The IUPA made a big mistake in endorsing a candidate who was clearly not qualified. It was good old sheriff politics at play. Take a stand against these silly politics. Do NOT endorse IUPA's candidate. The candidate receiving the endorsement was selected without the voting member's input. If that is not scary enough, the candidate who received the endorsement was like last in line. There was another candidate who blew this gut out of the water - someone I would want to work for. LB. Say no to the IUPA. Sit the primary out. Don't endorse anyone until the general. There are bad things happening.
Joe Q. Citizen from over the river.
Re: Union not representative
by hoodwinked » 04/15/12 12:33:29
By your very comment you admit the vote was rigged. It should have gone to all members.
You think MS is bad? Put Fisher in and it'll be like Lee County's own Al Qaeda. History has shown us you can't trust an angry religious zealot.
That being said, Fisher doesn't have a plan. It’s apparent. He and IUPA have bent the rules - just like Scott does now. This is a predicate for things to come.
How can we trust union leadership that says it acts in our best interest but just proved it did not? Why the haste? Because most on the board are Fisher supporters and I guarantee they have a personal stake (promotion?) in Fisher receiving the endorsement. For certain, had the full membership with voting rights been allowed to exercise that right, Fisher would not have received it.
IUPA should come down, remove the board members for malfeasance, set aside the endorsement and allow all members with voting rights to cast a vote. After all, how else would the board know what we want?
This example of back door, good ole boy politicking is no different from the current admin
Re: Union not representative
by Guest » 04/15/12 13:24:10
We the Deputies should follow the Sgt. and Vote out the IUPA.
Re: Union not representative
by goodidea » 04/15/12 17:36:21
What we should do is file a complaint with Regional and have the board members disciplined and removed for dereliction of duty and acting in their own self interest.
Fisher was not qualified to receive this endorsement.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by mistake » 04/13/12 10:06:59
I'm disappointed in IUPA. I was one of the deputies in attendance. Fisher never addressed our concerns. He was more talking about himself and Scott. We all know Scott is horrible. Bushong laid out how he was going to improve things for us. Bushong has a history of supporting the union.
I didn't have a voice in this endorsement. As a card carrying IUPA member, I think the union made a bad bad choice here.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Flytrap » 04/13/12 11:08:53
mistake wrote:
I'm disappointed in IUPA. I was one of the deputies in attendance. Fisher never addressed our concerns. He was more talking about himself and Scott. We all know Scott is horrible. Bushong laid out how he was going to improve things for us. Bushong has a history of supporting the union.
I didn't have a voice in this endorsement. As a card carrying IUPA member, I think the union made a bad bad choice here.
The Union didn't make a mistake, this was deliberate on their part. The people who sit on the Union board openly endorsed Fisher along-time ago. We know who these people are, in fact they sit on the Fisher campaign team. Isn't the world grand? We talk about how unfair Mike Scott is and his "Kangaroo Court" of discipline and yet the Union board resorts to the same thing!
You are absolutely right when you say Fisher didn't address our concerns. The guy ran around the room like he hadn't taken his Ritalin medication. He spoke about himself as if he has done so much during his law enforcement career. I didn't hear one significant thing that he has done in LE, which was not important for the issues of this forum. Who cares about vertical lift helicopters, 308 bullets, and pedophiles...this guy is out there. Shame on the Union for not looking out for the membership. You deserve a Mike Scott!
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by disgusted22 » 04/13/12 11:55:32
This is a prime example of people not thinking critically. Instead of hearing and listening to what we need, the board resorted to scratching the back of one of its own members.
I really liked that Bushong had laid out step plans, promotional criteria, fairness, equality. And he didn't just talk about it. He told us how he was going to do it. He gave us what we have been wanting and so desperately waiting for. He provided career paths and direction for us.
And we stupidly endorsed Fisher when he isn't able to speak with insight on matters of budget and raises. Even in this meeting, he deferred to Bushong saying Bushong know the budget better.
I lost confidence in our union because they ignored a man with a plan and a man with a history of supporting unions.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Unbelievable91051 » 04/13/12 17:11:24
disgusted22 wrote:
This is a prime example of people not thinking critically. Instead of hearing and listening to what we need, the board resorted to scratching the back of one of its own members.
I really liked that Bushong had laid out step plans, promotional criteria, fairness, equality. And he didn't just talk about it. He told us how he was going to do it. He gave us what we have been wanting. He provided career paths and direction for us.
And we endorsed Fisher when he isn't able to speak with insight on matters of budget and raises. Even in this meeting, he deferred to Bushong saying Bushong know the budget better.
I lost confidence in our union because they ignored a man with a plan and a man with a history of supporting unions.
You, NFM, are a prime example of an idiot. Watch his video. All he talked about was us
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Linebackerll » 04/13/12 17:40:13
Unless a monster check and major ground support accompanies this endorsement, it will not cause a ripple with the voters.
