would like to see just one example of PEC saving some money on one sole item instead of just throwing our money at it.
>
> Regards, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: richardviktorin
> To: 'Paul Langston'
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [Watchdogs] PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page B-7,PHILANTHROPY
>
>
> Hollis,
>
>
>
> Richard Viktorin here..I have a public interest consultancy, Audits in the Public Interest. During the last two years, when appropriate, we have weighed in on various matters affecting the cause and resolution of the mess at PEC.
>
>
>
> Thank you for this..this is grass roots information about mechanisms of influence crossing the world of philanthropy.
>
>
>
> It is great that Garza is leading this community effort..but, if the mechanism involves "team player' coercion of PEC employees to donate or participate, or an unfair or disproportionate allocation out of PEC general giving, whether employee or otherwise, and this is the result of Juan Garza's position as General Manager...well that is nothing more than Garza featherbedding his resume and community service on the back of PEC employees and rate payers.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the "window in" that your email afforded. It would be interesting to know if PEC was the number one giver to this event in prior years..or even #2, or #3....worse yet in support of your point, #63rd.
>
>
>
> Richard Viktorin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On Behalf Of Paul Langston
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 11:39 AM
> To: PEC Watchdogs; "Juan Garza"; "Renee Oelschleger"
> Subject: [Watchdogs] PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page B-7,PHILANTHROPY
>
>
>
> A lot of you may not take the Statesman. I thought this article was thought provoking.
>
>
>
> The article says that PEC raised $55,000 for the American Heart Association. The Co-op raised more than any other any other company for this year's Austin Start Heart Walk.
>
>
>
> The Co-op's General Manager Juan Garza will serve as the event's co-chairman next year.
>
>
>
> My Opinion:
>
>
>
> I would really hope that none of the $55,000 came out of the PEC coffer. PEC gives away millions of dollars every year, without asking the Member-Owners for permission nor direction.
>
>
>
> I really thought that Mr. Garza had enough to keep him busy.
>
> The mess at PEC is going to take a full time effort from Mr. Garza.
>
>
>
> Sincerely, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09 07:38:00
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/27536899/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:30:45 -0600
> From: "Paul Langston" <langston at zeecon.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Charity donation? in Statesman
> To: "Pat Scott" <sanleanna at yahoo.com>, "PEC Watchdogs"
> <Watchdogs at PEC4u.org>
> Message-ID: <A03D19D189534D44B5512E95AB4E1A0E at langston>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> Thanks Pat: I suppose that officially the money came from eager donors around Johnson City with just a tad of loose change from the PEC employees. If the money came from PEC, we will probably never know. Many of the monies spent by PEC will be tucked away in the "stationary expenses" account.
> Let's hope we get solid assurance that the Heart Assoc. money was freely donated outside of PEC.
>
> Regards, Hollis (Paul ) Langston
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pat Scott
> To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 2:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Charity donation? in Statesman
>
>
> Thanks Paul, I was wondering that myself - is it from the employees, or we owner/rate payers?
> Pat Scott
> District 7
>
>
> Pat Scott(semi retired)
> The Earth Is Full - Go Home.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 11/1/09, watchdogs-request at pec4u.org <watchdogs-request at pec4u.org> wrote:
>
>
> From: watchdogs-request at pec4u.org <watchdogs-request at pec4u.org>
> Subject: Watchdogs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 1
> To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 12:00 PM
>
>
> Send Watchdogs mailing list submissions to
> watchdogs at pec4u.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> watchdogs-request at pec4u.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> watchdogs-owner at pec4u.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Watchdogs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page B-7, PHILANTHROPY
> (Paul Langston)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:39:11 -0600
> From: "Paul Langston" <langston at zeecon.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] PEC news, Austin Statesman, 10-29-09, Page B-7,
> PHILANTHROPY
> To: "PEC Watchdogs" <Watchdogs at PEC4u.org>, "\"Juan Garza\""
> <juan.garza at peci.com>, "\"Renee Oelschleger\""
> <renee.oelschleger at peci.com>
> Message-ID: <4942778712484A908DC6A85E1D4B8BAF at langston>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> A lot of you may not take the Statesman. I thought this article was thought provoking.
