I appreciated Mr. Renfrow's letter last week stating that "the most important work ahead is to settle the competition between City of Delta and DMEA." This position contradicts Ed Marston who authored new bylaw language and argued that Glen Black should be reinstated because the conflict of interest was minor in nature.
I agree with Mr. Renfrow that the issue of competition with the City of Delta is significant. His point is well taken as Justin Clifton, city manager, recently was quoted in the DCI stating that he "wants to make it clear that it is the city's goal to one day acquire every customer in the city limits. We don't try to hide that fact." I just wonder how many homes now served by DMEA could be acquired because of that position.
As far as good guys vs. bad guys, my intent was to identify how directors voted. Ed Marston is up for re-election and members need to know that he spearheaded the effort to keep Glen Black on the board. I'm sure they voted their convictions but the members will decide if those convictions represent their best interests. In regard to the management audit, I didn't feel it had anything to do with Glen Black, but apparently Mr. Renfrow thinks it did. He said Glen Black was the push behind the audit. So was the real reason for the bylaw change to ensure that enough votes would be cast to proceed with the audit? I've always been in favor of it but now it seems strange that just minutes after Glen Black was reseated, a resolution was passed to proceed. They now have their audit but they also have a director serving two loyalties. Glen Black said that either way it goes, he loses. True for him, but I'm more concerned about DMEA's members who are the biggest losers due to this decision. Check out www.dmea.com minutes for more insight.