The Weekend Sun
37
‘Blurring’ of real arguments ike others, I am a consumer with concerns about Trustpower’s behaviour, not least after installing solar panels and finding the e cess power we generated was paid a miserable 7c per kilowatt by them, as opposed to the 29c/kilowatt they charged us for power from the grid. I concluded Trustpower was hiding behind the TECT cheque to justify excessively high charges and as the most expensive provider, was ripping us off. On leaving, they offered a $300 sweetener to stay, which I rejected as loyalty and respect can’t be bought. I now watch them spending vast amounts on
gift from Trustpower so they can claim no part of the discussion around it. It’s time that Trustpower woke up to the fact that the whole power retail industry is going to face major disruption as we move toward a sustainable energy future. I have yet to see any vision or proactive signs from them, or genuine care for Tauranga customers. TECT on the other hand is endeavouring to protect the interests of consumers as disruption comes down the line. For that reason, TECT deserves your yes vote. J Mayson, Bethlehem.
advertising and blurring the real arguments to self-serve. The TECT cheque is not a
Once-in-a-lifetime opportunity Those saying that TECT should stay ‘as is’ are living in a time warp. Times are changing and TECT’s current charitable allocation is insufficient to meet Tauranga’s needs. Ratepayers are tapped and alternate grant funders are limited. To understand the funding problem you only need to get into the trenches of volunteerism in Tauranga. I currently serve on four boards. All have good people spending disproportionate hours scratching around for funds, rather than getting on and doing what they do best. The Papamoa Surf Club rebuild is a prime example – we have left no funding stone unturned, yet we still can’t push ‘go’ and while we wait, building costs keep going up.
More letters on pages 38-39
Of course, we could opt for ‘user-pays’ as one former TECT trustee suggested, but the reality is that crowdsourcing for capital projects is nigh impossible, and that aside, his suggestion is insulting. Users often can’t afford to pay, or are already serving their community through volunteer hours. Imagine the outcry if a hospice patient was turned down because they couldn’t afford the service. The TECT proposal is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to triple TECT’s contribution to Tauranga’s growth forever. If people want Tauranga to go from good to great, then a yes vote is a must. M Whitmore, Otumoetai (Abridged).
TECT proposal ‘misguided’ The TECT trustees’ proposal is wrong in law and misguided in practice. As trustees their principal duties are the preservation of the capital of the trust and conduct of its business for the benefit of the consumer beneficiaries. onsumers are not the same as the community or more specifically the selection of charities which from time to time the trustees select). y conflating the two the trustees are in danger of breaching their trust. et them remember that ‘the road to Hell is paved with good intentions’. There are two questions the trustees must answer. First, how does the mere transfer of the trust assets to an unaccountable charitable trust meet their obligation to preserve the trust assets he e ternal threats they have identified are beyond the control of the trustees or of any charitable trust they may establish. Secondly, how do they ustify depriving the beneficiaries of their trust of its benefits, the annual distribution. s a side issue, but nevertheless important, their proposal deprives the consumers of the discretion as to whether and to what extent, if any, they wish to make a charitable donation and to what charity. M Batchelor, Matua.