Letter to Mr. Walsh on proposed Bylaws (24 hrs left)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Letter to Mr. Walsh on proposed Bylaws (24 hrs left)

Donny Arana
June 8th, 2011

Dear (“RO”) Dennis Walsh,

I, Donald Arana am submitting my reasons why I disagree with certain sections of the proposed bylaws.

*** COUNCIL REPRESENTATION

Section 16.
(A) Each Local Union shall elect a Delegate or Delegates to the Council Delegate Body in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood governing nomination and elections in subordinate bodies. The ratio of representation from each Local Union to the Council Delegate Body shall be as follows: one (1) Delegate for every two hundred (200) members. Provided however, that no Local Union may have more than twenty (20) delegates. No more than Fifty Percent (50%) of the delegates representing any Local Union may be employees of the District Council. No individual employed by the District Council on the day these bylaws go into effect shall be included in the calculation of the Fifty Percent (50%) limit referred to in the prior sentence, unless the individual’s employment by District Council is terminated.

The reason I disagree with the above Section 16A is along with the majority of the members I firmly believe that a paid employee of the District Council that also holds a position as Delegate to the District Council is wrong and unacceptable.  This is a clear conflict of interest.  The UBC can not put a safe guard in place that will protect these delegates from being influenced.  The only true safe guard that will work 100% from influencing these delegates – is not to allow them to be paid employees of the District Council.  Since this is a clear conflict of interest that will affect the membership, no percentage of delegates being paid employees is acceptable.  Why should the same select few wear so many different hats, when you constantly stress for the membership to get involved?  There is not a shortage of members that qualify to become delegates to the district council… therefore, again there is no need for the same select few to occupy so many different positions – this limits membership involvement at such an important level.  Also…It is obvious the UBC wants delegates to the district council to be paid employees of the dc as well.  This is clearly important to them because the delegates will be easily influenced. They will not even have to influence or pressure the delegates because they will be getting paid handsomely and won’t vote against or for anything that will jeopardize or affect their paid position or the structure that keeps them in position. To argue if 50% of the delegates should be allowed to be employees of the dc or if they were employees before a certain date they will not count towards the 50% is ridiculous and wrong.  If you agree that a delegate to the district council that is also a paid employee to the district council is a conflict of interest then no % is acceptable .This is very simple math. Do not be sidetracked on this issue. Don't let them sneak this one pass us. The strategy is very clear to me. This is and will be a major issue in the future if not addressed and the rank and file will never truly have a chance to democratically be involved in the NYCDCC.

Also in regards to Sec. 16 (Delegates Caps)
*** COUNCIL REPRESENTATION

Section 16.

(A) Each Local Union shall elect a Delegate or Delegates to the Council Delegate Body in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood governing nomination and elections in subordinate bodies. The ratio of representation from each Local Union to the Council Delegate Body shall be as follows: one (1) Delegate for every two hundred (200) members. Provided however, that no Local Union may have more than twenty (20) delegates. No more than Fifty Percent (50%) of the delegates representing any Local Union may be employees of the District Council. No individual employed by the District Council on the day these bylaws go into effect shall be included in the calculation of the Fifty Percent (50%) limit referred to in the prior sentence, unless the individual’s employment by District Council is terminated.

Quote-"I have no objection to the combining or dissolution of local unions when the interests of members are better served and their rights fully protected by doing so. Indorse the realization of efficient, cost effective operations achieved through such combinations. However, whether through local unions or “full service” councils, members must be served and their rights enforced and respected. The lawful expectations and needs of all members must be met. As I mentioned in my first report,"......Then in the new proposed bylaws (Section 16A) this should never pass.  This is a clear violation of the member’s rights. If you are a local with under 4,000 members you are able to elect delegates and not reach your cap. Now with the current and proposed dissolution of locals that have 4,000 members or less being merged into locals that will have over 4,000 members will directly be violated of there right to have elected delegates to represent them. For example local 157, 45,926 and local 20. Then again this shall never be able to be approved and passed.

*** OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL

Section 6. The officers of this Council shall consist of President, Vice President, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Warden, Conductor, and three (3) Trustees (collectively, the “Officers”). The term of these offices shall be three (3) years.

The member serving as Executive Secretary-Treasurer shall be limited to two (2) terms in office. The only officer position of the District Council that shall be compensated shall be the Executive Secretary-Treasurer position.

The reason I disagree with Section 6 is because President and Vice President of the District Council in the past have rightfully been paid full time positions (compensated).  It seems obvious in the proposed bylaws that 100 % of appointed positions will also be full time paid positions (compensated) and all elected positions with the exception of one (Executive Secretary Treasurer) will not be paid positions.  How can the elected President and Vice President of a 22,000 member NYC Carpenters union be expected to go to work on a construction site everyday (Full time) and work as a carpenter from 7:30am – 3:30pm and sometimes later, if the job calls for it and also conduct business as the elected President or Vice President and also protect and serve the members (22,000) best interest and also restore accountability to the NYCDCC? These new proposed bylaws (Section 6) will not allow these two very important elected positions to do their jobs efficiently and productively but instead certainly allow them to fail this 22,000 men and women Carpenters Union.

*** Conclusion

I believe the rank and file members should be allowed and considered for all positions in the District Council.  In the past year or two, positions of authority and influence have been newly created by the UBC.  These positions I speak of (Chief Compliance Officer, Deputy Compliance Officer, Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General and Head of Operations) are not elected but appointed positions (Not democratic).  I, along with many other members believe these newly created positions should be elected positions.  We have many eager and qualified rank and file men and women that can rightfully fill these positions.  The democratic system of nomination and election is wrongfully being avoided by way of appointment.  This is clearly not the way our Fore Fathers intended or democracy at its best in the “United States of America”.  These also are very high paying positions that should be rightfully available to all members.  We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on training for perfection of the trade.  Why can’t a rank and file member be rightfully elected to these positions and properly trained to fulfill them?


Fraternally,

Donny Arana
(XXX) XXX-XXXX
Aranacrew5@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Letter to Mr. Walsh on proposed Bylaws (24 hrs left)

2287 member
Donny you are right on all points. Keep up the good work
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Letter to Mr. Walsh on proposed Bylaws (24 hrs left)

scooter
way to go
owl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Letter to Mr. Walsh on proposed Bylaws (24 hrs left)

owl
just got the news letter of the delegates up for office.i noticed the return address was from bethpage long island. where do all the candates come from
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Letter to Mr. Walsh on proposed Bylaws (24 hrs left)

Steward
In reply to this post by Donny Arana
Yes.. ALL positions should be voted in and filled by rank and file members.
Think we are beating a dead horse...with the rank and file on the outside looking in..How the heck did we ever get to this point...where we are fighting our own  UBc & DC.
Think what we need to do is Set up another Rally...with plenty of time to get to all the membership...and basically ask the DC employees to leave the building