— from Alex MacLeod —
Dear OPALCO board members:
I would like to clarify the facts regarding the charge given to the volunteer elections committee.
In his report to you in June, Foster listed the following as the charge to the committee:
- Nominating committee
- Election details and candidate outreach
- Balloting materials
- Candidate forums protocol
- Voting process
Foster’s list followed an April 22 OPALCO press release regarding Rock Island’s blatant step to influence the election. It said “The questions that came up at today’s meeting will be examined, such as: How does the nominating process work? Should OPALCO hold candidate forums? How should incumbents be listed on the ballot? Should the timing of candidate forums be changed?”
It is disingenuous for Foster now to say that the charge to the committee was broad enough to delve into the make-up of the board, and further to expend OPALCO resources promoting those recommendations in member meetings and encouraging the board to hold a special meeting, ahead of the opportunity for member comment, to advance those recommendations.
It puzzles me why you accept having to spend your time cleaning up Foster’s many messes. First, he manages the finances so poorly that a loan covenant is violated, a corrective plan has to be submitted to our lender and the board is forced to raise rates twice in four months to maintain compliance.
Then he stands by as Rock Island, of which he is general manager, sends out an email trying to influence the board election, and then defends that action when challenged. It is only after you apparently made it clear to him that this was unacceptable that he apologized and said it wouldn’t happen again. In the meantime, the credibility of OPALCO was further damaged.
You shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there would have been no need for a member committee to look at the election process had Foster not so badly mismanaged it in the first place. And then he lets the committee run widely off course and subjects the organization, and you, to more questions about actual intent of management and of you — especially in the face of the overwhelming membership rejection of a similar proposal a few months ago.
That you have been so accepting of his mismanagement must explain why he felt it was reasonable for him recently to ask you to raise his salary to $250,000. That you didn’t agree is to your credit; that you haven’t dismissed him is not.
As I have suggested many times over the past three years, and did again at the “open house” on Shaw, the key to restoring the level of trust that OPALCO previously enjoyed from its members is to be honest about the investments OPALCO actually has made in support of its entry into the Internet business and what the impact of those has been on electric rates. If you truly believe this is a smart business venture, as well as an important public-service contribution for the cooperative to make, then defend it honestly. Until you do, you can expect the lack of trust to grow.
Further, advancing the recommended changes in the board make-up in any way — either by acting on them on your own or putting them before the membership this spring — will further erode trust.
Finally, I noted in the last board packet the staff’s request that the board “review” Rock Island’s governance structure. It was bad enough that management presented the board and the membership last spring with Rock Island financial and operating statements that privately had been lowered by about 20% from what had been presented publicly in the 2016 budget process. It is also a bad sign to members that the board has refused to let the membership see Rock Island’s latest business plan, of considerable interest given the significant investment of member dollars and previous plans showing Rock Island becoming the goose that will lay golden eggs of profit for OPALCO. Taking any further steps to cloak Rock Island in secrecy will only further erode membership trust in the board and management, especially when we discover there will be no golden eggs.
I respect that Mr. MacLeod has issues to raise with the OPALCO board.
But attacking individuals personally, questioning OPALCO’s already-made investment in Rock Island and then demanding that Rock Island’s confidential business plan be made public is a truly extraordinary way to conduct membership diplomacy. Disclosure of that plan which would inevitably come to the attention of competitors would destroy one of Rock Island’s most valuable assets. Trust works both ways. Think about it.
Bill,
Who would RI’s competitors be? No other business organization seems to be interested in investing in fiber and internet for the San Juans. Why should not the “owners” of the business (that would be the electric members of OPALCO) not have access to these plans?
Fiber and internet etc are great for the San Juans. My question would be who is going to pay for these services? I would hope RI customers would and the electric customers would not.
And Bill, are you a member of OPALCO?
Alex:
I count at least six (6) personal attacks on Foster Hildreth in your comments above (then again, I may have missed some of the more subtle hits).
I have never met you (personally) but have read a number of your columns – and they all have that ‘mad as hell and angry’ tone to them. Would you be yelling as well if presenting your case in a public meeting?
You may have some legitimate concerns and points of view – but (candidly) I tend to discount them when presented with such horrible energy attached – it appears as if you have a personal agenda.
During the recent public meetings to present and discuss the recommendations of the “elections review committee” of which I was a member, it was apparent that some members on each island still are distressed that the OPALCO Board purchased Rock Island in spite of member rejection of that idea.
