*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 19, 2021, 01:22:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Shoutbox

Author Topic: Meetings Declared Illegal?  (Read 2310 times)

Offline Jim Upper

  • is it GTU or GFY
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • learning through debate
Meetings Declared Illegal?
« on: April 18, 2009, 12:44:14 AM »
Question my Brothers.

If a meeting is declared illegally run by a B.M. does that mean that there was no official meeting?

Recently I charged our 303 President and B.M. and the IVP declared them guilty of running an illegal special called meeting. All motions from that meeting were declared null and void.

The reason for my question is, think about it, I have been charged with making a motion (that is a vexatious way of undermining the combined office of Business manager/financial secretary) at the meeting that was declared illegally run by the B.M. He has declared this and refuses to to comply with a directive to the F.S. from the Executive Board that happened between regular meetings of the membership?

If it was an illegal meeting than the motion would certainly be illegal and therefore null and void correct? Now going further, he has declared at least 3 similar meetings prior to this meeting the same. Now what are you to think when I tell you they were Executive Board meetings? Any questions come to mind?

How about you GTU, what do you think? Give us some constitutional knowledge on this one.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 12:46:09 AM by Jim Upper »
Threats and lies are the work of the desperate people that attack me.  Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth~Albert Einstein  RIP

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2009, 12:04:30 PM »
Let me tell you what came into my mind while thinking about what you’ve written. There’s a lyric from a song that I can’t quite put my finger on yet but it goes…”You can be the fastest runner... but you’re not allowed to win”

So you can be right and you can make a great argument but how can you win if the game is not fair? Your argument makes sense to me and you should win and you might but, if the system is consistent with what I have seen so far only it will only happen after much time and effort spent chasing after proper justice to be done in a reasonable amount of time.

What you are doing is tearing holes into the poorly woven fabric of justice being employed and rather than accept the fact that a new proper fabric of justice needs to be woven to keep all that good justice in the bag, the powers that be would rather employ many sweepers to clean up what spills out of that bag as it is carried around and makes a big mess everywhere it is carried. ???

You see what happens to me when Allan Reid Jr. comes on the forum on Saturday morning, :-[ I start rambling about the fabric of union justice and the men of the cloth who sit in the sun like old fishermen fixing the holes in the net they use to entangle progressive forward thinking members that gum up the wheels of corporate unionism. ;)

My apologies to all the new readers on the forum that may not get all the inside jokes here, but I’m doing it for benefit of our friend Allen Reid Jr. who from time to time refers to himself as a conscientious man of principle and justice and defender of true unionism that is meant to protect the rights of individuals in a union of hearts and minds, where an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

Jim,

I could give you an example of little trap I set to illustrate and prove my suspicion that there are double standards being employed by the people who administer the flawed system of justice being abused so much these days but I will save that for another post.

Please remind me if forget.

When they thought I was wrong, I received a letter the day after (believe it or not) :o to document it... but when I followed up with evidence that I was actually correct I never heard anything more on the subject. That point of order that I made to international office involved a case that led to series of events that caused a brother to unfairly treated and those who were involved unfairly treating him by violating the IBEW Constituion rules of conducting a proper trial never had to answer for their abuse of the IBEW Constitution. ???

My conclusion can only be that it was considered too much of an effort to find many officers all guilty of abusing the IBEW Constitution and it was easier to allow an injustice against an individual to go unchallenged.

The people responsible for these kinds of abuses are not held responsible for their actions and therefore it is difficult to accept them dispensing justice and punishment on rank and file members for breeches to the IBEW Constitution.

Perhaps they are not aware of the facts and the bureaucracy in place allows them to be filtered so they never really know about injustice in the system. Well then it is time to make it known to them in a manner that they will not be able avoid.

We are talking to you Brother Hill. 

         
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 12:11:19 PM by PSperanza »
I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!

Offline stickerman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2009, 07:17:30 PM »
It seems fairly evident that the IBEW constitution and our Principle Agreement are only used when it clearly benefits IO and some of our Union Leaders. They really do not appear to be worth the paper they are written on.I sympathize with the regular abuses towards the Rank & File . Often when people are put in positions of power they abandon their moral ethics and abandon their union principles. I only hope that in the not too distant future we can bring people into office that will truly promote and build the brotherhood back up again.

