Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Clamp is right on this. It's the majority of LEC reps that are refusing to accept what the negotiating committee (at the direction of certain MEC administrators) are trying to cram down.

I've read some confusion here and I think it's about terminology. The MEC is all of our reps led (in process) by the MEC chairman. The MEC administration is a different animal. The MEC administration includes some really bad actors like Harwood on the strategic planning committee, the negotiating Committe and other Committee members. The MEC administration is mostly made up of unelected bureaucrats who work at the pleasure of the MEC chairman. Sometimes you can get lucky and they're great guys, sometimes you can get unlucky like now with Harwood having so much influence on appointing the bureaucrats.

In this latest incident, a majority of the MEC (our elected reps) are very concerned about their direction being ignored by the MEC administration (mostly unelected bureaucrats). That's a problem and Council 1 is highlighting it. That's why these latest posters like Professor, pilotstats, rube, Chuck Essential (which is really irritating given what a cool guy Check Essential is) and the others are here. They're here to rail against our elected reps keeping us informed. Very typical of an MEC administration using these guys to patrol social media to attempt message control.

Bottom line is that this is good stuff. The MEC administration is desperately trying to get a 10-9 vote out to the members because they know memory rat will pass. The MEC is telling the MEC administration that ain't happening. So will the MEC administration sign a TA that is against the specific direction of the MEC like they did in C2012 and dare the MEC to vote it down? Or will this shot across the bow to the MEC administration make that administration go back to the table and explicitly follow MEC direction. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Carl