There are several realities to that acquisition. First, it is a done deal !!! That decision cannot be “unwound” in any practical manner. Secondly, if any of us do not like that or any other decision by the OPALCO Board, we each have a vote to select a different representative. Finally, broadband is the 21st century utility that is as necessary to a vibrant community as the electrification of America was in the 1930’s. Century Link having withdrawn from the County several years ago, left Rock Island as our only alternative to receive internet service short of a fragmented effort by local neighborhoods to find another option.
A younger member of the Orcas community told me that Internet service is one of three key elements in the consideration of younger families to move here, the others being good schools, and affordable housing for middle income folks.
So….. now what ?? The angst of some members seems to be the need for more transparency in the Board’s plan and decisions with respect to the operations of Rock Island. I have said repeatedly that the OPALCO Board should embrace the spirit of the WA State Public Open Meetings Act. Except on a very short list of allowable exceptions, ALL discussions and decisions of the OPALCO organization should be made known to the members. I have been told that such information is available on the website. Oh, joy !! I am internet challenged as are many people my age. I strongly recommend a regular published “OPALCOGRAM” explaining the activities of the Co-Op like Doug Bechtel did many years ago. There is no substitute for open communication !! NONE!!
Somehow, the Board needs to correct the perception of some members that the Rock Island operation is not governed in the same manner as the electric activities of the organization. Until that is accomplished, the Rock Island decision will be a festering sore on the relationship between members and the Board.
Interestingly, Century Like has recently announced an intent to spend some $3.5 million to reinvest in the broadband needs of our County. Now, that certainly muddies the waters !!!
Mr. Cohen:
My “attacks,” as you characterize them, are not “personal.” They are directed at what the evidence shows to be mismanagement by the general manager of our cooperative and the lack of accountability of our board of directors to take responsibilty for the damage being done under their watch. I am sorry that you coose to focus on what you perceive as the tone of my reporting rather than on the facts. It is the latter that should concern all OPALCO members.
After spending dozens of hours helping prepare our Election Review Committee’s report, it is disheartening to see him use our hard work to try to demonstrate mismanagement. It’s not fair to blame Opalco leadership for what the Committee recommended, and his argument doesn’t make sense.
Over the summer, Mr. MacLeod asked both the President and GM to limit our committee’s scope, after he heard our Committee was looking at district representation along with other election issues. That would have been inconsistent with cooperative principles of member involvement, and to their credit they did not do so. So, a couple of weeks ago, Mr. MacLeod took to these electronic pages and urged members to join his protest to the Opalco Board President. Ironically, given Mr. MacLeod’s past editorials seeming to advocate more member involvement and feedback, he now finds himself unhappy with an attempt by Opalco to do precisely that.
It’s fair to ask: Why was Mr. MacLeod trying to censor a valid topic of member discussion? He seems to object to our explaining to Opalco’s members that the district in which Mr. MacLeod resides is guaranteed one of Opalco’s seven board positions (14% of the Board), even though that district includes only 2% of Opalco’s membership. San Juan Island has 45% of the membership, but only 29% of the Board positions. Note that Mr. MacLeod doesn’t try to argue the present system is fair, he just opposes allowing it to be discussed.
Mr. MacLeod’s latest opinion piece implies that a management report to the Board last June about our Committee somehow created a promise to limit the Committee’s assignment. Nothing of the sort is indicated in the minutes of the June meeting that he purports to describe. (See opalco.com, resource library, board minutes.) If the Board is comfortable asking our committee for uncensured committee feedback, what gives Mr. MacLeod the right to holler about it?
Mr. McLeod’s article lists the only topics he thought our Committee should have covered. Actually, each of them was reviewed by the Committee. But note that his limited agenda does NOT include the most important issues in Opalco elections – which is how we encourage well qualified candidates to run in the future, and how we encourage members to get involved in their cooperative so that they will cast well informed votes for those candidates. Does he criticize the Elections Review Committee for addressing those important issues, just because they weren’t on his list???
Mr. MacLeod seems to argue that every one of the many possible issues that pertain to redistricting were somehow magically resolved, when a referendum was defeated last spring that would have required the Board to establish districts that align representation “as closely as possible” with the number of members (strict proportionality, which might require splitting an island between districts). There were no other options presented in that referendum discussion, such as the two which the Elections Review Committee handed out for discussion at the recent Opalco Open Houses (“loose proportionality” which avoided dividing any island to different districts). Nothing in the Opalco Voting Guide last spring implied that a “no” vote on the referendum meant we must continue the status quo. The Voting Guide contained no argument that the current system was fair. There was no data regarding how many districts we have, how many directors each district currently has, and how dramatically the number of “members per director” varies. There was no way members could fully understand the issue. Only one of many possible solutions was offered (strict proportionality). It was the only one rejected, and I’ve just explained why I was one of those who voted to reject it. Don’t tell me I voted to preserve the current districts.
