Below is a letter sent out by John Nikides. He has given me permission to post this. I am posting it wherever I can in an effort to get the word out to F/A's. If you haven't voted, the votes are due by August 11th. I encourage everyone to vote NO.
Terry Casto
IDF
Hello all..
I have been asked by numerous individuals why I, as an APFA member, am not supporting the Constitutional changes on which we are currently voting. I am writing this on my own time, and on my own computer.
Upon seeing the changes, I, initially, intended to vote NO to sending the package out to the membership. I reasoned that it would be best to send the Constitution Committee back to the drawing board.
However, I soon realized that the changes that I deemed necessary to a revised Constitution would never pass the BOD, as it is constituted today. I believed then, as I do today, that the only reason for a Constitutional revision would be to completely and radically change the structure of the APFA to eliminate political patronage; reduce the bureaucratic legacy we have inherited; and to give the membership more
rights, not fewer rights.
I see the elimination of the Executive Committee as absolutely necessary to the future of this organization, and absolutely essential to the rights of the membership. The Executive Committee was put into place in the 1991 Constitution by Gibbs and her cohorts, and represents APFA political patronage at its worst.
While I was LAX-I Vice Chairperson, I actively and aggressively fought against the ratification of the Gibbs Constitution. I was deemed such a threat by the BOD that they actually held a conference call, the agenda of which was to attempt to ban me from APFA Headquarters, due to my alleged "subversive" activities. Further, I was removed from the position of American Eagle Liaison, and replaced by Hutto-Blake, as punishment for daring to go against the "establishment." While I was on a trip, my tires were flattened in the LAX parking lot. Unfortunately, APFA's pockets were much deeper than mine, and despite my best efforts, the Constitution was ratified, at great cost to the membership.
I vowed to myself that I would not support any Constitutional change which did not include elimination of the Executive Committee. After five days of deliberations, It became obvious that the minority of the BOD would block any and all attempts at eradicating this unnecessary, and costly, body from the APFA political landscape.
Further, I voiced strenuous objections to the changes to Article VII, which would preclude a member from filing charges against a BOD member over how they voted on a resolution. I reminded the BOD that, in light of recent events, this would be perceived by the membership as a vain attempt at seeking a "hiding hole," should they pass any further illegal resolutions. The Constitution Committee claimed that this clause was extracted from the Morris Award of the 1980s, which arose out of the Stu Adams-Lundy lawsuit, following the last major schism in our union. In his decision, Arbitrator Charles Morris stated that a BOD member could not be charged for how they vote on a particular resolution. The committee argued that they were just bringing the Constitution into agreement with the Morris Award. This language, as I pointed out to them, is very dangerous, and I, clearly, would not support it. Arbitrators, no matter how erudite or august, do not have to follow the rule of law. They often base their decisions on personal beliefs, which are, hopefully, grounded in fairness, principle and logic. Simply because Arbitrator Morris, in that particular case, decreed that BOD members are shielded from internal charges in specific instances, does not make it law.
If that were indeed the case, and this was now the law of the land, why, then, did the 1991 Constitution Committee not include this verbiage in their revision? The Morris Award predates the 1991 revision by over 6 years.
With regard to the composition of the Negotiating Team, the concern seems to be that the membership might elect unstable characters to this most important of committees. However, while I understand the sentiment, I am gravely concerned about membership perception of this change at a time when suspicion of the BOD and of the President is at an all-time high. Further, the membership is not the only body to succumb to somebody who talks a good game. The BOD, and the President,
in the past, has nominated plenty of individuals whose stability was questionable. The only difference is when the BOD, or the President, is doing the nominating, the individual is, most likely, politically connected, and is being rewarded for some show of loyalty. Both scenarios are troublesome.
Due to recent history, and for obvious reasons, I cannot support the change to Article XI, which gives the BOD the authority to unilaterally shorten a balloting period.
I was told by the Constitution Committee, during our deliberations, that these changes would be voted on section-by-section, instead of in this all-at-once, take-it-or-leave-it fashion. If that is the choice, I say leave it.
I decided to vote in the affirmative to send this package out for a vote in hopes that it would be resoundingly defeated by the membership. It is my belief that most of the BOD members are in denial over how damaging the actions of Spring 2003 were to this membership, and to this organization. They need to hear the message loud and clear, that the voice of the membership DOES, indeed, count. And, to that end, I believe a resounding defeat might just get their attention.
I want the membership to decide. And, despite the fact that members of the BOD will continue to vilify me for having an alternative opinion, I do not have to like these changes, nor do I have to encourage others to vote for these changes.
