On that issue, 2,561 voted against, and 1,113 voted for mail-in ballots. There were five abstentions.
“We were concerned because we saw all of the people coming in after lunch, and frankly, it could have gone the other way, because they were instructed to wait until 12:30,” plaintiff Butch Thompson said moments after the preliminary results were announced. “It was an overwhelming victory for us. … I think people have got the message.”
Another plaintiff, Diane Bracken, said she believes members have firmly sided with her and the five others who brought suit against the 190,000-member electric cooperative in 2007, alleging mismanagement of assets, among other things.
“I just thought, finally we have an opportunity to perhaps replace this board,” she said, of the moment the results were read. “I was pleasantly surprised that so many people came and were informed.”
The second question, whether to prohibit future retirement benefits for directors, also passed overwhelmingly, with 3,112 votes for and 489 against. Sixty-one ballots were marked “abstain” on that issue. The EMC had not taken a position on that question.
When the vote totals were read about 6 p.m. Saturday in the sanctuary of Piedmont Church, the plaintiffs and their supporters broke out into cheers and applause.
For them, it was a joyous end to a long and nerve-wracking day that began with registration opening at 8 a.m.
At 10:15 a.m., when the meeting was called to order, about 400 members had registered. The sanctuary, which could hold 1,800 people, was full only on the main level.
Attorney Joe Whitley, of the Atlanta firm GreenbergTraurig, was chosen to be the moderator. He does not work for either the plaintiffs or the EMC. Whitley encouraged the crowd to be courteous and respect the speakers, and then introduced Frank Fatone, president of Election Services Corp., who certified there was a quorum of 150 people.
The first presenter was Rick Wemmers, speaking for the plaintiffs. He carried a tree switch with him and pulled leaves from it as he approached the podium, remarking on how his mother had to use similar switches to tan his behind once or twice as a child.
“You and I own Cobb EMC. Nobody else does,” he said to applause from the crowd. Later, he asked: “Don’t we have enough child’s play in Washington? Do we have to put up with it here, where we can vote it out?”
“I don’t have any personal agenda against any board member,” he said. “I only know them by their actions. I don’t care whether you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever. This is not right! I hope you’re going to say I’m sick and tired of being used and abused by unscrupulous people who don’t care to ask for your opinion. You are important! I’m important! … Time to get the switch out and let them know!”
King and Spalding lawyer Dwight Davis spoke on behalf of the EMC and directors.
“Why am I up here? Chip Nelson asked me to address this issue to you. I have represented Coca Cola, General Motors and others, and every single one of those companies have mail-in ballots, and the reason why is the idea that you want more participation, not less,” Davis said. Nelson is the cooperative’s chief executive officer.
He presented slides showing how EMC votes could be manipulated by a small number of members.
“A small group can hijack Cobb EMC,” he said — which is ironically what the plaintiffs believe the 10 directors have done in years past.
He went on to list several benefits of mail-in ballots, such as greater participation, more choices, a voter-friendly process, and “very secure ballot.”
“This is not a vote for management or against management. It’s a vote for you,” he said, before concluding: “Don’t let anyone hijack this organization by getting a small group that would take control of an election” — which drew loud groans from the crowd.
Butch Thompson gave his side’s five-minute rebuttal, and he received a standing ovation from many in the sanctuary as he approached the podium.
“Some have said we’re trying to take over the EMC. We don’t want to take away, we want to restore. It is your EMC,” he said.
On the mail-in ballots issue, he said: “Folks, if you allow this to continue I can assure you this: these directors will stay in office from now on. We’ve got to vote no on this.”
For the next 90 minutes, speakers lined up at one of the four microphones and had three minutes to speak. About 60 people spoke in all, and some microphones were muted when speakers strayed from the two issues at hand — though that also draw some loud criticism from people who shouted back to let the speaker be heard.
Shortly after 12:30 the meeting ended, and within moments Whitley said there were 600 people in line to vote. Cars were lined up throughout the afternoon attempting to turn into the church’s parking lot. The lobby area was crowded and loud for much of the afternoon, with observers directing foot traffic. Outside, Cobb Police directed vehicle traffic, with shuttle buses running to off-site parking at Daniell Middle School and to EMC headquarters, where employees were parked.
Davis, the attorney for the directors, said after the meeting that he thought it was a well-run session. As for why the directors did not sit together, Davis said he was trying to subdue some of the rancor of the crowd.
“We did not try to pack this meeting with supporters or employees to hoot at the other side or applaud, the way the plaintiffs did,” he said. “But I do believe the hooting and clapping you heard is misleading. It’s not going to be as one-sided as this.”
Director Don Barnett, one of the four directors who will stand for election on Nov. 12, spoke to the Journal later in the afternoon, while members were still arriving steadily to vote. He downplayed the effect a loss on the mail-in ballot question would have on the directors.
“If they reject it, then we’ll just have to meet in person somewhere. They’ll have to decide what they want to do. We’re obviously going to do what our members want us to do — not a handful of our members, but all of our members,” he said.
