Some of you may have seen a color-printed flyer distributed by our opponents, Messrs. Marrell, McCarty, and Schuetz. (This was mailed to SPEEA Northwest Region members, and now includes a back page.) The flyer announces the themes of their candidacy ("Experience & Integrity", negative campaigning, and endorsements) and provides individual statements by or about each of them.
We would like to offer our response.
Claims of experience can be compared to our opponents' performance record, to verify the claim and to deter-mine whether their experience should be rewarded by a further repetition. We would like to follow that principle in this case.
LARRY MARRELL: Mr. Marrell's claims of experience rest primarily on his participation in the negotia-tions for the current and previous contract, and on his present incumbency as a Northwest Vice President.
Regarding negotiations for the past two contracts, there is some mixed opinion whether these contracts were all they could be. In fact, we are discovering that the current contract has some ill-defined provisions, creating problems we are now dealing with (e.g., the Regence discon-tinuation of family physicians, the billing problems of the Leapfrog Initiative, and the lack of an Early Retiree Medical insurance plan). The lesson we should have learned is that any future contracts must have the details fully developed and not left as an afterthought. If the quality of the 2006 contract reflects the quality of Mr. Marrell's experience, we can do better.
Regarding Mr. Marrell's experience as NW VP, there is little to say beyond the fact that he relia-bly supports the Executive Director's dominance and disregard of the Board. In other words, he "rubber stamps" anything the Executive Director requests, and never holds him accountable. This is simply the "Good Old Boy" model of past Board behavior, where Board members allow the Executive Director total discretion, and the Executive Director makes certain the Board members never have to do any hard work--or independent thinking. If this is what you want, Mr. Marrell can deliver!
TOM MCCARTY: Mr. McCarty's claims of experience rest primarily on his previous tenure on the Board as a Treasurer and NW VP and his participation in past contract negotiations.
His experience as a former NW Vice President (2000-2002) and Treasurer (2002-2006), oc-curred through a period in which SPEEA net expenditures* increased from $4,816,655 to $7,300,107--yet our membership was barely unchanged, growing only from 17,897 to 17,973 in the same interval. He sees no problem with this expenditure increase. On 11 September 2003, Mr. McCarty made the remarkable statement to the Northwest Council on his philosophy as Treasurer that, "if we haven't been spending the money, we haven't been doing our job." As late as 14 April 2005, he explained to the Northwest Council that a Department of Labor investi-gation had uncovered the fact that we had not been reporting correctly on the LM-2 filings, though he had received plenty of advance notice from critics. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. McCarty was completely opposed to providing LM-2 and IRS 990 filings to the general membership, not-withstanding the fact they were public documents. Through this same period, he was indifferent to the illegal practice of the Executive Director signing our IRS 990 filings, though external pres-sure from IRS complaints has subsequently forced SPEEA to comply with the law. Yes, Mr. McCarty has prior experience...but one of a decidedly secretive, aloof, and negligent character.
(* Net expenditures are defined from the Form LM-2 reporting data as "Total Disbursements" less "Sale of Investments and Fixed Assets".)
Mr. McCarty, in his previous Board tenure, has helped to create and define the "Good Old Boy" system of operation mentioned above. According to him, there have never been any problems, there are no problems now, and we should not anticipate problems. His last year on the Board was mostly spent taking mandolin lessons. We wish Mr. McCarty well in his optimism, but be-lieve a more realistic, businesslike attitude is necessary.
As a contract negotiator, he suffers the same liabilities as Mr. Marrell.
MARK SCHUETZ: Mr. Schuetz is currently a NW Vice President, having been elected as an interim VP in 2006. That is the full extent of his experience in SPEEA administration. His record on the Board is devoid of any motions made to support the themes of his candidacy then, and his can-didacy now. His most noteworthy comment at the end of one Board meeting was, "This isn't what I bargained for."
He presents himself as being personally associated with the preservation or attainment of con-tractual benefits such as retaining medical practitioners under Regence, Early Retiree Medical insurance coverage, Employee Incentive Plan payout, and market salary adjustment funds--even though he made no personal contribution to any of this. A good trick, and an easy résumé to write.
Mr. Schuetz, like his running mates, fully supports the pre-eminence of the Executive Director over the Board, and has for many years. This is experience...of a sort.
Claims of experience are made to create the presumption that one's opponents have no experience. Since we are running as a current regional Council Chairman, a current NW Vice President, and a previous Board Treas-urer, we do not lack for experience, and our record shows it.
Why should candidates think it necessary to make a claim of integrity in the first place? Is their character so questionable that they need to give us assurance? It is worth being curious about this point.
