Business Community

PenLight CEO sued by board member, who calls for ratepayer vote on new HQ building

A long-time member of Peninsula Light Company’s board of directors is suing CEO Jafar Taghavi, calling on him to make public the member-owned, cooperative utility’s plans for a new headquarters building, along with its projected cost.

Gig Harbor attorney L. Paul Alvestad, who filed the lawsuit in Pierce County Superior Court last Thursday, said the utility’s 35,000 members (ratepayers) should get a deciding vote on whether PenLight moves forward with its new digs, which had not yet been formally announced.

Alvestad said his goal is to prevent the company from unveiling the headquarters proposal as a done deal, after the board has already approved the building’s creation.

‘Overpriced by millions’

In a Facebook post, Alvestad said he believes the new facility that Peninsula Light envisions “is overpriced by millions.” The plan for the new building “was developed without any member input and without meaningful input” from the utility’s board of directors, the lawsuit states. Unveiling the plan before board approval “is necessary for the fulfillment of [Alvestad’s] fiduciary duties to the Company and its Members.”

Alvestad and other board members declined to share any dollar figures they have seen attached to PenLight’s proposed new headquarters building. But in a post he shared to Gig Harbor-area Facebook groups, Alvestad said “the size of the proposal dwarfs many bond and levy proposals for fire, parks, and schools in the Gig Harbor and Key Peninsulas.”

Peninsula Light’s existing office on Goodnough Drive near Purdy. Photo by Ed Friedrich

“As a third-generation board member, I am concerned that the unique relationship” between Peninsula Light Company and its members “will quickly dissipate if an expensive facilities plan is built without membership input and vote,” the Facebook posts stated.

PenLight Public Relations Manager Britni Wickens said the company’s policy is to decline comment on litigation in progress.

She confirmed the company is undertaking a “facilities evaluation” that includes deciding whether to create a new headquarters building to replace the existing one at 13315 Goodnough Drive NW. She noted that the existing structure is 40 years old, and said its seismic soundness is among the issues being considered.

Asked whether the company would unveil the new headquarters plan prior to board approval and allow members to vote on whether to build it, Wickens said Penlight “is governed by a board of directors elected by the membership to make strategic decisions on behalf of the organization.”

“If the current evaluation leads to a formal plan and that plan is approved by the board, [ratepayers] will be informed through our regular communications channels. At that time, relevant information will be shared publicly, and there will be opportunities for member feedback as part of our commitment to education and engagement,” she said.

Other board members’ views

Scott Junge, member and secretary of PenLight’s board, said “I’m in favor of getting input” from utility ratepayers on the proposed new headquarters building before the board votes on whether to move forward with it. However, he did not endorse the idea of giving members a final vote on whether it gets built.

“The understanding is we get this plan so that we have something to present to the public,” in order to gather comments, he said. Peninsula Light Company’s architecture firm has developed a plan for the building and a cost estimate; the next step is for the company to present these plans to a contractor, in order to verify the pricing, he said.

PenLight is looking at the possibility of replacing the building because doing so might be more economical than performing all the repairs that it needs, Junge said.

Both Junge and board President Debra Ross disagreed with Alvestad’s claim that the new HQ has been planned without “meaningful input” from board members.

“We have been a part of it,” Ross said. While staff members have been PenLight’s main points of contact in working with architects, the board has been “updated every step of the way,” she said.

Asked whether building the new headquarters should be brought to a vote by members, Ross said, “I’d rather not comment on that. That’s something we’re discussing internally as a board.”

Lawsuit

L. Paul Alvestad

Alvestad’s lawsuit maintains that the plan for the new headquarters, developed by a Tacoma-based engineering and architecture firm, “did not involve an initial survey of Company Members and other stakeholders nor the board.”

“All but one board member was excluded from direct formal discussions during Plan development. Indirect discussions nevertheless occurred” between a few board members, the CEO, a consultant and possibly members of the CEO’s staff, according to the complaint filed in the lawsuit. “Reports or even the existence of those discussions were not reported in their entirety to all Board members,” it states.

“The Plan is nearing its final stages. The Plan’s estimated cost exceeds that of other community facilities (schools, fire, parks) that normally would require a community vote by statute,” the lawsuit states.

“Under the Company’s bylaws, no member vote is required to adopt a facilities plan with such financial magnitude. While the Board could ask the membership for discussion and adoption of the plan by vote, it has no plan to do so. If the plan is adopted by the Board before membership vote, the membership will only have a meaningless say after the fact.”

Suit alleges information was withheld from board

The complaint continues, “The crux of this suit is to seek judicial intervention for the disclosure of information critical to the Company’s operations and future planning, specifically relating to the Facilities Plan, its purpose, adoption process, cost and input.”

“The Plaintiff alleges also that the information and documents in the possession of the CEO was withheld from board members that is critical and essential for the proper governance and oversight of the Company, adoption of the Plan and transparency to the members,” it states.

The lawsuit asks for a court order directing Peninsula Light to release a trove of information, including:

• past and current versions of the facilities plan, as well as internal communications between the parties involved in developing it;
• external communications concerning the plan with other utilities, their officers, employees and board members;
• drafts and revisions of the facilities plan from the two consultants who have worked on it;
• minutes and notes from any committee, task force, or internal group evaluating or developing the plan;
• financial analyses, feasibility studies or impact reports related to the proposal; and more.

The lawsuit states: “Obtaining the information sought in the Request could show that other Board member revelations of its potentially confidential information as well as Board and CEO revelations to third parties resulted in a disclosure of what some would consider ‘confidential information’, thereby constituting a waiver [of confidentiality] and allowing dissemination of that information to Company Membership to support their interest in a vote.”

Taghavi has not yet filed a response to the complaint in Alvestad’s lawsuit. The first hearing is scheduled for September 19, 2025, in Judge Ingrid McLeod’s courtroom.

Peninsula Light Company is almost 100 years old and claims to be the second-largest cooperative in the Northwest. It serves about 35,000 electrical meters with 1,006 miles of line, covering 112 square miles of service territory. This area extends roughly from the Tacoma Narrows (on the south) to the Kitsap County line (to the north). The company also provides services to more than 3,200 water consumers.