A motion was made in the March 29, 2018 TVARS Board meeting to fill the upcoming 7th director term through a retiree election. The motion was defeated 3-3. Sam, Jim and I voted YES. Directors Stokes, Wilson and Taylor voted NO.
A second motion was then made to begin the process of seeking candidates for the 7th director. This motion passed 4-2. Director Taylor joined the three of us in voting YES. Directors Stokes and Wilson voted NO.
The Board is working on a letter to be mailed soon to all retirees seeking nominations for the November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2021 term. Interviews will then be conducted and the three elected and three appointed directors will make the selection.
I strongly encourage all interested retirees to apply.
Thank you, Leonard. I appreciate your efforts.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Leonard. I appreciate your efforts.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFrom: Dennis To [mailto:dpto19533@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 2:12 AM
Subject: Why the need for interim 7th director?
At the tvars Board mtng on Oct 30, 2017, Wilson Taylor (TVA-appointed director) made a motion which was then approved by 4-to-2 majority vote. This motion allowed Allen Stokes to stay on (for one year) as interim director until the 7th director is selected by the tvars board. Did Wilson make such a motion in the best interest of retirees? Of course, not. That motion was clearly intended to serve some purpose of TVA. The big question is, what is it for?
There is a very serious implication behind this move. For the entire history of tvars existence, I believe this is the first time ever that somehow there is a sudden need for an interim 7th director. Back in 2004, tvars went for an extended period w/o a 7th director. They interviewed me for 7th director. The selection was deadlocked (3-3) w/ the 3 tva-appointed tvars directors against my selection. I withdrew my name, after which they selected Frank Alford as 7th director. So, nobody ever saw a need for an interim 7th director before. Why now?
Let’s talk about the wordings of that motion. It says “such seventh member shall be restricted from voting on amendments to these Rules and Regulations and the Deferral Plan Provisions, with the exception of any amendments required by IRS rules or related to the tax-qualified status of the System and Deferral Plan. So, Allen can only vote to amend the Rules & Regs if the action by tvars has some connection to either the IRS regulations and/or the tax status of the current pension/annuity plan. What action? What tax implications? Had that been me who made a motion on such an extraordinary matter, I would have given a clear and rational explanation as to why. Wilson Taylor (and the other two appointed directors) apparently did not do that. Why didn’t they? Is there a hidden agenda here? What about Tony Troyani? Why did he vote to support that motion? Did TVA tell him the purpose of the motion? If TVA didn’t tell him, then why did Tony vote “yes” on something he didn’t understand what for? If TVA did tell him, then Tony owes it to the membership (those who voted for him) to explain why he thought such an action is in the best interest of the members.
Now, let me refer to an email (see below) that I sent on October 23, 2012, on the subject “Kilgore's 3-Min Recording re Insurance Company”. In item 3 of that email, I talked about Kilgore avoiding the issue about sending retirees to insurance company. It is my belief that Kilgore (or his staff) did actively explore that possibility with some insurance company but the talk did not progress any further. It is possible that the current mgmt of TVA may have actively explored this same issue. If so, TVA may have already reached some tentative understandings with some insurance company (say, ABC Company) to take over the pension system. This means ABC would have to assume TVA’s pension and annuity obligations to current (and future) retirees as set out and defined under the language of the R&Rs. ABC is in the business of making, not losing, money on any deal. They would want to be perfectly clear as to who (which tvars member), how much, when, and how long they have to pay. This is of utmost importance to an insurance company. TVA probably told them the R&R language is the basis for determining the financial obligations to be transferred to them. It’s fair to assume that ABC scrutinized the R&Rs very closely to see what can be done to the language to minimize their financial obligations if they agree to take the retirees. They might have found some way to do this via the “tax” thing. This is what I think TVA needs Allen Stokes for. Of course, this is all speculations on my part. I have no factual basis to support my speculations here.