— by Alex MacLeod —
There are some things worth thinking about as we cast ballots in the next few weeks for the three open positions on the OPALCO Board of Directors.
The first are the 25-30% rate increases the board has approved since OPALCO decided to enter the Internet/broadband business,
Another is the way the board and management have shed the values of a cooperative in favor of those of a for-profit corporation (which, of course, its wholly-owned Rock Island Communications is). And it has done so while raising our electric bills to cover its expenses and debts, something only an electric monopoly could do.
It used to be that when OPALCO board elections came along all we had to do was find the word “incumbent” behind a name and vote. That was because OPALCO was well run, kept its finances healthy, the power on and answered members’ questions openly and honestly.
But last year the membership began the process of reclaiming our coop by unseating the incumbent board president who led the board into soaring debt, abusive rate hikes and diminishing transparency.
Now is the time to continue the job we began last year and unseat the two incumbents up for election. We have four new candidates who are smart, experienced people who understand that a new culture of fiscal responsibility, transparency and stewardship is crucial and can’t occur with the incumbent board members in place.
In addition to the huge rate increases to pay for things unrelated to electricity consider some of the other board actions taken over the past few years as it has shed its cooperative values:
— Authorized its lawyer to threaten legal action against a former director if he talked about his reasons for resigning from the board, and against a sitting county council member for implying OPALCO was managing its financial books to hide much of its broadband costs (which, it should be noted, is true).
— Established a rule that gags directors from publicly expressing differences once the board has approved an action, allowing only the fact of a negative vote to appear in the board’s meeting minutes, not the reasons behind it.
— Installing LTE and cell towers —equipped exclusively with T-Mobile antennas — throughout the county without getting permits, and flatly refusing to tell its members where the majority of those poles — located on private land — are being installed. (The county, for its part, so far as let this happen despite rules that clearly say permits — including public notice prior to installation — are required.)
— Effectively ended the tradition of allowing members to ask questions directly of management and the board at its annual meeting. The board says it will return to that later this month, but it said the same thing a year ago and it didn’t happen.
The question in this election is whether OPALCO can regain its proud history as a real cooperative that respects its owner-members enough to deal with them openly and honestly. For that to happen, the board needs new blood. Four qualified candidates stand ready to serve. We have the chance to elect three of them. Your ballot is in your mailbox this week. Let’s get a new team working. Vote today.
(Alex MacLeod is a longtime OPALCO member who lives on Shaw.)
I concur with the concerns expressed by Alex MacLeod. I ran for a position on the OPALCO Board one year ago, specifically to provide a “new face” who would ask difficult questions as a representative of the Co-Op’s members. I finished forth in the voting, a sobering rejection by the members who missed an opportunity to begin the turnover necessary to get OPALCO back to being a co-operative of the membership.
For a year or more, the Board and administration of OPALCO have been “circling the wagons” as numerous questions have been asked that would allow the members a better understanding of the “Grand Plan” going forward.
OPALCO’s operations are very complex and difficult for the average member to follow. Regrettably, there has been precious little effort to explain those complexities. During a conversation with the General Manager a short while ago, it was made apparent that the success of the Rock Island venture was critical to the financial health of the Co-Op. Rock Island was projected to yield a positive net return to the Power Co. by 2017. An update on that projection at the annual meeting would be an important discussion.
Given the propensity of the OPALCO management to “circle the wagons”, it would be a sound strategy for every member to vote for a qualified candidate who is NOT an incumbent. I will certainly do so.
P.S. I offer kudos to Board member Winnie Adams for hosting two meetings on Orcas recently where she made a commendable effort at explaining OPALCO’s recent actions. To my recollection, no other member has done that in recent memory.
At its March Meeting, the OPALCO Board agreed it would hold an open annual meeting and answer questions directly from the floor, unfiltered by staff members. Winnie Adams confirmed that intention at one of the gatherings Ed Sutton mentions above. I certainly hope the Board and officers live up to these commitments, and I will do my best to hold them to it. No more Dog and Pony Show!
Cooperatives may be communities, but they are primarily businesses. If they fail at being a business, it doesn’t matter how successful the community was; it’s gone. I have seen cooperatives of many kinds over more than 50 years of law practice. Those cooperatives that put member opinion first, failed. Business is not for romantics, and election of people to any business board on the basis of philosophy is the worst possible business decision to make.
The incorporation of Rockisland’s functions into OPALCO’s operations is necessary for OPALCO’s future operational model. “Changing OPALCO’s course” by political revolution is not a business model. As a practical matter, the Rockisland acquisition is not reversible without huge losses to OPALCO and the additional loss of future income, which is not the only feature of Rockisland needed to ensure OPALCO’s success.
Full control over its internet system for future system requirements will give OPALCO control and flexibility that will help avoid falling (or rising) into Tier 2 rates, and steer clear of higher rate tiers under the next BPA contract.
Members would have every right to be disappointed and angry if OPALCO arrived at the juncture of need for this level of control, unready, ill equipped, and thinking of itself as the 1937 electric company it was when it started.
OPALCO cannot go back to a simpler age and none of us can either. OPALCO’s board has recognized and accepted the future. We’re all going there anyway. There’s no going back.
