ALADS—THE LASD DEPUTY UNION—IS IN THE MIDST OF A HUGE TUG OF WAR WITH THE FATE OF $2.5 MILLION IN CAMPAIGN PAC MONEY AT STAKE
Two factions on the board of directors of the large, wealthy and powerful LASD Deputies union—ALADS (Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs )—are at war with each other for control of the union.
One of the things at issue in the tug of war for control of the 7200 member organization, is oversight of the reportedly more than $2.5 million in campaign PAC money that could be parcelled out with significant effect to a candidate or candidates in the upcoming races for LA County Supervisor and for Sheriff.
Most watching the melee believe that it is the selection of the sheriff of Los Angeles County that that could be materially affected by who comes out on top.
It is after all the board of the directors that has the last word on where the treasure chest of PAC money goes.
In other words, this little internecine struggle is potentially a very high stakes game.
In one of the skirmishes last week, one faction claiming to represent the union filed suit against two members of the opposing faction for alleged “abuse of fiduciary responsibility” and for the “misappropriation” of $100,000 of ALADS funds.
The two who were being sued, responded by having one of their attorneys send a letter on ALADS letterhead to the Bureau of Labor and Compliance of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, maintaining that their faction had legal control of the organization, and that it was the lawsuit-weilding group that had illegally grabbed union funds to hire its lawyers.
Are you confused yet?
Okay, let’s back up a bit.
THE BACK STORY—-OR AT LEAST SOME OF IT
You may remember that when we last visited the bizarre warren of high drama and bad behavior that the ALADS board has become, the two factions were just beginning to wrestle for power.
One faction is led by the current board president Armando Macias— who, as it happens, is reportedly not legally able to serve as board president, according the ALADs bylaws.
It seems that Macias did not attend enough of certain meetings that he was required to attend to hold office, so was removed from his position as president by the other group last month. But he declined to make a graceful exit, and instead has hired a lawyer—or possibly several lawyers—to support his legitimacy.
He is joined in his quest by legally elected Vice President Bruce Nance—plus two others.
The second faction—namely the one opposing Macias—appears to be led by the former board president, Floyd Hayhurst, who is also legally hampered since he has retired and thus is no longer a county employee. This means, although he may serve on the board, he may not vote. Hayhurst is reported to be voting anyway.
In other words, neither of these factions seems to have a firm grip on the legal high ground.
Nevertheless, most of the rest of the seven-member ALADS board has lined up behind one or the other of the combatants— Macias or Hayhurst—-with much bitter squabbling and legal postering the result.
To add to the mix, Hayhurst (the former ALADS Prez) appears to be angling to be appointed by the board as executive director of the organization, a powerful position which, at the moment, is vacant—-and which also might conceivably give him access to the sought after ALADS PAC money.
Hayhurst is reported to be a longtime supporter of former undersheriff Paul Tanaka, who is running for sheriff, and who has been actively angling for union PAC money for a long time (as we wrote about here)
It is not clear whom Macias supports (rumors abound on that matter), although VP Bruce Nance has declared himself to be opposed to Tanaka’s candidacy.
It’s important to note that, although last month, the union’s political committee chose not endorse or to give any money to candidates for sheriff until after the primary (as we reported here), the board of directors has the power to override that decision.
LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST UNION PREZ & VICE PREZ FOR ALLEGEDLY SNATCHING $100K IN UNION FUNDS TO HIRE LAWYER (OR LAWYERS)
To bring you up to date, according to the lawsuit, (which you’ll find attached below), ousted board president Macias, and board VP Nance, requested, but originally were blocked from acquiring, $100,000 in board funds to pay the attorney that they have hired to get Macias reinstated as president, which frankly sounds like a losing battle.
The two insist that they have the authorization to request and receive the funds as they are acting in the board’s interest. Since approximately 50 percent of the voting board (Hayhurst’s group) seems to think otherwise, this seems like a questionable legal position.
Of course, it’s no more questionable than Hayhurst and Company filing a lawsuit against Macias and Nance, and claiming they are doing so in behalf of all of ALADS (and reportedly using ALADS funds to pay their lawyers).
