President of Power Company "Bailing Out"??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The President of Alliant Utilities-Interstate Power Co, the power company that made headlines in Madison, Wisconsin, plans to retire on December 31, 1998!

The date is just a coincidence, right?

(This link is to the Corporate Press Release)

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 10, 1998

Answers

Will he get a gold generator as a parting gift?

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), October 10, 1998.

Just a note of clarification: He is an Executive V.P., not the President.

Therefore, he will only receive a silver generator.

WTG, Hardliner. Thanks again for the info.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), October 11, 1998.


A lot of people resign or retire on December 31st. There may be something to it, but I think you may be over reading it a little.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 11, 1998.


The CEO and president of MidAmerican Energies (another Iowa power company) is going to semi-retire (has a consulting contract) when the merger with Cal-Energy is complete early next year. I don't know if Y2k had anything to do with his decision or if it just fit into his plans.

-- just me (none@anywhere.com), October 11, 1998.

Steve,

DUBUQUE, Iowa, Sept. 10, 1998--Mike Chase, executive vice president-Corporate Services of Alliant, and president of Alliant Utilities-Interstate Power Co. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 11, 1998.



We will be seeing many rats leaving the ship within the next year.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), October 11, 1998.

Does anyone KNOW why he is retiring?

-- Mike (gartner@execpc.com), October 11, 1998.

The press release didn't say why, but it did note that he is only 59 years old. Isn't that the age (actually 59 1/2) when you can liquidate a 401(K) without penalty? Another coincidence?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 11, 1998.

Maybe turning 59 1/2 is a good reason all by itself.

This is nothing to get excited about. If ALL the top brass bail out, then get excited!

-- Mike (gartner@execpc.com), October 12, 1998.


Oh God, here we go again.

Folks, are you really putting forward the position that executives, who have a long history of taking the money and running as soon as they become vested in retirement plans and profit sharing deals, should be locked into their jobs now just because of Y2K? Must we now look on activites that happened all of the time in the past with frantic suspicion just because of Y2K? If so, I'm laying in a supply of antacids and high blood pressure medication now. Can we at least consider the possibility that the guy wants to enjoy the fact that he is financially secure and doesn't have to work anymore? It's not an uncommon thing, you know.

BTW, the age to collect out of 401(k) funds is 55 1/2, not 59 1/2.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 13, 1998.



No one suggested that they be "locked into their jobs." I think that, given the lies and stonewalling on record from govt. agencies, banks and large companies, it makes sense to look for those responsible for the Y2k problem to be bailing out. And they are - no suprise there.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), October 13, 1998.


E.,

<< No one suggested that they be "locked into their jobs." I think that, given the lies and stonewalling on record from govt. agencies, banks and large companies, it makes sense to look for those responsible for the Y2k problem to be bailing out. And they are - no suprise there. >>

So, in other words, you are in fact discounting the possibility that they guy might be retiring simply because he doesn't want to work anymore and can afford to do so. Is this what you meant to say?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 13, 1998.


Paul,

Can I have a couple of those high blood pressure pills? This is a good one.

(now, not at Paul) I mean, god forbid the guy has worked for years and has a chance to enjoy his life with some financial security. I wouldn't want to say of the people in this forum are paranoid, BUT.....

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 14, 1998.


About this guy: we don't know. About Y2k: are you saying it's no one's fault? If not, are you saying we can't expect those responsible (for what may be a crippling if not fatal blow to civilization) to attempt to evade responsibility? I'm not really suprised that there is a concerted smear campaign against "paranoids" and "alarmists" by these people (or rather, their lackys, mostly journos). This kind of blame-shifting is the million-dollar smokescreen that will allow them to go unpunished, and that's primarily why it's happening. I'd rather be truly, clinically paranoid than an sycophantic apologist for the managerial short-sightedness and self interest that IS the Y2k problem. People are going to DIE because people like him (like him - again, we don't know in his individual case; maybe he's being retired because he tried to allocate too much money on Y2k). But this thing is serious, and it isn't an "act of God" - it's a collosal, all too human, managerial f***up.

