Some statements in the memorandum created question about the
accuracy of these statements. Union officers failed to provide documents that
support the memorandum. Because this memorandum appears to be the strongest
reason for a no recommendation it called for more investigation of the
statements made. The investigation has revealed question about the accuracy of
the memorandum and why our union officers failed to catch this.
This letter
is a request to the Full Time Officers and the Executive Board Officers to
explain why they failed to protect the membership from inaccurate information.
It is important for our membership to understand that we have the right people
representing us. It is important that each Officer fully understands how vital it is to present the membership with accurate
and documented information that is properly researched. These Officers should
review and respond to the questions brought up in this letter.
Attached is a copy of the memorandum provided to the
membership in January's Charter Meeting and continuation meetings.
Q.) Bruce Hansen, Jonathan Hunt, Mary Longoria, Jeff
Ackerson, Shirley Block, Carl Faddis, Sandy Guengerich, Shayne Jenkerson, David
Kay, Kevin Kinoshita, Dan Martin, Scott Miller, Ken Richins, Joe Ruffin III, Tom Ruiz, Anna Tompte and Charisse Wall are
our current listed union officers. These are the Officers that represent and
protect the membership. It is the duties of these Officers to assure that the
information they provide to the membership is accurate and appropriately
researched. If the information in the memorandum is proven to be untrue or
inaccurate how come it was presented to the membership?
Q.) The memorandum presents the question "Does the
International Constitution permit the nomination meeting to be changed from May
to April". The answer was "No. Such a change would appear to bring
the local bylaws into conflict with the International Constitution". This
answer is given without indicating any documents that support it. Making this
statement without providing a reference to the section that reflects this makes
it difficult for the membership or Officers to research.
What causes this conflict is this section "Election ballots are to be counted no sooner than 20
days nor later than 30 days from the meeting at which nominations were
made." By changing from May to April and not changing the 20 day
min/ 30 day max this makes it so that counting must happen late April or early
May. This violates International requirement of elections must be held in June.
To avoid conflicts with International both election vote
count and run-off count must be done in June.
Currently I have not been able to locate anything in the
International Constitution that indicates changing the nomination date to April
would be in violation of International Constitution. It is also my concern that
by requiring nomination to be held so close to ballot counting that it is not
allowing enough time for the candidates to campaign before the members receive
the ballots. If this is true then requiring nomination in May might be in
violation of Department of Labor Law §452.79-Opportunity to campaign. Isn't it
more respectful to the member that spent the time writing this proposal and the
membership to understand why the proposal would have issues rather then just
saying it wont work?
Q.) The memorandum then ask "Does the International
Constitution allow for the use of a primary system wherein a run-off election
must be held if no candidate for a particular office receives the majority
vote". The answer was "Yes. International Constitution allows for
run-offs. However, the time restrictions placed by the International
Constitution, the Local's bylaws and the U.S. Department of Labor would make the
scheduling extremely difficult if not impossible". The research that I
have done with in the U.S. Department of Labor Laws, International Constitution
and our local bylaws indicates the only one that makes the scheduling extremely
difficult or impossible would be our current local bylaws as it is written now.
Excluding our local bylaws is the answer posed here true with in U.S.
Department of Labor and International Constitution and what documents support
this?
Q.) The memorandum continues with issues and states "1.
The ATU 757 election committee has
always determined whether the candidate is eligible to be placed on the ballot.
They investigate status and duration of membership in good standing prior to
placing the name on the ballot". What does this mean towards the proposed
bylaws change and what does it have to do with the proposed bylaws change?
Q.) The memorandum states "2. No ballot can be created
until the election committee has been elected. Election committee must be
nominated and elected at the charter meeting in the two months before the
nomination meeting. Although they are busy between the time of their election
and the counting of the ballots, there is nothing for the election committee
members to do until during the month before the election because membership
lists and other material cannot be finalized until just before the ballots are
mailed out. There is no question that the election committee is busy from time
of election on up to the voting of the ballots. What is the purpose of presenting
this in regards toward the proposed bylaws change?
Q.) The memorandum states "3. Section 14 of the Local's
bylaws require that ballots be counted between 20 and 30 days of the nomination
meeting [unless this would violate DOL
regulations which require ballots be in the hands of voters for a certain
duration-generally counting takes place at least 20 days after mailing to allow
sufficient time for mailing problems to be resolved and the return of ballots
from non-PDX locations]. This
means, under the proposed change, the ballots would have to be counted the
first part of May. This would conflict with the International Constitution,
which requires ballots be counted in June before the 25th. See #1 below".