>
> The article says that PEC raised $55,000 for the American Heart Association. The Co-op raised more than any other any other company for this year's Austin Start Heart Walk.
>
> The Co-op's General Manager Juan Garza will serve as the event's co-chairman next year.
>
> My Opinion:
>
> I would really hope that none of the $55,000 came out of the PEC coffer. PEC gives away millions of dollars every year, without asking the Member-Owners for permission nor direction.
>
> I really thought that Mr. Garza had enough to keep him busy.
> The mess at PEC is going to take a full time effort from Mr. Garza.
>
> Sincerely, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/77b62411/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>
>
> End of Watchdogs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 1
> ****************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09 07:38:00
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/18b48215/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:37:35 -0600
> From: "Paul Langston" <langston at zeecon.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] Sending out checks for $1.01 and paying $1.50 for
> post and handling
> To: "Milton Hawkins" <mhawkins at tstar.net>, "'PEC Watchdogs'"
> <Watchdogs at pec4u.org>, "\"Juan Garza\"" <juan.garga at peci.com>,
> "\"Renee Oelschleger\"" <renee.oelschleger at peci.com>
> Message-ID: <3D6CBF79D0CA43F0B5639EA6CC3FEBAC at langston>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>
> Dear Milton: With all due respect to Mr. Garza and his estimate of $1.50 to send out each check......I do not think that PEC has developed any accounting system to actually know what it costs to send out checks to the Owners. I sincerely doubt that PEC has developed any accounting system to KNOW what anything costs.
>
> Ok, let's say for a minute that $1.50 is a correct figure to mail out a check. Then they send out about 150,000 letters to those lucky souls, like me, for example, with a promise to send me $46.37 for my 2008 allocation. That letter of Oct.19, 2009 was another item of expense of about $225,000.
>
> OK, I get back $46.37 It has cost $3.00, so far in postage and handling. That is 12 percent of my returned money. All for educating me as to the "Financial Participation"
> of PEC. Gee, Thanks a bunch Mr. Garza.
>
> There is going to bunch of happy fellows who get a check for about $1.01 and it cost $3.00 to send it to them. Some of you watchdogs may have already gotten that letter of Oct. 19, 2009 telling you that you will be getting a check of less than $3.00,,, about equal or less than the cost of mailing it to you.
>
> The PEC "Inner-Circle" just have no financial responsibility and are poor caretakers of our money.
>
> Milton, this way of PEC Management treating us like rather dim boys is tiresome. Every move that PEC Management makes is expensive and convoluted. If they would try, just now and then, to SAVE some money, we would certainly understand and appreciate that.
>
> Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Milton Hawkins
> To: 'Paul Langston' ; 'PEC Watchdogs'
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> You are correct about the possibility (gone now, of course) of saving "a bundle of our money by simply crediting our monthly accounts." In an answer to questioning by Director James Williams, Mr. Garza stated that it will cost $1.50 per check to issue these checks. At, say, 220,000 meters, @ $1.50 per meter, that's a cost of $330,000 to send out $4 million in checks, some of which could be for as little as $1.01. (The figure $300,000 was used at the Board meeting.)
>
>
>
> Any way you cut it, that's a pretty expensive way to distribute money.
>
>
>
> Milton
>
>
>
> PS: Here's the Statesman article you reference, based on a PEC press release:
>
>
>
> PEDERNALES ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
>
> Utility to issue members checks
>
> The Pedernales Electric Cooperative said that it will issue up to $4 million in dividend-like payments to eligible members, with many receiving the money in the form of a check for the first time.
>
> Any member with a credit of more than $1 will get a check rather than a credit, which the co-op issued the past two years the program has been in place. Payments will go out in November.
