How cooperative is Carroll Electric Cooperative?

Trickle-down theory -- Holiday Island resident Buzz Peine is shown on his property near Butler Creek. Peine was disappointed that contractors for Carroll Electric sprayed herbicide down to the water's edge on his right-of-way. The area sprayed was underwater last summer. Peine feels like the spraying broke the law. Photo by Chip Ford

Although the meeting room was filled to capacity with some people sitting on the floor and a number of others standing in the hallway, CECC didn't allow members to speak or ask questions. After a short annual meeting, the CECC Board of Directors went into a closed meeting.

Twenty-one coop members had made a written request to speak at the annual meeting. None was allowed to speak, but CECC allowed one person, Shawn Porter, to give a presentation to a board meeting that followed the annual meeting with two other members allowed to observe.

CECC member offended

Steve Campbell of Holiday Island was offended by the CECC's treatment.

"It was insulting going to a cooperative meeting only to find out that they really don't want to talk to you," Campbell said. "You are considered a nuisance and a paycheck rather than a member of the cooperative. We are told we are cooperative members, but we are just captive customers who have no choice but to buy electricity from a company that won't listen to us about concerns that their herbicide spraying is poisoning our property and water supplies."

CECC says the herbicide spraying costs two to three times less than mechanical clearing. But members question other costs such as expenses for board members of $32,000 per member each year, and CEO Rob Boaz's annual salary increasing $100,000 since taking over in 2003, including an 18-percent pay increase in 2008. Boaz now makes $246,000 per year.

"They are making large salaries and yet they won't even allow their members to identify problems," Campbell said. "That isn't a cooperative. It is just a big business. We are at the mercy of Carroll Electric because there is no choice."

Opponents' concerns

The herbicide opponents have raised a number of concerns including:

* To nominate someone to the board of directors is difficult because it takes signatures from 10 percent of members in a district, and not less than two percent of the total membership, which means 1,630 signatures are needed (with one household counting as only one membership). The bylaws were changed after local environmental activist Barbara Harmony, director of the National Water Center, ran for the board and was nearly elected. By contrast, other larger coops require only 50 signatures to nominate someone to run for the board.

* To put a resolution on the ballot requires 25 percent of members from each district to sign a petition. To pass it requires approval of 66.6 percent of members, which isn't possible since the most who have ever voted in annual elections is 18 percent.

* The notification letter sent to property owners when their property will be sprayed is misleading -- a contention backed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which has advised CECC to revise its notification letter removing a statement that EPA says the chemicals are safe for people and animals. In a letter to CECC May 21, EPA said that statement is false and misleading.

* Other similar cooperatives don't prohibit members from attending board meetings, and Porter maintains prohibiting members to speak or ask questions at an annual meeting of a coop is unheard of.

'A matter of trust'

Nancy Plagge, director of corporate communications for CECC, defended CECC stating it has the lowest administration and general expenses of any coop in the state. Plagge said it is a matter of trust.

"It appears a certain group of people are attacking us on every issue at a level of mistrust," Plagge said. "They think nothing is being done right. The board is trying to make decisions based on what is best, and they take their duties very seriously. There has to be a level of trust. We take the dollars from our members and use them extremely wisely. While we may not be able to give you an account how we spend every dollar, our management is doing a just job managing our members' dollars."

In an e-mail to Porter following the annual meeting, Plagge said herbicide opponents are not in a position to see all of the effort on CECC's side.

"I understand that is frustrating and leads you to be skeptical that your requests are being earnestly considered," Plagge wrote in the e-mail. "The truth is, we recognized last year the notification letter needed improvement. Ms. (Pat) Costner was correct in suggesting the letter was too broad in nature. An improved letter was going to happen before you ever even requested to meet with the board. While you may not get everything you want, I suspect you might be surprised how successful you have been ... and, how much thought is being put into each of your requests."

Herbicide opponents also said they have been frustrated by CECC refusing to provide full minutes of board meeting. Plagge denied that opponents had been denied minutes of meetings, and said while there are not detailed records regarding the savings, the engineering department has estimated herbicide is two to three times cheaper.

Additional spraying sought

She added that some customers welcome the herbicide spray workers and even ask them to spray additional areas.

"A lot of folks like the fact that for a growing season, we are going to get rid of the foliage that disrupts the power lines and pastures," Plagge said. "Next year the natural grasses start to re-establish themselves. It is like a park beneath the transmission line between Berryville and Eureka Springs. For the first growing season it looks ugly, but it has killed troublesome vegetation. That helps natural grasses re-establish in the next growing season. That is our goal and why it is so helpful to our management plan."

Plagge said the CECC "has been reviewed by various state and federal entities and been found in compliance with our use and application." However, some members have reported spraying near waterways. Spraying near water can contaminate drinking water supplies and harm aquatic organisms.

Just say 'no'

"The labels say you are not supposed to spray close to the water," said Holiday Island resident Buzz Peine. "I live on Butler Creek, and there is a right-of-way that runs along one of my property lines. They sprayed right down to the water's edge on the creek. Where they sprayed was underwater last summer. It doesn't seem right to me. They didn't do what they said they would do. I feel like they broke the law. If they wanted to come back and spray again, I would tell them 'no'."

Plagge denied that CECC has done any illegal herbicide spraying near creeks or waterways, and said the company follows directions on the herbicide labels.

Porter said if citizens see illegal herbicide near creeks or waterways, or, washing equipment in a stream, they should call the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality at (501) 682-0657.

Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Carroll Electric Cooperative Corp., May 21, 2009

Dear Sirs:

The purpose of this letter is to advise your cooperative of our concerns related to electric right of way brush control applications letters that have been sent to your members. We have identified two issues within the letter that we are advising you to address prior to any future mailings.

First, the EPA registers a pesticide after it determines, among other things, how the pesticides must be used to minimize any risk and what information must be printed on the label. While pesticides are required to be registered by EPA, EPA does not endorse pesticide products, and claims implying EPA endorsement are false and misleading. Second, it is critical to understand that EPA does not view registration as a guarantee of safety. EPA regulations specifically prohibit manufacturers of pesticides from making claims such as "safe," "harmless" or "non-toxic to humans or pets" with or without accompanying phrases such as "when used as directed."

Your letter implies that EPA has endorsed the use of these products and that they are safe for people and animals. EPA registers pesticides and prohibits claims of safe, harmless or non-toxic to humans or pets. These claims have not been accepted in connection with the products' registration and are not support by EPA. You are advised to remove these claims, since they are false or misleading references to the product.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (214) 665-6722 or Jerry Oglesby at (214) 655-7563.

Sincerely yours,

David W. McQuiddy,

Chief, Pesticides Section,

Region 6 EPA