All Candidates' Forum October 20, 2004 - Second Half of Forum
October 20, 2004 Transcribed from tape
(All Candidates' Forum October 20, 2004 - First Half)
Brian McDougall (PSRHMA) - My name is Brian McDougall and I work at the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. We’ll probably find out the results of negotiations in the next month or so once we’ve heard about that and our members have discovered what their new contract looks like. Probably the biggest issue in the union will be the budget situation and the questions of whether or not there’s going to be a dues increase. We have two people up sitting up at the front who’ve been on the Finance Committee and two people who haven’t and my question is for Mr. Monaghan and Mr. Aggrey the two people who are candidates who have been on the Finance Committee. What is it about your track record on the Finance Committee that should recommend you as candidates to all of us who are going to vote and I’m thinking here specifically of the fact that the election is taking place in circumstances where most of our members will vote not realizing that a dues increase or a financial crisis is coming in the future.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – We have had the question lets let José have the first response.
J. Aggrey – First of all members who are here bear in mind that we do have an executive committee. We’ve had an executive committee since this organization was created[pause] no decision is made by one individual we work as a team. Everyone who has had concerns with the organization and has had the desire to commit himself or herself to the organization has been part of decision making, has been part of the Executive. If you so desire to change things you should have been part of the Executive not sitting on the sidelines and complain. We make decisions as collectively there is no one decision that I make what I have done in the past is to bring about opening up the budgeting process to many of our members and that’s something that I’ve done when I became the Vice-President and the Chair of the Finance Committee. That to me is opening up and as I mentioned before organizations evolve, of course we can do better but don’t sit on the sidelines and complain be part of the decision making to build an effective organization.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Everyone will have a chance to respond. Mike.
M. Monaghan – I’ve been a member of the Finance Committee for three years and the job of the Finance Committee isn’t really to set the budget [pause] it sets the budget but the goals and what we spend the money on is more or less determined by the Executive Committee. Now, I find that there is a bit of a problem and the problem is that we need to get more information up front so we can give projections on various scenarios to the Executive Committee and that’s what one of the things I’ll work toward is, basically getting a long term plan and doing projections in the budget and that will enable us to meet the goals. I also think we’re about due for a dues increase we haven’t had one for a long time. Thank you.
D. Brackley – I invited in my presentation to the audience might ask what the story is of the two members who are on the Finance Committee, of course, the Finance Committee doesn’t decide the budget but it should be in a position to put something forward to the Executive Committee and maybe some alternatives which the Executive Committee could then act upon. But first and foremost the members of the Finance Committee should be aware of what the budget is and what the story is. In the last four Local leadership meetings I’ve been asking what the story is and I’ve now figured the story out by working with the numbers that were presented to us and it’s not the narrative that we were presented at the Local leadership meeting there’s a different story there. Our revenues have gone down but we’ve also had major increases in rent, salaries and computers. Most of this has nothing to do with the merger it has to do with increases in costs. So let’s leave the merger out of it that was a one time thing it was dealt with last year there were transition expenses but that’s not where the story is. So we need [pause] if I was on the Finance Committee we would have an open process, we would be providing alternatives to the National Executive Committee when they make their decision and we would have a story presented so that members could understand the budget. Thank you.
C. Lakaski – Well, what concerns me here of course is what Derek has said for sure but I’m also concerned about how this issue has been swept under the carpet two business cycles or two cycles of the budget have gone by and most people do not know about the fact that the union is facing this fiscal dilemma and I would think in a democratic organization that the people, the membership would know this and they would know it as it was occurring they would be involved in building a solution not just responding after the fact a very dire kind of set of options that we’re going to be left with and so I would say again that this is another example [pause] the budget committee, the work of the budget committee the desire not to come forward with this issue [pause] I mean it’s an election issue [pause] it should be an election issue [pause] but the candidates don’t raise it, at least some of the candidates don’t raise it [pause] because they don’t want this issue to be discussed in open forums and with the membership. Consequently, we are raising it and we’re going to try to bring it to the attention of many members as possible over the course of the next several weeks. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Thank you very much could I have the next question please
Question from floor - Mr. Brackley and Mr. Lakaski have provided some guidance as to how they plan to deal with the budget deficit is it possible to hear Mr. Aggrey's plan on how to deal with the deficit. Thank you.
