Thanks for your comments, Margaret. For what it's worth, my own view on the leadership issue is: while I think we need to acknowledge and sincerely thank Gary Gannage for the many years he led our union, the defeat in the last round of collective bargaining means that there has to be a change at the top. Having had a chance to talk to Gary and read his responses to the questions, my conclusion is that his heart is just not into meaningful change - however good his intentions, he's been the President for so long and carries so much baggage that he can't do it. As you put it so succinctly, he is "unable to adapt". This is NOT a result of any pesonal failing on his part (although I know he has rubbed many people the wrong way); it's simply a function of the reality that he's been the President for too long. When I say we should sincerely thank him for what he's done for us, I really mean that. He led AMAPCEO for a long time and through a lot. But the world has changed, and the strategies that worked in the past are clearly not working now.

LDS - That's good practical advice! At the same time, however, we need to build the discussion of what kind of change we want to see. I have my own ideas, which I'll put out here in the next few days or so - but I suspect they will not have instant majority support! Same thing with Board Members and President: how do we make sure we don't replace Tweedledum with Tweedeldee? (Edited to add: I contacted my Chapter Chair, and he was already making plans to hold a Chapter meeting in advance of the Annual Delegates Conference - good stuff!)

Lisa, it's great to get a conversation going here! Your points are ones that people need to talk about. For instance, I'm not sure that going after the leadership as such will be all that productive. It seems to me that we need first is to have clear ideas about what the common agenda is - a program informed by some consensus around what's achievable in the shorter run and what we aim for in the longer run. Also - while I appreciate that a lot of people are reluctant to be "public" about this, I feel it's critical (as it was before the ratification vote) that opposition continue to be visible. That doesn't mean that we don't reserve some "private" space online or elsewhere for discussions. None of the above is to say one of us is right and the other wrong - in fact, we're saying much the same thing from slightly different perspectives.

Leslie, thanks for the comment and you're right. As I said in one of my first posts http://youcanvoteno.typepad.com/blog/2012/10/amapceo-2012-tentative-collective-agreement-a-duty-to-oppose.html "all AMAPCEO members - those who vote "YES", those who vote "NO" - need to think hard about the future of AMAPCEO." The challenge for those who resisted the tentative agreement will be, first, to resist the leadership's attempt (which will go into full swing as soon as the bargaining is settled - either tomorrow or later if the vote is "NO") to co-opt the resistance and ensure that any change that happens is "managed" and only top-down; second, to agree on a program and strategies for change. Bear in mind it will be a long haul. As someone once said, if the status quo were easy to change, it wouldn't be the status quo.

Thanks, Lisa, I appreciate the positive response! AMAPCEO really does need to break out of its bureaucratic, deferential past.

Thanks, Ken. I've been in touch with OPS IT about this, and they've undertaken to look into it. Happy to say that they agree there's no "objectionable content"! It appears that sites are blocked by an automatic system provided by Cisco, so IT is following up with Cisco to find out why this happened.