Minutes From Apfa Bod's Meeting


Nov 5, 2003
Here are the minutes from the last APFA BOD's meeting in DFW on July 26 & 27, 2004. These are from my good friend Terry Drew Karanen LGA Appointed Vice Chair.

The following are my personal notes taken during all general meetings of the APFA Board of Directors in Irving, TX, on July 26 & 27, 2004. These are not intended to be, nor do they represent in their entirety, the video recordings shot or official notes taken by our National Secretary. They are intended to be only my personal view, based on my personal observations, both verbal and visual, of the two days of meeting. With very few exceptions, I was present to watch the proceedings the entire two days. I am in total disgust with the majority of the Resolutions passed. So my account is obviously slanted in that regard, but you will not find it bias, as there is a difference.

There were few during the installation of King John, who, after lunch one day, even had a Burger King crown displayed proudly at the front of the room, supplied by at least one of his adoring subjects! However, the JFK, LAX, LGA & ORD Chairs brought forward items of informational importance or notification of action required. I urge you to read over this account. For those of you who have not done local base or national union work, some of this may not be clear. I am available to discuss anything contained in my personal notes with anyone.

PLEASE NOTE: Your own base chairperson has copies of all these Resolutions passed. I do not. I urge you to read each of the Resolutions completely, decide how you would want your elected representative to vote, and then note how they voted for the Resolution. I hope you will not be as surprised as many flight attendants across the system. To quote one crew, She sure it didnt represent MY views.

In what is left of the Unity of APFA,

Terry Drew Karanen,
LGA Appointed Vice Chair


APFA Board of Directors Meetings
Radisson DFW South
Day One, 26 July 2004
Scheduled to begin at 10:00.

Most Base Chairs began coming into the room at approximately 10:20. It appeared that the majority were out of the room with PRESIDENT, John Ward, discussing something of importance to which the minority Chairs were not to be privy. I don't know how many or or exactly who was with the PRESIDENT, but I do recall seeing Chairs/Vice Chairs already in the room awaiting the start of the meeting. They were BOS, IOR, JFK, LGA, ORD, RDU-I, STL/SLT

(For expediency, base codes and/or national officer positions are used in place of the names of the individuals in most cases.)

More delay without any indication from the PRESIDENT as to why the meeting had not started, nor, after calling the meeting to order, did the PRESIDENT offer any explanation of his absence.

10:42: Ward returned to the room along with IDF Chair (Steve Watson).

10:45: Tentative agendas were distributed by National SECRETARY (Greg Hildreth).

10:48: Special Board of Directors Meeting called to order by PRESIDENT and role called. All bases represented by Chairs or Vice Chairs. National VICE PRESIDENT and TREASURER were absent as had been indicated would be the case individually by both of them prior to the meeting.

Resolution 1# presented to move to approve agenda. First and seconded. Resolution #1A presented to amend, withdrawal or change the agenda by:

ORD: UA pensions, coordinators/training, MT/TM codes, FMLA changes, SK travel changes. After agenda review and approval and before old business add FTC update.

LGA: Commuter policy, furlough/overage leave attendance, DFW MOD.

RDU-I: Move archives to the end of old business, withdrawal Info Rep Captain, National Officer recognition at the end of old business.

DCA: Add websites to new business.

JFK: Add after websites company meetings, documents, communication, staff.

MIA: Withdrawal medical restrictions.

LAX-I: New business: add election procedures after staff.

BOS-I: Add charges after election procedures, add national committees above UA Pensions

DCA-I: Remove Article VII, under new business: Building access.

IDF: Include Budget reduction after building access.

DFW: Include Executive Committee agenda packets, parking and tolls after website, APFA equipment under EC packets, buy-on-board, charges, TREASURER.

LAX: Legal advice under National Committees, contract under SK travel changes, under contract include Crew Schedule, Withdrawal APFA Press Release under Old Business, as well as SBA under Old Business.

PRES: Add access to financial information, include DOL after budget reduction, then Legal Counsel, and as first item of New Business add Litigation Update.

Resolution 1A passed to amend agenda, but not unanimously.

Resolution 1 to approve agenda as amended. Passed, but not unanimously.

ORD: ATC/RFD update. Must be speaking with one voice (pilots and F/As). The components of ATC are that there must be an aircraft, pilots and F/As. If the pilots or F/As are told to stay at the hotel due to an ATC, then we believe they must be paid. Changes to Company's policy have been based on NW situation on a few years ago where passengers complained of being held hostage by the airline.

DCA: Resolution 2 presented for SKYWORD. Same resolution as at the last Board Meeting. Resolution gives approval for SKYWORD publication by the PRESIDENT, or in his/her absence, any other National Officer.
BOS: Resolution does not eliminate politics but rather allows the politics of whoever is President.
LGA: One person's approval al limits checks and balances. What one person could miss someone else might see.
IOR: Would you be willing to have the PRESIDENT PLUS one other National Officer? It would make it less drastic and provide checks and balances.
IDF: We don't have a SKYWORD because of all the approval, editing, crap that is going on at APFA. Yes, this is drastic, but we need a SKYWORD out. The four of them are not going going to agree. We need to start running our union like a business and politics has slam-dunked itself into this situation. The Board has the right to change this later, if we feel it is too drastic.
DCA: It logically follows that the approval should come from the PRESIDENT.
BOS-I: Have we lost advertisers or refunded money? (Directed to and answered by Liz Geiss, Communications Coordinator: All monies have been refunded for the second quarter edition to the advertisers, and all but one have agreed to advertise for the next publication. So they are getting two publications for one fee. The amount is $3125.00. Original deadline for second quarter edition was middle of May. First draft received 21 May, first copy actually could be sent out for approval was 4 June, late submissions were received as late as 24 June.)
ORD: Last issue held up due to legal counsel's article on TWA. Concerns were also raised about lead article being used by the PRESIDENT as a possible campaigning vehicle, or a way to put forth his agenda over the other officers. This is a democracy, not a kingdom, and no one person rules this Union. Putting one person in charge of this will not help. We can be held to legal issues one person does not have the knowledge of all areas, nor should they be expected to take on the responsibility. ORD then asks the maker to table the resolution until after the DOL decision. (Maker declined)
LAX: Speaks in favor of Resolution. In reading the Resolution, the ones concerned with the PRESIDENT making the decision are seeing John Ward, but it will apply to whoever is the PRESIDENT.
WAS-I: (Yield to Liz Geiss: Article that was sent to legal has been in the hands of the National Officers since 24 June. ORD: The article was not written by the officers, it was written by legal.)
IDF: ORD is right this is not a kingdom, but this Resolution is not limited to the sitting PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT: Speaks in favor of the Resolution, (after JFK noted he must pass the chair of the meeting to the SECRETARY due Roberts Rules). This is to have a policy behind the Communications Coordinator that supports her. This is not to have a policy in place to censor things.
BOS: Nothing against Ward or Hutto-Blake, this is to protect us against one person being in charge of something. The membership didn't put the PRESIDENT in office to produce SKYWORD any more than the TREASURER is the only one concerned with money.
ORD: I would not give anyone sitting up there the authority. But, if Tommie Hutto-Blake were sitting up there and Ted, Juan and Linda in office, this Resolution wouldn't even be on the floor. For the record, I I would not give ANYONE sole ownership for a publication that had input from so many departments. That is not what the membership elected. This Union is not run by one single person's agenda. I BEG you to table this till after the DOL ruling. (Maker refused again)
JFK: Not in favor for all the reasons already mentioned. The membership deserves checks and balances. I have a question for Liz Geiss: It's my understanding that even after you got the he approval of three national officers, did you change the text of the Hotline? Liz: That's not my decision to make.
PRESIDENT: Liz does not have to answer since she's been brought up on Article VII charges. s.
JFK: If that is true, then why would we want to make any changes at this time? I cannot speak in favor of this and ask you to withdrawal it. (Maker declined)
LGA: I still have a problem with this being one person. I would consider supporting it with the PRESIDENT and one other define the position. (Maker declined to amend resolution)
LAX-I: Main concern is that we get a SKYWORD out. The F/As are depending on the SKYWORD to get information. It's long overdue and not close to getting it it out. As far as changes, it could be six months before we hear from the DOL.
STL: Would the maker be willing to remove the word content? Because use that's the whole problem, since whoever is the he one giving the approval would have line-item approval to strike whatever they feel.
Disagreement between ORD, PRESIDENT and JFK due to Roberts Rule of Order.
PRESIDENT refused to remain silent and continued screaming back and forth with JFK, who was attempting to get PRESIDENT to stop talking, stop chairing the meeting, and allow SECRETARY to chair the meeting, and to allow another member to take notes on behalf of the SECRETARY during this time. JFK stood up to continue the tirade, a move that proved ineffective to getting the PRESIDENT to cease until his was the only voice to be heard.
SFO: Problem with the DOL objections is that it should not be something that comes up with every Agenda item.
DCA-I: This is not working, let's just fix it so so the membership can get what they need.

