FROM THIS DESK - A PEDERNALES ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBER

Horseshoe Bay Beacon Article - PEC Capital Distribution

2009-11-06T08:22:00.004-06:00

A recent, local newspaper article that does a very good job of discussing the events that occurred at the Special Meeting held at PEC Headquarters on October 30th.

http://www.hsbbeacon.com/news/article/22706

An Argument For A Member-Adviser Selection and Vet Process

2009-10-20T09:52:00.005-05:00

As Directors of PEC we are wisely required to submit to background checks to determine if a past history of unlawful or illegal actions exists. We also complete Non-Disclosure and Conflict of Interest forms. These steps are part of a defined system which protects the financial interests of our members.

To ask the same of "Member-Advisers" should not be any, if much different. To call the Advisers "member-advisers" and not pay them board meeting fees, etc. creates no negligible difference in our accountability to the membership. To accept member-advisers without understanding their backgrounds, intention and qualifications is tantamount to opening the hen-house to the foxes. At a minimum this Board should consider asking of any adviser that they would:

Be willing to submit to a background check
Provide proof of PEC membership
Provide a professional resume
Sign a Non-Disclosure statement
Complete a Conflict of Interest form
Be approved by a majority vote of the Board of Directors in Open Session

If you had the opportunity to listen to the discussion of the Board concerning this topic you would have heard the argument that "in all likelihood" no sensitive information would be passed to these advisers. Sounds okay but if you listen closely you will clearly hear the hedging and uncertainty in the statement. At no time was it emphatically stated by those supporting the appointment of member-advisers that unequivocally there would be no opportunity for sensitive information to be passed on to these member-advisers.

As a Board we have already had numerous lengthy and controversial discussions centered on the use and viability of either elected or appointed advisers to the Board of Directors. It was discussed as recently as the past two monthly meetings that Mr. James Spellman's candidacy for Advisory Director would not be considered by committee until an even newer process is in place. How is this situation any different in that it doesn't have a formal process? If we are truly committed to protecting member's interests we need to formally ask and answer the following questions:

What is the difference between an Adviser/Member-Adviser and an Advisory Director?
Do the Bylaws provide any opportunity to seat advisers on sub-committees or other? What about the removal of these same advisers? Will this panel be termed as a sub-committee?
Will this panel/sub-committee be chaired by a seated Director?
Will this panel/sub-committee be approved by the Board prior to action?
Will there be a specific charter for this panel/sub-committee?
Do the Bylaws allow for compensation for non-elected advisers?
Will these advisers expect compensation for travel or time? Will they expect a services contract?
Have the proponents of the issue taken the time to consider the potential costs if compensation is to be considered and ultimately awarded to the advisers?
What powers are granted by the Bylaws to volunteers, advisers, or member-advisers?
What powers do the Bylaws give to the Board in seating/contracting volunteers, advisers, or member-advisers?
What cooperative policy or process discussed and defined advisers?
What cooperative policy or process provides the mechanism for seating advisers? We've already heard that we cannot seat advisory directors without a new policy so what governs the member-advisors?
How do we ensure that the advisers are competent, represent the true best interests of the membership, and that they have nothing to gain financially from the experience of being on a committee?

These are questions I asked of the Board and Legal Counsel since our last meeting and until yesterday's session I had received little to no response from either. It was only in open session that it was finally determined that the cooperative needed some controls in place prior to seating advisers.

It is unconscionable to ignore the potential ramifications of an action that could place the cooperative at risk. Since these advisers are not democratically elected by the membership I think we owe it to our member-owners to scrutinize these candidates before they are considered for member-adviser appointment.

Furthermore, neither the Board nor the committees seeking to appoint member-advisers have determined any minimum qualifications or criteria for selection. To select one member over another without any predetermined and approved process leaves the Board in prime position for accusations of bias and cronyism. If there is to be no selection criteria, no minimum qualifications, and no position description for these member-advisers then how are we to responsibly and ethically determine who to select? if we select six advisers over the remaining volunteers without a template then how will we make selections that are not based on a personal preference and that do not create a platform of prejudice? In fact, in the absence of all normally accepted criteria shouldn't we accept all twelve applicants as advisers?

I remain very concerned by the fact that the majority of this Board is willing to push previously promised Bylaw revisions out a year, but is not willing to take the time to put into place a process that either scrutinizes or defines our member-adviser candidates. At the very least this sounds an awful lot like we are conveniently ignoring policy, procedures and processes so that we can do what want now regardless of long term consequences.

