They will not be allowed to speak at that meeting, but in a regular board meeting following the annual meeting, three members have been granted permission to be on the agenda and one will be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.
Brush control letter inadequate
Shawn Porter, who lives in Parthenon, Ark., along with several other residents, became concerned when several of his neighbors received a letter from Carroll Electric stating the coop would be "selectively treating the tall growing brush under the electric lines, using products that will encourage the growth of grasses and low-growing vegetation." Some who requested not to be sprayed were sprayed anyway, and a couple lost garden plants and bees.
Porter and others contend the letter does not provide sufficient disclosure about how brush control is carried out for citizens to make informed choices, and the letter does not inform citizens they have a choice.
In addition, Porter said, not every district in Carroll Electric's service area allows people to get on a "no spray" list unless they have first received a letter about the spraying.
Those with ROWs on their land but without electric service do not get letters.
Two years ago, when Carroll Electric sent such letters to Carroll County residents, many residents called and requested to be put on the "no spray" list and several wrote to area newspapers expressing their concerns.
No public meeting
Porter said he and others have tried for more than a year to meet with officials to discuss their concerns as a group, to no avail.
After having no success, he began inquiring, on behalf of himself and other members, about attending the annual members' meeting to present their concerns to the board.
"At first they basically told us, 'No, you can attend the meeting, but you can't speak and ask questions,'" he said.
Nancy Plagge, media contact for Carroll Electric, speaking on behalf of CEO Rob Boaz, said that any member of Carroll Electric can attend the annual meeting and any regular board meeting, "but to have a public forum to address their concerns has not been granted."
Members may not speak at an annual meeting. They can ask to be placed on the agenda of a regular board meeting.
Environmental concerns
Porter and others have several concerns about environmental effects and possible threats to human and animal health from the herbicides being used.
Carroll Electric contracts with a company called Progressive Solutions, which uses a mixture of herbicides it claims only affects specific plants and does not harm the soil or groundwater and has no adverse health effects.
Eureka Springs resident Pat Costner, a former senior scientist with Greenpeace International's Science Unit, said in a letter to the Lovely County Citizen last year that the chemical mix used "typically consists of Accord XRT and Arsenal as well as Escort XP, or where redbud or box elder are present, Tordon K."
She said the active ingredient in Accord XRT is glyphosate, which is also the active ingredient in Roundup.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified 76 species that may be endangered by glyphosate use," she wrote.
Arsenal's active ingredient is imazapyr, which was withdrawn from the market in the European Union because of adverse effects.
Plagge said Progressive Solutions is currently using Accord, Arsenal and Milestone.
"We work closely with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and avoid specific areas they have identified as sensitive areas," she said, which would include running water.
ADEQ's warning letter
Porter said last year Carroll Electric's contractors sprayed vegetation down into an intermittent creek, on both sides, that flows into the Little Buffalo River. After protests from concerned citizens to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the Plant Board, the ADEQ sent a warning letter to Carroll Electric, threatening to issue a violation if this occurs again. It called for the establishment of buffers to protect active and losing streams.
Spraying more cost-effective
Carroll Electric defends its practice of spraying herbicides as a cost-effective way of keeping electricity costs lower for its members.
"Had we not sprayed some of these heavy vegetation areas in Newton County, the restoration (of electric service) after the ice storms would have been much more extensive," Plagge said. "We truly believe that without the use of herbicides, maintenance would be much more costly. Our members pay for that."
Porter said requests for a cost comparison of spraying versus manual maintenance have been ignored.
Some points valid
She said some board members and the staff of Carroll Electric have taken Porter's concerns seriously and say some requests, such as the problematic wording of the letter, have validity.
"It's being looked at," she said.
Porter said from 100 to 200 members may show up at the meeting.
Plagge said they will be welcomed, and as many as can fit into available seating will be accommodated.
Porter added that his group has five requests they will be asking of Carroll Electric, with the first two being of primary importance. They include:
* Revise the notification letter to provide clear disclosure that herbicides will be sprayed, what they are and that members have the option to have their ROWs maintained manually instead.
* Provide members with convenient means of having their easements and accounts noted "no spray," regardless of which district they reside in.
* Improve identification (flagging or GPS marking) and avoidance of private property easements, streams, creeks, springs, wells, caves, bogs and karst indicators.
* Eliminate the use of untested combinations of herbicides that have no specific safety data assembled regarding the effects of the combined mixtures on human health and wildlife.
* Pledge to improve communication between board, management and concerned members; give members an opportunity to speak at the annual meeting without having to obtain 20,000-plus signatures needed for a petition or 60,000 needed to pass a motion filed by the same petition process.
The annual meeting will take place Thursday, May 28, at 10 a.m. in the Pioneer Room at Carroll Electric headquarters in Berryville on US62W. Registration for the meeting will start at 9 a.m. A regular board meeting will immediately follow.
(Editor's note: For the text of the email sent by Pat Costner as to identification and issues relating to the herbicides Carroll Electric is using, click here .)
![[Masthead]](http://www.lovelycitizen.com/images/nameplate.png)

I made an error in my estimate of how many votes it would take to get a member initiated petition on a ballot with Carroll Electric. A more accurate estimate follows:
According to data compiled by the Arkansas Public Service Commission, Carroll Electric serves 66,609 members. 25% of this total would be needed to place a member initiated petition on a ballot, or 16,652 signatures.
2/3 of the members or 44,406 ballots would have to be returned with passing votes for the proposal to become policy. These percentages have to be met in all 9 districts. My original estimate was incorrectly based on the number of meter locations. (Many account holders have more than one meter).
For a bit of history about Carroll Electric ballots and vote totals; in the past 10 years there has never been more than 18.05% of mailed ballots returned. The avg. # of ballots returned during the past 10 yrs. was 14.5% . Last year 12.83% ballots were returned.
Given these circumstances, it would be virtually impossible for a member or group of members to successfully pass a ballot initiative. Because Carroll Electric Cooperative is a member owned rural utility, the bylaws should be amended so that members have a reasonable option to utilize the member petition process.
Shawn Porter
In many instances in this country, when a utility wants to do something, they do it regardless of citizens opinion or property owners protest. Methods may vary but the outcome is the same. The words "cost effective", imminent domain, for the good of the community, are but a few. In reality, is it not about financial gain? Rarely do we see cooperation to the satisfaction of all, but instead, "this is the way it will be" The utilities should not pat themselves on the back, if one were to look at the results of chemicals and tree trimming. It leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth when observing how the beauty of the area has been destroyed, and the food chain of small life has been poisoned from the use of the chemicals. Options? Filing charges with the EPA might not fall on deaf ears, if a petition was submitted. Is it not time for the citizens to force the utilities to be more responsive to the community.