Re: Amendments of Concern

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