norm wrote and i responded...

Today at 3:13am
high five.
norm chalk you may be the only sane voice of all the manics of our union.
seriously, run.
ha, but in which direction? ;) i am so intrigued by the going's on because we are so new... yet clearly 'get it' wayyyy to early.
there were only 13 people at the last union meeting,. how many member are we??? like 400????? fucking nuts.
whats your take? i definetly hear your email, but am curious. i sent a letter of praise to rob mc early in the year... i was intrgued by his strong opinions and obvious overtaking tactics.. but after the drama i'm wondering if i'm just ' too new' to really understand the state of our union.
amping up the brotherhood i'm all for... but really, it is possible?? it seems that the current situation is more about dividing then uniting...
what do you say? purley out of curiosity...
i'm working for insight. YEAHHH Kirk..;) ;p
Katie


Katie Matheson
Today at 3:16am
ps. should i send this to dj?

who WAS it that complained about rob anyway?? ;)


norms email:Hello to all,

Many of you wisely avoid union politics, and I myself have been absent from the last two union meetings. Please understand that I would only write such an e-mail on a matter I consider to be of grave importance, and that I will try to keep it as succinct as possible.

It is no secret by now that there is debate about our Business Agent's verbal resignation and the declaration of his 'firing.' My experience of the situation is as follows:

1) The first sign of this situation was a vote in support of our Business Agent, 10 to 3 with one abstention.

2) I (and I'm assuming the rest of you) received a notice from the DOP-MAL regarding Don's verbal resignation and specific, constitutional reasons why it was not yet official.

3) A notice from the President came from the 'camera' account declaring Don's departure official, contradicting both the first and second e-mails with no further elaboration.

This has brought us to the present state in which there is a long war of words going on to which I am now contributing further reading material. My concerns are twofold:

-It appears to me the central point of the DOP-MAL's message (attached for your convenience) is that this situation would be resolved by Don's return, and that he wishes to talk to see if this is a possibility. This seems the quickest, simplest solution which is consistent with the wishes of the membership as evidenced by the May 4th motion.

-This letter by the and similar ones by other members of the executive board, have sparked a lengthy response from the President which has singled out the people advising a dialogue as troublemakers.

So we have two possibilities here. Either the wishes of the membership have been misrepresented and they wish to see the Business Agent go, and it is merely a matter of directing the e-board to follow on these wishes, or, that the membership spoke its mind on the May 4th meeting, they wish to see the Business Agent remain, and that we should do what we can to rectify this situation now.

While I think the latter is more likely, both situations call for the same action: the board is clearly divided on the issue and we, the members, must let them know what we think is best.

I specifically call on those I've had the good fortune to train and work with, because I honestly trust your judgement. I think both as colleges and members of the local, it is very important that your voices be heard on the issue, whatever you may decide, and so I urge each of you to write, however briefly, to the members of the executive board:

dop@telus.net, leeannemuldoon@shaw.ca, phil@philhersee.com, shobyz@shaw.ca, camradpt@ca.inter.net, runawayentertainment@yahoo.ca, raygunn@shaw.ca, kevcam@shaw.ca, georgemm@telus.net, choochs@telusplanet.net, irisink@telus.net, kherrmann@telus.net

Your patience and consideration in reading this e-mail are greatly appreciated.

Fraternally,

Norman Chalk