Linebackerll
LEO Affairs Captain
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Bubba Joe » 04/13/12 19:12:36
Linebackerll wrote:
Unless a monster check and major ground support accompanies this endorsement, it will not cause a ripple with the voters.
When and if the other unions in the area back IUPA's endorsement, it will make a difference. They ARE the voters. So are we. Either way, the BOCC knows where we deputies stand now.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by jpoop » 04/13/12 20:42:16
Go to bed, TF. You and MS tendency for personal attacks is an old tired game. All allegations, no merit.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Flytrap » 04/13/12 21:23:20
NFM wrote:
How does Lee support unions? Is he or has he ever been in a union? When asked about working with the union, he talked about the Cape not us! I can go out and promise you that I am going to reduce command staff, give raises, fight for deputies and send emails with just my first name. Oh yes remember we have star care! Lee - Mike what is the difference?
You have obviously been asleep at the wheel. Lee explained that his own wife, a Lehigh firefighter is a member of a union. When she receives a union benefit it benefits the Bushong family. Lee also explained that one of his campaign staffers is a former police union boss from NY and that he would have never had his support if he didn't support the union. Lee also looks at a union as a calming factor. When union and management come to contractual agreements, it makes it easier for both sides to know that there is a book of rules that explains how both sides will proceed. Remember, it was Tim Fisher who said that him and his dad were union members back in Pennsylvania, but that if he was Sheriff there would be no need for a union. Think of those words, you trust that?
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Guest » 04/15/12 13:25:39
We the Deputies should follow the Sgt. and Vote out the IUPA.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Joker91151 » 04/15/12 15:07:42
Lazenby is an idiot. I read the IUPA press release. What a joke. What does a swat membership have to do with running for sheriff? NOTHING. Swat impresses no one.
The union has shot itself in the foot. Instead of doing the right thing, it tried to play politics and it has backfired.
Everyone knows who should have received that endorsement. The IUPA has lost all credibility. Even other unions are refusing to back IUPA's choice. Good for them. Bushong was the only one qualified. Small town back room tactics f’d this up.
Vote out IUPA. They just proved they are corrupt. We don't need them around to "protect" our rights when they just proved they have no concern for our interests.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by moo » 04/15/12 15:37:34
I agree. Union went rogue. Didn’t ask me.
get rid of union. way I see it only one person not playing good ole boy and who is looking out for us. That’s bushy.
Re: Union not representative
by Adam 12 » 04/15/12 17:42:58
I agree that there should have been a vote. That was the idea behind getting the union, so we would all get a say. The board really screwed up. I am a union member, but I cannot agree with the way they did this. I feel the board went behind our backs and did this. We still need a union, but not like this.
Re: Union not representative
by Guest » 04/15/12 18:51:06
hoodwinked wrote:
By your very comment you admit the vote was rigged. It should have gone to all members.
You think MS is bad? Put Fisher in and it'll be like Lee County's own Al Queda. History has shown us you can't trust an angry religious zealot.
That being said, Fisher doesn't have a plan. It’s apparent. He and IUPA have bent the rules - just like Scott does now. This is a predicate for things to come.
How can we trust union leadership that says it acts in our best interest just proved it did not? Why the haste? Because most on the board are Fisher supports and I guarantee they have a personal stake (promotion?) in Fisher receiving the endorsement. For certain, had the full membership with voting rights been allowed to exercise that right, Fisher would not have received it.
IUPA should come down, remove the board members for malfeasance, set aside the endorsement and allow all members with voting rights to cast a vote. After all, how else would the board know what we want?
This example of back door, good ole boy politicking is no different from the current admin
Please explain your guarantee that the board members have a personal stake or are getting promotions. If you could, please also explain the "malfeasance".
Re: Union not representative
by NeverVoteFisher » 04/15/12 20:21:31
Shut up, Tim.
If you are so stupid to think we are all idiots, maybe you should vertically envelop yourself, take your .308 and go back to the land of oompah-loompahs.
Freakin tard. What you and the board members did certainly lost you a significant amount of support and gave us a solid no-confidence in our board leadership. You are a freakin' idiot tool to think you could use us.
A-hole. Now Scott will kill you with what you orchestrated. You certainly don't know how to play this game. And you have jeopardized the union and placed the careers of everyone who tried to do the right thing at risk. Just so you could claim an endorsement. Well, it's obvious right now that you do NOT put us first. LIAR. You can explain to Jim and Tammy end everyone else why they lost their jobs. You’re a hand job.
Go home. You suck! We thought you might be a good candidate. You are NOT. This stunt proved it. And, be like your mentor and look up malfeasance in Webster.
Re: Union not representative
by Guest 2016 » 04/15/12 20:35:36
Timmy, reject the endorsement and demand a union vote. It is the only way.
Re: Union not representative
by mcu4us » 04/13/12 22:54:33
The local leadership of IUPA just signed the death warrant for itself. We fought to have a union and a couple of jackholes screwed it up by endorsing Fisher.
