Therein lies the problem. You don't get it. You (apparently it was you) sent out an unattributed email blast using "survey" questions. To many I have talked to, the lack of attribution caused the e-mail to look like it was an official council communication. It was not.

You or some other small group of pilots took it upon themselves to determine which issues "they" thought were important to the Delta pilots and then survey on those issues and those issues alone.

I am left with one of either two choices:

1) You are attempting to manipulate the election unfairly by skirting the rules, or

2) Your neophyte status has left you unable to foresee the political issues you have now caused yourself.

I tend to believe it is option 2, but that gives me no comfort.

BTW, PDF files are very easy to manipulate. If I could post attachments here, I would prove that to you. Not saying you did that, but your statement that you could not have is untrue.

Back to lurker mode.

The reason that No Response was not used, was because at my urging I did not want anyone who had not responded to have words of any kind put in to their mouth. Hence a total omission rather than words that were not approved by a candidate. Make sense?

So you did in fact have a say into what the final product looked like before it was sent. Thanks for that clarification.

That is fine, and I am just stating the facts. In fact the e-mail has the header by ALPA National as to it being a campaign e-mail. There is/was no ulterior motive, period.

In response to two, if it has caused issues then so be it. I did not hit send if that is what you are referring to.

Sure, I responded to the author's e-mail that he sent out. I voiced my concerns.

If you allowed it to be sent out on your behalf, you did in fact "hit send." That's fine. Just acknowledge it. Being accountable is an important attribute for a rep to have.

I voted for myself.

As with all of the candidates that responded, I approved my answers being shared. I am accountable for my answers as I knew that they would be shared with the pilots of 44.

I believe that transparency is good. I beleive in what I wrote.

Well I don't mean to imply anything that is not true, so let me be more direct. My understanding is that only a candidate (or maybe someone with the OK of a candidate) can use that ALPA email system for election material. So if I am correct, a candidate authorized that mailing either directly or on his behalf.

Here comes the direct part (I too believe transparency is good).

Are you the candidate who, either directly or via proxy, authorized that e-mailing?

I did not send the e-mail to national. Fact is that all of the candidates knew it was going to be sent though. It was not surprise to me that it was sent. The author addressed this with the candidates. No one refused to have their answers included. They knew that was the intent.

I guess I'm easily confused. Who is the "we" that sent the campaign literature since you now say you didn't send it?

We the candidates did not have an issue with it being sent out. I use "We" as none of the ones that responded had an issue with it being sent out. Some had concerns as you are aware, but no one had an issue with it being sent out. No one said NO to the answers that were provided.

WE were all asked to respond to the E-mail from the author stating that we did not have an issue with it. I am sure that those that are included did that. I know I did. I do not speak for anyone else.

This little spat is quite revealing.

Seems the Moak Politburo does not take kindly to any outsiders using Kremlin resources to communicate with the peasants.

ACL65-
How could you dare think its OK to provide information to the voters?
Shame on you. Don't you realize the danger?

You have run afoul of slowplay. You have even brought out the great and powerful RockymtMaddog from his long slumber. These are powerful apparatchiks. They sit at the Premier's right hand.

It was nice knowing you acl. Send us a postcard from the gulag.

Normally you stick to substance, Essential. You work better from that position.

Just to be clear, your parody endorses the idea of an e-mail to all C44 pilots done without attribution and the exclusion of a candidate?

If so, I reject your political view of the world.

ACL,

It was a very simple and direct question, but you did not answer it. Let me ask it a couple of different ways. It took me a while to find the information on the ALPA site, but as I read it in the long and boring policy manual, material can only be sent out by a candidate or on behalf of a candidate. A plain old line guy like myself cannot. So . . .

Was the email sent out by you? You answered (very carefully) "I did not send the email to national".

So . . .

Was the e-mail sent out on your behalf? IOW, did you authorize the e-mail to be sent out even if you did not physically het the send button and send it to ALPA national?

At this point, I don't really care about the answers to the survey that much. They are not all that revealing to me as they are simply the words of someone trying to get elected. Integrity does matter though.

What I do care about is a candidate (assuming you are a candidate) who can't answer a simple question with a simple and direct answer. I am not picking on you personally. I don't even know who you are (though I have my suspicions). The MEC forums kinda suck, but at least you know who is who.