As for whether he feels under siege, he said: “I don’t think under siege is the right word. People have a difference of opinion. Attitudes are shaped by what people hear. If they get all of the facts, they tend to be able to make good choices.”
Peggy Lewallen, a 25-year member of Cobb EMC who avoided the traffic around Piedmont Church and walked from her nearby home, said she voted against mail-in ballots.
“I felt like the EMC people were trying to push for ballots, and it’s time to get rid of all the directors that are in there. It’s been a big mess the last five years. I really applaud people who have worked hard to get Cobb EMC — it’s our membership cooperative — back in the hands of members.”
Larry DiPanfilo of east Cobb, a member for 12 years, voted for mail-in ballots.
“We should be able to have mail in ballots and not have to come to the polling place for this type of vote,” he said. “I think you’d get a wider spectrum of people who would participate.”
Among those seen coming in throughout the afternoon to vote were Glenn Brock, of the Marietta law firm Brock and Clay; Trish Steiner, a director of the East Cobb Civic Association; David Banks, a member of the Cobb school board; and Joe Daniell, of Vinings Bank.
Marie Hogan of Kennesaw, a 33-year member of Cobb EMC, voted against mail-ins.
“If we’re going to have a vote, you need to show up and vote in person,” she said. She did not attend the morning meeting.
“I had already read everything a couple of times, so I didn’t think I needed to come to the meeting,” she said.
Charles Gruehn is a 15-year member of Cobb EMC who lives in east Cobb. He also voted against mail-in ballots because he believes it was structured in favor of the existing board. Likewise, he didn’t come to the meeting because he had been following the issues for months, he said.
“It looks like a tremendous turnout. I’m just glad that — regardless of which way it goes — this is democracy at work. This is people hopefully understanding what the issues are, coming out and expressing their opinion,” he said.
“But obviously the way I voted I would hope the vote would go against them.”
Follow us on Twitter!
The enviro community is alive and well these days and chomping at the bit to put a costly strangle-hold on nuclear and coal fired power generation...our most economical means of power generation. I would not be at all surprised to see some of these people try to obtain a seat on the next EMC board. It is a great opportunity for them to come in under the radar of an EMC membership that is currently primarily focused on the financial shenanigans and self-dealing of the current board - and not as focused on other potential issues/risks.
I do not, however, expect that any enviro candidates will present themselves to the EMC membership in a fully open and forthright manner that would allow us to easily understand their true positions or intentions. I expect them to come to us talking more like fiscal conservatives who try to keep our focus only on financial shenanigans and self-dealing, so that we don't have the discussions that might reveal their other/true intentions/positions on other matters that are just as important to the EMC future.
Bottom-line: EMC members need to make sure we don't let any snakes into the house while we are trying to get the fleas off the dog.
Thanks again for your comments.
Should anyone determine that any such candidate has views that they feel are detrimental to the cooperative, they are free both to vote for the opposing candidate and to make those views known to the membership so that anyone with similar concerns can take that information into consideration.
While I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, it isn't helpful when you make vague and sinister remarks about some imagined hidden agenda I have. It sounds a little too much like the manipulative tactics I regularly see Cookerly PR writers and Sam Kelly (via Cookerly PR writers) use. Anyone who has followed my editorials, letters, and comments knows exactly where I stand, so I'm not going to rehash it again.
I've spoken at length to several of the board candidates who'll be running in the upcoming three special elections. To a person, they are knowledgeable and very balanced in their perspectives, with not a "radical" bone in their bodies. As I recall, their only positions relative to energy issues focus on making sure that the EMC is involved in solutions that are cost-effective for members and not expensive boondoggles that were designed to divert large sums of money to individuals. Sounds pretty conservative to me.
I just don't understand why you feel the need to take an alarmist, polarizing position here, unless your goal is to make people suspicious and reluctant to vote for change.
Look at the candidates. Meet with them. Question them. Research their associations and vet them as thoroughly as you want. Then, if you have concerns, publish them and provide substantiation. Anything less than that is just blowing smoke.
For you to act like that is not a potential risk, makes me think you are either out to lunch on this issue, or, perhaps, a lot closer to the agenda driven enviro-thinker crowd than you let on.
I appreciate your contributions to the discussion.
It is about corruption, greed, malfeasance, arrogance, and abuse of power on a scale we have only begun to measure. Instead of focusing on putting an end to that, some would prefer we waste our time fearfully checking to see if those who join us in opposing it might hold some position with which we disagree. In doing so they miss the most important point of all.
We are not all the same. There was a time when we recognized the value of that and jealously
protected it. Increasingly, though, there are those who seek to herd us into homogeneous groups by scrawling the label of "enemy" on everyone outside their group. This is not reality, and history shows us that it initiates a process that does not end well. Worse, it's a world in which opportunists and manipulators thrive, feeding on the fear of "not like us."
Yes, environmental groups oppose the current board and would like to see them voted out. Where's the problem? Do they not have a right to take such a position? CASE, for example, openly states that its roots were in smart energy advocacy. Where's the grand environmentalist conspiracy? It doesn't exist. These are just people like you and me who happen to have gotten to their position of opposition to the board by walking down a different road. The only "wing nuts" I see here are those who insist on turning differences of opinion into an imaginary grand battle between good and evil when real evil is staring them right in the face.