There should have been a membership wide vote (a dues paying privilege) with a majority vote to award the endorsement. The sheer haste and inadequate leadership revealed two things:
1. The good ol boy system is alive and well. The very thing we were all concerned about is what the union leadership has allowed - action without our voice. The candidates presented their views and only one candidate addressed deputy concerns and rights - Lee Bushong. To have endorsed a candidate as distant from the core issues of the forum as Fisher was is prima facie of a rigged vote.
2. A lack of critical thinking. Who paid attention to what was said by the candidates? This was not meant to be a popularity contest or a personality contest. Only one candidate put forth the work and time to address our concerns. And it was not Fisher. Watch Bushong's speech. Listen to what he said. It's so perfectly clear that his foresight.is what is needed - not some Fisher pulpit preach about helicopters, bullets and personal attacks on MS.
We doomed ourselves. The union doomed ourselves. How selfish and pitiful.
Thanks CP for the email today. I will also be cancelling. And I will also sign the petition to remove the union. Already it is corrupted and not serving us.
Lee - if you read these, please know very many of us support what you are doing. I apologize for our union’s folly. Please keep up the hard work.
mcu4us
e: Union not representative
by nightfury » 04/15/12 00:52:46
Look,
The fact is the board made a decision without soliciting from its paying members on whom, if anyone, to endorse.
The endorsement of Fisher was uncalled for and is clearly another form of intimidation.
I was so pissed. Bushong beat the snot out of those other two. Meister needs to go back to his village. Fisher forgot to take his Adderall. The man was running around angry. He didn't even address the mods questions.
I called Lee today at 2393210988 and apologized for the union leaderships arrogance and stupidity. He was grateful and said he was shocked that the union didn't take a class wide vote for paying members. Obviously it was a rookie move by rookie leaders.
Lee still stands for us. He promised me he wouldn’t give up.
Call Lee or email him at leebushong@yahoo.com. You may see his speech or contact him through his website at www.lee2012.com. He'd love to hear from you.
Re: Union not representative
by NightFury » 04/15/12 01:32:39
This union has embarrassed us. I have spoken with so many others and it’s unanimous.
First. the union should not have endorsed a candidate without a ballot drive from voting members.
Second, it endorses Fisher (who was totally mowed over by Bushong) when no one but Bushong actually addressed the union issues. Bushong was so well prepared and polished that he might as well have been a presidential candidate. Even then, it should have gone to a voting class ballot, which it did not (had it, Bushong would have walked with it with head high.
Be careful what you wish for.
The way the union handled this, ignored the qualified candidate, and did not seek member input leaves me with this:
Where do I find the petition to get IUPA out of here? How do I stop paying?
You puffies got what you asked for. You keep Fisher. I’m going to the strong candidate - Lee Bushong. Lets Make It Right!
IUPA sold out to politics
Moderators: Mod 591, Staff Moderator
Forum rules
LEOAFFAIRS.COM Home Page------MESSAGE BOARD ABUSE AND VIOLATIONS Page------Terms of Use------ARCADE
LEOAFFAIRS.COM Home Page------MESSAGE BOARD ABUSE AND VIOLATIONS Page------Terms of Use------ARCADE
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: IUPA sold out to politics
by DevilAdvocate21 » 04/16/12 01:00:02
There is no question who we support. Lee Bushong is the only, and the best, candidate for this office.
THe SO is so full of dumb politics. I have talked with Lee from time to time. He is squared away, very pro-cop and is all about empowering his people.
The fact that Fisher and Scott allowed this to happen, to try to F with Bushong is uncalled for and is cheap politics. Vote Bushong this November. God knows we need him!
The IUPA made a big mistake in endorsing a candidate who was clearly not qualified. It was good old sheriff politics at play. Take a stand against these silly politics. Do NOT endorse IUPA's candidate. The candidate receiving the endorsement was selected without the voting member's input or consent. If that is not scary enough, the candidate who received the endorsement was like last in line. There was another candidate who blew this guy out of the water - someone I would want to work for. LB. Say no to the IUPA. Sit the primary out. Don't endorse anyone until the general. There are bad things happening.
Joe Q. Citizen from over the river.
Re: Union not representative
by hoodwinked » 04/15/12 12:33:29
By your very comment you admit the vote was rigged. It should have gone to all members.
You think MS is bad? Put Fisher in and it'll be like Lee County's own Al Qaeda. History has shown us you can't trust an angry religious zealot.
That being said, Fisher doesn't have a plan. It’s apparent. He and IUPA have bent the rules - just like Scott does now. This is a predicate for things to come.
How can we trust union leadership that says it acts in our best interest but just proved it did not? Why the haste? Because most on the board are Fisher supporters and I guarantee they have a personal stake (promotion?) in Fisher receiving the endorsement. For certain, had the full membership with voting rights been allowed to exercise that right, Fisher would not have received it.
IUPA should come down, remove the board members for malfeasance, set aside the endorsement and allow all members with voting rights to cast a vote. After all, how else would the board know what we want?
