Should we kill the goose that lays the golden community egg?

Once upon a time there was a pleasant little seaside village full of happy little villagers. They were a clever and creative bunch; community-spirited and always coming up with innovative ways to make their lives better.
One day, they discovered a modern day version of The Goose That Laid Golden Egg – a power supply network. Or rather, they invented it. No longer solely dependant on the greedy trogs in the South Island, who had big lakes and made lots of power for the rest of the country, the villagers were ecstatic. Now they could have fairy lights at Christmas and longer hot showers (that even had Helen steaming) and other little affordable luxuries that only your own electrical supply could provide. And best of all, if the Golden Goose made any profit, it came straight back to the villagers!
Things were pretty good in the village for many years, until a major shakeup when the Big Ugly Giant decided that the villagers shouldn't own their Golden Goose, stole it and put it in a Goose Farm. They promised the villagers that even though Trustpower ran the goose farm, their part of it (a third) would be minded by the good shepherd TECT (Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust) which was elected by the villagers and would still make sure that all the towns folk, who were given a shareholding in the goose farm, would still get their fair crack at the omelette.
They decided that villagers would get 80 per cent of the benefits and 20 per cent would be divvied up by the Wise Villagers on the TECT trust, to community groups.
It wasn't perfect but seemed pretty fair to most of the villagers. For every ten eggs left over, eight would go to the villagers and the remaining two went to deserving charities and community groups.
But not just any groups. The Wise Villagers were very careful about where and how they divvied up the eggs. They made sure it wasn't an egg scramble.
Then one day, some of the villagers became disgruntled with their share of the Golden Eggs. Eight wasn't good enough, they said, and to hell with the charities. They wanted to know why ALL TEN eggs were not being given to them. They pointed out that if all ten eggs were given back to the villagers, instead of just eight, then the villagers would all get a bit more. Then, if the villagers individually wanted to give some of their egg share to charities and other organisations, they could. But those who really needed all the egg they could get, would be better off.
Now that seemed alright in theory. Sure, all the extra eggs technically belonged to the villagers to use how they liked.
This idea caused a major amount of consternation in the village. A lot of the villagers liked how the eggs were being divvied up. They still got the big share (8), and just a few (2) weren't really missed and went to good causes.
Plus, a lot of very good organisations had become reliant on TECT help, not just to boost their functions, but for their very survival. They are too numerous to mention here, that's a whole other story. But places such as Waipuna Hospice, The Alzheimers Society, rescue helicopter, Coastguard, schools, community centres, environmental programmes and a whole range of helpful groups that benefit the whole village.

Scrambling
While it was all very well to say that villagers could decide individually how to use their extra eggs in theory, what would happen in practice? We all know the answer to that one … most would never get around to sharing their eggs; they'd just end up scrambled with the rest.
It came time for the villagers to vote on who they wanted in TECT. A lot of people decided to stand. Some say the Village Idiot was among them.
A group wanting change put up some candidates and they tried to get enough of their team on board, promising that if they did, not just most of the golden eggs, but ALL the golden eggs, would be dished out individually to the villagers.
After the election, TECT ended up divided. With three of the 'give me all the eggs” team on the board and three of the Old School, it wasn't quite enough for them to clearly put their idea into practice, because the Wise Old Villager Mr Cooney, the chairman, had a magical casting vote that could tip the balance.
But now the story gets a bit messy, because TECT has decided to ask the villagers what they want. The villagers already get a big share – about $21m out of a total $25m. That's about $350 each. The question is, should they now get all of it, leaving none for the community amenities, events, special projects, subsidies or scholarships?
So while the story might be messy, the options are simple.
Villagers need to pick A or B.

Option A - Remain with the status quo (approximately 80% Consumer cheques and 20% Consumer community grants).
Option B – Return 100% of funds available direct to TECT Consumers with no grants to Consumer community organisations.

The poll opened at midnight last night. Voting papers are in the mail now or villagers can vote online from today. www.tect.org.nz
Rogers believes it's an important choice for all residents to make.
It's a choice between greed or community spirit.
Not everyone will agree. But here's how I see it:
Yes, there are people to whom an extra $60-70 a year makes a lot of difference. And I've been there. (Ironically, a lot of the TECT community contributions help those people in need the most.)
But the majority won't even notice – whether they're getting an 80 per cent or a 100 per cent dividend.
Yet that 20 per cent that currently goes such a long way to keeping afloat what I believe are valuable community organisations, is huge.
Let them keep their eggs, and we can save their bacon!
Whatever you think, I urge you to vote in this poll, the result is very important to our community and TECT should be given a clear mandate either way.