The staff have slit the outside envelopes and are giving them to the election judges, who then verify the name and signature on the outside and take the ballots out. These then go into a hopper for the next staff slitting of the envelopes. The old Board Room is getting District 6 ballots while the new Board Room is getting the bylaws ballots to open the outside envelopes.
BTW, the last bylaw vote on the G&T in 2008 had a 21% return.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
GVEA ballot count #1
Just for fun and for those who can't be here, I've decided to report on the GVEA ballot counting for the bylaw changes and Districts 5 and 6 election. Just getting started now at 6 pm.
About 13 people here as election people, staff includes CEO Brian Newton, Diane Porter (presenting) and Corinne Braddish (Communiucations), VP Member Services, Dave Gardner, Attorney Cory Borgeson, board chair Bill Nordmark, board member Ward Merdes, some MAC members.
May 4 - district ballots went out
May 7 - bylaw ballots went out
Appropriate sig, no signature, questioned ballots, wrong signature, multiple ballots in a single envelope They were secured and counted daily during collection. Outside envelopes are to be saved and put in the hopper for the drawing for "Free Electricity for a Year" (up to $1760).
10% required for district elections
650 votes or 3% (1,011) required for bylaws
District 5 - ballots mailed out 6,435, returned 1,365 - 21% return
District 6 - ballots mailed out 1,604, returned 487 - 30% return
Bylaws - ballots mailed out 33,726, returned 5,114 - 15% return
Cory charges the election judges with their rights and responsibility to make decisions on validity. Noted that some ballots are already questioned, but election judges will decide on each. Ballots will be double counted, staff will open envelopes by machine.
About 13 people here as election people, staff includes CEO Brian Newton, Diane Porter (presenting) and Corinne Braddish (Communiucations), VP Member Services, Dave Gardner, Attorney Cory Borgeson, board chair Bill Nordmark, board member Ward Merdes, some MAC members.
May 4 - district ballots went out
May 7 - bylaw ballots went out
Appropriate sig, no signature, questioned ballots, wrong signature, multiple ballots in a single envelope They were secured and counted daily during collection. Outside envelopes are to be saved and put in the hopper for the drawing for "Free Electricity for a Year" (up to $1760).
10% required for district elections
650 votes or 3% (1,011) required for bylaws
District 5 - ballots mailed out 6,435, returned 1,365 - 21% return
District 6 - ballots mailed out 1,604, returned 487 - 30% return
Bylaws - ballots mailed out 33,726, returned 5,114 - 15% return
Cory charges the election judges with their rights and responsibility to make decisions on validity. Noted that some ballots are already questioned, but election judges will decide on each. Ballots will be double counted, staff will open envelopes by machine.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Eva Creek and interest rate subsidy
We've never been given much information about the purported subsidy of interest rates if GVEA funded the Eva Creek Wind Farm near Healy.
Here's some info about the federal funding source - the Clean Renewable Energy Bond Program
www.nreca.org/main/NRECA/PressRoom/Releases/20091030CREB.htm
www.nreca.coop/Documents/PublicPolicy/FFNewEnhcmntsCREBs.pdf
www.nreca.coop/PublicPolicy/ElectricIndustry/renewableenergy.htm
General Info on Eva Creek Wind Project
I don't know why GVEA doesn't post their Powerpoints on Eva Creek on their website, but some are available on UAF's Alaska Center for Energy and Power's informative website.
2008 presentation to the Rural Energy Conference
2010 presentation to the Rural Energy Conference
Here's some info about the federal funding source - the Clean Renewable Energy Bond Program
www.nreca.org/main/NRECA/PressRoom/Releases/20091030CREB.htm
www.nreca.coop/Documents/PublicPolicy/FFNewEnhcmntsCREBs.pdf
www.nreca.coop/PublicPolicy/ElectricIndustry/renewableenergy.htm
General Info on Eva Creek Wind Project
I don't know why GVEA doesn't post their Powerpoints on Eva Creek on their website, but some are available on UAF's Alaska Center for Energy and Power's informative website.
2008 presentation to the Rural Energy Conference
2010 presentation to the Rural Energy Conference
This link was supposedly a 2007 report on Eva Creek, but instead is a report on the GVEA's
Green Power Advisory Committee
Where are the ballots?
I've been getting calls from GVEA members looking for their ballots for the bylaws election. Whether they got trashed with the Ruralite or something deferred them, it is of concern when those who want to vote don't get it. We don't have a stated process for a failed vote. It could get interesting. A couple of the bylaws allow for voting by internet. THAT also could get interesting.