>
> "By deciding to distribute capital credits in the form of a check, we are trying to give our membership tangible evidence of their financial participation in PEC," General Manager Juan Garza said after a special co-op board meeting to approve the move.
>
> The co-op, the largest member-owned utility in the country, began its capital credit program in 2007 to address member concerns that the co-op should have been issuing the payments in the past, as most other such utilities do.
>
> The co-op also said that its board put a three-year contract in place for Garza that will run through 2012.
>
> http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/31/1031roundup.html
>
>
>
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On Behalf Of Paul Langston
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: PEC Watchdogs; "Juan Garza"; "Renee Oelschleger"
> Subject: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PEC is going to issue up to $4 million in dividend-like payments to eligible members, with many receiving the money in the form of a check..for the first time.
>
>
>
> My opinion: It took a lawsuit, lots of time and effort of the Member-Owners to extract these Capital Credits. The management of PEC simply held on to these Capital Credits for ever-so-many years BECAUSE the king-fish said that they needed the money more than we did. They paid no interest.
>
>
>
> Question, couldn't you save a bundle of our money by simply crediting our monthly accounts? The postage alone will be $80,000 to send out these checks. The office overhead to send out these checks will be more than $50,000.
>
>
>
> The article in the Statesman ends with," The Co-op also said that its Board (of Directors] put a three- year contract in place for Garza that will run through 2012."
>
>
>
> Opinion: I must have missed that Board meeting. Pretty important stuff. Maybe the decision was made out in the middle of that cow patch at mid-night.
>
>
>
> For a long time, I have complained about our Mr. Garza working under a contract that was lovingly fashioned by Bennie R. Fuelburg Jr. and his platoons of PEC-paid lawyers.
>
> I am sure that Mr. Bud Burnett and his Board of appointed Directors had feed into that contract of Mr. Garza.
>
> I have never thought that Mr. Garza was anything like free to do his job to his ability. Rather, he was severely constrained by that Contract, the written part, the added-on side agreements and the secret verbal asides.
>
> I an so happy to hear that Mr. Garza is at last free to work solely for the Owner-Members of PEC.
>
>
>
> We owe a big thanks to the new-elected members of the Board.
>
>
>
> Sincerely, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09 07:38:00
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09 07:38:00
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/4a504141/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:55:13 -0600
> From: "Milton Hawkins" <mhawkins at tstar.net>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Sending out checks for $1.01 and paying $1.50
> for post and handling
> To: "'Paul Langston'" <langston at zeecon.com>, "'PEC Watchdogs'"
> <Watchdogs at pec4u.org>, "'\"Juan Garza\"'" <juan.garga at peci.com>,
> "'\"Renee Oelschleger\"'" <renee.oelschleger at peci.com>
> Cc: 'larry landaker' <larry.landaker at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <00dc01ca5b5f$a1438d20$e3caa760$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I hate to break the news to you, but unless I'm badly mistaken (which I
> could be), you will not be getting a check equal to your 2008 allocation. I
> suspect that it will be for considerably less than that.
>
>
>
> If I am right, the PEC Call Center is in for another round of telephone
> calls from people like you, wondering why they didn't get a check for the
> amount of the 2008 allotment shown in those unfortunate letters.
>
>
>
> As I say, I could be wrong. I'm sure Mr. Garza and his staff will be able
> to sort this out for us.
>
>
>
> I hope I'm wrong, and you get the full amount! Best regards,
>
>
>
> Milton
>
>
>
> From: Paul Langston [mailto:langston at zeecon.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:38 PM
> To: Milton Hawkins; 'PEC Watchdogs'; "Juan Garza"; "Renee Oelschleger"
> Cc: Paul Langston
> Subject: Sending out checks for $1.01 and paying $1.50 for post and handling
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Milton: With all due respect to Mr. Garza and his estimate of $1.50 to
> send out each check......I do not think that PEC has developed any
> accounting system to actually know what it costs to send out checks to the
> Owners. I sincerely doubt that PEC has developed any accounting system to
> KNOW what anything costs.