Offline Jim Upper

  • is it GTU or GFY
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • learning through debate
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2009, 03:56:58 AM »
Perhaps Brothers I should spell it out. The B.M. insists that all the meetings he walked out of along with two supporters are illegal. He charged me for not supporting his walkout while not charging the rest of the members that stayed to complete e-board business. In fact he didn't deliver the Business Managers report and the Financial Statements were not delivered. The first problem is we have in our bylaws, Quarterly Audits by an auditing committee, which was never started because they rely on the Executive Board looking at them every month. That issue (charges already filed by me) was under investigation by Phil Flemming and I have not heard of a decision. So the combined office of business manager/Financial Secretary doesn't deliver the financial statements for audit by the executive Board for over three months because he walked out of the meetings and failed to even leave them behind for audit by the members. He also declared the meetings illegal and therefore no Executive Board meetings took place according to him. The months statements and meetings were never caught up in that month, and one month would be a chargeable offense under a few rules. The President hasn't bothered to straighten out the mess and he is also responsible. He even sat through a meeting that the BM walked out. So as you can see I will be very busy in the next few days besides working on my charges and defense I will have to deal with the illegality of those meetings since being sent to me in writing April 3, 2009 for the first time.
Threats and lies are the work of the desperate people that attack me.  Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth~Albert Einstein  RIP

Offline commguy353

  • JUST CALL ME KATHY!!!!!!!
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2009, 10:47:07 AM »
Perry, "no one is to blame" that you just can't put your finger on that song.  Just remember "Some break the rules
and live to count the cost"................. ;D

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2009, 01:23:59 PM »
But of course... Howard Jones :)

He had cool hair in the 80s... Commguy remember when you used to wear your hair like that? ;)

Back when you were just a Commkid ;D




I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!

Offline PSperanza

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2009, 07:41:21 PM »
Quote
The B.M. insists that all the meetings he walked out of along with two supporters are illegal.

He charged me for not supporting his walkout while not charging the rest of the members that stayed to complete e-board business.

In fact he didn't deliver the Business Managers report and the Financial Statements were not delivered.

The first problem is we have in our bylaws, Quarterly Audits by an auditing committee, which was never started because they rely on the Executive Board looking at them every month.

Jim,

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as I recall it the reason for the BM/FS walking out of the meetings is because the Executive Board Chairman would not turn off a voice recorder he had brought in to help him record the minutes.

What rule does the BM/FS rely on to justify his walking out of the meeting? As I understand it there is no rule against using a voice recording device.

Does the clause that says all officers shall cooperate with the BM provide that he can rely on rules that don't exist and then charge other officers for not following his lead?

Am I correct with my observations or have I missed something?
I love our local 353, SOLIDARITY and SUCCESS to the members in Alberta!

Offline Jim Upper

  • is it GTU or GFY
  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • learning through debate
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2009, 11:58:41 AM »
Quote

Jim,

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as I recall it the reason for the BM/FS walking out of the meetings is because the Executive Board Chairman would not turn off a voice recorder he had brought in to help him record the minutes.

What rule does the BM/FS rely on to justify his walking out of the meeting? As I understand it there is no rule against using a voice recording device.

Does the clause that says all officers shall cooperate with the BM provide that he can rely on rules that don't exist and then charge other officers for not following his lead?

Am I correct with my observations or have I missed something?

Well according to Ed although I have not been advised of anything in writing as usual but which I just read last night on this site as I understand it I can't comment or share an opinion (restriction of Freedom of speech now imposed on my charges which breaks my Human Rights) about me and the charges against me, I can however talk about Tim's case because he has been convicted all the way up to Ed.

At this point I don't see how I could make anything any worse seeing as this case is in the public domain now at the OLRB. So without further delay, absolutely what rule? It doesn't exist has never been proven and is part of an injustice that everyone all the way up to and including the President of the IBEW has convicted Tim on.

Quote
Does the clause that says all officers shall cooperate with the BM provide that he can rely on rules that don't exist and then charge other officers for not following his lead?

I am sure a court of law would have fun with this question. let me say, if they can lie and break the Constitution by committing illegal acts against individual members without being punished then it becomes a human rights issue. But as it is being used by IO to control the operation of a L.U. 303 then it is a OLRB issue, one that will be under 149.1 & 2. Currently IO is spending big bucks to squash Tim. There are more submissions asked for by the Board.

The issue of cooperate is one that is defined, well at least outside the IBEW. Cooperate doesn't mean one sided except inside the IBEW where three levels of nonlegal people think it does although I haven't seen a definition in the Constitution so how do you explain the difference in definition?

 One would think that the true definition would be used but then again Roberts Rules are broken in 353 and 303 repeatedly without consequence for that  being in violation of the Constitution. The only reason Tim's charges were not thrown out By Ed was because of money. It has nothing to do with whether or not there was a fair trial and gathering of evidence.

This one is destined to go all the way and when it does there will be some lawyer south of the 49th that will want this case. There was an opportunity to stop this but heavy hands interceded and it is unlikely it will now.
Threats and lies are the work of the desperate people that attack me.  Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth~Albert Einstein  RIP

Offline okimlistening

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2009, 06:02:44 PM »
All the rules favour those that make the rules and it looks to me like Flemming decides which rules he goes by. Naturally if he likes Fashion and Stevens and they are blessed by IO Washington they get the nod. Politcs is simple really. 8)

Offline Lucky

  • YaBB God
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
Re: Meetings Declared Illegal?
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2009, 06:38:06 PM »
All these so-called politicos know the basic rule, the golden rule.  Those who have the gold make the rules.
Lucky.
Lucky,
S-it disturber
Booklegger, for Pathfinder Press
electrician
Only reelman on my crew