What specific rule cancelled the 2021 National Convention?
- Thread starter Dominator
- Start date
Deer Smearer
Well-known member
Unless it’s like the senior carrier in a one route office with zero RCAs but 3 stupidvisors.
LouSainus
Well-known member
The union's finances they send out shows they have made more money than ever for the past two years. The convention is a big BIG expense for them but they haven't done it in two years. Buy our union dues will still go up next year with inflation but of course our wages wont.
Dominator
Well-known member
I'm sure the lack of conventions will be spun into, "Look at how much money we saved by not having a convention!" It will probably be fodder spun into a positive light while, in reality, it will just add distance and subtract transparency between the Board and the membership.
I can do the same thing. "Look how much money I saved by not replacing the brakes on my car!"
The decision on raising (or lowering) dues rates belongs to the delegates.
The decision to hold a convention, just the same, belongs to the delegates.
The provision permitting suspension of either consideration is the same.
I've not seen any external rule that permitted the National Board to cancel the 2021 National Convention.
Uncovering that mystery remains my purpose behind this thread.
Voglio-il mio
Well-known member
Just goes to show you we can go without conventions, so the next time they vote for biannual conventions maybe it will pass. Just think about the dues reduction that could happen as a result! I know that a 30 or 40% reduction in annual dues mite just make me feel that I'm finally getting some return on my expense!
Could voting go on line and let us eliminate conventions all together?
Do our national leaders need to live near Washington D.C.? I am under the impression that at least 4 of them are to represent areas of the country.
If the persons we normally elect to represent us at the convention did this from their local area would this be better for us? Shouldn't we be influencing them not the National Board?
Dominator
Well-known member
If the membership wants to sever its ties with the Board and its control over the Association, then yes, conventions are easily dismissed.
I'm not personally interested in relinquishing even more control to a Board whose culture heavily relies on wordsmithing, non-transparency, and career politicians.
If a discounted rate equates to fair value, then the current rate equates to being swindled. The element removed (an annual convention) is the very element (when intelligently utilized) that protects the membership from being swindled.
My sovereign influence is worth more to me than $18 a month, especially under a constitution that is absent (and resists) transparency, checks, and balances.
I could just as easily relocate my dues into TSP or buy $60 a month in Powerball tickets.
The key focus should be intelligently utilizing our conventions. My interest in donating my time and money to the Association is proportional to the antics some entities within the Association attempt to pass as "professional representation."
Annual (or biennial) conventions are irrelevant though if they can be cancelled without following constitutional order.
The federal or state law, regulation or ordinance which permitted cancellation of this past convention still has yet to surface.
If our rights are being openly trampled, one can only guess on what goes on behind closed doors.
Dominator
Well-known member
It would change what constitutes a convention. It would still be a convention though.
5 of them are resident agents. The union provides each of them a residence. The 4 executive committee members are stationed at their personal residence and represent areas, as you stated.
Perhaps, but we have no gullibility test. I don't know how many times I've heard member's egos being stroked by title-holders.
The member is told how much potential they have they they too are "a good candidate to be on the board" at some future time (in a parallel universe). Some are thrown on committees and feel socially elevated.
This is simply a "jelly doughnut".
Give a gullible member a jelly doughnut, you've got a loyal voter (and patsy) for life!
The problem isn't the position. The problem is using it as leverage for personal or political gain.
Earlier, @justacarrier wrote:
If the National Board claims they are infallible (which seems to be the case), those on the appeals committee fed the jelly doughnut are unlikely to disagree with whatever the Board concludes.
That is unless they want their last jelly doughnut to be their last jelly doughnut.
If the National Board improperly cancelled the convention, how many NSS employees, convention committee members, or state officers would muster the courage to speak up about it on a convention microphone?
How many delegates are content with that, when push comes to shove?
Not this one.
@Dominator Any further word from OLMS ???