>
>
>
> Ok, let's say for a minute that $1.50 is a correct figure to mail out a
> check. Then they send out about 150,000 letters to those lucky souls, like
> me, for example, with a promise to send me $46.37 for my 2008 allocation.
> That letter of Oct.19, 2009 was another item of expense of about $225,000.
>
>
>
> OK, I get back $46.37 It has cost $3.00, so far in postage and handling.
> That is 12 percent of my returned money. All for educating me as to the
> "Financial Participation"
>
> of PEC. Gee, Thanks a bunch Mr. Garza.
>
>
>
> There is going to bunch of happy fellows who get a check for about $1.01 and
> it cost $3.00 to send it to them. Some of you watchdogs may have already
> gotten that letter of Oct. 19, 2009 telling you that you will be getting a
> check of less than $3.00,,, about equal or less than the cost of mailing it
> to you.
>
>
>
> The PEC "Inner-Circle" just have no financial responsibility and are poor
> caretakers of our money.
>
>
>
> Milton, this way of PEC Management treating us like rather dim boys is
> tiresome. Every move that PEC Management makes is expensive and
> convoluted. If they would try, just now and then, to SAVE some money, we
> would certainly understand and appreciate that.
>
>
>
> Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Milton Hawkins <mailto:mhawkins at tstar.net>
>
> To: 'Paul Langston' <mailto:langston at zeecon.com> ; 'PEC
> <mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org> Watchdogs'
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:57 PM
>
> Subject: RE: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09,
> Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> You are correct about the possibility (gone now, of course) of saving "a
> bundle of our money by simply crediting our monthly accounts." In an answer
> to questioning by Director James Williams, Mr. Garza stated that it will
> cost $1.50 per check to issue these checks. At, say, 220,000 meters, @
> $1.50 per meter, that's a cost of $330,000 to send out $4 million in checks,
> some of which could be for as little as $1.01. (The figure $300,000 was
> used at the Board meeting.)
>
>
>
> Any way you cut it, that's a pretty expensive way to distribute money.
>
>
>
> Milton
>
>
>
> PS: Here's the Statesman article you reference, based on a PEC press
> release:
>
>
>
> PEDERNALES ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
>
> Utility to issue members checks
>
> The Pedernales Electric Cooperative said that it will issue up to $4 million
> in dividend-like payments to eligible members, with many receiving the money
> in the form of a check for the first time.
>
> Any member with a credit of more than $1 will get a check rather than a
> credit, which the co-op issued the past two years the program has been in
> place. Payments will go out in November.
>
> "By deciding to distribute capital credits in the form of a check, we are
> trying to give our membership tangible evidence of their financial
> participation in PEC," General Manager Juan Garza said after a special co-op
> board meeting to approve the move.
>
> The co-op, the largest member-owned utility in the country, began its
> capital credit program in 2007 to address member concerns that the co-op
> should have been issuing the payments in the past, as most other such
> utilities do.
>
> The co-op also said that its board put a three-year contract in place for
> Garza that will run through 2012.
>
> http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/31/1031ro
> undup.html
>
>
>
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Langston
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: PEC Watchdogs; "Juan Garza"; "Renee Oelschleger"
> Subject: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman, 10-31-09, Page
> B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PEC is going to issue up to $4 million in dividend-like payments to eligible
> members, with many receiving the money in the form of a check..for the first
> time.
>
>
>
> My opinion: It took a lawsuit, lots of time and effort of the Member-Owners
> to extract these Capital Credits. The management of PEC simply held on to
> these Capital Credits for ever-so-many years BECAUSE the king-fish said
> that they needed the money more than we did. They paid no interest.
>
>
>
> Question, couldn't you save a bundle of our money by simply crediting our
> monthly accounts? The postage alone will be $80,000 to send out these
> checks. The office overhead to send out these checks will be more than
> $50,000.
>
>
>
> The article in the Statesman ends with," The Co-op also said that its Board
> (of Directors] put a three- year contract in place for Garza that will run
> through 2012."
