— from Michael Karp, OPALCO member —
OPALCO’s board and management need to be held accountable by members throughout the service area for the way they have conducted themselves, highlighted by the way current board elections are designed and managed. A recent e-mail sent out on Rock Island letterhead by Rock Island’s Executive Vice-President to its active customer list strongly urged members to elect three candidates currently running for the OPALCO board of directors. Rock Island’s General Manager is also the General Manager of OPALCO and as OPALCO is the sole owner of Rock Island, an internet subsidiary, which was purchased by OPALCO coop member shareholder equity. The Rock Island purchase and OPALCO’s investments in fiber optics and wireless digital communication have had a substantial impact on OPALCO’s finances, and a key job of the new board will be working to straighten out the utility’s challenging financial situation. Rock Island is the recipient of a $7.5 million low-interest loan from OPALCO and Rock Island has exclusive usage of OPALCO’s middle mile fiber optics network.
Additionally, OPALCO has been hosting a series of Board Member Candidate Forums throughout the service area. Unfortunately, and I believe not by accident, these forums are scheduled much after election ballots have been made available. As many members vote as soon as they get a ballot, later forums favor incumbents. There has also not been earlier member exposure to the gerrymandering by-law amendment proposal that if passed would seriously marginalize coop members on islands with smaller populations. Also,the placement of the names of candidates on ballots could be alphabetical or a variety of other options that do not list incumbents first, giving them favoritism. A bias for incumbents does not honor the essence of cooperative elections.
Lastly, there are compelling financial and rate impact issues affecting all of us that are dependent on a board that interacts in a healthy and transparent way with members. Too few OPALCO members actively participate in this member owned cooperative in holding the board and management accountable, ethically and financially. I urge you to do so.
Theresa Haynie for OPALCO: Michael, just to be clear, Rock Island Communications (RIC) pays for their access to the OPALCO fiber-optic backbone. From that point outward, RIC manage the leases for the middle mile segments that are paid for direct
ly by RIC customers.
I’d like to respond to Lopez resident Michael Karp’s comment about the proposed bylaw change. I am the author of the proposed change.
First, I’m not sure what “earlier member exposure” to the bylaw change would have been possible. Let me describe the timeline: I submitted the signed petition containing the proposed bylaw change along with the required number of signatures on Friday the January 29th. I was notified late in the day that same day that the required minimum number of signatures on the petition had been verified by OPALCO as being from members.
The board package for the February 19th board meeting was posted on OPALCO’s web site a couple of days before the meeting, so around twelve business days after I submitted the petition, the petition including the proposed bylaw change was available to the members. It was a discussion topic at the February 19th board meeting (see page 2 of the February 19th board package under Discussion Items – “Member Initiated Bylaw Amendment”).
The language of the proposed bylaw change was shown on page 19 of the February board package and a memo from OPALCO’s attorneys dated February 5th indicating that the petition met the requirements in the bylaws to be considered for an up or down vote by the members is included on page 20 of the February board package.
So, about twelve business days after I submitted the proposed change it was available to all members. Members will have had two months before voting to consider the proposed change. What could have been done differently on OPALCO’s part that would satisfy you?
Second – using the term “gerrymandering” to describe the proposed change is extremely inaccurate. The proposed change does nothing of the kind. Further, to describe it as “seriously marginalizing” members on islands with smaller populations is similarly inaccurate. If the bylaw change is passed, board seats will be reallocated and districts redrawn with the simple goal of having each board seat represent the same number of members. At the end of the reapportionment, every member of OPALCO will still be represented by a board director – not one single member will be disenfranchised.
Under the current system of districting, 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 for every 1,185 members. And Shaw has one for every 345 members! This proposed change does nothing more than to ensure that every member has proportional representation on OPALCO’s board.
I urge OPALCO members to vote YES on the proposed bylaw change. It’s a simple matter of fairness.
Limitation on the use of company facilities to advance a personal agenda is not a simple ethical issue. Rather, it is the result of a policy vacuum in this area that needs to be resolved in some detail (where the devil resides).
Mr. Karp mischaracterizes the ballot measure regarding Board districts as a “gerrymandering by-law amendment proposal that if passed would seriously marginalize coop members on islands with smaller populations.” That is ludicrous. The proposed amendment would CORRECT the unbalanced representation that now exists, with some members having SEVEN TIMES THE VOTING POWER of others. Under the proposed amendment, each member would have the same representation.
After a weekend of discussion with management and the Board (with the exception of the two incumbent candidates who recused themselves) OPALCO is taking the following actions regarding the email sent out by Rock Island on Friday, April 15:
1. Distributed a retraction from Gerry Lawlor, EVP of Rock Island to the same list that received the original email.
2. Published a media release to local papers and news blogs stating the retraction, OPALCO’s stance that the action was unacceptable and a statement of election neutrality. Link: https://www.opalco.com/opalco-rock-island-offer-retraction-confirm-election-neutrality/2016/04/.
