In their motion, filed with the court late Monday afternoon, attorney Dwight Davis argues that the salary information is not part of the matter raised in the underlying lawsuit, nor part of enforcing the settlement that was to resolve the suit.
“The compensation is irrelevant to enforcing the agreement settling the lawsuit because that agreement contains no provision relating to Mr. Brown’s employment … before February 28, 2011,” according to the motion. Further, Judge Schuster apparently acted on his own accord in demanding the information.
In a telephone interview, Davis said, “At some point you have to ask: Is there any authority for the judge to be running this company? What is the authority for some of these disclosures? We’ve tried to be good citizens about this. He ordered all 10 directors to his courtroom, even though not all 10 directors are defendants in the lawsuit.
“By taking the dates he has picked, it is terribly misleading. He was an employee there for 37 years, and as part of the settlement, his retirement plan was bought out. … This is unnecessary, trying to dredge up all the things that came out of the settlement, and things that were fully vetted in ’08. … To now, on the eve of these elections, order regurgitation of all that seems unfair to me,” Davis said.
In 2008, before the settlement was reached, the plaintiffs estimated that Brown, who was then president and CEO of both Cobb EMC and the for-profit Cobb Energy, earned $1.6 million annually in salary, stock dividends, retirement and other benefits.
Pitts Carr, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs who brought suit in October 2007, said he disagrees that the salary information is outside the court’s jurisdiction. He plans to file a response today.
“An important part of the (settlement) agreement was that they were to provide to the court information on the details of the implementations of the various provisions of Dwight Brown’s employment contract on a monthly basis. They have never provided any data at all on the resolution of his contract claims, and clearly the court is entitled to see that under the agreed provision,” Carr said.
Bo Pounds, one of the six plaintiffs, said the EMC doesn’t want to disclose Brown’s compensation because “it’s sizable.”
“Why shouldn’t we know? They don’t want anybody to know anything,” Pounds said. “The EMC is owned by the people, and we should know what they make, no matter what.”
Judge Schuster’s office has not said when he will rule on the motion, though the sides are due in his chambers on Sept. 28 to discuss the salary issue and to update the judge on the status of dissolving spin-off companies created under the for-profit Cobb Energy.
Judge Schuster also ordered Cobb EMC to disclose how much Brown was paid as a consultant after he retired on Feb. 28, and Davis said he intends to provide that information, though he declined to divulge that figure just yet.
“It is what it is,” he said.











Follow us on Twitter!
I'm sorry it has taken me this time to get back to you I had to take care of some off shore business.What I'm saying is that working with Ga Power could sway some of your votes if elected to the board.maybe,and yes your community service is noted.If you were elected to the board would you think of it as community service and work for free.that would be nice.As for understanding each other, I'm A concerned cobb county home owner,and your wanting on the board of the 2nd largest emc in georgia.thats the understanding I/WE need for the time.Wrong again on who I work for.WATCHEROFYOU
My consulting at Ga Power was on how they could update an aging system to handle the new Smart Meters and Update the GIS system to better serve their customers. If I was in this for the money I wouldn't run for this board. Look at the community service I have done (all for free) and the results it has brought to East Cobb and Roswell. I was aksed by Mayor Wood (who is a Cobb EMC member) to look into running because of my integrity. Ask anyoen who has met with me and got to know me. I can gladly meet with you to understand you and for you to understand me. Posting gossip doesn't help anyone. Maybe you work for Cookerly & Associates?
How have the other board members been able to hide from public scrutiny for so long? It's time we made it very public with names, pictures, length of service and how much they've been paid since serving on the board. What other ties do they have to the business and political community?
It's time Brock and Clay where put under the spotlight too. A connected firm that is not only costing the EMC owners (us) millions, but also costing the county millions representing the school board. Were they involved in the backroom dealings and legal maneuvers to aid the Brown and the board in their apparent scheme? A reasonable person would have to think it bears looking into. Maybe the State Bar Assoc needs to look into it also.
Then again we've elected by all accounts one of the most corrupt politicians in the history of state politics (and that's saying something) in Nathan Deal. If you don't want to bother with being investigated for corruption, just strip the agency that is in charge of it. So to say the system is corrupt and merely there to enrich the connected few is an understatement.
Besides electing ALL new Board members, it will be imperative that the Bylaws of our EMC are checked and possibly amended to try and stay ahead of sneaky, greedy, crooked Board members, CEOs and their high paid attorneys.
Members- the days of keeping decent, honest people decent & honest and the days of finding decent, honest people are fading quickly.
I like your sentiment but I want to clarify some of the legal errors in your comment. First, on the federal level, an open records request under the Freedom of Information Act only applies to governmental agencies under the executive branch. So, even if the EMC got federal funding, it wouldnt apply to them. On the state level, a request is called an Open Records Request, but, like on the Federal level, the law does not apply to the EMC.
So, unless there is a change in the bylaws, salaries and other financial information does not have to be disclosed in order to meet any legal requirements.
But, again, good sentiment.
Scott
Judge Schuster, heed the words of your peer, Justice Lewis Brandeis, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Disinfect the EMC and shed some light (no pun intended) on the underground activities of those who are resisting your efforts and questioning your motives!! Stay strong and firm!!!
I hope Judge Schuster denies the request and demands that the EMC disclose Brown's pay and disclose the liquidation of the subsidiaries. Going to be quite interesting what happens at next week's hearing.
The Truth will set you free. At least that is what Jesus taught.