— from Rob Thesman —
If you’re an OPALCO member, you’re being asked to vote up or down on a bylaw change contained in the ballots that are being distributed. While opponents are characterizing the bylaw change as “dangerous,” “unnecessary,” and “irresponsible,” the truth is those people are simply trying to avoid fairness and balance on OPALCO board representation.
You only need to understand the numbers 2,432 and 345 to see the importance of making this change.
The change itself is simple and straightforward, it’s two sentences: “At the end of the existing Article III – Directors, Section 1, General Powers, the following paragraph shall be inserted:
“As soon as practicable and at least once every ten years thereafter, the Board of Directors shall reapportion the number of directors seats attributable to each of the Districts listed in Article III – Directors, Section 2, Qualifications and Tenure, so as to align the representation of cooperative members as closely as possible with the actual number of energy members within each District. Furthermore, from time to time the Board of Directors shall update the boundaries of the above-referenced Districts so as to facilitate the goal of proportionate representation of the members in each of the Districts on the Board of Directors.”
That’s it – two sentences, directing the board to more fairly apportion the board seats.
The separate districts covering San Juan, Orcas and Lopez islands each currently have two directors while the district covering Shaw currently has one director. Looking at the number of members in each of those districts, San Juan Island has one director for every 2,432 members. Orcas has one director for every 1,812 members. But look at Lopez – Lopez has one director for every 1,185 members. And Shaw has one director for every 345 members!
The current system of apportioning directors gives some members more and others less representation due merely to where they live. The proposed bylaw change simply requires that the board fairly apportion the number of directors in each district, and to update the boundaries of each district, as necessary to make the board representation better aligned with the physical location of the co-op members. This does not change the total number of directors.
At the end of the reapportionment, every member of OPALCO will be represented by a board director. The language of the proposed changed disenfranchises not one single member. Board seats will be reallocated and districts will be redrawn with the simple goal of having each board seat represent the same number of members.
Opponents of the proposed change should consider how they will look their fellow county residents in the eye and explain to them that members on certain islands are so wise or special that they should have a disproportionately higher representation on the board than others.
Opponents of the bylaw change argue that no re-apportionment is necessary because all members vote on all directors’ seats. While it’s accurate to say that we all vote on all board seats, the existing bylaws specifically contemplate that directors will “represent” a particular district – it’s a requirement contained in Article III, section 2. But on a more practical level, who do you think “represents” you more, the director you run into at the grocery store or the one from an island you never go to? Does every director have an obligation to look out for the entire co-op? Absolutely, but the idea of representing a particular district is so important that it’s enumerated as one of the requirements to run for a seat on the board.
One of the opponents of the change calls it costly because it will require an independent auditor. This is completely false. There is no requirement in this two sentence change that this redistricting would need to be “audited” before or after implementation and to suggest that is, at best, disingenuous.
Another argument made against the change is the ridiculous statement that that this might require redistricting “every six months”. A plain reading of the proposed change requires that the board calculate whether reapportionment should be done “at least once every ten years” after the initial reapportionment is completed.
In the final analysis, this proposed bylaw change isn’t dangerous, irresponsible, costly or vague. It’s two sentences that attempt to create a more representative balance of members’ opinions on the co-op board. Could it be that the opponents of the proposed change are really against it just because it endangers the overrepresentation they’ve enjoyed in the past?
We members of the co-op exercise our governance in two ways – directly through voting at the annual meeting and indirectly through the actions taken by the directors chosen from each district. The governance exercised by the Directors is far more important in the day-to-day and long-term policy decisions of our co-op. It is a simple matter of fairness that no district should have a disproportionate weight in board representation. I urge you to vote “yes” on the bylaw change.
(Rob Thesman is an OPALCO member and the author of the bylaw change.)
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Rob, To better understand what you envision from this proposed bylaw change, perhaps you would disclose which island you live on, and what you envision as a fair realignment and redistricting.
I live on Lopez, although I think that the determination of whether an idea is fair doesn’t depend on where the idea originates from. The equitable treatment of every co-op member is something that should be important to all of us, irrespective of which island in our community we live on.
The goal of the proposed change is exactly what it says: “to align the representation of cooperative members as closely as possible with the actual number of energy members within each district.” A fair realignment would minimize the existing disparity in the number of co-op members represented by each board member across the districts while ensuring that every co-op member is represented. This can be accomplished through changing the boundaries of the districts and/or changing the number of directors in a district.