J. Aggrey - First of all for those who have not been paying attention you are excused. The budget deficit did not start with this current budget [pause] it started a while back. The membership were informed [pause] if you go back to look at the package that was sent to you of all the membership were informed that we were running a deficit over 600,000. This is way before the merger and so I remind you that we’ve been open, we’ve informed you and we’ve given you enough information at least as best we can to let you know where the organizations finances were going. Second, we’ve had a membership fee of twenty three dollars for so many years I remember when we raised it to twenty five we were told by our members that we didn’t need to have so much money and therefore we reduce it to twenty three. Those of you who have been around would know that and for that reason we’ve been actually just breaking even over the years. Unfortunately, I cannot go into any more details than to say that yes its time for dues to be increased if you want to run the organization effectively and provide the best services that we have been doing.
M. Dewing (Moderator) - Mr. Lakaski would you like to add anything since it was a question to any of the candidates I will allow you to say a piece to
C. Lakaski - Well again, sharing information, sending out information packs of two or three inches thick is not done so [pause] is not done in a justifiable format and this is what Derek was talking about earlier. If the membership is going to receive the budgetary information it has to be a format that’s digestible. That the members can look, they can see what the issues are, they can understand the story [pause] that’s not what we’ve been given. The budget information is buried in inches of documentation. It is not a way to stimulate response from the membership[pause] the other way is that you could actually[pause] because this is such a crucial issue [pause] this is not an issue that you sort of , as I say “hunker down in the National Office” and send out information packages this is where you go out to the membership, this is where you meet with the big locals and the small locals, this is where you have forum to discuss these issues and some possible solutions[pause] that is not what went on. This issue is too crucial either (a) to be sweeped under the carpet or (b) be dealt in a very typical bureaucratic manner that has characterized this union for the last several years. Thank you.
M. Monaghan - First of all, I’ve listened to the response like you’ve said that we haven’t proposed [pause] you’re saying these candidates Derek and Carl have proposed solutions. I haven’t heard any solutions, I’ve just heard we’re going to go to the members and make this known. That’s not a solution and I do agree with them that we need to put out simpler information packages and make it easier for the members to know the financial position and bring it forward to the locals but the locals look to the National for guidance. It’s up to the Executive Committee and members of the Finance Committee and the resources in-house to look at this budget and find the solutions and I’m committed to doing that. Thank you.
D. Brackley - I think the question that members and people voting in these elections have to ask is [pause] these people have had the opportunity to present what the budget story is [pause] for the last whatever period they been on the Executive [pause] two years or four years. And we haven’t heard the story and not only that some of the members of the local leadership have been pushing this for this story to come forward properly for at least seven months[pause] we haven’t got the story but now all of sudden we’re at this table and we’re going get the story. What we need is [pause] people to talk about what the information is and to make informed, intelligent decision and part of doing that certainly in the long run is to have a budget cycle that includes strategic decision making and putting forward a strategic plan and putting forward a budget that support that strategic plan so that is what we need.
Mike Nelson (DOE) - I believe all candidates were at the last AGM and I was there and I think a lot of people in this room were and they realize that it was just kind of a show but we don’t want to talk about anything, we don’t want to answer any questions particularly with respect to the budget. I would like to hear all the candidate’s perspective on whether they would make [pause] what kind of changes they would make to future AGM’s and what their perspective on opening AGM’s so we can have [pause] make AGM’s real dialogue and potentially make AGM’s a decision making forum.
J. Aggrey - First of all I have in my platform that when I become President we will have quarterly Local Leadership meetings. There are no explanations or any additional information on what it is the four quarterly meetings would do. But to answer your question directly one of the four quarterly meetings of all local leadership would be to look at strategic planning. One would be looking at discussions about the growth of the organization, one would be looking at the Constitution and By-Laws to ensure that everyone has a chance to participate in these discussions and one will be for looking at career development planning strategies. So I do have a provision to allow much more participation in discussions in order to come out with a strategic plan for the organization.
C. Lakaski - Well with respect to the AGM’s - I think this goes back to something that I noticed at the AGM and that is that people really are not allowed to speak their mind without being censored or ridiculed and again it goes back to what I said earlier that we must not only promote not only allow but promote the idea that people can disagree with the leadership without fear of reprisal. So I think that’s very important and I think the AGM should be made into decision making bodies. I think you should be able submit recommendations with respect to certain kinds of decisions that have to be taken at the AGM. The membership knows that the AGM is not just a show and tell but actually has some serious functions that they can go to those AGM and vote on issues that really matter to them in their daily lives you’re going to have much larger turn outs. The abysmal turnouts are due to the fact that the AGM’s are just PR exercises for the most part. In my platform I also have a number of issues, I don’t have time to repeat them but please review my platform, go to my web site because the material’s there too. Thank you.