I have made my arguments in open session regarding this issue and I now believe that this Board is giving more consideration into the ramifications of putting advisers into place without proper scrutiny, and the harm that it could cause the cooperative. I do believe we have the time to make the right decisions without harming the initiatives that this board wants into place. But with the reluctance that was demonstrated by some Board members to commit to a member-adviser process that is fair, responsible and defined, I remain concerned.

Clearing the Smoke and Mirrors with PEC Bonuses

2009-10-18T18:17:00.000-05:00

The word “bonus” is a pretty dirty word these days. It brings to mind corporate greed, excessive executive bonuses, and everything that is wrong with the American financial situation of today. But before bonuses became an incentive that some corporations handed out like free candy, they were actually a useful tool for providing motivated workers with a road map for exceeding average goals. In return, any overachievers up to the task of meeting bonus goals were rewarded for their assistance in making their company a stronger institution.

When I joined the Board of the Pedernales Electric Cooperative last year I discovered that they also had a practice of handing out large financial bonuses to their general manager that had no ties to work performance. PEC had a long-standing tradition of awarding these “performance” bonuses to its managers. In fact, the General Manager received bonuses in excess of $300,000 without any basis or plan to be measured against. Bonuses were expected yearly and were based solely upon a rank, tenure, or even just a recommendation. The quality of performance of the respective manager had no bearing upon what or how much was rewarded.

This archaic method of reward without exception did little more than create a system of entitlement. There were no benefits to the cooperative in adhering to this old bonus system—it forced no improvement in processes and did not support corrections to problems. Initiative was stymied and growth—collective or individual—was stunted through lack of goals. I saw in PEC a mirror image of the corruption and greed we currently see in our U.S. banking institutions and corporations who we are now burdened to support through government bailouts.

Knowing this situation was critical, I began to develop a 2009 Performance Management Matrix for the General Manager in 2008. Following open discussion, the 2009 Key Performance Indicators (KPI) was unanimously approved in our March 16 board meeting. The new bonus plan consists of quantifiable measurements that accurately reflect what we believe to be the critical success factors of the cooperative. For 2009, the KPI includes goals for safety, cooperative cost control, member satisfaction, relevant industry comparisons, and program development. These KPIs manifest the cooperative’s new goals in that they are critical to improving our bottom line, promoting a safe environment for employees, creating more efficient work processes, and ultimately restoring the trust of the membership.

The General Manager will use the Key Performance Indicators that have been established for him as benchmarks for his staff. All PEC employees will then become partners in achieving the measurable goals the board has defined. Every department and employee will be recruited to work in synergy towards our overall success.

The PEC’s bond rating was recently dropped due to poor past business practices such as this unhealthy bonus system. It was also recognized by Fitch, the bond rating service, that PEC was under pressure to reduce costs and rebuild trust with its membership. The Fitch report is affirmation that the new KPI driven bonus plan is a step in the right direction. By establishing performance goals which promote financial stability for the cooperative we will both reduce costs and rebuild trust.

We’ve removed the smoke and mirrors from the PEC bonus system and provided intelligently defined targets that give the board, the management, the employees—and even the membership—the benefit of a high-level, real-time view of the progress of our cooperative. As with all Key Performance Indicators, the target will change as the organizational goals change and as the organization gets closer to reaching a milestone. This serves as incentive to ensure that the cooperative management remains flexible and nimble to a changing climate and membership.

Typically, a bonus plan is not a newsworthy or even very interesting topic. Many companies annually define or redefine their goals to provide incentive for the executive officer to drive company performance. Yet for PEC this is another historic moment. PEC now has a clear direction of what needs to be done to meet goals, make improvements, and ultimately serve the membership.

http://www.sanmarcosmercury.com/archives/7352

New PEC Policy Promotes Open Communication

2009-10-18T18:15:00.000-05:00

On Jan. 26, the Pedernales Electric Cooperative Board of Directors passed a board communications policy. The board followed a democratic process to review, debate, revise, and ultimately pass a final policy. I have written and disseminated this account of that process under those new board communication guidelines.

In researching this policy, it became clear that many companies, both public, private, for profit and not for profit, have communication policies. These policies fulfill many needs: they protect entities from lawsuits resulting from libelous statements; they guide board communications through defined channels; and they educate the public on how they can expect to hear from their elected representatives. And in the case of our cooperative, it also protects the members from unnecessary expenditures of the PEC staff and resources that they pay for.