I've also gotten calls from members asking to have the bylaw change sections explained, as they trust me to give them the straight scoop (by implication, and not GVEA). While gratifying to have their trust, my (apparently) long term goal is to have GVEA exhibit a substance of transparency and good decision-making to increase the trust. People seem real suspicious.
I'd also like to see a non-partisan party be the ones to receive the ballot. That might help members' confidence in the ballot handling. Not that I think funny business is going on, but just the potential/appearance.
Members should come down to GVEA 5:30-6:00 pm on June 8 for the start of the ballot processing and count. Interesting to see how it's done and they supply refreshments.
Well, the power is flickering on and off. I'll close here before I lose my text.
I've also gotten calls from members asking to have the bylaw change sections explained, as they trust me to give them the straight scoop (by implication, and not GVEA). While gratifying to have their trust, my (apparently) long term goal is to have GVEA exhibit a substance of transparency and good decision-making to increase the trust. People seem real suspicious.
I'd also like to see a non-partisan party be the ones to receive the ballot. That might help members' confidence in the ballot handling. Not that I think funny business is going on, but just the potential/appearance.
Members should come down to GVEA 5:30-6:00 pm on June 8 for the start of the ballot processing and count. Interesting to see how it's done and they supply refreshments.
Well, the power is flickering on and off. I'll close here before I lose my text.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
GVEA proposed bylaws amendments
By now, GVEA members should have a ballot in hand to vote on 17 bylaw amendments. I urge everyone to read those amendments carefully before voting.
While some board and GVEA members asked to have for pro and con statements, GVEA only put forth the pro statements. The text text of the bylaw changes are located HERE in pdf< and a brief lead-up here.
One amendment changes meeting rules to Roberts Rules of Order. This is a long needed change which I support.
The most controversial change is in Article X, which seeks to remove the current $460 million cap on indebtedness. Prompted by a ruling from the federal agency that guarantees GVEA loans, the Rural Utilities Services has indicated they won’t approve further loans unless their original loan amount (face value) is under that $460 million. GVEA is at $465 million now, with outstanding debt at $365 million. The exact wording struck is However, the highest amount of indebtedness to which the Cooperative shall at any time be subject is $460,000,000.00. I recommend members vote NO on this change.
What this change would do is give the GVEA board a free hand in taking on debt. In fact, they already established a policy for a maximum indebtedness of between $600 million and $960 million, more than 1.5 times current debt.
As GVEA pursues new projects such as the Healy 2 Coal Plant or the Eva Creek Wind Project, each about $95 million, the debt, interest, and depreciation will raise your rates. As CEO Newton explained at the annual meeting, those costs will be a component not of the utility charge where usually reflected, but instead be buried within your fuel charge. New generation is being put into a Generation and Transmission (G&T) subsidiary Tri-Valley Electric Cooperative (Tri-VEC), even though members soundly defeated a proposal to move current G&T assets to a separate subsidiary in 2008. I’ll leave it to members to decide if this violates members’ intent.
GVEA has borrowed most of their outstanding loans in the last 10 years for a new oil fired 65 mw plant in North Pole, a second intertie line from Healy-Fairbanks, and the largest battery bank in the world.. They also just approved a $65 million loan for 2 years of various upgrades. It is good they only contributed in-kind effort and under $10 million of legal fees into the $312 million experimental coal plant in Healy. It was the U.S. Dept. of Energy and the State of Alaska that paid for it and the State of Alaska that is now suing GVEA for backing out of it.
While I appreciate recent GVEA efforts to provide more information to members, they have a long ways to go to fully earn my trust to support this bylaw amendment. When they use a subsidiary to purchase major assets on behalf of our membership, each of those subsidiaries needs to exhibit transparency. Alasconnect, GVEA communications subsidiary, is so undercover, their website is a shell, meetings are not announced, nor are GVEA members allowed to attend either monthly or annual meetings. Tri-VEC has no presence on the GVEA website. One might be able to find some information about both from board minutes and agendas, but those are paper scanned and are not indexed or searchable.
One of the findings of a recent member survey GVEA hired out was that GVEA needs to do a better job of fostering two-way communications with members. I’d say more, except the board meeting at which it was discussed went into executive session and all non-staff and board members were required to leave. Board Policy 1.2 value “Open and transparent communications with our members.” is not being honored. Another policy actively discourages board members from communicating to those they represent.