Not to be outdone, when Macias and Nance could not get anyone to write them a $100,000 check out of the union’s general fund, despite much reported hectoring and pestering, they managed to snatch the $100K out of the union’s campaign fund—namely the very same PAC money that one or more sheriff’s candidates would like to get their personal mitts on.
As we mentioned before, the matter of a sheriff’s candidate receiving some of the campaign bucks is thought to be the point of this power struggle.
(For more on the lawsuit, I recommend that you read the complaint itself, starting about midway on Page 3 to the top of Page 12.)
Here’s the complaint: ALADS Lawsuit 4-27-2014
And for more of the Macias/Nance perspective, read the letter from Macias’ attorney Steve Ipsen (a former LA prosecutor who now presents himself as “general counsel” for ALADS), which you may find here: Dept. of Labor Letter
Did I mention that each of these factions now has competing ALADS websites?
Here’s the Macias & Co. website.
And here’s the Hayhurst group’s site.
Members of the ALADS rank and file with whom we spoke seemed generally dismayed with all the squabbling. “With these clowns fighting, we all lose,” said one LASD deputy.
Law enforcement experts outside the organization suggest that the ALADS struggle is yet another symptom of the problems in the sheriff’s department that continue to emerge.
“To be honest, I think it’s one more thing shows the depth of dysfunction,” said one non-LASD law enforcement source. “It’s sad because it hurts all the good deputies who are just trying to do their jobs.”
Tanaka, the gift of division and dysfunction, that just keeps on giving…
Floyd just cannot let go of the power he is accustomed to and craves so desperately, even in retirement. Oh, and the Executive Director position; that’s about 200K a year. But,the problem is that he never was a leader, and his lack of leadership is why most younger members have no real interest in participating actively in the union. It’s all about the Benjamins. Go away, mister…
I keep Alads for legal representation. That’s it. This episode only continues to prove what a bunch of sneaky little opportunists the people who run the union actually are. Ever try to get a straight answer from one of them? They squirm, hem and haw like when you ask a tweeker when they last used. They’re as dirty as the rest of the laundry on this department.
Wait for it….. The corruption will be unveiled. Why do you think Hayhurst won’t turn over the books? How is he affording his Masarati. What about his secret trips to Vegas with friends when there is no convention or Sheriffs meeting. They are at war because Macias is brave enough to take him on. He will prevail and the documents will be spread far and wide.
How a once proud and might organization has fallen. There was a time when ALADS was the preeminent law enforcement labor organization in the state. In the late 80s and 90s, with Bud Treece as executive director and the chair of the County Coalition of Unions, ALADS spearheaded the effort to create PORF and the Horizons benefit. Then, through its deft lobbying efforts in Sacramento, ALADS helped defeat the powerful state marshals when Department executives had all but given up hope and now there are no marshals any longer in California. None of that is even imaginable today.
Now ALADS bickers internally with a sad and lackluster cast on either side far more interested in their own petty interests than what is best for the membership. Who is running the day to day functions down there? Who do deputies and DAIs go to if they need help. Bud is long gone. They don’t have an executive director. The members are the losers.
These so-called directors are acting like they are playing with Monopoly money. But it is not just the purported $2.3 million Pac funds that are in play. Between members dues, the property they own and the Bluecross money they control and the PORF money that they manage with PPOA, we are talking closer to $30 million.
The next rep meeting should be filled to overflowing as members demand answers and solutions to this mess. Sadly, most ALADS members will probably just do what they have since the late 90s when problems arise: bitch and complain, yawn and then sit home and do nothing.
You get what you deserve, guys.
Man and woman up and go down and take this thing away from these eight clowns or watch someone else do it for you.
Pathetic.
I wonder how many copies/versions of the Dispatcher we’ll get next month. 0, 1, or 2. It’d be interesting to see both factions put out leadership assessments. LOL. I guess the rank and file could judge them on those.
Can anyone shed light on how easily we can terminate our ALADS memberships and what other union(s) we can join? I saw LASPA suggested on a previous post…?
Its time for deputies to dump ALADS or take it back. They should vote not to support any candidate. That money could be spent in better ways.
We back before most of the current deps were on the department, we voted out POPPA. Now its time for you deps. to do the same or clean house of all the current board members.
