Fri 19 Jun 2009
APS telling its employees how to vote!
Posted by Chewie Shofir under Campaigns & Elections , Energy , Government , Spending[21] Comments
APS employees have told us that right before elections, APS has its PAC instruct employees on how they should vote. They are told to vote for the candidates running for Corporation Commission who are most likely to vote for rate increases – the most liberal candidates. Considering APS is heavily government regulated, making it almost a quasi-government entity, this doesn’t seem ethical. The relationship between the Corporation Commission and APS is a bit too cozy. Who is looking out for the taxpayers?
June 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am
The Goldwater Institute is. We are challenging the Commission’s power-grab on renewable energy, approved in a cozy deal between utility cos. and the Commission, with the $2.4 billion tab being picked up on ratepayers. We argued the case in Superior Court on Monday.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Duh. Employee PACs serve two purposes, first it puts $$ in the hands of the company lobbyists to make contributions to campaigns, although I don’t think APS gives to ACC candidates. Second, it creates a list of PAC members who can legally get all the voting recommendations the company PAC wants to send them.
Now, if you can show the court a company employee who does not give to the PAC getting deliberate, repeated, high-pressure “voting instructions”, then you’d have something.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:39 am
A couple of things:
1. As an APS employee (and a Pinnacle West PAC board member), I can say that no one has ever told me how to vote for any office, especially a Corporation Commission office. Nor have I told anyone else how to vote. Chewie Shofir’s information is wrong.
2. APS is an investor-owned utility and is not “almost a quasi-government entity.” We also care deeply about our customers and their best interests and Arizona and its bests interests.
3. At APS, ethics and honesty are valued more highly than any other qualities. Simply put, if you are not ethical and honest, you will not work here.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Yee-ouch!
June 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
What!!! Chewie Shofir wrong AGAIN!!! Chewie spouting out information she/he knows nothing about!! I’m shocked I tell you! It’s been at least a week since a post has been deemed false or totally off base.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Shane, there are far too many SA writers who apparently have no regard for being truthful. This goes on an on, pseudonym after pseudonym. Shortly, it will be difficult to argue that this isn’t your plan for the site.
Shane, tell me, why do so-called conservatives need anonymity in Arizona to “express” themselves?
June 19th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
That APS employee just told a bald-faced lie. I have a conservative friend who works for APS who has complained about this in the past. Mr. Bolick, since APS is clearly lying about this practice now in the public arena, can your organization investigate this? My friend doesn’t want to have to come forward as a whistleblower.
June 20th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Can you imagine the outcry if the Republic, or any other entity that desires to be held as credible, started a story under a blasting headline that started with… “Some people we know have told us” … and offered absolutely no backup, no evience, nothing but a claim?
Other likely references could be…
“Overhead from the next stall in the 3rd floor men’s room…” or “Some employees of ABC Corp sat next to me at the little league game and swear that…..”
If that gets by why not really push the envelope with…
“The hairdresser of the wife of ____ repeated to another customer who is my neighbor…”
Actual supporting evidence please, how do they do this, who have been the “most liberal” candidates and how where they supported… If it is true, tell the story. This is not the way to do anything but further the perception that Chewie has a huge ax to grind and does not care about the truth.
Good grief, and we wonder why conservatives are so often portrayed as tin-foil helmet nut jobs!
June 20th, 2009 at 11:27 am
When you read the headline, what does your common sense tell you? Does it make sense that no two APS employees have ever had a conversation about whether D’s or R’s at the ACC would be better for APS? The story is completely believable, whether it’s true or not. Look, it’s a big company, and they get slammed all the time for any number of reasons. Not sure why a bigwig like McDonald feels the need to respond on this little blog, but that’s his/their right to deny there’s an elephant in the room (oh, I didn’t mean that to be funny). It’s certainly fine with me (and probably APS shareholders) if the company wants to complain to its employees that regulators from one party are far preferable to those of another.
