This entry begins a four part series concerning recent PEC Board activity and discussions. We have a lot happening in our co-op these days. The last few meetings have brought about a number of items that deserve member attention, and I wanted to take the time to bring each of those things into context for you.
Part one of this series will deal with a potentially significant change to our PEC director election process. Part two concerns director education. Part three addresses rates. Part four will focus on our community involvement. With all of the pivotal things happening in the news today – ISIS; Scotland’s failed bid for Independence; the 2014 elections – I wouldn’t expect all of you to be keeping close tabs on the PEC board meetings. However, the topics included in this series of entries to varying degrees affect the health of our co-op, and I wanted you to be made aware of them. (To see the fully recorded board meetings, click here.)
PART ONE: PEC Board narrowly passes potentially significant modification to Director Election process
PEC has benefitted from a much-improved election process since the Fuelberg era, and yet members and candidates in recent years have presented several shortcomings with the current system. The first shortcoming, of course, deals with the size of the co-op. With over 250,000 eligible member-owners from 24 counties, director-candidates face the enormous task of connecting with a gigantic numerical and geographical body. Having just been through this process myself, I can assure you that the obstacle presented to potential candidates by the sheer size of the PEC membership should not be minimized. Imagine a candidate wants to send a postcard to members reminding them to vote. Conservatively, at $0.10 per mail piece, the cost for one mailing would be $25,000! And that doesn’t even take into consideration postage. The question has naturally become how PEC can make the election process more manageable for candidates – we want good, qualified people to step forward if they feel the call of service and have talents that would benefit the co-op. They are more likely to do that if they feel they can mount a worthwhile campaign.
We, as a membership, attempted to address this very issue from one angle in the 2014 election through a referendum to change voting from at-large elections to single-member district elections. (These two links will provide some background on this issue: Blanco News and PEC 2014 election referendum release.) That referendum, however, did not pass, and members will continue to be called on to vote in each yearly election for every director on the ballot.
Another way to address the manageability issue of director campaigns is to develop a way for candidates to communicate specifically with the 8% or less of the membership that actually participates in the election process. It’s remarkable that with several weeks of online voting and mail-in voting; day-of in person voting; and several communications from the co-op leading up to the election; PEC still sees such a small voter turn out. In conversations surrounding this problem, an idea recently surfaced to release a list to approved candidates (candidates that have been approved by the qualifications committee) of the members’ names and addresses who voted in the most recent election. It is important to note that the entire membership list is already attainable by anyone seeking to be listed on the ballot so that he or she may verify signatures on the member petitions required to become a candidate. As is the case in the current at-large membership list, co-op members would be able to opt-out of having their names and addresses listed on the recent voter list. Additionally, no information about whom a person voted for would be included on the list.
The way I see it, having this “recent voter list” available for approved candidates can only improve the election process. We give the interested members an opportunity to hear from their potential representatives so they might make more informed decisions, and we spare candidates from having to invest exorbitant amounts of money in order to communicate with them by narrowing the target audience. Someone asked me about a potential invasion of member privacy for those that don’t wish to be contacted, to which I pointed out three main things. 1) We are only releasing addresses, which we already do for the entire membership. This may mean you will receive some extra mail from candidates in May and June every year, but honestly, how many pieces of mail do you receive that you throw away every month anyways? If you don’t care about PEC elections, just chunk it!! 2) The chances that you will receive the mail pieces if you don’t participate in the PEC election process will be quite small since you won’t be on the recent voter list unless you voted in the 2014 elections. 3) I heard from several members following the election that they wish they had more contact from candidates so they could get a better sense of whom to support. If you do care about the director elections and want more information about the people that may represent you on the PEC board, you may now have better access to that information.
We first discussed this potential change at our August committee meeting, and we voted on it at our September regular board meeting. District 5 Director James Oakley, with my support, proposed a resolution to make a recent voter list available to qualified candidates. I seconded the resolution, and it passed with “yes” votes from Director Oakley, Director Perry, Director Scanlon, and myself. The “no” votes came from Director Clement, Director Landaker, and Dr. Cox (who later voted “yes” to the amended Election Policies and Procedures that included this new resolution).
This change will be enacted in the 2015 election cycle, and I believe it will greatly enhance the system we already have in place. It’s the first of many small steps in the right direction that I hope to see as a board member at our co-op.
***This resolution will be rescinded at our next Board Meeting on October 20th. A coordinated effort between the dissenting Directors and members concerned with privacy protections at our October 13th Committee meeting caused a shift in Board support for the Recent Voter Participation list. We will have to go back to the drawing board to try and improve our election process, and I encourage all members to offer opinions on how we can best do that.***
“Refining PEC Processes: Part 2” is due out later this week.