This example of back door, good ole boy politicking is no different from the current admin
Re: Union not representative
by Guest » 04/15/12 13:24:10
We the Deputies should follow the Sgt. and Vote out the IUPA.
Re: Union not representative
by goodidea » 04/15/12 17:36:21
What we should do is file a complaint with Regional and have the board members disciplined and removed for dereliction of duty and acting in their own self interest.
Fisher was not qualified to receive this endorsement.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by mistake » 04/13/12 10:06:59
I'm disappointed in IUPA. I was one of the deputies in attendance. Fisher never addressed our concerns. He was more talking about himself and Scott. We all know Scott is horrible. Bushong laid out how he was going to improve things for us. Bushong has a history of supporting the union.
I didn't have a voice in this endorsement. As a card carrying IUPA member, I think the union made a bad bad choice here.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Flytrap » 04/13/12 11:08:53
mistake wrote:
I'm disappointed in IUPA. I was one of the deputies in attendance. Fisher never addressed our concerns. He was more talking about himself and Scott. We all know Scott is horrible. Bushong laid out how he was going to improve things for us. Bushong has a history of supporting the union.
I didn't have a voice in this endorsement. As a card carrying IUPA member, I think the union made a bad bad choice here.
The Union didn't make a mistake, this was deliberate on their part. The people who sit on the Union board openly endorsed Fisher along-time ago. We know who these people are, in fact they sit on the Fisher campaign team. Isn't the world grand? We talk about how unfair Mike Scott is and his "Kangaroo Court" of discipline and yet the Union board resorts to the same thing!
You are absolutely right when you say Fisher didn't address our concerns. The guy ran around the room like he hadn't taken his Ritalin medication. He spoke about himself as if he has done so much during his law enforcement career. I didn't hear one significant thing that he has done in LE, which was not important for the issues of this forum. Who cares about vertical lift helicopters, 308 bullets, and pedophiles...this guy is out there. Shame on the Union for not looking out for the membership. You deserve a Mike Scott!
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by disgusted22 » 04/13/12 11:55:32
This is a prime example of people not thinking critically. Instead of hearing and listening to what we need, the board resorted to scratching the back of one of its own members.
I really liked that Bushong had laid out step plans, promotional criteria, fairness, equality. And he didn't just talk about it. He told us how he was going to do it. He gave us what we have been wanting and so desperately waiting for. He provided career paths and direction for us.
And we stupidly endorsed Fisher when he isn't able to speak with insight on matters of budget and raises. Even in this meeting, he deferred to Bushong saying Bushong know the budget better.
I lost confidence in our union because they ignored a man with a plan and a man with a history of supporting unions.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Unbelievable91051 » 04/13/12 17:11:24
disgusted22 wrote:
This is a prime example of people not thinking critically. Instead of hearing and listening to what we need, the board resorted to scratching the back of one of its own members.
I really liked that Bushong had laid out step plans, promotional criteria, fairness, equality. And he didn't just talk about it. He told us how he was going to do it. He gave us what we have been wanting. He provided career paths and direction for us.
And we endorsed Fisher when he isn't able to speak with insight on matters of budget and raises. Even in this meeting, he deferred to Bushong saying Bushong know the budget better.
I lost confidence in our union because they ignored a man with a plan and a man with a history of supporting unions.
You, NFM, are a prime example of an idiot. Watch his video. All he talked about was us
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Linebackerll » 04/13/12 17:40:13
Unless a monster check and major ground support accompanies this endorsement, it will not cause a ripple with the voters.
Linebackerll
LEO Affairs Captain
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Bubba Joe » 04/13/12 19:12:36
Linebackerll wrote:
Unless a monster check and major ground support accompanies this endorsement, it will not cause a ripple with the voters.
When and if the other unions in the area back IUPA's endorsement, it will make a difference. They ARE the voters. So are we. Either way, the BOCC knows where we deputies stand now.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by jpoop » 04/13/12 20:42:16
Go to bed, TF. You and MS tendency for personal attacks is an old tired game. All allegations, no merit.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Flytrap » 04/13/12 21:23:20
NFM wrote:
How does Lee support unions? Is he or has he ever been in a union? When asked about working with the union, he talked about the Cape not us! I can go out and promise you that I am going to reduce command staff, give raises, fight for deputies and send emails with just my first name. Oh yes remember we have star care! Lee - Mike what is the difference?
You have obviously been asleep at the wheel. Lee explained that his own wife, a Lehigh firefighter is a member of a union. When she receives a union benefit it benefits the Bushong family. Lee also explained that one of his campaign staffers is a former police union boss from NY and that he would have never had his support if he didn't support the union. Lee also looks at a union as a calming factor. When union and management come to contractual agreements, it makes it easier for both sides to know that there is a book of rules that explains how both sides will proceed. Remember, it was Tim Fisher who said that him and his dad were union members back in Pennsylvania, but that if he was Sheriff there would be no need for a union. Think of those words, you trust that?
