Am I understanding this correctly?

Dominator · Jan 29, 2022

At 5:27, Stutts referenced a resolution that passed at the 2019 National Convention. It was one that came from the Finance Committee.

Specifically, this one:

What is odd to me is this:

A constitutional amendment that the National Board presented during the 2019 National Convention that ultimately failed is exactly what is being done today... in plain sight.

Is our National Board suspending the constitution and disguising a passed resolution to have the effect of a constitutional amendment which the National Delegates specifically rejected in 2019?

Morty · Jan 30, 2022

Chickenlover said:
You sure about that? I marked this resolution as passed. I voted for it. It had objections, but it passed.

The resolution passed. But did the amendment get passed by the membership? Looks like it did not pass to get voted on. They must have tabled the resolution. Therefore, under the dictatorship we are currently experiencing. No vote needs to happen, the dictatorship is doing what's best for the betterment of all. (Cue USSR national anthem)

Guin · Jan 30, 2022

Welcome to the dictatorship!

Dumbassclerksyndrome · Jan 30, 2022

Rural Deviation said:
Sorry… saw Robert Picklesimer and went deep into how much knowledge and history we lost in just one individual…

Many will never understand the value that man brought to this craft.

Gotrope · Jan 30, 2022

I recall this as passing.

Dominator · Jan 30, 2022

Chickenlover said:
You sure about that? I marked this resolution as passed. I voted for it. It had objections, but it passed.

Yes. I am sure.

Resolution #1 to "explore" (red text) passed (majority vote required for adoption).

Constitutional amendment #1 (highlighted black text) failed (2/3rds majority vote required for adoption).

The constitution is higher in the authoritative hierarchy than any resolution.

In this case though, the rejection of the constitutional amendment apparently doesn't matter. The Board decided to just "do it anyway" under the apparent theory that a resolution offers the same output as a constitutional change.

It seems the secret to by bypass the higher 2/3rds requirement to change the constitution is to get your committee pals to pass some ambiguously-worded backdoor resolution.

stillfirstclass · Jan 30, 2022

i ve been in local government and watched state government... just keep moving along folks
the american voter isn't very smart, during... too bad we find out later, or, don't care, anymore

Dominator · Jan 30, 2022

Gotrope said:
I recall this as passing.

The resolution to "explore" passed. The constitutional amendment failed. Article XI remains the same.

neciat · Jan 30, 2022

I totally get where @Dominator is coming from. This is WAY bigger than whether any given delegate is for or against any particular resolution or amendment. It is all about the PROCESS and its' rules and adhering to those rules , policies, etc. thereof. It is about undermining and / or circumventing the process which offers the illusion to those participating that they actually have a say when , in reality, they don't. Going through the motions of debate and holding up the red side or the green side to pacify the delegates so that they may believe they voted in accordance to those whom they represent when , in reality, their actions are of no consequence. I have first hand witnessed other shenanigans such as "totally striking language in the minutes" and the NSS debacle. If this is happening out in the open, it SHOULD make one wonder what is going on behind the scenes.

Dominator · Jan 30, 2022

neciat said:
I totally get where @Dominator is coming from. This is WAY bigger than whether any given delegate is for or against any particular resolution or amendment. It is all about the PROCESS and its' rules and adhering to those rules , policies, etc. thereof. It is about undermining and / or circumventing the process which offers the illusion to those participating that they actually have a say when , in reality, they don't. Going through the motions of debate and holding up the red side or the green side to pacify the delegates so that they may believe they voted in accordance to those whom they represent when , in reality, their actions are of no consequence. I have first hand witnessed other shenanigans such as "totally striking language in the minutes" and the NSS debacle. If this is happening out in the open, it SHOULD make one wonder what is going on behind the scenes.

@neciat, exactly!

The National Board's constitutional amendment failed yet it what's currently going on right in front of all of us.

The bridge Ronnie references in his video is this resolution below that did pass.

Resolutions require a majority vote to pass. Constitutional amendments require 2/3rds.

Even though the National Boards constitutional amendment failed to get 2/3rds of the vote, the National Board's apparent back-up plan is to use a resolution (which holds a weaker voting requirement to pass) in order to achieve the same effect as the failed constitutional amendment.

In this case, it really didn't matter if the constitutional amendment passed or not. The Board decided to just "do it anyway" under the apparent theory that the above resolution (red text) offers the same output as their failed constitutional amendment (highlighted black text).

It seems the secret to by bypass the higher 2/3rds requirement to amend the constitution is to get your committee pals to pass some ambiguously-worded backdoor resolution.

Dominator · Jan 30, 2022

stillfirstclass said:
i ve been in local government and watched state government... just keep moving along folks
the american voter isn't very smart, during... too bad we find out later, or, don't care, anymore

Yeah... It's unfortunate.

It can't get any more backwards! Their actions are specifically contrary to the delegate's wishes.

"Explore" in the text of the resolution could ONLY mean "investigate". The intent stated behind the resolution is to "reduce travel costs and time needed for interactions."

Since the constitution demands the meeting be "within each state" travel costs cannot be 'reduced' until that requirement that it be "within each state" is lifted through a constitutional amendment.

The constitution does not permit a resolution to override the requirement that we have a ratification meeting "within each state."

Yet here we are with the National Board specifically ignoring the constitution and doing it their own way.

If it's the case that the National Delegates that represent the membership are sincerly this indifferent to the Association's rules, maybe we'd all be better off to just dissolve all state and territory charters and set up a call center overseas for negotiations and grievance handling.

Guin · Jan 30, 2022

So... does this give us grounds to contact the NLRB? The way I see it is that there is a clear violation here of the constitution so is anyone going to do anything to stop the abuse of power?