Letters to the Editor (6/13/2013)
Fight for SEC control absurd
This ongoing battle for control of the Socorro Electric Cooperative is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. The simple fact is this — if this were a financial institution rather than a power utility, most of the board and the removed officers and administrators would be in jail. Period.
If the election process they follow were used in a political election, they would be guilty of civil rights abuses and election fraud.
The difference between organized crime and what goes on at the Socorro Electric Co-op is that organized crime is … organized.
‘Stink’ natural in agricultural area
I am responding to the story by Laura London, “Same stink, new day” in which she reports on manure smells originating from land in and near Socorro owned by Steve Romero.
Until now, I thought that using manure to fertilize land instead of chemical fertilizers was environmentally responsible. In fact, I have been “stockpiling” manure at my property on Duggins Lane for many years, except I call it composting. If the City council outlaws such harboring of manure, will I face fine and imprisonment for my compost pile? Is it proposed that “ag smells” from property zoned for agriculture be forbidden? I think complaints of ag smells from ag property are indefensible, and that folks who are offended by such smells should have checked out the local zoning before moving in.
I also rise to defend Mr. Romero as a responsible farmer and a good neighbor. He has replaced the fence between my property and his at no cost to me, and removed junk trees that transpired water and wasted crop land. He has levelled his land to save water, and by enriching the soil with natural manure, he has strengthened his crop to crowd out the weeds. His equipment drivers are among the few who observe the posted speed limit on Duggins Lane of 15 mph. We have an amicable agreement for the use of an easement across his property which I use to irrigate my land.
Co-op member having trust issues with board
Trust — (1) A confident reliance on the integrity, veracity or justice of another; confidence; faith; (2) Something committed to one’s care for use or safekeeping; a charge; responsibility. (3) The state or position of one who hase received an important charge. (4) A confidence in the reliability of persons or things whthout careful investigation … (6) The confidence or the obligation arising from the confidence, reposed in a person (called the trustee) to whom the legal title to property is conveyed for the benefit of another …
Taken from “The Practical Standard Dictionary”
Judging from the conduct I witnessed at last year’s annual SEC meeting, and that of this year’s annual meeting, there are very few on the SEC’s board of trustees that fit that definition.
The membership had been lulled to sleep, while the 11-member board rode rampant through the arroyos and mountains, spending our hard earned money on themselves. Last year the membership shouted lout and clear, “We are mad as hell, and we aren’t going to take this anymore.” We voted for a five-member Board of Trustees, which is now being implemented through attrition. The need for transparency still does not exist. The need for honesty and integrity can still be questioned.
I demand honesty, integrity, and confidence in theses elected officials. You work for us, we don’t work for you. Last year the membership voted at the annual meeting to allow mail-in ballots to be considered part of the quorum at the annual meetings. They were allowed at the beginning of the last annual meeting, but somehow mysteriously disallowed after that. Obviously, some officials, including lawyers, are talking out of both sides of their mouths. If the chairman cannot run the meeting properly, then it is imperative that another take his place and stop the endless huddling and get on with the business at hand.
What a concept.
Sarah Atwell Williams