>
>
>
> Opinion: I must have missed that Board meeting. Pretty important stuff.
> Maybe the decision was made out in the middle of that cow patch at
> mid-night.
>
>
>
> For a long time, I have complained about our Mr. Garza working under a
> contract that was lovingly fashioned by Bennie R. Fuelburg Jr. and his
> platoons of PEC-paid lawyers.
>
> I am sure that Mr. Bud Burnett and his Board of appointed Directors had feed
> into that contract of Mr. Garza.
>
> I have never thought that Mr. Garza was anything like free to do his job to
> his ability. Rather, he was severely constrained by that Contract, the
> written part, the added-on side agreements and the secret verbal asides.
>
> I an so happy to hear that Mr. Garza is at last free to work solely for the
> Owner-Members of PEC.
>
>
>
> We owe a big thanks to the new-elected members of the Board.
>
>
>
> Sincerely, Hollis P. Langston 830-598-1322
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09
> 07:38:00
>
> _____
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09
> 07:38:00
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.43/2474 - Release Date: 11/01/09
> 07:38:00
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091101/dfa80804/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:04:27 -0500
> From: Bill Christensen <billc_lists at greenbuilder.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] news article, Austin American Statesman,
> 10-31-09, Page B-2, Utility to issue Member's checks
> To: Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Message-ID: <a0623098ac713deef6a8a@[192.168.50.3]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> Good point, Bob.
>
> Though it does cost more - somewhere around $1.50 per check, says
> Milton in the next email - it's good PR for the fact that this IS a
> cooperative, and they ARE members. Better than crediting the account
> and sending a separate letter, which I believe they've also done in
> the past. Getting a check in the mail, even a small one, is a good
> eye-opener, and an opportunity to explain the benefits of a coop and
> the importance of member involvement.
>
> There should probably be a sensible cutoff, of course... maybe $3.00
> or $5.00, at which point it just gets credited.
>
> At 4:20 PM -0500 11/1/09, Bob Wittmeyer wrote:
> >"Question, couldn't you save a bundle of our money by simply
> >crediting our monthly accounts? The postage alone will be $80,000
> >to send out these checks. The office overhead to send out these
> >checks will be more than $50,000."
> >
> >Paul I have to disagree with you on this one. While you are right
> >in that it would probably be cheaper just credit the bills, it does
> >not have the same effect as receiving a check in the mail.
> >
> >When I asked my friends and neighbors last year about the credit we
> >received for the first time, most did not even realize we got a
> >credit. Most people it would appear, just read the bottom line and
> >mail a check without ever reading the details.
> >
> >I am fully supportive of mailing check even though it costs a little
> >more. I think it will cause the average Member/Owner to stop and
> >think about why they got a check, and what it means to be a
> >member/owner of a Coop. After all isn't that primarily how thing
> >went wrong, members/owners not understanding what it meant to be a
> >coop owner and not holding management accountable.
> >
> >I am happy to pay my share to mail those checks out, and educate my
> >fellow members/owners.
> >
> >I think PEC got this one right.
> >
> >Bob Wittmeyer
> >
> >512 762 8895
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bill Christensen
> <http://greenbuilder.com/contact/>
>
> Green Building Professionals Directory: <http://directory.greenbuilder.com>
> Sustainable Building Calendar: <http://Calendar.SustainableSources.com>
> Green Real Estate: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>
> Straw Bale Registry: <http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>
> Books/videos/software: <http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:17:56 -0500
> From: Bill Christensen <billc_lists at greenbuilder.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Sending out checks for $1.01 and paying $1.50
> for post and handling
> To: 'PEC Watchdogs' <Watchdogs at pec4u.org>
> Message-ID: <a0623098bc713e1990a3c@[192.168.50.3]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> I do believe you're right, Milton.
>
> We know that Paul is quite good at conserving energy, so we can
> assume that his Capital Credits contribution of $46.37 was probably
> on the low side of the average.
