"If the rules allow you to do it, you do it. If the rules don't, you change the rules."
At last February's Annual Meeting our President brought to a vote, by the members present (roughly 75-100 people by one account), well over twenty proposed changes to the Constitution & By-Laws. Many of these changes were very significant, and all but one of them were approved. These proposals, amounting to a paragraph or two each, were handed out to the members and then read aloud. Afterward the members had about thirty minutes in which to read over, deliberate and then vote on each of them via secret ballot. This is hardly enough time for most people to be able to make a sound judgment on the merits of the proposals. Not only that, but all of the members in good standing who weren't present had no voice at all. Yet another case of the few deciding for the many. In fact, the membership at large was (and mostly still is) largely in the dark about these changes and their impact on how our union is to be run. No mention was made on the union's website, nor were any notices mailed to the membership, indicating that important changes to the By-laws, that required our careful attention and consideration, were imminent. Why? Surely the union leaders could have, at the very least, made mention of it on the postcards they send out via snail-mail to announce the monthly meetings. Apparently they could not manage even a minimal gesture. Was this secretiveness deliberate? I think it's fair to say that it was. The prevailing attitude seems to be that if you can't make it to the monthly meetings then you don't deserve to have a voice or know what's going on with our union. It's a well-known fact that we have a very widespread geographic distribution of our members, and that there exists a practical impossibility for most of us to regularly attend meetings in person because of it. Consequently, their attitude appears to reflect a complete failure of vision. They have made no attempt to adapt our union's means of member participation to conform with the realities of the times in which we live. It's either that or they are simply revealing their basic contempt for the democratic process we hold dear.
1. Under Article III - Elections / Section 1. Nominations the 2003 by-laws stated that "Candidates for elective offices shall be nominated at the first regular monthly meeting in January of the election year." The 2007 version reads "Candidates for elective offices shall be nominated at the regular meeting in the third month preceding the expiration of the three year term of the then current officers. This is the first move in their attempt to push the next election back. This means that we'll have to run two separate elections if the President insists on serving a full three-year term, and we'll have to pay extra for this privilege. If he had any kind of record worth running on for re-election he wouldn't be worried about remaining in office for another 6 months.
2. In the same article and section it also states that to run for office will now require that a member be in good standing for two years immediately preceding the nomination meeting, instead of the previous 1 year requirement.
3. In Section 7. Installation the 2003 version read "The installation of all elected officials shall take place at the first regular meeting after the election (the April meeting)." The specification for the April meeting has been deleted in the 2007 version. This relates directly to item 1. and the high probability that the President plans to push the election for his office back until the Fall of 2008, although he has thus far refused to publicly state his intentions to the membership. But what other logical reason is there for the change?
4. Under Article IV - Duties of Officers / Section 1. President & General Manager the 2003 version reads "He shall employ, assign and direct all salaried employees of the Local subject to the final authority of the membership." The 2007 version has been changed to "subject to the review and approval of the Executive Board." It also states in the new version that "He shall be responsible for all lawful policies and directions of the Executive Board." Previously, it had read "policies and orders as directed by the membership." This wouldn't be a problem if the Executive Board had a proven track record of looking out for the greater good of the union members and, to a lesser extent, the union as an institution. But when they are in league with an administration that is bent on doing whatever it wants to do, while ignoring the opinions of a significant number of its members, then it is very dangerous.
6. Under Section 3. Executive Board the old language that said the board shall meet at least once each month "to transact and supervise the business of the local." has been deleted. The President does not care for supervision of any kind.
7. Section 3 - Subparagraph (a) is new. It states "All salaries of elected officials and compensation for committee work are to be recommended by the President, subject to the approval of the Executive Board." This means that the President, needing only the approval of what has proven to be a pliable and accomodating executive board, will now be able to determine the pay and benefits for all of the salaried positions without the approval of the membership. Can you say conflict of interest? We should all be so fortunate. Without a strong and independent Executive Board to guard against it, this rule is ripe for abuse. Since administrations and executive boards may come and go, the only long-term way to ensure accountability and job-performance is to require that this always be decided by a referendum of the members.
8. Section 3 - Subparagraph (c) - Part (1) is also new. It says "Make and change rules and regulations not inconsistent with these By-laws or the International Constitution for the management and conduct of affairs of this Local Union." No input from or requirement to notify the membership here.
9. Section 3 - Subparagraph (c) - Part (4) is also new and reads as follows: "On behalf of the local Union, its officers employees and/or members, initiate, defend, compromise settle, arbitrate or release or pay the expenses and costs of any legal proceedings or actions of any nature, if in its judgement, it shall be necessary or desirable to protect, preserve or advance the interest of the organization." Again, no input at all from the membership. Nor is there any requirement that we at least be notified about what is going on in a timely manner.
10. Section 3 - Subparagraph (c) - Part (7), also new, reads: "Sell or dispose of any real or personal property, estate, property rights or privileges belonging to the organization whenever in its opinion the Local Union's interest would thereby be promoted, subject to approval (except as to form) at a membership meeting." Once again, only those who can be physically present will know about it or have a say in it.
11. Section 3 - Subparagraph (c) - Part (10) reads: "Determine the membership which shall vote on agreements and strikes and the composition of other membership meetings and adopt rules and regulations concerning the conduct thereof not inconsistent with the International Constitution and these By-laws." Lots of room for skullduggery here.
12. In Section 7 we find this little gem: "Any action taken by an officer in good faith and within the scope of his/her authority and power under these By-laws shall not be the basis for any personal liability against such officer." This is simply a "get out of jail free" card for our officials, and I doubt it would hold up under serious legal scrutiny. And who determines what "in good faith" means? I'm sure whoever it is will conclude that the blackballing of Jay Dady was done "in good faith" too.
