SECO Bylaws

[Pugchief]

I got both an email and text from SECO about changing the bylaws. I read all of the accompanying info, and was unable to figure out what exactly they wanted me to vote on. I guess an advanced degree is useless in this situation unless it was a JD.

Can anyone elaborate on what the bylaw change is about?

[4$ALE]

I got both an email and text from SECO about changing the bylaws. I read all of the accompanying info, and was unable to figure out what exactly they wanted me to vote on. I guess an advanced degree is useless in this situation unless it was a JD.

Can anyone elaborate on what the bylaw change is about?

:shrug: Hope this helps you..... I don't have an advanced degree or any degree for that matter.

:read:
https://secoenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Redline-ByLaws-3-21-24.pdf

[Pugchief]

:shrug: Hope this helps you..... I don't have an advanced degree or any degree for that matter.

:read:
https://secoenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Redline-ByLaws-3-21-24.pdf

Thanks, but that link was already in the email they sent. It's 22 pages of blather. You would think they could summarize what it is specifically they want to change in the bylaws, but I'm guessing you would then probably vote against it. Obfuscation probably works in their favor?

[4$ALE]

Thanks, but that link was already in the email they sent. It's 22 pages of blather. You would think they could summarize what it is specifically they want to change in the bylaws, but I'm guessing you would then probably vote against it. Obfuscation probably works in their favor?

:shrug: Probably a change wanted by the one of the shooters on the "grassy knoll".

[Stu from NYC]

Same people who automatically rounded our bill up for some charity they picked without us opting in.

[4$ALE]

Same people who automatically rounded our bill up for some charity they picked without us opting in.

:blahblahblah::blahblahblah::blahblahblah: And gave you the opportunity to op out before starting.
Like Paul Harvey used to say..... "And now you know the rest of the story." :oops:

[retiredguy123]

///

[Bill14564]

As I understand it, they had to discontinue the opt-out donation policy because of many complaints. That is the rest of the story.

What does this mean? The program started on a particular date and either you had opted out or you were in. Now the program is in place and running so what does it mean discontinue the opt-out policy?

[Stu from NYC]

:blahblahblah::blahblahblah::blahblahblah: And gave you the opportunity to op out before starting.
Like Paul Harvey used to say..... "And now you know the rest of the story." :oops:

They should have done it the other way. Let me opt in if we wanted to. Wonder why they had so many complaints?

[retiredguy123]

What does this mean? The program started on a particular date and either you had opted out or you were in. Now the program is in place and running so what does it mean discontinue the opt-out policy?
My bad. I thought I read that SECO had eliminated the automatic opt-in policy, but, apparently they have not.

[4$ALE]

They should have done it the other way. Let me opt in if we wanted to. Wonder why they had so many complaints?

"Wonder why they had so many complaints?" Do you really? I don't. I know why. And I would suggest to those people maybe a hobby or little part-time job. Something I found out more than 30 years ago when I retired. Just looked - the program started 12 months ago and I have paid as little as 11 cents and as much as 81 cents. Avg. 42 cents a month. Haven't thought about it til today. Thanks, I'll think of you tonight when I can't get to sleep. :a20: AND IF THEY DID IT HE OTHER WAY, PEOPLE STILL WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED. It's what this site is for. :icon_wink:

[Bill14564]

Thanks, but that link was already in the email they sent. It's 22 pages of blather. You would think they could summarize what it is specifically they want to change in the bylaws, but I'm guessing you would then probably vote against it. Obfuscation probably works in their favor?

Did you happen to look through the 22 page document to find the two (2) sentences that were changed? How much summary is necessary for two sentences?

Obfuscation? They labeled the document "Redline-ByLaws" and in the document (not surprisingly) are RED LINES containing the new information. If they were trying for obfuscation they failed miserably in my opinion.

[Bill14564]

"Wonder why they had so many complaints?" Do you really? I don't. I know why. And I would suggest to those people maybe a hobby or little part-time job. Something I found out more than 30 years ago when I retired. Just looked - the program started 12 months ago and I have paid as little as 11 cents and as much as 81 cents. Avg. 42 cents a month. Haven't thought about it til today. Thanks, I'll think of you tonight when I can't get to sleep. :a20: AND IF THEY DID IT HE OTHER WAY, PEOPLE STILL WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED. It's what this site is for. :icon_wink:

$4.59 over 13 months for me, $0.35/month average.

[Pugchief]

Did you happen to look through the 22 page document to find the two (2) sentences that were changed? How much summary is necessary for two sentences?

Obfuscation? They labeled the document "Redline-ByLaws" and in the document (not surprisingly) are RED LINES containing the new information. If they were trying for obfuscation they failed miserably in my opinion.

Thank you for clarifying. Honestly, it was not clear from the title and I did skim all 22 pages. Still, I think they could have made the first paragraph an explanation of what to look for, since a summary obviously was not necessary for 2 sentences of change.

[LuvtheVillages]

I received a notice of the annual meeting with my bill. It included a summary of the bylaw changes.

First, If only one candidate is running to be a Trustee, then they can skip having an uncontested election and the one candidate is declared a Trustee.

The second revision clarifies that a person must be a resident of the SECO service area a minimum of one year before running to be Trustee.

The Annual Meeting notice can be accessed on their website. The link is in blue type, under the green link to the revised bylaws and the blue link to 2023 minutes.

Or, you can see the changes in RED on page 10 and page 12 of the bylaws (green link)

[jimmy o]

This by-law change will allow them to appoint a particular person that they have in mind to become a trustee. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

[PurePeach]

:blahblahblah::blahblahblah::blahblahblah: And gave you the opportunity to op out before starting.
Like Paul Harvey used to say..... "And now you know the rest of the story." :oops:

Yep, they sure did and I did!

[Pixelpups]

I read the changes and it was not “if only one candidate is running.” It’s if one candidate validated by the secretary is running. I thought that puts a lot of power to the secretary as to the speed as which the Secretary validates candidates. I was annoyed that it was an all or nothing vote on the redlines.

[Bill14564]

I read the changes and it was not “if only one candidate is running.” It’s if one candidate validated by the secretary is running. I thought that puts a lot of power to the secretary as to the speed as which the Secretary validates candidates. I was annoyed that it was an all or nothing vote on the redlines.

Effectively, it is "if only one candidate is running." Read the sentence immediately preceding the redline:
The Secretary of SECO Energy shall certify the names of all prospective candidates who shall satisfy the said requirements prior to the District Meeting.
The Secretary has no choice but to certify any qualified candidate. If there were more than one qualified candidate then there would be more than one candidate certified. Therefore, if there is only one certified candidate then there was only one qualified candidate running.

This particular change only expedites the inevitable outcome. Without this change, the single candidate that has been certified by the Secretary would be formally voted on at the District Meeting. With only one candidate the result of the vote would be foregone conclusion - the only candidate on the ballot would receive the highest number of valid votes and would become the trustee. All this change does is recognize the inevitable outcome and dispenses with the formal vote, saving the time that would otherwise be spent conducting the vote.