This is a copy of the letter Steve Ellis wrote and posted to another bulletin board I subscribe to. It seems that the walkout to prevent a quorum on the uncounted ballots issue was not the only walkout of the meeting. There was another. This is rather long, but I urge all of you to read the whole thing. Very Interesting.
Subject: My impressions of the BOD Meeting 05-04/05-04
Dear All,
(As you are probably all well aware by now the most recent BOD
meeting
was extremely contentious. I am submitting my impressions so that
those of you unable to attend will have another perspective on the
events that transpired. The following was submitted to the 4m and is
forwarded for you to consider. It discusses a resolution that Arlene
Le
Winter, SFO-I Chair, made. The resolution was purportedly drafted
to
prevent AA from interfering in APFA internal politics and to send a
clear message to the Company as to the proper procedures for
communication between AA and the APFA. The divisive effect of its
real
purpose, however, became instantly clear at the meeting. Some have
argued that the denial of quorum was inappropriate. I completely
disagree. The denial of quorum is a parliamentary procedure that is
generally reserved for use by a minority to force consensus when a
majority's positions are so outrageous that they threaten the
fundamental rights of the minority or institution at question. The
proof that this was effective and entirely appropriate is that the
resolution in question was eventually withdrawn and compromises were
reached.)
"The resolution as proposed by Arlene LeWinter is so completely
disproportionate to the harm that John Ward and his supporters are
allegeding that I could never support it in its original form. For
example, it directs that, "(the) [sic]APFA Vice President, Secretary,
and Treasurer are to inform and obtain the approval of the APFA
President prior to meeting with the Company on any matters pertaining
to (the)[sic]APFA, except on matters pertaining to that National
Officers'[sic] Department;" The APFA Constitution mandates that the
Vice President MUST act in the President's absence. How to reconcile
this glaring contravention of the Constitution? [This is but one
example of
language that I found problematic and unconstitutional in its intent
at
worst.] My concern is with
some members of this BOD's willingness to contravene our "supreme
law" [that is the Constitution folks, not the BOD] simply to meet
their
political ends of the day. Arlene said at
one point that the BOD is the supreme law of the APFA. Unfortunately
that proposition seems to have gathered far too many supporters on
the BOD and it is threatening to the APFA's very survival.
Another troubling aspect of this attempt by the JW party to tie the
hands of the three newly elected National Officers in this manner is
that it was written to address an issue that is not even mentioned in
the Resolution. That issue is the involvement of Patt Gibbs in our
union.
Let me state from the onset that I had never met Patt Gibbs, nor
spoken to her, prior to the night of January 29, 2004 at the Ballot
Count. My initial introduction to her was extremely icy to say the
least. So, contrary to what has been alleged on these forums, Patt
was
NOT a supporter of my efforts to be elected. I do not, however,
share the obsessive fear, hatred nor the paranoia of her that has
reached
legendary proportions amongst some of the members of the BOD and
membership at large. I see Patt as an extremely hard working, albeit
flawed like the rest of us, individual who, for whatever reason,
continues to devote her time, energy, and skills to the APFA. Now,
whether you agree with her positions or not, our APFA and US
Constitutions guarantee the right to free speech and to dissent and
we MUST ALL learn to accept that difference of opinion without
resorting to personal assassinations simply because we do not like or
agree with the concerned individual. I was repulsed by some BOD
members' obsessive paranoia with regards to Patt Gibbs because it
clearly interferes with their ability to work objectively for the
betterment of
the entire membership.
The hypocrisy of the cries against Patt's trip removals for her
work in the SBA department, and occasionally for the Treasurer, is
all the more appalling when you know that key supporters of
John Ward are apparently continually on full-time trip removal
without positions that warrant their full-time removals. As a member
who does not belong to either of the controlling "parties" currently
running the APFA, I expect to see this hypocritical, and in my
opinion, potentially unconstitutional behavior halted immediately. I
have no problem with members being brought in to Headquarters to work
on special projects as needed, however, far too frequently the
individuals trip-removed to do these projects are the most vocal
political supporters of the President rather than someone most
qualified to do the work. It is well known that Patt and Cathy
Lukensmeyer have a long friendship. Patt, however, is an attorney
and the skills she brings to the APFA are apparent. Can the same be
said of some of the individuals being utilized by our President?
Let's return now to Ms. LeWinter's resolution. I FULLY support the
minority's decision to deny quorum in this instance. MANY requests
were put forward that the resolution be withdrawn. Many suggestions
were also made to address the specific concern that Ms. LeWinter
claimed she was trying to address in the resolution, namely, that
there be more communication between the four national officers. When
valid proposals were put forward that would have actually addressed
this concern, Ms. LeWinter refused to even consider these options.
It soon became very clear that the real intent of her resolution was
to subvert long-standing APFA practice and the intent of the
Constitution to meet her end of emasculating the newly ELECTED
officers
in their respective roles. Denying quorum was the only manner that
the minority of the voting board---which does not include the four
National Officers---had to prevent this overthrow of the membership's
will. These three officers were elected by the membership as it was
constituted during the election and they are entrusted with the
membership's electoral mandate to do their jobs as has been the
practice at the APFA, unfettered by misguided attempts like this by
the BOD to micromanage [and restrict] their roles.
As to Jay Narey's [4m member and prolific poster] statements as to
the
questionable legitimacy of the newly
elected officers due to the TWA furloughee votes: Under our current
Constitution ALL furloughees have the right to vote. Their votes
therefore are just as legitimate as is mine or as is Jay's. The fact
that this is unpalatable to some does not mean that these three
officers are any less legitimately elected. Legitimacy comes from
the Constitution, not from our opinions." If you do not like the
Constitution
we live under, amend it. Until that day it remains our guiding
instrument and the supreme law of the APFA.