Our new communications policy is a process that helps us define when a statement from the board is an official PEC communication or a personal statement. Once this determination is made it guides the person making the statement on how they can transmit that to the public. Official PEC Board communications will be disseminated through our communications department. Personal board communications will be disseminated through the board members’ own accord.

The policy contains no restrictions on the individual board member’s communications other than that it must contain a disclosure clause at the end stating the piece reflects their personal opinion and not necessarily that of the cooperative. The policy suggests that the board member submit it to our Board General Counsel to review it for any libelous statements. This is offered for the board member’s own protection, not to alter the content or tone of their message. The individual board member is free to distribute their communication to whomever he or she wishes in any manner they desire.

The policy also contains guidelines for internal communications. The policy requests that any board member wishing to communicate with PEC staff go through the General Manager. This is done to respect the PEC working hierarchy and company resources that the membership pays for through their electric rates. The policy does not in any way restrict the content of a Board member’s communications with the staff. The policy merely asks that they make arrangements to do so through the General Manager so that the managers and their supervisors are aware of it.

I appreciate the input received from PEC members, PEC staff and Board Members in drafting this policy. While some people were under the impression that the policy might hinder board members from communicating freely with the public, I want to assure our members that this policy as adopted is intended to have quite the opposite effect. By having a set of standards all board members can now communicate with the public within a process that they can trust and that protects both them and the cooperative. All board members can now communicate openly with the public without fear of unintended legal consequences. The result of this is that our communications policy creates a safe environment, which encourages communication between the board members and the staff, membership, and media.

The events leading up to the adoption of the policy have been an excellent challenge for the PEC board to test its commitment to frank dialogue and debate in a forum open to our membership. The experience detailed here shows the challenges in making “openness and transparency” more than just a phrase.

I am encouraged by the debate among our board members on this and other issues. The fact that we have disagreements is proof that we have a diverse board. Our willingness to accept that diversity and still work together is what will support our efforts to remake the Pedernales Electric Cooperative into an institution of respect and reliability.

http://www.sanmarcosmercury.com/archives/6456

PEC Gets 5 New Board Members

2008-06-23T20:45:00.005-05:00

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/06/22/0622pec.html

Voting Slow for Co-op Board Election

2008-06-19T07:38:00.005-05:00

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/06/19/0619pec.html

It is so disappointing that these large block voters have chosen to abstain from voting. I personally contacted the great majority of these organizations and offered to meet and discuss the issues and concerns that I have with the current Board and my vision of where it should go into the future. Apathy can never be defended.

Junction, TX GM Meeting

2008-05-30T17:24:00.001-05:00

The Junction General Manager’s was well attended (or much better than in Georgetown) by some 15 or so members, another ten employees and two candidates, David Hall and myself. I purchased a current copy of the Junction Eagle while driving into town and found two references to the forum, one on the front page and the other was my letter to the editor asking members to attend to learn more about the opportunities facing PEC.

The meeting format was very similar to the other GM meetings that I have attended. It was another opportunity to meet the local district manager and his staff followed by Juan’s presentation of recent key events and his plan for taking us into the future. Of course it ended with a Q&A session. Since Juan’s message was so similar, I won’t bore you with those notes but I did want to present what I learned from his answers to some of my questions.

First we discussed the election and the voting practice of one meter – one vote instead of what most of us assumed would be the one member – one vote policy as stated in IRS 501 (c) (12). I specifically was interested in if he was an advocate of the one member – one vote policy. He was non-committal in his response in that he would answer only by saying that he felt it should be looked at by the board. I replied that it was very apparent that the board takes his comments very seriously and that his stance on the issue is important as he can sway the board with a word. He once again was unwilling to take a side indicating to me that from a business standpoint he would not like to lose the revenue that is paid by the owners of multiple meters. My understanding is that each meter has its own associated member fee. If PEC were to change the policy, there is every expectation that the meter v. membership dues situation would have to change as well. This should definitely be looked at by the board at their first opportunity.

Next up was the LCRA contract status. As recently as two weeks ago, Juan stated that he hoped to present to the board the LCRA contract for review and approval by the annual meeting. When I asked if he was still confident that the contract was progressing to a June closure, he replied that they had hit some snags in the negotiations. PEC is aligned with the Wholesale Power Alliance and it appears that this alliance is slowing the contract proceedings down. Juan did not appear happy with all of the alliance’s objectives prompting me to ask why we would continue to be a part of something that may not be working in our best interests. Juan answered that they wanted to continue with trying to work through it with them for a while longer. A while longer seemed to be into late summer, early fall. My statement would have to be that any alliances that don’t make our (PEC) considerations a top priority is a bad alliance.