D. Brackley - So the questions was changing future AGM’s so there could be real dialogue and I think it’s a bigger question than that [pause] that is how do we have real dialogue in this organization not simply at one meeting. So I haven’t been particularly specific I think it is a very lengthy and difficult issue to deal with for instance we do have votes for the National Executive but not everybody voted for the local leaders and how do you deal with that kind of an issue. So I think it is a very significant issue that we need to deal with. We do need to open up this organization we do need to have more participation it has to go beyond AGM’s, As far as decision making forum there’s many ways we could do it. I like actually the idea of mail ballot but I think it has to be supported by other things, for instance, we could have AGM’s at which motions could be made which could later be voted on at a mail ballot that’s one possible change. I’ve got 5 seconds so I’m going to say look at my platform it has more information in it as well.
M. Monaghan - I have attended the recent AGMs and I can see how Derek and Carl and other members would feel the same way that we’re pretty well being told what’s happening and we don’t get a lot of input and I think that’s something that should be changed and I also note that all members have a chance to before the AGM to add to the agenda or to propose an item to be put on the agenda and I do agree with Derek and Carl that we should be allowed to bring motions to the floor that can be put to the members but I don’t know how we can make the AGM a place where we vote on issues because that’s really against the democratic principal because most members don’t go and we’re better off with the mail ballot that we have right now. To me that seems more democratic than just give them the AGM minutes and their vote. Thank you.
Clayton Therrien (STC - my question is for the Vice-President, specifically Derek, I‘ve read some criticism of yours of the organization as being Ottawa centric. The majority of our members actually live and work here and pay dues here and I’d just like to know if as Vice-President and a potential President in the case of incapacity, if you would look at, if you are considering major reallocations of resources towards the regions and away from the centre. Thank you.
D. Brackley - That’s not a question [pause] I guess we need to strengthen the locals and if part of that is a decision by the NEC to provide additional funds to the locals then that’s fine but its got to be a decision that’s taken after some discussion about how in the bigger picture we improve our organization. I see locals as being an integral part we have a tremendous store of expertise and wisdom and contact with the membership with the locals which is not in this building unless there are locals’ leaders here. So we need to draw on that kind of expertise and bring in I just also want to mention that with respect to democracy the CUPTE previous union of some of our current members was much more democratic in going out to the membership and spending lots of time discussing different kinds of situations that were of concerns to members and that’s something maybe we have to emulate as well. Thank you.
M. Monaghan – I believe that we should meet the needs of the locals outside the National Office and one of the ways I suggested to do this if the possible, if the needs of the members require it, that we perhaps set up a satellite office out west or down east wherever it’s required where an LRO could be available for you know a couple of days a week or whatever it would take. But I realize there’s going to be a cost involved and we would have to look at the needs versus the costs. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – We have time for a couple of more questions [pause] let
T. Nguyen (HC) - Most of the candidates talked about collective bargaining as being one of the most important things in the current term but given that your term is going to expire before the contract expires for I think most of the bargaining groups within CAPE I’m curious about whether or not you would be thinking about moving from the accepted practice of binding arbitration towards actually voting for strikes. And this is for all four candidates.
J. Aggrey – I never thought this issue would be revisited. But let me tell you years ago when we meet as an organization at an AGM and we put before our members the idea of having a strike fund I particularly with two three people where opposed by the majority of our leadership and we never had a strike fund so I can categorically say that our membership rejected that proposition. Now if you think there is an appetite for it and our members want us to have a strike fund and go on strike when we are disenchanted with negotiation with Treasury Board certainly this is something that should be put to our membership but I want to tell you honestly our membership has made it clear to us in the past that they are not interested in strike funds. That does not mean we shouldn’t revisit it, but my point is unless you can demonstrate to our membership that this is the way the way they want to go, I think it is something that seriously has to be considered.
C. Lakaski – Well I think the issue of whether you have a strike fund or not should be part of a larger collective bargaining strategy. And that bargaining strategy is going to be most effected in the years to come by the Public Service Modernization Act. The idea of collective bargaining and the Public Service Modernization Act are essentially related to each other over the years to come. Now I have a much more detailed answer to this question and one minute doesn’t do it justice in terms of a strike issue so I ask you to go to my web site for that. In short, if a strike fund is to be proposed it cannot be done in the kind of options that we’ve received in the past [pause]yes or no. We need an argument, we need a discussion, we need to have this issue thoroughly vetted throughout the union membership so that they’re aware of what are the benefits, what are the costs of such a strike and how they can contribute to perhaps better gains in the collective bargaining process or how the membership may feel that it’s just not worth it but it’s not an issue that I think should be decided only by head quarters only by the President or Vice-President or the Executive Council. I think again it’s an issue that has to be thoroughly discussed throughout the Locals. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – The time up flag is yellow so maybe it should be red I don’t know.
D. Brackley - The question of strike or not strike is one that we actually do get to vote on in every round of bargaining unlike some of the other unions in the public sector. And we have a choice do we want to go a strike route or a conciliation strike route or do we go an arbitration route. And this Association has in the past chosen arbitration by a huge majority so I think we, you know if the membership changes we can explore that but we need to have a discussion, however, there is something else we can do I proposed several years ago that we have a collective bargaining fund not a strike fund a collective bargaining fund. Unfortunately, that motion was defeated and I think that maybe it’s time to revisit it but the idea of a collective bargaining fund is to support this organization in its goals in collective bargaining, perhaps by help assisting other organizations, perhaps by advertising and getting our message out to the public and those are the kind of things we need to explore. Member participation, member decision making but do it with information so that the members can make an informed decision. Thank you.
M. Monaghan – As far as strike versus arbitration all the members I’ve spoken to don’t want to go on strike. To me it’s a simple question I want to stick with arbitration and hope the Treasury Board negotiates in good faith. I’ve been at meetings where some members did propose a strike fund but I could feel from the audience that there was no support for that movement and that’s where I stand on the situation. Our members have mortgages and expenses and they don’t want to go out on strike. Thank you.
A. Picotte (Translation Bureau)- José and Carl how do you plan to handle the consultations under the reform of the Public Service [pause] the enhanced consultation that will be implemented under that reform.
J. Aggrey - Could you please make it clearer I’m not sure what you mean?
A. Picotte (Translation Bureau) – How do you handle [pause] I mean do you consider that the enhanced LM consultation [pause] the mechanisms is something that the union must be involved totally or do you have some problem with it.
J. Aggrey – The LM consultation what is that?
A. Picotte (Translation Bureau) - In the new reform of the public service there is the emphasis on consultation and co-development and so my question is simply how do you plan to handle that? Do you intend to participate fully in that or do you have a problem with that?
J. Aggrey - One of the problems with co-development is this we’ve often felt that unless you have an impartial third party, co-development would be meaningless see if there is any disagreement and the employer says it’s my call well the co-development is not as meaningful. But if there was a third party they will look at disagreements between the employer and the union. Yes I think co-development is a good thing. Secondly, there are also informal processes don’t let us think of these things as always the only way. That’s why we have lobbying groups, we have people that lobby to make amends to acts, legislation etc... similarly, I think we ought to have an effective lobbying group as an organization and that’s why those of us who know members of parliament have been dialoguing with them over the years so that they become our partners in lobbying for change.
C. Lakaski – Well , I thought I’d spoken to this issue in part when in my speech and that is that I think you know that there’s going to have to be ground rules have to be established before we in fact engage in the co-development process. One of them I mentioned was that our members have to receive sufficient time-off of work without being penalized with overtime to make up for the time that they need to do the work that’s involved in co-development. I think that’s a very crucial issue. I’ve been involved in a co-development process at Health Canada and it’s quite strenuous, it’s quite stressful on the people involved because they have to read, you know, a lot of documentation, they have to think through their ideas, they have to caucus on what are the best ideas to put forward and when they get back to the office they are faced with, you know, their daily work plus. So that has to be resolved and I think it’s sort of like a condition before we even get into co-development we have to set some ground rules. The other one that I think is really important is the one about resolving differences. We need some system, some mechanism where when management takes one side and the unions take the other side that it is not assumed that the management side is the one that goes forward and indicating that there’s been some sort of agreement when in fact there has been no agreement.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Do we have one more question.
Question from floor - I think Carl just answered my question because I’m concerned as for example a translator, part of the group of translators and interpreters how are we going to be able to participate actively when we have to juggle consultations, reading documents. It’s not easy just to open up the process. We have to have the time to do it without penalizing our work, our productivity and as you may probably know translators have a quota to meet, an annual quota to meet every day, we have to translate a certain number of words per hour so thank you very much. I would just like to take the opportunity to thank the candidates for being here it’s the beginning of democracy and particularly I would like to thank Carl and Derek for reaching out to the multi-lingual translators so that we could come today. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Unless there are further questions, I don’t see any questions, on behalf of the Elections Committee I’d like to thank you. I’d also like to thank the candidates for coming. It was a very useful process. As we said the transcript will be up on the website once they are translated. Thank you very much.
(All Candidates' Forum October 20, 2004 - First Half)
October 20, 2004 Transcribed from tape
Second Half
Candidates Forum
October 20, 2004
National Office
Noon
Candidates Forum
October 20, 2004
National Office
Noon
(All Candidates' Forum October 20, 2004 - First Half)
Brian McDougall (PSRHMA) - My name is Brian McDougall and I work at the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. We’ll probably find out the results of negotiations in the next month or so once we’ve heard about that and our members have discovered what their new contract looks like. Probably the biggest issue in the union will be the budget situation and the questions of whether or not there’s going to be a dues increase. We have two people up sitting up at the front who’ve been on the Finance Committee and two people who haven’t and my question is for Mr. Monaghan and Mr. Aggrey the two people who are candidates who have been on the Finance Committee. What is it about your track record on the Finance Committee that should recommend you as candidates to all of us who are going to vote and I’m thinking here specifically of the fact that the election is taking place in circumstances where most of our members will vote not realizing that a dues increase or a financial crisis is coming in the future.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – We have had the question lets let José have the first response.
J. Aggrey – First of all members who are here bear in mind that we do have an executive committee. We’ve had an executive committee since this organization was created[pause] no decision is made by one individual we work as a team. Everyone who has had concerns with the organization and has had the desire to commit himself or herself to the organization has been part of decision making, has been part of the Executive. If you so desire to change things you should have been part of the Executive not sitting on the sidelines and complain. We make decisions as collectively there is no one decision that I make what I have done in the past is to bring about opening up the budgeting process to many of our members and that’s something that I’ve done when I became the Vice-President and the Chair of the Finance Committee. That to me is opening up and as I mentioned before organizations evolve, of course we can do better but don’t sit on the sidelines and complain be part of the decision making to build an effective organization.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Everyone will have a chance to respond. Mike.
M. Monaghan – I’ve been a member of the Finance Committee for three years and the job of the Finance Committee isn’t really to set the budget [pause] it sets the budget but the goals and what we spend the money on is more or less determined by the Executive Committee. Now, I find that there is a bit of a problem and the problem is that we need to get more information up front so we can give projections on various scenarios to the Executive Committee and that’s what one of the things I’ll work toward is, basically getting a long term plan and doing projections in the budget and that will enable us to meet the goals. I also think we’re about due for a dues increase we haven’t had one for a long time. Thank you.
D. Brackley – I invited in my presentation to the audience might ask what the story is of the two members who are on the Finance Committee, of course, the Finance Committee doesn’t decide the budget but it should be in a position to put something forward to the Executive Committee and maybe some alternatives which the Executive Committee could then act upon. But first and foremost the members of the Finance Committee should be aware of what the budget is and what the story is. In the last four Local leadership meetings I’ve been asking what the story is and I’ve now figured the story out by working with the numbers that were presented to us and it’s not the narrative that we were presented at the Local leadership meeting there’s a different story there. Our revenues have gone down but we’ve also had major increases in rent, salaries and computers. Most of this has nothing to do with the merger it has to do with increases in costs. So let’s leave the merger out of it that was a one time thing it was dealt with last year there were transition expenses but that’s not where the story is. So we need [pause] if I was on the Finance Committee we would have an open process, we would be providing alternatives to the National Executive Committee when they make their decision and we would have a story presented so that members could understand the budget. Thank you.
C. Lakaski – Well, what concerns me here of course is what Derek has said for sure but I’m also concerned about how this issue has been swept under the carpet two business cycles or two cycles of the budget have gone by and most people do not know about the fact that the union is facing this fiscal dilemma and I would think in a democratic organization that the people, the membership would know this and they would know it as it was occurring they would be involved in building a solution not just responding after the fact a very dire kind of set of options that we’re going to be left with and so I would say again that this is another example [pause] the budget committee, the work of the budget committee the desire not to come forward with this issue [pause] I mean it’s an election issue [pause] it should be an election issue [pause] but the candidates don’t raise it, at least some of the candidates don’t raise it [pause] because they don’t want this issue to be discussed in open forums and with the membership. Consequently, we are raising it and we’re going to try to bring it to the attention of many members as possible over the course of the next several weeks. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Thank you very much could I have the next question please
Question from floor - Mr. Brackley and Mr. Lakaski have provided some guidance as to how they plan to deal with the budget deficit is it possible to hear Mr. Aggrey's plan on how to deal with the deficit. Thank you.
J. Aggrey - First of all for those who have not been paying attention you are excused. The budget deficit did not start with this current budget [pause] it started a while back. The membership were informed [pause] if you go back to look at the package that was sent to you of all the membership were informed that we were running a deficit over 600,000. This is way before the merger and so I remind you that we’ve been open, we’ve informed you and we’ve given you enough information at least as best we can to let you know where the organizations finances were going. Second, we’ve had a membership fee of twenty three dollars for so many years I remember when we raised it to twenty five we were told by our members that we didn’t need to have so much money and therefore we reduce it to twenty three. Those of you who have been around would know that and for that reason we’ve been actually just breaking even over the years. Unfortunately, I cannot go into any more details than to say that yes its time for dues to be increased if you want to run the organization effectively and provide the best services that we have been doing.
M. Dewing (Moderator) - Mr. Lakaski would you like to add anything since it was a question to any of the candidates I will allow you to say a piece to
C. Lakaski - Well again, sharing information, sending out information packs of two or three inches thick is not done so [pause] is not done in a justifiable format and this is what Derek was talking about earlier. If the membership is going to receive the budgetary information it has to be a format that’s digestible. That the members can look, they can see what the issues are, they can understand the story [pause] that’s not what we’ve been given. The budget information is buried in inches of documentation. It is not a way to stimulate response from the membership[pause] the other way is that you could actually[pause] because this is such a crucial issue [pause] this is not an issue that you sort of , as I say “hunker down in the National Office” and send out information packages this is where you go out to the membership, this is where you meet with the big locals and the small locals, this is where you have forum to discuss these issues and some possible solutions[pause] that is not what went on. This issue is too crucial either (a) to be sweeped under the carpet or (b) be dealt in a very typical bureaucratic manner that has characterized this union for the last several years. Thank you.
M. Monaghan - First of all, I’ve listened to the response like you’ve said that we haven’t proposed [pause] you’re saying these candidates Derek and Carl have proposed solutions. I haven’t heard any solutions, I’ve just heard we’re going to go to the members and make this known. That’s not a solution and I do agree with them that we need to put out simpler information packages and make it easier for the members to know the financial position and bring it forward to the locals but the locals look to the National for guidance. It’s up to the Executive Committee and members of the Finance Committee and the resources in-house to look at this budget and find the solutions and I’m committed to doing that. Thank you.
D. Brackley - I think the question that members and people voting in these elections have to ask is [pause] these people have had the opportunity to present what the budget story is [pause] for the last whatever period they been on the Executive [pause] two years or four years. And we haven’t heard the story and not only that some of the members of the local leadership have been pushing this for this story to come forward properly for at least seven months[pause] we haven’t got the story but now all of sudden we’re at this table and we’re going get the story. What we need is [pause] people to talk about what the information is and to make informed, intelligent decision and part of doing that certainly in the long run is to have a budget cycle that includes strategic decision making and putting forward a strategic plan and putting forward a budget that support that strategic plan so that is what we need.
Mike Nelson (DOE) - I believe all candidates were at the last AGM and I was there and I think a lot of people in this room were and they realize that it was just kind of a show but we don’t want to talk about anything, we don’t want to answer any questions particularly with respect to the budget. I would like to hear all the candidate’s perspective on whether they would make [pause] what kind of changes they would make to future AGM’s and what their perspective on opening AGM’s so we can have [pause] make AGM’s real dialogue and potentially make AGM’s a decision making forum.
J. Aggrey - First of all I have in my platform that when I become President we will have quarterly Local Leadership meetings. There are no explanations or any additional information on what it is the four quarterly meetings would do. But to answer your question directly one of the four quarterly meetings of all local leadership would be to look at strategic planning. One would be looking at discussions about the growth of the organization, one would be looking at the Constitution and By-Laws to ensure that everyone has a chance to participate in these discussions and one will be for looking at career development planning strategies. So I do have a provision to allow much more participation in discussions in order to come out with a strategic plan for the organization.
C. Lakaski - Well with respect to the AGM’s - I think this goes back to something that I noticed at the AGM and that is that people really are not allowed to speak their mind without being censored or ridiculed and again it goes back to what I said earlier that we must not only promote not only allow but promote the idea that people can disagree with the leadership without fear of reprisal. So I think that’s very important and I think the AGM should be made into decision making bodies. I think you should be able submit recommendations with respect to certain kinds of decisions that have to be taken at the AGM. The membership knows that the AGM is not just a show and tell but actually has some serious functions that they can go to those AGM and vote on issues that really matter to them in their daily lives you’re going to have much larger turn outs. The abysmal turnouts are due to the fact that the AGM’s are just PR exercises for the most part. In my platform I also have a number of issues, I don’t have time to repeat them but please review my platform, go to my web site because the material’s there too. Thank you.
D. Brackley - So the questions was changing future AGM’s so there could be real dialogue and I think it’s a bigger question than that [pause] that is how do we have real dialogue in this organization not simply at one meeting. So I haven’t been particularly specific I think it is a very lengthy and difficult issue to deal with for instance we do have votes for the National Executive but not everybody voted for the local leaders and how do you deal with that kind of an issue. So I think it is a very significant issue that we need to deal with. We do need to open up this organization we do need to have more participation it has to go beyond AGM’s, As far as decision making forum there’s many ways we could do it. I like actually the idea of mail ballot but I think it has to be supported by other things, for instance, we could have AGM’s at which motions could be made which could later be voted on at a mail ballot that’s one possible change. I’ve got 5 seconds so I’m going to say look at my platform it has more information in it as well.
M. Monaghan - I have attended the recent AGMs and I can see how Derek and Carl and other members would feel the same way that we’re pretty well being told what’s happening and we don’t get a lot of input and I think that’s something that should be changed and I also note that all members have a chance to before the AGM to add to the agenda or to propose an item to be put on the agenda and I do agree with Derek and Carl that we should be allowed to bring motions to the floor that can be put to the members but I don’t know how we can make the AGM a place where we vote on issues because that’s really against the democratic principal because most members don’t go and we’re better off with the mail ballot that we have right now. To me that seems more democratic than just give them the AGM minutes and their vote. Thank you.
Clayton Therrien (STC - my question is for the Vice-President, specifically Derek, I‘ve read some criticism of yours of the organization as being Ottawa centric. The majority of our members actually live and work here and pay dues here and I’d just like to know if as Vice-President and a potential President in the case of incapacity, if you would look at, if you are considering major reallocations of resources towards the regions and away from the centre. Thank you.
D. Brackley - That’s not a question [pause] I guess we need to strengthen the locals and if part of that is a decision by the NEC to provide additional funds to the locals then that’s fine but its got to be a decision that’s taken after some discussion about how in the bigger picture we improve our organization. I see locals as being an integral part we have a tremendous store of expertise and wisdom and contact with the membership with the locals which is not in this building unless there are locals’ leaders here. So we need to draw on that kind of expertise and bring in I just also want to mention that with respect to democracy the CUPTE previous union of some of our current members was much more democratic in going out to the membership and spending lots of time discussing different kinds of situations that were of concerns to members and that’s something maybe we have to emulate as well. Thank you.
M. Monaghan – I believe that we should meet the needs of the locals outside the National Office and one of the ways I suggested to do this if the possible, if the needs of the members require it, that we perhaps set up a satellite office out west or down east wherever it’s required where an LRO could be available for you know a couple of days a week or whatever it would take. But I realize there’s going to be a cost involved and we would have to look at the needs versus the costs. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – We have time for a couple of more questions [pause] let
T. Nguyen (HC) - Most of the candidates talked about collective bargaining as being one of the most important things in the current term but given that your term is going to expire before the contract expires for I think most of the bargaining groups within CAPE I’m curious about whether or not you would be thinking about moving from the accepted practice of binding arbitration towards actually voting for strikes. And this is for all four candidates.
J. Aggrey – I never thought this issue would be revisited. But let me tell you years ago when we meet as an organization at an AGM and we put before our members the idea of having a strike fund I particularly with two three people where opposed by the majority of our leadership and we never had a strike fund so I can categorically say that our membership rejected that proposition. Now if you think there is an appetite for it and our members want us to have a strike fund and go on strike when we are disenchanted with negotiation with Treasury Board certainly this is something that should be put to our membership but I want to tell you honestly our membership has made it clear to us in the past that they are not interested in strike funds. That does not mean we shouldn’t revisit it, but my point is unless you can demonstrate to our membership that this is the way the way they want to go, I think it is something that seriously has to be considered.
C. Lakaski – Well I think the issue of whether you have a strike fund or not should be part of a larger collective bargaining strategy. And that bargaining strategy is going to be most effected in the years to come by the Public Service Modernization Act. The idea of collective bargaining and the Public Service Modernization Act are essentially related to each other over the years to come. Now I have a much more detailed answer to this question and one minute doesn’t do it justice in terms of a strike issue so I ask you to go to my web site for that. In short, if a strike fund is to be proposed it cannot be done in the kind of options that we’ve received in the past [pause]yes or no. We need an argument, we need a discussion, we need to have this issue thoroughly vetted throughout the union membership so that they’re aware of what are the benefits, what are the costs of such a strike and how they can contribute to perhaps better gains in the collective bargaining process or how the membership may feel that it’s just not worth it but it’s not an issue that I think should be decided only by head quarters only by the President or Vice-President or the Executive Council. I think again it’s an issue that has to be thoroughly discussed throughout the Locals. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – The time up flag is yellow so maybe it should be red I don’t know.
D. Brackley - The question of strike or not strike is one that we actually do get to vote on in every round of bargaining unlike some of the other unions in the public sector. And we have a choice do we want to go a strike route or a conciliation strike route or do we go an arbitration route. And this Association has in the past chosen arbitration by a huge majority so I think we, you know if the membership changes we can explore that but we need to have a discussion, however, there is something else we can do I proposed several years ago that we have a collective bargaining fund not a strike fund a collective bargaining fund. Unfortunately, that motion was defeated and I think that maybe it’s time to revisit it but the idea of a collective bargaining fund is to support this organization in its goals in collective bargaining, perhaps by help assisting other organizations, perhaps by advertising and getting our message out to the public and those are the kind of things we need to explore. Member participation, member decision making but do it with information so that the members can make an informed decision. Thank you.
M. Monaghan – As far as strike versus arbitration all the members I’ve spoken to don’t want to go on strike. To me it’s a simple question I want to stick with arbitration and hope the Treasury Board negotiates in good faith. I’ve been at meetings where some members did propose a strike fund but I could feel from the audience that there was no support for that movement and that’s where I stand on the situation. Our members have mortgages and expenses and they don’t want to go out on strike. Thank you.
A. Picotte (Translation Bureau)- José and Carl how do you plan to handle the consultations under the reform of the Public Service [pause] the enhanced consultation that will be implemented under that reform.
J. Aggrey - Could you please make it clearer I’m not sure what you mean?
A. Picotte (Translation Bureau) – How do you handle [pause] I mean do you consider that the enhanced LM consultation [pause] the mechanisms is something that the union must be involved totally or do you have some problem with it.
J. Aggrey – The LM consultation what is that?
A. Picotte (Translation Bureau) - In the new reform of the public service there is the emphasis on consultation and co-development and so my question is simply how do you plan to handle that? Do you intend to participate fully in that or do you have a problem with that?
J. Aggrey - One of the problems with co-development is this we’ve often felt that unless you have an impartial third party, co-development would be meaningless see if there is any disagreement and the employer says it’s my call well the co-development is not as meaningful. But if there was a third party they will look at disagreements between the employer and the union. Yes I think co-development is a good thing. Secondly, there are also informal processes don’t let us think of these things as always the only way. That’s why we have lobbying groups, we have people that lobby to make amends to acts, legislation etc... similarly, I think we ought to have an effective lobbying group as an organization and that’s why those of us who know members of parliament have been dialoguing with them over the years so that they become our partners in lobbying for change.
C. Lakaski – Well , I thought I’d spoken to this issue in part when in my speech and that is that I think you know that there’s going to have to be ground rules have to be established before we in fact engage in the co-development process. One of them I mentioned was that our members have to receive sufficient time-off of work without being penalized with overtime to make up for the time that they need to do the work that’s involved in co-development. I think that’s a very crucial issue. I’ve been involved in a co-development process at Health Canada and it’s quite strenuous, it’s quite stressful on the people involved because they have to read, you know, a lot of documentation, they have to think through their ideas, they have to caucus on what are the best ideas to put forward and when they get back to the office they are faced with, you know, their daily work plus. So that has to be resolved and I think it’s sort of like a condition before we even get into co-development we have to set some ground rules. The other one that I think is really important is the one about resolving differences. We need some system, some mechanism where when management takes one side and the unions take the other side that it is not assumed that the management side is the one that goes forward and indicating that there’s been some sort of agreement when in fact there has been no agreement.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Do we have one more question.
Question from floor - I think Carl just answered my question because I’m concerned as for example a translator, part of the group of translators and interpreters how are we going to be able to participate actively when we have to juggle consultations, reading documents. It’s not easy just to open up the process. We have to have the time to do it without penalizing our work, our productivity and as you may probably know translators have a quota to meet, an annual quota to meet every day, we have to translate a certain number of words per hour so thank you very much. I would just like to take the opportunity to thank the candidates for being here it’s the beginning of democracy and particularly I would like to thank Carl and Derek for reaching out to the multi-lingual translators so that we could come today. Thank you.
M. Dewing (Moderator) – Unless there are further questions, I don’t see any questions, on behalf of the Elections Committee I’d like to thank you. I’d also like to thank the candidates for coming. It was a very useful process. As we said the transcript will be up on the website once they are translated. Thank you very much.
(All Candidates' Forum October 20, 2004 - First Half)