Cap, Trade, and Chambers
by John Weckerle
Last year, as a gesture of friendship and by way of some attempted fence-mending, then-Edgewood Chamber of Commerce president Kelly Krauth put your editor on the Chamber’s e-mail list for announcements and other communications. On February 22, we received an e-mail from Chamber executive Robin Foshee discussing a proposal by New Energy Economy (NEE) to include what appears to amount to a carbon dioxide (CO2) cap-and-trade program in New Mexico’s environmental regulatory structure. The e-mail strongly opposed this move, and listed the Edgewood Chamber of Commerce as being publicly opposed to the regulation. Language in the e-mail seemed fairly clear with respect to an intent to have it forwarded to the greatest extent possible. I responded to the e-mail, asking whether the decision to oppose this proposal was made by the entire membership or just the board of directors, and on what basis the Chamber was opposing the regulatory change.
In response, I got a “corrected” version of the e-mail (this was also sent to me by a concerned Chamber member), which simply changed “Edgewood Chamber of Commerce” to “Edgewood Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors.” I sent another e-mail to Ms. Foshee stating the belief that this was essentially a difference that made no difference, given that the Board was invoking the Chamber’s name and using Chamber resources to oppose NEE’s petition. I again posed the question regarding the basis for the Chamber’s opposition. The response was rather unexpected.
In response, I received a message from Tony Scott, the current Chamber president. Mr. Scott asked for a retraction and requested that Ms. Foshee’s e-mails be treated as confidential. I denied this request for the following reasons, as expressed to Mr. Scott:
First, the e-mail was not addressed to the current membership only; it was addressed “Good Monday Morning to you all!” The “To” field reads “Robin Foshee,” as opposed to a mailing list or specific individuals. Second, there is no indication in the e-mail that it is to be treated as confidential and the content clearly states that it is intended to be forwarded outside the organization. Third, I also received this from another source. Fourth, I was not inadvertently on this mailing list; I was placed on it last year at the request of former Chamber president Kelly Krauth, who had at that time solicited my assistance with a question associated with the Chamber’s personnel policy, something I was specifically involved with during my time as a Chamber Board member, assistance that was willingly provided.
I received no response, nor have I ever again received any communication from the Chamber; apparently, I have been banished once more from the mailing list and no longer even receive the “Friday Blast.” Another e-mail asking with which businesses the Chamber’s Board members were affiliated also received no response.
We have two principal concerns here. First, we do not believe that it is proper for the Edgewood Chamber to be involving itself in this type of political activity. Whether one supports or opposes NEE’s petition (on that: we have read every word of the proposed regulatory changes, and regardless of any debate on cap-and-trade, found it to be completely unworkable as a regulatory proposition), it simply is not the proper place for a small-town Chamber to be expending energy and resources on what amounts to lobbying. We have heard from at least two Chamber members who are not happy about the Chamber’s actions in this regard, and we agree with them. We wonder just how many of the Chamber’s members would be happy to hear that the money they’ve donated and/or spent on memberships is being used in this manner.
Second, we were taken aback by Mr. Scott’s response. Last year’s Chamber administration went to great pains to create an impression of openness and, while perhaps the spirit was more willing than reality would allow, there were some advances in that direction. Recent events raise the specter of backsliding and moving back into political activity – and attempting to do so if not secretly, then certainly with an air of wanting to keep such activities out of the public eye. This has been a major criticism of the Edgewood Chamber in the past, and it would be unfortunate if history were to repeat itself in this regard.