You’re watching an electric utility undergo a necessary metamorphosis that virtually every other electric utility has had to undergo or like OPALCO is undergoing. Nothing in the middle of metamorphosis looks attractive.
Whatever talents the current candidates may have, it is vital for everyone that the most competent in matters concerning OPALCO’s future be elected to the board.
I would suggest, Bill Appel, that even though OPALCO is a COOPERATIVE, the Board finalized the deal with Rockisland before informing the COOP members; this leaves a large hole in the “Integrity” department. Of course COOP members no longer trust the Board to oversee the COOP’s business!
OPALCO was successful for 70 years or so,as a Member Run COOP until some Board Members decided to run it like a Big Business, expand, merge, run roughshod over the majority of the people’s desires in order to satisfy the desires of the Nouveau Riche with high speed Internet to their many acre Compounds in the Island’s Hinterlands no matter the costs to other Members. Many in the Business Community have been advertising on the East coast to bring people here who want to work at home with High Speed Internet at their fingertips.
Unfortunately, the Business Models you speak of are at the cost to the Majority of Islanders who will bear the brunt of the costs AND BLUNDERS of the Board that wasn’t satisfied with being a “Big Fish In A Little Pond”!
Furthermore, there is the Big Question of “What are the effects of the Electromagnetic Fields that are a part of this technology expansion. The EMF will only increase exponentially; they will be everywhere in the Islands!
Worldwide, respected Scientists studying this Unseen form of pollution are sounding alarm bells. And yet, in the San Juan Islands some are welcoming an unseen, toxic form of cancer causing technology. Those harmless looking, hidden towers are Not Harmless to your health nor is OPALCO’s Business Model!
Spirit Eagle
Bill Appel makes a powerful and coherent argument in support of OPALCO’s Board and management and the need for a cooperative to be run as a business…I quite agree, and, would add to it by noting that a cooperative’s members are akin to the customers and shareholders of a corporation. I say “akin” because, there are, of course, differences…especially when the core business is a monopoly. Consider also that when a corporation makes a major acquisition, it generally gets shareholder approval before proceeding.
But any business which fails to address the concerns of its customers and shareholders will not be long for this world.
Think of the advantages which accrue to any business which has the full support and loyalty of its customers and shareholders…one would think that management would always strive to ensure that this exists.
After having read about seemingly legitimate concerns of OPALCO members with extensive experience in the technology and financing of electrical power distribution and telecommunications, I attended several Board meetings and ultimately proposed to convene a consensus process to engage the question as to…
“how the membership can support OPALCO so that it can meet the multiple challenges of looming capital expenditures and evolving technologies in a changing world, as well as meet its fiduciary responsibilities to steward member-owned assets; and to draft a statement of that consensus to be published and shared with the membership at large.”
The 3 page proposal detailed a process similar to that which was used to bring the Orcas community together to successfully resolve many outstanding issues on funding essential capital improvements for our public schools.
The OPALCO Board’s response to this initiative was clear and unequivocal, total silence. No discussion, no ifs, and’s or but’s…zip…nada.
I for one will be voting for new blood on the OPALCO Board, and look forward to seeing a Board committed to rebuilding the trust of its membership to its traditionally high level…something which I believe would be an excellent business decision.
Thank you, Alex McLeod, for voicing what is in many of our minds.
A three-part question that I’ve asked before is this:
a) if a car can hit a fiber optics pole somewhere in Anacortes and knock out our communications for a day or more, or many hours in the middle of a business day where we NEED communication (thus affecting even those of us who will never be able to afford OPALCO’s telecommunications infrastructure, but are using a server dependent on it), when will the vulnerabilities of this flawed system be fixed now, or in the future? (the answer I’ve received so far is that there’s nothing that can be done about these vulnerabilities; it’s just how it is. REally? And we members/stakeholders never got a chance to agree or disagree with this technology – we had no voice in the decision-making.
b) How will these vulnerable poles be protected from being hit by more cars – or worse, sabotaged by terrorists or people of purposeful ill intent, if they are that visible and vulnerable to damage from a car?
c) What are the health risks of the fiber poles going up everywhere, with no disclosure to the Public on where and what direction they face, and what will be beaming to them, from what direction? What frequency bands will they be generating? MHz? GHz? THz? Numbers, please. What distances and exposure levels (daily, ie) are considered cumulatively harmful to people and wildlife, in studies of health effects? Have these studies been done here? WIll certain populations receive more of the frequency directional “beams” from these poles than others? Which populations, in what parts of the islands? Eastsound, I expect? (maps, please, showing vulnerable populations.)
I would like the manager’s and board members’ (and candidates’) answers on these, please.
@ Bill Appell’s comment stating, “business is not for romantics” – Is it then simply a “romantic” notion that I don’t think it right that my average summertime bill climbed from approximately $45 to close to $70 – over 50 % raise in my bill?
I’m going to vote with my “romantic notions” for the candidates who will address the income disparity on these islands with much fairer sliding-scale rates that reward conservation, and make it possible for low-middle class to lowest incomes to pay for basic electricity – lights, heat, cooking. (mean income is over $50,000 a year.) I don’t know any workers who make even close to mean income. I’m eager to hear of contingency plans for addressing the issues and questions presented.