>
> But even if it was the average, $46.37 spread across 200,000 or so
> members is more than $9 million. And PEC's only allocating $4 mil
> this year, so at the very best you might get around $20.
>
> I think I remember getting around $20 or $25 last year when the
> allocation was higher, and I expect less than that this year.
>
>
>
> At 7:55 PM -0600 11/1/09, Milton Hawkins wrote:
> >
> >I hate to break the news to you, but unless I'm badly mistaken
> >(which I could be), you will not be getting a check equal to your
> >2008 allocation. I suspect that it will be for considerably less
> >than that.
>
> --
> Bill Christensen
> <http://greenbuilder.com/contact/>
>
> Green Building Professionals Directory: <http://directory.greenbuilder.com>
> Sustainable Building Calendar: <http://Calendar.SustainableSources.com>
> Green Real Estate: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>
> Straw Bale Registry: <http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>
> Books/videos/software: <http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:35:59 -0600
> From: "Merle L. Moden" <mlmoden at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Hybrid Single-member and At-Large Board of
> Directors
> To: Milton Hawkins <mhawkins at tstar.net>
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Message-ID: <4AEE458F.9000107 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Milton:
>
> Since the Greeks invented democracy, myriad attempts have been made to
> develop a system that ensures responsive and responsible performance.
> No democratic system has yet been devised to guarantee these purposes,
> since we are dependent upon the humans we elect to ensure such
> outcomes. Wendell Phillips said that "eternal vigilance is the price of
> liberty." I suggest that eternal vigilance and eternal oversight are
> the prices of a responsive and responsible PEC Board and management.
> There is no democratic system or structure that will guarantee good
> performance.
>
> The election of Board members, I believe, must be as close to the
> members as possible. Single-member districts place PEC members in each
> district as close to their elected Board member as practicable.
>
> We elect Board members we believe will represent our best interests, but
> we monitor very closely their performance. Bad performance will,
> hopefully, will result in the election of new Board members. It's a
> lousy system. I, too, harbor the idea that once we solve a problem, its
> solved and we move on. Unfortunately, the forces of self-aggrandizement
> are ever present, and we must maintain our vigilance and oversight to
> meet the constant threat.
>
> Succinctly, I do not believe that the system or structure we use to
> elect Board members will ensure desired outcomes.
>
> Merle
>
> Milton Hawkins wrote:
> > Merle, Carlos, and Others,
> >
> > I'm glad we're having this discussion now, when the issue is before the
> > relevant committee of the Board. You raise some good points that merit
> > careful consideration.
> >
> > I've been thinking about the effect of a pure single-member-district plan on
> > our effort to cut waste and reduce expenses by reducing the number of
> > payment centers spread across the service area. Given the extensive use of
> > contractors, it may be that some additional service facilities could be
> > combined or eliminated as well.
> >
> > Would the "log rolling" that often accompanies "pork" projects designated
> > for or existing in local districts not prevent, or make extremely difficult,
> > the elimination of facilities in districts. I.e., wouldn't the tendency be
> > to protect the local facility regardless of its usefulness or cost, and to
> > make deals to protect one in another director's district in order protect
> > one at home?
> >
> > If the director answered only to the constituents in his or her district,
> > would that person ever be able to take the heat from a vote for closing a
> > local district center? And if a director voted to eliminate a facility in
> > another district, would he or she not be (or think he or she would be)
> > putting a facility at home at risk?
> >
> > Take the most extreme case, the movement of headquarters from Johnson City.
> > Say PEC was flush with cash (which it is not), had little or no debt (it has
> > a lot), urgently needed more office space (we have too many staff people
> > now), could not find capable workers willing to work in the Hill Country
> > (there seems to be no shortage at present), could unload the Johnson City
> > facility quickly and profitably (it's a White Elephant), and could find
> > ideal quarters elsewhere at a bargain price (highly unlikely), assume all
> > this; could an elected District 5 director desiring another term ever vote
> > to move the headquarters from Johnson City? And needing the protective
> > votes of three other directors, would that director ever vote to eliminate a
> > facility in another director's district?