§452.99-Notice of election.
Elections required by title IV to be held by secret ballot
must be preceded by a notice of election mailed to each member at his last
known home address not less than fifteen days prior to the election. For
purposes of computing the fifteen day period, the day on which the notices are
mailed is not counted whereas the day of the election is counted. For example,
if the election is to be held on the 20th day of the month, the notices must be
mailed no later than the 5th day. The notice must include a specification of
the date, time and place of the election and of the offices to be filled, and
it must be in such form as to be reasonably calculated to inform the members of
the impending election. Specification of the offices to be filled would not be
necessary if it is a regular, periodic election of all officers and the notice
so indicates. A statement in the union bylaws that an election will be held at
a certain time does not constitute the notice required by the statute. Since
the Act specifies that the notice must be mailed, other means of transmission
such as posting on a bulletin board or hand delivery will not satisfy the
requirement. A notice of election must be sent to every member as defined in
section 3(o) of the Act, not only to members who are eligible to vote in the election.
Where the notice, if mailed to the last known permanent or legal residence of
the member, would not be likely to reach him because of a known extended
absence from that place, the statutory phrase “last known home address” may
reasonably be interpreted to refer to the last known temporary address of
definite duration. A single notice for both nominations and election may be
used if it meets the requirements of both such notices.
The
memorandum indicates that DOL
requires no less then 20 days to have the ballots in hand of the voters. In all
the DOL documents I have
researched I have found the minimum requirement is 15 days and that is to be
mailed not to be in hand of the voter. I have not found anything in the DOL that states anything about in hand of the
voter. Requiring that ballots be counted between 20 and 30 days after
nomination is still a concern that it would not permit enough campaign time for
the candidates. This could be viewed as violating U.S. Department of Labor Law §452.79-Opportunity
to campaign.
Is the
statement made in the memorandum with in this question above true and/or
accurate in regards to the Department of Labor requirements? What documents support
the answers to these questions?
Q.) The memorandum states "4. Members can and do
declare their intent to run for office prior to the nomination meeting. Many
begin campaigning before the nomination meeting.
Members are protected by freedom of speech laws that allows
them the freedom to speak about their intent. Candidates are restricted by
limitation that they can not have access to properties and other campaigning
tools until they have been nominated as a candidate. This means that a member
can not run a full campaign until after the nomination so only the time period
that the candidate is able to run a full campaign should be the time considered
as campaigning time.
Is the memorandum statement in this question true and what
documents support it?
Q.) The memorandum states in Issue: Requiring run-off
elections "1. The provisions of the International Constitution supersede
local bylaws. The International Constitution, Section 14.1 requires that local
elections be "held" in June and completed by no later than June 25th.
The newly elected candidate must take office on July 1st. "Held" is
interpreted to mean that ballots must be counted in June. Giving the Department
of Labor requirements of at least 20 days between when a ballot is sent and the
ballots are counted, scheduling a run-off election would be extremely difficult
since the printing and mailing process takes 3 days minimum and could not be
begun until it is known if and, what, run-off election was needed".
International Constitution, Section 14.1 does not state
anything about elections being "completed" by the 25th. It actually
states that elections shall take place on or before the 25th. Any one could
have simply looked this up and see that the use of "completed" is not
correct for Section 14.1. You will find that Section 14.4 does state that
elections must be completed by June 25th. Our Officers need to protect our
membership and assure that our members are presented with accurate information.
The Department of labor does not require at least 20 days it
requires a minimum of 15 days. Even with the 20 days as stated a run-off can
happen if the election vote count took place the first few days of June and the
run-off vote count done June 25th. Is the statement made in the memorandum true
and what documents support it?
The memorandum in Issue: Requiring run-off elections is most likely a close estimate and is not in
argument. It is important for members to understand what a change might cost
and how much it can increase by.
Upon a full
investigation it is good that the Executive Board did recommend "No"
on the proposed bylaws change (even a broken clock is correct two times a day).
Though the board made the correct recommendation they still allowed inaccurate
information to be presented to the membership. It indicates that our officers
do not investigate information presented to them to assure how accurate it is.
It brings to question how often this happens. If officers just except
information presented before them with little to no investigation are they the
correct officers to protect the membership?
No comments:
Post a Comment