Recall of DAL MEC Officers
10-13-2013, 07:44 AM
#41
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,865
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Hitmefurl,
You might be overcomplicating things a bit. I don't think anyone went "rogue." There are simply different ideas on how to manage.
Recall that with Glasnost came Perestroika.
You might be overcomplicating things a bit. I don't think anyone went "rogue." There are simply different ideas on how to manage.
Recall that with Glasnost came Perestroika.
I knew King was in trouble when he started taking those bare chested photos on horseback!
Disclaimer - This is a joke. It did not happen.
Scoop
10-13-2013, 07:45 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,141
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Way bigger things on their plates than ensuring the free flow of information to their constituents? 
As I've said several times, this has been in the works for several months. There are plenty of distractions in the ATL office and the (slight) delay is a result of that, not a concerted attempt to stem the "free flow of information." If you feel you're under informed, get ahold of your LEC rep or keep an eye out for the forthcoming memos as this thing unfolds.
10-13-2013, 08:21 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 121
I am very shocked that the relatively same LEC can vote out TO less than a year ago and suddenly be kicking out this administration. I was personally glad to see the LEC taking a bold step and voting out a current MEC pres after a new contract. that action alone made me encouraged that the current LEC reps were listening and somewhat tired of business as usual politics. (IE meeting the NC chair to iron out a part of the contract). NOw I am confused. I was encouraged to see that one of my reps did not support the recall. I do not know why but that alone is encouraging. I feel one of the problems with our union was the group think going on and I am encouraged that different voices are filtering in.
10-13-2013, 08:33 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,306
[QUOTE=RonRicco;1501026]
I have no idea what's going on except what I read here but if you agree to work in administration you have a duty to support it or resign, in my opinion. Anyone have more unbiased detail on who all these guys are and their agendas?
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
Hitmefurl,
You might be overcomplicating things a bit. I don't think anyone went "rogue." There are simply different ideas on how to manage.
If the POTUS had named 4 cabinet members who campaigned hard for Romney, but brought them in anyway as an olive branch, and then he found out they were secretly working with congress to destroy him, and doing things that lead to a "do nothing congress" in attempt to further point fingers, all so someone from the opposing party could ride in on a white horse, would the firings be justified or not?
Of course on the other side, those cabinet members would also beleive that they were doing what was for the ultimate good for the country and they would certainly still have a lot of support from the congressman in their party and may even push for an impeachment of the POTUS.
The above is just a made up example of course, but you can see where there would be a lot of emotion on both sides, and firings, recalls etc could take place.
I don't care if it is union, school board, anything where people are elected, these situations will occur if they are around long enough.
You might be overcomplicating things a bit. I don't think anyone went "rogue." There are simply different ideas on how to manage.
If the POTUS had named 4 cabinet members who campaigned hard for Romney, but brought them in anyway as an olive branch, and then he found out they were secretly working with congress to destroy him, and doing things that lead to a "do nothing congress" in attempt to further point fingers, all so someone from the opposing party could ride in on a white horse, would the firings be justified or not?
Of course on the other side, those cabinet members would also beleive that they were doing what was for the ultimate good for the country and they would certainly still have a lot of support from the congressman in their party and may even push for an impeachment of the POTUS.
The above is just a made up example of course, but you can see where there would be a lot of emotion on both sides, and firings, recalls etc could take place.
I don't care if it is union, school board, anything where people are elected, these situations will occur if they are around long enough.
10-13-2013, 08:47 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by ilinipilot
I am very shocked that the relatively same LEC can vote out TO less than a year ago and suddenly be kicking out this administration. I was personally glad to see the LEC taking a bold step and voting out a current MEC pres after a new contract. that action alone made me encouraged that the current LEC reps were listening and somewhat tired of business as usual politics. (IE meeting the NC chair to iron out a part of the contract). NOw I am confused.
10-13-2013, 09:44 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Hawaii50
I have no idea what's going on except what I read here but if you agree to work in administration you have a duty to support it or resign, in my opinion. Anyone have more unbiased detail on who all these guys are and their agendas?
I guess the fired EA really wasn't so bad...seems KR rehired him.
The other 3 MEC officers duties are defined in the policy manual and answer to the MEC. They don't make personnel decisions. Those are the Chairman's picks, so he owns all the personnel turmoil. That's what makes the recall of the other 3 officers look like political theater.
10-13-2013, 10:13 AM
#48
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by slowplay
That's what makes the recall of the other 3 officers look like political theater.
10-13-2013, 10:25 AM
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 69
Originally Posted by slowplay
It's not "relatively the same." The Detroit, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, 3 Atlanta and 1 New York voting reps are new since the regular election last November - they all took office March 1. Only 6 of the reps currently on the MEC voted "for" KR last November, which means 13 either weren't there or didn't vote for him.
Looking back at the last few agreements it would appear the current mec chair is using the same playbook of engagement. If the DPA update is correct the firing was abrupt and that the meeting was called by reps supporting the four - does that mean the four weren't interested in engagement anymore? Other than actual malfeasance the only reason four committees would be canned in one day is if they disagreed with the boss. Am I right?
Edit: Just saw slowplays post. Do the committees that got fired answer to the lec reps or the mec chair?
Last edited by hornetsnest; 10-13-2013 at 10:26 AM. Reason: Added question
10-13-2013, 10:40 AM
#50
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by TANSTAAFL
Per MEC Alert 13-14 all 4 Officers are up for recall in a special meeting next Thursday.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
