Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

I am writing in regards to the story that appeared on the cover of the November 21, 2013 edition of the Wrangell Sentinel. I must admit to having several emotions while reading the article regarding the school district’s disregard for child safety as it relates to food allergies. Those emotions ranged from sadness, to disgust and anger.

It seems that one sided rumors and accusations not supported by any facts are becoming normal for our newspaper. I, of all people, know how difficult it can be to write for the Wrangell Sentinel, having been a reporter for almost 2 years in 2004 and 2005. It is hard to find people willing to talk to you and sometimes hard to find stories to fill up the edition. It is difficult to get people to comment on issues, and sometimes, one side of the story is all you can get.

But the story, as presented in the paper, was the most one-sided, biased piece of “journalism” I have ever read. A story with that tone and those sources would never have made it past the editor of the high school newspaper, much less an actual, respected newspaper. Not to mention Ms. Kauppila’s name was misspelled multiple times, along with blatant grammatical and punctuation mistakes.

The article set out to vilify a woman, relatively new to our community, who has only ever exhibited excellent morals, ethics, and character, based upon hearsay and rumors.

I had thought that the Wrangell Sentinel was beginning to remove itself from its current reputation as a gossip rag. I suppose I was wrong and will no longer be supporting this newspaper in any way.

Megan Clark

To the Editor:

Dear Mayor and Assembly;

I wish to address three topics with respect to Thomas Bay Power Authority and current energy issues reported in the Wrangell Sentinel dated November 21, 2013.

First from my experience in public life I think it is of

paramount importance that employees of the public be extremely aware of how they present positions on current issues. It is exceptionally easy for statements to be misconstrued or taken out of context. In the paper last Thursday Mr. Jabusch is quoted as taking a contrary position to energy committee member Schmidt’s statement “SEAPA wants to run it.”

Jabusch’s statement, as quoted, “I don’t think they would have a heartache if Thomas Bay kept running it”; as a member of the public I would like to know on what information he made that statement.

SEAPA thru its former CEO Carlson and current CEO Albert Atkison are on record requesting that the operations contracts be terminated. Unless, Mr. Jabusch has information not in the public realm, the SEAPA Board has merely delayed action on that recommendation. To me it seems Mr. Schmidt was exactly correct and on point.

Second is the issue of “meaningful” representation for the communities and local ratepayers in their hydroelectric

facility. SEAPA has continuously stated on the record that the communities and the ratepayers are not “stock holders” and do not own the

facilities. This is, probably legally true, but just as true as Alaska’s intent in building and funding the facilities for the benefit of the communities.

SEAPA has a history of

secretive behavior insisting that they are not a public entity subject to the open meetings act, but voluntarily submit to

portions. SEAPA Bylaws make their directors only subject to sanction after appointment by SEAPA itself. Directors are indoctrinated upon appointment by SEAPA’s attorney in the SEAPA is paramount, its’ needs supersede those of your community mindset.

The establishment of this organization has led to a “hybrid” semi-public governmental entity called a Joint Action Agency answerable to no elected official. The original state Southeast Integrated Resource Plan draft (SEIRP) pointed to the “inflexible

business structure” of SEAPA as a regional problem. It is not a governmental agency, it is not a private agency, but scariest of all is the lack of clear ownership of SEAPA the organization. This lack of clarity in ownership leads to confusion at best, distrust at worst.

If there is doubt in your mind as to my point ask yourselves, “Can I sell my ownership

interest in SEAPA?” If so how do I hold title?

My third point is really where the rubber meets the road. As ratepayers most of us in Wrangell are interested in this SEAPA, TBPA issue only in how it affects rates.

I have been told time and time again that whatever the outcome of who operates Tyee, as ratepayers our low rates are guaranteed by the Power Sales Agreement (PSA). Perhaps, perhaps not.

The PSA does for the most part assure our access and price of power in respect to current power production capacity. The PSA, also, clearly states that any new production is solely priced by SEAPA in which we have one vote in five.

We are aware that the Swan Dam is being raised allowing for increased power production. I am told that SEAPA is asserting that the power production capacity of Tyee has increased due to a stream gage modification.

These are each “new” production. What are the assurances that Wrangell’s wholesale rate will not be adjusted until we have exceeded our 50% of Lake Tyee’s historic generation capacity? Frankly, this assurance would need to come from a utility industry attorney hired by Wrangell to give me much confidence.

Thank you for your time and full consideration of Wrangell’s current and future power needs.

Paul Southland