Nick Daniels proposed limiting PPL requests for new parents

[Soul_Controller]

It's all kinda obvious. Some facilities let PPL be used in a way that's possibly unintended (using intermittent leave outside of what was discussed with management, essentially as de facto sick leave) and some don't. This will eventually lead to a clarification being issued.

If you don't know what was proposed then you have no reason to be mad one way or the other.

 

[ZuluZulu]

It's all kinda obvious. Some facilities let PPL be used in a way that's possibly unintended (using intermittent leave outside of what was discussed with management, essentially as de facto sick leave) and some don't. This will eventually lead to a clarification being issued.

If you don't know what was proposed then you have no reason to be mad one way or the other.

… FMLA is de facto sick leave. That’s exactly the intention of it…

 

[Soul_Controller]

… FMLA is de facto sick leave. That’s exactly the intention of it…

PPL isn't FMLA. And intermittent PPL has its own set of rules

 

[Redacted]

PPL is a type of paid leave that is substituted for unpaid FMLA leave. Therefore, it is essential to read OPM’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 12-Week Entitlement fact sheet (FMLA fact sheet) in conjunction with this PPL fact sheet in order to understand the PPL entitlement, since all the provisions governing use of FMLA leave after a qualifying birth or placement apply to the use of PPL.

An employee may elect to substitute available PPL for any unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement of a child for adoption or foster care. (See Substitution of Paid Leave for Unpaid FMLA Leave section of the FMLA fact sheet.)

Fact sheet:

Substitution of Paid Leave for Unpaid FMLA Leave (5 CFR 630.1206)​

Family and Medical Leave is a type of leave without pay or unpaid leave for which an employee may choose to substitute certain types of paid leave. An employee may choose to substitute paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave, consistent with the statutes and OPM’s regulations governing use of that type of paid leave. An agency may not require an employee to substitute paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave.

The types of paid leave that may be substituted for FMLA leave without pay are:

• Accrued or accumulated annual leave and/or sick leave;
• Advanced annual and/or advanced sick leave (if the agency has granted it to the employee);
• Donated annual leave under the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program (VLTP) or Voluntary Leave Bank Program (VLBP); and/or
• Paid parental leave (PPL) may only be used for birth or placement purposes and may only be used during the 12-month period following the child’s birth or placement.

Read the regulations. You can use it however the hell you want. Invoke unpaid FMLA and substitute your PPL for the unpaid leave.

 

[ManBearPig]

Like redacted said above, PPL is a part of FMLA. When PPL was first interpreted by the FAA and NACTA, some how they came to the conclusion PPL and FMLA are 2 separate things. IIRC they were saying our PPL fell under Article 30 or something, and they weren't counting PPL against our 12 weeks of FMLA. We were essentially double dipping, and none of it made sense. I would have to go back to look at the time line of changes in interpretations, but the whole thing isn't straight forward. Claiming Nick was trying to harm the Union from those vague minutes is ridiculous.

 

[GulfCharlie]

Like redacted said above, PPL is a part of FMLA. When PPL was first interpreted by the FAA and NACTA, some how they came to the conclusion PPL and FMLA are 2 separate things. IIRC they were saying our PPL fell under Article 30 or something, and they weren't counting PPL against our 12 weeks of FMLA. We were essentially double dipping, and none of it made sense. I would have to go back to look at the time line of changes in interpretations, but the whole thing isn't straight forward. Claiming Nick was trying to harm the Union from those vague minutes is ridiculous.

I will put myself out there, but he was. People I talked to on both sides essentially said he wanted to limit PPL by placing it behind annual leave requests. This not only violates the law but has very far reaching implications union and management wise.

 

[ZuluZulu]

Like redacted said above, PPL is a part of FMLA. When PPL was first interpreted by the FAA and NACTA, some how they came to the conclusion PPL and FMLA are 2 separate things. IIRC they were saying our PPL fell under Article 30 or something, and they weren't counting PPL against our 12 weeks of FMLA. We were essentially double dipping, and none of it made sense. I would have to go back to look at the time line of changes in interpretations, but the whole thing isn't straight forward. Claiming Nick was trying to harm the Union from those vague minutes is ridiculous.

This doesn’t even make sense. Because like redacted said: OPM gave guidance so if HR wasn’t counting PPL against our FMLA entitlement then that’s HRs problem not Nicks. And it is pretty straight forward. I don’t think Nick was trying to “harm the union” but the minutes say he wanted to govern something that’s already governed. I think Nick doesn’t understand FMLA and proposed something that would take away our rights.

