ASA Furlough Fund

[Speedtape]

According to a member on the Furlough Committee, the new contract modified the language on the probationary period from D.O.H. + 1 year to a longer period of I.O.E. + 1 year. Apparently, our pilot group is the only pilot group that has the difference, now.

This was the first election that has happened since the contract. Apparently, the National folks that run the elections had no knowledge of the change in contract and that our process, related to the probationary period, was now different. Moreover, when the "elegible pilots to vote" on the roll were assembled for some list, somewhere between 6 and 15 pilots were included that should not have been included under the new contract language on probationary period. It was an honest oversight by the staff, that has no dog in the fight, and were going through the motions of running an election that is usually somewhat routine.

What some pilot, soon to be furloughed, was told in the LEC meeting by the Rep was true--that this pilot would not be able to vote because he was still on probation, according to the new contract language. This pilot was officially on probation, as were all of the affected pilots in the furloughed group. That would have taken care of the conflict of interest issue.

According to the Pilot Furlough committee member, the issue only came to light because one of the pilots to be furloughed, announced that he had been sent a ballot and had voted. Apparently, several members not impacted by the furlough brought it to the attention of both National and the ASA MEC. According to the Pilot Furlough Committee member, the MEC, surprised by the news, contacted National for an investigation regarding the elegibility roll or list, and to seek guidance and remedy if there was a an election anomaly.

The Pilot Furlough Committee member, speculated that once an investigation was complete, if there was an improper roll, that some National election committee might review the roll, remove the inelegible voters that were officially still on probation, and retally the results.

If this is what happens, and the numbers are correct, the result of the election will remain unchanged. However, given those circumstances, the margin would be much closer.

In restrospect, had the usual whiners, who claimed to stand on their principle, gotten off their whining arses and made the effort to organize a No vote, they may have been successful. Get a Clue!

Morals of the story:
1. The screeching wheel may not always get the oil.
2. If you are going to stand on principle, then do something more than just run your mouth to affect the outcome.
3. The Democratic Process works--for those who care to participate.
4. The Democratic Process works--when there is a lack of participation, the minority can rule the majority.
5. The Democratic Process works--through strategy, Clinton won 2 elections because there was a 3rd party candidate, and he did not have to win majority vote or popular vote.
6. Last and most importantly for the principled whiners, The Democratic Process works--when like "O" or "Oh!Bama", you get out and off your arse, and organize the vote.

Bah-Bye

 

[ace6453]

-never was i told NOT to vote. i asked if ALPA allowed furloughed pilots to vote. i was told no. i asked this when i thought the vote would take place after the furlough. the vote actually took place before the furlough. i was not a furloughed pilot when i voted. i believed that since the vote was before i was furloughed and that since i had a "active member" ALPA card that i was elibible to vote. when ballotpoint allowed me to vote it only strengthend my belief. obviously this is true because had i had any reservations i would have never answered someones question when they asked if the furloughees got to vote. im not that dumb. had i thought i "snuck" in a vote i would have hidden hoping noone found me. i had no malicious intent.

If you actually believe this, then you are the dumbest sh*t at ASA. You make even the most clueless of the f/a's seem brilliant.

 

[Texx]

According to a member on the Furlough Committee, the new contract modified the language on the probationary period from D.O.H. + 1 year to a longer period of I.O.E. + 1 year. Apparently, our pilot group is the only pilot group that has the difference, now.


This was the first election that has happened since the contract. Apparently, the National folks that run the elections had no knowledge of the change in contract and that our process, related to the probationary period, was now different. Moreover, when the "elegible pilots to vote" on the roll were assembled for some list, somewhere between 6 and 15 pilots were included that should not have been included under the new contract language on probationary period. It was an honest oversight by the staff, that has no dog in the fight, and were going through the motions of running an election that is usually somewhat routine.

It's more like 70 pilots.

What some pilot, soon to be furloughed, was told in the LEC meeting by the Rep was true--that this pilot would not be able to vote because he was still on probation, according to the new contract language. This pilot was officially on probation, as were all of the affected pilots in the furloughed group. That would have taken care of the conflict of interest issue.

According to the Pilot Furlough committee member, the issue only came to light because one of the pilots to be furloughed, announced that he had been sent a ballot and had voted. Apparently, several members not impacted by the furlough brought it to the attention of both National and the ASA MEC. According to the Pilot Furlough Committee member, the MEC, surprised by the news, contacted National for an investigation regarding the elegibility roll or list, and to seek guidance and remedy if there was a an election anomaly.

The Pilot Furlough Committee member, speculated that once an investigation was complete, if there was an improper roll, that some National election committee might review the roll, remove the inelegible voters that were officially still on probation, and retally the results.

If this is what happens, and the numbers are correct, the result of the election will remain unchanged. However, given those circumstances, the margin would be much closer.

In restrospect, had the usual whiners, who claimed to stand on their principle, gotten off their whining arses and made the effort to organize a No vote, they may have been successful. Get a Clue!

You need to get a clue. Improper vote and any member in good standing has the RIGHT / DUTY to call it to the attention to National

Morals of the story:
1. The screeching wheel may not always get the oil.
2. If you are going to stand on principle, then do something more than just run your mouth to affect the outcome.

They did. Protested an improper vote.

3. The Democratic Process works--for those who care to participate.
4. The Democratic Process works--when there is a lack of participation, the minority can rule the majority.
5. The Democratic Process works--through strategy, Clinton won 2 elections because there was a 3rd party candidate, and he did not have to win majority vote or popular vote.

Clinton wasn't an ALPA member.

6. Last and most importantly for the principled whiners, The Democratic Process works--when like "O" or "Oh!Bama", you get out and off your arse, and organize the vote.

They did get off there arses. They called the BS Flag with National and the MEC didn't like it specifically 1 person.

Bah-Bye

Write the rules, play by the rules.

 

[sayrejm]

speedtape, thanks for taking the time to post that info. i would like to correct just one thing however. the rep did not say "i could not vote because i was on probation". probation was never mentioned. i was told that a furloughed pilot has not voting rights. when the vote was conducted prior to me being furloughed i believe that made me eligible to vote. i was not aware of the IOE+1 year change in the contract because every person i ever talked to in my year there told me pobation was DOH+1 year and so i never bothered to look that up. my mistake and i apologize for not knowing the real rule on probation. the problem with this vote is not that i was going to be furloughed eventually, the problem was that i voted believing i was not on probation anymore. i believed this because 1) most pilots i talk to about probation still believed this, 2)ALPA sent me a letter and a new membership card saying i was now an active member, and 3)i had union dues taken out of my pay. in hind sight, my vote should not be counted on the grounds of me being on probation according to the new contract. i agree that the voting ballots should be checked and votes should be thrown out, including mine. but let me make this clear that i believe this because of the issue of probation and not the issue of furlough. I was not a pilot on furlough when i voted, and i incorrectly assumed i was off probation for the reasons stated above.
this all began because someone asked if furloughed pilots had been able to vote. i simply wanted to answer his question. i just went back to see what i wrote and now realize why everyone thinks i was told not to vote. it is because i did not do a good job writing what i ment. i will quote what i had said on that webboard:
"i was told at the last MEC metting that i could not vote. however i tried anyway and did. it was tricky because i was not furloughed when i did vote on the 7th but i wonder if i had waited would i have not been able to?
the problem here is that i said "i was told i could not vote" what i ment by that statement was to paraphrase a question and answer that took place at the alpa meeting. my question was "can you vote if you are a furloughed pilot" and my answer was "a furloughed pilot can not vote" believing that i would be furloughed before this vote took place i can use logic to paraphrase this as "because your fuloughed, you cannot vote" and thus i simply stated that i was told "you can not vote". but that is only a paraphase used by logic assuming i was to be on furlough status when the vote took place. HOWEVER, when the vote actually took place before i was furloughed, that logic changes. it now becomes "since you are not furloughed yet, you still have voting rights" and so i voted. of course that was believing i was off probation which I now know was not the case.
To those who do not know me and challenge my integrity and use foul language to insult me, i challange you to get to know me first. try to find one person i have flown with who didnt think i conduct myself with integrity. i am honest, i am trustworthy, and i work hard. I made a couple of mistakes and i apologize to everyone for that. those mistakes were not knowing the real rule on probation and assuming it was DOH+1 year because thats what other pilots told me and not looking it up for myself. the other mistake was not being careful in my origional post on the webboard that i quoted here. i did not realize the way it sounded until just now when i went back to read it again and now i know i did a poor job communicating what i was trying to say.

thank you for listening to my side of the story, and once again i am truely sorry for the mistake of thinking i was off probation when i voted.

 

[JumpersAway]

JumpersAway, I admire your willingness to help out, but let me pose the following question...

I know an FO who's wife is losing her job in this downturn and she makes more money than he does...They are going to have a hard time paying their bills....Should he be forced to help pay COBRA for people who may be better off financially than he is?

I have talked to many pilots this week who are having their own financial hardships....They aren't too happy about being forced into charity when they are having trouble themselves....

In addition, we are going to be picking up 65% of the cost of COBRA thru our tax dollars and the stimulus....They will only be responsible for 35% of the cost...

I absolutely understand your point, however, I also have the up close perspective to which you refer. As I've posted before on this board- I'm a displaced Captain. I've taken a 45% pay cut, and had my wages garnished for a misunderstanding regarding contractually written bypass pay. Thus, I'm taken a hit more in line of 50%, yet I still feel it is the right thing to do. I'm getting pissed because if I can do it, why can't others???? I've got a mortgage and obligations like everyone else. The bottom line is, it's 20 dollars a month- if that breaks someone's budget, they need councelling.

As far as the distribution of the funds, I also agree that some need the money more than others. However, it's going to create a mess of red tape to sort through the 80 furloughes in order to investigate who truly needs the money. If the government picks up the bulk of it, that's great- we ought to adjust things accordingly once they are getting the help they need from the government. However, it takes time, and if they have the same luck I've got, the moment they go with insurance is the moment they get plowed over by an 80 year old q-tip in a Lincoln Town Car.

 

[ace6453]

speedtape, thanks for taking the time to post that info. i would like to correct just one thing however. the rep did not say "i could not vote because i was on probation". probation was never mentioned. i was told that a furloughed pilot has not voting rights. when the vote was conducted prior to me being furloughed i believe that made me eligible to vote. i was not aware of the IOE+1 year change in the contract because every person i ever talked to in my year there told me pobation was DOH+1 year and so i never bothered to look that up. my mistake and i apologize for not knowing the real rule on probation. the problem with this vote is not that i was going to be furloughed eventually, the problem was that i voted believing i was not on probation anymore. i believed this because 1) most pilots i talk to about probation still believed this, 2)ALPA sent me a letter and a new membership card saying i was now an active member, and 3)i had union dues taken out of my pay. in hind sight, my vote should not be counted on the grounds of me being on probation according to the new contract. i agree that the voting ballots should be checked and votes should be thrown out, including mine. but let me make this clear that i believe this because of the issue of probation and not the issue of furlough. I was not a pilot on furlough when i voted, and i incorrectly assumed i was off probation for the reasons stated above.
this all began because someone asked if furloughed pilots had been able to vote. i simply wanted to answer his question. i just went back to see what i wrote and now realize why everyone thinks i was told not to vote. it is because i did not do a good job writing what i ment. i will quote what i had said on that webboard:
"i was told at the last MEC metting that i could not vote. however i tried anyway and did. it was tricky because i was not furloughed when i did vote on the 7th but i wonder if i had waited would i have not been able to?
the problem here is that i said "i was told i could not vote" what i ment by that statement was to paraphrase a question and answer that took place at the alpa meeting. my question was "can you vote if you are a furloughed pilot" and my answer was "a furloughed pilot can not vote" believing that i would be furloughed before this vote took place i can use logic to paraphrase this as "because your fuloughed, you cannot vote" and thus i simply stated that i was told "you can not vote". but that is only a paraphase used by logic assuming i was to be on furlough status when the vote took place. HOWEVER, when the vote actually took place before i was furloughed, that logic changes. it now becomes "since you are not furloughed yet, you still have voting rights" and so i voted. of course that was believing i was off probation which I now know was not the case.
To those who do not know me and challenge my integrity and use foul language to insult me, i challange you to get to know me first. try to find one person i have flown with who didnt think i conduct myself with integrity. i am honest, i am trustworthy, and i work hard. I made a couple of mistakes and i apologize to everyone for that. those mistakes were not knowing the real rule on probation and assuming it was DOH+1 year because thats what other pilots told me and not looking it up for myself. the other mistake was not being careful in my origional post on the webboard that i quoted here. i did not realize the way it sounded until just now when i went back to read it again and now i know i did a poor job communicating what i was trying to say.

thank you for listening to my side of the story, and once again i am truely sorry for the mistake of thinking i was off probation when i voted.

Do you not see a conflict of interest with you voting? Even if all you typed above was true, there is a huge conflict of interest with furloughed people voting.

 

[JumpersAway]

If you actually believe this, then you are the dumbest sh*t at ASA. You make even the most clueless of the f/a's seem brilliant.

Your post have have reached a new level of cowardice. Care to introduce yourself to the members on this forum- I thought not. You obviously know who he is, so why not enlighten us all to the *********************************** behind the vile posts you've left here? The bad thing is I bet your a damn great guy in person- but not here, are you?

I can't believe that with all that is going on here, you find a single vote to be such a massive issue- aren't their bigger issues that deserve much less of your attention?

 

[Plainsman]

I absolutely understand your point, however, I also have the up close perspective to which you refer. As I've posted before on this board- I'm a displaced Captain. I've taken a 45% pay cut, and had my wages garnished for a misunderstanding regarding contractually written bypass pay. Thus, I'm taken a hit more in line of 50%, yet I still feel it is the right thing to do. I'm getting pissed because if I can do it, why can't others???? I've got a mortgage and obligations like everyone else. The bottom line is, it's 20 dollars a month- if that breaks someone's budget, they need councelling.

As far as the distribution of the funds, I also agree that some need the money more than others. However, it's going to create a mess of red tape to sort through the 80 furloughes in order to investigate who truly needs the money. If the government picks up the bulk of it, that's great- we ought to adjust things accordingly once they are getting the help they need from the government. However, it takes time, and if they have the same luck I've got, the moment they go with insurance is the moment they get plowed over by an 80 year old q-tip in a Lincoln Town Car.

Do you understand the Time Value of Money principle? Over time 5 here,10 here, 20 here sucks. In a good account it adds the F up in 40 years. You have a mortage, why not pay a little more every month? You may need it when you get laid off or lose your medical. Looks like you could use a money manager!

 

[ace6453]

Your post have have reached a new level of cowardice. Care to introduce yourself to the members on this forum- I thought not. You obviously know who he is, so why not enlighten us all to the *********************************** behind the vile posts you've left here? The bad thing is I bet your a damn great guy in person- but not here, are you?

I can't believe that with all that is going on here, you find a single vote to be such a massive issue- aren't their bigger issues that deserve much less of your attention?

He is easy to figure out due to his SN. I voted FOR the furlough COBRA money, I just cannot believe that someone would vote after being told not to, then try and justify it. I know if I were being furloughed, I could not in good conscience vote for money to be disbursed to me. If it passed, then great, but I would feel weird voting for money to be disbursed to me. Most people I have talked to feel the exact same way. It has nothing to do with the single vote, I'm glad it passed. It has everything to do with the complete lack of conscience that I believe the person in question has. All he has tried to do is justify his vote. Never once has he said, "you know what, there was a complete conflict of interest and I should not have voted".

Once again, I am glad this passed. I think it is very important to pay for the health insurance for the unfortunate furloughed people. These days the insurance is almost as important as the paycheck. I am just amazed by the lack of integrity.

 

[sayrejm]

Do you not see a conflict of interest with you voting? Even if all you typed above was true, there is a huge conflict of interest with furloughed people voting.

No I do not see the conflict of interest. We may just have to disagree on that. We vote for our own interest in this country all the time. Millions of people who do not pay taxes just voted for a president believing he would increase taxes on those who do and give it to them. The question isn't on whether a furlough to be pilot should have been able to vote. The question was whether he was allowed to vote at the time. As I have stated, probation aside, the ballots were certified prior to the furlough. With that said, It was not whether or not I was going to be furloughed that was at issue, it was whether or not I was still on probation. I will say it again; I was wrong. I was still on probation and have made my case why I thought I was not several times now. The two main reasons being the "active member" card alpa sent me and that I was charged union dues. It also didn't help that I did not recall that change in the new contract. Again, I am sorry I mistakingly voted while on probation.

 

[sayrejm]

He is easy to figure out due to his SN. I voted FOR the furlough COBRA money, I just cannot believe that someone would vote after being told not to, then try and justify it. I know if I were being furloughed, I could not in good conscience vote for money to be disbursed to me. If it passed, then great, but I would feel weird voting for money to be disbursed to me. Most people I have talked to feel the exact same way. It has nothing to do with the single vote, I'm glad it passed. It has everything to do with the complete lack of conscience that I believe the person in question has. All he has tried to do is justify his vote. Never once has he said, "you know what, there was a complete conflict of interest and I should not have voted".

Once again, I am glad this passed. I think it is very important to pay for the health insurance for the unfortunate furloughed people. These days the insurance is almost as important as the paycheck. I am just amazed by the lack of integrity.

Again, I was never told not to vote. I asked "can a furloughed pilot vote" I was told "a furloughed pilot cannot vote" when the vote started earlier than I was thinking it would when I had asked that question I thought that since I had not yet been furloughed that I was still eligible to vote. Until Feb 9 came to pass, it was concievable that ASA could have reduced the furlough by 10 people and then I would be one of the ones contributing to the fund. Of course the furlough issue is a mute point because, like it has been shown to me, I was still on probation and didnt realize it.

 

[N1VIBS]

Never really thought about it before, but anyone have any idea why probation was changed to completion of IOE plus 1 year? As for as I know, its been industry standard for probation to end at DOH plus 1 year. Being honest, since it didn't apply to me, I never noticed the change in the contract either.

 

[Texx]

It's done and over.

Lets back out the pilots that should have not been able to vote, per the contract, and do a recount. If it passed so be it, let's move on. If it changes the vote, there are other plans to move forward.

 

[Texx]

Never really thought about it before, but anyone have any idea why probation was changed to completion of IOE plus 1 year? As for as I know, its been industry standard for probation to end at DOH plus 1 year. Being honest, since it didn't apply to me, I never noticed the change in the contract either.

The Company wanted it. It was exchanged for something. What I don't know.

 

[Speedtape]

No I do not see the conflict of interest. We may just have to disagree on that. We vote for our own interest in this country all the time. Millions of people who do not pay taxes just voted for a president believing he would increase taxes on those who do and give it to them. The question isn't on whether a furlough to be pilot should have been able to vote. The question was whether he was allowed to vote at the time. As I have stated, probation aside, the ballots were certified prior to the furlough. With that said, It was not whether or not I was going to be furloughed that was at issue, it was whether or not I was still on probation. I will say it again; I was wrong. I was still on probation and have made my case why I thought I was not several times now. The two main reasons being the "active member" card alpa sent me and that I was charged union dues. It also didn't help that I did not recall that change in the new contract. Again, I am sorry I mistakingly voted while on probation.

For the record, any active member in good standing has the right to vote. To prevent that would be illegal.

For the record, no one in the group of 80 was officially off probation due to the new contract language that states the probation ends IOE + 1 year. Therefore, everyone in the 80 would have been classified an Apprentice Member. An Apprentice Member has no voting rights until he becomes an Active Member, which occurs post probation.

In addition, a furloughed pilot is no longer considered an Active Member.

In summary, at least one pilot(maybe more) of the 80 voted, as he has declared. That pilot was not furloughed at the time, however, he was officially an Apprentice Member,(no voting rights) as were the other 79. For that reason alone, that pilot and the other 79 should not have made the election roster for elegible pilots.

Apparently, the National staff who oversees the election process, did not know that our contract had changed regarding the probationary period. When they printed the roster for elegible voters, they apparently did the one year look back and created the list of every pilot who had been here for one year--assuming that they were off probation, because that is the way it had always been done and no one had informed them of the contract change.

 

[Speedtape]

The Company wanted it. It was exchanged for something. What I don't know.

Well, we know it was not for Pay-For-Training!

 

[sayrejm]

For the record, any active member in good standing has the right to vote. To prevent that would be illegal.

For the record, no one in the group of 80 was officially off probation due to the new contract language that states the probation ends IOE + 1 year. Therefore, everyone in the 80 would have been classified an Apprentice Member. An Apprentice Member has no voting rights until he becomes an Active Member, which occurs post probation.

In addition, a furloughed pilot is no longer considered an Active Member.

In summary, at least one pilot(maybe more) of the 80 voted, as he has declared. That pilot was not furloughed at the time, however, he was officially an Apprentice Member,(no voting rights) as were the other 79. For that reason alone, that pilot and the other 79 should not have made the election roster for elegible pilots.

Apparently, the National staff who oversees the election process, did not know that our contract had changed regarding the probationary period. When they printed the roster for elegible voters, they apparently did the one year look back and created the list of every pilot who had been here for one year--assuming that they were off probation, because that is the way it had always been done and no one had informed them of the contract change.

In addition to that, they also sent me paperwork and a new ALPA card saying I was activated and charged me dues. I am not going chase it because it is only 13 bucks, but ALPA owes me the money I paid for dues back. Is that worth chasing just on principle?

 

[johnpeace]

If we were ineligible to vote, why did ALPA send us directions for how to participate in the referendum?

 

[Speedtape]

Write the rules, play by the rules.

Originally Posted by Speedtape
According to a member on the Furlough Committee, the new contract modified the language on the probationary period from D.O.H. + 1 year to a longer period of I.O.E. + 1 year. Apparently, our pilot group is the only pilot group that has the difference, now.


This was the first election that has happened since the contract. Apparently, the National folks that run the elections had no knowledge of the change in contract and that our process, related to the probationary period, was now different. Moreover, when the "elegible pilots to vote" on the roll were assembled for some list, somewhere between 6 and 15 pilots were included that should not have been included under the new contract language on probationary period. It was an honest oversight by the staff, that has no dog in the fight, and were going through the motions of running an election that is usually somewhat routine.

It's more like 70 pilots.
Is that a firm number?

What some pilot, soon to be furloughed, was told in the LEC meeting by the Rep was true--that this pilot would not be able to vote because he was still on probation, according to the new contract language. This pilot was officially on probation, as were all of the affected pilots in the furloughed group. That would have taken care of the conflict of interest issue.

According to the Pilot Furlough committee member, the issue only came to light because one of the pilots to be furloughed, announced that he had been sent a ballot and had voted. Apparently, several members not impacted by the furlough brought it to the attention of both National and the ASA MEC. According to the Pilot Furlough Committee member, the MEC, surprised by the news, contacted National for an investigation regarding the elegibility roll or list, and to seek guidance and remedy if there was a an election anomaly.

The Pilot Furlough Committee member, speculated that once an investigation was complete, if there was an improper roll, that some National election committee might review the roll, remove the inelegible voters that were officially still on probation, and retally the results.

If this is what happens, and the numbers are correct, the result of the election will remain unchanged. However, given those circumstances, the margin would be much closer.

In restrospect, had the usual whiners, who claimed to stand on their principle, gotten off their whining arses and made the effort to organize a No vote, they may have been successful. Get a Clue!

You need to get a clue. Improper vote and any member in good standing has the RIGHT / DUTY to call it to the attention to National
I've got a clue--several of them! I agree that any active member has the right/duty to challenge the election. Given the declaration of one voting probationary pilot, a challenge is only fitting. My point was, did anyone (opponents) get off the ALPA boards or F.I. long enough to mount a campaign? I doubt it! However, if your numbers are correct, then the outcome will be reversed. My source claims it was only 6-15 at the most--not enough to reverse!

Morals of the story:
1. The screeching wheel may not always get the oil.
2. If you are going to stand on principle, then do something more than just run your mouth to affect the outcome.

They did. Protested an improper vote.
Yeah, but that was the last line of defense. With a vote this close, a little effort would have assured a different outcome--even with some illegal votes.
3. The Democratic Process works--for those who care to participate.
4. The Democratic Process works--when there is a lack of participation, the minority can rule the majority.
5. The Democratic Process works--through strategy, Clinton won 2 elections because there was a 3rd party candidate, and he did not have to win majority vote or popular vote.

Clinton wasn't an ALPA member.
Yes, and he claims he didn't have sex with "That Woman" also. Do you think he knows the meaning of "is?" How about the words to "The Devil with the blue dress on?" My point or "clue" was that he knew how to win the election without winning a majority of the votes--in 2 elections! It does not necessarily matter who writes the rules! He who knows the rules, rules! He didn't write the rules--but he knew how to play by the rules--to win! Maybe, you and your buds will prevail1

6. Last and most importantly for the principled whiners, The Democratic Process works--when like "O" or "Oh!Bama", you get out and off your arse, and organize the vote.

They did get off there arses. They called the BS Flag with National and the MEC didn't like it specifically 1 person.
I guess you know the politics and the players. I don't, but I guess there will be more drama and suspense.

Bah-Bye


Write the rules, play by the rules.
And you missed the 2 more of the important sayings:
1. It ain't over, until it's over!
2. It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings! She has not sung yet, but I hear her warming up:
"Dough"----a few bucks is what it's all about.
"Ray"--we could all use a little sunshine and brotherly perspective.
"Me"---that says it all, but, shouldn't we think about others, less fortunate?
"F/A" If all else fails "What would a F/A do?"
"So!" A little too much of the "Me" attitude is holding some back.
"LA"--Most of us are so sick of this we go "LALALA!"
"Tea" A Long Island Tea or two and we could get this settled in a gentlemanly way!
"Dough" Finally, it's where it all begins and where it all ends--$$$$!

TexxView Public ProfileSend a private message to TexxFind More Posts by TexxAdd Texx to Your Buddy List

 

[sayrejm]

Basically, alpa made a mistake by taking guys off probation on their anniversary and then sent them a ballot. we got an email telling us to vote and thus some of us assumed we were eligible and voted. It isnt like we went to the polls with fake IDs and voted for dead people. Honest systematic mistakes all around. It happened, lets fix it and move on.