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Guest » 04/15/12 13:25:39
We the Deputies should follow the Sgt. and Vote out the IUPA.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Joker91151 » 04/15/12 15:07:42
Lazenby is an idiot. I read the IUPA press release. What a joke. What does a swat membership have to do with running for sheriff? NOTHING. Swat impresses no one.
The union has shot itself in the foot. Instead of doing the right thing, it tried to play politics and it has backfired.
Everyone knows who should have received that endorsement. The IUPA has lost all credibility. Even other unions are refusing to back IUPA's choice. Good for them. Bushong was the only one qualified. Small town back room tactics f’d this up.
Vote out IUPA. They just proved they are corrupt. We don't need them around to "protect" our rights when they just proved they have no concern for our interests.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by moo » 04/15/12 15:37:34
I agree. Union went rogue. Didn’t ask me.
get rid of union. way I see it only one person not playing good ole boy and who is looking out for us. That’s bushy.
Re: Union not representative
by Adam 12 » 04/15/12 17:42:58
I agree that there should have been a vote. That was the idea behind getting the union, so we would all get a say. The board really screwed up. I am a union member, but I cannot agree with the way they did this. I feel the board went behind our backs and did this. We still need a union, but not like this.
Re: Union not representative
by Guest » 04/15/12 18:51:06
hoodwinked wrote:
By your very comment you admit the vote was rigged. It should have gone to all members.
You think MS is bad? Put Fisher in and it'll be like Lee County's own Al Queda. History has shown us you can't trust an angry religious zealot.
That being said, Fisher doesn't have a plan. It’s apparent. He and IUPA have bent the rules - just like Scott does now. This is a predicate for things to come.
How can we trust union leadership that says it acts in our best interest just proved it did not? Why the haste? Because most on the board are Fisher supports and I guarantee they have a personal stake (promotion?) in Fisher receiving the endorsement. For certain, had the full membership with voting rights been allowed to exercise that right, Fisher would not have received it.
IUPA should come down, remove the board members for malfeasance, set aside the endorsement and allow all members with voting rights to cast a vote. After all, how else would the board know what we want?
This example of back door, good ole boy politicking is no different from the current admin
Please explain your guarantee that the board members have a personal stake or are getting promotions. If you could, please also explain the "malfeasance".
Re: Union not representative
by NeverVoteFisher » 04/15/12 20:21:31
Shut up, Tim.
If you are so stupid to think we are all idiots, maybe you should vertically envelop yourself, take your .308 and go back to the land of oompah-loompahs.
Freakin tard. What you and the board members did certainly lost you a significant amount of support and gave us a solid no-confidence in our board leadership. You are a freakin' idiot tool to think you could use us.
A-hole. Now Scott will kill you with what you orchestrated. You certainly don't know how to play this game. And you have jeopardized the union and placed the careers of everyone who tried to do the right thing at risk. Just so you could claim an endorsement. Well, it's obvious right now that you do NOT put us first. LIAR. You can explain to Jim and Tammy end everyone else why they lost their jobs. You’re a hand job.
Go home. You suck! We thought you might be a good candidate. You are NOT. This stunt proved it. And, be like your mentor and look up malfeasance in Webster.
Re: Union not representative
by Guest 2016 » 04/15/12 20:35:36
Timmy, reject the endorsement and demand a union vote. It is the only way.
Re: Union not representative
by mcu4us » 04/13/12 22:54:33
The local leadership of IUPA just signed the death warrant for itself. We fought to have a union and a couple of jackholes screwed it up by endorsing Fisher.
There should have been a membership wide vote (a dues paying privilege) with a majority vote to award the endorsement. The sheer haste and inadequate leadership revealed two things:
1. The good ol boy system is alive and well. The very thing we were all concerned about is what the union leadership has allowed - action without our voice. The candidates presented their views and only one candidate addressed deputy concerns and rights - Lee Bushong. To have endorsed a candidate as distant from the core issues of the forum as Fisher was is prima facie of a rigged vote.
2. A lack of critical thinking. Who paid attention to what was said by the candidates? This was not meant to be a popularity contest or a personality contest. Only one candidate put forth the work and time to address our concerns. And it was not Fisher. Watch Bushong's speech. Listen to what he said. It's so perfectly clear that his foresight.is what is needed - not some Fisher pulpit preach about helicopters, bullets and personal attacks on MS.
We doomed ourselves. The union doomed ourselves. How selfish and pitiful.
Thanks CP for the email today. I will also be cancelling. And I will also sign the petition to remove the union. Already it is corrupted and not serving us.
Lee - if you read these, please know very many of us support what you are doing. I apologize for our union’s folly. Please keep up the hard work.
mcu4us
e: Union not representative
by nightfury » 04/15/12 00:52:46
Look,
The fact is the board made a decision without soliciting from its paying members on whom, if anyone, to endorse.
The endorsement of Fisher was uncalled for and is clearly another form of intimidation.
I was so pissed. Bushong beat the snot out of those other two. Meister needs to go back to his village. Fisher forgot to take his Adderall. The man was running around angry. He didn't even address the mods questions.