The Resolution passed, not unanimously. This gives the PRESIDENT final say as to the content of SKYWORD. The maker (DCA Chair) was asked no less than four times to amend, withdrawal or table this Resolution. In each case, he declined or flatly refused.

(Nopte: PRESIDENT appeared to have a continuing lack of disregard for Roberts Rules throughout the two-day session, applying the Rules or referring to Counsel only when he was forced to or found it convenient to use them. He continually treats running the meetings under these guidelines as if it were some kind of a joke, instead of as the parliamentary protocol they represent. To date, only six of the current Board have received training in Roberts Rules, even though the JFK Vice Chair (Suzanne Edwards) and others on the Board have attempted to schedule such training repeatedly. This lack of disregard for standard procedures in operating a non-profit organization can only serve to open the APFA up to even more lawsuits and criticism in the.

SKYWORD Express Resolution #3 presented by MIA:

BOS: Clarification asked of Steve Ellis/Ad Hoc as to why the original Resolutions passed by the Executive Committee. Answer: Part of the reason were budgetary purposes.
IDF: Original Resolution should have been more specific about the as sneeded portion. IDF Chair says he approached Ellis after the Resolution to say that the EC was going in the wrong direction. He does not feel it's up to the EC to to override or interpret the Board's Resolutions. The EC needs not to set policy, that's the responsibility of the Board.

Resolution Passed unanimously.

12:15: Break

12:40: Back on record.

Resolution #4 presented by PRESIDENT and gavel passed to the SECRETARY. Resolution speaks to who has the authority for APFA Press Releases.
ORD: Does this Resolution say the PRESIDENT has the sole authority does it eliminates the approval of the majority of the National officers?
PRESIDENT: Yes, it does.
ORD: The recent press release referred to by the PRESIDENT did not give credit where credit is due (in particular the response letter from JFK/LGA to Tiliacos). Press releases cannot reflect the views of the Union by one person.
LGA: I mirror ORD's opinions. Cannot support any Resolutions that promote the voice of one person.
IDF: He supports the Resolution since the Tilacos press release was secondary to the JFK/LGA letter. This was wrong. The PRESIDENT should have had the opportunity to address the issue.
LAX: Approves the Resolution regardless of who the spokesperson is/will be.

The Resolution Passed, not unanimously.

Note: As a member of the gallery, I was not able to speak to this but I sure will now. The IDF Chair seems to think our response to Tiliacos was outside the bound of our duties of base representatives, perhaps thinking that John Ward was somehow denied a photo op. The JFK/LGA response letter to the F/A bashing letter sent to the NE Division was not (at the time it was written) a national issue. Mr. Tiliacos letter was specifically addressed to to the F/As in the NE Division, i.e., BOS, BOS-I, DCA, DCA-I JFK, and LGA. The APFA leadership at JFK/LGA was particularly stung by Tiliacos letter because they had just met in in person at LGA less than three prior with Tiliacos, Lauri Curtis, and local management. It was never our intention to address a national issue, as our letter shows, but rather the cruel and unusual attacks waged upon our own bases. The fact that the letter went national within twelve hours of its creation was not our intention. Furthermore, the PRESIDENT could have made comments on it long before he did. In reality, he did not address the press until AFTER the Tiliacos letter hit the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other major papers. His original release expressed his outrage without giving any notice that it was NE Division LOCAL leadership who were dealing with a regional issue, but rather indicated he was running the show. The brief, watered-down press release was a ploy on his part to say little since the spotlight was taken from him. This is my opinion, I'm quite sure not shared by John Ward. These are my recollection of the events, but then the letter back to Tiliacos was sent from my computer, so I do have some intimate knowledge of the situation. This letter, I might add, that has never received even ONE comment, email or phone call of criticism from any F/A, many, most notably, from membership outside the NE Division, including DFW/IDF. Terry Drew Karanen, LGA Vice Chair

Financial records (PRESIDENT): Withdrawn

Hotline (BOS-I): Resolution #5. Resolution speaks to giving the approval of the Hotline to the PRESIDENT or in the absence of the PRESIDENT, any National Officer.

PRESIDENT: Resolution that will enable our Communications Department to communicate w/the membership with what is important without the issues of getting approval.
JFK: It seems somewhat ironic that we cannot ask Liz to clarify charges, but other issues revolving around her continue to be brought up.
SFO: All these Resolutions seem to be about the Communications Department. We need to give the power necessary to get the information out.
IDF: A Hotline recently about bids being extended because Kathy (TREASURER) did not allow it to go out because her Hotline did not go out the week before. I am more than willing to give that approval to someone who will get the job done.
LAX: The problem is about the TREASURER and the immature reactions she has shown. She is reacting in an emotional and immature way. And this Board needs to put a stop to it.
LGA: I, too, a problem with the TREASURER holding information hostage. This is why on the past Resolutions put forward I have made the statement previously that I do not have a problem supporting a decision allowing another National Officer to work as check and balance.
IOR: I like the idea of the PRESIDENT and one another, but we have all been forced into the problems by the operations problems at Headquarters. We have to take control of the Communications issues, because it is that bad. I don't want to hear about staff. We're here here for the F/As.
JFK: I have a problem with the PRESIDENT being in charge of Communications when we as a Board have been kept in the dark about so many issues, including the Resolutions being put forward. Yes, there are frustrations, but the Hotline in question was approved by three National officers and it STILL wasn't put out (Editorial al comment: Content aside of the Hotline in question, even though our Policy and Procedures were followed, with three national officers approving the content, the Communications Coordinator did not comply with presenting it to the membership. Instead, she choose to advise the PRESIDENT who told her not to put it out on the Hotline). PRESIDENT said in the last Board meeting that he would include members of the Board and hasn't.
PRESIDENT: Caucuses have never existeded (Editorial comment: Would someone then explain the lengthy meeting the PRESIDENT was conducting with the base chairs in favor of his regime for nearly a quarter of an hour prior to the beginning of this session?). People just naturally gravitate. I agree with LAX that the problem here is the TREASURER.
JFK: I request a break to discuss and caucus. JFK's request voted on and denied by the majority.

