There is a difference between following the C&BL's, and hiding behind procedure.

The MEC Chair was "indignantly" holding a 8 and half by 11 piece of paper because a couple of members were demanding that "council bypass" be given. You must have been there, how would you have handled a situation where a member demanded that something be done not in accordance with the ALPA C&BL's?

In the case of the 18 reps who lost their position in 2007, there was NO Constitutional provision to leave them in Council 18. "Council Bypass" was not an Constitutional provision, it had to be in the MEC Policy Manual and it wasn't. No attempt was made to amend the MEC Policy Manual to include "Council bypass", the two - soon to be out of their position - Reps went straight to ALPA National (Bill Couette) and requested that he grant them a bypass. He did not do so. Had it have been a Constitutional issue, I have to assume that Bill Couette, the ALPA VP, would have required the SPA MEC to comply. Again, Couette did not. I've already detailed the reason that the 18 Reps refused to do business with the 109 Reps who in turn refused to do business with the 18 reps in a vicious circle started when 18 attempted to recall it's own FO Rep for the specific reason that "he votes too often with FLL". *

In the current case, that of DFW based pilots being effectively locked out of voting for their interim Captain Rep, there appears to be a Constitutional basis for the request that the DFW pilots made to their Council Chairman. That simply being that the meeting be split and they have a DFW location provided for voting. The ALPA C&BL's, Article III, Section 3.B. does in fact provide for divided sessions, where applicable, due to the size of the Council or the availability of the membership.

Sorry to differ with you, but one hand (yours regarding the 18 "Council Bypass" issue) we have a group asking for something that was NOT IN the Constitution and on the other hand (the current request to provide DFW pilots a DFW meeting/voting location) we have a group asking for something that IS IN the Constitution. To be fair to the 77 Council Chairman, he tells me that ALPA National (whomever that may be) tells him that we can not divide this meeting. So be it. But that doesn't change the plain language of Article III. Section 3.B., which leaves us with the appearance that there is something odd going on. If anyone is interested, the 77 Council Chair has denied our request, but hasn't been able to cite a Constitutional basis for the denial. He only states that "ALPA National said NO".

Ram, after reading a lot of your stuff over the last five or so years, I have to assume that you're another person (that's probably my friend at the hotel bar, but) who is holding a personal grudge against the 109 Captain Rep from from 2005 - 2008. Sorry about that man, but my momma told me that two wrongs don't equal one right . Even if mistakes were made in 2007 and I'm sure they must have been, that doesn't excuse mistakes being made in the present.

*Cruise wants us to think that MEC's which can't get along well enough to do business without using roll call are somehow less than functional. In the case of 2006 DTW Council 18, the members attempted to recall their own FO Rep for doing exactly what Cruise says is the way to do business. The 18 FO Rep (R M), for whatever reason, agreed with the two 109 Reps (for that matter so did the 18 Capt Rep on almost all issues) on the way to conduct the pilots business. As such, he was avoiding roll call and it got him recalled. Be careful when you spin things. I am.