Greater control by the Waitaki Power Trust over Network Waitaki decisions on acquiring shares in other companies was demanded by a group of consumers at a meeting in Oamaru yesterday.
It was the trust's annual meeting, reporting to consumers who own the North Otago power lines company through the five trustees.
A change to Network Waitaki's statement of corporate intent, which goes to the trust for approval, appeared to give greater powers to the company's board of directors in buying, acquiring or applying for shares in other companies.
That was opposed by Oamaru consumer Helen Stead, who felt it was a loss of control over what had been a major issue in the past, when Network Waitaki combined administration and contracting with South Canterbury-based Alpine Energy.
That caused loss of jobs in Oamaru, along with a feeling of lack of local control.
The decision was reversed, management brought back to Oamaru and a contracting division re-established under Network Waitaki.
Previously, the statement of corporate intent required majority consent from trustees before the board could make a decision to buy, acquire or apply for shares in other companies.
That was changed in the last review to consulting trustees and considering their comments before making a decision.
''I believe that is a step too far and gives responsibility totally to the discretion of directors [to acquire other shares or companies],'' Mrs Stead said.
Trustee Dennis Norman described the joint management and contracting with Timaru as a ''disastrous experiment taking many years to get over''.
He agreed the directors should not be able to make that sort of decision and had opposed the statement of corporate intent being changed.
However, chairwoman Helen Brookes said the trustees had recommended the directors put the previous clause back requiring majority trustee consent, but that had not occurred.
In the interests of a good relationship with directors, the trust had not ''required'' the clause to be put back, she said.
Dr Brookes pointed out trustees appointed and also had the power to remove directors, which she regarded as the ultimate control.
Board of directors member David Ruddenklau pointed out it would be ''a very, very bold board'' that did not take on the views of trustees.
He also said giving trustees greater control could put them in the position of ''quasi-directors'' with all the legal implications that involved.
In the end, the meeting passed by majority a recommendation the trust review the clause on share acquisitions and revert
to the original clause requiring majority consent from trustees.
