Board Resolutions, Author Statements and Board Pro/Con

Board Resolution #1: Shall the Union’s bylaws be amended so that it is clear that semi-active members in good standing and retiree members with full membership rights can endorse a resolution?

Author Statement – Steve Demarest – Sublocal 001:

Under our Bylaws, a General Council resolution potentially can be submitted with the signatures of 50 Active members. That language probably predates the creation of Retiree and Semi-Active memberships. In any case, this resolution modifies the Bylaws to make all the members who are eligible to author a resolution also eligible to sign for a resolution.

• Jeri Simons /Sublocal 97- Pro Statement: I feel that semi-active members in good standing and retiree members with full membership rights can endorse a resolution as even though they are semi-active or retired members with full membership they were working members in whichever sector, region, public sector, higher-ed, etc…prior to becoming semi-active or retired they want to continue to be active and participate in this union. There’s a lot we can learn from them and I’m for them in continuing being involved and value their input & opinions. I am all for their right to endorse a resolution.

• Andrea Kennedy-Smith/Sublocal 200- Con Statement: We should vote NO on this proposed bylaw amendment. While semi-active members in good standing and retirees with full membership rights are valued members of our Union, expanding the ability to endorse resolutions may have consequences beyond simply “clarifying” the bylaws. Endorsing a resolution is an important part of the Union’s legislative and governance process, and we should be careful about changing who may exercise that authority. Before making this change, members deserve a thorough discussion about how the amendment could affect the resolution process, representation, and the responsibilities of active members. If the existing bylaws are unclear, the better approach is to review the language comprehensively and make sure any future amendment clearly defines the rights and responsibilities of every membership category. We should not rush to change our governing rules without fully understanding the impact. Vote NO and protect clarity, consistency, and responsible Union governance.

• Anastasia Godsey/Sublocal 99- Pro Statement: I support this resolution.

• Annie McVay/ Sublocal 85- Pro Statement: Our retirees have been at the game for a lot longer, and we should listen to their input and allow them the dignity of expressing their wisdom. I’m a bit confused by “semi-active,” but all members should be allowed to weigh in on the resolutions they feel passionate about.

• Michelle Miranda/Sublocal 200- Pro Statement: If all we are adding is the… “and retiree members with full membership rights” then yes. I am in favor of this resolution.

• Regena Williams/Sublocal 99- Pro Statement: I am for Union’s bylaws be amended so that it is clear that semi-active members in good standing and retiree members with full membership rights can endorse a resolution?

• Jasmine Snyder/Sublocal 137- Pro Statement: I agree with the statement that retirees and members whose status is “semi-active” should be allowed to endorse a resolution. This is in line with existing rights of retirees and semi-active members, and the amendment should pass to allow the bylaws to reflect that our union values the voices of retirees and semi-active members.

Board Resolution #2: Shall the Union’s bylaws be amended so that it is clear that retiree membership is open to persons who are no longer eligible for active, staff, or associate membership of the Union because they have retired from the employment that allowed them to be a member?

Author Statement – Steve Demarest – Sublocal 001:

Sometimes a retiree works. Under current practice, a person may be eligible for Retiree membership if they are employed, as long as their job doesn’t make them eligible for Active or Staff membership. The Bylaws are ambiguous. This resolution clarifies our Bylaws to reflect current practice.

• Jeri Simons/Sublocal 97 – Pro Statement: I feel that semi-active members in good standing and retiree members with full membership rights can endorse a resolution as even though they are semi-active or retired members with full membership they were working members in whichever sector, region, public sector, higher-ed, etc…prior to becoming semi-active or retired they want to continue to be active and participate in this union. There’s a lot we can learn from them and I’m for them in continuing being involved and value their input & opinions. I am all for their right to endorse a resolution.

• Anastasia Godsey/Sublocal 99- Con Statement: My understanding is that any person is eligible to be associate member of the Union, they do not have to be employed or have any prior ties to the Union. Retired people can also be associate members. Current bylaws language is fine.

• Annie McVay/ Sublocal 85 Pro Statement: Yes, our retirees are our ancestors in this great union! They have the wisdom and insight and we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

• Andrea Kennedy-Smith/Sublocal 200-Con Statement: We should vote NO on this proposed bylaw amendment. Although the intent may be to clarify retiree membership, changing the language could unintentionally broaden eligibility and create uncertainty about who qualifies as a retiree member. Retirement and leaving covered employment are not necessarily the same thing. Members may leave employment for many reasons, including career changes, resignation, disability, or other circumstances. The Union should be careful not to create language that could allow individuals who have not actually retired to qualify for retiree membership. If the current bylaws are unclear, the better approach is to conduct a comprehensive review and develop language that clearly distinguishes retirement from other reasons for ending employment. Any amendment should protect the integrity of the Union’s membership categories while ensuring consistent and fair application of the rules. We should not make a potentially significant change without fully understanding its consequences. Vote NO and preserve clear.