I called Lee today at 2393210988 and apologized for the union leaderships arrogance and stupidity. He was grateful and said he was shocked that the union didn't take a class wide vote for paying members. Obviously it was a rookie move by rookie leaders.
Lee still stands for us. He promised me he wouldn’t give up.
Call Lee or email him at leebushong@yahoo.com. You may see his speech or contact him through his website at www.lee2012.com. He'd love to hear from you.
Re: Union not representative
by NightFury » 04/15/12 01:32:39
This union has embarrassed us. I have spoken with so many others and it’s unanimous.
First. the union should not have endorsed a candidate without a ballot drive from voting members.
Second, it endorses Fisher (who was totally mowed over by Bushong) when no one but Bushong actually addressed the union issues. Bushong was so well prepared and polished that he might as well have been a presidential candidate. Even then, it should have gone to a voting class ballot, which it did not (had it, Bushong would have walked with it with head high.
Be careful what you wish for.
The way the union handled this, ignored the qualified candidate, and did not seek member input leaves me with this:
Where do I find the petition to get IUPA out of here? How do I stop paying?
You puffies got what you asked for. You keep Fisher. I’m going to the strong candidate - Lee Bushong. Lets Make It Right!
DoNotSupportIUPA
Top
Post a reply
THe SO is so full of dumb politics. I have talked with Lee from time to time. He is squared away, very pro-cop and is all about empowering his people.
The fact that Fisher and Scott allowed this to happen, to try to F with Bushong is uncalled for and is cheap politics. Vote Bushong this November. God knows we need him!
The IUPA made a big mistake in endorsing a candidate who was clearly not qualified. It was good old sheriff politics at play. Take a stand against these silly politics. Do NOT endorse IUPA's candidate. The candidate receiving the endorsement was selected without the voting member's input or consent. If that is not scary enough, the candidate who received the endorsement was like last in line. There was another candidate who blew this guy out of the water - someone I would want to work for. LB. Say no to the IUPA. Sit the primary out. Don't endorse anyone until the general. There are bad things happening.
Joe Q. Citizen from over the river.
Re: Union not representative
by hoodwinked » 04/15/12 12:33:29
By your very comment you admit the vote was rigged. It should have gone to all members.
You think MS is bad? Put Fisher in and it'll be like Lee County's own Al Qaeda. History has shown us you can't trust an angry religious zealot.
That being said, Fisher doesn't have a plan. It’s apparent. He and IUPA have bent the rules - just like Scott does now. This is a predicate for things to come.
How can we trust union leadership that says it acts in our best interest but just proved it did not? Why the haste? Because most on the board are Fisher supporters and I guarantee they have a personal stake (promotion?) in Fisher receiving the endorsement. For certain, had the full membership with voting rights been allowed to exercise that right, Fisher would not have received it.
IUPA should come down, remove the board members for malfeasance, set aside the endorsement and allow all members with voting rights to cast a vote. After all, how else would the board know what we want?
This example of back door, good ole boy politicking is no different from the current admin
Re: Union not representative
by Guest » 04/15/12 13:24:10
We the Deputies should follow the Sgt. and Vote out the IUPA.
Re: Union not representative
by goodidea » 04/15/12 17:36:21
What we should do is file a complaint with Regional and have the board members disciplined and removed for dereliction of duty and acting in their own self interest.
Fisher was not qualified to receive this endorsement.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by mistake » 04/13/12 10:06:59
I'm disappointed in IUPA. I was one of the deputies in attendance. Fisher never addressed our concerns. He was more talking about himself and Scott. We all know Scott is horrible. Bushong laid out how he was going to improve things for us. Bushong has a history of supporting the union.
I didn't have a voice in this endorsement. As a card carrying IUPA member, I think the union made a bad bad choice here.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Flytrap » 04/13/12 11:08:53
mistake wrote:
I'm disappointed in IUPA. I was one of the deputies in attendance. Fisher never addressed our concerns. He was more talking about himself and Scott. We all know Scott is horrible. Bushong laid out how he was going to improve things for us. Bushong has a history of supporting the union.
I didn't have a voice in this endorsement. As a card carrying IUPA member, I think the union made a bad bad choice here.
The Union didn't make a mistake, this was deliberate on their part. The people who sit on the Union board openly endorsed Fisher along-time ago. We know who these people are, in fact they sit on the Fisher campaign team. Isn't the world grand? We talk about how unfair Mike Scott is and his "Kangaroo Court" of discipline and yet the Union board resorts to the same thing!
You are absolutely right when you say Fisher didn't address our concerns. The guy ran around the room like he hadn't taken his Ritalin medication. He spoke about himself as if he has done so much during his law enforcement career. I didn't hear one significant thing that he has done in LE, which was not important for the issues of this forum. Who cares about vertical lift helicopters, 308 bullets, and pedophiles...this guy is out there. Shame on the Union for not looking out for the membership. You deserve a Mike Scott!