We discussed the Navigant report briefly. I asked Juan if PEC would consider a continuation of the Member Comment/Vote page that is on the website now to allow the members to express with a vote or comment their feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with how the company was being run. He answered that PEC is indeed going to set this up on their website but that it may not be for voting purposes—only for comments. I would like to see it expanded to include possibly an annual “Say on Pay” opportunity. This is something else for the new board to consider following the elections.

Juan has been very complimentary of the renewable energy programs offered by Austin Energy. I asked him how many of these they were bringing to us at PEC. He responded that AE is positioned differently than PEC in that they are profit driven whereas PEC is not. He reiterated that the cost of renewables is more expensive than traditional. I responded that it is obvious that there are some members more than willing to accept the additional cost. He told a story about AE and the quick sale of alternative energies that just confirmed my statement regarding the market for renewable energy. I also asked if we could bring more balance to the power supply from LCRA and AEP to include more wind energy than what we are getting now from AEP. He was non-committal on this point as well. When I asked about rebates he once again said that AE was in a better position than PEC to offer rebates due to their different mission objectives but that they could explore it with LCRA. I thought this was a good idea so I asked if that was part of the on-going negotiations at this time. He replied that it wasn’t. Overall he did not come across as very encouraging regarding renewables in this meeting. He wanted to emphasize conservation. Conservation is absolutely a great subject but I personally don’t think it’s wise to discount the renewables as easily as he did last night. Too many of the members feel very strongly about it and we are uniquely positioned at this time to make a move in providing more clean power. Why wait? Why not make the move? As I said, it was disappointing discussion.

There was significant discussion about capital credits as well. But it was more to do with the 5 year payouts of the $23 million and the future plans regarding the retirement of the credits and the continued infrastructure maintenance and development. Nothing new here that wasn’t already placed on the website.

As a note, Juan said that although the website hasn’t been updated and that the customer service department hasn't been briefed on it, PEC does buy power back from at least two member-suppliers of wind energy. He said they paid full price. So there is a little hope for the interested parties out there who have indicated that they want to consider placing the turbines on their properties.

Article in the Marble Falls Newspaper (05.27.08)

2008-05-28T14:00:00.010-05:00

Meters, not people to determine PEC board

By Bobbi Gage
Highland Lakes Newspapers

One person, one vote is not the way it works in The Pedernales Electric Cooperative.

In the midst of its first wide-open board election ever, the PEC has acknowledged that its 222,524 "members" are actually meters - with 47 entities controlling 99 or more meters, each with a vote.

The sprawling electric co-op's customers consist of 203,592 individuals and 18,932 meters on commercial property, causing some candidates to court those who have the largest number of meters.

Anne Harvey, spokesperson for the PEC, said the members with the largest amount of votes (meters) include developers/home builders, schools, government entities, multi-family housing and utilities.

The most votes one member has is 566 votes; however, it is believed Time Warner Cable is one of the largest PEC customers and may have as many as 1,700 votes. The PEC would not identify the various groups and the number of their 'meters.'

Harvey explains that some businesses may have separate accounts because their companies are spread over a wide area. Time Warner Cable, for instance, could have 566 meters in Williamson County and hundreds more in Blanco, Burnet, Llano or other counties.

This was my response to the Editor at the Highlander.

Dear Editor,
Is this how we as PEC members should be measured? As a meter? PEC continues to take one step forward and two steps back. How can PEC ever re-establish the missing and/or damaged trust that has occurred due to the years of board neglect if we continue to see these types of examples of inadequate and maybe even illegal policies? The time is now to make a difference. Please speak out with your vote and elect candidates with relevant experience and qualifications to set PEC back on the right path. With energy prices sky-rocketing we cannot afford three more years of this type of oversight.

James E. Williams, PEC District 2 Candidate.

Navigant - "Say on Pay"

2008-05-22T17:27:00.003-05:00

I have many observations and concerns with the Navigant Compensation Report and will address them in multiple postings. This first posting is about the Compensation Committee Principles that were espoused on page 3 of the provided document. The very first principle stated that director compensation should be determined by the board and disclosed completely to members. While I agree in large part with the statement, it got me thinking about a recent segment on KUT 90.5 about “Say on Pay”.