There are a couple of board members who advocate for improved communication with members, but it takes a majority of 4. I would recommend that GVEA members in districts now voting for board members call the candidates and ask for their commitment to better two-way communication. We elect board members from our districts and should be able to reasonably expect that they can communicate with us with their view as well as that of the board as a whole. Through technology, it can be done at little cost and will encourage GVEA members to be more involved in our co-op.
Until there is more transparency to members, I can’t support eliminating a cap on our cooperative’s debt. I would support increasing the $460 million some in order to pursue well supported renewable and demand reduction projects, but the board chose not to propose that to the members. We must discourage large debt load to keep our rates down.
While some board and GVEA members asked to have for pro and con statements, GVEA only put forth the pro statements. The text text of the bylaw changes are located HERE in pdf< and a brief lead-up here.
One amendment changes meeting rules to Roberts Rules of Order. This is a long needed change which I support.
The most controversial change is in Article X, which seeks to remove the current $460 million cap on indebtedness. Prompted by a ruling from the federal agency that guarantees GVEA loans, the Rural Utilities Services has indicated they won’t approve further loans unless their original loan amount (face value) is under that $460 million. GVEA is at $465 million now, with outstanding debt at $365 million. The exact wording struck is However, the highest amount of indebtedness to which the Cooperative shall at any time be subject is $460,000,000.00. I recommend members vote NO on this change.
What this change would do is give the GVEA board a free hand in taking on debt. In fact, they already established a policy for a maximum indebtedness of between $600 million and $960 million, more than 1.5 times current debt.
As GVEA pursues new projects such as the Healy 2 Coal Plant or the Eva Creek Wind Project, each about $95 million, the debt, interest, and depreciation will raise your rates. As CEO Newton explained at the annual meeting, those costs will be a component not of the utility charge where usually reflected, but instead be buried within your fuel charge. New generation is being put into a Generation and Transmission (G&T) subsidiary Tri-Valley Electric Cooperative (Tri-VEC), even though members soundly defeated a proposal to move current G&T assets to a separate subsidiary in 2008. I’ll leave it to members to decide if this violates members’ intent.
GVEA has borrowed most of their outstanding loans in the last 10 years for a new oil fired 65 mw plant in North Pole, a second intertie line from Healy-Fairbanks, and the largest battery bank in the world.. They also just approved a $65 million loan for 2 years of various upgrades. It is good they only contributed in-kind effort and under $10 million of legal fees into the $312 million experimental coal plant in Healy. It was the U.S. Dept. of Energy and the State of Alaska that paid for it and the State of Alaska that is now suing GVEA for backing out of it.
While I appreciate recent GVEA efforts to provide more information to members, they have a long ways to go to fully earn my trust to support this bylaw amendment. When they use a subsidiary to purchase major assets on behalf of our membership, each of those subsidiaries needs to exhibit transparency. Alasconnect, GVEA communications subsidiary, is so undercover, their website is a shell, meetings are not announced, nor are GVEA members allowed to attend either monthly or annual meetings. Tri-VEC has no presence on the GVEA website. One might be able to find some information about both from board minutes and agendas, but those are paper scanned and are not indexed or searchable.
One of the findings of a recent member survey GVEA hired out was that GVEA needs to do a better job of fostering two-way communications with members. I’d say more, except the board meeting at which it was discussed went into executive session and all non-staff and board members were required to leave. Board Policy 1.2 value “Open and transparent communications with our members.” is not being honored. Another policy actively discourages board members from communicating to those they represent.
There are a couple of board members who advocate for improved communication with members, but it takes a majority of 4. I would recommend that GVEA members in districts now voting for board members call the candidates and ask for their commitment to better two-way communication. We elect board members from our districts and should be able to reasonably expect that they can communicate with us with their view as well as that of the board as a whole. Through technology, it can be done at little cost and will encourage GVEA members to be more involved in our co-op.
Until there is more transparency to members, I can’t support eliminating a cap on our cooperative’s debt. I would support increasing the $460 million some in order to pursue well supported renewable and demand reduction projects, but the board chose not to propose that to the members. We must discourage large debt load to keep our rates down.
