Elections and The Flyer Incident
This post requires some qualifiers and context - and it is quite long. One reason I struggled so much to share my experience is that it is so complicated and messy. This incident alone has the space to create 10 essays, and I struggle with packaging all of that. This first piece is focused on two points.
Leadership, especially in a union, is not supposed to be about manipulating power to serve a singular ego or an uncompromising singular vision.
Accountability requires the consistent practice and reassessment of process and policy. It requires dedication to the spirit of the organizations' documented structure and the simultaneous work to evolve that system where it needs to be improved, especially where it feeds inequity.
Background context: One root of the interpersonal conflict amongst the leadership of Local 328 stems from the 2023 Executive Board (EB) elections in September of 2023. This was the first election in the local's history that had candidates contesting for positions on the EB, specifically the President and Vice-President positions. There were a flurry of complaints to the Elections Committee (EC) about the election and that committee produced a detailed report and multiple recommendation to the EB. It can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tW7-yybPZmiKwwjFF951YB_dDG4Oexad/view?usp=sharing
The newly seated EB did not enact any of the recommended actions or address the report findings in any meaningful way.
In July of 2024 the EC ran the election for the upcoming 2025 bargaining team representatives and again, there were a flurry of complaints for the committee to deal with, and which lead to a restructuring and rerunning of the election. The process included an appeal to the International Union (IU) Judicial Panel regarding the findings of the EC. The appeal decision includes the original EC report, the request for education from the IU, the official appeal, and adjudication by the Judicial Panel: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1keDxPEvppHBINqsGRA9txoyv-QwOWfVo/view?usp=drive_link
During the second election in August of 2024 employee and EB member [now Treasurer] Kerry Moore posted fliers targeting Chief Steward (CS) Curtis, and the election committee in a directly negative manner and calling for members to vote. These flyers were posted August 6, removed by the Employer and union representatives, and then reposted August 7 and 8 in the Employer's public spaces - making them visible to employees and patients alike.
The flyer's typed words indicated significant bias in the intent of posting in addition to promoting awareness of a process or just calling for members to vote.
Why are cheaters allowed to run again if there is a re-vote?
Why haven't the names of the cheaters been disclosed?
Additional derogatory language was hand written on the fliers labelling CS Curtis as a cheater. (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oYeM0Q8o6hwnFOUSPl4wdJ9Oc9eKsYMI/view?usp=sharing)
Moore posted the flier in both secured OHSU staff access areas AND several public access areas in the healthcare zone.
Moore posted more fliers AFTER the EC chair communicated to the whole EB with clear language indicating members had no authority or sanction for that activity. (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/100v6bxZUfK2lhA58aEvU51wSK5OsxrLO/view?usp=sharing)
For context, the Local 328 contract with OHSU and Oregon law state that posting union files is acceptable in spaces that are for employees only. Pasting flyers without permission in student and/or patient facing areas is a contractual and legal violation. (link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ah0NeXanS39QrI6JBupF05B_-68G3ii0/view?usp=sharing )
This incident sparked so many problems across the local and absorbed so much time and energy across the organization that it was mind boggling.
One critical point to highlight is that throughout 2024 other member leaders had highlighted how both the member leader and steward complaint policies were not in line with the IU constitution; the EB took no action to address those issues, and continued to require the organization to utilize policies that all were aware violated the constitution. Once I joined the EB and was required to follow the existing policies, I repeatedly asked that they be addressed by the Policy committee.
There was a confrontation in the inpatient pharmacy between stewards and employees that sparked multiple Employer Investigatory Meetings and a steward complaint process which dragged out through the end of the year and into 2025. During the months of wrangling both President (Pres.) Olson and Secretary (Sec.) Barton repeatedly made efforts to cast Moore as the victim, excusing the behavior, claiming that the complaint processing violated Moore's rights of due process (members charged under the IU judicial panel rules are required to be given trial rights - Moore was never charged under any Judicial panel rules). Up to this process, neither Pres. Olson or then Policy Committee Chair Sec. Barton prioritized fixing the harmful and violating policies.