LARRY MARRELL: Regarding the issue of the Salary Reference Tables, Mr. Marrell claims he "is committed to doing what he believes is right for the members." Indeed, Mr. Marrell was first out of the gate to come to the defense of the ME planners--his own skill code. This is commend-able...but one has to wonder how commendable it is when one is simply serving one's own self-interest. Mr. Marrell does not explain that eleven other skill codes were in the same predica-ment, but he did not raise a finger to help them. When the Board attempted to define an overall approach to this problem by e-mail vote, Mr. Marrell (and Mr. Schuetz) refused to participate.
Mr. Marrell also claims "he has continued to push the Company on issues important to our members." How? He has been silent on any such "pushing" during his recent tenure on the Board, not putting forward any motions for interim negotiation.
He does not relate his role in the discord surrounding the election of Jill Ritchey as interim NW Vice President. The problem began when Mr. Marrell nominated Alan Rice as a candidate, in violation of the SPEEA Constitution. When this fact was brought to the attention of the Tellers, the election was voided and redone, with Miss Ritchey winning. This was appealed subse-quently to the Judicial Review Committee and to the President of the IFPTE, who ruled in favor of the original Tellers' ruling. Not having learned from this experience, Mr. Marrell then at-tempted (unsuccessfully) to appeal this ruling to the IFPTE Executive Council. It takes a strong man to follow the right path, but it takes only a headstrong man to follow the wrong path.
Another illustration of Mr. Marrell's integrity came with his October 2006 motion to the SPEEA Council to expel an Associate Member from SPEEA--despite the fact that the Council had no power under the SPEEA Constitution to do so. By doing this, he has set a precedent for expel-ling any individual member, on whatever pretext is popular. This matter is currently in consid-eration by the Judicial Review Committee.
If Mr. Marrell wants to show himself as a paragon of integrity, he needs to act the part.
TOM MCCARTY: It is expected that a man's behavior should be consistent with his principles. How-ever, on 15 July 2004, Mr. McCarty stated to the Executive Board "he was unable to perform the duties of the Treasurer as specified in the Constitution." One might suppose he should have re-signed, but he did not. Nor did the Board take any notice of the meaning of his words. To show he meant it, on 9 September 2004, Mr. McCarty stated to the Northwest Council that the consti-tutional duties of his office were mere "lofty goals" and that he just "does what he can." Again, no embarrassment, no remorse, no resignation. Apparently, there is no duty that Mr. McCarty cannot neglect--yet he will keep a clear conscience.
Mr. McCarty also sponsored the previously-mentioned unconstitutional motion to expel an As-sociate Member.
MARK SCHUETZ: It is important for a NW Vice President to be a key ally of the NW Council on the Executive Board. However, Mr. Schuetz has distinguished himself mainly as an opponent of the Council, from his irresponsible motion this January to arbitrarily cut the NW Council budget to 90% of the submitted value--notwithstanding the firm substantiation provided for the submit-ted budget, and its subsequent passage by a large majority. In answer to the question of how such a reduction would be allocated across dozens of budget categories, his dismissive re-sponse was "You can work it out."
Mr. Schuetz also sponsored the above-mentioned unconstitutional motion to expel an Associate Member.
Boastful claims of integrity are made to set one apart...presumably from those who have no integrity. As activ-ists and candidates, we take the view that our integrity is established by our past performance and dedication to SPEEA.
A candidate with no confidence in his positive qualities will cast personal aspersions against his opponents, in order to scare the voter away from them and toward himself. We are disappointed to see our opponents engag-ing in this discreditable tactic. Because they have opened this subject, we feel obliged to answer.
LARRY MARRELL: Mr. Marrell claims "During the campaign to restore the SRTs, my opponents cast doubt on our strategy and wanted to stop us." A dramatic claim, but untrue.
Mr. Marrell forgets that something so important as "our strategy" must come from elected SPEEA leadership as a whole. He neglects to explain that the membership petition campaign was an unauthorized project perpetrated by himself and SPEEA staff. The Executive Board and the Regional Councils were excluded from any "strategy" determination. Had they been in-volved, it is perhaps possible that remedial action could have occurred for the eleven other skill codes--and not just Mr. Marrell's skill code.
MARK SCHUETZ: Mr. Schuetz claims "Our opponents have a history of interfering in negotiations, re-fusing to engage the membership to resolve problems, breaking down the rapport we have worked hard to establish with the company, and focusing their energies on trivial issues." No word of this is true.
Speaking of focusing energies on trivial issues, be assured that running the union is not a "trivial issue." Please see the Vice President duties posted at www.speea.tv, to review what a Vice President is responsible for.