More on Eva Creek Wind Project
I have to update my understanding of Eva Creek. At the recent Rural Energy Conference and the GVEA annual meeting, we were informed that the Eva Creek wind project is only expected to be 30% efficient, thus getting only an average of 8 mw instead of the rated 24 mw. That's a big difference in payback and deserves another look. Particularly with federal and state grant opportunities, I think there needs to be a more considered look at it. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of renewable energy, but it needs to be done intelligently, just like I think we need to not invest in the 50 mw Healy 2 coal plant coincidentally for about the same $95 million. Wonder what the efficiency of this plant would be?
A recent thought about using coal as a fuel source made me think of fast food. You know it's unhealthy for you in the long term, but it's cheap and tastes good (metaphorically speaking). Even when we send coal away to east Asia, it comes back to us in the form of arctic haze and pollution.
A recent thought about using coal as a fuel source made me think of fast food. You know it's unhealthy for you in the long term, but it's cheap and tastes good (metaphorically speaking). Even when we send coal away to east Asia, it comes back to us in the form of arctic haze and pollution.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Coal or Wind?
I read with interest Brian Newton's letter advocating support for a $95 million, 30 year investment in buying and re-starting the experimental coal fired power plant in Healy at the same time suggesting it will keep your electric rates low and look toward the future.
Brian failed to mention this large investment which, if instead was invested in the proven wind resource at Eva Creek near Healy, could provide half as much electricity with NO fuel cost and NO carbon output. Thinking long term, it seems like a 0 fuel charge vs. a fuel charge likely to have substantive regulation and carbon based taxes is a better deal, but not to most of the GVEA board and management. The only way GVEA said they’d do Eva Creek is if they get a full grant. Should we wonder why they don't find a grant for the coal plant. Oh, darn, I forgot, both the state and feds already granted $300 million for it and still GVEA needs more.
GVEA has continued to raise rates to pay for loans for numerous capital projects in recent years' past, not just the fuel cost. Don't expect your rates to go down with another coal plant. We still have to pay off loans, including a new one for over $65 million for regular annual construction.
What about an energy efficient appliance replacement program? GVEA could provide a subsidy to ratepayers equal to the reduced consumption over a period of time. But WAIT, they don't WANT electricity usage to go down because they'll need to raise the service charge again instead of making oil the boogyman. Is there something wrong with this picture?
It seems hard for the entrenched to visualize a sustainable future. If GVEA can lobby so hard to get the membership to give up ownership of 3/4 of the utility's assets as they tried and failed a few years ago, I bet they could sell us on a 25 mw wind farm. Or give you a new refrigerator.
Brian failed to mention this large investment which, if instead was invested in the proven wind resource at Eva Creek near Healy, could provide half as much electricity with NO fuel cost and NO carbon output. Thinking long term, it seems like a 0 fuel charge vs. a fuel charge likely to have substantive regulation and carbon based taxes is a better deal, but not to most of the GVEA board and management. The only way GVEA said they’d do Eva Creek is if they get a full grant. Should we wonder why they don't find a grant for the coal plant. Oh, darn, I forgot, both the state and feds already granted $300 million for it and still GVEA needs more.
GVEA has continued to raise rates to pay for loans for numerous capital projects in recent years' past, not just the fuel cost. Don't expect your rates to go down with another coal plant. We still have to pay off loans, including a new one for over $65 million for regular annual construction.
What about an energy efficient appliance replacement program? GVEA could provide a subsidy to ratepayers equal to the reduced consumption over a period of time. But WAIT, they don't WANT electricity usage to go down because they'll need to raise the service charge again instead of making oil the boogyman. Is there something wrong with this picture?
It seems hard for the entrenched to visualize a sustainable future. If GVEA can lobby so hard to get the membership to give up ownership of 3/4 of the utility's assets as they tried and failed a few years ago, I bet they could sell us on a 25 mw wind farm. Or give you a new refrigerator.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Healy Clean Coal Plant fracas developing
Well, it looks like a fracas is developing around the Healy Clean Coal Plant. Here's a few links illustrating the issue:
• GVEA's official page on the HCCPA search on the web will bring up more, of course.
• AIDEA's page on the project
• SourceWatch page on HCCP (contains several newslinks and material on related coal-power projects)
• Brian Newton's Community Perspective piece in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, July 19, 2009
• Andrew Halcro posts on the deal
• Larry Mayo's Community Perspective piece in the News-Miner, Feb. 21, 2009
•"Alaska lawmakers get the lowdown on the future of the Healy Clean Coal Plant," Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, June 19, 2009
• miscellaneous stories and articles in the News-Miner, sorted by date
• "HEA, coal part ways," Peninsula Clarion, July 23, 2009
• Coal-is-dirty.com
• Solstice Light on clean coal
• Rep. Mike Kelly's history of the HCCP
• "Exploring Clean Coal Technology", Valve Magazine, part one and part two.
