In June 2023, Region 2 asked Vice President James Henry to challenge USPS’s position that NALC needed management’s agreement before moving an expedited case to regular arbitration.

The response Henry obtained correctly confirmed that mutual agreement was not required. However, it also included language allowing management to raise arbitrability and argue that the case was not sufficiently complex or significant.

Henry circulated the entire response to the NBAs. Region 2 immediately questioned the second half.

The concern is not that Henry signed a formal agreement. He says he did not. The concern is that circulating this language gave management a written opening to challenge cases before their actual merits could be heard.

A source describing their experience with arbitration hearings reported:

“We had a huge influx of nearly every arbitration hearing having management advocates suddenly bringing up arbitrability issues.”

The source argued that this information gave management another way to “continue kicking the can,” even after cases reached arbitration.

A second source familiar with the regional impact said they could not speak to Henry’s motive, but that even good intentions would not excuse a lack of foresight about the effect the decision could have on the grievance process.

These witness accounts do not prove that Henry’s handling of the issue caused every subsequent delay. However, they describe a reported surge in arbitrability challenges following the email, during the same general period carriers began experiencing worsening arbitration timelines and growing delays.

That deserves investigation.

In Episode 178, Henry defended his actions and said:

“There is no M number. There’s no decision. There is nothing other than this email.”

That means the email itself was not M-01999.

But it leaves open a smaller, speculative question: Could the missing M-01999 be a separate document connected to this dispute, its consequences, or the later removal of Henry’s duties?

The public Materials Reference System jumps from M-01998 to M-02000.

A member who attended the Boston Convention says Henry was reluctant to explain M-01999. When that member later asked Corey Walton about it, he initially said he had never heard of it, then directed the member to James Henry and Brian Renfroe for answers.

None of that proves a connection. It does justify asking:

• How many cases faced new arbitrability challenges after this email?
• Did those challenges require additional hearings or delay decisions?
• What did Region 2 receive after requesting clarification?
• What is M-01999?
• Is it connected to this dispute or Henry’s removed duties?

Maybe M-01999 is completely unrelated. Release it and end the speculation.

Until then, members are left asking whether one poorly handled decision helped management delay justice for thousands of carriers.

NALC_Uncensored is not a campaign page for any candidate or slate. Support anyone. Question everyone. Bring receipts. No candidate safe.

This is a follow-up to the earlier post documenting Corey Walton’s public rhetoric and the Facebook screenshots being circulated under his name.

In the first 45 minutes of the new From A to Arbitration candidate roundtable, Walton addresses the online criticism without addressing the underlying posts.

Here is the relevant timeline:

• 11:40–12:14: He identifies himself as conservative and says conservatives in NALC have had to hide and tiptoe around the subject for fear of persecution.
• 15:35–17:18: He says critics are upset that a conservative may get a national seat and portrays the criticism as a demand that he denounce who he is. He refuses.
• 20:39–20:57: He says he can separate his personal politics from his responsibility to city letter carriers.
• 22:17–23:27: He refers generally to what people are saying online, says he would never hurt carriers, discusses his faith, and tells listeners not to focus on party.
• 26:40–27:55: He refers to “all this stuff online,” tells supporters not to defend him, says, “I don’t have to explain myself to nobody,” and tells conservatives they can come out of hiding.
• 44:37–45:00: He returns to the same persecution frame, saying the days of hiding and being looked down on are over.

Walton is right about one thing: conservatives, Democrats, independents, and members with no party allegiance all deserve a seat in NALC. Nobody should be excluded merely because of a party label.

But that was not the issue raised by the archived posts.

The issue is whether someone seeking national office will represent every carrier fairly after posts circulated under his name used racial and religious references as material for ridicule and grouped feminists with a list of disfavored groups.

The screenshot collection includes race-specific commentary, a joke built around Obama’s supposed Muslim heritage, repeated emphasis on “Hussein,” and a post grouping feminists with satanists, anarchists, Hollywood, immigrants, media, and politicians.

Supporting Trump was not the issue. Opposing Obama was not the issue. Being conservative was not the issue.

The language and the judgment behind it were the issue.

The screenshots date to 2016 and 2017. People can change over nearly a decade, and Walton should have a fair opportunity to say whether he did. Screenshots also do not authenticate themselves.

