— Herman.
The Death of the Administration Caucus?
by Jim Reid
The move by Bro. Hargrove to hand pick his successor is not without precedent in the CAW, UAW or in many other unions. In most cases a succession plan is put in place long before the departing leader steps down. The successor is usually someone who has worked closely with the outgoing leader over the years and shares many of the same ideas and views and has demonstrated a competency for leadership.
While critics may argue that in a truly democratic organization the outgoing leader should have no more right to choose who follows him (I use “him” because in the CAW/UAW there has never been a “her” president or candidate). In an ideologically pure world uncontaminated by politics, egos or personal ambition such a concept might bear fruit. In the CAW and predecessor UAW there is a history and culture of strong and sometimes forceful personalities in the office of President. There has also always been a cultural or organizational acceptance of the outgoing President selecting his successor. One of the most difficult tasks any leader faces is managing the ambitions of those who wish to succeed him.
When leadership transition happens smoothly there is little dissension and even less opposition. When it is managed poorly or in a heavy handed or capricious manner it has the potential to damage both the incoming leader and the organization.
The election of our top officers is made by the free and democratic will of the Constitutional Delegates at the Constitutional Convention that will be held in August 2009 in Quebec City. Historically part of that process has involved what in both the UAW and the CAW is known as the Administration Caucus. Over the years the Administrative Caucus has elected the overwhelming number of Officers and NEB members. The President of the Union is the Chair of the Caucus and most often proposes to the National Executive Board who he supports for any vacancies, either on the NEB, CLC, or Officers of the National Union prior to the Administrative Caucus meeting. The NEB has almost uniformly accepted the proposals of the President.
So while this process has all the appearances of what some in our union cynically refer to as “guided democracy” it has always provided potential candidates for office the choice of either coming to Administration Caucus and putting their name forward and abiding by the decision of the Caucus or alternatively, not coming to Caucus and being nominated and running from the floor of the Constitutional Convention.
While this system is far from perfect it has been an integral part of the history and culture of our union. Where this system started coming off the track was two years ago when long time activist Bro. Willie Lambert decided to make an unprecedented challenge Bro. Hargrove for the Presidency of the union. To watch the reaction of some of the National Union administration and staff, you would have thought that war had been declared on Placer Court. Instead of waiting for Administrative Caucus to take place prior to the Constitutional Convention and unanimously endorse the candidacy and Presidency of Brother Hargrove they called regional meetings across the country and instructed the Local Unions to put their workplace leadership and Local Officers out on lost time to hear from Brother Hargrove and hold a binding vote to endorse his candidacy for re-election. Next they went to the various Councils of CAW Council (IPS, Health Care, Skilled Trades, GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler) and held binding votes to affirm support for the candidacy of Brother Hargrove. Finally, the machine rolled into the Administrative Caucus in Vancouver and unanimously endorsed Bro. Hargrove.
At the IPS Council I was the only delegate out of the nearly 150 in the room who voted against endorsing Bro. Hargrove and Bro. O'Neil (who ran unopposed). The reason I voted against the recommendation was not that I didn't support Bro. Hargrove but that I felt the issue of candidacies and endorsements are more appropriately handled at the Administrative Caucus. The mistake I made was not getting to a mike prior to the vote and challenging the validity of the vote. In the weekend that followed I had many delegates approach me and congratulate me for my vote. I had to explain repeatedly that it was not about supporting Bro. Hargrove but about respecting the process. I asked a number of delegates and Staff at the time what would happen in three years if there were two highly credible candidates stepping forward for the Presidency. Would this same process of locking the various Councils and regional groups into supporting the presidentially anointed one happen again? Why do we have an Administration Caucus? Would both candidates be offered the opportunity to address the different Councils of our union? And if not, why not?
To be clear I am not endorsing either candidate for President of our union. For me this is about respecting the right of both candidates to campaign up to the time the Administration Caucus is held. Brother Hargrove and the NEB can make their preferences known and I respect that those preferences will carry some weight for the candidate fortunate enough to garner their support. However, if we are to continue talking the talk of being a democratic union we have to start walking the walk. To this end I am proposing the following:
- The vote to endorse the candidacy of any candidate be conducted by secret ballot at the NEB and Staff meeting.
- The vote of the NEB or Staff shall not be binding to the extent that prevents either candidate from campaigning up to and including the Administration Caucus held prior to the Constitutional Convention.
- There will be no repercussions to any member or Staff for their support or non support of either candidate.
- If any Council of the union endorses either candidate such vote will not be binding on any delegate of that Council / or in the alternative if a vote of any Council is considered binding both candidates will have an equal opportunity to make a presentation to said Council.
While these proposals may not go far enough for some in our union who share legitimate concerns about union democracy they are in my opinion a progressive step that will foster genuine support of the rank and file and reflect positively on both Brother Hargrove and our great union.
In Solidarity
Jim Reid
(The writer is the 1st Vice President of Local 27. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or opinions of Local 27 or its Executive Board.)