And his proposal was only supported by one other RVP so if Nick wanted to HELP us, seems “ridiculous” no one else did except for Clint.

 

[Waxing Gibbous]

Nick's intentions aside there is room for the union to bargain usage of PPL as stated in the opm guidance.

Intermittent use of PPL is at the mutual agreement of the agency and employee and the current MOU only states it can't be unreasonably denied. Having written protection so all BUEs have the same access wouldn't be a bad thing.

FMLA is not just defacto sick leave as it must be requested at least 30 days in advance, in most circumstances, for the birth or placement of a child. There is no such limitation on sick leave.

While PPL is a type of paid leave used in conjunction with FMLA it does have its own set of rules and work requirements. I'd be interested to see the actual proposal Nick put forth to the NEB.

Excerpts below. All come from Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 12-Week Entitlement and Paid Parental Leave

Agency-Specific Policies and Procedures for Requesting PPL
Within the framework of law and regulations, each agency sets its own policies and procedures related to the use of PPL at that agency—via management directive and/or collective bargaining agreement, as applicable. Therefore, employees should consult with their servicing human resources (HR) office for information on the agency’s policies and the process for requesting PPL, including any forms that must be completed and any supporting documentation the agency requires. The employee’s servicing HR office will need to verify the employee’s FMLA eligibility and available unpaid FMLA leave for which PPL may be substituted.

Notice of Leave (5 CFR 630.1207)​

When the Need for Leave is Foreseeable​

When the need for FMLA leave is foreseeable based on expected birth, placement for adoption or foster care, or planned medical treatment, the employee must provide the agency at least 30 calendar days’ notice of the employee’s intention to take FMLA leave. If the employee fails to provide 30 calendar days’ notice with no reasonable excuse for the delay, the agency may delay the employee’s FMLA leave until at least 30 calendar days after the date the employee notifies the agency of the employee’s need for FMLA leave. If the need requires the leave to begin within 30 calendar days, the employee must provide as much notice as is practicable.


For FMLA leave taken based on the following circumstances, an employee may use FMLA leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule only if both the agency and the employee agree to such use:

• for the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and the care of such son or daughter; or
• for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.

 

[Redacted]

Nick's intentions aside there is room for the union to bargain usage of PPL as stated in the opm guidance.

Intermittent use of PPL is at the mutual agreement of the agency and employee and the current MOU only states it can't be unreasonably denied. Having written protection so all BUEs have the same access wouldn't be a bad thing.

FMLA is not just defacto sick leave as it must be requested at least 30 days in advance, in most circumstances, for the birth or placement of a child. There is no such limitation on sick leave.

While PPL is a type of paid leave used in conjunction with FMLA it does have its own set of rules and work requirements. I'd be interested to see the actual proposal Nick put forth to the NEB.

Excerpts below. All come from Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 12-Week Entitlement and Paid Parental Leave

Agency-Specific Policies and Procedures for Requesting PPL
Within the framework of law and regulations, each agency sets its own policies and procedures related to the use of PPL at that agency—via management directive and/or collective bargaining agreement, as applicable. Therefore, employees should consult with their servicing human resources (HR) office for information on the agency’s policies and the process for requesting PPL, including any forms that must be completed and any supporting documentation the agency requires. The employee’s servicing HR office will need to verify the employee’s FMLA eligibility and available unpaid FMLA leave for which PPL may be substituted.

Notice of Leave (5 CFR 630.1207)​

When the Need for Leave is Foreseeable​

When the need for FMLA leave is foreseeable based on expected birth, placement for adoption or foster care, or planned medical treatment, the employee must provide the agency at least 30 calendar days’ notice of the employee’s intention to take FMLA leave. If the employee fails to provide 30 calendar days’ notice with no reasonable excuse for the delay, the agency may delay the employee’s FMLA leave until at least 30 calendar days after the date the employee notifies the agency of the employee’s need for FMLA leave. If the need requires the leave to begin within 30 calendar days, the employee must provide as much notice as is practicable.


For FMLA leave taken based on the following circumstances, an employee may use FMLA leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule only if both the agency and the employee agree to such use:

• for the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and the care of such son or daughter; or
• for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.

It can’t have its own bargained set of procedures because we haven’t bargained since PPL was introduced.

 

[32andBelow]

They’re taking 60 days no matter what. Then you want to spend time putting them through the lab after the 60 days? Make it make sense.

