PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



Special NEC mtg .pdf


Original filename: Special NEC mtg.pdf
Title: Microsoft Word - ET - email.docx
Author: Guy Fawkes

This PDF 1.3 document has been generated by Word / Mac OS X 10.7.5 Quartz PDFContext, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 05/08/2016 at 15:29, from IP address 216.151.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 779 times.
File size: 69 KB (3 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


Re: Motion about investigation report
ME COLLINS [mecollins64@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 6:36 PM
To: André Picotte; Nathalie Pothier
Cc: Pamela Scholey; Jacob Porter; Nick Giannakoulis; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Claude Vezina; Isabelle Borré;
Alexander Butler; Neil Burron; Chantal DesRochers; Johanna Hove; Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec; Sean Maguire; Stephen
Mullen; Simone Powell; Jessica Squires
Oh, okay... but without having seen them, we will not know what those might be?
I understand what you mean now, but not how we'd go about addressing it in advance of seeing it?
Did we not discuss redacting 'sensitive' information such as the name of the person who's employment
circumstances were discussed? I'm not sure what else we can do, without appearing to be selectively with-holding
information?
Original Message
From: André Picotte
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 6:20 PM
To: Maureen Collins; Nathalie Pothier
Cc: Pamela Scholey; Jacob Porter; Nick Giannakoulis; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Claude Vezina; Isabelle Borré;
Alexander Butler; Neil Burron; Chantal DesRochers; Johanna Hove; Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec; Sean Maguire; Stephen
Mullen; Simone Powell; Jessica Squires
Subject: Motion about investigation report
Parts of the statement of facts and parts of the recommendations could pose a problem in view of the possibility
of leaking outside CAPE.
________________________________________
From: ME COLLINS [mecollins64@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 6:11 PM
To: André Picotte; Nathalie Pothier
Cc: Pamela Scholey; Jacob Porter; Nick Giannakoulis; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Claude Vezina; Isabelle Borré;
Alexander Butler; Neil Burron; Chantal DesRochers; Johanna Hove; Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec; Sean Maguire; Stephen
Mullen; Simone Powell; Jessica Squires
Subject: Re: Motion about investigation report
Hi Andre,
I don't think we recommended releasing the entire report? The motion from the June 15th mtg says 'the NEC, once
the vote has been held, shall make the findings of fact and the recommendations, with the NEC’s vote on those
recommendations,....'
So, under the terms of the existing motion, the main body of the report wouldn't be released? Which is the
concern?
My apologies for the back and forth, but I'm afraid I am misunderstanding something?
Thanks,
Maureen
Original Message
From: André Picotte
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 6:04 PM
To: Maureen Collins; Nathalie Pothier
Cc: Pamela Scholey; Jacob Porter; Nick Giannakoulis; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Claude Vezina; Isabelle Borré;
Alexander Butler; Neil Burron; Chantal DesRochers; Johanna Hove; Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec; Sean Maguire; Stephen
Mullen; Simone Powell; Jessica Squires
Subject: Motion about investigation report
Good evening!
The special meeting during which the motion was adopted was held before I received the advice from Peter
Engelmann. The motion as written provides that the entire report should be disclosed to our members, and that
could potentially create some legal problems, especially if the report is leaked outside CAPE.
Of course, if the NEC members believe that the motion is fine, they could simply hold the special meeting upon
receiving the report and the recommendations, as per the motion adopted.
See you!
________________________________________
From: ME COLLINS [mecollins64@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:45 PM
To: André Picotte; Nathalie Pothier
Cc: Pamela Scholey; Jacob Porter; Nick Giannakoulis; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Claude Vezina; Isabelle Borré;
Alexander Butler; Neil Burron; Chantal DesRochers; Johanna Hove; Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec; Sean Maguire; Stephen
Mullen; Simone Powell; Jessica Squires
Subject: Re: Motion about investigation report