The policy required that the committee present findings first to the Executive Committee (ExC) - consisting of the President, Vice-President, Chief Steward, Secretary, and Treasurer. If the ExC is unable to reach a unanimous vote, the complaint report is referred to the entire EB. The first time the ExC reviewed the complaint it was noted that Moore had not been made directly aware that there was a complaint committee in process. The committee was not able to reach a decision and I was asked to connect directly with Moore regarding not being informed of the committee or offered the opportunity to testify for herself directly.
There was no specific workflow for processing a complaint, each chair was required to create their own with each submission.
The policy at the time only required the initiator of the complaint to be communicated with, there was no requirement to disclose the complaint or the committee's activities to the subject in the policy, and multiple complaint committees had processed other complaints without notifying the subject of the complaints' existence.
Reference - policy: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f_srmYdmbIFTGu6MFpi6R68zbE249RpH/view?usp=sharing
I, acting as the complaint committee chair agreed to pause the process to so notify Moore, it had been my process to do so on other committees. I had pended a draft to Moore but paused sending it due to her travelling out of the country; I had forgotten to return to task and never sent it, that made me feel accountable to my own process.
I notified Moore of the complaint and scheduled a review meeting with her and a staff member as her representative.
I made a good faith effort to attend the meeting prepared to give detailed information addressing several points Pres. Olson stated were the basis for Moore's discontent and provided her primary defense for her choices. I spent nearly 90 minutes attempting to both answer her listed grievances with facts and evidence and engage Moore in a dialogue about the impacts of her actions. Moore explained that she deliberately chose public spaces belonging to the Employer to post her fliers so that she would not violate the election policy - and rejected any reference to ever being educated regarding how that action violated not only Oregon law but the Employer's own policies.
She repeatedly declared that because the Employer had done nothing to discipline her regarding the activity there was no reason for the union to take any action, despite being informed that the reason the Employer did not consider disciplinary actions was because staff representatives has assured the Employer that the local would address the issue.
Moore repeatedly excused her actions as reasonable response to a lack of action against CS Curtis by the elections committee, denied any reasonable accountability and claimed herself as a victim of disparate treatment and harassment. The only statement that she made regarding the action that indicated regret was that she would not choose to do it again, when I asked why, her response indicated that she had not considered the issue would be a "big deal" to anyone since she technically did not violate the election policy since she did not put the flyer on a union bulletin board.
Following that meeting and a review by the entire complaint committee, the report was again presented to the EC, again the EC was not able to reach consensus and the report was forwarded to the entire EB for consideration at the next meeting.
When the complaint committee report was presented to the EB, the options available under policy to the board members was to accept, modify, or reject the offered recommendation of suspension from the Steward Program for one year from the date of the original complaint submission.
It was first moved and voted to accept the recommendation and then a new motion and vote were introduced to remove Moore from the Executive Board - that action was a violation of the organization's rules regarding due process and removal from office and so struck, returning to the original acceptance of suspension. Moore was only ever suspended from acting as a steward - which is a non-elected committee assignment.
Accountability is a practice
This entire process is one of the primary places where I hold personal regret and acknowledge I made mistakes in handling the process.
First in the handling of the initial steward complaint regarding the pharmacy interaction, the committee did not meet directly with the member who submitted the complaint or with the steward who was the subject of the complaint. It was not required that the committee do so, but it was a mistake to choose not to.
The committee first pended action while the Employer handled the investigations and followed the contractual process, which included applying discipline (or not) to the employees who violated the access policy according to their determinations.
The committee then worked with the reports from those investigations to review and assess the timeline and observed established actions of the participant employees to determine the validity of the complaint and determine if the requested remedies were within the authority of the committee and applicable to the incident.
We were wrong to not give all of the involved parties a direct voice in the review process - I can't honestly say why I advocated for that choice. If I were to follow my ethical stance, I would have expected myself to hold to the spirit of full due process regardless of the policy, and I did not. I can't speak for the other committee members, but I can acknowledge for myself that the personal exhaustion and frustration of being repeatedly forced to follow the letter of the written policy that was so flawed and was being used as a weapon to target people back and forth over ideological and interpersonal beefs did impact my actions - and I chose to use that policy exactly as written - even knowing it was not fully fair.
