Allegations of Conduct Unbecoming of a Member-Owned Energy Cooperative raised by various PJE Members:

• Out of had dismissal of a proposal by a PJE member for PJE to participate as a cooperating sponsor in the ‘energy-conservation retrofit’ of a local/commercial building as a useful demonstration project in state-of-the-art energy management technology which at the same time would boost local tourism by creating an ‘educational attraction’ that could help put the PJE cooperative ‘on the map’ as a leader in energy stewardship; this refusal to seriously entertain said proposal came while at the same time PJE was hosting seminars for and promoting the professional services of a private consultant/expert on ‘new construction’ energy-conservation technology.
  

• Occurrences that seem to strongly indicate that PJE is contracting with firms which hire undocumented workers.
  
  
• Out of hand dismissal of a request for a member to address the board regarding the hiring criteria for the position of General Manager.
  
  
• The gluttonous salaries awarded at the executive level of ‘cooperative’ administration, ie: the $422,971 annual salary of Gary Voit, President and CEO of AECC (Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation) which is owned in equal shares by our PJE cooperative together with our fellow ‘member-owned’ energy cooperatives all around the state. Respectfully, no matter the ‘fair market value’ for salaried individuals who serve for-profit corporations in similar capacities and even though Gary’s salary equates to only about $1 per year out of the pocket of every cooperative member state-wide, in context of the values and ideology intrinsic to not-for-profit ‘cooperative’ organizations the gross disparity between such earnings and the average $30,000 annual family income of a PJE member is extravagant.
  
  
• Refusal to entertain a proposal, re: public relations services, from an existing PJE member while at the same time contracting for the procurement of similar services from agencies which are not Members of the PJE cooperative.

• Based on figures published in the December 31, 2005, Annual Report, the cooperative sold a total of 283,686,566 kwh during 2005 with electric consumption projected to increase to 284,925,000 kwh in 2006 and 291,424,000 kwh in 2007 (see table, below). While these numbers at face value indicate a substantial increase in projected energy consumption, when extrapolated to percentages these figures calculate to a 0% (zero percent) increase in energy consumption for the year 2006 over 2005 and then a 2% (two percent) increase in 2007 over 2006. While a 2% annual increase is consistent with longstanding PJE trends, a 0% increase is not. Note that if the 2006 estimate is faulty by 2% this error exponentially carries forward to all ensuing years and amounts to underestimating projected energy consumption for 2006 & 2007 by nearly 4million kwh.

• Serious questions about PJE practices regarding energy management pertaining to cost-effectiveness and overall efficiency of distribution operations including, for one example, an allegedly ‘deteriorated state’ of the PJE Load Management System.
  
  
• Reports from various/credible sources that the cooperative is in excess of $31million in debt and was until just recently teetering on the brink of take-over by the Federal government.
  
  
• In light of believing that the referenced debt did not suddenly materialize out of the blue, the serious question of prudence is raised with regard to the wisdom of constructing the new auxiliary headquarters in Marshall.

• Application of chemical herbicide with complete disregard to the written prohibition and ground-clearing compliance of individual members.
  
  
• Lack of worker education, re: proper tree-trimming, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of whole trees or significant portions thereof.

• Disparity among policies regarding the minimum requirements for household square footage, water availability and length of residency at the (proposed) service location such that a small condemned and unoccupied mobile home with no water and also an RV located on Hwy. 254 both received new power hook-ups by simply paying the standard $20 PJE membership initiation fee while at the same time a working couple who have resided for several years on 10 acres in a ‘build as you go’ household cannot get power without paying a substantial ‘temporary hook-up’ charge.
  
  
• The refusal of the PJE office to make readily available for member inspection the petition that was circulated by PJE members in good standing in opposition to the proposed ‘service availability’ rate increase and related to this the statement by a paid PJE employee that the PJE office was under no obligation to make said petition available by any means because ‘we oppose it’…

• The ultimate raising of the service availability fee over the objections of 1785 petitioners whose complaints, it is also noted, were NOT numerically included in the AECC Annual Report to the Arkansas Public Service Commission regarding consumer complaints, noting that the absence of this data tremendously skews the factual statistics of this mandated reporting criteria.

• Removal from the PJE public office of a member’s petition seeking endorsement for board member candidacy while at the same time a list of nominations to said office made by the nominating committee was on public display.
  
  
• Lack of useful information/resource (annual reports, by-laws, member petitions, contact info for directors, easy access to 'due process' for dispute resolution, employment and open-bid announcements, PJE pages from Rural Arkansas, member bulletin board, etc.) on the PJE website.
  
  
• Lack of consumer education, re: residential transformers which explode, spewing burning globs of tar to the ground.

• Refusal to allow members to simply observe any and all board of directors meetings, see: Member Report.