To my fellow pilots,
I want to begin with an apology. As you read in a previous opinion piece co-written by Joe Stein and myself opposing the recall effort of Gary Hummel and Steve Bradford, we had strived to remain considerate and respectful of others and focus on principles, not personalities. After reading the “President’s Message Rebuttal Letter” penned by the former CLT and PHL reps and signed by my current colleagues on the Board, I can no longer stand idly by and allow my character and integrity to be attacked in a public forum simply for opposing the recall effort. I am leaving Joe on the sidelines on this one and am taking the field on my own. I will be gladly paying for the cost of this letter out of my own pocket just to get my side of the story heard. Those of you who know me know that I always try to be civil and polite to others. I try to find compromise and consensus whenever possible and while I disagree with the recall effort, I respect the action that has been undertaken. However when I’m attacked with the callous disregard and libel contained in their letter without any prompting on my part, it’s time to fight back. Therefore, I am sincerely sorry in advance for showing a side of me that many of you may believe to be out of my character. Just please remember that I didn’t start this.
Regarding the President’s Message of December 30th, I’d like to set the record straight. I’m sure that Gary will admit that I had nothing to do with his intent to single me out in his letter. As Gary mentioned, what transpired for those three days and nights in Charlotte last January was held in
closed session. As most are aware, there were eleven Board members, four Officers, the NAC, the Communications Chairman and three attorneys who all participated in intensive discussions as we debated the merits and pitfalls of MOU 2 and worked towards finding a consensus that would best benefit our pilots.
In the end, all eleven Board members were unanimous in our vote to recommend that our membership ratify this agreement. Getting to that decision, involved in depth discussions both while in closed session as well as during our recesses after hours. Many ideas were tossed around and as I recall, all of us participated and contributed our ideas to those discussions. Being that we were in closed session as well as that many of these discussions took place between several representatives after hours and during our evening recesses, there were no
“official minutes” that were taken. As far as the Board members, there are eleven different perspectives and recollections of what took place and eleven different sets of notes. Some will agree on who said what and when, and others may remember it differently. As I’ve said, as I remember it and from what others also recall from those after hours discussions, I had some input in coming up with the initial concept of what we might consider with a
“give” in order for us to be able to negotiate for a
“get”. I never stated that I was solely responsible for the retro pay, nor did Gary insinuate that in his message as some would have you believe. I was also
NEVER against the concept of retro pay nor any other potential gains.
One of our attorneys, Pat Syzmanski was the individual who, in those after hour sessions shared the negotiating premise that if we wanted to gain any additional benefits to the MOU, we needed to find something that we could give in return. It was not DeWitt, not Steve, not Joe, not Jamie nor me or anyone else. The attorneys may have been leading all of us in that direction the entire time. During these brainstorming sessions that took place during the evening, no one was taking notes. We were standing around and tossing ideas back and forth, not seated in the boardroom taking notes and typing on our computers.
What truly matters is not who said what or came up with any specific notions, but that we worked together as a Board and finally reached a decision. My personal opinion may not carry any weight by some but I believe that ANYONE trying to take credit for any specific part of those private discussions only serves to further divide our Board and the pilot group who we serve. I have never tried to take or give any credit for what we were able to accomplish during those three days other than to credit everyone involved in the meetings for finally reaching a unanimous consensus. I strongly disagree with the notion of anyone who tries to take or give credit either individually or collectively to a few, for what the eleven of us were able to accomplish as one Board. To do so in my opinion, only serves to attempt to try to further a political agenda and is nothing more than self serving aggrandizement. One cannot fathom that any of us would ever try to steal all of the credit for handling an emergency in an aircraft while disparaging our fellow crewmembers. Yet this same concept seems to come easily and is S.O.P. for some of the former representatives while serving on the Board. While I don’t know why Gary chose to single me out in his message, I can only think that it may have been that he had finally become disgusted with the continual spin that was being disseminated which provided credit to only a few, to further their political agendas. He probably thought that it was time to let our pilots know that there was more to the story. Just as I adamantly disagree with those who try to take all the credit for the results of that meeting, I also disagree with Gary’s premise of divulging these closed session details, but I understand his frustration. And just because I have a disagreement with the President, does not mean that I need to recall him.
I will also state that other statements made in the CLT and PHL “rebuttal letter” are full of spin and misinterpretations. They reference my vote opposing the release of all of our notes from our three day meeting during a subsequent conference call. This was one of the few facts that they actually got right. I absolutely did vote with a
“Hell No”, but what Mr. Crimi’s notes could not reflect was why I added that emphasis. I voted firmly against the release of any “notes” taken during those three days because of my concern of harming the Board’s reputation for exactly what is transpiring now. As I’ve stated earlier, these three days were held in
closed session and as much of our discussions happened after hours, there were
no “official minutes” that had been voted on and approved by the Board. A vote to have done so would have just started a free for all with eleven different perspectives and nothing more than a “he said, he said” political spin that is now coming to the forefront. It sure as
Hell wasn’t because I was worried about the actions that I took during that meeting. I did or said nothing to be ashamed of. During a time that the Board should have been showing unity after taking a unanimous vote in favor of the MOU, two PHL and three CLT Board members were trying their best to once again create spin and further their own deeply seated political agendas against President Hummel and those they opposed on the Board as well as the product that the NAC was able to achieve. All this would have accomplished then, and is succeeding in doing now, is to further divide our Board and in turn, create distrust in the entire BPR by the pilots and serve to create additional apathy amongst the pilot group. The vast majority of our pilots don’t give a damn about who said what or came up with which idea. They just want results. They got results when the eleven of us voted unanimously to recommend that our pilots ratify the MOU and they spoke loudly when they agreed with our vote and ratified it by more than 75%.
