Friday, June 6, 2008

Let's clear the record.

When I first started this blog my original posting clearly stated that "I" started this as a way for all of us to communicate and share ideas. One of the very first invitations I sent out was to the New York State Court Clerks Association, asking for their comments or contributions to the blog. I never tried to pass this off as a site sponsored by the NYSCCA. I am a member of the Association and a former member of the Board of Directors, reaching out to other members. Imagine my surprise when I received a letter from the Association's attorney asking that I post a disclaimer on the site. For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that there should be no confusion about who is administering this blog. But, why waste time and money (I am sure this already cost more than I pay all year in dues) with an attorney, when on the day that I created the blog I sent the Association the link and invited their comments. I never received a phone call or an email expressing any concerns.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I take great pride in being a Court Clerk and that I am very passionate about all issues pertaining to our title series. I am always willing to invest my time and energy championing our causes. Unfortunately, a great many of our members do not feel the same way. Many of our members are disaffected and disillusioned as evidenced by our low participation rate in union elections and meetings. It would seem that the Association should want to work with someone like me. I think we should be able to work collaboratively, instead of promoting an adversarial relationship. Regardless of our differences in opinion, the executive board should not be allowed to use intimidation tactics against any member. Whether you support this blog idea or not, you should support freedom of speech and expression. The Association claims to "encourage(s) noncommercial expression and editorial". I leave it to you to decide if their actions support their words.

1 comment:

InContempt said...

Any comments on the contract curently being voted on???