13. Article VII - Membership / Section 6. Members in Arrears now reads "Any member who shall be in arrears for 30 days or its equivalent in fines or assessments shall be automatically, and without notice, suspended and shall not be entitled to any of the rights and privileges of the Local." The 2003 version didn't classify anyone as in arrears until 3 months, and it still allowed them to at least attend meetings. Many members use "dues check-off" to have the monthly dues taken out of their pay by their employer and sent directly to the union. There have been plenty of instances where employers have taken the money out of their employee's pay but failed to send it to the union in a timely manner, and sometimes this has gone on for quite a long time. But there is no provision for dealing with this type of situation, which is not of the member's making. Since no notice is required by the union, you would have no way of knowing that there was ever a problem. That is until one day when maybe you've decided that you'd like to run for office, only to find out that, because you fell out of good standing in the previous 2 years, you're not eligible. Or maybe you thought you were payed up and current as an election neared, only to find out that you had unknowingly lost your right to vote. With these changes (see item numbers 2. and 11.) it is now much easier for those in power to manipulate the voter eligibility lists to their own ends.
14. Article VII - Membership / Section 7. Delinquent Member now reads "When a member becomes indebted to the Local for 80 days dues or its equivalent fines or assessments, he shall be given written notice that failure to pay within 10 days shall mean automatic expulsion and upon failure to pay within such 10 days, he shall be automatically, and without further notice, expelled and dropped from the local." Compare this to the 6 month period in the 2003 By-laws. The vast majority of tug and barge crewmen in the contracted companies work schedules of 2 weeks-on/2 weeks-off, but with the widespread crewing shortages throughout our industry many people are asked to (and do) work over on a regular basis. With these changes to sections 6 & 7 you could easily go to work thinking that all was well and get home, weeks later, to find that you are booted from 333. The Executive Board may, at its discretion restore a member to full membership, but is under no obligation to do so. What is "reasonable" is left entirely up to them to decide. Can we really trust them to do what is right? Don't bet your paycheck on it.
Numbers 9 & 12 might sound at least partially reasonable, until you look at them closely under the light of the administration's past behavior. These two, taken together, amount to a blank check and a free pass to let the President and his administration off the hook for blackballing Jay Dady. A federal judge was, apparently, unimpressed with our leader's argument that Dady was repeatedly denied work because of accidental math errors in computing seniority. Now that the judge has found in favor of Dady and is requiring that the Union pay him for his lost income, we find that the by-laws have been conveniently changed so that those responsible for this illegal conduct will not have to pay one penny themselves. Instead, the "local Union" members will have to make good on the penalty for their leader's vendetta. You have to admit it's a slick move on the President's part! But this slick move will cost us several tens of thousands of dollars to settle with Dady and pay court costs and attorney's fees. Of course we don't know what the final cost to us will be, and it's highly unlikely that our officials will tell us unless they're forced to. This doesn't sound anything like the careful and diligent fiscal responsibility they have claimed to practice. And it's not really about Jay Dady as a person at all. It's about the idea that our union officials have shown a willingness to use whatever tools are at their disposal to silence dissenting voices and deliberately cause harm to those they deem to be political enemies. If the Executive Board as a whole had a shred of independence and moral fiber they'd bring charges against the lot of them for what they've done. Individually, or as a group, they could publicly resign in protest. Instead, they have failed us when we needed them the most.
The only proposed change to the by-laws that wasn't passed was one to change the definition of a quorum from 30 down to 10, and we should all be damn thankful for that. A quorum is the minimum number of members required to be present at any meeting in order to vote on a measure or proposal. Why would you want to reduce that number when everyone knows that the biggest problem this union has is apathy and lack of participation, due mostly to poor and uninspiring leadership? If you need only 10 members to form a quorum, and just a bare majority to pass a measure, that translates into a mere 6 members being able to decide for everyone how things will be done. That's right, just 6. We all know that participation is pitifully low, so reducing the number needed for a quorum is either a lazy way out (if you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt) or else its just another way for the leaders to do what they please with minimal interference from, or accountability to, the membership. Lowering the bar is not the answer.
Look carefully at at the changes they've made. Does this look like open, democratic, even-handed and accountable leadership? They will undoubtedly hide behind the flimsy claim that they did all of this "by the rules", that there was nothing underhanded or illegal about any of it. This may be so from a strictly technical standpoint, but if it is it only proves the point that the rules are deeply flawed when they allow things like this to happen. It also fits very neatly into an old political axiom: "If the rules let you do it, you do it. If the rules don't, you change the rules." If the President, the Secretary-Treasurer, their delegates and the Executive Board had felt that these changes were truly necessary and in our union's best interests, and that a majority of the membership could be convinced of it by force of reason alone, then they should have had the confidence to allow them to be debated and decided out in the open, with everyone watching and participating. As we now know, they did not have any regard for real democracy. The fact is that these changes serve primarily to disenfranchise more members than ever before, and make it harder for anyone to challenge their power. They have also taken power away from the membership and concentrated it in the untrustworthy hands of the Executive Board and President, and there now remains no real system of checks and balances. That's what our leaders wanted, and that's why they didn't want us to know about it until it was too late to do anything about it. It was over 7 months after the fact before any mention of the In Arrears/Delinquent Member rule-change was posted on the 333 website and there was no mention at all of the rest of the changes, let alone justification for them. As of right now, mid-January, that brief notice is long gone from the website. No excuse exists for why our union's Constitution & By-laws couldn't have been posted there for all to see a long time ago. No excuse exists for why the proposed changes for 2007 shouldn't have been posted there well before the annual meeting, either. What were and are they afraid of? An informed membership that might not want to go along with their flow.
Joel Milton
Editor - The Harbor Herald
