Congratulations are in order to the APWU delegates and elected officers at the Los Angeles national convention. You succeeded in accomplishing all of your business without rancor in record time as well as your primary goal of putting in place a process for reducing the number of elected positions. Stu Filbey, Moe Biller and I failed repeatedly in this endeavor; you are to be commended.
For future reference, the process used was a clear violation of Roberts Rules of Order, but if the delegates in attendance endorsed the process without objection you have effectively made a major amendment to the APWU Constitution. The process used was to ‘package’ a series of constitutional changes into a single Resolution, combining Article 15 Section 2(a), Article 16 section 2(c), Article 21(a) and Article 21(b). These subjects are unrelated except as included as constitutional provisions. A proper motion (Resolution) is limited to a single subject that may be modified only by subjects that as defined by Roberts are “germane.” The bundling of unrelated constitutional provisions is not permitted, except as a complete document. The APWU Constitution as contained in the Bylaws requires that “the deliberations of this union shall; be governed by Roberts Rules of Order.”
To continue this procedure would result in a future convention when all constitutional changes preferred by the administration would be presented in a single resolution restricting the focus of the delegates on issues they favor and those opposed. The choice would be all or nothing.
In this convention, it was the accepted procedure and you achieved what had been unachievable for 40 years. Congratulations are in order, and once again the APWU membership has risen to the task. I am proud of you!
I am still trying to decide how I feel after attending the convention last week. In one way, it was more casual and easier to get things done. On the other hand, the ease of it bothered me. And looking around at the delegates, most of whom (me included) are either retirement age or within 5 years of it, I wondered, who is going to take over when we leave, and just how far down the progressive road are they going to take the procedures? That huge resolution passes way too quickly for me to feel comfortable about it, even if it may be the right thing passed by a body with the right intentions.
I think we are 3 conventions away from a body of delegates ( and perhaps even National Officers) that will consist of people who don’t know Roberts Rules and proper procedures, and without that structure, all sorts of things, good and bad, will get through. While I was happy to see people being given latitude at the mikes, I was also disturbed by the inconsistent structure.
Ru Ru
As I read the Resolution, the expanded right to vote for retirees is limited to national office positions. The national executive board will interpret the application of the amendment but retirees have their own Local officers and it would be unusual to provide them the opportunity to vote for retiree officers and national general officers. Full dues paying members may not vote for retiree officers unless they also are members of the retiree Department.
Bill
Mr. Burrus, my question is whether according to Roberts Rules of Order, and the passing of Resolution 26, (are the locals under any obligation to bring their Constitutions with the National’s?). Shouldn’t the APWU Retirees’ be eligible to vote/run for the top three officer positions within a local?
Why are you congratulating them when they have committed this horrible act? Someone should be calling for a teller count on the Resolution …
The staggering levels of incompetence can only be matched by USPS management, US Congress or the New Hires lately!!!