June 20th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I agree with Shivers, just because the sources can’t come forward doesn’t mean it’s not true. Shane says he has a pretty impressive crew of anonymous writers on this site, and he does a good job of verifying posts for accuracy if questioned, as regular readers of this site know. I suspect the anonymous commenters who attack posts like this are personally connected in some way to the subject matter and so are trying to discredit the info. I for one am glad there’s a forum here to get out info that otherwise would never be released due to retaliation.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
A flyer, an email, a meeting with information given. A whisper campaign to elect favorable candidates…? I doubt it. There should be some evidence beyond a he said-she said.
June 21st, 2009 at 1:12 am
Shivers wrote:
“The story is completely believable, whether it’s true or not.”
Pretty much sums up the whole endeavor here at SA, right Shane?
June 21st, 2009 at 6:55 am
Here’s what indicates to me that this story is questionable – the idea that the “liberal” corporation commissioners are most likely to vote for rate increases. Looking over the record of recent rate hikes, I don’t see any evidence of that.
June 21st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Kenny, in “whether it’s true or not” the word “it’s” refers to the headline which was called into question. My point is that a badly written headline does not change the story.
Todd, the liberals always vote for rate/tax increases. The conservatives we’ve had lately merely do so often. At the ACC rate increases are for increasing costs to produce power, plus other amounts the liberals need to fund their pet programs, like alternative energy.
June 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Shivers:
I think the last large increase was 2006. Voting for Jeff Hatch-Miller, Marc Spitzer, Mike Gleason. Voting no Bill Mundell, Kris Mayes. I think all 5 of these were actually Republican at the time but in around here I think Mayes is considered a liberal. I think in the past liberals have been more attuned to protect consumers from large rate increases.
June 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
You wrote: “Todd, the liberals always vote for rate/tax increases.”
Shivers, on Dec 18, 2008 the Corp Comm voted 4-1 to raise rates. Commissioners Gary Pierce, Kris Mayes, Jeff Hatch-Miller and Bill Mundell supported the raise, while Chairman Mike Gleason opposed.
Shivers, why don’t you just admit you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about?
June 21st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
So that two dollar a month fee I pay for alt energy, do I blame liberals or conservatives for that? We know for certain Gleason is a conservative, the others we just don’t know. But they support the alt energy surcharge. Which is a scam. Which is higher rates either way. So they’re either liberals or bad conservatives.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Got Shivers, folks who agree with you are good conservatives, folks who don’t are liberals.
BTW, that vote (Renewable Energy) was 4-1 as well, with, wait for it, your guy Gleason as the “no” vote. And if you are paying two dollars a month call your utility, the fee has a cap on it of less than $1.50.
Shivers, I have confidence you will find someone to blame for most of things you don’t get right.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Kenny, I appreciate your confidence that I will get this right eventually. And I apologize if I rounded $1.50 to $2.00 per month. Bad on me.
So, parties aside, should I be confident in thinking that “my” Gleason is the only one protecting ratepayers?
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Shivers, if the rate one pays for the product of a utility is your only concern then Gleason is your guy. If, however, you believe our sources must have long-term viability, must not pose a threat to our health, and must be relatively secure, then Gleason has got to go.
But you are an ideologue Shivers. You misrepresent, omit or ignore important information when posting (the fee is capped at 1.32, it wasn’t hard to find that out, how does one round that UP to 2.00?). You will always find a way to support only those you believe are able to reinforce your preconceived notions. Sadly, that appears to be the definition of a conservative these days. I hope that changes!
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
John, I’m not anonymous. Some posters have made references to my personal life, so I know they know who I am.
Shane is running a horrible operation if he actually “verifies” posts before publication. Veritas, Chewie, Oberserve have all posted things that were demonstrated to be untrue. Now, I’ll grant you that ALL the false postings may come from one person using multiple pseudonyms, I doubt it, however. It is just as likely that Shane is the only writer here at SA, I doubt that too. Shane has some great qualities but I don’t think he’s a Benjamin Franklin
The point is this; too many writers write anonymously because they prefer to masquerade opinion as fact and desire approbation for the effort. That is not excusable let alone admirable.