Originally Posted by Karnak

That reads like you're blaming the pilot group.

Reps were recalled in 2015 based upon their endorsement of TA1. Were those recalls justified?



I agree. We have a contract. I think that inhibits participation somewhat. So what? The question is one of justification. Period. The number who think a TA vote different than their's is sufficient or not is just math. I want to know if you think it's a valid reason.



It looks like you're dodging the question. The double standard is justifying recalls for one set of reps because you didn't agree with the way they voted on a TA, then taking the opposite view on recalls even though the results were more pronounced. THAT'S a double standard.

Having a contrary view on an issue - or issues - is not that big of a deal to me. Having integrity and commitment to being a good rep is my criteria.



So your premise is that once a rep is elected they are not longer accountable to the members? Recall is the only accountability tool we have. Regardless of how the MEC is comprised, and what risk that represents to the chairman, it's the way the process is laid out...just like a rep being able to cast the deciding vote for his own election as chairman.

The issue is whether or not the way our reps vote on a TA is justification for recall. It doesn't matter if "times have changed". Is it appropriate or not?