The Apfa Country Club

[stew4aa]

The APFA Country Club

Both the Ward Slate and the Hutto-Blake Slate have a tremendous amount of supporters backing them. But when you take a close look at whom these supporters are, you'll notice that all of these supporters are also on the APFA payroll. Are they really trying to save APFA, or are they merely trying to save their lifestyle? Looking at some of these figures, I wonder.

Both John Ward and Tommie Hutto-Blake supported the Restructuring Agreement. It is well known that Ms. Hutto-Blake stood in a conference room at LaGuardia Airport, a room provided by management, and PLEADED with flight attendants to vote YES. Her biggest supporter, Patt Gibbs, was even quoted in the Dallas Morning News telling our union leadership "not to re-ballot the membership." And most of the supporters on this supporter breakdown voted YES to bypassing our Constitution, YES to ignoring our NO vote, and YES to reneging on their promise of a revote.

Now all of a sudden, they're on opposite sides of the fence. Why?

My Slate on the other hand is adamantly opposed to the Restructuring Agreement. We feel that our rights as unionized workers under the Railway Labor Act were in fact trampled. Why is it that no one, and I mean NO ONE from APFA is supporting us if they're so outraged by the RPA? The answer is that everyone associated with APFA is in favor of the Restructuring Agreement. There can be no other answer.

Take a look at these supporters and their economic ties to APFA and tell me that it's all about saving our union. I think it's more about saving their "honey-Pot."

John Ward Tommie Hutto-Blake
Arlene LeWinter $27,616 Becky Kroll $35,627
Arthur Cline $11,051 Brent Peterson $30,597
Cheryl Walters $57,350 Brett Durkin $83,860
Chris O'Kelley $61,623 Clint Breen $35,228
Doug Elmore $44,529 Debbie Roland $15,205
Eugenio Vargas $ 24,028 Fiona MacPherson-Bowers $12,972
George Berry $40,917 Greg Hildreth $ 83,341
Jennifer McCauley $ 37,039 Jan Gorski $31,175
Jenny Syracuse $ 60,336 Jeff Bott $89,555
John Ward $ 93,910 Jeff Crecelius $74,995
Juan Johnson $ 83,824 Jessica Washington $24,690
Kathleen Olson $ 19,723 Jill Frank $29,598
Kristin McCullor $ 10,904 Julie May-Moyer $17,477
Linda Lanning $ 80,847 Kat Clements $65,486
Liz Geiss $ 13,906 Kathy Lord-Jones $18,765
Margaret Stewart $ 56,471 Kim Boyett $19,965
Mark Beeler $ 13,210 Laura Glading $27,419
Neil Fernandez $ 13,413 Lenny Aurigemma $45,510
Robert Valenta $ 42,421 Leslie Mayo $95,756
Sandra Mitchell $ 58,788 Lori Bassani $92,784
Sharron Lennox $ 24,094 Lynda Richardson $82,191
Steve Watson $65,146 Mario St.Michel $75,065
Ted Bedwell $ 70,245 Marti O'Rourke $ 14,730
Thelma Dodson $ 51,727 Michael Meyer $20,114
Tim Weston $ 20,175 Michelle Nasca $71,570
Trey Hopkins $ 43,221 Patrick Hancock $26,117
Patt Gibbs $56,134
Patty French $20,283
Susan French $26,876
Suzanne Edwards $57,342
Suzie Spurlock-Thorley $13,900
total: $1,126,514 total: $1,394,327
*These figures are from the right-hand column of the APFA 2002-2003 LM-2 filing. They include disbursements for "official" business billed back to the union.

APFA is a country club with an $11 million per year budget paid for by the membership. But sadly, the membership isn't invited. This political monopoly has harnessed our union like a packmule and the only way to end it is to change the top. We have for the first time in APFA's history the opportunity to put APFA back into the hands of the membership. We can do it, but we're going to have to fight tooth and nail. They're not going to give it up easily.

VOTE
Salomon-Morales-Price-Green
One by one, YOU make the change possible."

Please take a moment and visit our website for information on our slate. Go to www.newapfa.org

 

[jimntx]

FWIW, here is my vote for APFA officers and my reasoning...