“Say on Pay” is a buzzword for the practice of allowing members, shareholders or stakeholders the opportunity to vote on what a board of director’s compensation package should be. The purpose of “Say on Pay” is to hold directors accountable for their performance and then to tie their pay to the value that they provide. It is typically non-binding but I believe it to be more effective than symbolic based on my research.

The Navigant Report stated on page 15 that compensation was increasing at a rate of 10% per year for the last 5 years. I believe that for most people in the workplace a 3-4% increase in their salaries is considered normal and anything above that would be part of a promotion package or a result of some pre-defined and documented goals contract. I also found it ironic that the average total compensation packages for the PEC directors decreased in 2007. Is this because of the increased scrutiny from the members and the media? And why would Navigant include the aforementioned statement in the report anyway? Did they do that specifically to ensure that their “normalization” algorithm would be accepted? As I have discussed in earlier posts, compensation issues have become increasingly political and controversial due to the incessant upward trend of director compensation despite the national trend of stagnant worker wages.

There are a number of companies worldwide that are allowing shareholders to voice their opinions on compensations. Just this year, Aflac became the first company in the U.S. to allow the voting to occur. The stockholders overwhelmingly gave a strong show of support of the directors and their respective packages…probably due the fact that the stock price and values were at an all-time high.

Some believe that once the chairman of the compensation committee understands that when their decisions are subject to a membership vote of confidence, they will try harder to get it right. Conversely, there are others who caution that the members should not be given the right to usurp board authority on issues. I, personally, am in favor of allowing membership vote on compensation. If the board presents objective, accurate, and relevant data and then makes justifiable decisions, then there should be no concern about membership feedback. If this is a concern then maybe it is in the best interests of all to let their votes count at election time by removing the directors who are not making the grade and allowing membership feedback to factor into their decisions.

Although we at PEC are not truly in a “Say on Pay” situation we do have the opportunity to voice our opinions of the board, their salaries, and their respective performances through the Navigant feedback section on the PEC website. I believe that “Say on Pay” is potentially a great tool. It can be valuable way of measuring member confidence and PEC should adopt this method not just now, but for the future. So, please, go to the PEC website and leave a comment that reflects your beliefs on compensation. And then put your board election vote to work by electing directors with relevant experience, who will make changes for the better, and who have leadership skills that will work for you.

Education and Training

2008-05-09T21:32:00.004-05:00

It does not have to be costly to provide training and continuing education for a Board. Although there are various training classes held at fine organizations such as NRECA and others that are worthwhile, and possibly necessary, there are also options within our own cooperative for training and continuing education.

No one should ever say that training needs to be an overnight trip or that it must be given by some professional training organization. Board training can occur at the conclusion of meetings…it can be 15-30 minutes. Training can be led by the General Manager, Human Resources Manager, or one of the many Advisory Board members in an area of expertise. A member could volunteer their time to support these sessions by providing training for the Board in an area of relevancy. These local training sessions would have relatively little to no cost impact to the membership, and still serve the same purpose of increasing the knowledge level of the Board members as those expensive sessions we have been hearing so much of for the last few months.

These days, with the increased scrutiny towards boards from various special interests and other interested parties, many boards are heading into board education out of fear. Unfortunately, it appears that the PEC board misused their own opportunities for training by turning them into opportunities to stay at 5-star hotels and attending concerts. Who knows what good could have happened if they had actually taken advantage of the education opportunities--with proper training perhaps some of the more grievous errors leading up to the lawsuit would have been mitigated or altogether eliminated.

It is true that the board who does not know what it needs to know is indeed walking in a minefield. That is because your board is accountable--whether board members are acting accountably or not, the buck stops with the board. If your board does not understand that, or only vaguely understands it, that minefield is just waiting for someone to make the wrong step. We would all agree that there have been a multitude of missteps in the very recent past.

But fear of that minefield is not the best reason to add training to the board agenda. The best reason is that we may soon find these sessions will become the part of the meetings that folks are still talking about; long after the meeting is over. The discussions that arise will be about the most critical parts of your mission, the most critical parts of what it means to be on a board. In my opinion, a knowledgeable and informed board is a productive and effective board.

Not Over Staying Your Welcome

2008-05-07T19:29:00.003-05:00

The issue of term limits is almost as heatedly debated as the issue of compensation. One of the pros of term limits is that it puts a harness on long-term corruption. We should not allow those who are wholly self-serving to stay on our board and term limits are a last resort method of ensuring that their trough feeding will come to an end. Term limits also put a cap on stale methods and doing things just because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”

Looking at the other side, experience can be a valuable asset in the performance of duties and, typically, persons new to a job or position are not as expert as those with years of practical application behind them. Developing the art of managing, directing, or providing oversight can be hard work if you’re new to a playing field. You can learn a great deal from books and lectures, but you will never learn as much as when you have hands-on experience. The opportunities to learn from others and from your own mistakes are invaluable and are to be prized. Although I have over two decades experience in the electric utility industry, I am not arrogant enough to assume that I know it all. Likewise, it will take some time for me to become fully knowledgeable of the cooperatives inner workings. This time and experience would allow me, over time, to more effectively carry out the fiduciary duties that are assigned to the Board.

As of now, three terms of three years each seems appropriate to me. It would give new members time to get up to speed and then give a healthy number of years of service to the coop in a knowledgeable and efficient manner. I think having experienced members on the board is crucial. But it is also crucial to have fresh insight and unique voices. By limiting board servitude to three terms, PEC could establish a healthy blend of experience and eagerness, and that will be beneficial to us all.

How Much is Too Much…Or Not Enough?

2008-05-06T20:47:00.004-05:00

There has been much discussion in the media and among members over the past 12 months regarding the level of compensation for the PEC board members. A quick look through the newspaper or internet search engines indicates that these discussions are not isolated to the Hill Country. So it is safe to say that the question of board compensation is not new. And, unfortunately, the question is still unresolved.

The questions center on the level of compensation paid to a great majority of high profile companies, not just electric cooperatives. Specifically, it focuses on the question of whether some of these board members are paid more than they deserve to receive. (The question of whether some of these directors are underpaid is rarely a matter of controversy!) Many people when asked this question observe that the absolute level of compensation is obscene and without possible justification. It is unfair to members and demoralizing to employees, whose own compensation may only be a tiny fraction of what the directors receive. On the other hand, proponents of these compensation plans draw parallels with the earnings of the board of directors at the more well-known companies (TXU Energy or NRG for instance) and argue that qualified, executive talent commands high prices. As a consequence, they say, a market exists for the abilities of skillful executives, and the compensation they receive is determined by that market.

It should be the Board's objective that, at all times, its membership will be composed of qualified, dedicated, and highly regarded individuals who have experience relevant to the cooperatives operations and who understand the complexities of the cooperatives business environment. This is obviously something that has been lacking at PEC over the last two to three decades. Compensation should be carefully considered and based upon the demands placed upon the respective Board members and should be in line with cooperatives of similar size or companies of similar structure. At a minimum, typical board compensation packages include a per-meeting fee, increases for the chairing of committees, plus reimbursement for all board activity-related expenses. Additionally, it is normally expected that all travel expenses would be covered.

In the face of the current trends in board compensation, PEC needs to evaluate and overhaul their current board structure to determine the correct size of its board and evaluate the compensation programs to ensure that we strike a proper balance between what’s deserved and what’s simply too much. By doing so, PEC will be better positioned to attract and retain qualified and independent directors with sufficient financial, technical and otherwise relevant expertise who are expected to take on a larger role in improving governance.

Based on what has been revealed in the past year, the current board members have not fulfilled the expectations that come with their positions and therefore have been grossly overpaid. Would I feel the same if the board members were conscientious, dedicated, and working for the best interests of the members? Yes, I would. However, I do not feel comfortable giving an exact dollar amount on what the compensation should be. Instead I think it wise to hear what Navigant and any other objective and professional sources have to say on this matter and then make an informed decision. I know that board compensation is a touchy subject right now, and I respect that because there have clearly been abuses. But I strongly believe that the best decisions are made with an informed and objective mind--and this sensitive situation deserves nothing less.

KUT 90.5 News Clip

2008-04-24T20:02:00.003-05:00

Follow the link to listen to Matt Largey's piece on the PEC elections.

http://kut.org/items/show/12250

Why Vote?

2008-04-22T21:26:00.003-05:00

With the Pedernales Electric Cooperative board elections upon us, it is more important than ever to get the word out about the candidates and the issues. During an election many people think that their vote does not matter. Maybe you feel that when it comes down to it, all the candidates are pretty much the same, so why bother voting. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, the winning directors will have an enormous impact on our cooperative’s future and ultimately on your electric rates.

Our Board of Directors needs a change‑-for the better. Change starts at a grass roots level whether you live on a farm or in the city, and all change starts by electing people - the right people to implement that change--whether it is a voting director or an advisory director.

Your vote holds your board leaders responsible for the decisions they make. Your vote sends a message about the issues you think are important. Your vote affirms our rights as members to elect our board and take part in democracy. Without voting, there could be no democracy.

Remember, when you are unhappy with the condition of your cooperative’s service or your electricity bill, being involved, voting for and knowing your elected directors will enable you to voice your complaints to the appropriate board members. You voted for them and they work for you. That’s why it’s so important to vote for a candidate based on WHAT they know…not WHO they know, which is unfortunately how so many people try to win an election. It’s the candidates experience and knowledge in the professional industry, combined with integrity and honesty that will determine whether or not they will make the best decisions.

We are not here to serve our cooperative, but our cooperative is here to serve us — and we have the right to decide who will represent us and how we want to be represented. It means that we have one of the greatest rights any free people can have: the right to vote.

Vote because you care about your community. Vote because you believe in transparency of governance and want to add your voice. Vote because it will make you feel good to participate and have a say. Vote because it’s the right thing to do!

Lessons learned from the Envision failure

2008-04-20T20:51:00.001-05:00

The Sunday, April 20th article in the Austin American-Statesman by Claudia Grisales concerning the PEC owned Envision Utility Software Company speaks volumes about the integrity and professional maturity of Bennie Fuelberg, Bud Burnett, and the PEC Board of Directors.

The lessons learned from this specific case are apparent. First, a company should focus their energy and investments on businesses that are the same or similar to their core business. In this particular instance, poor decisions were made and perpetuated for over a decade costing the cooperative over 60 million dollars. Apparently the perks for a select few outweighed the benefits to all in the minds of the principals involved with the purchase and management of Envision.

Secondly, the failure of the Board of Directors to provide any sort of meaningful oversight and disclosure of the cooperative’s interests to the members reinforce that they are incompetent directors and entirely new board members are necessary. The Envision situation was no small oversight and illustrates why board members are needed who will conduct themselves in a professionally ethical and responsible manner.

Some have suggested that PEC should expand their interests to include the production of power. This, in my opinion, forces PEC back into the same trap that we were placed into by the Envision purchase. Having spent a good portion of my life in the construction, operation and maintenance of power plants I must respectfully disagree with the assumption that PEC would gain from the purchase of power plants. The permitting, environmental impacts, potential media and activist controversies, costs (ranging from $100M to $10B depending upon type of plant), and the hiring of the expertise necessary to build and manage the resources, all point to PEC over-stepping their limitations and resulting in a loss which would make Envision look like pocket change.

PEC should retract back to their core business—the distribution of electrical power to its members—which we do as well if not better than anyone in the country. PEC also needs to focus on rebuilding the trust of its members. This trust can be rebuilt by electing board members with experience relevant to the management of electric power generation and transmission.

This election is so very important. Please take the time to thoroughly research all candidates and make informed decisions regarding your next board members. Elections that yield members who espouse the “old boy network” of thought, or support “cronyism” and friends over qualifications, experience and integrity will undo the positive steps forward that PEC has gained over the past few months.

PEC Director District Boundaries

2008-04-19T20:39:00.009-05:00

During the upcoming board member elections you will have the opportunity to select candidates from not just your own district, but from all districts that have seats open for election. You will be voting for both the voting and non-voting advisory positions. In my opinion, this is a sound decision for all members to vote for representatives from all the districts. The reason the voting is set up this way is to ensure that all areas are represented fairly and not have a bias from any particular region. It is also important to remember that each individual board member will make decisions that impact not just their own district, but all PEC districts. Each and every PEC member will have the opportunity to review all candidates through the mail ballots containing short candidate biographies and the May 1st Board Meeting. It is important that you review each candidate's qualifications and make an informed decision on who are the best candidates to lead us through the challenges and opportunities that are in front of us.

Why I am running for the PEC Board of Directors

2008-04-17T11:25:00.005-05:00

What makes a person run for a seat on a Board of Directors? Is it altruism, a chance for personal improvement, an initiative to make a difference, or maybe even an opportunity to apply experiences and life lessons to an important task or project? In examining the reasons that I am excited about this opportunity to be on the Pedernales Electric Cooperative’s Board of Directors, I find that all of the items noted above are applicable, some maybe more so than others.

