Just got a note from Ben. Because of a newly minted “do not publish or distribute clause” at the bottom of the note I can’t publish it verbatim, but paraphrasing is … and always will be … very much legal. So here we go.
First I got an apology for his taking so long to respond. I can understand the delay as our local is very busy, and I am just one guy trying to make a change they either aren’t interested in allowing, or have been forbidden from allowing. It most certainly wouldn’t have been because of a futile search for the clause in the C.A.W. Constitution I requested … the one that states members cannot view the contract until after it is ratified … because I do not imagine it exists
After that was the obligatory mention that I can in fact appeal to the National … the National WHAT he didn’t mention. I have already sent notes to the C.A.W. and Ken Lewnza, so for now I feel I am already working that venue.
Finally I am told that although I probably do not like the ruling, it’s for our own good. Apparently keeping us ignorant until the final moment of the vote increases member turnout to the meetings, and that’s what we want, right? I honestly can’t say anything good about that attitude, or even anything sarcastic, so I am not saying anything. Please feel free to judge motivations and outcomes for yourself.
The letter ends with contact information for our Nation Rep., Stu Shields. It was essentially a very polite letter.
A very polite letter which utterly failed to address both my request for clarification on how Article 19, section 3, sub-section a is in any way relevant to the issue at hand, and the request to provide a more relevant article in the C.A.W. Constitution.
The strawman is alive and well, resuscitated by a friendly PFO.
I feel like a some weird neo-suffragette, only I already have the right to vote. I am now instead fighting for the right to know who I am voting for.
I won’t be replying to Ben’s note. He can read my blog like everyone else.