Amendments of Concern

[CouriersPerspective]

Dear Fellow Members,

On January 22nd, 24th, and 25th our brothers and sisters in the OPEIU Local 30 will be voting on some proposed amendments to the OPEIU Local 30's Constitution and Bylaws. I have several concerns in regards to this, the first is how these proposed changes are being made; the current Constitution and Bylaws state:

"Article XIV - AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

Section 1. All propositions to amend all or any part of this constitution and bylaws shall be submitted in writing and signed by at least 10% of the membership, and shall be read at two (2) consecutive meetings and acted upon at the latter. It shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present and voting to amend this constitution ; except that changes in dues, initiation fees and reinstatement fees shall require only a majority vote of those members voting on any such issue."

As it is my understanding the proposed changes were not submitted with at least 10% of the membership's signatures, I object to their validity for being considered for a vote and/or acceptance.

Secondly, I am concerned with the proposed change to Article XII which as been proposed as follows:

"Add new SECTION 7, to read as follows: 'It shall be the responsibility of every steward to at all times place the best interest of this union ahead of any other concerns. Stewards who engage in actions that are contrary to the policies and best interests of this union may be removed by the Executive Director.' "

Currently OPEIU Local 30 has, and has had for greater than sixty (60) years, an area within the Constitution and Bylaws which addresses this issue. In Article VII - Stewards it is stated:

"Section 3. The executive Board may in exceptional circumstances and subject to appeal to the membership; declare any stewards post vacant."

My concern is partly based on the philosophy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Why does the Executive Director not trust the Executive Board to continue to uphold this area of their duties as they have for greater than sixty (60) years? As you'll notice in the proposed amendment, there are no guidelines as to what may constitute not placing the union's best interest above all others. The proposed amendment is so open-ended it gives the Executive Director the total power to end any and all person's stewardship solely at the discretion of the Executive Director. Additionally, unlike the current area of the Constitution and Bylaws which already addresses this issue, the proposed amendment offers the terminated steward with absolutely no recourse for an appeals process.

I am personally, well-aware of stewards who are intimidated by the Executive Director and therefore do not visibly disagree with him on any issue. For example, many of you are aware, I was recently involved in a controversial issue from which I received both criticism as well as supportive feedback. Please know that I firmly truly appreciate all comments, and although I was very gratified to have received the support of some in regards to the principles I was standing up for, I also noticed the vast majority of support was stated in private settings. As we recently celebrated Martin Luther King Jr., I am reminded of some of his quotes;

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

"Cowardice asks the question - Is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - Is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - Is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - Is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it
because it is right."

I ask, will giving the Executive Director more power which will allow him to terminate any steward from his or her stewardship without providing them any recourse encourage them to stand up for their beliefs, especially when they may not coincide with the Executive Director's, or further discourage them from standing up? This Country and this Union were founded on the principles of Democracy where all people have the right to freedom of speech. I vote to support that right in our Union by voting "no" should this area become available for vote during the January General Membership meetings. What about you?

Fraternally,

Dustin Teske

[CouriersPerspective ()]

Update on this issue;

As explained in Walter's mailing which included his initial proposed amendments to our constitution, he intended to improperly submit these amendments for a vote during the then upcoming membership meeting. This was in violation of our Constitution and Bylaws and he was made known that his misconduct by intentionally violating the laws he was attempting to re-write was noticed. Following, he 'sat' on his amendment proposals (for about a year). It wasn't until just recently, Walter sent out our Business Representatives to gather the neccessary percentage of signatures which would then permit the amendments to be introduced during a general membership meeting and then a vote to occur during the follow meeting. -Basically, he followed the rules this time.

As it stands Walter has reportedly gathered the needed signatures to introduce his proposed amendment changes. His intent was to introduce these proposals during the recent general membership meetings but was unable to entice a quorum (15 members) to show up at any one of the three, recent general membership meetings. - According to our Constitution and Bylaws, general membership meeetings with less than a quorum may only be 'informational' (there were 11 members present for the Las Angeles meeting, 14 members present for the San Diego meeting, and an unknown number of members present during the Arizona meeting).

I'm sure it will only be a matter of time until he is able to find an audience of at least 15 members to attend one of the future general membership meetings and that he will be prepared to present his proposals at each of the upcoming meetings.

In concusion, due to Walter's 'new approach' regarding this issue (in addition to his new 'fever' in regards to launching a revised and current official website), I can't help but feel just a little bit responsible and think maybe, just maybe I've done something right here.

Fraternally,

Dustin

[CouriersPerspective]

Update (2):

I have no information in regards to how many people attended the Arizona, General Membership Meeting (however, it does appear that there was not a quorum as Walter's Constitution and Bylaws changes were not voted upon during that meeting).

Reportedly, the Los Angeles, General Membership meeting was attended by some of the office staff and business agents within our Union and Executive Board Members were all who attended; therefore no quroum was reached there as well.

I attended the San Diego, General Membership meeting on July 24th. Approximately two dozen people attended and there was a quorum. Prior to the Membership voting on them, Walter's proposed Constitution and Bylaws changes were read. David Kessinger and I were the only Members who asked questions in regards to these proposals. I inquired as to why a new section 7, " 'It shall be the responsibility of every steward to at all times place the best interest of this union ahead of any other concerns. Stewards who engage in actions that are contrary to the policies and best interests of this union may be removed by the Executive Director.' " was being proposed. The Executive Board already has the authority, as provided within our contract, to remove a Steward if it believes it is necessary to do so. Additonally, there is a noted appeals process. Walter's response was that these proposals were "boiler plate language" and that actually he did not craft these proposal changes, rather, that Members from Arizona, Los Angeles and San Diego had. This was the extent of his response.

So, to believe Walter, it has Members (and not he) who proposed that Walter be given additional POWER over our Union Stewards. So that, when Walter chooses to remove a Steward for whatever he may deem as not being in compliance with, "... at all time place[ing] the best interest of this union ahead of any other concerns." Although possible, that seems very unlikely; how often do you sit at home wondering how you could help Walter have more POWER and CONTROL over us?

Nonetheless, the proposals were voted on and I was the only Member who voted 'No'. The proposals passed. Now, while it's quite possible that I may be the first Steward Walter removes, who will be the second...third...fourth...? And now that he has this additional power, will Stewards be more or less likely to speak against anything Walter is in favor of, even if they believe it to not be in the best interest of our fellow Members?

Fraternally,

Dustin Teske