8/3/2019 UEMSW Debate Reponse to NEMSA

1/1

UNITED_tsM~UNITY.$TR:ENGTH

February 1,2012Mr. Colcord,We have received your proposal for a debate to be held this February 7,2012. We are prepared toaccept it; however, we consider your rules of engagement to be contradictory to the precepts ofdemocracy and accountability. Your attempt to unilaterally determine the terms of the debateunderscores many long-standing failures of representation in Santa Clara County; your proposedterms are designed to skew the debate toward what you want to address, rather than confrontingthe full range of issues that are of concern to the workforce. Therefore, we will join you in adebate setting, subject to the following modifications of your initial proposal:FIRST, that the moderator be selected, via an alternate striking process, from a professionalorganization of trained mediators in the State of California; that such person have no relationshipto any union participating in the debate and; that all participating unions share equally in the costof the moderator. Strict neutrality demands that parties share costs; as such, we will also insistthat participating parties split the cost of the venue you have reserved.

SECOND, that all participants consent to video and audio recording, and that each party retainthe right to make its own recording of the entire proceedings for subsequent distribution to thosemembers who are unable to attend the debate.THIRD, that questions on topics of interest to the membership, beyond solely those questionsrelated to contract bargaining, be welcomed and openly addressed by debate participants. SantaClara workers have indicated to us that they wish to hear responses on, among other issues, thefollowing topics: long-term contract enforcement, field labor representative staffing, unionrelations with management, union participation in local and national politics, financialaccountability and transparency, union communications, democratic election and training of shopstewards and bargaining team, leadership/organizational structure, democratic election of unionleadership, and amendment/enforcement of union bylaws. We are unwilling to participate in adebate in which the questions on the agenda are limited to those that NEMSA deems acceptable.FOURTH, that the debate participants be limited to the Presidents of each participating union.Your proposed debater, Mr. Talbot, is a paid contractor with NEMSA who holds no position onthe NEMSA Board of Directors (either elected or appointed). The NEMSA leadership body issolely responsible for the operations of the union: in short, for all of the issues of interest outlinedin the previous paragraph. Santa Clara EMS workers have the right to hear directly from theirelected/appointed union officers. They also have the right to assess those leaders' personalknowledge of the issues that are of greatest concern to the workforce. The Interim President ofthe Board of Directors of United EMS Workers, Jimmy Gambone, will debate your currentPresident of record, Eric Stephens. Both debaters will be unassisted by others. Should IAEPconsent to participate, the equivalent acceptable debater would be David Holway, the President ofNAGE.We await your response.

Sh~Jimmy GamboneOn Behalf of the Interim Board of Directors of the United EMS Workers

United EMS Workers 333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 504 Oakland, CA 94621