In Unity,
Steven Ellis, JD
SLT
Subject: My impressions of the BOD Meeting 05-04/05-04
Dear All,
(As you are probably all well aware by now the most recent BOD
meeting
was extremely contentious. I am submitting my impressions so that
those of you unable to attend will have another perspective on the
events that transpired. The following was submitted to the 4m and is
forwarded for you to consider. It discusses a resolution that Arlene
Le
Winter, SFO-I Chair, made. The resolution was purportedly drafted
to
prevent AA from interfering in APFA internal politics and to send a
clear message to the Company as to the proper procedures for
communication between AA and the APFA. The divisive effect of its
real
purpose, however, became instantly clear at the meeting. Some have
argued that the denial of quorum was inappropriate. I completely
disagree. The denial of quorum is a parliamentary procedure that is
generally reserved for use by a minority to force consensus when a
majority's positions are so outrageous that they threaten the
fundamental rights of the minority or institution at question. The
proof that this was effective and entirely appropriate is that the
resolution in question was eventually withdrawn and compromises were
reached.)
"The resolution as proposed by Arlene LeWinter is so completely
disproportionate to the harm that John Ward and his supporters are
allegeding that I could never support it in its original form. For
example, it directs that, "(the) [sic]APFA Vice President, Secretary,
and Treasurer are to inform and obtain the approval of the APFA
President prior to meeting with the Company on any matters pertaining
to (the)[sic]APFA, except on matters pertaining to that National
Officers'[sic] Department;" The APFA Constitution mandates that the
Vice President MUST act in the President's absence. How to reconcile
this glaring contravention of the Constitution? [This is but one
example of
language that I found problematic and unconstitutional in its intent
at
worst.] My concern is with
some members of this BOD's willingness to contravene our "supreme
law" [that is the Constitution folks, not the BOD] simply to meet
their
political ends of the day. Arlene said at
one point that the BOD is the supreme law of the APFA. Unfortunately
that proposition seems to have gathered far too many supporters on
the BOD and it is threatening to the APFA's very survival.
Another troubling aspect of this attempt by the JW party to tie the
hands of the three newly elected National Officers in this manner is
that it was written to address an issue that is not even mentioned in
the Resolution. That issue is the involvement of Patt Gibbs in our
union.
Let me state from the onset that I had never met Patt Gibbs, nor
spoken to her, prior to the night of January 29, 2004 at the Ballot
Count. My initial introduction to her was extremely icy to say the
least. So, contrary to what has been alleged on these forums, Patt
was
NOT a supporter of my efforts to be elected. I do not, however,
share the obsessive fear, hatred nor the paranoia of her that has
reached
legendary proportions amongst some of the members of the BOD and
membership at large. I see Patt as an extremely hard working, albeit
flawed like the rest of us, individual who, for whatever reason,
continues to devote her time, energy, and skills to the APFA. Now,
whether you agree with her positions or not, our APFA and US
Constitutions guarantee the right to free speech and to dissent and
we MUST ALL learn to accept that difference of opinion without
resorting to personal assassinations simply because we do not like or
agree with the concerned individual. I was repulsed by some BOD
members' obsessive paranoia with regards to Patt Gibbs because it
clearly interferes with their ability to work objectively for the
betterment of
the entire membership.
The hypocrisy of the cries against Patt's trip removals for her
work in the SBA department, and occasionally for the Treasurer, is
all the more appalling when you know that key supporters of
John Ward are apparently continually on full-time trip removal
without positions that warrant their full-time removals. As a member
who does not belong to either of the controlling "parties" currently
running the APFA, I expect to see this hypocritical, and in my
opinion, potentially unconstitutional behavior halted immediately. I
have no problem with members being brought in to Headquarters to work
on special projects as needed, however, far too frequently the
individuals trip-removed to do these projects are the most vocal
political supporters of the President rather than someone most
qualified to do the work. It is well known that Patt and Cathy
Lukensmeyer have a long friendship. Patt, however, is an attorney
and the skills she brings to the APFA are apparent. Can the same be
said of some of the individuals being utilized by our President?
Let's return now to Ms. LeWinter's resolution. I FULLY support the
minority's decision to deny quorum in this instance. MANY requests
were put forward that the resolution be withdrawn. Many suggestions
were also made to address the specific concern that Ms. LeWinter
claimed she was trying to address in the resolution, namely, that
there be more communication between the four national officers. When
valid proposals were put forward that would have actually addressed
this concern, Ms. LeWinter refused to even consider these options.
It soon became very clear that the real intent of her resolution was
to subvert long-standing APFA practice and the intent of the
Constitution to meet her end of emasculating the newly ELECTED
officers
in their respective roles. Denying quorum was the only manner that
the minority of the voting board---which does not include the four
National Officers---had to prevent this overthrow of the membership's
will. These three officers were elected by the membership as it was
constituted during the election and they are entrusted with the
membership's electoral mandate to do their jobs as has been the
practice at the APFA, unfettered by misguided attempts like this by
the BOD to micromanage [and restrict] their roles.
As to Jay Narey's [4m member and prolific poster] statements as to
the
questionable legitimacy of the newly
elected officers due to the TWA furloughee votes: Under our current
Constitution ALL furloughees have the right to vote. Their votes
therefore are just as legitimate as is mine or as is Jay's. The fact
that this is unpalatable to some does not mean that these three
officers are any less legitimately elected. Legitimacy comes from
the Constitution, not from our opinions." If you do not like the
Constitution
we live under, amend it. Until that day it remains our guiding
instrument and the supreme law of the APFA.
In Unity,
Steven Ellis, JD
SLT