First off, let me say that I am a furloughed AA flight attendant since 02JUL03, and I am a nAAtive having started flying with AA on 07SEP00. I set a couple of ground rules for myself.
1. I had to vote in every race even if I had to "hold my nose and vote." I was always taught that if I didn't vote, I had no right to complain about the results.
2. In the case of slates of candidates, I would not vote for more than one candidate from any particular slate. A choice of one slate member automatically eliminated everyone else on that slate. The last thing we need at APFA is more bloc voting.


President -- Steven Ellis. This is a "hold my nose" vote. I have a problem with his listing JD after his name. I think it misleading. Having a law degree does not make you a lawyer. You have to pass some state's bar exam and be licensed to practice law in order to be a lawyer. I have a BA in English Literature, but that don't make me Shakespeare. However, some people I respect are voting for him; so, I am deferring to their opinions.

Vice-President--Brett Durkin. Another "hold my nose" vote. I was going to vote for Sam Morales, but Rule #2 prevented that (see Treasurer vote explanation).

Secretary--Nancy McGuire. Her postings on various bulletin boards and a couple of emails that she and I have exchanged have convinced me that she is the only candidate who really, truly understands what unionism is.

Treasurer--Bill Green. By Default. Personally, I like Juan Johnson very much, and I think she has done an excellent job as treasurer. However, she is running on the JW slate. If she were running as an independent, I would vote for her in a second.
Next, because I was voting for Sam Morales that eliminated Bill Green, which left Lukensmeyer. But then, I received the candidate information booklet along with my ballot and saw that Kim Boyett was one of her references, and I realized that I couldn't vote for Lukensmeyer for dogcatcher, much less for APFA treasurer.

So, let's do the math...
JW slate or Kim Boyett support = Kiss of Death [KoD].
Treasurer candidate list - (Johnson + KoD) - (Lukensmeyer + KoD) = Green.

Now, you can all put those sleepless nights behind you and the Western world can go back to what it does best--ignoring the real problems of the day.

 

[LiveInAHotel]

Oh I thought this was a country club. I was wondering what the fees were to play a round of golf?

 

[Bob Owens]

"They're not going to give it up easily"


In other words they can fight, just not for the members.



To Jimntx;

I think your Logic on voting is flawed. While there is an arguement for not voting a slate, the position of not voting for someone simply because you already picked someone from that slate makes no sense. Vote the person first. If you feel that that person was the best for that slot that is the one you should vote for. To vote for someone other than the best does not make sense.

 

[jimntx]

"They're not going to give it up easily"


In other words they can fight, just not for the members.



To Jimntx;

I think your Logic on voting is flawed. While there is an arguement for not voting a slate, the position of not voting for someone simply because you already picked someone from that slate makes no sense. Vote the person first. If you feel that that person was the best for that slot that is the one you should vote for. To vote for someone other than the best does not make sense.

My methodology doesn't have to make sense to you. I've seen the havoc wreaked on the membership by sheep-like bloc voting. The way to avoid that in the future is to make sure that no two (or more) people among the 4 officers are from a "slate."

Hey, if you are a flight attendant, you can always submit a vote that cancels mine. That's the way democracy works (or did, until JW and company decided that a vote didn't count until it came out the way they wanted). I guess if he loses, we'll have to re-open the voting for another 36-48 hours until those "lost" ballots can be found. After all, it's only fair that we get the "true" will of the people.

(Bitter, party of one, your table's ready.) But, don't get me started. lol

 

[s80dude]

But if you won't vote for anything Kim Boyett supports, why would you vote for Brett Durkin, since she is a big supporter of the whole Back on the Right Track slate?

 

[ArtTang]

jimntx writes:

President -- Steven Ellis. This is a "hold my nose" vote. I have a problem with his listing JD after his name. I think it misleading. Having a law degree does not make you a lawyer. You have to pass some state's bar exam and be licensed to practice law in order to be a lawyer. I have a BA in English Literature, but that don't make me Shakespeare. However, some people I respect are voting for him; so, I am deferring to their opinions.

I write:

Not looking for an argument here, but just to clear this matter up: If you successfully pass the requirements of a law school you possess the title of JD. Similarly, if you successfully pass the requirements of a doctoral program, you have the title of PhD. It is true that just because you have JD after your name does not mean you are a practicing attorney. Similarly, just because you have a PhD after your name does not mean you are a professor at a university. Nevertheless, the title is yours! However, Steven Ellis has never claimed to be a practicing attorney. After a certain group of mudslingers attempted to create a scandal about the matter, Steven further clarified his background on his website. There should be no confusion. If anyone is confused by the title JD it is not because of Steven but because of incorrect assumptions drawn from his appropriate title.
I have known Steven for over 12 years. He is honest, tempered, and highly intelligent. Additionally, to his credit, he has chosen to remain above the muck and mire in which his opponents love to bask. I will vote for him without reservation.

