Miami 99

Replies - Constitution

   Yes, my July 22, 1999 letter concerning the Constitution has now been answered by both candidates, coincidentally on the same date, albeit phone conversation with Brother Griffeth confirms he has yet to receive any copy of the Little reponse.   As he did not show any copy of his response, I will simply assume the President still controls the mail room - as he always has!

    In any event, the Express believes the responses are pertinent and we shall run them in the order that they were placed before under Constitution. Mr. Griffeth's response:

 Well, there "u" have it? I always thought my proposals in 1995 were because I was an International officer and that does seem to be what the President is telling me since I had no authority from the "subordinate body", i.e., the Board of Appeals.  That makes it pretty simple for me -  Per Article 2 any member listed in (A) Officers,  (B) Boards, or (C) Members [One (1) Delegate from each Local] is "An International Officer".   Hell, I don't think any of "u" think a delegate is a subordinate body, do "u"? So that means any Special Rep, Field Supervisor, on member of the Contitution Committee who is a "Delegate", i.e., International Officer, can propose amemdments?

    The problem I have with that is what happened here - delegates proposed dues increases without the knowledge or consent of their Locals, i.e., subordinate bodies. So how about we clarify it in the Committee Report - a legitimate proposal adopted by a majority vote of members in quorum and sent under Lodge seal would be shown as "Submitted by Local xxxx", while a proposal sent by a delegate without lodge seal would be shown as "Submitted by Delegate Special Rep (Field Sup or Contitution Committee Member, etc) so there is no confusion.

    I won't dwell on this - the matter is moot in my mind.  My candidate (GS&T Griffeth) doesn't need a dues increase and if Sac-C is re-elected I'm not giving him $5 or 5 CENTS - he saved this union from the DuBose financial disaster and we are strong and stable and in the best financial shape in UTU's history (ha ha)!  So why should I or any delegate give him anything?   So he can continue to pay millions to the Special Reps?  Buy more buses - the Blimp? Did "u" see the info put out by Brother Arnold? $2000 dollars for hotel for Ralph Dennis and Bill Packer?  Did they also get $113 per day per diem?  I just bet they did!  I don't know about "u", but I don't mind paying legitimate "Resort Charges"!  Hope they got the mud bath and rub down at the Spa? How many "little pins" did they give out?

    With all due respect, isn't this type of thing just a "little" to much for the members and/or delegates to swallow? And, unfortunately its the tip of the iceberg!  What about Smoot?  Well, I just got off the phone with him, he will be in Miami for the 23rd and 24th, hoping to see justice done - the defeat of Sac-C, little bb, and fight'in bob. He is awaiting the rulings in the bankruptcy court and some could come before the Convention, hopefully? But he conveyed the thoughts of an attorney in the Cleveland area who helped us, an attorney whom I have a great deal of respect for, and one I consider  a personal friend: "How any delegate could re-elect a Union President who filed a Ex parte Writ of Attatchment against a member and his family is beyond my comprehension!" The Smoot case will result in a book which exposes how vile the actions of Charles L. Little and Clinton J. Miller, III actually were.  If there is anything "we" (those involved in the protection of Smoot, his rights, and the rights of the UTU members - which have been trampled to date but the turnaround is imminent and it will be expensive for "u" UTU members because "u" will ultimately pay the price for the hierarchy's corruption) do well, it is get a   complete written record!

    Because I have so many records, I am not even able to fly down with my family.  In fact, I am flying my family out on the day before the Convention begins for two reasons: first, I want my vacation in Florida with my family to be with my family and second, my children can't miss more than 5 days of school! Accordingly, I am driving to Orlando where I will pick up my family and do Disney World and spend 3 or 4 days with my only brother who lives just outside Miami.

    It is reminiscient of the GCA meeting, wherein I hauled all the "evidence" to Kansas and nobody wanted to see it? It turned out no one needed to see it because most apparently believed it without seeing it - thus the result of a hugh defeat for the incumbent General Chairman.   This may possibly be the same situation, but I shall have the records anyway just in case. It remains to be seen what reaction I shall receive and whether the delegates shall seek me out for the information.  While I expect Charlie to send his finest and most trusted delegates (with tape recorders ala Brother Batton) to see what is available, I am not expecting him to send to many. In fact, the word is generally put out about how dangerous I am and don't talk with me at all?  Pitiful - they simply don't want you to see what a sincere, fun-loving, credible person I really am. They figure "u" spend 5 or 10 minutes with me, I will show "u" irrefutable evidence that will leave "u" in serious doubt about your support for "Sacrosanct Charlie" and the "ream team" (as opposed to "dream team" who brings home the gold, after the NMB vote (?)  and Armegeddon Agreement "u" will know how Turkish prisoners feel)! "Re-elect me, you will be shuned" from the popular Motion Picture "Field of Reams".

What, Me Worry?

"u" do know why I am so dangerous don't "u"? A. He knows to much and it is all true. B.   While an International Board Member, he did his job well and was respected. C. He prepares himself and speaks effectively. D. The Board of Directors feels guilty for turning down all those great appeals. E. In their heart, everyone knows Ruck is Right and Earley is Wrong regarding PLB 3882. F.  A Switchman wrote that "petition for writ of certiorari". G.  He can't be bought and he can't be intimidated. H. Tremedous sense of humor, takes cooking classes, intends to learn foriegn languages like English in case he is sent to London, and makes his own clothes. I.  He places his member's needs above his own.  J.  He is both knowledgeable and modest.  K.   The Carrier also thinks he is dangerous and krazy.  L.  He excels at sarcasm. M. All of the above.

   Do "u" know the answer? If "u" do, send us an email and "u" could be the next winner of a Chysler M Class automobile or a one year subscription to the El Paso Express.   Congratulations to our  most recent winner, name withheld by request as he was a BLE Brother, who correctly answered Bobby to the question who said "the best don't need rules. the worst won't be helped by them." Upon check with the rules committee, we quiered Rydel, Vinton, Earley, Cushing, Kennedy, or Fuller? When he replied "of course not, you know who", the Committe gave the "ding dong" rather than the "buzzzzzzzz", we have a winner.  Yes, it was Bobby Voltaire - Congratulations again - your Express and a glossy photo of an M Class automobile are in the mail (yes, we do use the same PR firm that handles Publisher's Clearing House)! Rumor has it that David got his start there and is close personal friends with Ed? Hang in there and have a nice day.