Hi Andre,
I am not understanding why we would need to 'reconsider' the motion. Doesn't that fact that we've already had a
special mtg, discussed this and made a decision respect the legal advice?
Am I misunderstanding something?
Thanks,
Maureen
Original Message
From: André Picotte
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 5:25 PM
To: Nathalie Pothier; Maureen Collins
Cc: Pamela Scholey; Jacob Porter; Nick Giannakoulis; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Claude Vezina; Isabelle Borré;
Alexander Butler; Neil Burron; Chantal DesRochers; Johanna Hove; Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec; Sean Maguire; Stephen
Mullen; Simone Powell; Jessica Squires
Subject: Motion about investigation report
Good evening!
My request for a special NEC meeting was about determining before the filing of the report what part of the
report should be disclosed to our members. My request was based on the advice of Peter Engelmann. The objective
of the meeting would be in fact be to reconsider the motion adopted. So, a special meeting of the NEC is still
required before the special meeting on the report itself.
See you!

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: Motion about investigation report
Nick Giannakoulis
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 7:18 PM
To: André Picotte; Nathalie Pothier; Maureen Collins
Cc: Pamela Scholey; Jacob Porter; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Claude Vezina; Isabelle Borré; Alexander Butler; Neil
Burron; Chantal DesRochers; Johanna Hove; Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec; Sean Maguire; Stephen Mullen; Simone Powell;
Jessica Squires
Thank you for the clarification Andre. I'm not in support of revisiting the motion that we passed in June. I
just saw Sean's note requesting a special NEC meeting, and we'll probably have to leave it at that, if there is
support for this meeting ahead of the findings and recommendations being tabled to the NEC, most likely not
until well into September now.
Take care everyone!
Regards

___________________________________________________________
Nick Giannakoulis
National Vice-President / Vice-président national
Canadian Association of Professional Employees / Association canadienne des employés professionnels
100 rue Queen Street, 4e stage / 4th Floor, Ottawa, ON

K1P 1J9

Tel: (613)316-9923
Fax: (613)236-6017

 
Re: Motion about investigation report
VP Ann Nemec [ann.nemec.cape.acep.503@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 11:07 PM
To: Alexander Butler
Cc: Isabelle Borré; Nick Giannakoulis; Jessica Squires; Claude Vezina; Pamela Scholey; Simone Powell; Chantal
DesRochers; Emmanuelle Tremblay; Johanna Hove; Stephen Mullen; Sean Maguire; Jacob Porter; Nathalie Pothier;
Maureen Collins; Neil Burron; André Picotte
Hi
I too do not support a meeting before the report or when too many NEC members are on vacation.
Also, jumping through hoops to prevent the report going outside of CAPE is not our priority. What is our
priority is restoring order and peace at National and hopefully on the NEC. We need only take reasonable care
to redact certain names.
I know my colleagues at STC are very anxious to get the investigation

results and vote on the Removal ASAP.

Ann Kurikshuk-Nemec
Vice-President
CAPE Local 503 &
National EC Director
On Aug 4, 2016 19:59, "alexanderbutler79" <alexanderbutler79@gmail.com> wrote:
Sean I will be receiving the report momentarily (I hope) so timing is really bad if this needs to be done
before. Which I do not understand why and frankly have big issues with having this meeting now. A motion was
passed that specifically allows us once we see the report to see what can be disclosed and not to the
membership. To have a special NEC meeting now while several people are on vacation to effectively change a
motion already made I do not like.
My guess is that Andre s looking to establish some kind of disclosure policy that would be generic beyond the
current complaint (and I hope this is the case and just motions specific to the petition complaint). As Maureen
has restated and I had said previously how are we to decide what is or is not to be diclosed without seeing
content first?
So in short I obviously do not support this special meeting and moreover have serious issues with calling a
meeting when many people are on vacation to revisit a moton that was already passed.
Cheers
Sent from my Samsung device


Special NEC mtg.pdf - page 1/3
Special NEC mtg.pdf - page 2/3
Special NEC mtg.pdf - page 3/3

Related documents


special nec mtg
july 7 nec 1
email pl
march 9 special nec meeting motions
nec motions feb mar
july 7 nec 3


Related keywords