- 1. During the A shift teleconference AFC Burke indicated that FS42 will be finished by late summer 2013. In a memo from Captain II Galvez to the members of FS10 he indicated that the TEMPORARY facility would be completed by Fall 2012. Interesting, since the soil around FS42 hasn't seen a shovel yet. Our members should be given an assurance that the reconstruction of FS10 will be a high priority and that no internal processes will be allowed to languish on someone's desk.
- 2. This was never just about money from FS42 being redirected. It was about the public safety bond referendum that included the Fairfax Co. courthouse, the training academy, the Massey bldg. FS42 and other assorted projects. Once AFC Burke was assuered that my motion wasn't about just FS42 he told me that the biggest hold up was internal county processes. Keep in mind that the reconstruction of FS12 is well ahead of schedule.
- 3. I assure you that I have no ulterior motive and if the board had decided differently, I don't understand why this would not have been a political win/win for them.
- 4. Yes. A member of the VPFF/Local 2068 told me that he was told that money dedicated for a specific project could not be redirected for an emergency reconstruction project. I told him I felt that was incorrect and if he would research the issue and give me the origional language from the Public Safety ref. that I would seek a legal opinion from the VPFF legal counsel, Woodley & McGillivary. We have a retainer agreement with them and so there was no cost. The member in question is a member of VPFF. I truly believe that this member felt empowered and that he was doing something positive to change the situation that our members have suffered through for the past 14 months. I make no apologies for helping a member attempt to control his/her destiny.
- 5. I answered that in the previous response.
- 6. I have to let Battalion Rep. Boswell answer that.
- 7. I don't know the answer to that either.
- 8. Sister Boswell asked if it was ok for her to send information along to the FC and Supervisor Gross so they wouldn't be blindsided by the issue. I believe Supervisor Gross overreacted to what was sent to her. I now regret that I told her it was ok because our member at FS10 was subjected to unfair and totally intimidation by DFC Walsh.
- 9. Yes, again this was an FYI. Sister Boswell has a preestablished business relationship with both. This is something that has gone on for years and with the advent of the creation of several different employee groups, this has become commonplace. I can say that when I was President it was annoying but something I could not control. Mr. "Big Eye", I don't know if you are a Union member but what you provide here is very healthy and the BOSs read it. We know it is not always complimentary toward them.
- 10. No and no. Our members are going to continue to do what they do. In some ways it helps them feel empowered. You do not want bylaws that are so restrictive that you have a perceived dictatorship. Effective leadership at the executive board will minimize this.
- 11. Bylaws, maybe not. I haven't researched it. But, they did violate the oath they made when they were sworn in; in front of a general membership meeting.
- 12. I don't know.
- 13. Having ex. board meetings videotaped is a thorny issue and typically I would not support it but from what I understand the latitude some are afforded during meetings and the abnormal behavior has made some on the board feel it is necessary and that is why I supported it. Again, effective leadreship would make this a moot point.
- 14. Continue to apply pressure where ever it will help. Politicians should not be dictating our Local's agenda. We are supposed to compel them to do the right thing. I guess it appears "the right thing" is a relative phrase.
- 15. What was the specific information that caused the ex. board to panic and over rule a motion that had overwhelming support. The vote was 24 for 11 against.
Thanks again for this opportunity, Mike Mohler FS 23 A
0 comments:
Post a Comment