Resolution passed, not unanimously. Gives the PRESIDENT control of all content going out on the Hotline or in his absence, any national officer.

IDF: Resolution #6: (Headquarters Orientation) Directs TREASURER to instruct staff with regard to dress code (eliminates casual dress on Friday). Casual, non-professional dress violates the APFA policy, and this is such a small thing on the scheme of things but this has to come up because the TREASURER is unwilling to reaffirm policy.
BOS-I yielded to Bob Walker (IDF VC) for history of dress code. Denise Hedges made it first class business attire. Many felt that was a bit much and wanted to go to something more casual. It was moved to business casual, the coach business attire. To step down to a more casual from that for Friday is getting back to the original problem. Majority called the question to a vote prior to everyone having the chance to speak. This is allowed per Roberts Rules, as the PRESIDENT was so eager to note.

Resolution passed. Eliminates the opportunity for the UAW staff at APFA Headquarters to wear t-shirts on Fridays. (Editorial comment: I find it ludicrous that two of the base leadership in favor of this are the same two men I've personally seen in shorts at APFA FA Headquarters.)

IDF: Resolution #7: (Discussion of APFA Graphic Artist, Skylar Turner. Speaks to the firing of Skylar Turner by PRESIDENT by eliminating the position. Resolution says that the PRESIDENT did have the authority.
BOS: Should this be discussed at this time if there are charges before an arbitrator? Might be smarter to wait for the arbitrator's decision?
IDF answers that at interpreting the Constitution is our job and we do not need to wait around for other people to do what we should be doing.
ORD: (Yield to Mario St. Michel/Ad Hoc) Didn't say the PRESIDENT NT didn't have the right to terminate, it was about the fact that the PRESIDENT doesn't have the right to remove a position. That is to be approved by the BOD or the SECRETARY. PRESIDENT: Mario needs to have his memory refreshed. It DID have to do with my right to terminate. This issue pre-dates my becoming PRESIDENT. It was never the EC role to hire and fire.
ORD: Mirror problems due the legal problems involved. The Constitution is clear and it does speak to the PRESIDENT notifying the BOD.

Resolution passes...

Resolution #8: (Refers again to Skylar Turner, but addresses the authority of the PRESIDENT to terminate Skylar's contract.) Upholds the termination of Skylar Turner and requires a financial impact study as to whether a full-time graphic artist is necessary. The outgoing Communications Coordinator had done a financial impact study and that is available to the current Coordinator. Skylar has done wonderful work, but he's no longer convenient.
IMA: The BoD's position is that it it is the PRESIDENT's responsibility to hire and fire? Doesn't appear that way to me in the Constitution.
BOS: Agree with Randy (IMA) and again say we should not do this until the arbitration is decided.
SECRETARY: Asking the Communications Director to do more work and basically giving her a blank check to do this. IDF: Do not agree. I interpret the Constitution differently.
PRESIDENT: Need to untie Liz Geiss hands so that she can do her job, it does not give her a blank check.
LAX: Do not see this as a blank check. Resolution very clear about using a free-lance graphic artist until the financial impact study.
ORD: Biggest concern is reversing the termination, because there are charges pending (litigation brought forward by Skylar)?
Answered by GENERAL COUNSEL: There are no pending charges legally.
ORD: Constitution is clear. This is not an and/or, it is absolutely clear. If Constitution had been followed in the first place we would not be in this situation. Also need to look at reducing the Communication Dept's money, not giving them additional money.
DCA-I (Yield to Liz Geiss. We do not have three full-time trip removals, I have two and George Price was here through the transition. We run it pretty much with two people. George began the second quarter issue of SKYWORD and was going to finish it.
DFW: (Asked of the SECRETARY) Since Kathy (TREASURER) is not here, Did we pay Skylar $2,500 for part of this work? (SECRETARY: Yes) Well, I have a problem with him being paid and fees when we do now have the finished product.
DCA (addressed to Liz Geiss): How much work still needed for graphic artist on second quarter issue (Answer: It is nearly done). Any free-lance person would be for the third quarter publication.
SECRETARY: I will not sign a check for this free-lance person and ask the maker to amend his Resolution.
IDF: Will we have to have a directive to have you sign.
SECRETARY: I will not sign for this expense.
IDF: I will not amend the Resolution.

Resolution passes with for now, which gives the Communications Coordinator the opportunity to engage the services of another free-lance graphic artist, without any approval needed for the amount of money she chooses to spend on this expenditure.

14:10: Break for lunch return by 15:15-30.
15:40: Board asked to return to their seats as there appears to be a quorum.

15:48: Back on record.

NBC Appointments: Withdrawn

Tabled Resolution #14 (IDF): InfoRep Steering Committee. Tabled.

APFA Voicemail Extension: Withdrawn.

Archives: Tabled.

Natl Officer Recognition: Tabled.

15:55: CONFIDENTIAL and off record: Litigation Update Gallery and all in the room not under the Code of Confidentiality were removed from the room.

16:10: Back on the record Gallery invited back into the room.

BOS-I Resolution #9 (National Committees: Covers any committee underneath a Coordinator.)

ORD: Eliminates both the National Officers and the EC from the approval process? Answer: Yes.
BOS: Why doesn't the BoD take this up, rather than getting the PRESIDENT to approve?
SECRETARY: Takes exception with people on trip removals that are in the gallery today. (Example: Linda Lanning is present, but on trip removal to be at Headquarters working at the IOD desk.
SFO: Why did George (Berry, Health Coordinator) not get approval if given approval by PRESIDENT? (Yield to George: Did not get approval from all National Officers, so it wasn't done.)
JFK: I am questioning why the current policy (National Officers involved and Executive Committee) was not followed? Were domestic, international F/As recommended from the various divisions? Answers were never addressed, since the PRESIDENT decided to take the floor.
PRESIDENT: Speaking support of this there are many things that we are having to deal with that have never been a problem. I support these coordinators. For them to have to jump through hoops to have work with them and support them, they should not have to wait a month to hear back from an officer. If one of the stumbling blocks is (having representatives from all) the divisions, this division stuff has gone by the wayside because the divisions have gone by the wayside. (Editorial comment: In other words, the Divisions are meaningless according to the PRESIDENT? Will he next determine that our Division Reps be eliminated?)
ORD: All these Resolutions seem to be about Kathy Lukensmeyer (TREASURER), and the democracy is being taken apart. No body should be allowed this level of power. In some way, all the people who lost the election are being brought back in under the direction of one person who refuses to have any outside facilitation. (Editorial comment: At the Board meeting previous to this, several Chairs requested the National Officers to obtain outside mediation and/or facilitation to come to terms with their differences. The PRESIDENT refused to agree to this.) We as the Board are undoing all that the membership has elected. Now we are also getting rid of the EC's role too. And when it comes to ask for a caucus, we ask for your respect to honor what is being asked for.
LAX: Facilitated discussions are not going to help because Kathy (TREASURER) is running amuck. This is an individual operating from a purely emotional standpoint, and that that attitude has no place in this union. Facilitation will not fix the Lukensmeyer (TREASURER) problem.
SECRETARY: Kathy (TREASURER) was speaking about Page 48, to annual l budget To my knowledge there has never been nor budgeted for a health committee.This needed to have been done prior to the National Convention to notice the members and the budget committee to budget for this.
LAX-I: I agree with John Nikides (LAX), but I was under the impression that we did have a health committee. Asked of George, was there any discussion? (Answer: No and this does not create another budget as people would be trip removed under the current budget.)
LAX: With all due respect to Greg (SECRETARY), Kathy's (TREASURER) objection to the members of the health committee, it was not a budget issue, but that she could not approve of them, and was making an assessment of their abilities. IMA: In favor of the Resolution. I would hope the coordinators would be given the latitude to utilize the best people they need to do the work.
JFK: Asked for George Berry to read Kathys (TREASURER̢۪S) response. (Letter from the TREASURER to the Health Coordinator read into the record.) Indicates that Kathy's (TREASURER) reason for refusing was that there were reasons stated as procedural issues (one in particular was the appointments from all divisions).
BOS: Cannot support yet another resolution that provides all the power to one person.
ORD: (Questioned the use of F/As on trip removals working at Headquarters who were doing base work for DFW/IDF on the Headquarters Coordinator's time/budget.) .) Headquarters budget for Headquarters trip removals allowing F/As to assist are not to be used for base work. This has been discussed before, DFW/IDF needs to figure out the way everyone else in the system does.

Resolution passed, not unanimously.

LAX: Legal advice (Resolution #10) (This resolution sets minimum requirements for legal advice (salary, flat fee or trip removal basis) including graduation from an ABA accredited law school and having passed the bar in Texas.)

SECRETARY: Question to the maker. You need to find a place in the Policy Manual.Do you have a place to insert this? (Place was located for the insertion.)
ORD: Do we have someone who is not making these qualifications who is working in this capacity? Yes, Pat Gibbs, who did not pass the bar in Texas, who did not attended an ABA accredited law school, but DID pass the bar in California AND has the right to present cases in Federal Court! I see, this is John's day to get rid of Pat Gibbs, and eliminate our vote on everything. Well done. (Another Chair yielded to Steve Ellis/Ad Hoc) Pat IS licensed to practice in California. She is qualified to practice before the Federal bench. This is very problematic when the Board looks to remove someone who has done the amount of work that Pat has done. ABA accredited or not, anyone who goes through law school and passes the bar has completed a monumental task, and she did this while she was still a F/A. This Resolution is saying that even though Pat Gibbs is qualified to present cases to the United States Supreme Court, the APFA does not feel she has the qualifications to represent us or provide us with counsel.
JFK (Yield to Mario St. Michel/Ad Hoc): I also suggest you think seriously about this. This resolution IS about Pat Gibbs. She has won numerous cases for this Union.
BOS: Do we have anyone else to replace Pat Gibbs? This is insane to remove someone so intimately qualified to litigate our issues. Motion fails.

PRESIDENT: Access for Financial Information Resolution #11

17:10: Break for copies.

17:40: John returned w/copies ready to begin.
17:42: Back from break.

PRESIDENT: Access for Financial Information Resolution #11.
Resolution basically asks for Board approval to force the TREASURER (Kathy) to give the PRESIDENT (John) what he's asking for (Ed: : Even though he's not willing to provide information that she has asked him for.)
PRESIDENT: I want to know the details under which Pat Gibbs is retained, how the TREASURER retained the attorney for the UAW and under what agreements that Skylar was retained.
JFK: Questioned John on his responses since Brett and Kathy might offer the same courtesy for which he asks.
IDF: Backs up John's assertions that Kathy will not respond to to his requests as well.

Resolution passed, with one abstention.

ORD: UA Pension (and US as well). There are recent decisions to not fund UA pensions to get funding for bankruptcy. What is APFA doing proactively to make sure we are not in the same position? What is being done to find out what our rights are? Puts these questions to the PRESIDENT.

Answers by the PRESIDENT: Well you know I haven't put any committee in place. I don't know how much more proactive than what we already did because our pensions ARE in tack. We are not planning threatened planned bankruptcy Part t 2.
ORD spoke to what is being done to understand what happens under a 1114 ruling (PRESIDENT'S brow furrowedas as if to say, What IS she talking about?!?).
LAX: Confers with ORD that is something we have to look into and investigate this. But he's not excited about creating yet another committee to establish political ties.
GENERAL COUNSEL: His office works all the time with 1113/1114 issues and coordinated last time with Jill Frank.
STL: Icann handed over pensions when TWA was not in bankruptcy. This IS a live issue.
DCA: When companies go after pensions do they go after everyone's?
PRESIDENT/ATTY: : Pilots were the target at AA. At UA the F/A and machinists plan were also subject. (Editorial al comment: No further discussion. ORD Chair put this out for informational purposes, but it doesn't appear the PRESIDENT is overly concerned about any of the issues, nor did he make any attempt to look into it further.)

ORD: Coordinators/Training: Chairs are being notified that the Coordinators are sending people to CISD training without prior knowledge that the training was happening and who was going. Past practice is when there is training to be done, it is put to the Board to allow people on the Councils to be trained, as well as for Coordinators to pass it by the Chair as to who is going through training. It is not necessary to be training people when there are already enough people trained. It is not cost effective to be training people during a tight time for money.
LAX: Question for George Berry (Health Coordinator): Is the training that offered by the organization that has trained us? (George not present, but IDF discussed that the training and hotels come out of the Health Dept budget, but the trip removals come out of the base budget.)
IOR: After 9/11 it stopped coming out of the Health Dept budget.
JFK: The issue is when the base gets hit with trip removals that the Base Chair doesn't know about until after the fact, or or having the person trip removed in one particular month when that trip removal was not budgeted for. Particularly difficult when the person(s) being trained cannot necessarily be cross-utilized, particularly when the person is being utilized at Headquarters. Murillio (a JFK F/A) stood up in the gallery to question Suzanne, but was sat down as he did not have the right to speak to the floor without being yielded to by a Board member.
IDF: The Base Chairs need to be responsible for the budget and to find people among those who might be willing to be trained on their day off.
LAX-I (Yields to Murillio): In the month of June when you say you were hit by training, why did you send people at JFK for ADR training when you have qualified people?
Suzanne: I can't have people to cover the base who are re trained on only one or two things, because they cannot completely cover the base. You have never spoken to me about wanting to be trained.
LAX: Pass.
LGA: Scheduling and contract training in June we had 9 people volunteering their time. The people that come to me are the ones who get trained. In the same sense, it is a common courtesy for the Base Chairs to be notified.
BOS: Jena and Vicki have been great examples of this because they do advise the Chairs.
STL (Yielded to Jessica who said she would speak privately to Murillio about the issues). (Editorial comment: Suzanne Edwards, Appointed Vice Chair for JFK, was sitting the Board in the absence of Michelle Nasca, JFK Chair. Later, Michelle assured Jessica that Murillio has NEVER had a conversation with her about training, or about anything else.)

ORD: (Informational) TM/MT codes. MT blocks you from flying over the days that they refused the trip for (double jeopardy issue). MT code is placed on the schedule until the FSM determines whether it should be a PO or whatever. Lorraine Maas seemed interested in this since this doesn't do the Company any good either. Vicki states that Jena has spoken to Ben Williams at AA.

18:30: Move to adjourn by IDF. Motion passed to re-adjourn at 09:00.


APFA Board of Directors Meetings
Radisson DFW South
Day Two 27 July 2004
Scheduled to begin at 9:00

09:40: Meeting called to order and role call

ORD: Informational issues regarding the Company's policy about not traveling ing after clearing the SK list but not before the end of the trip for which they person called off for.
ORD asked if PRESIDENT had done anything about this thus far. Why haven't the changes been addressed by the President.
PRESIDENT'S answers to ORD's questions continued to refer to the fact that the questions were directed to the wrong person. I haven't been involved in any of that stuff, Why should the SBA Department be at any FMLA meeting?The fact that I have no knowledge of certain n meetings doesn't mean I think it's wrong for a health rep to be there, and of course, at any of those meetings the SBA should be there.
ORD said she was just bringing this to people's attention that there are major changes in past practice and someone needs to be aware of it. When the Company announced the changes were you there?
PRESIDENT: I would assume. I don't know.
ORD brought up the issue of time limits being passed because the proper people may not have been present. Jena Hopkins, Contract Coordinator, arrived and spoke to the issue. Re: the travel issue Jena spoke to the Company about it, but doesn't think anyone from SBA was there, but that at John has spoken to the Company about this. Jena explained that the F/As CAN travel during the time the original trip but they have to advise their FSM, in case there is an audit.
LAX: Very interested in this issue as well. LAX experienced this in 31Rs after the holiday sick list travel terminations. Noted that Company has advised him that the Company will be providing a quarterly list of F/As who traveled while on the SK list. The Trip Book doesn't seem to have been changed. The Company maintains that travel while on the SK list is a violation of Rule 37, which it is not. Travel while on the SK list makes termination a possibility, but Rule 37 requires termination. IDF: If there was a document that that proves this there should be a copy at APFA. This should be a simple, not long-drawnout issue. SECRETARY: Pass.
JFK: I had a long discussion with Brett (VICE PRESDIENT) and he was not aware of the meeting about the FMLA changes. I asked Jan Randall (Health Department representative) about why she was at the meeting. Jan responded that she was at another meeting and was told by John to go to the meeting in question. JFK asserted that VICE PRESIDENT was not advised about the meeting by the PRESIDENT, and that the VICE PRESIDENT filed the Presidential. PRESIDENT was not there the day he needed to file the Presidential Grievance due to the time limits. VICE PRESIDENT filed the Presidential Grievance signing his name for John Ward. Crucial that SBA be there to have first-hand knowledge of Company's attitudes.
SFO: John, if a a Presidential needs to be filed on the travel issues, it's huge and we need to look at it. We spend too much time at the attendance meetings. The Presidential needs to be filed on this.
ORD: I take exception to the comment by the IDF Chair about this being a long-drawn-out discussion. That is why we are here: To discuss issue important to the membership. (Editorial comment: PRESIDENT then moved on to the next item on the agenda without acknowledging the travel while on the SK list issue, nor did he agree to look into filing a Presidential Grievance about it. Like the recent rape of the UA employees pension plan, this doesn't seem to be an important issue for Mr. Wardbut then he doesn't have to commute while he sick like so so many of our line flight attendants.)

Contract (LAX): Informational and requesting action. The LAX chair once again (this has been brought forward at previous meetings) brought up the issue of have a new printed contract with all the RPA changes. We all get calls on the daily basis because Crew Schedule is taking advantage of the lack of information available to the F/As. We need to look at filing a Presidential if the Company will not provide it.
PRESIDENT: I asked Jena (Hopkins, former Scheduling Coordinator, current Contract Coordinator) some time ago to put together a document that would put in one place where the changes have occurred. We are not going to get a new contract printed. It's not going to happen. Hopefully that will be the answer to what a lot of people are looking for. The Blue Book (the spiral bound blue 2001 Collective Bargaining Agreement) is not obsolete. The Restructuring Agreement is a letter of agreement. Article 24 says the Company is required to print and distribute the CBA, but not letters of agreement.
LAX: Why are we letting the Company slide on this? Article 24 states this. The least the Company can do is print the books.
PRESIDENT: Article 24 does not apply.
LAX: We can make an argument that the changes ARE substantial enough to require a new printed contract with the changes.
SFO: Could this insert go out in the next SKYWORD? (Answered, but I don't remember by whom¦possibly Liz Geiss? Jena Hopkins?: Not in the second quarter edition, but it should be possible for the third quarter edition.)
JFK: I agree with LAX 100%. We̢۪re re supposed to know the rules that we are working under. The other piece is if you are not going to force the company at least put a value on it so it could be something that we get something back from the company. We should file a Presidential.
LGA: (Yielded to Appointed LGA Vice Chair, Terry Drew Karanen): John, the F/As do want a new printing, regardless of what you have previously said in this meetings about them not wanting to carry it around. Right now if they want everything they have to carry around the contract and RPA. This mini-contract that may go out in SKYWORD is great for trips, but there isn't a day ay that goes by at the base level where I don't refer a F/A to both the RPA AND the CBA (Blue Book). Article 24 like any other legal document can be up to interpretation. Why do you say it isn't going to happen. Have you asked?
PRESIDENT: Article 24 doesn' apply.
LGA VC: : It's what the F/As want and it MIGHT be possible le if you'd only ask. I would ask that you be be willing to ask the Company for this. (NO response from the PRESIDENT to me including looking me in the eye. He merely called on the next person.)
RDU-I Again whatever is being put forward is not putting everything in one place. We should ask the Company to print a whole new one.
PRESIDENT: I'll speak to to the VICE PRESIDENT about Article 24 to see if there is merit.
ORD: I would ask that you explain that to the membership if something is not going to be printed.
PRESIDENT: And I would ask, Liz (ORD), that you allow me to do what I just said I would do in speaking to Brett. We're not going to put out a story about it.
ORD: D: You need to explain it to the membership.
PRESIDENT: Whether you're saying the F/As want one or if it's just for principle, e, we'll do it.
ORD: The Company should be paying for this publication completely.
LAX: The Company has been given a free ride on this issue and I'm not willing to let them go any further of this. The people working out on the line are extremely confused because the Company has kept them in the dark on this issue. If we do nothing, we are in dereliction of our duties not to take this up. To say that the F/As are not going to carry it anyway is not valid.
(Editorial comment: True to the PRESIDENTÃ'S usual form, he has agreed to do something with no assurances to the Board or the membership by when this will be done, nor any indication that he will report back with any results.)

Crew Schedule (LAX) Informational discussion: We're seeing so many more interpretations by crew schedulers. The latest is that crew schedule has been requiring F/As to call in DURING THEIR TRIP to see if they are going to be used after their duty free period.
ORD: We;re seeing a a complete waste of money and burning of reserve. We had two F/As refuse a reschedule at the end of their trip because the flight (ORD-MIA) they were scheduled to work as a rescheduled segment after their trip terminated, had MIA F/As deadheading back to base! Both F/As received a TM which we are grieving. We are also looking for feedback on the 24/7 rule. Can we or can we not deadhead on the 7th day?
JENA: Per the law (FARs) they can deadhead them home on the 7th day (even though it IS on duty time), but then they have to have a full 24 at the base. Otherwise, the F/A needs to stay at the city away from base for a full 24 at which time the Company can then use them for something else. (Note: In correspondence from ORD Chair, Liz Mallon, Jena has stated that the travel can take place if the FSM is notified for reserves only and if they fall under the clearing before 1600 the day prior. Since we don't want anyone getting into serious trouble traveling first, notifying second, 31R next, F/As must be cautious and include their base reps or Headquarters reps prior to tackling this on their own.)
IMA: I have a problem as well with what looks like a nationwide reserve pool, utilizing both domestic and international F/As. This is supposed to be used in emergencies, but it seems the Company currently has a daily crisis.
ORD: Domestic reserves are not maxing out because they're sitting while the internationals are out ut flying the trips. Much of this is coming out of the minimum rest issues.
LAX: This organization will have to, at some point, decide what our stance is on the possibility of combining operations (meaning if or when AA finally agrees to combine domestic and international operations as most domestic carriers have already done).
MIA: I've had several complaints, so I started pulling the open time. One day there were 27 IMA F/As flying domestic trips. A detailed analysis (26 pages) was compiled by the MIA OCR bid sheet rep and the Company is looking at it. I would suggest that you monitor the open-time to see how the Company is using the F/As.
IOR: In 1980s I was involved in two cases on this issue. At that time the argument was that the Company was using the international F/As as an insurance policy and that they are being compensated. Additionally, it was made clear that no base owns the trips and can be utilized wherever operational necessity requires.
JFK: To JENA: Are the open times and removals being monitored? Answer: Just got the programming and it is being done.

Furloughees/Recalls (LGA) Informational discussion: We have people who have been out for more than a year and coming back on the same attendance step on which they left. Because they've been out for a year (against their will) l) they do not have the hours for FMLA. Situation is that people have been waiting to return, but come back, get sick and suddenly they are on a Pre-Term status.
LAX: I've run into that since I've gotten a few people back from furlough or or leave due to hardship transfers back to LAX. When I went to the manager saying that the level of discipline been in their file for a year, they indicated the F/A wasn't on the property, so it it didn't count.
BOS: I'm receiving some of Eric's (LGA's) returnees as well, through the hardship transfer process. I have a pre-term with a F/A who may be losing her job. The Company used to tell people to take overage leaves to burn up the year. Now they're saying the opposite.
LGA: : Alma Correa-Garcia, LGA Operations Manager, was in complete agreement with that practice and it had always been her practice as an attendance manager, she would encourage them to take leaves.
PRESIDENT (Yield to Eugenio): It seems more that it's John Tiliacos that is behind this.

DFW MOD (LGA): Informational. We've had LGA crews with tight connections in DFW who have been have been met by MODs (three reports) to escort the crew to the next flights so that they can be of any assistance in helping to get t them to the gate. This is a blatant attempt by AA to make sure late arriving crews don't stop to get food or use a restroom and possibly delay an already delayed flight. We will continue to document these instances.

Website (DCA): Resolution #12 (Requires any information on the website be approved by Communications):
ORD: Cannot support anything that further stops our freedom of speech.
LGA: Delete the section and it takes away my right to manage my base.
DCA: Not trying to censor anyone, but just want to make sure anything that goes on the website is conforming to policy. JFK: If we are to put a base brief on our website it has to be approved by John?
(DCA) Yes. John has the sole approval? (DCA) The Communications Coordinator with the President.
JFK: One person cannot make all these decisions. This is curbing our freedom of speech and our ability to communicate with your base.
PRESIDENT (gavel passed to MIA): What I see Tim attempting to do is put into practice in the electronic age what we have already done. Kathy (TREASURER) took issue with some of the things I've had on for years. The responsibility stays with the Communications Coordinator. I'm just on there to make sure what is being put out comforts with policy.
BOS-I: Questions answered. How do we fix this? We need to address what has been removed or what is trying to be put on that is at issue. To Liz Geiss: Have there been anything that hasn't gotten on the website?
Liz: No. Whatever comes into Bill White always comes to me for approval.
IOR: To Tim: Would you remove or amend the resolution?
DCA: I can do that. To Liz Geiss: What did Kathy want to review?
Liz: She wanted to have a review of everything on the website to review. It would be literally thousands of pages.
MIA: To DCA: Please amend the resolution to add the Secretary or Vice President to the resolution. I want to see the officers involved come to a meeting of the minds on behalf of the membership. Would you do that?
DCA: I'm not inclined to do so.
ORD: What if we disagree with the policy or resolutions approved of by the majority of the Board?
ORD: The email issue has to be cleaned up. It's been established that we can have our own email lists. I also keep hearing this has never been a problem, but there was. It was just one person (Jeff Bott, past Vice President). The three had their approval and went about their own way. There were numerous times Jeff's hotline was as changed. This is once again, just because of the issues with Kathy (TREASURER); it's like killing a gnat with a a sledgehammer.
JFK (Yield to Jeff Bott): Discussed that the process is a check and balance, some things one sees that one other might not. This is a very dangerous thing in giving one person all the power. During Denise Hedges time in office John sat as the Chair at the meeting and actually fought against giving Denise any one-person-type of power. With all that responsibility comes a tremendous amount of power. It will be interesting to see what comes of this in the future.
DCA-I (Yield to Liz Geiss): I have some questions about the website. When I do receive base briefs they are already approved. It shouldn't have to be approved again to go on the website. For me to run around and get approval for something that's already approved doesn't make sense to me.
PRESIDENT: : The Constitution has an extensive list of the duties for each of the national officers. Nothing of the changes being made have anything about diluting their responsibilities.
LGA: I don't see this as a restriction of the National Officers, it sounds more like tying my hands for the future. It's not about me me being censored in the past, it's that I could be be censored (any of us could be) in the future.
SECRETARY: I'm in full support of this Resolution. Yesterday you took away my voice and my authority; let's all make sure this has the full support of the King. I fully support it and hope everyone supports it.
ORD: John (PRESIDENT) asked for anyone to come forward. One was Kathy Lukensmeyer (TREASURER). I did not like what she said (Editorial comment: This is referring to a hotline message the TREASURER wanted on the APFA hotline, but that did not get posted there), but SHE has to live with that. This room is destroying the 27 years of our work. I can't wait for you to to see what's going to happen when the membership discover you've given the power to John (PRESIDENT). I was censored when I tried to put out an article about the fact that one person could never give away our seniority. I defend Kathy's (TREASURER'S) right, but not the content. What has happened for the past two days here has broken my heart. It's just very, very wrong.
BOS: Pass.
IOR: I realize everyone had to do what they did because of one person and now two other national officers are penalized. Can this be tabled or have a caucus to discuss this since it is the last communications piece? What can we do as a group to caucus?
(DCA Chair: I did remove the base pages section). But it still penalizes the rest of the officers.
DCA-I (Yield to DCA Vice Chair): I'm concerned about ORD's ‚statement to say whatever she wants to say. I feel like elected officials to put something like what Kathy (TREASURER) did to put that out could cause to the entity.

11:57 Ten minute break requested and agreed upon.

12:28 Meeting called to order. We are back on the record.

DFW: Asked ORD to read the portion of her brief that was stricken. Off record to legal reasons for content of the brief.

Resolution #12 voted upon. Passed

12:50: Break for lunch return by 14:15
14:53: Meeting resumed.

Parking & Tolls (DFW): Resolution #13 (Speaks to APFA officers to utilize free parking whenever possible.)

14:59: Break for DFW, ORD & IDF Chairs and legal council to concur regarding language of the Resolution.

15:04: Return to meeting.

Resolution reworded to require authorized APFA member to use free parking facilities. Should circumstances warrant the member to use paid parking, such member will be reimbursed.
ORD: The re-wording was for the intent to have free parking utilized whenever possible.
JFK: This is just for day parking? Or is this for out-of-town meeting if we are late? (DFW: Day parking.)
IDF: In agreement to state the intent, which is to use free parking whenever possible.

Passed, unanimously.

ORD asked for a moment to pass out pension information provided by a furloughed F/A in the gallery. ORD and F/A acknowledged by the majority of those Chairs present as appreciative of the information. (Editorial comment: Apparently the lack of interest in this subject by the PRESIDENT is not shared by the majority of the Base Chairs nor by the F/As.)

Company Meetings (JFK) Resolution #14: (Requires the Vice President and/or designee be included by the President in all meetings with the Company.) This was addressed partially earlier, when it was discussed that the VP was NOT privy about FMLA meetings. There is another meeting coming up regarding Rule violations for five F/As to get their jobs back. It is imperative that the VP be included in all meetings. At the last meeting, the Pres be the one to decide who goes to meetings. The VP is one that must be included. Passed, 11 yes.

Documents (JFK): Withdrawn

Communications (JFK): Withdrawn

Staff (JFK): Withdrawn

Election Procedures (LAX-I) Resolution #15: (Speaks to the Election Task Force and reverses the EC's authorization of the Committee to dissolve the Task Force.) Due to budget constraints LAX-I does not feel it is necessary to have this committee. Additionally, the decision(s) coming down from the DOL should have information useful to changing anything in our procedures, working along with the Ballot Committee.
SECRETARY: How could we NOT look into our own procedures? We have always had problems and I beg you to remove this Resolution.
BOS: Membership has asked for accountability, to get policy clarification, and this would also show the DOL of our good intentions in looking at our own problems. This looks like you're trying to hide something.
LGA (Yield to to Steven Ellis/Ad Hoc and Election Committee Chair): LAX-I you were the first person to volunteer to sit on the Board, so why are you now against it? The first look at our procedures has shown that we have a LOT of procedures which are not in line with the DOL procedures.
IOR: Feels there is a need for this Task Force. What I would like to know is, What is the amount of money we are spending on this? Would it be better to hold off on the Task Force till after the DOL decision. (Answered by Steven Ellis: I;ve asked Kathy (TREASURER) to put this on her agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Putting this off is a very bad idea, because we have elections right around the corner VCs, followed by Base and Vice Chairs. This is not something we want to put off.). PRESIDENT (passed gavel to LAX): I voted against the Task Force originally. If the Board wants to have this done it should be the Balloting Committee. I don't remember the type of problems that Greg speaks to. One of the people on this committee is one of the people who has been in the middle of all the problems Linda Herrod-Rivas. The Board already has shaken up the balloting committee and the ones on the committee do not have the experience.
RDU-I: This is a good committee. LAX-I admits she volunteered but was not selected.
IDF: Several reasons why I don't think this committee is proper. I find it hard to understand how you could write a resolution for a committee that you would put yourself on. Linda Herrod-Rivas has done a great job, but if she's not doing her job on the Ballot Committee, then why would you want her on the Task Force. I can't not support this enough. (Ed: I think he he means he for it? Meaning for the Resolution? Or against Linda? Or both?)
LAX-I: Actually I think that Steve (IDF) said a lot of the things that I was feeling. I didn't want to point out Linda Herrod-Rivas, but I do think she's a very big problem. I think whatever we change should be after the DOL investigation is completed. I think that would be the proper time. This is not the time for this committee (task force).
ORD: I am in full support of having this committee after getting my head ripped off at the Convention for bringing this up. I think he protests too much comes to mind, when someone is protesting so much about any investigation. Balloting and elections are a learning process, which isn't a shameful thing. We had a problem withaddress labels, another with return addresses. Innocent mistakes, but those were things to learn. Our membership does not have faith in our election procedures. It's imperative that we have this committee.
MIA: I will be at the Budget Committee meeting and the TREASURER has recommended an eight percent across the board cut. I think this is not the time to start a new committee and I approve of this resolution.
JFK: I agree with everything Liz (ORD) has already said. You want to have diversity in the committee. Like Becky, she has history so we can learn from that. With Steve Ellis we have neutrality and new ideas. With Linda Herrod-Rivas we have her perspective to see what has needed to be changed and put into place. Margaret (LAX-I Vice Chair) as a Vice Chair on the Committee is a great way to bring the Vice Chair's into these meetings. The membership doesn't trust us anymore; they ey don't trust the election process. It makes us us look very guilty not to want to look at these things. I beg you to withdrawal this resolution.
DFW: I have a concern about using a Vice Chair or Chair on this committee, because this if this Vice Chair or Chair is going to run for re-election then there is a problem with a conflict of interest.
DCA: The reason that the membership doesn't trust us isn't the the National or Base elections, but more toward the RPA and 15-day balloting.
BOS (Yield to Mario St. Michel): This had been such a hotbed with the membership. There are a lot of things for which we do not have procedures, so the Ballot Committee is asked to make decisions that they are afraid to make for future ramifications. This is to be reviewed by the committee, and brought to the Board for changes to make. If this doesn't start now, it may not get done before the elections next year. The membership needs to see that the Board is doing something to look at our own issues and problems. An example of this is the recent Constitution mailings. The Constitutions went out bulk rate, the ballots first class and some people still haven't gotten their Constitutions. But they didn't have procedures for this.
` `IMA: The way we we are doing things is not effective. WN is doing their balloting electronically, and we need to look at the issues before us. I'm against this resolution. It's not right to focus on personalities when en this Committee could do so much good.
IOR: Can this be tabled until after the DOL decision?
LAX-I: My concern is that if it is not addressed now, there will be a budget set aside tomorrow. I think a committee (the Balloting Committee) should be given this charge AFTER the DOL decision.
LAX-I declined to table this issue.
SFO-I: Passed.
JFK: I was at the EC meeting when this came up. There was brought up that there were certain coordinator budgets that do have money there, plus we have G and A fund that could be used for this money. They were also talking about re-allocating funds, putting money back into the bases. The intent at the E
Thanks for the notes. JW is still the company fool he was before. Regards article 24 as no issue with the company. That they should not be held responsible to reprint the drastic changes to the contract. At some point, long passed APFA should have taken up the effort printed supplement of changes. Then gone after AA for reimbursement. This is information needed on the line. Someone needs to get on it, one way or another.