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by disgusted22 » 04/13/12 11:55:32
This is a prime example of people not thinking critically. Instead of hearing and listening to what we need, the board resorted to scratching the back of one of its own members.
I really liked that Bushong had laid out step plans, promotional criteria, fairness, equality. And he didn't just talk about it. He told us how he was going to do it. He gave us what we have been wanting and so desperately waiting for. He provided career paths and direction for us.
And we stupidly endorsed Fisher when he isn't able to speak with insight on matters of budget and raises. Even in this meeting, he deferred to Bushong saying Bushong know the budget better.
I lost confidence in our union because they ignored a man with a plan and a man with a history of supporting unions.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Unbelievable91051 » 04/13/12 17:11:24
disgusted22 wrote:
This is a prime example of people not thinking critically. Instead of hearing and listening to what we need, the board resorted to scratching the back of one of its own members.
I really liked that Bushong had laid out step plans, promotional criteria, fairness, equality. And he didn't just talk about it. He told us how he was going to do it. He gave us what we have been wanting. He provided career paths and direction for us.
And we endorsed Fisher when he isn't able to speak with insight on matters of budget and raises. Even in this meeting, he deferred to Bushong saying Bushong know the budget better.
I lost confidence in our union because they ignored a man with a plan and a man with a history of supporting unions.
You, NFM, are a prime example of an idiot. Watch his video. All he talked about was us
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Linebackerll » 04/13/12 17:40:13
Unless a monster check and major ground support accompanies this endorsement, it will not cause a ripple with the voters.
Linebackerll
LEO Affairs Captain
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Bubba Joe » 04/13/12 19:12:36
Linebackerll wrote:
Unless a monster check and major ground support accompanies this endorsement, it will not cause a ripple with the voters.
When and if the other unions in the area back IUPA's endorsement, it will make a difference. They ARE the voters. So are we. Either way, the BOCC knows where we deputies stand now.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by jpoop » 04/13/12 20:42:16
Go to bed, TF. You and MS tendency for personal attacks is an old tired game. All allegations, no merit.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Flytrap » 04/13/12 21:23:20
NFM wrote:
How does Lee support unions? Is he or has he ever been in a union? When asked about working with the union, he talked about the Cape not us! I can go out and promise you that I am going to reduce command staff, give raises, fight for deputies and send emails with just my first name. Oh yes remember we have star care! Lee - Mike what is the difference?
You have obviously been asleep at the wheel. Lee explained that his own wife, a Lehigh firefighter is a member of a union. When she receives a union benefit it benefits the Bushong family. Lee also explained that one of his campaign staffers is a former police union boss from NY and that he would have never had his support if he didn't support the union. Lee also looks at a union as a calming factor. When union and management come to contractual agreements, it makes it easier for both sides to know that there is a book of rules that explains how both sides will proceed. Remember, it was Tim Fisher who said that him and his dad were union members back in Pennsylvania, but that if he was Sheriff there would be no need for a union. Think of those words, you trust that?
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Guest » 04/15/12 13:25:39
We the Deputies should follow the Sgt. and Vote out the IUPA.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by Joker91151 » 04/15/12 15:07:42
Lazenby is an idiot. I read the IUPA press release. What a joke. What does a swat membership have to do with running for sheriff? NOTHING. Swat impresses no one.
The union has shot itself in the foot. Instead of doing the right thing, it tried to play politics and it has backfired.
Everyone knows who should have received that endorsement. The IUPA has lost all credibility. Even other unions are refusing to back IUPA's choice. Good for them. Bushong was the only one qualified. Small town back room tactics f’d this up.
Vote out IUPA. They just proved they are corrupt. We don't need them around to "protect" our rights when they just proved they have no concern for our interests.
Re: IUPA endorses Fisher for Lee sheriff
by moo » 04/15/12 15:37:34
I agree. Union went rogue. Didn’t ask me.
get rid of union. way I see it only one person not playing good ole boy and who is looking out for us. That’s bushy.
Re: Union not representative
by Adam 12 » 04/15/12 17:42:58
I agree that there should have been a vote. That was the idea behind getting the union, so we would all get a say. The board really screwed up. I am a union member, but I cannot agree with the way they did this. I feel the board went behind our backs and did this. We still need a union, but not like this.
Re: Union not representative
by Guest » 04/15/12 18:51:06
hoodwinked wrote:
By your very comment you admit the vote was rigged. It should have gone to all members.
You think MS is bad? Put Fisher in and it'll be like Lee County's own Al Queda. History has shown us you can't trust an angry religious zealot.
That being said, Fisher doesn't have a plan. It’s apparent. He and IUPA have bent the rules - just like Scott does now. This is a predicate for things to come.
How can we trust union leadership that says it acts in our best interest just proved it did not? Why the haste? Because most on the board are Fisher supports and I guarantee they have a personal stake (promotion?) in Fisher receiving the endorsement. For certain, had the full membership with voting rights been allowed to exercise that right, Fisher would not have received it.