Art Tang
MIA

 

[TWAnr]

However, Steven Ellis has never claimed to be a practicing attorney.

The following excerpts, from the biography page of his website, certainly left the impression that he worked as a licensed lawyer (only those admitted to practice can legally advise and counsel clients):

"He also accepted a position at a law firm as an Employment Law Specialist. In this capacity he assisted affiliated labor unions with their contractual negotiations and disputes. He also counseled individuals suffering from discrimination, wrongful termination and harassment at work."

"Labor Relations Background

• Employment Law Specialist, Slater and Gordon Law Firm, 2000-01
  
  
• Advised on Termination/Discrimination/Harassment cases, Slater and Gordon, 2000-01
  
  
• Advised member unions on contract negotiations and disputes, 2001-01
  
  
• Racial/ethnic labor discrimination counsel, Immigration Law Clinic, 1999"

 

[jimntx]

But if you won't vote for anything Kim Boyett supports, why would you vote for Brett Durkin, since she is a big supporter of the whole Back on the Right Track slate?

Call it a sympathy vote for some of the nasty attempts at mudslinging in his direction.

Hey, I voted and a posted a FWIW on why I voted the way I did. I know of some who are so disgusted they threw away their ballots. As far as I'm concerned that's yielding the field to the barbarians.

You don't have to agree with my reasoning or my vote. Care or don't care. Tis a free country.

 

[ArtTang]

TWAnr writes about Steven Ellis:

The following excerpts, from the biography page of his website, certainly left the impression that he worked as a licensed lawyer (only those admitted to practice can legally advise and counsel clients): see post above

I write:

I can understand why one may be confused by the excerpt you posted, but you left out the part that explains all of this work was performed in Australia. This information on Steven's cv does not lead me to assume he has passed the bar in California or anywhere else. I guess it is a matter of interpretation, but I do not read anything further into it than what he states. Again, I do not assume one is a lawyer just because he has JD next to his name any more than I assume one is a professor because he has a PhD by his name. At any rate, the entire excerpt reads as follows:

After earning his law degree Steven was admitted to the University of Melbourne, Australia, to complete a Post Graduate Diploma in Labor Relations Law. He also accepted a position at a law firm as an Employment Law Specialist. In this capacity he assisted affiliated labor unions with their contractual negotiations and disputes. He also counseled individuals suffering from discrimination, wrongful termination and harassment at work. He greatly admired the more conciliatory nature of Australian workplace relations and learned valuable lessons on how to effectuate change in the often-turbulent relationship between employer and employee.
Labor Relations Background

Employment Law Specialist, Slater and Gordon Law Firm, 2000-01
Advised on Termination/Discrimination/Harassment cases, Slater and Gordon, 2000-01
Advised member unions on contract negotiations and disputes, 2001-01
Racial/ethnic labor discrimination counsel, Immigration Law Clinic, 1999
Contract drafting and interpretation, Lussan-Brouillaud Law Firm, Paris, 1996
Wrongful termination/labor policy cases, California Indian Legal Services, 1995
Extensive coursework in labor/employment law, USD Law School, 1994-99
Legislative aide for labor and social issues, U.S. Congress, 1990
Educational Background
Post-Graduate Diploma, Labor Relations Law, University of Melbourne, 2001
Law Degree, University of San Diego School of Law, 1999
Relevant courses: Negotiation and arbitration, employment and labor law, USD
Honors: Dean's Council And Student Bar Association Elected Representative, USD
President, Native American Student Association, USD
Diploma, Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1995, Paris, France
Ph.D. coursework in French, University of Southern California, 1992-93
Master's coursework, French, University of Hawaii, 1991-92
Bachelor of Arts, Political Science/French, University of Arizona, 1991

Again, it may boil down to a matter of interpretation. Nevertheless, if there is any further doubt as to where Steven performed these duties, Slater & Gordon is a well known law firm in Australia which is easily referenced on Google. At any rate, I am almost certain Steven has updated his site since the mudslingers got to work, so he has further clarified his credentials for those who feel they were misled by them.

