John van Houte Runoff Letter

John van Houte runoff letter

My fellow members, please accept my humble gratitude for your support and your votes during this past voting cycle.  There is much work to continue doing to help ensure our strength as a union, and ongoing ability to protect our members, and I am writing to you in order to again ask for your support, and vote, in this runoff election.

I am saddened by Deputy King’s letter just posted to the blog, and frankly more than a little confused by his decision to attack the very e-board that he states he looks forward to working with if elected.  Before I attempt to provide clarification (and answers) for some of his accusations, I want to state my commitment to bring our membership together so that we can stand as a united front in support of each other when we address our needs and rights as a membership.  Fighting amongst ourselves and attacking each other from within only weakens us as a membership and distracts us from the work that must be done to protect our members.

Regarding Deputy King’s allegations of impropriety, and failure to represent, I would offer you the following factual rebuttal information:

When Deputy Fisher went on leave, it was unknown how long he would be absent, and the executive vice president position was not vacated simply because he was on leave.  The e-board stayed in contact with Deputy Fisher, to both support him and toattempt to determine the length of time he would be absent.  The e-board could not force Deputy Fisher to vacate his position for both ethical reasons and legal reasons pertaining to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The moment Deputy Fisherinformed Nicole that he would not be returning as quickly as he intended and he would be stepping down, Nicole informed therest of the e-board and the nomination and election process was initiated as outlined in the MCCDA constitution.

When Deputy Fisher went out on leave, I reached out to the e-board to offer my help in any way I could.  I did not ask, or in any other way seek appointment to Deputy Fisher’s position.  I continued to help, and when Deputy Fisher had been out for approximately 30 days, I was approached and asked if I would be willing to take on the duties of the executive VP temporarily until Deputy Fisher returned.  The e-board consulted with MCCDA’s attorney then voted to temporarily appoint me as a fill in until Deputy Fisher could return.  It was made clear to me that I would not be allowed to vote on e-board voting matters, and I would not receive the monthly stipend associated with the executive VP office.  I was, however, told that I would be paid hourly for work performed for the union.  To my knowledge, no other former candidate or steward stepped forward to offer any additional help during the period of time from Deputy Fisher’s going on leave until even now.

Regarding Deputy King’s assertion that the e-board failed to represent a member when the sheriff exercised prejudice against a member for their union involvement; the sheriff and the inspector made a determination that a member assigned to the Internal Affairs Unit if elected as the executive VP would pose a conflict of interest in cases involving a MCCDA member.  That member would have to recuse themselves from either their job duties, or elected duties.  The e-board consulted with the MCCDA attorney who verified that a conflict would in fact exist.  The sheriff and the inspector informed that member that if they were to be elected, they would not be allowed to continue in their special assignment while holding the position of executive VP.  That member chose to remain in their special assignment.  There is no legal, or contractual recourse to force the county to leave a member in place if a conflict of interest prevents them from doing their job and completing their duties.

The e-board was not the entity that engaged in bargaining with the county; the bargaining team was.  They successfully negotiated a contract that was overwhelmingly approved by the membership, and provided us with record wage increases and benefits that even the agencies that we used as our comparators are using or have used during their contract negotiations.  We have a strong contract, and we are in a strong position as we head towards our 2025 negotiations.  Regarding Deputy King’s reference to the retiree rehire portion of the contract, the contract team took great care to ensure that the contractual language of the retiree rehire program did not and does not jeopardize or displace union represented positions.  As a reminder, the bargaining team also ensured that there was a window to re-open negotiations regarding the retiree rehire program, and we will be exercising that right to re-open.

Hopefully this information serves to provide you with some clarification on these issues.

In closing, I want to assure you that I am committed to working for you and with you as we face these difficult times.  I am ready, willing, and able to fight to protect us as a membership.  I bring to the table a strong knowledge of policy, procedure, and training.  I have a track record of acting both quickly and decisively to resolve issues, and I am available to you at any time.

In solidarity,

John