Slanted survey

Union poll on BWL a scare tactic

Posted
At some point, when Lansing looks at the costs and benefits of selling the Board of Water & Light, it will need a survey assessing people´s feelings.

But the poll released last week by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers isn´t it. Rather, it was a political warning to the Bernero administration to back off, one of many union initiatives to derail even discussion of a sale. The questions prompted the desired response: overwhelming opposition to a sale. But what wasn´t included — and should have been if the poll were to have any value — is telling.

Questions about a sale are larded with consequences: lost jobs, higher rates, loss of a community assets and BWL community activities. The sole benefits cited are the possibility of addressing Lansing´s $600 million long-term pension and health care obligations and funding for major, unstated infrastructure investments.

Incredibly, no question deals with how much the city might get from a BWL sale. In the abstract, people in Lansing like the BWL. But the sale price matters. They might reject the idea of selling at $100 million but embrace it at $750 million, particularly if it included a tax cut. A more balanced survey would have sought some target numbers for perspective. It´s a standard polling technique.

No questions were asked about people familiarity with the complex issue of a sale. Rather, the poll asked that “based on what you may know or have heard or read about the idea” do you favor or oppose considering a sale. Most were opposed. And where were they educated about the issue? About 40 percent of respondents got their information from television, said Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA, whose firm worked with the PR firm Cover Two Strategies to produce the poll. To be charitable, in-depth coverage of issues like the sale of a utility or the consequence of long-term pension debt is not the strength of local TV news. And because people haven´t really engaged much with the issue, the poll questions — slanted toward the union point of view — framed the responses against a sale.

Another question asking about a possible sale reels off BWL sponsorship benefits to the community: the Chili Cook Off, Adopt a River, Silver Bells and volunteer activities by employees. True enough. But utilities always support their communities. Consumers Energy, for example, provides matching foundation grants to every 501(c)3 nonprofit where its employees volunteer. It provides grants to Prima Civitas, sponsors the Lansing Economic Club, the prairie grass restoration project at the Fenner Nature Center, the local Walk for Warmth to help with winter heating bills and other community activities. No mention of that.

Still another polling question asserts that the sale of the BWL would means a significant increase in electric and water rates. This is conjecture, masquerading as fact. The rate-setting process for utilities is complex and often political. A question warns that Consumers Energy is seeking a 10 percent rate increase, suggesting that this what people might face after a sale. More scare tactics.

BWL needs a rate increase and could soon face as much as $600 million in expense for a new power plant. The utility is patching a $31 million revenue shortfall by taking $25 million from its construction reserve fund, according to reporting by Steve Reed in the Lansing State Journal. Longer term, it must replace its obsolete downtown Eckert Power Plant, which still produces about three times as much power as the new REO Town facility, which cost $182 million.

Who will pay for all of this? BWL´s customers. The point is, the city-owned utility faces significant financial challenges, which translate into higher rates. (Note: It has raised electric rates by 52 percent since 2007.) And the current rate difference between the BWL and other utilities is only about 4 percent, said Board Chairman David Price. These are details that people who responded to the poll might want to consider.

A particularly glaring omission from the survey is any questions about the management or competence of BWL´s Board of Commissioners. Why? Politics.

The union has been courting board members who at its urging passed a resolution ordering BWL management to make the case for keeping it city-owned. This was an astounding breach of its fiduciary responsibility. Price, as reported by the LSJ, danced around the issue by referencing the commission’s mandate to act in the “best interest of the utility.” But isn´t it possible that the “best interest” is to align with a larger company? How do you know unless you study the question objectively?

Pressed on the matter, Price acknowledged that telling management what conclusion to reach “may have been an overreach” and said he was willing to amend the resolution. Still, the board certainly seems to be in the union´s pocket, a cozy relationship borne out by another question missing in the survey: the Board of Commissioners´ leadership.%u2028

The survey asked people to rate the favorability and job performance of Mayor Virg Bernero and the City Council, but not the BWL board. With good reason. Unlike sketchy details about studying a potential sale, the very public blunders by the utility´s commissioners are generally well known. The board was clueless leading up to the big ice storm; it commended former General Manager J. Peter´s Lark’s management of the utility in its last performance review; soon thereafter it fired him for cause, which it couldn´t make it stick, then bailed on that strategy, ultimately authorizing a payment of $650,000 to end the matter.

It doesn´t inspire a lot of trust. Besides, bad polling numbers about its cronies on the board would only hurt the union´s case for keeping the utility.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here




Connect with us