I found their letter informative and yet troublesome. I appreciate the main body of the letter, but I am a concerned with their first paragraph where they indicate they believe the candidates endorsed by the Cobb EMC Owner’s Association to be qualified.
First, each of directors individually has the right to endorse any candidate they wish, just as I do. My vote counts equally with theirs. But when they present themselves as a collective sub-group or coalition of the board, they speak from a different perspective.
I believe they would have better served if they had left this part out of their message. As a board I do not believe they have any right, obligation or authority to suggest to me who is or is not qualified. We had that with the old guard.
Secondly, since they were all endorsed by the Cobb EMC Owners, it suggests a certain affiliation or association that somehow gives those candidates more credibility and also suggests that is their preference.
They then state they “will gladly work with whomever the members elect in order to keep reforms we’ve begun advancing at Cobb EMC.” Anything else would be a clear violation of their duties. Why must they state this? In fact this should have been the only statement they should have made as it relates to the upcoming election.
I hope this is not a sign of things to come. A little less of “We are in charge” and little more of, “We are here to serve the best interest of the EMC” would be appreciated by this member.
Kenneth Johnson
Marietta
Follow us on Twitter!
Could I make one amendment please? The board has one duty and one duty only and that is to serve the members. They are not there to serve management and the members but the members only.
So, shouldn't you new board members have already instructed the EMC that you want to be accessable to any member who want to be in touch with you by publishing direct emails and phone numbers and addresses. Should members still be screened by public relations?
Also when you new board members speak to a membership group and the CEO is there, try not to constantly look to him for approval. It's reminds members of the "ole days".
The tides are changing and people are purposely voting for candidates that are NOT endorsed, which can sometimes be just as bad as voting for an endorsed candidate.
That says all that needs to be said about their integrity and their desire to get EMC fixed.
Those four new board members have done just about everything that was asked by those of us who want real reform and a well-run company. From what I hear, not only have they pushed through reforms and prepared for others, but they also taken time to visit almost all areas and employees of the company.
I don't think any of them care a bit about who is endorsed and who isn't. They seem to just want quality people to join them.