3. Establishing an OPALCO policy on election neutrality for OPALCO employees placing clear restrictions on campaign activities and use of company resources. Discussion will begin at the April 21st board meeting on Lopez (Fire Hall @ 8:15 am).
4. The timing of candidate forums for next year will occur closer to the time of ballot distribution.
Reminds me of a dog chasing its tail. I think the partnership has a long way to go to establish credibility. I’ve been asked to support a partnership that wants to charge me $16k to get the backbone, when my neighbors 1/2 mile down the road will be getting it for free. One thing I’ll say is that OPALCO/ROCKISLAND have a lot of nerve saying they are improving the island infrastructure.
OPALCO follows the rule: one member one vote. We all vote for directors from each district. This proposed bylaw change further Balkanizes these islands. Vote No on the OPALCO bylaw change.
Jim, a number of weeks ago we provided a member of your community a model that estimated a cost to you and your neighbors and the price to your home was well below the number you stated above. The model had your address closer to $5k assuming you and your neighbors are will to work together. Also, no one in your HOA had a price of zero. Would love to know where you saw a $16k number?
While every member can vote for every board seat, the existing bylaws specifically say that a director represents a district. To say that “we all vote for directors for each district” is simply a misdirection, a different way of saying “it doesn’t matter”.
Here’s a question that San Juan and Orcas members should ask themselves – if it doesn’t matter, why are Lopez and Shaw members so vehemently encouraging you to vote no? The districts encompassing Lopez and Shaw are substantially over-represented on the board based on the number of members in those districts. San Juan has one board member representing the district for every approximately 2,432 members. Shaw has one board member representing them for every 345 members.
Undoubtedly someone else from Lopez or Shaw will make another comment along the lines of “it doesn’t matter”, “the board already represents everyone”, or “the change isn’t worth serious consideration”. If it doesn’t matter, why are they expending so much energy to try and convince everyone that it doesn’t matter? Because it does matter, and they know it.
At the end of the day, this is about two numbers – 2,432 vs 345.
Giving up the thumb on the scale that Lopez and Shaw have had on the Opalco board seems to scare some of the members from those two districts. I get that. But it’s the fair thing to do. It means equal representation going forward. Vote YES on the bylaw change.
“Meos tam suspicione quam crimine iudico carere oportere…”. – Gaius Julius Caesar
Gerry, your wrong. The HOA was told by the representative that you sent to our HOA meeting, that when OPALCO moved the transformers the people from Buckhorn to Day Lake up RPR would receive the backbone at no cost. Those from Day Lake on through the rest of RPR would have to pay for the backbone. I asked, because we were an HOA made up of mostly off islanders and probably had no chance of getting the HOA to pay the cost of the backbone, what would it cost me. I was told and chart showed that it would cost me $16k to get the backbone to the front of my house. It would cost addition to get the connect from the backbone to my house and even though I paid for the backbone I couldn’t recover any of the cost from people before me that wanted to connect to it. Some deal!!! By the way- this discussion should really be offline.
Wow! Talk about confusion!
Both sides in the bylaw amendment debate are missing the point, evidence of the fierce politization of almost everything OPALCO.
Using Lopez as an example, directors residing on Lopez don’t represent Lopez, and telling people to ignore statements such as “It doesn’t matter” or “the board already represents everyone” (which latter statement is absolutely true) is only a cry to make OPALCO board elections more political than they already are… if that’s possible.
The county and similarly frustrated taxpayers went through protracted litigation involving the very same characteristic of the County Charter: unequal residential districts of candidates with everyone voting for every director, which the courts upheld.
But in fairness to those unhappy with OPALCO’s (and the County’s) current system, there is one factor that opponents mis-characterize as unfair representation. Representation has nothing to do with it.
Shaw’s and Lopez’ board candidates are drawn from far smaller pools than San Juan Island’s pool. This affects not representation, but the opportunity to run for the board. This, I think, is the underlying force impelling the proposed amendment.
The current arrangement, like the County council voting system, places a higher value on seeing that board members are familiar with their respective communities, which are by island, not by mathematical population zones, so that a smaller island’s concerns are not ignored in board policy decisions. We’ve already dealt with this issue in connection with the County Charter. Do OPALCO members have to go through this again?
There has been no shortage of talent from any of the islands, so lack of talent is not a reason to alter any existing residential district for election.
The members will need to decide which is more important: (1) to levelize the opportunity to serve on the board (the US Supreme Court has held that this is not a constitutionally protected right) or (2) to maintain our traditional recognition and respect that each island has distinct power and communications needs and characteristics consistent with each island’s social tempo and flavor.
Which is more important, prospective board membership or broad board representation of the communities served by OPALCO?
Suzanne, I’m glad to see this. I got the original email, but I never got the email retraction that you said was distributed.
as a non-Rockisland subscriber due to being low income, and satisfaction with the service and rates that OrcasOnline provides, I want to know the names of the candidates that Rockisland endorsed. I think the rest of the public has a right to know who Rockisland endorses.