Did Tom Husted and the Directors of VEA commit corporate fraud?

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”.

Link to article  http://pvtimes.com/news/vea-s-transmission-line-sale-vote-falls-short-threshold-extended-until-nov-14

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

4 thoughts on “Did Tom Husted and the Directors of VEA commit corporate fraud?

  1. WOW! WOW! WOW!
    Maybe the next step is get enough interested people to take it to some state agency for investigation.

    Maybe Nevada Department of Investigations or Attorney General’s Office.

  2. Have you considered that once the member was not allowed to cast his vote at the meeting that for all practical purposes, VOTING HAD ENDED and they cannot extend it after that?

    Maybe its time to bring out the corporate lawyers and file a suit against Tom Husted and the 6 Directors. And we must file the suit against them personally as well as against the company.

  3. VEA has a record of censoring Company information to both the media and the membership. While this may have been going for as long as Husted has been in power at VEA, it first caught my attention when a Pahrump Valley Times article dated September 4, 2013 written by Selwyn Harris exposed the Censorship going on deep within VEA.


    New VEA Policy———-CENSORSHIP

    Selwyn Harris writes,
    This newspaper in particular has been on the receiving end of management’s ire over the subject — mostly because covering the co-op in any meaningful way requires asking hard questions and getting straight answers that managers seem strangely reluctant to give.
    And now the cooperative’s board is being asked to mull a policy change that may in fact reduce the ability of news media from covering the cooperative even further.
    The item came up for discussion during VEA’s regular board of directors meeting on Friday. VEA CEO Tom Husted, in describing the suggested policy, appeared to be telling board members that they could use it to censor the press, and even stymie co-op members who wish to attend meetings and then discuss what was said to the media.

    Now just whose company is VEA? Is it the Directors and the CEO or the members? I went to VEA 8 days ago to request some information on the sale of the transmission line and I was required to fill-in a 7 page Disclosure of Information and then get it notarized. I refused and walked out but not before I took pictures of the Disclosure with my phone.

    As members we should have a right to ask any questions of the management pertaining to VEA. It appears a roadblock is set up to discourage this exchange of information. There is a long list of provisions that can be used to reject any request by members or the press.

    Along the time line since Husted first arrived on the scene in 2005, VEA members are being less informed on what is going on inside VEA. One example is the massive wasted advertising expenses to a customer base that is required to purchase electrical energy from VEA.
    Wouldn’t it been so much cheaper to include whatever advertising they were pushing on the members to have it included in their monthly bills?

    Shouldn’t every member have been informed of what the final contract for the sale of the power line was BEFORE voting on this important issue?

    Over a period of several weeks I will post relevant information about VEA and the deceptive practices they demonstrate.

    Don’t think for one minute that VEA is your company. The way it is presently run it is THEIR Company.

  4. Keep posting more info because I want to be loaded for bear when I attend the Nov 14th meeting.

    My wife is going to ask if she can rescind her yes vote before the meeting.

Comments are closed.