• "Coal: Alaska's Other Black Gold," by Brian Yanity, Insurgent49, part one and part two.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Member comments at GVEA Annual meeting
There were 17 people who spoke during member comments at the 2008 annual meeting of GVEA, some chafing under the newly imposed 2 minute limit. The draft minutes will be up for approval by the membership at the April 28, 2009 annual meeting with only a general summary of who spoke and that "the topics ranged from the status of HCCP to affordable and renewable energy and made requests for a better dialogue with the Board."
I find this to be a less than complete record of member comments. Those that spoke deserve the recognition of attribution for what they said and GVEA needs to be able to keep a functional record of this for reference and action. It is true that one can watch the member comments on a streaming video, but that's not exactly easily browsed or is searchable. In fact, when I went to watch them, there were several glitches including a missing section that I only was able to detect because I was at the meeting.
I informed GVEA Board Chairman Bill Nordmark, who in turn informed GVEA CEO/President Brian Newton that I had listened to the video recording and prepared a more complete written record of member comments from the 2008 Annual Meeting and that I was prepared to move to amend the draft minutes to include those. They can be found here.
Brian called me today to ask me not to introduce this amendment as he was concerned about the cost of reproducing this on glossy paper ($10,000) and because members wouldn't be able to view it. I had provided it to GVEA electronically so it could be displayed on the overhead along with all their other presentations. He indicated he would not do so.
I reiterated my desire to have GVEA be more transparent and also respectful of those who put themselves forth to speak. I indicated that, despite a suggestion that the board might be more complete in the minutes in future years, this proposed amendment was in order (in a parliamentary sense) and he agreed.
I have to say that, while I sympathize with the challenges of conducting a large meeting, I felt a bit affronted to be asked NOT to exercise one of the few rights that members have to make at an annual meeting or otherwise, besides voting for a board member or a bylaw change.
I will be making at least 500 copies for distribution at the meeting at my own cost. This will remain an issue in future years as long as any future minutes don't fully reflect what members had to say. Board minutes have also been deficient. Mr. Newton seemed to feel that minutes were the same thing as action memos. I referred him to the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly minutes/action memos for a model of both, are professionally done and delineate the difference.
I find this to be a less than complete record of member comments. Those that spoke deserve the recognition of attribution for what they said and GVEA needs to be able to keep a functional record of this for reference and action. It is true that one can watch the member comments on a streaming video, but that's not exactly easily browsed or is searchable. In fact, when I went to watch them, there were several glitches including a missing section that I only was able to detect because I was at the meeting.
I informed GVEA Board Chairman Bill Nordmark, who in turn informed GVEA CEO/President Brian Newton that I had listened to the video recording and prepared a more complete written record of member comments from the 2008 Annual Meeting and that I was prepared to move to amend the draft minutes to include those. They can be found here.
Brian called me today to ask me not to introduce this amendment as he was concerned about the cost of reproducing this on glossy paper ($10,000) and because members wouldn't be able to view it. I had provided it to GVEA electronically so it could be displayed on the overhead along with all their other presentations. He indicated he would not do so.
I reiterated my desire to have GVEA be more transparent and also respectful of those who put themselves forth to speak. I indicated that, despite a suggestion that the board might be more complete in the minutes in future years, this proposed amendment was in order (in a parliamentary sense) and he agreed.
I have to say that, while I sympathize with the challenges of conducting a large meeting, I felt a bit affronted to be asked NOT to exercise one of the few rights that members have to make at an annual meeting or otherwise, besides voting for a board member or a bylaw change.
I will be making at least 500 copies for distribution at the meeting at my own cost. This will remain an issue in future years as long as any future minutes don't fully reflect what members had to say. Board minutes have also been deficient. Mr. Newton seemed to feel that minutes were the same thing as action memos. I referred him to the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly minutes/action memos for a model of both, are professionally done and delineate the difference.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Feed in tariff article
GVEA Board member Tom DeLong wrote a Community Perspective article on a form of renewable energy incentives at newsminer.com/news/2009/mar/19/state-should-buy-renewable-power/?opinion. Careful to note that this is his article not representing the GVEA board.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
GVEA and Tri-Valley
GVEA formed a wholy owned subsidiary of GVEA called the Tri Valley Electric. This is to be the owner of the 50 mw experimental coal power plant in Healy that has sucked up nearly $400 million of state federal and even a little utility money.
