Letters to the Editor
Still not reassured by co-op audits
Editor:
Socorro Electric co-op members must feel reassured that everything is rosy and above-board at their co-op. Those good ol’ boys from the audit firm have just suggested that taking money from the company by any means is all right as long as the employee or trustee pays it back. Whether unauthorized or tainted with the label, “irregularities”, our board of trustees feel there is no problem with the processes under which the co-op operates, as long as the “borrower” has good intentions to repay the “loan.” Are we all feeling reassured now?
Trustee Donald Wolberg made certain that it was stated that, “… members did not take a loss.”
Embezzlement is usually surrounded by good intentions from the perpetrator. “But, then things didn’t go well at the casinos and I wasn’t able to pay it back as I’d figured.” Where have we heard that before?
Mr. Wolberg’s bottom line suggests he’s fine with the taking of co-op assets, just so they are repaid — by whatever means and timing. Does that apply to me, too? Who is approved for that kind of “borrowing”?
If all is fine with the methods and processes at the co-op, why were Polo Pineda and Kathy Torres fired? If they were exceeding the limits of the policy, abusing the policy, or abetting other employees and trustees in abusing the policy, all with the express knowledge of the board, and there was no harm, why are they gone? What is the rationale for making much-needed changes in management when there are present and past board trustees complicit with the questionable loans? Who knew and when did they know it? Who benefited? The auditors are supposed to help us follow the money. At “arm’s length.” Not as good ol’ boys with long-term relationships with SEC trustees.
Auditors are not generally bothered by mistakes they find in an examination of accounting processes and policies. What is bothersome is finding a trend that leads to a conclusion there is an irregularity. That is a red flag. BKD says there weren’t any, but a preponderance of missing receipts for hundreds of purchases from a myriad of credit cards is a trend and a red flag. How many of those receipts were for meals and booze at the El Camino Real or some casino? Who was treated to those meals and drinks? Why are they considered necessary business expenses for SEC?
Excessive per diem rates with no requirement for proof of actual expenses is an invitation to abuse. It’s easily concealed who really needed to travel and what their expenses should have been when no proof is requested. According to Mr. Bustamante, the work of the co-op requires 11 board trustees to conduct business; and, those trustees are not there to serve, but to draw a wage. “That’s why it’s so high,” he said.
My conclusion: If 36 co-op employees require that much supervision, in addition to their management staff, we need to hire more motivated workers.
Bustamante’s rationalization is further suspect when he demands that discussion of per diem for the board must be conducted in secret. Additionally, members are allowed to review SEC business papers and documentation by co-op bylaws. He’s denying that right to El Defensor-Chieftain and others.
When I asked to see the audit results, acting office manager Eileen Lataza denied my request, stating it would have to be approved by attorney Dennis Francish. Part of her duties include keeping Francish informed of any developments at the co-op. His billings certainly won’t suffer for her referrals.
When the board elected to drop their lawsuit against its own members, Francish stated the suit was unpopular and “the members didn’t like it.” He and his devotees on the SEC board should heed that thought. There’s plenty we don’t like in their pretense as trustees of the SEC.
Herbert Myers
Socorro
Common sense lacking by trustees
Editor:
I think it is interesting that a board member would ask Mr. Wagner how much money was allocated to pay his Texas attorneys. If the board had not sued Wagner and the rest of the members it would be of no concern.
The total lack of common sense displayed by the current board, currently accused of fraud and still sitting in capacitory positions, is totally lacking. The members are fed up with “business as usual” in what is looking like obvious unfair personal financial gain by the board members past and present.
The board should look in the mirror to see who started the fight and hopefully they do not regret it in the near future.
David Dotson
Socorro