Yeah, these execs, retiring in droves, have "worked for years" - JUST NOT ON THE Y2k PROBLEM. Mergers and retirements will increase. Watch for it. Then come back and diagnose me after you've seen the world, Ranger Rick.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), October 14, 1998.


E,

I am talking about ONE guy here, the guy mentioned in this thread. Fine if you want to be paranoid go right ahead, BUT do realise there are some things that happen in this world not related to Y2K. I would love to be retiring when I was 59 & 1/2. Trust me, I believe in my fair share of conspiracy theories (i.e. TWA 800, MIBs, Roswell and so on), but I think it is also possible that this guy may be retiring just to retire.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 14, 1998.



To Paul: I believe you are incorrect about the 401(K) retirement age--59 1/2 is the correct age.

To E: Are you saying that we should all be looking for someone to blame for Y2K? Are we going to punish people? I thought you were a defender of the Constitution. Saying that "management" is responsible does not give anyone the right to punish anyone with the title "manager." If it comes to that, I don't want any part of that lynch mob.

-- Buddy Y. (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), October 14, 1998.


<< To Paul: I believe you are incorrect about the 401(K) retirement age--59 1/2 is the correct age. >>

It's happened before. My apologies for posting incorrect information. (This of course means the materials a previous employer handed me when I signed up in their 401(k) were wrong, since that is what I referenced before posting. I wonder if the the retiremnet age was changed in the last 5 years?)

Anyway, I still think it's way to difficult to tell if this guy (or anyone else for that matter) is retiring for Y2K or for other reasons. But let's assume the worst and discuss it.

Suppose some rat senior exec decides to abandon the ship he's sailing on because he doesn't want to be around when Y2K tolls. My question is this: Is this a bad thing?

My response: Probably not.

Let's examine the guy's motivation. It would have to be pretty low. Who do you wnat in there? They guy who gave up or the person who is willing to stay and continue the fight? I want the fighter.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 15, 1998.


E.,

<< People are going to DIE because people like him... >>

Mighty strong statement there, fella! I know you believe it, and I can respect that belief, but do you have any real evidence? Can you prove people will die? If not, you can't go around excising restitution from corporate execs without becoming what you have professed to fear: a judge without the benefit of jury, evidence or trail.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 15, 1998.


Shesh. I hope that retirement at age 59 doesn't become a hanging offense......because that's exactly what I did.

But, then again, I wasn't the CEO of a power company that had been featured in two separate negative Y2K articles. Alliant also got poor scores in the Minnesota hearings described on Roleigh Martin's site --

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roleigh_martin/

Had Alliant gotten rave reviews people wouldn't jump to the same ocnclusions.

We'll know the real answer on 2000/01/01 -- not before.

rocky

-- Rocky Knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), October 15, 1998.


Well, my response is simple...Go Figure

remember this song//???

IT's the THINGS THAT MAKE YA GO HMMMMMMMM

-- hhmmmm (hmmmm@aol.com), October 15, 1998.


"Mergers and retirements will increase. Watch for it. Then come back and diagnose me after you've seen the world, Ranger Rick. "

E.

I am not trying to diagnosis anyone, but I feel that Y2K is already turning into the new El Nino. "Look at that! It has to be because of Y2K!" The guy is retiring...get on with life. As for holding him responsible...when you form your own court for trying "those responsible" after Y2K, leave me out of it. YOu want to blame someone, go get the guys who programmed the software and hardware. Go get the managers from the old days who told the programmers to do a 2 digit year. The new managers are trying to clean up someone elses mistake, but that doesn't matter...their "responsible"

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 15, 1998.


Some people are responsible and should be held to account. I'm not the judge, jury and executioner; this should be done publically by the appropriate authorities. And I'm not saying that those proven negligent should be boiled in oil. There might be a "Truth and Reconciliation Commitee." But without the Truth - that means accountability - there can be no reconcilliation with the millions of people who are going to be without power, water, sewage, defense, police and fire services, food, communications, and living through a wasteland of prolonged economic collapse. You can bet that they will want to know precisely who was responsible. Many will die, but millions are going to be suffering, starving, desperate - and with historical hindsight we can conclude that this kind of global depression will lead to war. Modern war. Y2k isn't a problem because programmers used 2-digit dates, or because managers told them to. It's a problem because, despite the warnings of their programmers, managers wanted to save money. They didn't want the expense of extra programming time, extra memory - on THEIR budget. It's largely a case of "Let the next guy fix it." That is NEGLIGENCE, by any reasonable standard. And it will be by a legal standard, when officials, even with a private company, are in positions where their decisions -or lack of them- directly impact the welfare of the public.

