Redistricting plan up for vote at annual meeting
Last year, member-owners of Socorro Electric Cooperative turned out to vote on more than a dozen measures at the annual meeting. This year there’s just one item up for vote — whether to accept a proposal for a plan they called for last year to realign districts to create more equitable representation — though other matters could be brought up with motions from the floor.
The annual meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Saturday, April 9, at Finley Gym in Socorro. Registration takes place from 5 to 7 p.m.
Addressing Inequity
Socorro Electric Cooperative hasn’t redrawn district boundaries since 1967 and for years District 3, which is essentially the city of Socorro, has had more representation than any other.
Before Manny Marquez’s resignation a year ago, District 3 was represented by six trustees, or one trustee per 724 members. The five remaining trustees in District 3 now represent 4,344 members, or 869 members per trustee.
By contrast, one trustee represents each of districts 1, 2 and 4, made up of 1,676, 897 and 888 members, respectively. The most underrepresented area is District 5, the western part of the co-op service area. With 3,488 members represented by two trustees, that translates to 1,744 members per trustee.
The inequity led member-owners to pass a resolution last year to create five districts of equal populations, and that each district would be represented by just one trustee.
“The members wanted five districts with approximately equal numbers, so we started with that premise,” District 3 trustee Donald Wolberg, who was chairman of the redistricting committee, said when asked to explain how the plan was developed.
Wolberg said it was no easy task to satisfy the members’ mandate.
“You have to realize we have an area that’s 11,500 square miles — bigger than eight states,” he said. “And within that area 13,000 meters exist for approximately 9,900 members. It’s a small population over a large area.”
Complicating the process was that a large portion of the population is concentrated in a relatively small area around the city of Socorro.
“The meters aren’t evenly distributed, so we had to do it the hard way — we did it by counting,” Wolberg said. “Basically, we went through memberships listed on computer printouts one by one, realizing that in the best possible world you can only come up with an approximation. Then, we tried to piece together where everyone was and try to distribute it to come up with that magical number of 2,000.”
Redrawing Lines
The new plan basically splits the city of Socorro in half to create two districts, with the dividing line being Otero, School of Mines and Canyon roads. The new District 2 will be north of that line, while District 3 will be to the south.
District 1 boundaries still incorporate northern Socorro County and the southern part of Valencia County. Its southern boundary is extended to include San Acacia, Polvedera and Lemitar.
District 4, currently southern Socorro County and a sliver of northern Sierra County, would surround Socorro and include San Antonio, Escondida, Magdalena and the Alamo Navajo Indian Reservation.
District 5, which now encompasses Magdalena and Alamo, would be left with a portion of western Socorro County and most of Catron County.
Wolberg said in drawing up the plan “communities of interest” were taken into consideration. That is, communities were grouped together to achieve a population balance, even though they are spread apart geographically.
“For instance, folks in Alamo have distinct needs but don’t count as 2,000, and folks in San Antonio have distinct needs and they don’t count as 2,000, so they have to be clumped together with other people,” he said. “If you try to make every member count as part of a group of equal members, some greater goal of democracy has been achieved.”
According to the co-op, the goal of creating five districts of approximately equal member populations has been achieved under the proposed plan. The range is from 2,100 members in District 2 to 2,641 in District 4.
Wolberg admitted the plan isn’t perfect.
“It can’t be, because we’re dealing with fluid numbers. People move around, and it changes. You have to start somewhere and pick a point in time,” he said.
Wolberg suggested that if members want to keep equal districts it would be a good idea to introduce a resolution that requires realignment to be conducted every four years to sync with the election cycle.
Wolberg said even if the realignment plan is passed on Saturday, it wouldn’t go into effect for another two-and-a-half years. That’s because the 10 trustees currently serving on the board are being allowed to serve out the remainder of their four-year terms. When their terms expire, new elections will be held in each of the new districts.
Some Skepticism
Not everyone is keen on the proposed plan — or at least the manner in which it was devised.