Art Tang

 

[ArtTang]

From the Q&A section of Steven's site:


I have heard that you are a lawyer. Is this true?

It is easy to understand the confusion surrounding this issue. I am not a lawyer. I have a law degree, a Juris Doctorate, from the University of San Diego. I also have a post-graduate law degree in labor relations law. In order to practice law and call oneself a lawyer it is necessary to pass a Bar Exam and be admitted to a State Bar. I have not taken a Bar and have no plans to do so in the near future. My motivation in attending law school was to pursue organizational work and this is why I am offering my services to the membership. My opposition would like you to believe that this distinction distracts from the qualifications that I would bring to the office if elected. I believe, on the contrary, that my background will allow me to serve the interests of the membership with a critical eye and negotiation skills that are unique to those trained in the legal field.




Art Tang

 

[stew4aa]

Well, WHERE was Steve during this whole RPA mess? With all his education in labor. He never once tried to help any groups in filing charges against APFA or be helpful in the lawsuits! Even if he choose to not be a plaintiff he could have said let me help?
If you want to be a leadeer, then you need to do it all the time. Not just during elections.
Plus, why a 2 Ward supporters listed on his willingness to serve?
Is there a secret agenda? To maybe split the vote in favor of Ward?
Just asking.

 

[ArtTang]

I am not sure who the Ward supporters are you are referring to on Steven's site. I can tell you that I used to support Ward 100% up to the restructuring debacle. I lost all confidence, respect, and patience for him during that nightmare. Perhaps the people you are referring to feel the same way?
As for Steven's perceived lack of involvement in the restructuring process, I cannot answer your questions, but if you are interested in asking him directly about this matter, why don't you send him an e-mail at [email protected]? It is entirely possible he had not considered running for office at that point in time or that he was otherwise engaged. I was furious and disgusted with everything as well, but I was not able to give any time (I did give some money) to the cause with my workload outside of AA. Nevertheless, I understand your valid point about leadership; I just do not agree that Steve's perceived lack of involvement in the aftermath of the restructuring agreement is really correlated to his potential as a leader. Again, if you require further explanation from him, please write to him directly.

Art

 

[ArtTang]

Lee Price,

Is this you or the person you claim to have stolen your yahoo passcode who wrote the last message about Steven? It is difficult to tell if it is you or your other personality. The mudslinging and innuendo sure reflect your modus operandi, but one never knows after your disclaimers of the psychotic messages you posted on the 4M. At any rate, I am not sure who the Ward supporters are you are referring to on Steven's site. I can tell you that I used to support Ward 100% up to the restructuring debacle. I lost all confidence, respect, and patience for him during that nightmare. Perhaps the people you are referring to feel the same way? Ward lost many supporters over the past year or so.
As for Steven's perceived lack of involvement in the restructuring process, I cannot answer your questions, but if you are interested in asking him directly about this matter, why don't you send him an e-mail at [email protected]? This would be the "above the board" and preferred method of getting to the bottom of the issue instead of posting anonymous questions that are meant to slam the man. It is entirely possible Steven had not considered running for office at that point in time or that he was otherwise engaged. I was furious and disgusted with everything that went down during the restructuring debacle as well, but I was not able to give any time (I did give some money) to the cause with my workload outside of AA. Nevertheless, I understand your valid point about leadership; I just do not agree that Steve's perceived lack of involvement in the aftermath of the restructuring agreement is really correlated to his potential as a leader. Again, if you require further explanation from him, please write to him directly.
It is interesting you make the point about leadership. True leadership also requires one to stand behind his or her word. You frequently neglect to sign your accusatory posts in various "hit and runs" across the forums (see your post above from stew4aa which remains unsigned). As you are running for position of secretary on the Salomon team, such neurotic behavior cannot reflect well on your slate. Lee, you have been entirely discredited by your own actions on the 4M and you are paving the same road here as well. You're not a very fast learner, are you?

Art

 

[Royal Ambassador]

Lee Price,

Is this you or the person you claim to have stolen your yahoo passcode who wrote the last message about Steven? It is difficult to tell if it is you or your other personality. The mudslinging and innuendo sure reflect your modus operandi, but one never knows after your disclaimers of the psychotic messages you posted on the 4M.

I was under the impression that posting personal attacks was against the rules of these forums.

:down: