Letters to the Editor
Good article, bad conduct
Editor:
I just wanted to compliment your article about the latest Socorro Electric Co-op meeting (“Co-op reform groups discuss strategy,” El Defensor Chieftain, June 23).
I think that if (Paul) Bustamante, (David) Wade, (Polo) Pineda, (Milton) Ulibarri, (Jack) Bruton, (Donald) Wolberg (aka Benedict Arnold), (Manny) Marquez, (Leo) Cordova and (Dennis) Francish were half the men they think they are, they would be ashamed of themselves for their conduct at that meeting.
Their arrogance is an outrage to a normal person. They just don’t get it!
The majority of members voted on bylaws to change things and they don’t think there is any need to comply.
I am referring mostly to the OMA. Why does Bustamante have such a fear of the meetings being video taped or recorded? Is it because they don’t want the public to see or hear what they have been doing behind our back for years and years? I believe so.
They also think that they can be re-elected after serving two terms, according to Cordova during his talk with my husband this morning. Unbelievable!
Virginia Martin
Tierra Grande
Anniversary of the Tobacco Control Act
Editor:
This month is the one year anniversary of the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act that was signed into law on June 22, 2009. The new law gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing and sale of tobacco products.
Tobacco companies are now required to provide larger, more visible and more informative health warning labels, including color and graphics, on tobacco product packages — it also requires larger, more visible and more informative health warning labels on advertisements. Smokeless tobacco warnings now must cover 30 percent of the two principal display panels of each package.
According to the New Mexico Department of Health 2007 Youth Risk and Resiliency survey, Socorro youth use smokeless tobacco at the rate of 17.3 percent compared to the state percentage rate of 11.8 percent.
In the 2007 YRRS, a current smokeless tobacco user is defined as a youth in grades 9-12 in a New Mexico public school who reports having used chew, snuff or dip on one or more days in the past month.
Nationwide, tobacco use kills more than 400,000 people and costs nearly $100 billion in health care bills each year. Until June 2009 tobacco products were virtually unregulated to protect consumers’ health (Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids).
If you have questions regarding the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act or would like information about the New Mexico Department of Health’s 800-QUIT-NOW (800-784-8669) toll-free hotline, contact Socorro General Hospital’s Healthy Family Initiative at 575-835-8707.
Laura Fazio, Coordinator
Tobacco Prevention Program
Clarifying the SEC bylaws
Editor:
The article “Co-op reform groups discuss strategy” (El Defensor Chieftain, June 23) needs a bit of clarification.
A difference of opinion on one issue does not a “division” make.
A reform movement can function on many levels and traversing ground already covered is not necessarily a bad thing because it reinforces the basic idea that Socorro Electric Cooperative members want reform. There are many pathways to a desired goal.
The first problem is the use of the term “bylaw” in the article.
The propositions overwhelmingly passed April 17 are legal as passed and in force as of the date passed.
The board attorney, Dennis Francish, has not yet written these propositions into the framework of the SEC bylaws, but this does not affect their legality.
By neglecting his duty as the attorney for the cooperative, Francish has created the impression that there is something the matter with the member-passed propositions. This is untrue and it is untrue no matter who repeats Francish’s claims.
It is unnecessary to rewrite the propositions and call a special meeting of the membership to redo what has already been done. A special meeting will be costly and it is doubtful that the members will turn out to “fix something that ain’t broken.” However, if some people wish to persue this avenue, it is their right.
For years, Charlie Wagner (SEC District 5 trustee) has been collecting and making a study of the bylaws of other cooperatives. There is no question that our bylaws (not our newly passed propositions) are vague and difficult to understand.
After we get past the immediate problem of forcing the board and its attorney to obey and enforce the newly passed propositions, then a committee of members, trustees and an attorney representing the members can completely rewrite the bylaws to be approved at a future Annual Membership Meeting. That is a long-term goal and will take some time to accomplish.
I will be forwarding two letters to (the reform group) shortly. One is a letter from the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, which addresses Francish’s challenge to three of the propositions. It also demolishes his arguments.
An important sentence opens the second paragraph: “It is not for us to say what the precise wording of the Cooperative’s bylaws should be. However, your Cooperative members have made their wishes clear — they seek a guarantee of free access to information about how their cooperative is being managed.”
Our wishes, the 10 propositions of April, are clear and need no rewording except to be placed in the bylaws.
The second letter, written by Charlie Wagner, is an official notice to the board of “Violations of New Mexico Open Meetings Act by Socorro Electric Cooperative Inc. Board of Trustees,” for noncompliance with the NMOMA.
The next step is investigation by either the Socorro District Attorney or the Attorney General’s Civil Division. The Attorney General’s staff and the staff of FOG noted at their meeting in Socorro, in May, that other non-profits in New Mexico have voluntary placed themselves under the Open Meetings Act as the SEC members have done with their proposition.
The recall issue is covered in SEC Bylaw Article V, Section 5, Removal of Trustees, wherein the members have the right to remove their trustee.
The opinions expressed in this article in regard to litigation are not valid to actions that have been formulated over the years by the Reform Group in regard to the actions of the board that are opposed to the rights and wishes of the SEC members.
It has been and continues to be very obvious that the only thing that will force the board to act is a court order. It is the only thing that they cannot ignore.
The charge that “litigation is unlikely to do anything other than drain the Co-op’s assets” is highly disputed by many attorneys and serves only to aid the board and mislead the members.
A class action suit draws its funds from the insurance, which indemnifies the board from legal action except that of maleficience.
Damages can also be assessed against individuals who have acted against the best interests of the members and the corporation. A class action suit can also make use of the process of “discovery” to look into the inner workings of the SEC cooperative as a part of the pleading.
When the question is asked as to whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class in their operation, administration and management of the SEC, a lot of rocks are going to be overturned.
In the case of Mora-San Miguel Electric Co-op, a derivative lawsuit was filed. This filing resulted in a settlement putting the bylaws into effect.
The power of a court of law is not to be feared, it is to be cherished.
With the passage of the propositions at the 2010 Annual Meeting, the members of the SEC have truly done a wonderful thing. As the Albuquerque Journal stated in its editorial, it became “the little co-op that could.”
Despite a difference of opinion on some matters, that will continue. The reform-minded member-owners who have preserved throughout this three-year effort have won. They are to be congratulated. The board majority has no real recourse except pathetic attempts at retaliation until the Attorney General and a court makes them face reality.
Charlene Wagner
Magdalena