If Mr. Schuetz is concerned about the propriety of contract negotiations, it is very strange that he sought the endorsement of past-President Jennifer MacKay, who was caught twice in unau-thorized contract negotiations for the SPEEA bargaining unit in Spokane. This at least speaks to his hypocrisy on the subject...the fact that he regards this subject merely as a way to score points, not that it has any real meaning for him.
And, if Mr. Schuetz is particularly concerned for the history of our rapport with the Company to resolve problems, perhaps he can explain why, in 2002, when our membership was draining away in the mass layoffs following the 9/11 disaster, he urged the Councils not to accept the of-fer extended by Alan Mulally to SPEEA, to work with him to develop the future business plan for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. In accordance with Mr. Schuetz's preferences, SPEEA turned that down without even the courtesy of a reply. The result has been the unprecedented mas-sive outsourcing and program risk underway with the 787 program. This could have been avoided, but not thanks to Mr. Schuetz.
This brings us to the back page of the flyer that was mailed to Northwest Region members. It repeats some of the points already addressed, and reiterates the endorsements of MacKay and Cole (which we discuss follow-ing). The only new material is two statements, noted and addressed below:
"Funfar, Ritchey, and Dunn have been road-blocks to progress, wasting time and resources in areas that do not benefit our members."
You couldn't find a more straightforward negative campaign statement than this...or less truthful. Funfar and Dunn, for example, currently have no vote on the Board--and we are flattered if their voteless existence is con-sidered a "road-block."
If our opponents have a differing view over how SPEEA should operate, let them explain it, and why it should prevail. Let them explain why faithfully observing the Constitutional requirements and limitations of Board op-erations does not "benefit" our members. The fact is: they have no views; they have only an allegiance to the plans and priorities of the Executive Director. Critics of the Executive Director's supremacy must be de-nounced--or the free and easy ride will be over for them. They are simply the Executive Director's slate of can-didates.
"In 2002 the membership recalled then SPEEA Treasurer, Mike Dunn for interfering in negotia-tions. Dunn had been in office less than 4 months. With the 2008 Contract negotiations just around the corner, do we want to take the chance of allowing Dunn to once again discredit SPEEA?"
It is true that Mike Dunn was recalled in 2002 after four months in office...but that is the only truth in this state-ment. No interference with negotiations occurred--but Alan Mulally did offer SPEEA an opportunity to work with him to determine the future business plan of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, which the Northwest Council ig-nored. It was too embarrassing (to the Executive Director) for such progress to come out of a meeting with Mu-lally, when years of cultivation by the Executive Director had delivered absolutely nothing. The recall was a po-litical retaliation orchestrated by Mr. McCarty, Mr. Schuetz, Mrs. MacKay, and Mrs. Cole, among others, in which Mike was libeled and slandered. A laundry list of false charges against him was given in the recall ballot. Those who once had been in favor of the recall have come to realize that the supporters of the Executive Director mis-led them. In the words of Joel Funfar:
I was on the recall committee in 2002. I thought much differently about Mike back then, but my viewpoint has changed. Working with Mike over the years, I've come to realize his dedication to SPEEA is authentic, and that's why I'm running with him. I have come to understand him, and he was right on a lot of stuff--like who is supposed to sign the DoL LM-2 and IRS 990 forms.
Our campaign has emphasized the undesirability of continuing the policies represented by our opponents, not advertising any undesirability of them as persons. However, that does not bar us from reminding the world of inconvenient truths, whenever our opponents make false claims and tar us with ill repute.
We note that our opponents advertise a "forward-thinking" message, yet offer only mudslinging from the past.
No commentary on our opponents' flyer would be complete without some consideration of their most prominent endorsers, past President Jennifer MacKay and current President Cynthia Cole.
JENNIFER MACKAY was President through the period of time that our expenditures grew without re-gard to the size of our membership. She, along with Mr. McCarty, was fully approving of the secrecy in which Board business was conducted, and did her utmost to support the Executive Director as an overlord superior to the Board. As an indication of her official scruples, she was caught twice in the conduct and execution of unauthorized contracts between the SPEEA bar-gaining unit in Spokane and the Triumph Group employer.
CYNTHIA COLE, in her previous office as a NW Vice President, was fully supportive of the policies of Mrs. MacKay and Mr. McCarty. She still supports the Executive Director in his habits of not keeping the Board informed of crucial matters, and of stonewalling any requests for financial data and business information.
There would be much more we could say on this subject, but this election is not about our opponents' endors-ers, so we will leave it at that.
This is our response. We had hoped this election would concentrate on questions of how SPEEA is to be ad-ministered--so as to keep faith with the members by keeping our business transparent and our finances frugal. We have provided you information that our opponents have not. We are already doing the job.
