OK I am compelled to point some things out!

Statement Made: “It behooves me to stay away from addressing these bloggers comments because I'm not interested in getting entangled with their personal struggles and improprieties, BUT, since I WAS the SUBJECT of their BLACKBALL effort I've decided to reply to Day's most recent post.”

Our Constitution Section 22.8 Page 118 States: “Any officer or member charged with violating this section may be subject to discipline and penalty in accordance with the applicable provisions of Sections 12.4, 12.5, and 22 of this Constitution. Any such officer or member who has been (a) served with written specified charges, (b) given a reasonable time to prepare his or her defense, and (c) afforded a full and fair hearing in accordance with any applicable provisions of this Constitution and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, and who has been found guilty of such charges, or any of them, shall be punished as warranted by the offenses and by the applicable provisions of this Constitution. Any officer or member found guilty of corruption or racketeering shall be barred for life from holding any office with the I.U., or any L.U., J.B.C., J.S.C. or other subordinate body. No member shall be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined for exercising any right to which the member is entitled under the provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.”

My Comment: If the member is found guilty of such charges a Trial Committee will assign the disciplinary actions that fit the charges. The only thing I see close to “BLACKBALL” is being barred for life from holding any office within the union. That is if the charges were for corruption or racketeering.

Statement Made: “Mr. Day, your "Preferring of Charges" was a legal issue.  I believe Jon Hunt's error was signing a letter he didn't research or write.  Mr. Day needs to address his concerns directly to ATU's legal Department.”

My Comment: My “Preferring of Charges” is a legal issue? Jon Hunt’s error was signing a letter he didn’t research or write? I need to address my concerns directly to ATU’s legal department? My “Preferring of Charges” is a union Constitutional right for all members. Jon Hunt is our Union President-Business Representative and it is ok if he blindly signs documents and sends them out to members without being responsible for the content of what he signed? Last time I checked our Local Union President is responsible for the entire workings of our local and this includes our legal department. If President Hunt’s letter was not properly researched or written and he signs it and sends it out, then he is fully responsible for the content of that document.

Statement Made: “I filed charges through TM's Human Resources Dept because Mr. Day and Merlo Guy's behavior and actions are in violation of HR-202, "TriMet employees are personally responsible for the content they publish on the internet, both internally and externally."  HR-171. Respectful workplace. This was a workplace issue - not Union.  This was 'member against member'.”

My Comment: I find this a very interesting statement because the author of that statement continues to post pictures of employee’s without their consent and it can be argued that the author of that statement is not respecting the workplace. To finish the statement saying “this was a workplace issue - not union. This was ‘member against member’.” Is the author reading what was just said? If it is a work place issue and not a union, would it then be employee against employee? Now TriMet has employees and they are union so they are members. If an employee has an issue at TriMet and they are a union member, are they not able to take it to the union? Just wondering!

Statement Made: “Still, after all this time, Mr. Day continues to whine to anyone and everyone (privately and publicly) whenever the facts come out regarding his personal history with HR as well as other top managers within the system in terms of reporting Operators.  Some of them were before he was employed and some were while he served as a Union Officer.  More recently he decided to bypass managements chain of command including HR, top management and the Union and decided that 'blackballing' the member (moi) from the Union would solve his problem BECAUSE - page 1 of his "Preferring of Charges" complaint, paragraph 1, states,  (if this information gets out) "...it can result in damages this next union election."  Day wants to run for election - he wants to be your next President and he will go to any length, up to and including the filing of "Preferring of Charges" or Blackballing a member who has personal experience with him.  This is from the mouth of the guy that talks 'TRANSPARENCY'.  And, this from the Merlo guy who talks FREEDOM OF SPEECH.”

My Comment: I am still wondering about this so called connection I have with HR and other top managers. If I had such a good connection with them why would I have to bypass them? When references are made about me reporting operators (as in more than one), what other operator or operators have I reported to HR or top managers other than the author of that statement? The author of that statement continues to repeat stories that date back to January of 2007. Not much new has been added other than the “Preferring of Charges”. Just like the author of that statement I am having my share of personal experiences with the author as well.

