True, berry, berry true.

Don't forget, but I suggest you forgive going forward or at least understand what happens when any agreement is sent out of ratification with an endorsement. Typically MEC's, make 2 votes-one to accept the agreement and send it out for ratification and one on whether or not they should send it out with an endorsement. MEC's tend to want to put out a message of unity within their ranks, so the 2 votes are rarely mentioned or explained to the membership. It's rarely an issue for MEC's unless you have something like the FDA LOA where there is a dissenting vote. In that case, all that is required is a written con statement from the opposition. There is absolutely no other requirement beyond that for the MEC/MC/NC to talk about any of the potential negatives in any deal, only why they feel that it should be ratified. In fact I've heard theory before that actively presenting the negatives of a potential deal could be considered not fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of their elected position leading to charges, etc. That's bs imo, but it has been used by MC's at other carriers to get the people presenting at roadshows to toe the line. The bottom line for us line swine is that we have to understand how the ratification process works, ask questions, think, ask some more questions and make an informed decision. You simply cannot rely solely on roadshow advice to make that decision, but in general it's the nature of the system/bylaws that makes it that way not the officials involved.