• Michelle Miranda/Sublocal 200- Pro Statement: I am in favor of our bylaws being as descriptive as possible. Tired of seeing rules with little to no actual guidance as to what the intent of something actually is.

• Regena Williams/Sublocal 99- Pro Statement: That the Union’s bylaws be amended so that it is clear that semi-   active members in good standing and retiree members with full membership rights can endorse a resolution.

• Jasmine Snyder/Sublocal 137- Pro Statement: This appears to close a loophole that would have allowed people to pay retiree dues instead of the dues that correspond to their actual status. If this went infused, it could impact our union’s finances or create confusion. It is unclear whether this scenario has actually ever happened, but clarity of language is not a bad thing.

Board Resolution #3: Shall the Union’s bylaws be amended so that it is clear that retiree dues are paid each calendar year? 

Author Statement – Steve Demarest – Sublocal 001: 

Under current practice, annual Retiree memberships are renewed annually, in January. This resolution updates our Bylaws to reflect that current practice.

• Jeri Simons/Sublocal 97- Pro Statement: Yes, the retiree dues are to be paid each calendar year or quarterly depending on how much the dues total is. Some are on a fixed income and having this option may elevate some financial hardship some may face.

• Andrea Kennedy-Smith/Sublocal 200- Con Statement: The proposed change is unnecessary and could create more confusion rather than clarity. Our current bylaws already established that retiree dues are an annual obligation, while allowing members to make alternative payment arrangements. The proposed language changes the existing provision in several ways, including establishing a new $60 annual amount until age 75 and $25 thereafter. Those substantive changes should not be bundled into an amendment presented as simply clarifying that dues are paid each Calendar year. If the goal is to clarify payment timing, the union can address that directly without rewriting the due structure or creating unintended consequences for retirees who have different payment arrangements. Bylaws should be clear, consistent, and carefully considered-not amended unnecessarily when consisting language already establishes annual dues. Keep the current bylaws in place and address any needed clarification separately- Vote No.

• Anastasia Godsey/Sublocal 99- Pro Statement: That makes sense. I support this resolution.

• Michelle Miranda/Sublocal 200- Pro Statement: Again, I am in favor of putting detailed intent behind our bylaws and guiding documents. The more detailed the better. I would offer a friendly amendment to state the month these dues will be deducted.

• Regena Williams/Sublocal 99- Pro Statement: That the Union’s bylaws be amended so that it is clear that semi-active members in good standing and retiree members with full membership rights can endorse a resolution.

• Jasmine Snyder/Sublocal 137- Pro Statement: Bylaws and practice should align. If the resolution does not pass, the practice should change. If people like the current practice, the bylaws should change.

Board Resolution #4: Shall the Union’s bylaws be amended so that it is clear that retiree membership status shall continue for the first 120 days after the paid membership period ends? 

Author Statement – Steve Demarest – Sublocal 001: 

Retiree memberships are annual, expiring at the end of each calendar year. Membership renewals are a little later, in January. Sometimes, the renewal period extends into February. This resolution modifies our Bylaws to provide an extension of Retiree membership to cover the gap between expiration and renewal of membership. The length of the extension is the same as the extension for Active membership, which simplifies administration.

• Anastasia Godsey/Sublocal 99- Pro Statement: That makes sense. I support this resolution.

• Andrea Kennedy-Smith/Sublocal 200- Con Statement: Vote NO on this amendment. The intent may be to provide retirees additional time to renew, but extending membership status automatically for 120 days creates uncertainty about who is a member in good standing. The proposal would allow membership status to continue after the paid membership period has ended, even though dues have not yet been renewed. That matters because membership in good standing can affect eligibility to participate in Union activities, nominate candidates, run for leadership, and vote in elections. Rather than creating a 120-day extension, the Union should establish a consistent renewal process that applies equally to every retiree and preserves the connection between membership and payment of dues. If retirees need additional notice or time to renew, those administrative improvements can be made without changing the definition of membership status. We should avoid creating different standards for membership and payment. Keep the bylaws consistent. Vote NO.

• Annie McVay/ Sublocal 85- Pro Statement: For clarity’s sake!

• Michelle Miranda/Sublocal 200- Pro Statement: Yes, the more clarity and specificity the better!