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

Free Speech Community Discussion Forum Forums General Discussion Valley Electric Association Did Tom Husted and the Directors of VEA commit corporate fraud?

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Deep Throat 1 year, 11 months ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #281

    Deep Throat
    Participant

    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 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.

    #287

    William Wallace
    Participant

    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.

    #289

    Deep Throat
    Participant

    Is the 230Kv transmission line needed for reliable service or is it being sold for other reasons?

    You be the Judge

    This article appeared in the March 2004 Ruralite

    Residential growth, increase commercial power use, and the certainty of more of both, are the factors that have made it necessary for Valley Electric Association (VEA) to plan for a new transmission line in north Pahrump. VEA does not generate the power that it provides to its members.

    The nonprofit cooperative only distributes the electricity it buys from generators located elsewhere to VEA’s members. Transmission lines bring the large amounts of power that co-op members require into the VEA service area, where smaller distribution lines then distribute it to VEA members.

    In November 2002, VEA directors approved a $26 million construction work plan that included $16 million for construction of a new transmission line from VEA’s Vista Substation in north Pahrump Valley around the Spring Mountain Range, to connect with Nevada Power’s230-kilovolt (kv) transmission line at NP’s Northwest Substation near Las Vegas—from there providing VEA with access to its power delivery point at the federal government’s Mead Substation, near Boulder City, Nevada.

    If all goes as planned, construction of the new transmission line would be completed sometime in 2005—and according to current projections, not a minute too soon. VEA will borrow most of the money for this new line from the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC), and electric rates to VEA members will not be affected immediately, if at all. If the anticipated growth in memberships and power use occurs, there could be little or no change in VEA rates in the next few years.

    Growth in the VEA system was also the catalyst for construction of the last VEA power transmission line, which was built in 1996. It is VEA’s 230-kv line that runs from Boulder City to Pahrump. That line was energized on April 17, 1996, and only two months later, in June of 1996, power use in the VEA system peaked at 65 megawatts, a demand that the coop’s previous main transmission line, the 138-kv line built in 1963,could not have handled.

    Now, however, VEA member power use is even greater, and power loads on peak days are approaching
    90 megawatts (mw). 2003’s peak was93.1 mw on July 22. Not only will the planned transmission line provide for more power to flow into the VEA service area for VEA members, but also for more total system reliability—reliability that will decrease the possibility of power outages, blackouts or brownouts to VEA members if a portion or portions of the transmission system should go down VEA’s analysis shows that at consistent 90-mw system power load, it will be absolutely imperative to have a “looped” transmission line, like the one envisioned from Vista Substation to Northwest Substation, by next year.

    This project will also necessitate construction of the new Stirling Switching Station and its 230/138-kv transformer at Stirling Substation, located on the east side of the Spring Mountain Range. Almost all of the rights of way for the proposed line have been obtained. The new transmission line is also needed to meet voltage requirements and other standards established by the Western Electric Coordinating Council(WECC), the group that oversees and ensures the operation and smooth power flows over the transmission grid system in the Western United States.

    You think VEA and its members should be selling this powerline?

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.