This questionnaire was done right out in the open for everyone to see.
Nobody was excluded. Every candidate had a chance to respond. It circulated for weeks. Some didn't like the questions so they chose to ignore it or answer in sound bites, safe in the knowledge that it would never appear on the DALPA forum. It was prohibited. That was their choice to be "excluded".

You guys didn't have any problem with it as long as it only existed as an obscure, hard to get and little noticed document circulating among a handful of "radicals".

Be honest.
Putting it out where lots of people will see it is what has you upset.
Especially using DALPA's own tightly controlled comm system.

Looks like some people are feeling threatened...

It certainly seems that way.

There was not exclusion. Lets make that clear. Everyone was sent those questions at the same time. Everyone was told that the author wanted to share the answers at the same time. Everyone was asked if they had any objections and or desire for their answers to be included or excluded at the same time.
I looked at the e-mails and all of the candidates were included in the proffers from the author. What was discussed between the author and other candidates is information that I do not have, but everyone was sent the same three e-mails:
One on Oct 15th with the questions
One on Oct 16th with the desire to share via mass e-mail
One on Oct 19th to have each candidate verify that they wished their positions and answers to be shared.

How each candidate responded is known by the candidate and the author, but each candidate was included in all of these e-mails.
The notion of trying to state that people were purposefully left out is false.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that I want each and every candidates opinions side by side so our pilots can make an informed decision. To make the point true. I have am willing to personally pay for another mass mailing if anyone feels left out. I am not of the mind to be exclusionary. I want that cleaned up. If I am not the correct person for the job, I do not want pilots to vote for meif I am not the best person for the job. This is not political mud slinging.
There were no names on the e-mail at my urging to the author so that it was clean of ANY candidates willingness or lack there of to do this. I see that he took my advice. The irony here is that the author took great lengths and my suggestions to keep it clean. I want there to be once person making the decision in this election. That is the pilot(s) of 44.

+3 what a bunch of ladies....:cool:

If what you are asking is did a person use me and my candidacy to have permission to send an e-mail the answer is no. I approved my answers to be used. Or to answer it another way; I did not authorize someone to send the e-mail on behalf of me using me as the authorization to National.
Does this answer what you are getting at?
And to respond to the last part. read my previous post. I am of the opinion based on the information that I was given that everyone had equal opportunity to respond. I saw the design of this to be inclusive and not exclusive. Everyone was told about this. It was not some secret that people were left out of. That is misinformation.

Really? A shot at the man's "integrity".
Character assassination right here on APC?

You guys have been in office for far too long.

Check,

Don't know if you are including me as one of "you guys," but "upset" is too strong a word. Maybe "annoyed" is better.

In another life, I worked for a marketing firm. Part of our training involved studying political surveys and picking out the fault in the questions--in essence, what made the surveys biased, and by extension flawed. This "survey" is full of examples that would have been very useful during that marketing training. I won't dissect it question by question, but a teenager should be able to recognize it for what it is.

Second, as my emphasis has been in this thread, the distribution method is suspect and if ACL is involved in that, he'd be best served by admitting that his part in it did not involve the best headwork. I don't think it was probably anything deliberate, just bad judgement.

It's Friday and I have the weekend off for a change. Why be upset?

It seems I am the one who is upsetting a few guys here, so I will return to my lurket status like I said I would do earlier. Have a good weekend all.

Don't worry, MadDog. This forum doesn't like real debate. They just want their point of view to win the day. They don't really care how that happens!:p Things like facts and timelines are just an annoyance. But they really get upset when appearances are bad from the "other" side, go figure!:D

You'll get no argument from me about that. Clearly the author of the questions had a political point of view. Lots of pilots want the answers to those questions though. The candidates weren't restricted to yes or no answers. Some of them did an excellent job of disagreeing with the premise of the question. Others obfuscated at every opportunity. Tried to have it both ways. That's why this questionnaire is far more revealing than the canned e-mails sent out by the candidates.

ACL was not the one that sent the email.

LD refused to participate, he was not left out.

