The following are copies of e-mails I recieved that were going back and forth from the ALCO Elected stewards and IAEP NAGE. The posts are in reverse chronological order. As can clearly be seen IAEP NAGE never really wanted to debate in the first place. Even though the ALCO stewards told them the rules were not negotiatble they still accomodated IAEP NAGES requests. The changes that they requested were made, but in the end they only wanted to do it their way. Way to go Michelle it is about time more of us stand up and say we are not going to be dictated to any more.
Ms. Lessard
I regretfully inform you that without a signed agreement regarding the rules that have been outlined the moderator will not agree to precide over the debate. The moderator is a professional, and expects all parties to agree in advance to a pre-established set of rules. Obviously without binding proof of a legitimate commitment by IAEP to follow the rules, the debate can not occur.
Per our conversation that took place at 1810 pst. It is understood that IAEP will be at Alameda County operations "with the film rolling". It is unfortunate that we are not able to agree to appropriate language, I only wish your requests would have been consistent and honest.
Please try to peacefully convene tomorrow night and represent yourselves as who you truly are as stated on your letterhead that has inundated us. If you are confused to why IAEP should not stand alone on the rules agreement, please make reference to the service agreement David J. Holway, National President sent.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMT'S & PARAMEDICS
( A DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES)
"retaining the benefits that come with being affilitated with SEIU and the AFL-CIO."
> Dear Michelle, > I am giving you our final response for a debate. Since IAEP has made the > request for the debate and IAEP would be the organization to debate NEMSA, > your rules as written do not reflect IAEP. fact. The only reason that we > are not signing the rules as you have written is because you have not > reflected this simple fact. IAEP has issued a challenge and an opportunity > for members to hear a debate and to receive information from each party. > The IAEP will be at the debate at the appointed time and place and will use > the collegiate debate rules as well as your facilitator. We hope that you > will make Tim and Torren aware of our position and we look forward to a > spirited dialogue with them. > > Best Regards, > Lesa > > > >From: micpross@comcast.net > >To: "Lesa Lessard" > >Subject: RE: Revised Nemsa-IAEP Debate Rules > >Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:39:52 +0000 > > > >Ms. Lessard > >Please reread your prior emails to me regarding receiving the changes you > >requested. You acknowledged receiving these. I have given you what you > >have requested and now am waiting for you to either accept or deny the > >offer to a debate. I also must remind you that we are nearing 5:00p.m. > >here on the west coast. > >Please accept this as your final opportunity to participate in the debate > >as the rules currently exist with your requested modifications. I don't > >believe it to be beneficial to either of us to continue this disagreement. > >Is the IAEP going to agree to the collegiate debate rules? > >Respectfully, > >Michele Ross, CCEMTP
> > Right. Where are the revised rules that reflect NEMSA vs. IAEP? > > > > > > > > > >From: micpross@comcast.net > > > >To: "Lesa Lessard" > > > >Subject: RE: Revised Nemsa-IAEP Debate Rules > > > >Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:15:56 +0000 > > > > > > > >Ms. Lessard > > > >Regarding your latest correspondence. I understand your frustration in > >not > > > >receiving basic information regarding the mediator. As I have told you, > >you > > > >will receive this information, and will be allowed to either > >participate in > > > >the debate or not. > > > >I will not however, allow you to personally attack my genuine concern > >for > > > >my coworkers. I am not personally attacking you based on misinformation > > > >representatives of IAEP (A DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF > > > >GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) has disseminated throughout the Bay Area. > > > >Furthermore, the rules for the debate are not NEMSA's. These are > >legitimate > > > >collegiate rules that are designed not to favor one party over the > >other. > > > >We at Alameda County would like the truth for a change, and are giving > >both > > > >parties the forum to express their positions. In addition, I personally > > > >find the suggestion that a person from the religious community or a > >retired > > > >police officer serve as the mediator as entirely inappropriate. What > > > >expertise would either of these individuals offer to us regarding the > >forum > > > >we are requesting? Not to mention NAGE represents police officers, so > >the > > > >assertion that these individuals are unbiased is highly suspect. > > > >I agree, I am not flexible on changing established collegiate debate > >rules. > > > >To do so would only be construed as potentially favoring one side over > >the > > > >other. > > > >Regarding the names of who will be debating, I think adding "Torren and > > > >Tim's" NEMSA would be entirely out of line, and the request to do such > > > >seems very childish. IAEP is represented accurately, and in conjunction > > > >with all of the emails, mailings and handouts IAEP has been providing > >to > > > >us. > > > >I would also like to remind you that IAEP, will not be listed on our > >ballot > > > >when it comes time for us to vote. The mere notion that we are > >entertaining > > > >the idea of a debate between NEMSA and IAEP, extends our sincere > >interest > > > >in making an informed decision. > > > >Your request for a Bio on Mr. Sahlman has been forwarded. > > > >Please withold your opinion on where my personal interests are in > >future > > > >correspondence. > > > >Thank you, > > > >Michele Ross, CCEMTP > > > > > > > >-------------- Original message -------------- > > > > > > > > > Thank you for correcting the copy of the rules to properly reflect > >who > > > >you > > > > > will be debating. As I have stated on numerous prior occasions, we > >need > > > >the > > > > > bio/resume of the facilitator you have chosen. Obviously, we need to > > > >know > > > > > that this individual is truly unbiased. Since you have chosen the > > > > > facilitator and have not yet forwarded the basic information we need > >to > > > >make > > > > > an informed decision on whether or not this individual has nothing > >to > > > >gain > > > > > or lose and is truly unbiased, we have no choice but to continue to > >put > > > >a > > > > > hold on our confirmation. > > > > > > > > > > Our confirmation could have been secured several days ago had we > > > >recieved > > > > > the rules and the background on the facilitator when we first > >challenged > > > > > NEMSA to debate the IAEP. I would be happy to forward you my > >original > > > > > emails for your review on the subject should you question my > >sincerity. > > > > > Your concern for the membership rings hollow given that NEMSA > >demanded > > > >that > > > > > we use their rules and their facilitator and we have waited for > >several > > > >days > > > > > now just to get the rules NEMSA wants us to use and still have not > > > >received > > > > > word on the faciliator NEMSA wants us to use. > > > > > > > > > > Regardless of all that, we continue to take the high road and are > > > >willing to > > > > > meet on your terms however biased, but we are due at least the > >courtesy > > > >of a > > > > > more rapid response. Once we have the bio/resume in hand, we will > >need > > > >to > > > > > review it, do our own research and then get back to you with our > > > >response. > > > > > I want this email to reflect again our repeated desire to have a > >member > > > >from > > > > > the religious community or a retired police officer (both of whom > >have > > > >no > > > > > ties to our interests) faciiliate the debate but you appear to be > > > > > inflexiible on what rules you will live by and who will judge what > >you > > > >will > > > > > or will not say. > > > > > > > > > > I look forward to receiving the information we requested as soon as > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Lesa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: micpross@comcast.net > > > > > >To: fearless_leader@hotmail.com > > > > > >Subject: Revised Nemsa-IAEP Debate Rules > > > > > >Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:35:50 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > > >Ms. Lessard > > > > > >Here is the modification to the debate rules. I have complied to > >your > > > > > >request to have IAEP inserted where SEIU NAGE had been previously > > > >placed. > > > > > >I need to have the agreement signed by both parties by 5:00p.m. > >pst. > > > > > >Obviously time is of the essence. It is imperative the membership > >be > > > >given > > > > > >ample time to prepare for this debate. > > > > > >Thank you, > > > > > >Michele Ross, CCEMTP > > > > > ><< NEMSA_V_NAGE_Debate_Rules[1].doc >>
Get off your high horse and play by the rules, just as you would like us to play by them. Switch the damn name and it will be GREAT!!! We NEVER said we didn't want a debate, however, if this is to be a binding agreement, then it needs to be FACTUAL!!
We honored your request, now honors ours, or is this another one of Torren's excuses??
It appears that IAEP was willing to abide by your rules and use your facilitator. It appears that you turned down the debate. Will you please provide a more complete history or at least show why NEMSA is refusing to participate. The stations in my jurisdiction have received faxes that say IAEP pulled out and will not debate. IAEP says the contrary.
My name is Michele Ross. I am a shop steward in Alameda County. I understand that you are attempting to set up a debate with NEMSA here in our County for Friday August 27th 2004 at 6:30pm. I believe that is a good idea. As in all the other debates thus far conducted, the members, via their elected stewards, in the host county dictate the terms by which both parties will participate in the debate. While I have not been thus far party to any discussions I have requested from NEMSA, and will request from you that all communication regarding this debate go through me, as I will be presiding for the host County. NEMSA has agreed with this and I expect IAEP to also comply. I have contacted those that conducted the debate in Sacramento and we will be using the same rules that were used in the Sacramento debate. We will not however tolerate the disruption from either party that occurred over the rules in Sacramento. The rules are collegeant debate rules and therefore do not favor one side over the other. Pursuant to the rules the debate moderator must be very familiar with the rules and how to moderate a debate of this style, for this reason we have retained the Services of Dr. James Sahlman; a PHD and national forensics coach and judge. Dr. Sahlmans experience along with the rules will provide for the most objective and fair debate.
The EMS workers in Alameda County look forward to a good lively debate. Due to the Sacramento pre-debate issues, both parties must sign the debate rules indicating that they accept and will fully comply with the rules and fax them back to me at 614-386-8658 or 510-895-7603. Should either party not agree to and sign the rules, Alameda County will not allow the debate to occur. It is important for both parties to fully understand that this is our vote, our lives, and our time. Our members are tired of being dictated to and bothered at home and at work. This debate will be run by us; these terms are not negotiable. If you are not willing to concede this fact then you may withdraw from the debate and we will not hold either party in a poor light.
Please contact me as soon as possible as time is of the essence.
Thank you for your continued documentation to show the history. So I see IAEP claiming that they wanted to debate and were willing to have your facilitator. It seems to me that this issue could be resolved. Is it possible that the debate may still happen with a signed agreement tomorrow?
Dear Michelle It appears that NEMSA has made a reasonable request to have a set of rules signed by both parties. IAEP has stated they will sign the rules, as long as they are being identified as IAEP. It also appears that NEMSA will not recognize IAEP as IAEP, and in fact this is factual. In the opinion of the members, NEMSA has officially withdrawn from the debate, and are not willing to meet the members needs, or wantings of a debate. Consider the members still attending the debate in hopes of both parties showing. This will also be for the purpose that at a later time, no misinformation, or misrepresentation of who actualy backed out, who actually showed, and what actually happened at 6:00 pm, 8/27. Thank you for your time and efforts in coordinating a strongly needed debate.
The signature sheet that IAEP refused to sign. stated IAEP/SEIU/NAGE to cover whom ever represented their side in this debate. They refused to sign it. IAEP members are members of SEIU/NAGE so its pretty stupid to back out of signing the document. I guess we will just have to wait and see who shows up tonight wont we.
Actually they are affiliate and guess what? weve had enough!!!Were over your mindless jibber jabber of benign menutia!!! either show up and tell us why we should vote for nemsa, or don't show, and IAEP will win the election by a landslide
You had such keen insite and you have been consistently accurate.
A marvelous work and a wonder is what you should be remembered as.
The best part is how Michelle got you all of her E-mails forwarded. Very cool.
All of you should be very proud of the work you did this year. Maybe a yearbook is in order. I'd pay 40 bucks for pictures and stories of how you failed to decert SEIU.