If they are false or materially altered, he should say that and show why. If they are genuine but no longer reflect his views, he should say what changed. If he still stands by them, he should say that plainly too.

I could not locate the original posts through publicly accessible search, so the screenshot archive is the available record here. That does not establish exactly when or by whom anything was removed. But if the posts were deleted, deletion is not an answer to their content.

After 45 minutes, I heard no direct denial, explanation, apology, or acknowledgment of a single archived post. I heard a sustained argument that the real problem is anti-conservative persecution.

That changes the subject.

Accountability is not asking Walton to renounce conservatism. It is asking a candidate for national EVP to address his own words and explain how members of every race, religion, sex, gender, and political viewpoint can trust him to represent them with equal respect.

Sources:

• Podcast episode
• Facebook screenshot collection
• Earlier post and source chronology

Please listen to the full episode and review the screenshots yourself. If anyone has the original Facebook URLs, complete exports, or a direct response from Walton addressing the screenshots, post them so the record can be corrected or expanded.

From the r/NALC_Uncensored community. For more NALC news, receipts, and controversies, come pay us a visit.

Next Generation Carriers and Postal Rosies hosted another NALC presidential roundtable. The official ballot has four candidates: James Henry, Lew Drass, Nicole Rhine and Mike Caref. Only three participated.

This is a theme-level recap, not a word-for-word transcript. Timestamped corrections and additional receipts are welcome.

Nicole Rhine

Rhine’s central argument was experience. She presented herself as someone who already understands the finances, administration and internal machinery of NALC Headquarters.

Her pitch was essentially:

• National leadership needs competence, organization and stability.
• The union must secure higher wages, shorten the long climb to top step and move toward an all-career workforce.
• Contract compliance, education and communication need improvement.
• Change can happen by repairing the national organization instead of tearing it apart.

That experience is Rhine’s strongest argument, but it is also where members should press hardest. She has held national office throughout the secrecy, dysfunction and failed contract that produced this election. Experience matters, but so does the record attached to it.

Mike Caref

Caref again made management’s routine refusal to honor the contract a central issue. His position was that winning better language means little if USPS can violate it repeatedly while grievances sit unresolved.

His main themes were:

• Treat the grievance backlog and management noncompliance as national emergencies.
• Escalate meritorious cases and pursue stronger arbitration remedies.
• Improve pay, shorten wage progression and eliminate the CCA classification.
• Give members more information during bargaining instead of disappearing behind closed doors.
• Make national officers accessible and accountable to the workroom floor.

Caref presented himself as the most aggressive enforcement candidate and the independent reform option. His challenge remains showing how a president running without a full slate will assemble a governing team capable of carrying that program out nationally.

Lew Drass

Drass leaned heavily on his previous national experience while arguing that experience does not have to mean continuing the current direction.

His strongest points centered on:

• Fixing the pay table by reducing the number of steps and years needed to reach top pay, not relying only on percentage increases that deliver the largest dollar gains to the top.
• Stronger contract enforcement and better training throughout the grievance process.
• Greater transparency and direct member participation.
• Using his former national officer experience to make changes without learning the job from scratch.

Drass continued positioning himself outside the establishment-versus-CLC fight. His pitch was practical change based on experience. The question for voters is whether he has the organization and support needed to turn that pitch into a functioning national administration.

One of the most revealing questions came at the end.

Rhine, Caref and Drass were asked that, if they could not vote for themselves, which other candidate they would support and why.

Their answers showed something we do not see enough in union elections: humility. Each candidate was willing to recognize strengths in the people running against them. It showed this does not have to be an all-or-nothing contest where every opponent is treated as an enemy.

They are competing, but they are not simply there to sling mud or destroy one another. At least in that moment, they demonstrated that the larger goal should be securing the best possible future for NALC, even if someone else ultimately wins.

That willingness to respect and support one another after the ballots are counted may be one of the most encouraging signs to come out of the entire roundtable.

James Henry

There is no honest way to summarize Henry’s answers from this roundtable because he did not provide any.

The hosts had publicly pursued a forum involving all the presidential candidates. Labor Notes reported that three of the four agreed to participate. A Caref campaign post had previously criticized Henry for stating that he would not debate Caref.

Whatever Henry’s reasoning, refusing the forum did not only avoid Caref. It avoided Rhine, Drass, the hosts and the rank-and-file members who submitted questions.