Considering you have more posts than me, but have been on here less than half the time than I have. You seem to like the "debate." ;)

RockyMtmadDog said:

"In another life, I worked for a marketing firm. Part of our training involved studying political surveys and picking out the fault in the questions--in essence, what made the surveys biased, and by extension flawed. This "survey" is full of examples that would have been very useful during that marketing training. I won't dissect it question by question, but a teenager should be able to recognize it for what it is."
______________________________________________

Did you mean just like our Wilson Polling surveys?

That's a wonderful idea!! Maybe we should take this to the MEC forum, where frank and open debate is always welcomed and even encouraged. Oh, wait. No it's not. :rolleyes:



Don't taze me, bro.

I don't even know what happened, but I think that there is funny stuff :)

What am I missing?
 

Were any ALPA regulations, laws, etc. broken? If so, which ones?

I believe that the questions did shed light on the candidates positions, regardless of the "slant" on the questions.

If ALPA feathers are ruffled because an "outside" source asked questions to the candidates, big deal, get over it. Bottom line, the questions are of an educational value to the pilot group.

One more thing. I've heard MEC members refer to the "minority" group of pilots. Yes, this web board does have the usual suspects on it, the regulars if you will. At the last 44 LEC meeting I heard one of the reps refer to the previous meeting "scope report card" one, as a concentrated effort by a goup of pilots. News flash - never met a single delta pilot that wants scoped relaxed further. Is that a minority issue? Truth hurts so here it goes, MOST DELTA PILOTS think our MEC Chair needs to go. And if that's not true then the Maddog captains are a rebellious bunch.

ALPA guidance for campaigns needs to be adhered to. Im not advocating anything different, if all is within the lines then everyone needs to relax. If this is the majority crying wolf then it's time to raise it up.



http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/x...115/bsflag.gif

Deleted 8,9

I am not in 44 so I haven't seen the e-mail. The whole idea of this is pretty disgusting. Whichever candidate allowed that email to go out just showed he is not qualified to represent the pilots. It sounds like another party gets to push his political position under the guise of transparency with no accountability to anyone. Fortunately, the pilot group is much smarter than most people believe and will see through this stunt.

Is this the first time you have beaten your wife?

Where's Mine
 

I'm in 44 and I didn't get any email. So, where's mine?

This is actually the first time I've seen a document like this put out by candidates- and it's one of the best things I've seen done. Pilots that I have flown with have asked me about the candidates. This is a great source.

At my previous airline they would simple field questions on the forum, which had a similar result... and there wasn't the almighty Buzz that patrolled the forum with his unionoid kool-aid. Busting into the threads and OHHH YEAAHHHH!!!

So what about this little document was so evil? Everyone was offered participation...

BTW-

What is with the "establishment" guys saying "it doesn't matter what my views are, I will represent whatever is best for Delta?" That is complete and utter BS. What is best for Delta is highly subjective to your personal views!

I don't know what fool started that, but it needs to end.

Yawn.... is this over yet?

Heyas,

I can only agree. In council 20, the same sort of questionaire was circulated about. Candidates could answer, or not.

Everyone's letters wound up on ALPAWATCH. Despite some of the angst this site has caused, they would only post the campaign letters after permission from the candidate, and ALL OF THEM WERE, despite the fact that some of the candidates have taken a strong dislike of that very site.

Nu

Heyas Clamp,

The "establishment guys" are angry that the normal "Brand B" crowd control isn't working any more, so another "hired gun" has materialized on the site.

Plus, they just found out that the antique store has finally run out of mimiograph paper, so there's going to be a delay while they get the old Guttenburg fired up to print the counter arguments.

Nu

I love it. Moak and his buddies are upset because someone actually communicated to the pilots. Just the fact that SOMEONE communicated with the line pilots is reason enough for me to vote for them. I'm sick of no communication from the reps so this was a good thing. It is very obvious to me that the current MEC is in overdrive trying to figure out how they can keep enough reps that are Moak friendly in place. I'll give Moak credit for doing a great job with alot of things, but it's time for someone new to lead us through 2012.

The babies that are crying over this need to realize that we don't want what they have been doing the last year and we are going to vote accordingly. If they wanted to stay, they should have listened over a year ago and done what their constituents wanted. They didn't, and they need to be replaced with people who will listen.