The ALPA representational structure currently in place has the membership electing the LEC reps, who in turn, as MEC members elect the MEC Officers. This is the point where the cultural and philosophical differences emerge, with the conflict centered on the flow of the direction and initiative.In simplistic terms, the existing philosophy is that the elections are where the primary democratic / representational duties end; from here the belief appears to be that DALPA should operate similar to a corporate or military structure where the elected MEC Officers develop initiatives (“lead”) with a strong expectation that the direction will be followed and endorsed by the MEC members / LEC reps and that those reps will subsequently “lead” the membership to make the “correct” decision.

Failure to comply with this philosophy usually results in being labeled as “not a team player”, “shooting inside the circle”, or “clearly a supporter of ‘alternative representation’”. Certainly there are efforts to ask the membership and the reps for “input” and “direction”, but ultimately when that input is marginalized while obtaining the final result, it is usually done so with a justification something like “we have more information than you do”, or “we know what’s best and decided to ‘lead’”.

I believe that the structure should operate more like it was designed to operate, with the membership providing direction and input to the reps, the reps giving direction to the MEC Leadership (“representation”), and the Leadership developing initiatives and taking action as directed. When unable to meet the direction, the Leadership should return to the MEC for re-direction (and similarly the reps to the membership when necessary). This is, of course, is how the current system is advertised, and does work with small issues (providing specific direction is given), but not the way it works in actuality with larger, more significant issues.

I believe that it is a rep’s job to “lead” at the MEC level by taking the initiative in concert with the other reps / members of the MEC in an effort to “represent” the interests and direction of the membership. The obvious example about where the current system may not have best served the membership was with the recent contract TA. Despite all of the justifications that I’ve heard, it is still unconscionable to me that the MEC Leadership / Negotiating Committee agreed to a Tentative Agreement (TA) with management, which neither met the MEC’s nor the membership’s parameters, the day before a regularly scheduled MEC meeting where the MEC could have been updated and had the opportunity to re-direct the Negotiating Committee / MEC Leadership prior to them actually reaching the TA.