Statement Made: “Having said that, what would be so terribly wrong with just going directly to the individual/s you're having issues with?  So, my question and concern for you, Mr. Day is this: If you're having anger or interpersonal problems to this degree why would you not look at getting some help?”

My Comment: The statement above is a never ending circle of he said, she said and she said, he said. The fact of the matter is no one has been able to sit the author and me together and get all the facts on the table. After four years of this I feel it is time to get the facts out and that is why I have filed the “Preferring of Charges”. This will give us all a chance to present our facts and allow a Trial Committee place judgment on us. The author of that statement is concerned about me having anger or interpersonal problems? OK I bite, what kind of help should I get?

Statement Made: “Your gathering of signatures in the bullpen was highly inappropriate.  It was equally inappropriate of you to send out questionnaires throughout the TM system to Union members through their private e-mail (regarding your personal problems with me).  If one were to assume your motivation were to make things better for the membership you failed.  Clearly, the way you went about informing the members,  gathering signatures, the sharing of information on your blog with the other guy's blog was irresponsible.  You and Merlo guy were feeding off each other and motivated by some sort of sick rage that comes from irrational thought. I'm not sure why you'd allow this person or anyone else for that matter so much control over your thought processes.  The postings were over the top.  Regular people with a professional agenda don't act like that.”

My Comment: There have been many events of gathering signatures in the “Bull Pen” with many members for different reasons. The reason my gathering of signatures was inappropriate is because I was collecting signatures to file charges on another member that turned out to be in the area. Though it was not my intent, it created an intimidating work environment for that member. It is better to keep signature gathering away from the member that is being charged. Personally, I do not feel I would be intimidated if I was to witness a member collecting signatures to file charges on me. Then again, I am not ashamed of my actions.

                The statement above accuses me of using TriMet’s system to send questionnaires to union member’s private emails. Management and HR questioned me about this as well. Lucky for me computers track everything and it was very easy for Management and HR to ask TriMet’s IT department if there are any such records. Clearly there were no such records. I am a computer geek, why would I use TriMet’s system when I have many of my own at home and an outside server? The rest of the statement above appears that the author has anger or interpersonal problems and might want to look into getting some help. The image the author included states “Seems like you have a case of being a little bitch. I’m prescribing you a heavy dose of man the fuck up.” Now, how professional is that?

Statement Made: “I witnessed you moving about the bullpen from group to group, from table to table with your petition asking Union members to TAKE SIDES against another Union member. I was behind you for awhile then moved over to the counter near the front door.  I wasn't exactly sure what was going on until one of your signers walked in front of me, stopped, smiled and then walked away.”

My Comment: I would like to reflect back to an earlier statement “what would be so terribly wrong with just going directly to the individual/s you're having issues with?” If the author meant that statement than why wasn’t I approached and told “hey Chris, you are making me feel uncomfortable and I would rather you stop this action in front of me.” If I had been given any indication I would have stopped my actions of collecting signatures at that time. I am not out to attack anyone and I will stand strong to protect myself and others if it is in my power to do so.

Statement Made: “The person being accused always has a right to know who their accusers are.  Why would this upset you?  Did you promise these people anonymity?  You thought I was going to retaliate against them didn't you?  Otherwise you wouldn't have lied about my interaction with Gene Marsh.  Right?  (scroll down to see screen shots from "Preferring of Charges" post) If you knew me you'd know that I don't operate the way you and your Merlo blogger friend project.  Both of you purposely try to change other people's perceptions of those you have problems with.  Most people just want to go to work and go home.  I'm suggesting you lied to co-workers to gain their signatures and support for your petition just to get names on it. Why else would you be angry and blaming about me receiving a list of my accusers? After being called up to HR, I'm willing to bet most of those people were embarrassed at having to go through that process.” “Chris, you got the signatures.  Not the Union.  I have a right to see who my accusers are. Give the membership some credit.  Next time they are asked to sign something perhaps they'll actually READ IT!”