One mischaracterization of the events during that meeting and the role that I played wasn’t enough. The PHL and CLT reps used their letter to attack my integrity and credibility on another event that took place during the meeting last year and it is nothing less than an all out attempt at character assassination simply because I oppose their recall referendum. They stated correctly that I moved a resolution to pass the MOU without any improvements. What they incorrectly asserted as fact was my reasons for doing so. While Steve Crimi’s note taking may be legendary he’s by no means a psychic and had no idea as to my intent. I did talk with Gary prior to taking that action but it was not him telling me to move a resolution. It was me advising him of the action that I was going to take and the reasons for doing so. They insinuated that I was in favor of passing it as it stood without pursuing any additional benefits. This is a bold faced lie! For the record,
I did move the resolution but that was after we had already kicked the MOU down the road for a day and a half without ever having something official on the table to debate and discuss. We had already discussed the idea (no matter who came up with it) that our best opportunity to gain anything additional was to offer Mr. Butler and the UCC a unanimous vote. Steve Crimi had stood fast and was adamantly opposed to voting in favor of this MOU which took away that unanimous vote opportunity. He had also been threatening to utilize a division of the house vote to kill the deal and not allow our pilots to have a chance to vote for or against the MOU. My reason to move the resolution was to finally let us begin an official debate on a resolution which was now on the floor as well as to force Steve and the others who were threatening to use their roll call votes to send it back to the NAC, to either fish or cut bait, so to speak. As history will reflect, once this action had finally been taken, we got down to business, tabled the resolution to a date certain and began our serious and official debate on the MOU resolution. For reasons that Steve has not shared with me, nor will I presuppose, he finally agreed to vote in the affirmative
if we could get something in return. That’s the position where I and others had already been.
All of us had wanted additional gains and no one was against the concept of retro pay as one of those gains. We realized though that we would not be able to garner anything additional without mustering a unanimous vote. Personally, I believe that we wasted valuable time discussing what additional benefits that we could have gained in lieu of trying to first get everyone to agree on the concept of a unanimous vote.
One of the other casualties of this attempted coup of our leadership was the resignation of the entire Ballot Certification Committee. To ensure that the balloting process could continue, Gary has made two temporary appointments to this committee, yet the CLT and PHL letter only shares half of the story. They highlight the fact that Mark King was appointed to this committee and reference Mark’s current and previous support of President Hummel. What they conveniently left out of that same letter was that Gary also appointed DeWitt Ingram, one of the former CLT representatives who has publicly stated his support of the recall and who is even a signatory to this same letter.
I apologize for dragging everyone through this clarification of the events which should have stayed closed for obvious reasons to everyone now. However when my name and my integrity is attacked in an effort to simply tear down my credibility in front of my DCA pilots and my fellow pilots as a whole, I will not stand for it. As I mentioned at the beginning of this letter, I was content in simply expressing my views opposed to the recall in a civil and respectful manner as Joe and I have already done. After reading their rebuttal letter to a Presidential Message which I had nothing to do with and attempting to ruin my reputation, they left me no choice. I’m also quite certain that these comments will engender another disrespectful response in their continuing quest to tear down the reputations of anyone opposed to their efforts. I can’t control their actions, only you can with your votes against this recall
So what does all of this have to do with the recall effort? Quite simply, it’s no longer a referendum against President Gary Hummel and Vice President Steve Bradford. Those who allowed their names to be attached to the rebuttal letter that I referenced have shown their true colors and what you now have before you on a ballot is not only a choice for the future governance of our union. It’s a referendum for the collective respect of our organization as a whole.
If you’re in favor of your Board members treating anyone with whom they disagree, with complete disdain and contempt, then vote in favor of the recall. If you’re in favor of a Board member treating invited guests with complete disrespect and in one situation walking out while the key decision maker of the MOU, UCC lead attorney Jack Butler was addressing the Board, then vote in favor of the recall. If you support back room deals and political bargaining between Board members prior to meetings in an effort to further their agendas and then going into meetings with their votes already counted instead of deciding upon a course of action
after discussion and debate, then vote in favor of the recall. If you support the continued delay to bring the APA BOD together with our BPR due to their concern over our uncertainty of stable leadership, then vote in favor of the recall. If you believe the lies that any Committee volunteer or Board member who may
dare to disagree with the political agenda of those in favor of the recall has to be in bed with the President, then vote in favor of the recall. If you like surprise Presidential candidates with potential hidden agendas and also disparaging quotes with no author to take credit, then vote for the recall. And finally, if you want your union’s Officer Corps and leadership to be cut in half and effectively neutered for the next 5 months pending elections during a crucial time which will determine our seniority integration with the APA as well as JCBA negotiations, then by all means vote in favor of the recall.
If however, you appreciate the continuation of leadership which has finally brought us to the forefront of a merger creating the world’s largest airline as compared to filing additional lawsuits against everyone and everything then vote
NO to the recall and
NO to the division of the house Constitutional amendment. If you believe that leadership and respect is earned and not demanded, then vote
NO. If you envision a future that leads us to much better times than our past actions have wrought under different leadership and bargaining agents, then
VOTE NO TO ALL THREE.
Remember that for your voice and your opinion to be heard, you must vote. Don’t let apathy dictate the future of USAPA during this crucial time. If you’ve already voted and want to change your vote either way, you can do so up until the polls close on January the 8th by clicking here:
https://www.BallotPoint.com/USAPA/
With respect,
Pete Dugstad, DCA Vice Chairman