This will be a deciding and defining year for ALADS and LASD. By father’s day of this year, both organizations will have two new DADDY’S. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
Who wants to bet.$$$$$$$$$!……When Floyd Hayhurst totally leaves, ALADS will be 90% better. Confusion will be no longer. The upcoming ruling will legally take the JackAss out. WATCH. He can then go to work for Tanaka.
What about the $100,000.00 Macias and Nance took from the union? Why did they take it? Why did they need so much?? How is the any different than you say about Floyd
4). Exposure will have its day. No one has ever stood up to fight the regime of Floyd and cast of clowns. …..until now. I guarantee to you that this time next year,Floyd will be gone.
Time to decertify ALADS through the NLRB process. Throw them all out. Return all PAC funds to the members (after a thorogh audit by the Feds of all ALADS finances and disbursements). Start over with something other than LASPA. This is just stupid, embarassing, and like #1 said, more divisiveness at the hands of the Tanaka-ites. The old regime of Hayhurst, Remige, etc were just the rollover dogs during the last few contracts. All Macias could ever write about were his glory days at ELA for every Dispatcher issue. Same tired old story that ALADS has been for the last decade plus. All for the enrichment of ALADS and self-enrichment of the board officers. Zilch for the working dues-paying membership.
It’s about time that ALADS is being called out on the carpet. Check the book$. Millions have went through ALADS……I WANT MY MONEY BACK!
Corruption, period. Either Macias called them out on their BS, or they called out Macias on his BS. Either way, this was about the cash and nothing more. But I kind of have my gut feelings whose at fault. Whenever I read Macias proclaiming Jihad against the Department in the Dispatcher I always questioned his stability. When he was elected President I knew it would be entertaining. Anybody know where Macias’ spider hole is located? I’d like to ask him what’s going on.
Macias used to wire articles about Tanaka and the gang. He was then silenced by Hayhurst, who refused to publish the articles. This is fact.
I don’t always agree with you Boomer, but you always make me laugh. *thumbs up*
ALADS as of the past 8 years has always been a clown show with Steve remige and Floyd hayhurst at the helm and they hid their stupid acts and secret B.S. behind closed doors. Their stupidity was evident with the 2-2-2 contract. Slowly but surely it’s unraveling week by week. This crap did not start just now, with Macias and Nance. The reality is that the old bullshot is being called out. Their followers know it. I see ultimate victory for ALADS once Floyd is totally gone. Good riddance.
@Ithacaboomer: I kind of actually agree with you on something!
Another legend in his own mind. I think he lived vicariously
through other people’s war stories. Just one reporters opinion.
Probably in the trunk of that radio car of trust you command. You probably need to look under your throw away burner and emergency EV… You know bro, just in case we gotta take one to jail who needs to go, and make sure one of these puppies can be trusted to do the right thing.
ALADS and the department coming through again to show the world we are the best at being the largest f-ups.
Jack Dawson,….sad to admit I agree with your comments regarding the department. What a big mess and I am curious how this lawsuit with ALADS is going to turn out. Money and abuse of power will ultimately bring lots of people down.
#21-Jack, that is one of the most accurate posts I’ve read here. It is the dog (Poodle) that yaps the loudest and most often that is the WEAK one in the pack. Can’t be trusted in my radio car, we need cliques to separate the weak from the strong (I use the word strong loosely) is the Poodle yapping loudly and he is the weak one in the pack. I lived through this and that Poodle is a poser of the highest rank.
Someone explain to me why is it ok for Unions to get involved and support elected candidates when running for public office. I know all of them do it, but I’ve come to the conclusion that Most, if not all, Unions will support the candidates that will help them best, especially come contract negotiations time.
So, if these Unions support and give funds to candidates that will best serve their needs, and possibly not the most qualified or best candidate for the position, how is this not a Conflict-of-Interest?
Be Gone – Ideally it is because the union is the voice of their members. So by the union throwing its support behind a candidate, they are indirectly saying that the candidate they are supporting is the one that their members would like to see elected the most, or the one that is most likely to help their members. I’d say 90% of the time, that is exactly how it works.
