Accountability?

   Accountable,  adj.   Responsible; anwerable <the Company was held accountable for the employee's negligence>, -- accountability, n.  (Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, 1999).

    Well now, there's a statement that most rails understand, i.e., the Company was held accountable for the employee's negligence!  You dump a bunch of toxic chemicals in a river or you blow up a small town, it the employee's fault - We've got em charged and we can't be held reponsible for their actions, i.e., corporations can't be held accountable, only the individual employee's!  No, says the Supreme Court and the precendent of the Law of the Land - the Corporation will make reparation! Desperate Railroads have even sued their own employees knowing full well it is all a sham!  But us rails all know the Carrier's have no shame when it comes to trying to avoid "accountability" for their actions!

    Unfortunately, we haven't always been aware that our own union leaders have this same aversion to "accountability".   Stated bluntly, they don't want to be held accountable for their lies or their failures to their memberships!  Kinda like the CEO's of the major airlines - the bailout package keeps these guys with their multi-million dollar compensation packages for mismanaging the airlines but declines to help those they are now laying off in order to survive their incompetence.    Would be nice if we could just blame it all on "International Terrorism" but the record was clear before "Black Tuesday" (September 11, 2001), that the airlines were headed for major financial problems!  Why has the US Congress  opened the floodgates to the Industry and it's "mismanagers" but   left those that lost their jobs hanging in the wind?  Perhaps Representative Dick Armey of Texas said it loud and clear:  " . . . extending unemployement benefits and health insurance to these laid-off workers is not commensurate with the American spirit here"! Gee, thank prick, oops I meant Dick, wish I was in your district so I could vote against you, PRICK!

    How do we hold "mismanagers" accountable?  Generally, the stockholders do that for corporations but that hasn't seemed to work well lately.  In other venues, like unions, the union Constitution gives the "membership" the power to hold their elected leader "accountable" between conventions, i.e., you can always replace these "Dicks" at the next election, right? Well . . . , that hasn't worked to well either!

    Indeed, this matter is a prime consideration to me in the scheme of things relative to the "UAC" and the "new union"!  I went on record very early in this process against any "UAC" that doesn't have "accoutability" because of my horrendous experience with the Smoot Case!  Unfortunately, the new union opted for the BLE "recall" with a modification, i.e., an extra step to take the recall out of the members hands, i.e., if this had been in effect in BLE, Monin would never have been recalled! 

    Question?  Why opt for the BLE "recall" with modification; why not Article 25 of the UTU Constitution that is the most worthless attempt at accountability ever known to any union? Hell, it hasn't been used sucessfully to oust any union officer in  31 years EXCEPT ONE the International President filed charges against! Hell, it hasn't even resulted in a trial but in that instance! 

    Is the UTU Executive Board the most worthless Board in the Union?  You decide based on the charges in Boyd I and Boyd II?  You can also see Little Charges?  Nothing has changed in the UTU Executive Board except that it wasn't unanimous?

EXECUTIVE BOARD

October 3, 2001

Mr. Lance E. Ruck, #1571

4704 Post Road

El Paso, TX 79903

Dear Sir and Brother:

With regard to your letter of July 17, 2001; wherein, you formally preferred charges against International President B.A. Boyd for failure to perform his duties and fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with his obligation of office as required by the UTU Constitution.

The Executive Board has reviewed these charges and rendered this decision.

In reference to the six (6) separate charges, this letter is to advise that a decision was reached by a majority of the Executive Board. The Board has determined that the charges will not be considered by the Executive Board.

Fraternally yours,

Jim A. Huston

Chairman 

cc: Executive Board Mbrs

Alt. Executive Board Mbr.

B.A. Boyd, Jr., International President

D.E. Johnson, GS&T 

EXECUTIVE BOARD

October 3, 2001

Mr. Lance E. Ruck, #1571

4704 Post Road

El Paso, TX 79903

Dear Sir and Brother:

With regard to your letter of August 14, 2001; wherein, you formally preferred charges against International President B.A. Boyd for failure to perform his duties and fulfill his responsibilities, in accordance with his obligation of office as required by the UTU Constitution.

In reference to the four (4) separate charges, the Executive Board has reviewed these charges and the Attachment. As to your remark:

Thus, it is the position of the charging party, that International President Boyd, by his written averments, has willfully and knowingly attempted to "poison the water" with respect not only to his authority under the Constitution, but also to interject himself into the affairs of an autonomous board of the United Transportation Union duly elected and empowered by the delegates, to make the UTU Constitution consistent with Federal Law.

You, and I (as Chairman) had received copy of the Attachment referred to in your charges. You should, however, understand that the Executive Board Members did not receive a copy of President Boyd’s August 13, 2001 letter (Attachment) until same was provided as an attachment with the copy of the August 14, 2001 charges.

The Executive Board Members have reviewed the charges, with the attachment, and the decision was reached by a majority of the Executive Board. The Board has determined that the charges will not be considered by the Executive Board.

Fraternally yours,

Jim A. Huston

Chairman

cc: Executive Board Mbrs

Alt. Executive Board Mbr.

B.A. Boyd, Jr., International President

D.E. Johnson, GS&T

    Does this raise your hopes for "accountability"?  Funny, even when timekeeping denies a claim they have the courtesy to say "account not supported by agreement"?  The UTU Executive Board apparently just has to say "claim denied" (Similar to "you have no Jurisdiction", i.e., Byron Boyd or Petie Economus - take your pick)! I just have one question? Where is my answer to my second set of charges pursuant to lines 14 - 19, to wit:

"The Chairperson MUST forward a copy of the charges by certified mail to the accused and other members of the Board. The accused has ten (10) days from the date of said mailing to respond to the charges. The response MUST be in writing and forwarded by certified mail to the Chairperson and the member preferring the charges. (EMPHASIS MINE)!  I never got one; did the Executive Board?  Of course not!