You may have received a solicitation for support for a resolution to move the Regional Office from Burlingame to Sacramento. There was no discussion nor opportunity for input in regards to this self-serving effort. Attached is a preliminary response. Please review and forward to your officers and contacts as you deem fit.
“One Out of 273 But Let’s Make About Me”
That is what the recent email soliciting support for referred Resolution 21 to relocate the Regional Office to Sacramento seems to be saying.
There are more than 273 Resolutions with real emergent issues and also dealing with Labor-Management matters and negotiations for the soon to be expired CBA. But, support is sought for ONLY the relocation of an office under the pretext of “saving money.”
LET US TAKE A CLOSER LOOK….
Timing– Move the Burlingame Office October 31, 2015. This presumes that the current Maintenance NBA and Clerk NBA who live in Sacramento will again be elected or that future NBAs will be from Sacramento. The next election of national officers will be counted on October 5, 2016. Why not have their resolution state that the National Union will seek to have more cost effective accommodations for all field offices?
Location– In order to accommodate 2 men and 2 women they desire to move the office to where these two men and two women live because it is the State Capitol of California and has an airport. Why does it have to be the California capitol? There are 13 western states all of them have capitols and airports for that matter.
Cheaper Rent– The old Regional Office at 1799 Old Bayshore Hwy in Burlingame, occupied by APWU for about 35 years, was being rented at almost $10,000 a month. The Region moved to better accommodations to 500 Airport Blvd in Burlingame and reduced the cost of renting by about $5,000 a month. In 2010 outgoing President Burrus directed that the office relocate to save money and signed a lease costing MORE money in September 2010 and President Guffey signed the confirmation letter on December 21st after paying double rent at the older location and the office was moved to 1350 Old Bayshore Hwy in Burlingame. President Guffey then spent thousands of dollars in addition extending the NBA offices and unnecessarily tearing down other walls.
So if cheaper is what is desired why not relocate to Fresno CA (with an airport) for about $750 a month? Or Lakewood CA (with an airport 15 minutes away) for $295 per month? Or even San Diego (where the USPS Area Office is located and an airport) for about $1,000 a month. [Of course it depends on the accommodations but if its about saving money hey lets save the money with no frills]. Why not Boise ID a state capitol with an airport? Or Montana?
Staff– The claim is there is one secretary to worry about since the other two who work in Burlingame now live in Sacramento. That simply is NOT factual. But should the location of the Western Regional Office with jurisdiction of more than 48,000 employees covering 13 western states and American territories BE ALL ABOUT TWO SECRETARIES? Should all field office locations be contingent on where the secretaries live?
Domiciled– The National Constitution under Article 12 Sec 7 simply states that newly-elected officers shall report and take office on November 12 of the election year. Page 29 of the Constitution lists 4 clerk NBAs for the San Francisco Region, 2 Maintenance NBAs for the Western Region, 2 clerk NBAs for the Denver Region, 2 clerk NBAs for the Northwest Region and 2 (Pacific and Alaskan Areas).
The history of the assignments is another story. When MVS NBA Bruce Bailey beat incumbent LaVern Johnson ,who was domiciled in Burlingame, Bailey petitioned HQ and the Coordinator to be stationed in Pasadena. When Shepard won Maint NBA he petitioned HQ and the Coordinator to report to Burlingame. When Maint NBA Shepard resigned Maint NBA Jasper was assigned to Pasadena and when the current Maint NBA beat her he petitioned HQ and Coordinator to work in Burlingame. Why not discuss if other locations can absorb and accommodate the officers if its about money?
For the Good of the Membership? Instead of open and frank communication about a need to relocate or reduce rent a Resolution is submitted to undermine and circumvent respect, fraternity and a true joint effort to better serve the membership.
REJECT AND VOTE NO ON THIS KIND OF SELF-SERVING RELOCATION.