About that 4-to-1 vote on the Otter Creek coal tract

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:55:22 AM MST

Bear in mind, the shareholders were divided over the advisability of the lease.

Nonetheless, the five got together to strike an agreement regarding the terms of lease and the minimum price.

During the meeting, it was clear that one of the five opposed the lease. Without a great deal of discussion, it was also clear that three of the five seem to agree that a minimum bid of, let's say, $250,000.00 was acceptable, while the fifth said the minimum bid should be, say, $350,000.00.

As the lease was subject to a recorded vote, the outlyer made a motion: Lease the mineral rights for for $350,000.00 and not a penny less. None of the others liked the motion and did not second it. And, the proposal to lease for $350,000.00 died.

So, later, when the time came to vote on a motion to lease the rights for $250,000.00, what did the sponsor of the $350K motion do?

Before you answer, think about it.

Second, wouldn't he have worked the others before the meeting for a favorable vote on the motion?

OK. Perhaps failing to plan ahead was a mere oversight.

After all, he might have expected a second as a courtesy. Didn't happen.

But, suppose for a moment the sponsor was not committed to the motion and really did not care about the outcome. More of a statement motion. Trying to appease some shareholders: "Like you, I don't like the idea, but if we're going to lease, we might as well get more money for it."

The sponsor may have asked himself as the words of the motion left his mouth: "Do I feel lucky today?" Just wing it and hope for a second and that reasonable people would be moved by the debate and actually vote for the higher minimum bid requirement.

Or, perhaps he did check with the three supporters of the lesser amount beforehand and knew in advance the motion was doomed. Orchestrated?

You have to wonder. When the vote came on the lower bid of $250,000.00, the outlyer and the other three supporting the lease voted "YES."

But, even if it was orchestrated, what did the sponsor of the un-seconded motion have to gain?

Normally, the sponsor of an unsuccessful motion uses a failed attempt to explain a "NO" vote. CYA.

In this case, the apparent hold-out's words suggested that he was prepared (figuratively) to take his marbles and go home if he didn't get his way.

As it turns out, his actions suggested that if he didn't get his way, he was prepared to not only stay, but to give his marbles away, as well.

From Mike Dennison's report:

Attorney General Bullock tried to convince fellow board members to increase the minimum bid to 35 cents a ton, arguing that a railroad to the site would make the coal more valuable. But none of the other board members would second his motion.