 

[Waxing Gibbous]

It can’t have its own bargained set of procedures because we haven’t bargained since PPL was introduced.

There is an MOU signed in May 2024. UPDATE TO PAID PARENTAL LEAVE MOU

Edit to correct link

 

[ZuluZulu]

Nick's intentions aside there is room for the union to bargain usage of PPL as stated in the opm guidance.

Intermittent use of PPL is at the mutual agreement of the agency and employee and the current MOU only states it can't be unreasonably denied. Having written protection so all BUEs have the same access wouldn't be a bad thing.

FMLA is not just defacto sick leave as it must be requested at least 30 days in advance, in most circumstances, for the birth or placement of a child. There is no such limitation on sick leave.

While PPL is a type of paid leave used in conjunction with FMLA it does have its own set of rules and work requirements. I'd be interested to see the actual proposal Nick put forth to the NEB.

Excerpts below. All come from Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 12-Week Entitlement and Paid Parental Leave

Agency-Specific Policies and Procedures for Requesting PPL
Within the framework of law and regulations, each agency sets its own policies and procedures related to the use of PPL at that agency—via management directive and/or collective bargaining agreement, as applicable. Therefore, employees should consult with their servicing human resources (HR) office for information on the agency’s policies and the process for requesting PPL, including any forms that must be completed and any supporting documentation the agency requires. The employee’s servicing HR office will need to verify the employee’s FMLA eligibility and available unpaid FMLA leave for which PPL may be substituted.

Notice of Leave (5 CFR 630.1207)​

When the Need for Leave is Foreseeable​

When the need for FMLA leave is foreseeable based on expected birth, placement for adoption or foster care, or planned medical treatment, the employee must provide the agency at least 30 calendar days’ notice of the employee’s intention to take FMLA leave. If the employee fails to provide 30 calendar days’ notice with no reasonable excuse for the delay, the agency may delay the employee’s FMLA leave until at least 30 calendar days after the date the employee notifies the agency of the employee’s need for FMLA leave. If the need requires the leave to begin within 30 calendar days, the employee must provide as much notice as is practicable.


For FMLA leave taken based on the following circumstances, an employee may use FMLA leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule only if both the agency and the employee agree to such use:

• for the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and the care of such son or daughter; or
• for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.

I mostly agree with you. I might fully agree but I can’t tell.

I agree there is room for them to bargain. But that bargaining can not restrict or limit our usage in any way due to protections written in the FMLA itself. And I am aware of the notification requirements. However, I do not read that 30 day requirement so stringently. It says if the need for leave is foreseeable. I believe it is appropriate and reasonable to let the agency know my intended use of FMLA prior to the birth of my child. But if my child is born prematurely; that is unforeseeable and it would not be appropriate for them to deny my FMLA/PPL because I didn’t give them 30 days notice. I would have a reasonable excuse. If my child is 6 months old and was up all night and I hadn’t slept and I would like to have the following day off work, that is also unforeseeable but appropriate usage of FMLA/PPL.

If I wanted to use it as de facto sick leave I believe the agency would deny it. But I think if challenged through grievance or EEO that I would win. Because up all night is unforeseeable and I’m caring for my baby which is appropriate usage of PPL. It’s just not worth it to challenge the usage for that purpose when we can so easily use sick leave.

I also support more written protections. But that’s not what Nick was trying to do. As verified by other attendees of the meeting where he made his proposal.

 

[32andBelow]

I mostly agree with you. I might fully agree but I can’t tell.

I agree there is room for them to bargain. But that bargaining can not restrict or limit our usage in any way due to protections written in the FMLA itself. And I am aware of the notification requirements. However, I do not read that 30 day requirement so stringently. It says if the need for leave is foreseeable. I believe it is appropriate and reasonable to let the agency know my intended use of FMLA prior to the birth of my child. But if my child is born prematurely; that is unforeseeable and it would not be appropriate for them to deny my FMLA/PPL because I didn’t give them 30 days notice. I would have a reasonable excuse. If my child is 6 months old and was up all night and I hadn’t slept and I would like to have the following day off work, that is also unforeseeable but appropriate usage of FMLA/PPL.

If I wanted to use it as de facto sick leave I believe the agency would deny it. But I think if challenged through grievance or EEO that I would win. Because up all night is unforeseeable and I’m caring for my baby which is appropriate usage of PPL. It’s just not worth it to challenge the usage for that purpose when we can so easily use sick leave.

I also support more written protections. But that’s not what Nick was trying to do. As verified by other attendees of the meeting where he made his proposal.

Bonding is an acceptable use of PPL. You don’t even need to be the sole person that can care on that day

 

[Waxing Gibbous]

I mostly agree with you. I might fully agree but I can’t tell.

I agree there is room for them to bargain. But that bargaining can not restrict or limit our usage in any way due to protections written in the FMLA itself. And I am aware of the notification requirements. However, I do not read that 30 day requirement so stringently. It says if the need for leave is foreseeable. I believe it is appropriate and reasonable to let the agency know my intended use of FMLA prior to the birth of my child. But if my child is born prematurely; that is unforeseeable and it would not be appropriate for them to deny my FMLA/PPL because I didn’t give them 30 days notice. I would have a reasonable excuse. If my child is 6 months old and was up all night and I hadn’t slept and I would like to have the following day off work, that is also unforeseeable but appropriate usage of FMLA/PPL.

If I wanted to use it as de facto sick leave I believe the agency would deny it. But I think if challenged through grievance or EEO that I would win. Because up all night is unforeseeable and I’m caring for my baby which is appropriate usage of PPL. It’s just not worth it to challenge the usage for that purpose when we can so easily use sick leave.

I also support more written protections. But that’s not what Nick was trying to do. As verified by other attendees of the meeting where he made his proposal.

I think everyone would agree that birth can be unpredictable but effort should be made to inform the agency of the intent to use fmla/ppl in advance when possible to allow for schedule adjustments and plans to be made.
I don't believe being tired from being up all night is protected under the fmla but even if it were ppl must be requested in advance and intermittent ppl is approved at the mutual agreement of the employee and the agency. You can't mutually agree to something if you just decided this morning to take it.
It's pretty obvious that there are many questions on the implementation of ppl and that's where the NEB should step in to make sure it is being implemented fairly and legal across facilities. Governing doesn't have to mean taking away rights and either way the NEB seriously needs to provide better minutes.

 

[ZuluZulu]

I think everyone would agree that birth can be unpredictable but effort should be made to inform the agency of the intent to use fmla/ppl in advance when possible to allow for schedule adjustments and plans to be made.
I don't believe being tired from being up all night is protected under the fmla but even if it were ppl must be requested in advance and intermittent ppl is approved at the mutual agreement of the employee and the agency. You can't mutually agree to something if you just decided this morning to take it.
It's pretty obvious that there are many questions on the implementation of ppl and that's where the NEB should step in to make sure it is being implemented fairly and legal across facilities. Governing doesn't have to mean taking away rights and either way the NEB seriously needs to provide better minutes.

Governing doesn’t have to mean taking away rights but in those minutes that’s what it meant. I spoke with someone at the meeting myself. Nick wanted PPL to fall in line with annual leave in certain circumstances. And if Nick proposed to clarify and help protect PPL and Clint was the only one to support it then we as a collective have an even bigger problem. And if I was lied to by a participant in that meeting, well I give up on believing in NATCA at all. But Nick isn’t addressing it, and even though I wish the minutes provided more details, they tell us enough to know we either have a problem with Nick and Clint supporting to take away our rights or everyone else not supporting helping us. I believe the person I spoke with that he wanted PPL to fall in line with annual leave. If Nick addresses it and I was lied to, I’ll eat crow.

 

[LEAD004]

You may not have said “ignore data” but you are imploring people to ignore data. You said we don’t know the exact language Nick proposed. But we don’t need to. He wanted to govern PPL. In certain circumstances. That’s data in the minutes. And that alone tells us enough to know definitively he wanted to put some sort of limitation on it.

Are you suggesting he proposed to add something that would benefit us regarding PPL? That the brilliant Nick Daniels had some idea that the law makers that wrote and approved FMLA forgot that would enhance our rights under the law??

The most telling phrase in the minutes is the certain circumstances part. If you are eligible and request FMLA it’s approved or denied. End of story. There aren’t any circumstances that matter. You’re eligible and it’s approved or you aren’t eligible and it’s denied. Whatever idea he had to govern ppl and whatever the certain circumstances were are irrelevant and most certainly would NOT have benefited us. Seems if he wanted to add benefits for us he would have addressed this. The minutes are clear though so there is not a lot for him to address. Which is probably why he hasn’t.

But your suggestion that “we don’t know the language he proposed” or whatever you said is close enough to saying “ignore data.”

Not true. I ask for evidence. All I’m seeing on here is speculation.

You may not have said “ignore data” but you are imploring people to ignore data. You said we don’t know the exact language Nick proposed. But we don’t need to. He wanted to govern PPL. In certain circumstances. That’s data in the minutes. And that alone tells us enough to know definitively he wanted to put some sort of limitation on it.

Are you suggesting he proposed to add something that would benefit us regarding PPL? That the brilliant Nick Daniels had some idea that the law makers that wrote and approved FMLA forgot that would enhance our rights under the law??

The most telling phrase in the minutes is the certain circumstances part. If you are eligible and request FMLA it’s approved or denied. End of story. There aren’t any circumstances that matter. You’re eligible and it’s approved or you aren’t eligible and it’s denied. Whatever idea he had to govern ppl and whatever the certain circumstances were are irrelevant and most certainly would NOT have benefited us. Seems if he wanted to add benefits for us he would have addressed this. The minutes are clear though so there is not a lot for him to address. Which is probably why he hasn’t.

But your suggestion that “we don’t know the language he proposed” or whatever you said is close enough to saying “ignore data.”

Even your rebuttal is you drawing your own conclusions with a bunch of assumptions. It’s absolutely insane how many people have your mindset and “like” each others’ posts. Assumption after assumption after assumption.

PPL is a type of paid leave that is substituted for unpaid FMLA leave. Therefore, it is essential to read OPM’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 12-Week Entitlement fact sheet (FMLA fact sheet) in conjunction with this PPL fact sheet in order to understand the PPL entitlement, since all the provisions governing use of FMLA leave after a qualifying birth or placement apply to the use of PPL.

An employee may elect to substitute available PPL for any unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement of a child for adoption or foster care. (See Substitution of Paid Leave for Unpaid FMLA Leave section of the FMLA fact sheet.)

Fact sheet:

Substitution of Paid Leave for Unpaid FMLA Leave (5 CFR 630.1206)​

Family and Medical Leave is a type of leave without pay or unpaid leave for which an employee may choose to substitute certain types of paid leave. An employee may choose to substitute paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave, consistent with the statutes and OPM’s regulations governing use of that type of paid leave. An agency may not require an employee to substitute paid leave for unpaid FMLA leave.

The types of paid leave that may be substituted for FMLA leave without pay are:

• Accrued or accumulated annual leave and/or sick leave;
• Advanced annual and/or advanced sick leave (if the agency has granted it to the employee);
• Donated annual leave under the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program (VLTP) or Voluntary Leave Bank Program (VLBP); and/or
• Paid parental leave (PPL) may only be used for birth or placement purposes and may only be used during the 12-month period following the child’s birth or placement.

Read the regulations. You can use it however the hell you want. Invoke unpaid FMLA and substitute your PPL for the unpaid leave.

Finally. Someone who knows wtf they’re talking about.

 

[ZuluZulu]

Even your rebuttal is you drawing your own conclusions with a bunch of assumptions. It’s absolutely insane how many people have your mindset and “like” each others’ posts. Assumption after assumption after assumption.

You ever hear the saying “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”?

I’ll concede that I’m drawing a conclusion but my conclusion is based on the surrounding facts, not assumptions. The only reason I’ve spent energy on explaining that at all is so that my saying “I heard” what Nick wanted to do isn’t dismissed as rumor. But someone at that meeting told me directly that Nick wanted to put limits on PPL. And when I apply that to all the other irrefutable facts, it paints a complete picture to me. You’re free to believe whatever you want. And if you want to spend your energy fighting “it might not be a duck” as it’s quacking at you then go for it.

The NDJH camp is desperately clinging to this hope that “maybe Nicks proposal was a good one and he just wanted to clarify the rules” or “you can’t prove he wanted to limit PPL.” I’m not one to dismiss different ways of thinking to mine as “insane” but those arguments sure are something. To be fair to you specifically, you’ve only given the “prove it” bit and maybe this isn’t about Nick Daniels at all and you’re just here arguing for fun.

I’ll argue that gravity has never been proven. But when I got out of my car to walk into work this morning my feet stuck to the ground. That’s good enough for me to believe in it. And everything surrounding Nicks proposal including the word of another NEB member is also good enough for me. If it’s not good enough for you; and you want to hold onto that hope - that Nick and Clint were trying to help us and everyone else on the NEB was opposed to Nick trying to help us - then you hold onto that hope for as long as you can. Don’t let me be the one to squash it for you.

But for me, a duck is a duck and I don’t need any further evidence than what I see clearly in front of me.

If Nick did not propose to limit our PPL rights it is HIS burden to prove that to us. Because the meeting minutes and the NEB is saying otherwise. And if Nicks proposal was to help us then the rest of our elected representatives owe us an answer as to why they opposed his brilliant idea and are lying to us. But again, to be very clear, I had a conversation. I trust what I was told. If Nick has evidence to refute it and show that I was lied to, I’d love to see it. But he hasn’t provided it. Which isn’t proof in and of itself, but coupled with everything else… 🦆 🦆

 

[LEAD004]

You ever hear the saying “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”?

I’ll concede that I’m drawing a conclusion but my conclusion is based on the surrounding facts, not assumptions. The only reason I’ve spent energy on explaining that at all is so that my saying “I heard” what Nick wanted to do isn’t dismissed as rumor. But someone at that meeting told me directly that Nick wanted to put limits on PPL. And when I apply that to all the other irrefutable facts, it paints a complete picture to me. You’re free to believe whatever you want. And if you want to spend your energy fighting “it might not be a duck” as it’s quacking at you then go for it.

The NDJH camp is desperately clinging to this hope that “maybe Nicks proposal was a good one and he just wanted to clarify the rules” or “you can’t prove he wanted to limit PPL.” I’m not one to dismiss different ways of thinking to mine as “insane” but those arguments sure are something. To be fair to you specifically, you’ve only given the “prove it” bit and maybe this isn’t about Nick Daniels at all and you’re just here arguing for fun.

I’ll argue that gravity has never been proven. But when I got out of my car to walk into work this morning my feet stuck to the ground. That’s good enough for me to believe in it. And everything surrounding Nicks proposal including the word of another NEB member is also good enough for me. If it’s not good enough for you; and you want to hold onto that hope - that Nick and Clint were trying to help us and everyone else on the NEB was opposed to Nick trying to help us - then you hold onto that hope for as long as you can. Don’t let me be the one to squash it for you.

But for me, a duck is a duck and I don’t need any further evidence than what I see clearly in front of me.

If Nick did not propose to limit our PPL rights it is HIS burden to prove that to us. Because the meeting minutes and the NEB is saying otherwise. And if Nicks proposal was to help us then the rest of our elected representatives owe us an answer as to why they opposed his brilliant idea and are lying to us. But again, to be very clear, I had a conversation. I trust what I was told. If Nick has evidence to refute it and show that I was lied to, I’d love to see it. But he hasn’t provided it. Which isn’t proof in and of itself, but coupled with everything else… 🦆 🦆

My point in my comments has been that there’s a whole lot of bull shit out there and not to believe everything you read from people on these forums. If Nick really did propose what people are saying, then it should be in the meeting minutes. The members have a right to know details like that. Because it’s not in the minutes, I have no problem asking him directly and I know he’d be candid with me. The whole duck argument you’re making you could say about a lot of bull shit… I prefer to talk with people directly. I’ve been around long enough to see people bull shit a lot during campaigns… keep an open mind when you’re hearing things through the grapevine and out of context is all I’m saying. I’m not here to argue, I’m here to remind people of something that’s quite simple, really.

 

[ZuluZulu]

My point in my comments has been that there’s a whole lot of bull shit out there and not to believe everything you read from people on these forums. If Nick really did propose what people are saying, then it should be in the meeting minutes. The members have a right to know details like that. Because it’s not in the minutes, I have no problem asking him directly and I know he’d be candid with me. The whole duck argument you’re making you could say about a lot of bull shit… I prefer to talk with people directly. I’ve been around long enough to see people bull shit a lot during campaigns… keep an open mind when you’re hearing things through the grapevine and out of context is all I’m saying. I’m not here to argue, I’m here to remind people of something that’s quite simple, really.

…. Okay.

 

[LennyA21]

My point in my comments has been that there’s a whole lot of bull shit out there and not to believe everything you read from people on these forums. If Nick really did propose what people are saying, then it should be in the meeting minutes. The members have a right to know details like that. Because it’s not in the minutes, I have no problem asking him directly and I know he’d be candid with me. The whole duck argument you’re making you could say about a lot of bull shit… I prefer to talk with people directly. I’ve been around long enough to see people bull shit a lot during campaigns… keep an open mind when you’re hearing things through the grapevine and out of context is all I’m saying. I’m not here to argue, I’m here to remind people of something that’s quite simple, really.

But then wouldn’t Nick just bullshit because he’s in a campaign? Or is he the only person with such high moral standards he would never?