KIUC Election Fraud

SUBHEAD: The upcoming KIUC member vote on extra fees for all customers without smart meters is being handled in an unethical manner.

By Jonathan Jay on 31 December 2013 in Island Breath -  
Image above: PR graphic KIUC is using in "fair" election it is conducting with a modification by Juan Wilson. Click to embiggen. Feel free to utilize.

It is totally unfair, and highly unethical for KIUC management to use member money to try and persuade members how to vote when there is an issue before the membership.

This is a clear violation of basic clean campaign practices, and yet another example of unethical mismanagement of member moneys by KIUC management.

They seem to be unable to stop themselves, so it must be up to the members to put the brakes on them by voting "NO!"

Just look at the advertising and PR material for this "democratic" election. It is like the Hawaii State Office of Elections telling you who to vote for as governor. How is this in any way fair?

By James Trujillo on 1 January 2014 in Island Breath -

Image above: This is the PR graphic that KIUC used on their mailer to members notifying them of upcoming vote on special fee for not having Smart Meter. From Jonathan Jay.

Is there a lawyer in the house?  This election should bee cancelled! I would love to hear some ideas about challenging the validity of this election. Is there some ethics committee related to utility coops?
What democratic principle says this is how we roll (all over you!)? I'm sure you're just as pissed as I am. Happy new year!

[IB Publisher's note: The following is a letter written to Jimmy Trujillo that was sent to  KIUC board members Pat Gegen (, Jan TenBruggencate (, Carol Bain (]

Aloha Friends,

Hau'oli makahiki hou!  I write this to you as a concerned member of our coop and have recently learned of an outcome driven campaign to influence the results of the up coming special election. all three of you have earned my respect as intelligent, community minded individuals who have a well developed sense of ethics and principles. I have voted and advocated for your campaigns in the past and will more than likely support them in the future.

If you could please help me understand the decision by the leadership and management of KIUC to commence a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the special election. who decided that this was an appropriate use of membership resources? What body, committee or manager approved this proposal to purchase media time or space to influence member's choice on the ballot? How much was budgeted for this 'voter education' campaign and was this part of the $ 67,000 price tag for the special election?

I, like many other coop members, will want some answers to the myriad of questions that this decision has generated. I hope that your involvement, as board members who have membership interest at heart, will provide us with a fair chance to address these questions and concerns. Please let me know who the appropriate person is to formally register my complaint and how is the best way to contact them.

Mahalo for your consideration of these matters and I look forward to your response. Please feel free to forward this to the appropriate person(s) as I hope this discussion will broaden and a better understanding of the issues can develop.

Again, best wishes for a happy new year and mahalo for representing coop members interests on the KIUC board.
Bee well... JT

KIUC Bar­gained in Bad Faith

SUBHEAD: Foul Ball! The board of KIUC unilaterally rewrites election ballot and advocates voting YES.

By Jonathan Jay on 31 December 2013 in Island Breath -  
Image above: Alternative promo image for upcoming election by Jonathan Jay. Click to embiggen.

The bal­lot lan­guage we pre­fer (addi­tions under­lined in bold):

What orig­i­nally appeared to be a cor­dial and pro­duc­tive meet­ing between KIUC and Peti­tion­ers about the bal­lot lan­guage for the upcom­ing spe­cial vote, turns out to have been a farce.  “KIUC was nego­ti­at­ing in bad faith.” said Jonathan Jay one of the Peti­tion­ers. “Since our agree­ment, they have com­pletely re-written the bal­lot ‘at their sole dis­cre­tion. One must won­der, what was the point of us meet­ing with them if they were just going to do what they wanted to anyway?”

That’s not what democ­racy looks like.

 When we sat down, with KIUC offi­cials in a pri­vate meet­ing two weeks ago, we worked out a bal­lot that was:
1) sim­ple,
2) easy to under­stand,
3) nar­rowly focused

“On Octo­ber 1st, the board of direc­tors voted to charge ser­vice fees to those cus­tomers who chose not to use KIUC’s “smart meter”
As a mem­ber of KIUC, do you approve of the board action described above?”

The only thing that needed to be done to com­plete the bal­lot lan­guage was to include the exact amounts of the new ser­vice fees so vot­ers could see them when they voted, specifically:
a monthly $10.27 fee, a setup fee of $50.64 for res­i­den­tial, and $138.80 for busi­ness accounts.
The bal­lot lan­guage we pre­fer (addi­tions under­lined in bold):

Seems sim­ple enough.  After all, vot­ers can vote YES or NO based on see­ing what the fees are.

At the Spe­cial Pub­lic Meet­ing on Dec. 9th, many peo­ple seemed to agree. KIUC Man­age­ment heard plenty tes­ti­mony from folks on both sides of the issue, call­ing for a bal­lot that was sim­ple, and included the new fees.

How­ever, both meet­ings appear to have been a cha­rade. Despite their ear­lier agree­ments, and despite what peo­ple said at the pub­lic meet­ing, KIUC has gone their own way, and writ­ten new bal­lot lan­guage them­selves. Instead of a bal­lot that is free from biased infor­ma­tion that cleanly presents ‘just the facts’ and leaves it up to the voter to decide, KIUC has moved back­wards toward lan­guage already rejected in our first meet­ing.

KIUC went their own way and uni­lat­er­ally re-wrote the bal­lot to be:
1) less sim­ple
2) harder to under­stand
3) include extra & hypo­thet­i­cal infor­ma­tion
4) exclude the larger fees; $50.64 res­i­den­tial & $138.80 business
All in an effort to min­i­mize the impact of their new fees, and bias the voter to their desired out­come


“The KIUC Board of Direc­tors voted to charge fees to those who choose not to use the stan­dard smart meter. The fees, includ­ing a $10.27 monthly charge, were approved by the Hawaii Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion and cover the addi­tional costs of installing and read­ing older meters.
This bal­lot allows mem­bers to approve or reject the board action.
A YES vote sup­ports the board deci­sion. It means that only those who choose not to have a smart meter will pay the addi­tional charges.
A NO vote over­turns the board deci­sion. It could result in all mem­bers pay­ing the costs of installing and read­ing the old meters.”

Sadly, KIUC is demon­strat­ing they know noth­ing of what a fair elec­tion looks like. Hewa! Kapakahi! Cor­rupt! & Crooked!



Anonymous said...

Jonathan, I really do appreciate your efforts, thank you.
I keep wondering if there are any attorneys among the Kauai/Hawaii stop Smartmeters/stop GMOs population who would commit to some Pro Bono work to threaten legal actions, and help make things harder and more embarrassing for the worst local bad guys. Like a People's Attorney for Kauai. Jenny in Wailua

Anonymous said...

If you are angry about KIUC's meter position, just wait until you learn how they deceive and abuse our poorest kapuna.

Post a Comment