I like the idea of redistricting vis-à-vis changing the boundaries to result in equal representation but I would suggest that the number of the directors to remain at 7 and align the membership representation to each one of the seven directors. I haven’t checked your membership numbers but I assume that they are close if not spot on so we have 11,200 members and 7 directors. We will then have about 1600 members per director; this division will then be reexamined every five or ten years.
Tony, the bylaws set the number of directors at seven and that is not altered by this proposed change.
Rob, You didn’t answer my question about what you thought an even distribution would look like, instead you just reiterated the general concept. Concepts may be great, but, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
Let’s take Shaw Island as an example. It has, according to numbers quoted above, 345 members out of a 11,200 member base. Do you envision that Shaw would loose a director and be rolled up into another district, a district that may not care about little ‘ol Shaw? Or do you envision that the Shaw director would only get 0.21 of a vote (345 members / 11,200 members * 7 directors) instead of a whole vote?
Certainly you must have thought out what you considered an equitable alignment. As the person proposing the by-law change I think it would be enlightening to see your personal views.
In the spirit of disclosure, I live on Orcas.
Why wouldn’t the total membership simply be divided into 7 districts after each census update (10 years)?
It looks to me that this proposal would simply ensure the application to Coop elections of what I always thought was a basic premise of democratic elections: one person, one vote, or as close as practical to that.
Jim cites as an example concern that a director wouldn’t care much for “little ‘ole Shaw.” But there are numerous other islands already not represented. Drawing district of roughly proportional members would give every member an identified representative with an equal vote.
As an island county, we have in the past been hobbled by the geographic separations that meant something real in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but no longer have any practical effect given modern communication technologies.
Of course Shaw would be rolled up into another district, as would Waldron and the other non-ferry served islands. We do that with our regular elections. There are easily-obtained programs that take the membership, divide it into districts, and draw the lines for those districts.
I find it quite odd that, in 2016, we have a system that affords members wildly disproportionate representation based on geography. San Juan Island has one director for every 2,432 members; Orcas has one director for every 1,812 members; Lopez has one director for every 1,185 members; and Shaw has one director for every 345 members!
Peg – I agree with your thoughts. The idea of giving partial votes to existing directors would conversely also mean that some directors would get more than one vote – I don’t think such a system would be workable. The idea of having 7 approximately equally sized districts each represented by a single director would be one solution, another would be to retain 4 districts with the current number of directors and redraw the boundaries so that the population in each district was proportional to the directors representing the district would also achieve the same goal. There are undoubtedly other approaches that the board would discuss if the bylaw change is passed.
All of that said, the language in the bylaw change is outcome-based (a goal of proportional representation) and not process-based (the realignment must be done a certain exact way). This reflects existing tone in the language in the bylaws in how the board manages the co-op.
I doubt there is anything straightforward about this by-law proposal. That is because its most public proponent was Gerry Lawlor, vice-president of Rock Island Communications, OPALCO’s Struggling Internet business. In seeking support for the proposal, Lawlor said the change was essential to the long-term sustainability of Rock Island and OPALCO. He didn’t explain why, but one might assume he wants to be sure the board is dominated by islands that have benefitted from the subsidies paid by all members, including many who will see little, if any, benefits.
The problem isn’t how the board positions are distributed. It is the quality of the members themselves and their commitment — or lack thereof — to open, honest and accountable leadership.
Alex–I agree with almost everything you have posted over the years on a wide variety of topics, but am puzzled by your feeling that this is not a straightforward proposal. It matters not who proposed it or who supports it–it is at bottom action to make the representation of co-op members equal, as opposed to the distorted system that we have now. It should have no effect one way or the other on the current broadband controversy. It is not about “islands”–it’s about members. I see no reason why a Shaw member’s vote should have many times the value of an Orcas member’s, for example.
I haven’t read the by laws, but I did look at the ballot. It appears that I get to vote for each director regardless of their residence. Thus, each director represents the entire membership and not the residents of a given geographical boundary.
I recently took advantage of this fact to correspond with a board member that I thought could better address an issue than the member who lives on the same island I do. While the results were not what I had hoped, that option was open to me. It doesn’t look to me as though this amendment would change much whether or not it passes.
I am a Shaw resident. I suppose that the laws of chance would have it that I might cross paths with “my” board member more than the typical Orcas resident might informally meet “their” board member. In actuality, that seldom happens. Even if it did, it seems a small advantage. If I had a pressing issue, I could make an appointment or attend a board meeting.
My view is that we want the best board we can find among this highly talented population, regardless of where they call home. Perhaps it is time to remove the geographical consideration entirely.