In unity,
John Nikides
LAX
Terry Casto
IDF
Hello all..
I have been asked by numerous individuals why I, as an APFA member, am not supporting the Constitutional changes on which we are currently voting. I am writing this on my own time, and on my own computer.
Upon seeing the changes, I, initially, intended to vote NO to sending the package out to the membership. I reasoned that it would be best to send the Constitution Committee back to the drawing board.
However, I soon realized that the changes that I deemed necessary to a revised Constitution would never pass the BOD, as it is constituted today. I believed then, as I do today, that the only reason for a Constitutional revision would be to completely and radically change the structure of the APFA to eliminate political patronage; reduce the bureaucratic legacy we have inherited; and to give the membership more
rights, not fewer rights.
I see the elimination of the Executive Committee as absolutely necessary to the future of this organization, and absolutely essential to the rights of the membership. The Executive Committee was put into place in the 1991 Constitution by Gibbs and her cohorts, and represents APFA political patronage at its worst.
While I was LAX-I Vice Chairperson, I actively and aggressively fought against the ratification of the Gibbs Constitution. I was deemed such a threat by the BOD that they actually held a conference call, the agenda of which was to attempt to ban me from APFA Headquarters, due to my alleged "subversive" activities. Further, I was removed from the position of American Eagle Liaison, and replaced by Hutto-Blake, as punishment for daring to go against the "establishment." While I was on a trip, my tires were flattened in the LAX parking lot. Unfortunately, APFA's pockets were much deeper than mine, and despite my best efforts, the Constitution was ratified, at great cost to the membership.
I vowed to myself that I would not support any Constitutional change which did not include elimination of the Executive Committee. After five days of deliberations, It became obvious that the minority of the BOD would block any and all attempts at eradicating this unnecessary, and costly, body from the APFA political landscape.
Further, I voiced strenuous objections to the changes to Article VII, which would preclude a member from filing charges against a BOD member over how they voted on a resolution. I reminded the BOD that, in light of recent events, this would be perceived by the membership as a vain attempt at seeking a "hiding hole," should they pass any further illegal resolutions. The Constitution Committee claimed that this clause was extracted from the Morris Award of the 1980s, which arose out of the Stu Adams-Lundy lawsuit, following the last major schism in our union. In his decision, Arbitrator Charles Morris stated that a BOD member could not be charged for how they vote on a particular resolution. The committee argued that they were just bringing the Constitution into agreement with the Morris Award. This language, as I pointed out to them, is very dangerous, and I, clearly, would not support it. Arbitrators, no matter how erudite or august, do not have to follow the rule of law. They often base their decisions on personal beliefs, which are, hopefully, grounded in fairness, principle and logic. Simply because Arbitrator Morris, in that particular case, decreed that BOD members are shielded from internal charges in specific instances, does not make it law.
If that were indeed the case, and this was now the law of the land, why, then, did the 1991 Constitution Committee not include this verbiage in their revision? The Morris Award predates the 1991 revision by over 6 years.
With regard to the composition of the Negotiating Team, the concern seems to be that the membership might elect unstable characters to this most important of committees. However, while I understand the sentiment, I am gravely concerned about membership perception of this change at a time when suspicion of the BOD and of the President is at an all-time high. Further, the membership is not the only body to succumb to somebody who talks a good game. The BOD, and the President,
in the past, has nominated plenty of individuals whose stability was questionable. The only difference is when the BOD, or the President, is doing the nominating, the individual is, most likely, politically connected, and is being rewarded for some show of loyalty. Both scenarios are troublesome.
Due to recent history, and for obvious reasons, I cannot support the change to Article XI, which gives the BOD the authority to unilaterally shorten a balloting period.
I was told by the Constitution Committee, during our deliberations, that these changes would be voted on section-by-section, instead of in this all-at-once, take-it-or-leave-it fashion. If that is the choice, I say leave it.
I decided to vote in the affirmative to send this package out for a vote in hopes that it would be resoundingly defeated by the membership. It is my belief that most of the BOD members are in denial over how damaging the actions of Spring 2003 were to this membership, and to this organization. They need to hear the message loud and clear, that the voice of the membership DOES, indeed, count. And, to that end, I believe a resounding defeat might just get their attention.
I want the membership to decide. And, despite the fact that members of the BOD will continue to vilify me for having an alternative opinion, I do not have to like these changes, nor do I have to encourage others to vote for these changes.
In unity,
John Nikides
LAX
ASSED (I )