I heard many members who enjoy living in overrepresented districts argue that the referendum should have closed all discussion on redistricting. But I heard only one of them even try to justify why the Shaw/Crane district should be assured that one of their 250 or so members will get to serve on the Opalco board, whereas the other 11,300 members would have to be selected from among 2300 to 5000 in their districts, in order to be able to serve. That one member’s response, which was well presented, was basically that Shaw is a ferry served island, “we are unique” on Shaw, and have sent good people to the board, and therefore deserve to always have one board position.
That’s one member’s view, and I respect it. But I doubt the other 11,000 Opalco members will agree. Aren’t all of our communities unique? Won’t a wider pool of candidates help ensure more good candidates in the future?
I also respect Mr. MacLeod’s views, but would respect them more if he focused on what we recommended, rather than trying to prevent our discussion of the current districting. It makes no sense to ask a volunteer member committee to look at part of the election process but then ignore the elephant in the room. Either you want fresh eyes to look at it, or you don’t. Either you want member involvement in the cooperative, or you don’t. But if you do, then you have to be prepared to discuss their ideas on their merits, not just shout down what you don’t like. In a coop, every member’s point of view counts equally, and deserves respect. Cooperative principles support member discussion about how we govern ourselves. They do NOT support stifling debate.
The recent Opalco Open Houses included a healthy discussion of many governance issues. That’s what a coop should promote. Don’t criticize us for trying to help make the Opalco elections transparent, fair, and more likely to give us a well qualified Board of Directors in the years to come.
If that was a “mess” that Mr. MacLeod wants to blame management for, then he’s off base because our Committee is solely responsible for the many recommendations in that report. Neither management nor the Board influenced any of them. It’s fair to disagree with our work, but not fair to blame Opalco leadership.
I am not knowledgeable enough to weigh in on other aspects of Mr. MacLeod’s latest attack on Opalco management. But when I see distortions regarding an issue that I am familiar with, I have to wonder whether the other allegations are not distorted as well.
The membership, when asked less than one year ago, overwhelmingly said ‘no’ to changing the makeup of the board. It got on the ballot largely through a public push by Gerry Lawlor of Rock Island Connucations, who said it was necessary to the long-term sustainability of OPALCO/Rock Island. Foster Hildreth, Lawlor’s boss, said Lawlor had every right to push that ballot measure, as he later defended Lawlor/Rock Island’s effort to sway the director elections. It is against this backdrop that I believe it is reasonable to question Hildreth’s failure to hold the committee to the charge as he laid it out to the board. Having not done so, he put the board members, once again, in the position of revisiting a recently and overwhelmingly settled question that left many members wondering why our recent vote was being questioned.
A careful reading of my letter raises no complaint with the committee itself, other than my personal belief that its focus on changing the makeup of the board was outside the scope of its charge and not a solution to the problems that led to the committee’s creation. The committee hacked a fine trail. But it is in the wrong jungle.
Alex; we have known each other for some time, and I believe that we each respect the other’s point of view. Having participated on the committee in question, I must assure you that Foster did not influence our discussions in any way. We specifically asked that he NOT participate until our final meeting when we provided him a summary of our discussions.
Those discussions focused on how we might assure a more consistent, stable and transparent nominating process that would result in a “pool” of well vetted, qualified candidates as board positions were scheduled for election. We even suggested that current board members needed to be re-vetted too. In suggesting nominating committees by district, we asked how we should treat Shaw as it has a mere 200+ members. We opted to “bundle” Shaw with Lopez for that process. That discussion morphed into the logic of “re-districting” insofar as every level of our representative democracy is based on “one-person, one-vote”. There is a reason that Montana and California have different representation in Congress.
Because we were only eight people making these recommendations, we included the public meetings to assess the members’ response to our proposals. The summary of those comments is forthcoming and will be included with a final report to the Board. It is for them to decide how to proceed. If you do not concur with our proposals, you should lobby Jerry Whitfield to that effect. You know me well enough that I would not tolerate any skullduggery on any matter in which I participated.
With all due respect to all parties involved in this discussion, I do not see how Measure #5 has anything to do with the electoral process, which the Member Review Committee was charge to examine — except to bypass it entirely. That seems inarguable to me. And it was resoundingly rejected in the straw poll that Foster took at the Orcas open house. There may have been a hand in the air behind me, but I saw none across the room.