IUPA should come down, remove the board members for malfeasance, set aside the endorsement and allow all members with voting rights to cast a vote. After all, how else would the board know what we want?
This example of back door, good ole boy politicking is no different from the current admin
Please explain your guarantee that the board members have a personal stake or are getting promotions. If you could, please also explain the "malfeasance".
Re: Union not representative
by NeverVoteFisher » 04/15/12 20:21:31
Shut up, Tim.
If you are so stupid to think we are all idiots, maybe you should vertically envelop yourself, take your .308 and go back to the land of oompah-loompahs.
Freakin tard. What you and the board members did certainly lost you a significant amount of support and gave us a solid no-confidence in our board leadership. You are a freakin' idiot tool to think you could use us.
A-hole. Now Scott will kill you with what you orchestrated. You certainly don't know how to play this game. And you have jeopardized the union and placed the careers of everyone who tried to do the right thing at risk. Just so you could claim an endorsement. Well, it's obvious right now that you do NOT put us first. LIAR. You can explain to Jim and Tammy end everyone else why they lost their jobs. You’re a hand job.
Go home. You suck! We thought you might be a good candidate. You are NOT. This stunt proved it. And, be like your mentor and look up malfeasance in Webster.
Re: Union not representative
by Guest 2016 » 04/15/12 20:35:36
Timmy, reject the endorsement and demand a union vote. It is the only way.
Re: Union not representative
by mcu4us » 04/13/12 22:54:33
The local leadership of IUPA just signed the death warrant for itself. We fought to have a union and a couple of jackholes screwed it up by endorsing Fisher.
There should have been a membership wide vote (a dues paying privilege) with a majority vote to award the endorsement. The sheer haste and inadequate leadership revealed two things:
1. The good ol boy system is alive and well. The very thing we were all concerned about is what the union leadership has allowed - action without our voice. The candidates presented their views and only one candidate addressed deputy concerns and rights - Lee Bushong. To have endorsed a candidate as distant from the core issues of the forum as Fisher was is prima facie of a rigged vote.
2. A lack of critical thinking. Who paid attention to what was said by the candidates? This was not meant to be a popularity contest or a personality contest. Only one candidate put forth the work and time to address our concerns. And it was not Fisher. Watch Bushong's speech. Listen to what he said. It's so perfectly clear that his foresight.is what is needed - not some Fisher pulpit preach about helicopters, bullets and personal attacks on MS.
We doomed ourselves. The union doomed ourselves. How selfish and pitiful.
Thanks CP for the email today. I will also be cancelling. And I will also sign the petition to remove the union. Already it is corrupted and not serving us.
Lee - if you read these, please know very many of us support what you are doing. I apologize for our union’s folly. Please keep up the hard work.
mcu4us
e: Union not representative
by nightfury » 04/15/12 00:52:46
Look,
The fact is the board made a decision without soliciting from its paying members on whom, if anyone, to endorse.
The endorsement of Fisher was uncalled for and is clearly another form of intimidation.
I was so pissed. Bushong beat the snot out of those other two. Meister needs to go back to his village. Fisher forgot to take his Adderall. The man was running around angry. He didn't even address the mods questions.
I called Lee today at 2393210988 and apologized for the union leaderships arrogance and stupidity. He was grateful and said he was shocked that the union didn't take a class wide vote for paying members. Obviously it was a rookie move by rookie leaders.
Lee still stands for us. He promised me he wouldn’t give up.
Call Lee or email him at leebushong@yahoo.com. You may see his speech or contact him through his website at www.lee2012.com. He'd love to hear from you.
Re: Union not representative
by NightFury » 04/15/12 01:32:39
This union has embarrassed us. I have spoken with so many others and it’s unanimous.
First. the union should not have endorsed a candidate without a ballot drive from voting members.
Second, it endorses Fisher (who was totally mowed over by Bushong) when no one but Bushong actually addressed the union issues. Bushong was so well prepared and polished that he might as well have been a presidential candidate. Even then, it should have gone to a voting class ballot, which it did not (had it, Bushong would have walked with it with head high.
Be careful what you wish for.
The way the union handled this, ignored the qualified candidate, and did not seek member input leaves me with this:
Where do I find the petition to get IUPA out of here? How do I stop paying?
You puffies got what you asked for. You keep Fisher. I’m going to the strong candidate - Lee Bushong. Lets Make It Right!
DoNotSupportIUPA
Top
Post a reply
- DevilAdvocate21
Re: IUPA sold out to politics
by xsessive » 05/14/12 07:45:07
This has to be LeB. IUPA stated on their website that they made a mistake in the way it was handled. They also said the process for selection was conducted through informal polling. So whether or not there was formal balloting, the outcome would not have been changed and Tim Fisher would have still been endorsed. LeB did perform better that night. But everyone is afraid that he will bring back spongedom and charlie and start acting crazy. That is why he did not get endorsed.
- xsessive
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Cape Coral Police Department
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests