Contents | Post | Reply
From: 25+yrs email: Date: 09 Mar 2010 Comments: Stick a fork in him he's done. He was transparent from the start - a hack from the beginning. If I had issues I wouldn't go to him because of confidentiality. Ok he from 33. But as a delegate running I didn't see the local's interests just the councils. And that the problem with council employees running for delegate- who are they supporting or representing- the council regime or the members? The current system of dual loyalties of delegate/ council employee doesn't represent the members interests because it support the councils and if the council is contractor friendly (i.e. MOBILITY), the members interests are pushed aside for the greater good of signing more contractors. The delegate/ council employee is more insulated from the concerns of the member because his interests in supporting the council - the source of his income. Predictably, this is the case of the CAPS director - RIP. The whole system was suppose to take the politics out of the local. Yeah it has but just moved it up a stage to the council level where now there is less accountability and more top down decisions that have alienated the local membership. It may work in other areas of the country where McCarron came from but it hasn't work here - just the opposite. We now have top heavy do nothing leadership who have forgotten how to use a hammer who spend there time figuring how to divide their opposition to keep their high paying jobs. To keep their jobs they count their support with the delegates and ex-delegates like greely. If you are not a delegate, your worth is disminished and your worth as a council employee. For those reading this outside New England, there should be a change in the constitution that limits delegates from being council employees. The two competing interests in being both is not beneficial to the membership. And that what the UBC is all about - good membership for all and not the few at the top.