Randy Cornelius in his letter to the Journal, (“GM disputes claims by would-be OPALCO board candidate,” April 2, pg. 6) says, “…contrary to Mr. Jarman’s assertion, the OPALCO board does not have a policy of not allowing board members to speak individually to the cooperative’s members.”

If this were so, why would Bob Jarman and John Bogert receive letters from lawyers threatening them if they spoke out?

How can one reconcile Mr. Cornelius’ statement in his letter: “In summary, the OPALCO board’s actions are transparent to the cooperative’s members and completely consistent with cooperative principles…” with the proposed or perhaps passed board policy No. 1, which states, “Directors are required to keep confidential all matters involving the cooperative that have not been disclosed to the public.”

If a member of the co-op attends a board meeting presumably the board members cannot disclose information that hasn’t been made public. Wouldn’t that handicap the board in conducting business?

Randy Cornelius also says in his letter that Bob Jarman was, “promulgating falsehoods about the cooperative.”

Glenna Hall first implied the letter threatening John Bogert, if he were to speak out, was written without the board’s knowledge.

This behavior suggests to me that OPALCO’S board is feeling threatened. I think we should do the kind thing and relieve them of feeling threatened by replacing them.

Gabriel Jacobs/Shaw Island