Editor,

This Broad Mountain Energy “co-op” between Nesquehoning and Packer Township is quite intriguing. I am not a lawyer; however, it appears that all the dots do not connect. I am speaking only from the Packer Township side with my concerns and do not reflect Nesquehoning Borough’s actions in its development. According to our ordinance (#2017-1) approved Feb. 7, 2017, this Municipal Power Agency was to be formed under Title 8 PA C.S. 24A04 (2015). Upon review, I found numerous inconsistencies that demand explanation.

It is my personal contention that the Broad Mountain Energy “co-op,” as has been publicly promoted in various news articles and at several recruiting events, cannot be a valid entity. The primary reason (per statute) is under code, only two or more “boroughs” can form an MPA. Packer Township is not a “borough.” In addition, several secondary reasons validity is questionable, are as follows: No municipal “representatives” have ever been officially appointed by Packer Township Supervisors to oversee this co-op development or officially approve the bylaws and initial board of directors. Designated municipal “representatives” have the legal authority and power to 1. approve the bylaws and 2. approve the initial board of directors. The bylaws are not legitimate, never being officially approved by any township appointed “representatives.”

The board of directors was never approved by officially appointed designated municipal “representatives.” A certificate of incorporation must be filed with the Secretary of the State and, if approved, the state issues a “record of certificate” to the MPA. Broad Mountain Energy filed an application with the Secretary of State in 2018 as a “miscellaneous authority” under a 501(c). It was denied; the reason was the same. The inaugural MPA applicants are not both “boroughs.” Open meetings are required by both “representatives” and the board of directors. I cannot recall any meeting advertisements or meetings. Bylaws of the MPA shall be “proposed” by the board and shall be adopted by a majority vote of the member “boroughs” representatives. Office cannot be registered with Secretary of State when the co-op is still not valid.

Board members’ length of term shall be for one year, except where the bylaws or agency agreement prescribe otherwise. How did these initial board members get five-year terms? I, as a concerned Packer Township resident, feel it would be in the best interest of its residents for our supervisors to be proactive and immediately withdraw from this illegitimate co-op as a “founding” member. In the event that another legitimate co-op is formed between Nesquehoning and another “borough,” there is nothing to prevent Packer Township from joining then as a legitimate co-op municipal customer for the benefit of all residents, if it so chooses.

Reference Link: https://bit.ly/2HaKexO

Respectfully submitted,

Gerard Grega

Packer Township