In this case, it is ALL about self interest. It has nothing to do with the best candidate for the department, and the best candidate for deputies. It is all about the best candidate for individual ALADS board members.
The reality is that there isn’t a single candidate that should have ALADS support, because the rank and file aren’t unified behind anyone at the moment either. It’d be disingenuous and downright fraudulent for ALADS to support anyone at this time.
You have to crack eggs before you make an omelet, you have to kill a cow before you make a hamburger. You must root out corruption before you clean up ALADS. The big question is …..With Macias gone, why is Floyd Hayhurst still sneaking around? The chickens are coming home to roost!
ALADS should spend that CASH on a better law firm to represent Deputies. That Green and Shitnei group is a big joke.
Wait until it comes out the Green & Shinee computer files were hacked into with Deputies information being compromised. Ask about that and see what his answer is?.Ask those who were indicted and see how strong their case is with Dick. That’s another piece of of ALADS problem. Connect the dots and see for yourself. ALADS should have more than attorney to handle ALADS. How many large agencies have only one attorney in charge of All legal matters.(Not including the underlings with Green & Shinee.)Clean house and kill the mouse, clean twice and kill all the mice.
ALADS and POPA MEMBERS
Problems with endorsements are not new to LASD. Years ago POPA had a meeting for all members to decide on who to endorse for sheriff; Baca or Block. Tom Sams spoke and gave a convincing argument that it would be best that we NOT endorse anyone. The reasoning (as I recall)was that regardless of who we endorsed there would be a huge downside and should Deputy Sheriffs be involved in politics? Another issue would be the difficulty of getting a clear consensus on who should get the endorsement and money. No endorsement was made.
Block died and Baca’s first order of business was to destroy ALADS for endorsing Block. Many of us stood our ground and informed Baca, Waldie and Stonich to back off as screwing around with union business was a crime. LASPA fell by the wayside and Baca threw LASPA under the bus. Typical of Baca!
Tanaka tried and failed to control POPA and now Tanaka is trying to control ALADS as Tanaka’s campaign is headed into the ditch.
Lastly, the current legal battle with ALADS will not be resolved anytime soon so my post maybe a mute issue. However, if ALADS does get its S together ALADS must come up with a plan to include ALL members into this decision!!
How many of you knuckleheads with comments will take the time to do something about what’s happening? You guys talk a big game, but take NO action! Do something about it! Show up at the meeting and make a change. It’s open to ALL MEMBERS and it’s one day out of the month. You guys talk shit but then expect someone else to fix the problem. Put down the remote, and get active!!
Wasn’t LASPA formed back in the day because ALADS leadership refused to disclose their finances and ran a scam on the sheriff endorsement process? Funny how history repeats itself, we’re back at square one!
Mando always seemed to be a Stand Up Guy when I worked with him through the 90’s at ELA. He always seemed concerned about Deputies rights. I will back him and did not like the old regime at ALADS.
30: EXACTLY!!!!
.30) You hit the bullseye!
#30,
I guess this iPhone isn’t really connected to the internet and it really isn’t working shortly after I experience or see something within LASD.
My guess is you are one of the names on the ALADs letterhead. People have tried to talk to you before to no avail.
Corruption is not something that can be blamed on an apathetic group of deputies. The board members enabled each other and it’s your turn to enjoy the accountability.
Where were you guys when a record number of deputies were fired in 2013? Why was Green and Shinee not held accountable? Where the hell are you guys re these indictments?
There should be a hundred deputies standing outside the courthouse to support these guys and it should be organized by the union. Nope not our sorry directors. That’s too much work and you may have to speak on tv.
#29 – I do think that for this primary election cycle, the best thing that ALADS can do is not endorse anyone. As for the second portion of the election; we’ll just have to wait and see about that. I wouldn’t want them making million-dollar decisions while under the influence of drama.
#35
Jack,
Bravo. I couldn’t agree more. Integrity is determined by what you do when nobody is watching, paying attention to you. If some of the ALADS board has become corrupt because of apathy on the members part, those people never had any integrity to begin with. They simply became corrupt when they thought they could get away with it because nobody was watching or paying attention to them.
That’s why it’s going to court. Until now, no one has stood up to the Cowardly Hayhurst and Company. The story speaks for itself. Who has stood up to call Alads out their B.S.since he was at Alads. Macias is not a fan of every one, but he was pro deputy. Those with some time on,know the story. When Floyd is finally exposed and expelled, he will be on suicide watch. 2014 will go down in history for Alads and the sheriff’s department. #3( oh well) you called it. People do what they want to do until someone checks them or bust them. The attorneys fee$ will be paid for by the members. It could be better spent on our deputies were indicted. Alads is supposed to back the deputies, however only a few non sworn individuals…..Shinee, Hayhurst & the indicated law firm.
Hey #30 take your “you guys don’t do sh&!” attitude and shove it. A few if us have wanted to get involved. Like most cops however we ask questions. We want to know what we’re stepping into. All the hows, what’s, whys and when’s. Funny thing however, everytime there’s a push for an answer, transparency or accountability those in charge clam up or cite some BS “procedure” or “rule.” I take umbrage at you simplistic “don’t like it get involved knucklehead” attitude. The only knuckleheads are the sheep that believe the words that are coming out of either the Macias or Floyd camps. Save us the rah rah BS insults because we all see you for what blowhard clowns you are.
Jack. I respect you for the years you put in before your terrible accident. Your wrong. I’m just a lone dep who shows up and speaks his mind at the meetings. I agree that WE need a new board with new directions and better leadership skills. But that isn’t going to happen if nobody gets involved. I’m always inviting deps to come to the meetings and voice their opinions, but everyone has an excuse (softball,RDO’s,ect..) Armondo reminds me of Obama. Promises everything, but can’t deliver. After watching him at a few meetings I’ve determined that he’s a complete nut case. We’ve had 68 terminations last year and that was due to to Baca and OIR. Green & Shinee filed a lawsuit against OIR and guess what? They are being disbanded as we speak. They also formed a team of lawyers to defend those deputies. I bet they beat those trumped up FBI charges and get reinstated. Time will tell. Either way, the only way to get a stronger & better board is if deps attend the meetings to hold the board accountable for their actions and replace them if they desire. No one else can do this for you. YOU have to clean your own house. Step up. Jack, you’ve been gone for a while. Things are different now.
#40,
I am lost on the accident or I have been gone for while comment. I don’t have to remind you Jack Dawson is a moniker?!? Its the character from the Titanic if you need a little pop culture recap…. He dies at the end after being places he should not have been, but that was a great necklace.
I am very active in the ALADS process and other LASD affairs. Why else would I post or read this site? Its the best way to observe the prevailing political winds and try out remarks.
Oh well, keep up the good fight partner. I am sure we pass each other in the hallways everyday and exchange the same cynical, jaded, and sarcastic pleasantries.
SO I will say it again, this iphone is pretty useful when I am tooling around with my radio car partners, waiting on my supervisor to sign paper work, or spitting in a bottle waiting on the bad man to do his thing….
When you speak to one person these days, you are speaking to a thousand (WLA, twitter, instagram, facebook, etc…)
Till next time. I am on my way to step up some more.
BTW- witness la is far more effective than an ALADS board meeting. Executives, BOS members, etc… actually read our post. I laugh to myself when I hear them trying to figure us out.
Beware of the gray man LASD!!
J. London #29. I have to tell the “rest of the story” regarding the non-vote at PPOA.
Before that meeting at PPOA Sams was in favor of a vote on who the command staff would support in the election and he was a supporter of Block. That was before the Baca/Stonich/Waldie forces cut a deal with Myron’s entire Division that they would all reap promotions if they could keep a vote from happening as it was clear that 80%-90% of the Captains and Commanders favored Block over Baca (after all they all had worked around Leroy for years and KNEW what kind of Sheriff he would make) and the Baca Boyz did not want that information used in the election. Sam’s speech was about stopping the vote, not some higher ethical calling.
Myron and Baca’s people were able to intimidate enough people to vote “not to vote” so that a vote regarding who the command staff supported never took place.
As they say, the rest is history; Myron, Sams and the entire Division reaped their rewards after the election and the LASD started down the slippery slope where promotions were made based on back-room deals and cronyism. IMHO, that sad night was, unfortunately, the beginning of the end for a great Department.
The fact that the vote took place at PPOA was only because the Command Staff rep on PPOA’s board agreed to host the meeting. PPOA was going to make an endorsement one way or another.
PHH
Paul Harvey, Now that seems more like how a type of voting/non voting would take place. This reminds me of that Netflix show: House of Cards except it is here in L.A. and not in Washington D.C.
PHH: You are correct and I was there! I left out much of the story due to space. True, Sams did not act out of a higher ethical standard.
Perhaps providence is playing a hand in all this. I don’t believe there is enough time for ALADS to endorse anyone until the lawsuits are done. I also don’t see the two sides coming to a compromise less a consensus.
However,after the primary, I suggest that neither ALADS or PPOA endorse anyone without 50% of the vote from both organizations. ALADS and PPOA should go to unit to unit urging everyone to vote. If the 50% mark is not reached then no endorsement and no hard earned MEMBERS money can be used if only 10% of the membership vote. A million dollars is a lot of money for a political campaign to be used by the vote of a few board members whose loyalty is questionable!!
I’m interested in what you suggest.
J.London: How about asking the deputies the real question, If Tanaka became the Sheriff what do you think the political & legal fallout would be? Do you honestly think that Tanaka’s style, penchant for off-color ethical, legal & organizational actions are what you want? I think given that preface as a basis of support or non-suppot the majority of deputies would say “No thanks Mr. Tanaka”. How about a vote of No Confidence, let the primary occur & then address the endorsement. In my view, you don’t want Paul Tanaka to have any chance to come out of the primary as one of the two. An Olmsted-McDonnell contest would be the best for a host of reasons.
#44,J. Obviously we both saw what happened that night. If you had seen it differently, I have a bridge to sell you.
IMHO we had an opportunity of letting the public know who, we the command staff, thought (knew) would be the best Sheriff for the next four years.
I and others spoke in favor of the vote, the Baca/Stonich/Myron Boyz used the dodge that “we should not get involved in politics.”
There were many in the room who stayed quiet and saw an opportunity to avoid the whole thing – and not jeopardize their careers – by voting “not to vote.”
So the decision was made; stay out of it, keep our career paths open no matter who wins, and the Dept will go on. The Departments “Leaders” did not “Lead” and unfortunately – for the Department and its thousands of members – the old guy slipped in the tub, the wrong guy won, and the Department went from one of the preeminent law enforcement agencies in the country to an international embarrassment.
Regarding your comments; from what I read, I assume it will be some time before ALADS will be able to make any decisions one way or another, which puts off any endorsement notion until the run-off.
Your idea of requiring 50%+ return of ballot is very much like the house of cards vote “not to vote.” Unlike the situation where the Command Staff failed to lead, there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Deputies. So, if the Deputies don’t care enough to back one candidate or another by just filling out a ballot (no postage necessary, of course), they deserve what providence throws their way.
I would hope, however, that the two candidates have an opportunity to have a one-on-one fair and square debate, no audience with the debate perhaps put on youtube. Allow the Deps to actually see/hear these two go at it head-to-head about what the future holds for bothe the Dept and the Deps if one or the other are elected. No rumors No B/S No audience antics
The money that is attached to an ALADS endorsement could be huge to the candidate and could be the difference on who leads the Department during its much needed reconstruction period.
If the Deputies don’t care enough to “get involved”, I say let history repeat itself!
PHH
The Past, I agree an Olmsted-McDonnell runoff would be in the best interest of the organization and the county. Any other combination will result in a McDonnell administration, with him still holding all of his cards concealed, and never having to have divulged his intentions. That is bad, kinda what gave us Baca. Vetting is the key, and the primary doesn’t accomplish that with too many distractions and choices.
