Skip to main content

TVARS Board Flip-Flops to Approve Conflict of Interest

Chris Christie, Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (“Bradley Arant”) is representing the TVARS Board in the current lawsuit over the 2009 pension benefit reductions (“pension lawsuit”).  TVA is another party to the pension lawsuit.  Kevin Newsom, another Partner with Bradley Arant, has been asked by TVA to provide legal services to TVA on a matter unrelated to TVARS.   Chris Christie asked the TVARS Board for a conflicts waiver as required by applicable legal ethics rules.

The conflict of interest arises from Bradley Arant being paid by TVA for services while some of TVA’s interests are counter to TVARS’ interests in the pension lawsuit.  Given the vast resources at TVA’s disposal, which could be used to influence those wishing to begin or expand their business relationships with TVA, I do not believe the TVARS Board should grant the conflicts waiver.  I am concerned with the possibility of such influence that a conflicts waiver would allow.  That the other matter is not related to TVARS, may start with small payments from TVA to Bradley Arant, and that conflict waivers may be routinely granted by clients with similar influential power, do not alleviate my concern.

On July 24, 2015, the TVARS Board voted 4 to 3 to disapprove granting the conflicts waiver.   Directors Child, Hoskins, and Wilson voted to approve the conflicts waiver, and Directors Hovious, Muzyn, Stokes, and Troyani voted to disapprove the conflicts waiver.

On July 30, 2015, the TVARS Board voted 5 to 1 to approve granting the conflicts waiver.  Directors Child, Hoskins, Stokes, Troyani, and Wilson voted to approve the conflicts waiver, and Director Hovious voted to disapprove the conflicts waiver.  I was not present at the meeting for the vote.  I did not receive the meeting notice until after it occurred.

I made it very clear that had I been present, I would have voted no again at the July 30, 2015 meeting.  I believe holding a meeting to vote again on something that had been decided a week earlier gives the appearance that the TVARS Board is not thorough and lacks confidence in its decision making.  I believe it gives the appearance that some members of the board may be susceptible to outside influences, even to the point of overturning previous decisions.  I believe it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing second-guessing of TVARS Board decisions by both TVARS Board members and those wishing to influence TVARS Board decisions.

The official minutes for both of these meetings should soon be available here, through the TVARS website.  Meeting transcripts are available only upon request from TVARS.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Task Assigned to the TVARS Board

The TVARS board is required to recommend a contribution from TVA to be made in fiscal year 2014 prior to the end of the current fiscal year.  (See Section 9B on pages 51-53 of the rules here .)  Since TVA sets its budget months before the end of the fiscal year, it is imperative that this recommended amount be: decided upon by the TVARS board as quickly as possible; sufficient to adequately fund TVARS; and consistent with the amounts charged to ratepayers for pension expense. All seven TVARS board members have an obligation to come together to accomplish this.  (See TVARS board members here .)  I sincerely hope we will be able to accomplish this without further rule changes suspending TVA contributions, or further claims that legitimate accrued benefits are not really vested and must be reduced.  I hope we will be able to put an end to our failure to insure that amounts paid by TVA ratepayers for pension expense are used for their intended purpose.  As a TVARS board member, I

Why do TVARS board meetings remain closed?

Within the next couple of months, the TVARS board must vote on a contribution amount to recommend that TVA make in fiscal year 2014. In conjunction with the contribution amount, it is possible the vote will include amendments to the rules. In conjunction with the contribution amount in 2009, the rules were amended to: suspend contribution requirements and related actuarial valuations for four years (Section 9B9); suspend the requirement that part of the contribution go to the “excess COLA account,” which was designed to accumulate and grow funds to be used for payment of future COLAs (Sections 9B9, 10D1 and 10D2); and reduce legitimate accrued pension benefits (Sections 6I, 7L and 18C3). The vote in 2009 was not open to observation, and unless the TVARS board takes action, neither will the vote this year. Not one of the six other TVARS board members would second the motion I made in December to open TVARS meetings to observation. All that is required to open future boa

Introduction

This is my personal blog to facilitate communication among TVA employees, retirees and beneficiaries who are members of TVARS and who wish to preserve their retirement benefits. Please join my site and post your comments.  I have been an elected member of the TVA Retirement System (TVARS, or the system) board of directors since 2003. I am not speaking officially for the TVARS board of directors or TVA management. TVARS is an entity legally independent of TVA. Three of the board members are TVA employees (including myself), three are appointed by TVA management (currently all TVA executive managers), and the seventh is generally a retired TVA employee (appointed by the other six). As TVA employees, we all have a duty of loyalty to carry out directives issued by TVA management in our regular TVA jobs. However, each board member has a fiduciary duty to all the members of the system when performing TVARS duties. This fiduciary duty legally supercedes our duty of loyalty to carry out direct