OCR Text |
Show If Not Now, When? At the most recent Board of Directors Di-rectors Meeting for Garkane, the directors were given three separate legal opinions supporting the position posi-tion of the Committee to Move Garkane to Hatch. Those legal opinions came from the Kane County Attorney's office, the State of Utah's legislative research general gen-eral counsel office, and the private Salt Lake City legal firm of Snow, Christensen and Martineau. All three opinions supported our committee's com-mittee's contention that the change of the principal place of business can be accomplished without an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation. Incor-poration. Garkane's attorney, Marcus Mar-cus Taylor, has now given the same one hour speech to the board of directors on three separate occasions. occa-sions. He contends that the current Utah State law that clearly allows the move with only the board's approval is invalid. All three opinions, opin-ions, (which were given no presentation presen-tation time in the board meeting), disagreed with his own current opinion in a prior opinion he rendered ren-dered in 1991. As the Garfield County News indicated, his statement state-ment then was that the conclusion was very clear to him and that the very arguments that he now supports sup-ports were not persuasive to him at the time. At that time, he was not the Garkane attorney. I don't know how' many times we need to say it, but we will continue con-tinue repeating ourselves until the message is understood: 1. The vote was not needed. 2. Even though the vote was not needed, it clearly supported the move to Hatch and obtained the necessary majority vote for a member mem-ber approval. The only time a two-thirds two-thirds majority vote by members is required is when the Articles of Incorporation are being amended! You may draw your own conclusions, con-clusions, but we wonder aloud if some who oppose the move to Hatch have not purposely misled the board and the consumers. We felt strongly enough about it that we recommended in our letter to the board of directors on February 23, (See If Not Now... On Page 4A) LettersEditor j From Page 2-A - If Not Now... 1998 that Mr. Taylor be dismissed ' as the Garkane legal counsel. The board took action and proposed that a committee be formed to seek new -legal counsel. Marjie Lee Spencer . cast the deciding vote that defeated that motion. We also wonder aloud .-; if Marjie really supports the move ,' to Hatch. She can be heard arguing that she supports the move, but j; wants it to happen "in a more orderly or-derly fashion" - meaning not now. We ask, if not now, when, Marjie? She can also be heard echoing in board meetings many of the other . sentiments expressed by those op- '. posing the move, two of which are: ; the timing is not right because of ; deregulation and the current Deseret Generation and Transmission Co- ' operative lawsuit. Well, we will also repeat our prior positions on those counts: 1. Deregulation presents more of an opportunity than a threat to Garkane. 2. The lawsuit is likely to take years to settle. There is a need for new offices now and the decision to move has been made. Garkane must continue its business. If our cooperative ends up being destroyed by a foolish investment in Deseret Generation, then put that blame where it belongs when and if that event occurs. Trying to use the lawsuit as a scare tactic is part of the continuing effort to keep the offices in Richfield. That is unethical. un-ethical. Hugh Wilson Chairman, Committee to Move Garkane to Hatch |