Unless you'd have every Cobb EMC member who advocates clean energy wear an arm band with a big yellow star patch on it, that's the best answer I have for you.
BTW, there must have been two SWAT vehicles, because the one we saw clearly had SWAT written on the sides.
Thanks again for all you guys do for us!
And stop hating on the rank and file employees. Yes, my daughter got paid for being there yesterday, but she sat in a chair for 9 hours registering the 3700 members that attended."
Ah, I believe there is a problem. No EMC employee was to be part of the registration process, as registration was supposed to be independently handled.
So how did someone with a vested/biased interest as an employee manage to get "inside" a supposedly independent group? How many more "independent" EMC employees handle registration/other duties?
Inquiring minds want to know...
No straw man arguments or fearmongering here on the environmentalist push. One only needs to do a few internet searches on some of the environmental groups to find out their desire to halt Plant Washington without offering any alternative to Cobb's energy needs. Fellow Cobb residents, you can Start with CASE (Cobb Alliance for Smart Energy), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, or how about Georgians for Smart Energy. You may be surprised at the names that pop up.
Here's an enlightening quote from CASE from Saturday's MDJ:
“By 2009, CASE decided the time had come to commit ourselves to reform Cobb EMC by getting new members elected to the board, and that’s when we established Watch(Cobb EMC Watch),” Barksdale said. “Elections are our best chance to change EMC for both the cause of the customers and the cause of environmentalism.”
On your first point regarding mail-in ballots, Cobb EMC had already said it was going to do mailers of all candidates whether incumbents or challengers. Cobb residents, you have to ask yourself what these groups are so afraid of when we all get represented rather than the few that can show up for a meeting. Could it be that we will vote our own self interests? Won't it be interesting to see who will try to challenge the board. Perhaps, MDJ will do some background analysis of them.
Finally, unlike some, ahem, I only became knowledgeable of these background groups when CobbEMC went to smart meters and I was hoping for a way to avoid it. The liberty thing you see. The more I read, the more I realized that Cobb's energy resources was in danger of being hijacked by activists. I actually found myself sympathizing with a group (CobbEMC board) I disagreed with on smartmeter installations.
So with that said, I will let my previous post stand as written. Perhaps Cobb residents should start their own groups to counter these people that just squelched your right to vote at your kitchen table.
This kind of fear mongering just isn't going to fly anymore -- Saturday's vote clearly established that. Members who viewed the situation objectively understood that the problem was that the EMC should not be allowed to use its resources to fund the campaigns of incumbents. Such an election could never be fair to challengers. This was the problem with Amendment 1 as re-written. EMC attorney Dwight Davis somehow convinced Judge Schuster that to deny the EMC the ability to freely promote incumbents was akin to muzzling, which it certainly is NOT.
EMC shills have in the past been able to leverage the fear, uncertainty, and doubt approach, but Saturday's vote demonstrated that it just isn't working anymore. An indicted former CEO and a board of unindicted co-conspirators tends to make a bigger impact on most folks than wild accusations about an environmentalist conspiracy.
No one who reads Dwight Brown's deposition and other publicly available documents like CPA Wayne Middlebrooks' audit can avoid seeing truth behind the charges in the indictment. On the other hand, accusations like yours are just baseless disinformation designed to associate reform groups with a political position you believe is perceived negatively by many Cobb County residents.
The issue here is corruption, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with a political or environmental position. Unless you know of one that embraces corruption and self enrichment as part of its platform. I thought Boss Tweend was dead and Tammany Hall was gone, but I could be wrong. Maybe it just moved to Cobb County.
But, this EMC board/mgmt is doing what it can to make the plaintiffs and objecting members seem like unreasonable, uncivil, fringe kooks on a mission of no good. It was not hard to believe that the noticeable LE presence was the purposeful doing of the EMC Management...especially with the SWAT van sitting out front. The EMC membership has never shown any tendency toward violence or civil unrest, so the thought that EMC management might have been conjuring a show to cast the membership as a potential threat to safety does tend stick in the craw of many of us EMC members who do not appreciate others insinuating that WE are the ones that pose a threat to safety and civility.
That said, we appreciate what you LE folks do for us!
Think about it. All they have to do now is get a couple of busloads of their supporters to future meetings to vote their way while the rest of the EMC members are at work. I cannot believe that in America, and conservative Cobb County in particular, we got snookered like this and voted away our right to vote without having to show up and attend a meeting. Unbeliveable.
Keep your eye out. They are going to try to replace this board with a bunch of people that will talk a good game, but will then clamour for the stoppage of power plants in the quest for clean air. All the while they will point their fingers towards Dwight Brown, who is now irrelevant and has been replaced. These types of groups are all about setting up straw men arguments. You know, like the one they just used for this campaign where if you were able to sit your kitchen table and fill out a Cobb EMC ballot and mail it in that somehow money was going to influence board elections. Give me a break!
The food was catered, paid for by Cobb EMC (YOU!). I overheard the caterer talking. Food was delicious!