As an ALADS rep back in the 90’s, we went thru 2 “blue flu’s’ and that was probably the only time in my 30+ year career where I saw a mostly united and determined union. Of course it took the issue of the almighty $$$$ dollar to rally the troops. Obviously this is not the case today. I beleive ALADS should refrain from endorsing anyone at this time. Why should ALADS give “OUR” dues from the PAC to a candidate who doesn’t make the top two vote getters. If there is a runoff in june then the Board should make an endorsement after having the remaining two candidates debate before the membership and from there the membership can let the ALADS board know who they want as their next Sheriff (maybe it will end up being the lesser of the two evils). This is where all you arm chair quarterback, peanut gallery deputies get involved no one can make you vote but it’s not only your right as an voting member but also your obligation to your union to vote, remember the saying ” strenght in numbers”. How do you think Obama won 2 elections, by the same principle combined with people who didn’t vote for him and did not bother to vote for his opponent. If the membership is votes for a certain candidate then the board should endorse and provide that candidate with PAC money. Also the board should not endorse anyone else except for the one who the membership decided on ( sadly when there is a survey or ballot of the membership to return to ALADS at least during my time with ALADS the response was 15-20%). So if you want “your” union to represent you and your interest you must VOTE. When it comes to the isues of the ALADS Board of Directors, Each person who runs for a position on the board has their own reason(s) for doing it. hopefully the reason are noble in the beginning but it appears to me that it can benefit that person’s personal agenda more than the benefits of the union. Correct me if I’m wrong from my experience and memory after serving as the ALADS Board President and you didn’t ruffle the department feathers to much eventualy there would be some stripe in your future.I can think of one who I beleive didn’t go that route (Pete Brodie)correct me if needed . Again it comes to voting, can someone tell me how many votes in total were cast for all the candidates in the last ALADS Board of Directors election. I would be very suprised and infact stunned if more than 50% of the membership voted. Bottom line, If you want ALADS to represent you and your interest in all aspects of the job If you want your union dues to get the most bang for your buck then be more involved and more vocal and most importantly VOTE for the person who you beleive will represent you and your union when there is ALADS election otherwise it will remain SOP until the deputies decide enough is enough and take back as a whole “their” union not the boards. One last thought and i’m just throwing it out there, expand the board of directors from the current 7 to 10 (less individual control, more points of views and more votes reqiured to run the union). and of those 3 additional directors all shall all be retired deputies ( it would bring in experience along with no agendas besides keeping the menberships first and foremost) who were in good standing with the union prior to retirement and have not previously held a board of director’s position and would only be allowed to serve one term only ………..I know I got to much time on my hands.
So, Just Saying, what do you think of Mr London’s suggestion that ALADS not endorse unless they have 50% of their membership voting?
PHH
In response to your question (Paul Harvey), I agree with that statement. As I stated before what good is a union without the majority of the membership endorsing a particular candidate. An effective union starts with an effective membership. While I was a unit rep, the only time the members were interested in its union’s operation is when their paycheck was an issue. This was the only time the union hall had new faces at the unit rep meetings. To give an endorsement and more inportantly with the portion of my dues that are used for the PAC to a candidate, should be an investment to better the union (Pay raises, fringe benefits, working conditions and improving officer safety). Whoever receives the endorsement from ALADS with less than 50% of the membership voting and I would venture to say it’ll probably be lower than that and wins, will he remmeber the name of the deputies who did and did not vote for him? Probably not, he’ll remember the ALADS Board members. This is why to truly reflect Alads as a strong and unified union and use whatever politcal clout that they may have left should not endorse any candidate unless a majority of its members (50% or more) vote for one particular candidate. if this cannot be acheived then the board cannot and should provide an endorsement or our PAC money to any particular candidate. I understand the business of politics and the need to remind an elected official who helped them get to where they are at now. In my opinion, how does endorsing a candidate for sheriff help Alads. On the issue of pay, the sheriff does not directly get involved in salary or fringe benefits negotitions. When there is an issue about working conditions, most of the remdedies come from outside goverment agengies. When a member is under investigation we have attys and the legal system to help us. I personaly don’t mind endorsing candidates but endorsing someone who could be your next boss or on the flip side the candidate that did’t get the union endorsement can present problens from both senarios, that old saying ” don’t _ _ _ _ where you eat” could very well apply here. Just like our goverments structure there is a reason for separation of powers and checks and balances. This is the only way to keep everyone honest atleast in theory.
For all you english majors and spelling bee champs I apoligize for my grammer and spelling errors, show some compasion remember I’m just a deputy.