GVEA, for the sum of $90 million in the form of loans from plant owner AIDEA and 5-6.5% interest over perhaps 2-3 decades. Homer Electric had stepped in as GVEA had been most recalcitrant at taking over the plant, so now Homer Electric is guaranteed to get power from it and is able to look over GVEA's shoulder in operating it, likely one reason GVEA created the subsidiary.
Of course, besides committing GVEA member-owners to a dirty fuel (aka clean coal) plant at a time when forward looking suggests a penalty for carbon emissions (Kyoto Protocol II), I'm also working to insure that we member-owners have the same rights as we do now with our property. Previous subsidiaries have come into being in such ways as to exclude the member-owners from meaningful participation. Alasconnect was the first, the G&T was the second. The former is in operation, the second GVEA was told 'no' by the members, a rare time when they overruled the management-board.
I've asked for the bylaws, but was told the lawyers are still working on them. The Articles of Incorporation can be found on the State Dept. of Commerce website.
GVEA Sale Press Release
What the Fairbanks Daily News Miner did with the press release.
If you want to look at more of what GVEA has before tjavascript:void(0)he Regulatory Commission of Alaska, all kinds of fascinating documents await your downloading pleasure HERE.
GVEA, for the sum of $90 million in the form of loans from plant owner AIDEA and 5-6.5% interest over perhaps 2-3 decades. Homer Electric had stepped in as GVEA had been most recalcitrant at taking over the plant, so now Homer Electric is guaranteed to get power from it and is able to look over GVEA's shoulder in operating it, likely one reason GVEA created the subsidiary.
Of course, besides committing GVEA member-owners to a dirty fuel (aka clean coal) plant at a time when forward looking suggests a penalty for carbon emissions (Kyoto Protocol II), I'm also working to insure that we member-owners have the same rights as we do now with our property. Previous subsidiaries have come into being in such ways as to exclude the member-owners from meaningful participation. Alasconnect was the first, the G&T was the second. The former is in operation, the second GVEA was told 'no' by the members, a rare time when they overruled the management-board.
I've asked for the bylaws, but was told the lawyers are still working on them. The Articles of Incorporation can be found on the State Dept. of Commerce website.
If you want to look at more of what GVEA has before tjavascript:void(0)he Regulatory Commission of Alaska, all kinds of fascinating documents await your downloading pleasure HERE.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Rate Case filing and comments
GVEA's rate request is now filed (click on Comments tab), with a number of comments filed as well, including my own. The RCA has issued the initial order, moving the process forward.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Getting info from GVEA
As those members who come to board meetings know, GVEA prepares a single binder for members to look at when the meeting starts. This has sometimes nothing but the agenda and more often more info on items that are on the agenda. Members are not given copies or allowed to take anything from the binder. They have to request it on a form and wait for it to be approved/rejected. In order to save paper and make it more efficient to provide, I request the information electronically.
At the July board meeting I requested the following and got them in the mail a couple weeks later with a courtesy watermark on them. I've never seen this done with any requests. Perhaps the GVEA President wants to know where information I get is disseminated or checking up to see that board members don't give me anything - perish the thought that my board representative would share with me! Anyway, I'm baffled by this, but I am pleased to share what should be easily accessible by members.
Nominations Process Review
The recent Nominations Process review, after the messy nomination process of District 2 last spring. Note that, of the recommendations on page 4, the board did not approve term limits (item 7). Note also other recommendations which encourage more/better member communications. I'm not holding my breath. Three board members did apparently favor term limits: Tom Delong, John Sloan and Bill Digan (making one think he might not run again, as he's already server about 16 years. The other remaining members that did not support term limits on the board have been on that board in excess of 20 years, I believe.
GVEA Policy 1.2
Cooperative Mission, Vision, Values and Strategic Goals
This seems like something that members ought to have ready access to and been solicited on input. Instead, it was not provided to members until the meeting and, considering member comments take place at the beginning of the meeting, little time to evaluate and comment.
GVEA Policy 5.4 Equity Development
This is what determines the basis for rates. It was discussed heavily during the attempted implementation of the Generation and Transmission Co-op. The higher your tier, the more you have to save and the less that comes back to the members in capital credits. There is an amount that generates better credit for borrowing, but it is a balance. I'd recommend learning about TIER (Times Income Earned Ratio) and talking to your board rep.
