Or the resistance to publishing it could be a hold on to power grab as well

I've heard those claims too but think it is a straw man for not wanting to show how many people are on FPL, and what a good deal it can be for a select few on full time or almost full time status. The issue of both transparency and compensation is very germane to the line pilots who pay those costs either directly with dues out of their salaries, or through the contract for company paid expenses.

I've heard all the standard arguments of how hard ALPA volunteers work. No argument, and I'm grateful for the work done. That said no one should either profit or be harmed financially, and I think the vast majority of volunteers fall within a pretty reasonable standard deviation. The reasonable, responsible, and prudent FPL use of the majority is being used as a rational for not revealing the full details of FPL usage in my opinion. If it's all reasonable then show us.

It has been said that every ALPA volunteers schedule is viewable on iCrew. True. First you have to know who they are. Easy enough for the officers, reps, and committee chairs. It get's a little cloudy with committee volunteers and special project pilots. Then you have to check each ones schedule individually. Hardly user friendly, and if you do start looking at volunteers schedules you'll quickly get a phone call from someone wanting to know why you are looking at their schedule. I don't exactly consider that transparency.

There are occasions when ALPA volunteers work some very long hours - as during the merger, fighting off USair, etc., and volunteers should be compensated for extra hours just like a line pilot flying extra hours. The policy mechanisms to do that are in place - the question is when and where they are applied, are they used for routine duties, and how do those mechanisms used compare to other ALPA MEC's?

At the same time we have volunteers who live in ATL and put in long hours 5 days a week, there are also those who commute and are in the office 3-4 days, which adds up to no more days, with better hours than the average line pilot.

There is also the intangible of the potential for a full time volunteer bidding a position he might not otherwise fly due to commuting hassle factor and reserve status. A full time volunteer might not actually train that position, has positive space to work for a max ALV schedule, plus per diem, plus possible stipend, weekends and holidays off and the ability to bid something called look back white slips they do not actually have to fly. All this adds up to a potential QOL and compensation that might be hard to match for a similar seniority pilots, especially one bidding as a bottom feeder in category. That additional compensation also adds up to additional 401K contributions and profit sharing.

Another issue is volunteers bidding a full line (as a senior in category position and getting paid for a higher junior one) then dropping the schedule. This is denying seniority to a regular line pilot who might have to fly reserve as a result.

I think the easiest and most reasonable "smell test" for ALPA compensation is how does the compensation of any particular full time volunteer compare to line pilot peers of the same seniority? I believe this was the litmus test the DOL used in the complaint against the CAL MEC (+/- 5 numbers), and the one that led to the revamping of their financial policies and reporting. If we meet that litmus test then we have nothing to hide.

At the end of the day, are our volunteers compensated fairly, reasonably, in line with the rest of ALPA, our line pilots, and is the same standard used for all volunteers?

Please explain how answering these questions and making the data readily available, as both National and other MEC's, do is a power grab?