Our Constitution Section 22.3 Page 114 States: “Whenever any charges are preferred against any officer or member of a L.U. or J.C., such charges shall be in writing and shall be specific. Any such charges preferred against an officer of a L.U. or J.C. shall be signed by at least ten (10) members in good standing in the L.U. or J.C. Any such charges preferred against any member who is not an officer shall be signed by at least five (5) members in good standing in the L.U. or J.C. At least fifteen (15) days before the regular meeting of the L.U. or J.C., a copy of such charges shall be served upon the officer or member against whom such charges are filed and the L.U. or J.C. The L.U. or J.C. shall contemporaneously provide notice to all members that such charges are to be considered at the meeting by posting at appropriate locations.”

My Comment: Any such charges preferred against any member who is not an officer shall be signed by at least five (5) members in good standing in the L.U. I am the accuser in this case and the members that signed are just members in good standing in the L.U. Signing the “Preferring of Charges” does not make the signer an accuser just a supporter. Knowing who signed it is not relevant to knowing who is accusing and what charges are being accused of.

The author states that I had lied about the author’s interaction with Gene Marsh. I did send an email commenting that Gene Marsh called me and was upset about being contacted by the author of the above statement. I did comment that Gene Marsh had deleted the message and was not able to send me a copy. I did comment that Gene March made a statement to me saying the author thought he was a nice guy and is now very upset with him and is no longer considered a friend. I did comment in the email to Jon Hunt that I was concerned about the author retaliating against members who signed. I did post that information as well on my blog site. I did find out the next day from a post on the author’s blog the actual communication that took place and publicly retracted the comments I made the night before. All of this did happen, where is the lie?

The author of the above statement has been suggesting that I have been lying for the past four years so what is new about it being suggested again here?

The authors statement “After being called up to HR, I'm willing to bet most of those people were embarrassed at having to go through that process.” “Those people” are members, our union brothers and sisters. Being called to HR can be a very intimidating thing. I am sure they did not enjoy the process that the author of the above statement submitted them to.

Statement Made: “Preferring of charges only requires five (5) signatures but you had two (2) additional petitions.  One with five (5) , one with nine (9) and one online with sixteen (16).  People who were given the option of voting for 'my fate'?!!  According to information the Merlo Blogger put out, these are all people who know me and "have had problems with me".  I only knew three (3) out of the thirty (30).  The rest of them are mini runners, your personal friends and life partner and the guy, of course who buzzed me with his bus as I was riding my bike on NE 15th. And what about those that refused to sign, didn't want to get involved in bullpen gossip?  What about those whom you traveled from table to table, possibly garage to garage poisoning their minds with your problems?  Creating hostility in my workplace against me from people I've never met.”

My Comment: Preferring of Charges require at least five (5) signatures. There is no limit to the amount of signatures allowed to be collected. The author states of knowing three (3) out of the thirty (30) and the rest are “mini runners”. It is true that both part time operators and full time operators did sign. The union can support the fact that there are more than three (3) full time operator signatures on the list. I was amazed by the number of members that feared retaliation if they were to sign and I understood.

                The author states “Creating hostility in my workplace against me from people I've never met.” Your work place, isn’t this our workplace? Aren’t all members’ granted equal rights in our workplace and our union?

Statement Made: “Regarding Khris Alexander.  Union members were asking that he be re-called - not blackballed.  He was a Union Officer  -  you're NOT!”

Our Constitution Section 22.1 Page 112 States: “Any officer or member may be charged with specific activities involving: a violation of any specific provision of the Constitution and General Laws or the bylaws of the member’s L.U.; gross disloyalty or conduct unbecoming a member; malfeasance or nonfeasance in office; financial malpractice; corrupt or unethical practices or racketeering; dual unionism, decertification or secession; or a violation of duly established and applicable rules, regulations, policies or practices of a L.U., J.C., or the I.U.”

My Comment: Please take note that any officer or member may be charged. Preferring of Charges is not limited to officers only. Our membership is entitled the right to govern over the activities of our membership. We are empowered to preserve the integrity of our membership. As a whole our membership has the power to say enough is enough, to take the required steps to keep the membership at peace.

                Khris Alexander is a Union Officer and I am sure the author of the above statement enjoyed saying that I am not. I will continue to follow my obligations as I swore I would when I joined this great Union. Our members are hearing me speak out and seeing me stand with them to help protect each other. United we stand, divided we fall. It is a very simple statement that means the world to a Union.