> >
> > I don't know the answers; I do know that this decision about voting
> > districts needs a lot of thoughtful attention. The experience of other
> > cooperatives could be instructive.
> >
> > Milton
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
> > Behalf Of Merle L. Moden
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:51 AM
> > To: PEC Watchdogs
> > Subject: [Watchdogs] Hybrid Single-member and At-Large Board of Directors
> >
> > Watchdogs:
> >
> > There is no perfect system for electing a Board of Directors. Each
> > variant has advantages and disadvantages.
> >
> > I do not support a hybrid system. In cities using such a system the
> > at-large members tend to become accountable to no one. There is a
> > disconnect between at-large members and their responsibilities to their
> > constituents. They become super-members, since they represent,
> > presumably, all the constituents, while the single-member district
> > members represent ONLY those in single-member districts. Experience has
> > shown that when lodging complaints with at-large members, the at-large
> > members tend push the complainants to their single-member district members.
> >
> > I fail to see the wisdom in expanding the Board to more than 7 members.
> >
> > An at-large system of 7 members is preferable to a hybrid system where
> > no member can hide and shunt complaints, and all member have equal status.
> >
> > I will support only a single-member district system.
> >
> > Mr. Merle L. Moden
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09
> > 07:38:00
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:01:41 -0600
> From: "Merle L. Moden" <mlmoden at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Hybrid Single-member and At-Large Board of
> Directors
> To: Carlos Higgins <PECmem at sbcglobal.net>
> Cc: PEC Watchdogs <watchdogs at pec4u.org>
> Message-ID: <4AEE4B95.1030507 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Carlos:
>
> You raise some interesting points about the definition of an "ideal"
> board member. Each Board member brings to the table their own set of
> knowledge, skills, and abilities. I agree that there should be no
> attempt to elect "experts." My ideal member would not necessarily need
> to be a "generalist", but must represent the general interests of all
> PEC members -- not just a particular group. My ideal member would also
> want PEC to perform its duties in a cost-efficient manner and insist on
> fair treatment of PEC members. My ideal member would hold PEC
> management accountable for the execution of all Board policies.
>
> There is no formula to ensure a good Board member. Strong, principled
> people are hard to find.
>
> Merle
>
>
> Carlos Higgins wrote:
> > Merle:
> >
> > I agree with your recommendations on hybrid boards and numbers of board
> > members, with one more consideration.
> >
> > Is is not more important for a Board member to be a "generalist" than have
> > extensive knowledge and experience in one specific facet of the company's
> > operations?
> >
> > What kind of ability and experience goes into making the ideal board member?
> >
> > We obviously have not had a collection of ideal board members at the PEC,
> > and the jury is still out on the current board.
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Merle L. Moden" <mlmoden at gmail.com>
> > To: "PEC Watchdogs" <watchdogs at pec4u.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:50 AM
> > Subject: [Watchdogs] Hybrid Single-member and At-Large Board of Directors
> >
> >
> > Watchdogs:
> >
> > There is no perfect system for electing a Board of Directors. Each
> > variant has advantages and disadvantages.
> >
> > I do not support a hybrid system. In cities using such a system the
> > at-large members tend to become accountable to no one. There is a
> > disconnect between at-large members and their responsibilities to their
> > constituents. They become super-members, since they represent,
> > presumably, all the constituents, while the single-member district
> > members represent ONLY those in single-member districts. Experience has
> > shown that when lodging complaints with at-large members, the at-large
> > members tend push the complainants to their single-member district members.
> >
> > I fail to see the wisdom in expanding the Board to more than 7 members.
> >
> > An at-large system of 7 members is preferable to a hybrid system where
> > no member can hide and shunt complaints, and all member have equal status.
> >
> > I will support only a single-member district system.
> >
> > Mr. Merle L. Moden
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>
>
> End of Watchdogs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 2
> ****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://103.greenbuilder.com/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20091102/12ff9f33/attachment.html>
More information about the Watchdogs
mailing list