Late Afternoon Read: NYSCOPBA “strife” reads like Elmore Leonard

This story in the Watertown Daily Times this morning is almost as complex and twisty as the union’s name.

It starts with a revelation: Leaders of the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association (that’s right, NYSCOPBA) promised the union’s support back in 2008 to Republican Assemblyman William A. Barclay in a special election for the 48th Senate District.

Problem was, an internal poll of union voters went the other way, and the union’s constitution requires that endorsements be based on a membership vote. Now the union’s legislative director, Chris C. Leo, has told the Times he and executive vice president Brian Shanagher escaped that dilemma by switching the names next to the numbers, shredding the actual ballots, and issuing a news release saying NYSCOPBA members had voted to endorse Barclay.

Oops. And there’s ever so much more. I don’t want to give it away.

Tags: ,

8 Responses to “Late Afternoon Read: NYSCOPBA “strife” reads like Elmore Leonard”

Leave a response
  1. Pete Klein says:

    This is just one more example of why it should be a felony for anyone to conduct a poll.
    I wish news media would refuse to report on polls. Sadly, they do sway elections because you have idiots who like to be sheep. They say, “If everyone else is voting for so and so, so will I.”
    That’s why I hate polls.
    Final thought. If you are a true independent and have a mind of your own, you should never be swayed by anyone who endorses anyone. Of course if you are deaf, dumb and blind sheep, you let others decide who you should vote for.
    I am pro union. I’m just against unions, churches and any other group telling anyone how they should vote. Free speech? Yes. Free speech for individuals, not groups.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. Mervel says:

    This is a pretty crude level of corruption I would have expected more from the union than to simply shred the ballots and right in a new total. Of course these guys are new.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  3. Bret4207 says:

    My former “union” used to be what it was supposed to be, a collective bargaining association. Then they decided to play in the bigs and start handing out endorsements, etc. I have to say this, at least the CO’s got to vote on who they approved of. We were never even asked. Hence, I find myself even more solidly against unions as we know them today.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. Mervel says:

    I agree Bret.

    The point of a Union is not inherently political nor should the union be a business in and of itself. Individual workers will have more power if they work together and that is a good thing in my opinion, the point is to get the most you can out of management and to drive a good and fair deal for the worker at your organization.

    What that has to do with political endorsements I don’t really understand.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. fishes' eddy says:

    Merv,
    The public endorsement is what the union believes the “endorsee” wants to hear so when the union later asks for “that” favor they need, they feel entitled not only to ask but to get the reciprication.
    I know you didn’t need this explaination, it’s for the blind sheep that need to see it spelled out in print.
    Can we all agree this is the pool of scum our politicals wade in.
    Again, it’s so obvious it’s disenfranchising to the common man who is not in any group demographic.
    Not a minority gender, race, sexual preference, or not a union member, civil servant, fireman, policeman, teacher, disabled……sory move along- you’re own your own.
    The irony is to me–every one else not “on the list” IS the minority.

    Makes me want to move to a 2 1/2 world country. (I’m not tough enough for the 3rd world ones.)

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Bret4207 says:

    Not to worry Eddy, won’t be too much longer and this WILL be a 2nd class country and since this is NY, I think we’ll be lucky if we can hit 2 1/2!

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. PNElba says:

    I guess we can all agree that both unions and big corporations have bought our politicians. To bad the Supreme Court has ruled this is legal….free speech and all.

    There is a “common sense” way out of this mess, public finance of political campaigns. Keep both the unions and corporations out of the “buying politicians” business.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  8. Bret4207 says:

    Well, I suppose that’s one way to limit a little of it. But what do you do about the lobbyists? I’m all for outlawing them as we know them. Providing information and appealing to a politician is one thing, making them rich is another. How would you go about stopping the under the table stuff? I’m all for term limits, but not everyone agrees. I’m also for getting rid of all the perks, that sweetheart retirement and health care. I think they should be provided housing, barracks actually, a cafeteria, and their home districts can foot their travel bills. IOW turn it back into a not so prestigious thing, put them back in the middle class as far as their standard of living goes while serving. If they were a millionaire before, fine, but make it a chore to serve as Jefferson and Washington saw it. That’s another way of doing it.

    I still don’t see the difference between a corporation spending $100K on an issue and a thousand of us getting together and spending $100.00 each.

    Like/Dislike this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0