 |
 |
|
||||
|
||||||
|
|
Featured Listener Comments Section: Contents List |
 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Listener: Pratt on Texas
Category: General
Date: 30 Apr 2010
Time: 11:21:39 -0700
Remote Name: 64.216.33.206
Arrogance, hubris, and many other words come to mind when I attempt to describe the proposed Lubbock city Charter changes recommended by the board of soon-to-be-a-monopoly Lubbock Power and Light.
These LP&L board members may be a fine group doing what they think best but, through their recommended Charter changes they show not only short-sightedness, they show an arrogance which should further alarm Lubbock citizens about the down-side of making the municipal utility a monopoly for electric service.
Highlights of the Charter changes requested by LP&L include an end to term limits for board members, currently board members are limited to two terms of two years. LP&L wants complete budget authority and approval to be from within its unelected board. And, the new monopoly also requests to have the sole authority to issue rebates to retail electric customers.
Not yet enough to concern you? LP&L wants to be able to issue debt in your name without a vote of an elected official. They want to cap the equivalent of the franchise fee they pay and the payment in lieu of taxes they pay.
In other words, this monopoly supposedly owned by you, is pushing for Charter changes that not only allows a few unelected board members to run it as if it were their own private company but worse, they want what none of us can ever get from government: a permanent cap on how much they pay in taxes!
The LP&L proposed Charter Changes are a recipe for disaster and are offensively arrogant.
See the recommended changes here: http://www.prattontexas.com/documents/LP&L%20Charter%20Change%20Recommendations.pdf
Added by Pratt:
Some have said that my charge of offensive arrogance is overstated. I ask this: What else do you call it when a group of people charged to manage a public asset want the rules changed in order to allow them to serve for any length of time; control all of the public asset's budgeting and spending without oversight by an elected body, and; want no defined rules on how it uses profits generated from it's customer-owners. That my friends if arrogant, even if well intentioned.
It creates a giant cash cow managed by an unaccountable few who gain favor and power by handing out grants, advertising and sponsorship money, letting of contracts, choosing what big public and private projects the few want to back, such as theaters and event arenas, and makes it very hard to take action to uncover bad management or to make needed changes.
Un-elected means un-accountable, no matter how nice the members of the board are. They certainly do not need to be given a free reign without strong oversight by those elected by the people.
|
|
Join our Listener
Club here. |
||
|