And as for you, Paul, I think it's an outrageous to suggest that people WON'T die as a result of Y2k disruptions, given what we know about it to date. Britain and Canada are openly (and the US secretly) preparing for martial law, and planning to deal with Y2k disruption is now officially the Canadian Military's number one priority. You are truly in denial. But we won't have to wait long to see the suffering, particularly the economic suffering, that Y2k will cause. Time will tell.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), October 15, 1998.


Someone speaks of accountability who doesn't use a name or an actual e-mail address?

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 15, 1998.


What difference does it make if one uses a real e-mail name or address? Hotmail is one of those phoney addresses, as is Juno, Excite, and all the others. I doubt that many of the people who post here use their real address.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), October 15, 1998.

E.,

<< And as for you, Paul, I think it's an outrageous to suggest that people WON'T die as a result of Y2k disruptions, given what we know about it to date. Britain and Canada are openly (and the US secretly) preparing for martial law, and planning to deal with Y2k disruption is now officially the Canadian Military's number one priority. >>

I never suggested anything one way or the other. It is entirely possible that people might die from Y2K problems. Of course, people die from automobile problems, gun problems, medical equipment failures, carelessness, incompetence, fate, and just damn near anything else you care to mention. If it exists, somebody has probably died from it. They call that life.

And sorry, you aren't going to get me to bite on the martial law topic again. I've said my peace on that, and having just taken a vow to cut back on negative posting I won't repeat it.. Let's just say that we agree to disagree.

As for being in "denial," well, that still simply seems to be a euphamism for "you don't agree with me, therefore you are either mentally incompetent or self-delusional." Neither you nor anyone else who has ever lobbed that one at me has ever backed up the statement with proof that I am any more wrong in my beliefs than you are in yours. When you show me something tangible, I'll bite. Untill then, no dice.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 15, 1998.


Dave,

I use hotmail because my town has access to one ISP with the worlds lousiest e-mail system. While I know Hot Mail is shunned it allows me to check my mail from any computer with web access (for instance at friends houses, at the local school where I help out sometimes and so on). At least people have a way to contact me.

I just don't appreciate lectures on accountability from someone with no way to contact them. There is NO accountability in that.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 16, 1998.


E.,

Now, this is a serious question. I'm genuinely asking, not attacking. Honest.

In the beginning of your last post, you talk about executives being held acocuntable by proper authorities, presumably some form of government. To me, that indicates at least some level of trust in the government to look after the good of the populace, at least in terms of punishing those who commit grevious offenses.

Then, you mention your oft repeated fear of the government imposing martial law. To me, that indicates a pretty strong distrust in the government's desire and/or ability to do the right thing by the populace.

My question is this: Aren't these two statements at odds with each other, and if not, what am I missing?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 16, 1998.


i have some good news to contribute to those who want to bail out of retirement funds, who think they are too young. you can take money out at any time without penalty for certain situations, including paying for education expenses, medical, buying a house, etc.

but the better news is that you can bail out of retirement funds at any time, at any age, without taking a major tax hit, by setting up a schedule of orderly withdrawals, called amortization. i've looked into this, but not in this past year. rules may have changed; talk to a tax accountant about the best way to handle your particular situation, as there are many ways!

this is for E.--i have read the canadian newspapers very carefully. they discuss ways in which the military can assist, but i have seen NO mention of martial law, which is a completely different kettle of fish. if you HAVE seen those words used in the canadian media, i would definitely appreciate if you could give the precise URL, as most of my relatives live in canada. ( i live in indiana, where it's warmer but cloudier.)

-- Jocelyne Slough (jonslough@tln.net), October 16, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