I am also concerned about jw's minions who seem to be hard pressed to give him final say on everything. In the past the job of president was chief negotiator and spokesperson. Not official APFA censor.

I applaud you for sitting through all that. It can be so frustrating seeing an absolute idiot like jw and his little helpers in action and being unable to choke the life out of him, or at the very least speak your mind.

PS I too have seen the dress habits of some of the people in the office and its sad to say the least. How sick to go after the staff like that. I am sure now we face some further action by the UAW. I really would be something if all the APFA people were wearing business attire, but as we all know that is not nor has it ever been the case.
Mike, you should be careful what you say about JW or any other member of the BOD or EC before we know the outcome of the constitutional amendments vote. If they pass, you could be brought up on charges of defaming an APFA officer for some of your comments. And, they get to define defamation.
I wouldn't think the amendment would allow any prosecution of a member for something they may have done before the amendment was fully adopted by the membership.
hp_fa said:
I wouldn't think the amendment would allow any prosecution of a member for something they may have done before the amendment was fully adopted by the membership.
My guess is that you don't know this bunch we have in charge at the APFA. I wouldn't put anything past them. :shock:

You are right that in the long run there is no way they could win in the end over something said before the amendment passed, but think of the time and money that you would have to waste to get to that point. There is such a thing as the nuisance value to stifle free speech. They know that most flight attendants do not have the time or money to fight them all the way to the DOL.
Another Chapter of, "As APFA burns." They could serialize this for a "Reality" show on TV.
DOL has said the 16 unopened are valid ballots. JW and crew have refused to open them. Is the next step DOL sues APFA in Federal Court seeking a remedy?
L1011Ret said:
DOL has said the 16 unopened are valid ballots. JW and crew have refused to open them. Is the next step DOL sues APFA in Federal Court seeking a remedy?
L1011Ret said:
DOL has said the 16 unopened are valid ballots. JW and crew have refused to open them. Is the next step DOL sues APFA in Federal Court seeking a remedy?
I thought they pused back until Sept there ruling and remedy?
jimntx said:
Mike, you should be careful what you say about JW or any other member of the BOD or EC before we know the outcome of the constitutional amendments vote. If they pass, you could be brought up on charges of defaming an APFA officer for some of your comments. And, they get to define defamation.
You really think a judge is going to force an ISP to provide personal info on a member of this forum for merely stating a personal opinion of a union official in the public eye?

Man if that is the case, I suggest we all pack our bags and boogie because this country is in a world of trouble.
Garfield1966 said:
You really think a judge is going to force an ISP to provide personal info on a member of this forum for merely stating a personal opinion of a union official in the public eye?

Man if that is the case, I suggest we all pack our bags and boogie because this country is in a world of trouble.
First off, Gar, it is a fact of case law that an ISP can in fact and has been required to divulge the name of bulletin board users. Second, how hard do you think it would be for someone from APFA to figure out who jimntx, AA f/a furloughed 02JUL03 is? Or, who FA Mikey is.

And, these draconian constitutional amendments would in fact limit the ability of anyone to even use the name, APFA, without prior permission of the BOD. And, there is another amendment which would make it an expulsion offense to attack, harass, defame (there's several other verbs in the phrase) any APFA officer or representative. And, as I said before, they get to decide if you have defamed them.

The only case I am aware of is the case involving the RIAA in which theft of property was involved.

I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs of the judicial system but as I recall there was a bit of a fight involved to compel the ISPs to release that info. Would the APFA really go through all that trouble to get a name of a person who wrote an opinion on a BB? Would a judge look at an opinion stated on a BB as defaming, lible … given what has been written on this board? When you say that it would not be hard to figure out who FA mikey is, is that the same as knowing? With out the ISP releasing that info the APFA can not know (in legal terms) who FA mikey is. We may all have a good idea, but legally, know one knows. Now I know the APFA could take action against who they believe to be FA Mikey but it would seem to me that with out the ISP being compelled to release the info, any legal intern could tell the APFA where to go.

Does any of this make sense? Any lawyers on the board who could share their expertise?
FA Mikey said:
I thought they pused back until Sept there ruling and remedy?
Mike, the problem is that the two sides are producing different "facts"--quelle surprise! This is what I understand happened. I can not vouch for the validity of any of this because it comes from different people on different sides of the issue, but as near as I can piece together...

1. DOL informed JW in writing on 13JUL04 that they had made a preliminary finding that the 16 unopened ballots should be counted. Note, that is a preliminary, not a final, ruling.
2. DOL requested another extension until some time in September to make a final ruling on the charges (all of them) brought forth.
3. DOL also informed JW (and the APFA BOD through him) that they had focussed on 4 of the charges--implying that there are 4 that they feel are valid. I am assuming that the issue of the 16 ballots is one of the four.

Since the BOD meeting, I've even been "told" by one member of the BOD that there was no resolution put forth or voted on regarding the 16 ballots. That appears now not to be the case at all. Oh well, I should have learned by now not to trust any of them.

At this point, I still feel that we should just wait for the final ruling. Any action taken now might have to be reversed or redone based on DOL's findings. What if the preliminary diagnosis was lung cancer and the final was influenza (or vice versa) and you had decided to go ahead and have the lung removed? And, before anyone gets cute and all literal, yes I know it's an extreme example, but that's just what it is AN EXAMPLE, not an analogue.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #15
jimntx said:
Mike, you should be careful what you say about JW or any other member of the BOD or EC before we know the outcome of the constitutional amendments vote. If they pass, you could be brought up on charges of defaming an APFA officer for some of your comments. And, they get to define defamation.
John Ward is an a$$ and he needs to go. He doesn't have the skills to be APFA President. He hides behind his desk when the going gets tough and will not come out until the coast is clear! He is an embarrassment to our profession and an embarrassment to every American Airlines flight attendant/APFA member.

John WAArd is a liar, an overpaid a$$ who doesn't represent the APFA membership in the professional manner we should be. Look I called him names and harassed him on this BB. Come and get be Johnny boy! :rolleyes: