Serious Amendments for Convention


Comrade Commissar
Command Center
These have already been submitted, curious as to what people think.

AMEND: Article VII: Nomination and Election of Officers
Section 7. A National Officer may serve an unlimited amount of terms in the same office.
National Officers shall be limited to two (2) terms of service, consecutive or non-
consecutive, at any given office. No member shall be permitted to serve more than two (2)
terms total between the offices of President and Vice President.
Rationale: Any officer who has been removed from the workforce for such an extended period
cannot conceivably represent their membership effectively. This amendment would
presumably ensure that no member is so far removed from the operation that the ability to
effectively negotiate on behalf of the general membership would be appreciably diminished.
This amendment would limit a member from serving more than 2 terms at any given position,
but would not prohibit a member who has served, for example, as an RVP for 2 terms to be
elected as the Executive Vice President for 2 terms. However, a member who has served 2
terms as an RVP, one term as EVP, and one term as national President, would be ineligible to
be elected as President, EVP, or RVP again.

New SRI – Record Release
Records pertaining to negotiations shall be released to membership upon request after
negotiations have concluded. Records shall not be withheld under the pretenses of
protecting union interests in future negotiations. If an agreement has been reached
between concerned parties and all due signatures have been collected and a memorandum
or agreement has been executed, the negotiations shall be considered concluded and the
records made available to any requesting member without undue delay.
Rationale: The membership recognizes that transparency is paramount to promoting trust
between the membership and union leadership. Leadership actively suppressing the release of
records pertaining to negotiations, regardless of intent, portrays an atmosphere of deceit and
invites distrust and discord. It is not unreasonable for the membership to expect transparency
regarding business conducted on their behalf.
The inclusion of the stipulation requiring negotiations to be completed protects the
bargaining position of the union while negotiations are being conducted, while the overall
intent of the article is to provide clarity and bolster confidence that membership interests are
being protected.

New SRI – Negotiation Inclusion
Negotiations being conducted at a national level on behalf of a specific facility, facilities, or
region shall require a representative from the affected facilities or region to be signatory to
any business conducted on their behalf. If the business pertains to an entire region, the
Regional Vice President shall be included as a signatory for relevant negotiations. If the
business pertains to a specific facility, the FacRep (or their designee) from that facility shall
be included in relevant negotiations and shall be afforded all due transparency regarding
any business being conducted on their behalf.
Rationale: Any negotiations conducted on the behalf of a specific facility or subset of facilities
that does not affect the general membership as a whole shall include representatives from the
affected facilities in the negotiation process.
The union is comprised of hundreds of facilities encompassing thousands of employees, and it
is unlikely that representatives solely at the national level would be able to know the needs
and desires - and negotiate on behalf of - any given facility at the local level. Membership at
the local level should not be subject to negotiations made on their behalf without input, and
the inclusion of a FacRep from an affected facility would guarantee that their voices are

New SRI – CBA Extension Voting Rights
Extensions to Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) extensions shall be sent to the
affected membership for a vote. An extension passes if it receives a majority of the votes
Rationale: Membership shall not be denied the right to vote on CBA Extensions.
Not sure about 1 cus we can’t even get people to run as it is

2 is a yes because the FAA knows the result of the negotiation too so who are we hiding it from

3 is an obvious yes
#1 might be dangerous.. Those NATCA board guys coming back and having to work Traffic after their term ends?
Last edited:
Top Bottom