Additionally, in the meeting between myself, Moore, and the staff member I did speak in an absolutely unprofessional way to Moore.
Following roughly an hour of frustrating back and forth I asked if Moore if she wanted to know my true personal feelings and got her acknowledgement. I then spoke with anger and foul language, I communicated passionately about the amount of time and energy the organization was forced to waste in addressing her action. I was so frustrated that the only response she had for any question was, "they all hate me anyway" and "no other steward has ever been discriminated against like I have." despite all efforts made to ask her for specific proof and to engage each of her listed claims with evidence she refused to acknowledge. I regret allowing myself to be so impacted and activated that I could not control my choices and behavior - I should have stayed within the boundaries of the agenda and process, ended the meeting and submitted my report.
I fully acknowledge that one of the primary places I struggle to maintain "decorum" is when I am faced with a person who professes to hold progressive values and presents themselves as a supporter of communal worker solidarity but chooses to act from a rigid self-focused position.
The tenets of community and coalition that I have been taught, that I attempt to put into practice start with:
I can be correct, and still create harm. I am accountable to that harm regardless of my correctness or righteousness.
I can be wrong, and I have an obligation to make space for people to provide facts and evidence that dispute my assertions.
I am accountable for the impact of my actions - and any intention linked to those actions has absolutely no relevance for anyone but myself.
The ends do not justify using means that create harm to the most vulnerable, and even inadvertent and unforeseen harm needs reparation.
When Kerry Moore was given space to address her complaint and questioned about her choices, she aired her internal grievances again and again and again as if no one had ever addressed them, even though they had been addressed directly, she just did not like the result.
As an equal member in the local she has a right to be dissatisfied with the outcome, she has a right to publicly express her opinion on how her union is being operated, but she is not entitled to betray the entire community to seek vigilante justice in a way that directly harms the organization she is supposed to represent as a member leader.
To bring this back to the focus of leadership and accountability. The entire time I was acting as Vice President I made the best effort I could to be aware of the separation between myself as a person, my feelings, my priorities; and the position of Vice President as a role of leadership and obligation to the entire organization.
I believe that most days I did a very admirable job at this, and I know there are times I feel I missed the mark. When I was struggling, there were no resources that were available to help, no reliable and well vetted policies, no internal robust community of support, no ladder of escalation through the layers of the organization for support. As I go through this process of review I keep finding that this is one of the most critical spaces that AFSCME is failing in developing and supporting people. Promoting the ideals of member led unionism without creating and upholding a much more robust and truly community focused system of ongoing review, accountability, and development of those member leaders is a problem.
I was continually personally frustrated by the fact that when union member leaders were "caught" clearly violating the Employer's policies, staff representatives and member leaders would run interference for some and not for others. I was frustrated by the avoidance of member leaders to tackle the serious problems only to have those same people demand immediate and simplistic solutions the moment that problem impacted themselves or their perceived allies.
Regardless of intentions what this does is create a space for the Employer to manipulate the power structure of the local in ways that damage the local.
Any time any represented member violates a policy of the workplace the Employer must be held to account for the equitable application of the collectively bargained process.
The stewards who entered the inpatient pharmacy, and the pharmacy employee who did not escort them through the space as required all violated the department's internal policy on visitor access to the space. As the chair of the complaint committee and acting as Chief Steward I had to push for the Employer to address that issue using the documented IM process and adhering the concepts of our agreed belief in progressive discipline. Even though the stewards were acting as stewards and had the privilege of protected activity, they were still accountable to address the issue and acknowledge they had responsibilities and alternative choices in their actions. Protecting Kerry Moore from facing an investigation for her actions while on work time in her job shifted the burden of holding her accountable to the union, and while she certainly betrayed all of the tenets of union solidarity - the only mechanism for discipline inside the local was a seriously flawed complaint process.
