Dateline Friday October 14, 2016
Did Tom Husted and the Directors of VEA commit corporate fraud?
Unethical Dirty Crooked Dishonest Sneaky Corrupt Fraudulent Underhanded
These were the words how one member described the results of VEA’s meeting today’s after the month long voting did not produce enough yes votes to sell the 230 Kilovolt transmission line. A resolution was adopted and approved to extend the voting to November 14, 2016. This extension is to give members who did not vote another chance to cast their ballots? The members at the meeting voting for extension were approximately 8 to 1 in favor taking into account that the room was stacked with VEA employees to make sure the resolution was passed and the desired outcome was achieved.
It appears that Tom Husted, together with the Board of Directors and possibly with the employees and Ambassadors will do anything and everything to get enough votes so the sale of the transmission line will be approved.
It was also conveyed to me that a member tried to vote his ballot at the meeting but was denied on grounds that it was not allowed even though it specifically stated on the ballot that one could cast their ballot at the October 14, 2016 meeting.
When the member asked again to cast his ballot he was told from the Director of Fish Lake that “VEA changed the rules”. With approval of the resolution and the “changing of the rules”, the die was cast in concrete that VEA is one of the most deceitful company’s doing business in the State of Nevada.
Mick Ayers of the Pahrump Valley Times stated in his article: “Per the bylaws and Nevada state law, Friday’s action would keep voting open for the extra 31 days”.
Article VIII in the bylaws considers the sale of assets, not extending the voting on sale of assets. There appears to be no provision for extending any time for voting within all the VEA bylaws. As far as Nevada State Law, again there is no provision for extending any voting time for a sale of co-op property.
NRS 81.505 Restriction on power of rural electric cooperatives to sell, lease or dispose of assets.
1. A rural electric cooperative formed or consolidated pursuant to NRS 81.410 to 81.540, inclusive, may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of all or a substantial portion of its assets only if the sale, lease or disposition is:
(a) Authorized by the affirmative vote of not less than three-fourths of the directors of the cooperative; and
(b) Assented to by two-thirds of the members of the cooperative:
(1) In writing; or
(2) By a vote of the members at a meeting, notice of which has been given in the manner provided in NRS 82.336.
2. As used in this section, “substantial portion of its assets” means any portion of the assets of a cooperative representing 25 percent or more of the total book value of all of its assets.
Because VEA required 2/3 vote of its membership for sale of the power line, it means that the members are selling at least 25% of the total assets of their company. Without an audit of the Co-op’s financial statements, could the percentage be higher, maybe 50% or even 75% of the assets being sold?
VEA did not follow the official notice of meeting. No open discussion for the members to speak out. Members were not even allowed to discuss the resolution extending the voting date. The meeting was conducted very quickly and once the required result was obtained, adjourned. Was VEA in violation of its own bylaws? Was VEA required to place in the notice of meeting that a resolution to extend the date to cast ballots was to be voted on at that meeting?
The VEA official press release on their web site states,
“The Board has heard from thousands of members during the past 45 days. These interactions have come face to face, phone calls, letters, e-mails and through social media. Many members have expressed concern with being unable to cast their votes due to loss of ballots, unfamiliarity with computerized voting, inconvenience and the lack of time to consider the complexities of the issue.”
Inconvenience? Lack of time? 45 days was not enough time?
The question begs, why the members didn’t vote when in contact with Board members? Bribing members with cash lotteries of $2500.00. $1500.00, $1000.00 and $10.00 gift cards certainly may be considered unethical. I’m sure Microsoft or Apple would be in violation if they bribed its shareholders to cast votes. VEA management has proven they can do whatever they want even if illegal and the members vote right along with them.
Comments are open on this news article