PEC is a reputable and respected cooperative with many notable achievements to its credit. Achievements made as a result of the efforts of a hard-working staff, an informed, involved and intelligent membership and finally, through sound business practices and decisions. Unfortunately, the reputation of PEC has been tarnished over the past year--due to the actions of its upper management and board--particularly in the media and among the membership. While the upper management has been replaced by new leadership that seems more committed to member concerns, it will still be an arduous task to restore the confidence and trust of the members. The new Board of Directors will require individuals that are both educated and dedicated to this task. They will need to be knowledgeable of the utility business environment and willing to “work” instead of “sit” on the Board.

I feel that PEC is at that critical point where the change has to be a “step-change.” A step change is one that requires immediate attention coupled with an expedient decision. These step-change activities include the Board membership, Board compensation, adopting open meeting laws, environmental awareness and conservation opportunities. The fact that so many decisions need to be discussed, reviewed, and completed emphasizes the need for board members who are up to the task with experience in resolving conflicts and effecting positive change.

My professional career and reputation has been built upon accepting the most complex of projects, especially those at a critical juncture of the process and needing strong oversight and support. I see a similar challenge in the PEC Board and believe that through hard work and diligence to the task I can effect a positive change.

Renewable Energy Benefits Everyone

2008-04-15T19:35:00.006-05:00

Electric cooperatives such as Pedernales Electric Cooperative should advocate common sense public policies on air quality, water and land resources that balance environmental stewardship with the need for energy to power the region’s economy.

Non-traditional energies from geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, wind and solar are available and should be a part of a responsible energy portfolio. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association notes, "Long range, consistent and common-sense environmental policies can ensure a clean environment without imposing severe economic penalties on electric cooperative consumers."

In the spirit of conservation, Pedernales Electric Cooperative should actively explore greater opportunities for green power, partner with green power providers, and offer the option of purchasing green power to its 220,000 members. Offering green power to our customers would be consistent with our commitment to improving the quality of life in the communities we serve. Additionally, we should explore with our partners the opportunity to implement programs which encourage home owners and business owners to invest in the future by purchasing green power.

PEC should focus its exploration of green opportunities with energy suppliers who have achieved the national Green Pricing Accreditation for its Green Works Program. These accredited utility programs undergo an annual independent verification process to document that they have delivered the green power promised to their customers.

Currently PEC’s Green Works program has made a commitment of purchasing 50 MW’s of Green Power per the information posted on the company website. PEC should attempt to increase the utility's green energy portfolio. This is not a goal that is unachievable. If anything it should be considered a target--not stretch goal-- with the understanding that more progress is expected and necessary to ensure that the environmental plan remains a key focus in our future.

The Cooperative Way

2008-04-15T11:00:00.002-05:00

Things aren’t as simple as they used to be. I appreciate tradition and traditional values, but like everyone else I must make decisions based upon today’s current events. PEC, which dates back to 1938, has a tradition of providing great service at affordable rates. That’s the cooperative way! In that spirit, PEC should make decisions based on what’s best for its customers. After all, they are the owners of the company! The 2008 PEC Board of Directors elections are a good example of tradition joining up with current events.

Looking at the bigger picture, we see clearly there is a great deal of change occurring in the electric industry. The population growth in our area and the rising cost of power are challenges we need to tackle and solve. Exploring alternative energy sources while simultaneously continuing the delivery of affordable power to all of our members is one of our greatest challenges.

We will need to figure out a way to manage the increasing electricity needs caused by the growth in our region while staying on top of providing excellent service to the many people who move into the area. They expect good reliability, customer service, low rates, and a company that listens to its owners. We can’t stop progress, but we have the ability to plan for the growth. Taking advantage of these opportunities is vital in ensuring that we stay competitive and responsible in managing our member’s interests.

Traditionally, the local cooperative does more than provide electric service to the community; in many areas, it’s a major economic driver. As the PEC mission statement explains, our co-op is committed to the community and to enhancing the quality of life in Central Texas area. Because we are owned by our members, we should take this aspect of our business very seriously.

Progress is blind to county lines. Co-ops have a role in not just providing power, but in making our communities good places to work and live. As I meet other cooperative members from across the area, I am impressed with how active cooperatives are in their communities. With the recent changes in management and Board membership, PEC must now work to regain the trust of its members. In order to do that we must ensure that the Board of Directors is composed of qualified, dedicated and highly regarded individuals who have real experience relevant to the cooperative’s operations and who understand the complexities of the cooperative’s business environment.