GVEA 2008 Annual Meeting minutes (draft)
These are the minutes the board approved to forward to the membership. Please note that the members who spoke were acknowledged by name only and general topics brought up without attribution. I'd think it would be respectful of members who did speak that they be given one sentence each saying what they spoke about and what their opinion was. If this is not revised, the membership can move to include this information. It would be a lot more helpful if the board asked this be done in advance. It really makes them look bad and really, for no good reason.
I also asked for a copy of the board retreat report. This gave a good picture of the workings of the board, valuable for anyone who might be willing to run and serve. I was told this was an internal document, thus would not be provided. I submit that, it was not considered executive restricted material and was available to members at the meeting, so it should be available to members by copy.
In this posting, I've discussed ways that GVEA makes it hard for members to get information from them. Interestingly enough, in the above strategic goals document, page 1 3. Values, it pledges 'open and transparent communications with our members'. You gotta love those little inconsistencies.
At least one can now see the agendas and minutes (1.5-2 mo. after the fact.) on line. It only took a 5 year effort to make that happen.
At the July board meeting I requested the following and got them in the mail a couple weeks later with a courtesy watermark on them. I've never seen this done with any requests. Perhaps the GVEA President wants to know where information I get is disseminated or checking up to see that board members don't give me anything - perish the thought that my board representative would share with me! Anyway, I'm baffled by this, but I am pleased to share what should be easily accessible by members.
Nominations Process Review
The recent Nominations Process review, after the messy nomination process of District 2 last spring. Note that, of the recommendations on page 4, the board did not approve term limits (item 7). Note also other recommendations which encourage more/better member communications. I'm not holding my breath. Three board members did apparently favor term limits: Tom Delong, John Sloan and Bill Digan (making one think he might not run again, as he's already server about 16 years. The other remaining members that did not support term limits on the board have been on that board in excess of 20 years, I believe.
GVEA Policy 1.2
Cooperative Mission, Vision, Values and Strategic Goals
This seems like something that members ought to have ready access to and been solicited on input. Instead, it was not provided to members until the meeting and, considering member comments take place at the beginning of the meeting, little time to evaluate and comment.
GVEA Policy 5.4 Equity Development
This is what determines the basis for rates. It was discussed heavily during the attempted implementation of the Generation and Transmission Co-op. The higher your tier, the more you have to save and the less that comes back to the members in capital credits. There is an amount that generates better credit for borrowing, but it is a balance. I'd recommend learning about TIER (Times Income Earned Ratio) and talking to your board rep.
GVEA 2008 Annual Meeting minutes (draft)
These are the minutes the board approved to forward to the membership. Please note that the members who spoke were acknowledged by name only and general topics brought up without attribution. I'd think it would be respectful of members who did speak that they be given one sentence each saying what they spoke about and what their opinion was. If this is not revised, the membership can move to include this information. It would be a lot more helpful if the board asked this be done in advance. It really makes them look bad and really, for no good reason.
I also asked for a copy of the board retreat report. This gave a good picture of the workings of the board, valuable for anyone who might be willing to run and serve. I was told this was an internal document, thus would not be provided. I submit that, it was not considered executive restricted material and was available to members at the meeting, so it should be available to members by copy.
In this posting, I've discussed ways that GVEA makes it hard for members to get information from them. Interestingly enough, in the above strategic goals document, page 1 3. Values, it pledges 'open and transparent communications with our members'. You gotta love those little inconsistencies.
At least one can now see the agendas and minutes (1.5-2 mo. after the fact.) on line. It only took a 5 year effort to make that happen.
GVEA Rate Study
The GVEA Board is close to deciding on recommended rates following a rate study. Insiders and outsiders like me have been recommending an inverted rate study that makes the first x00 of kwh at a lower rate and then increased in cost/kwh as the consumption goes up. Some of the board members who don't support this indicate that means they would have to increase the monthly service fee. I assert that the less we consume, the less it should cost. Those with a really high demand ought to be paying a higher rate for that electricity, as it requires burning the most expensive electricity. Whatever GVEA comes up with does go to the RCA, so we can have comments then. GVEA in the meantime only gives members a very elemental view and while asks for comments, doesn't give members any documentation for how they came up with those numbers. I asked for an electronic copy of this, but instead got a printed copy, which doesn't scan very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)