An e-mail distributed last week by the Socorro Electric Cooperative Reform Group was critical of the approach the board of trustees took to draw up the plan and its failure to explain it. Their stance is that the board of trustees should have had nothing to do with drawing up the plan.
“If you do not feel comfortable with incumbent trustees drawing these five districts, if you find the blank map of the proposed districts lacking in information as to boundaries and member numbers and if you prefer to have redistricting carried out fairly and impartially by a company who knows how to redistrict and present options to the SEC members, vote NO to the Trustee Plan,” it read.
Wolberg said the board undertook the project as a way to save money. By doing it in-house, it cost the co-op nothing — other than the time the committee volunteered.
Other trustees, most recently Co-op President Paul Bustamante while defending his record at a District 2 recall election last month, have said hiring an outside firm to conduct studies and redraw boundaries would cost the co-op hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The reform group maintains that’s an exaggeration and one of the “scare tactics” the board uses to manipulate public perception.
Research and Polling Inc. of Albuquerque did redistricting for the Mora-San Miguel Electric Cooperative in northern New Mexico about three years ago. Michael Sharp, a vice-president with the company, told El Defensor Chieftain they did the work for under $20,000.
Dona Ana County recently signed a $20,000 contract with Research and Polling to realign district boundaries, according to the county’s finance director, Bill Noland.
Socorro County Manager Delilah Walsh said the county has budgeted $30,000 to have district boundaries redrawn this year.
The reform group also claims the co-op failed to provide proper notice of the annual meeting and what was being voted on when it mailed notices last month. The co-op didn’t state the reason for the realignment and gave no indication of how many members would populate each district.
The announcement only gives the legal description of the boundaries, which includes longitudes and latitudes, township lines and principal meridians that don’t mean much to the average person.
Wolberg said he’s heard that complaint too.
“I’ve had people on the street ask me, ‘What’s all this gobbly gook of a legal description?’ Well, that’s how it’s done. Look at your mortgage; it reads the same way,” he said.
District 5 trustee Charlie Wagner helped lead the reform movement and has been against the board’s plan to do redistricting internally all along.
“It’s wrong from a standpoint that they didn’t follow bylaws, it’s wrong because they appointed trustees to do the work, it’s wrong because there’s nothing that gives you any hint of where you fall within the boundaries, and it’s wrong because the notice doesn’t answer the question anyone would have: how would this affect me?” he said.
Wagner also said co-op members should consider the source before voting on the plan.
“There’s no proof that anything’s accurate. It was done by incumbents — the same people who voted to sue all the members,” he said, referring to the lawsuit the co-op filed against its member-owners last summer to block three of the newly adopted bylaws. “Would you trust them, after they sued you, to come up with a plan that’s fair? It should have been done by independent party.”
Quorum Required
The co-op did make clear on mail-in ballots sent to members more than a month ago that a quorum is required at Saturday’s meeting in order for any business to be conducted.
While mail-in ballots can be counted in the vote, co-op officials have said they won’t toward a quorum. A quorum can only be made up of people present.
Under the co-op bylaws, 3 percent of the membership constitutes a quorum, meaning approximately 300 members need to register for the proposal to be considered.
Last year, well more than 500 turned out for the annual meeting.
“I hope everybody shows up and decides either pro or con,” Wolberg said. “If they don’t like it they can modify it next year, because (approval of any redistricting plan) can only happen at an annual meeting.”
The reform group also hopes people show up on Saturday. They say there are matters that need to be addressed beyond the redistricting plan.
“This annual meeting must be attended by the membership,” said another recent correspondence from the reform group. “There are other amendments that should be addressed; one of them being the limited pathways that members have to bring matters before the membership. As it stands now, we are limited by SEC Bylaws that have been altered over the years to remove power from the members and divert it to the Board of Trustees … Last year’s annual meeting was a triumph for members’ rights but, we are not yet finished. Let’s do it again.”
Contact T.S. Last