Doyon vs. United States

Keeping Alaskans Plastered: It appears that the United States ARMY is holding its ground and not bending over to Doyon's demands for more money to run the “utility” infrastructure at several military installations in Alaska – namely Ft. Greely, Ft. Wainwright and Ft. Richardson. When the military base utilities went “Privatized”, Doyon received a very lucrative contract because the “government” was in favor of Doyon's business model - as it proved to provide a cost savings in-line with what was to be expected through “Privatization”. In a nutshell, when the “government” operated the power plants and waste-water plants at these military bases, the operation and maintenance costs were in-line with “Private” industry, but the administrative costs were upwards 25%, way higher then normal and realized as a potential for reduction through “Privatization”. Reduction by a few percentage points when “$millions$ are at risk, it means a whole lot of savings! But now that “model” is not producing the profits that Doyon would like and the “Administrative” costs are at “Tilt”, averaging over 50% of the cost of doing business - so Doyon is renegingg on the “contract” language. I guess crooks will do anything to get a lucrative 50-year contract! Sure it was a set-up, as the original economic “Model” looked good, but the intent was too get the contract signed and sealed and delivered then cry wolf! High administrative costs signal out one thing, money being thrown away on lucrative salaries or paying for some other back-room board room extravaganza – like maybe for payback to CORIX for purchasing the Fairbanks Sewer & Water business form Dan Gavora – the CEO for Doyon! If something stinks... But so far Doyon's thirst for more U.S. Taxpayer loot has backfired, as the ARMY realized what was going on and Doyon's counterattack was squashed. I guess our men & women in uniform know how to “Defend”! See, soon into the contract Doyon tried to raise the rates it charges Uncle Sam, not by a little here and there which could be expected for un-expected expenditures, but like a threat came a 100% increase - which would have sent this “Privatization” dream down the drain. Had Doyon prevailed, it would have meant yearly payment increases of $30-Million bucks, when we as a nation have been forced to cut spending. So the ARMY said NO, and it has ended up for now in “settlement” talks. Sad it is, when our military has to defend its position and waste resources fighting wars back here in the “Homeland”. Honestly, where has the “Patriotism” gone? When American corporations are bent on screwing over the American Taxpayer by screwing over the military and taking advantage the vulnerability of our nation's caretaker, this is “War” and the kind that should never occur, but the kind my hard income taxed finds a valuable use. Correction, it is a Canadian corporation that owns a majority holding of Doyon! Matter of fact, this is a “Litmus Test”, as the intent of “Privatization” was too save money, not throw away the hen-house and if the ARMY prevails, it is a win for the U.S. Taxpayers. If it goes the other way, due limited resources through cut-backs and the ARMY can no longer engage time and efforts to “Defend” what should be “Defended” and wherein Doyon prevails, the shareholders and foreigners - NOT the U.S. Taxpayers – win. Imagine that, a foreign entity owning part of this nation's military infrastructure? Here is the latest update the settlement talks.

JOINT STATUS REPORT

In compliance with Order 16, Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) and Department of Defense (DOD), hereby jointly submit a status report on this matter. Since January 18, 2013, the parties have twice met in formal meetings to discuss settlement of the issues between them, including these rate cases. The parties met in Washington, DC on February 12, 2013, and again in Fairbanks, Alaska on February 28 and March 1, 2013. The parties have participated in telephonic discussions related to developing a framework for discussion. The parties have developed a process to proceed with resolution of issues by reliance on small-group meetings in advance of at least two anticipated formal global settlement meetings. To date, the meetings have been positive and constructive, and continued efforts are supported by both parties. 

 

And I tried to get Alaska's delegation involved in this matter, from the standpoint that this affects the U.S. Taxpayers. Boy was that a mistake. What side are they really on?