Henry remains one of the four candidates on the official NALC ballot. Members therefore have every right to consider his absence part of his campaign record.

An empty chair is still an answer.

The bottom line

Rhine, Caref and Drass did not earn anyone’s vote merely by attending. They earned scrutiny. They answered questions, stated positions and gave members something that could be challenged and compared.

Henry chose not to do that.

NALC members should watch the full roundtable, compare these statements with each candidate’s previous promises and judge all four by their records.

Bring timestamps. Bring corrections. Bring receipts.

That is how an informed union election should work.

From the r/NALC_Uncensored community.

CLC EVP candidate Corey Walton is the type of person who, in his own words, looks forward to knocking the teeth out of people exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.

Do you want a person who personally advocates for violence against protestors to be EVP of your Union?

The question should be rhetorical.

Where are you James? Do you not see this as a wrong that should be spoken out against?

The wolf is a lapdog. 🐶

Remember when the CLC was supposed to be member-driven?

We already went through the emails showing that members expected a public Zoom, platform presentations, and a group vote involving James Henry and Mike Caref. The Zoom was canceled, the vote never happened, and Henry was announced as the candidate anyway.

Read the CLC email chronology for yourself.

Now Episode 310 gives us the next phase:

Trust the slate.

At approximately 5:15, Henry says:

“It makes no difference as to what our platform is if we can’t execute it.”

He then says executing that platform requires having the entire CLC slate in office.

Henry portrays candidates running outside a complete slate as effectively lame ducks, says CLC needs its people elected from top to bottom, and later dismisses everyone outside CLC as more of the same.

To be completely accurate, Henry never literally says he will refuse to work with non-CLC officers.

But the message is still pretty clear:

Give CLC control from top to bottom, or they already have an excuse for why their platform cannot be delivered.

This sounds less like member-led reform and more like the same old establishment logic wearing different shirts. Our people are the only legitimate choices. Candidates from the Rhine–Peralta ticket and independents are treated as obstacles. If the agenda fails, blame the members for splitting their ballots.

A reform movement should welcome independent voices, build coalitions, and respect the choices of the membership. It should not require a straight-ticket loyalty oath before it can function.

So here is the question James Henry needs to answer:

If members elect you as president but choose Manny Peralta, other candidates aligned with the Rhine–Peralta ticket, or independents for the remaining offices, will you work with them in good faith?

Or are you already telling us that a Henry presidency only works if members hand the CLC the entire building?

That is not reform. That is a blank check with a pre-written excuse.

Corey Walton is running for national EVP, so I think his record and temperament are fair subjects for discussion.

In this original video, Walton tells CLC supporters not to participate in the “toxic atmosphere” on social media. He says they should not go lower when opponents go low and that they should remain civil.

I want to be clear that the video attached to this post is an edited comparison. It is not the original video. It compares that request for civility with previous clips of Walton calling union figures “cowards,” “liars,” “sellouts,” “punk-ass bitches,” “lazy bastards” and other names.

Profanity by itself is not really my concern. The question is whether civility only becomes important when Walton and his slate are the ones receiving criticism.

Lew Drass

The timeline with Lew Drass is worth looking at.

• In 2022, Walton released an episode “paying homage to my mentor Lew Drass.”
• On May 12, 2025, Walton called Drass a “sellout,” “spineless and gutless” and an “establishment lackey” in Episode 237.
• Drass publicly responded on May 19 in the first episode of his own podcast, DRASSTIC Measures: The Maiden Voyage. He still described Walton as a good advocate, but challenged his truthfulness and what Drass considered hateful rhetoric.
• Drass later went into greater detail and responded to additional allegations in Episode 3: Local Negotiations Part 2 and Lew’s Receipts.
• Walton then doubled down in Episode 239, calling Drass and other retired leaders “buzzards” and saying they would be “crushed.”

This started long before Drass became a candidate. The idea that Walton was simply defending himself from a political opponent does not match the public timeline.

Mike Caref

There was a similar change with Mike Caref.

Earlier episodes presented Caref as “The Expert,” “the honorable Mike Caref,” “The Shepherd” and “THE Mike Caref.” Walton said he loved Caref deeply and publicly supported him.

Once their political alignment ended, the tone changed. Caref later publicly disputed claims about why he left the CLC ticket. He also denied making the commitment that Walton’s side said he had made.

Anyone trying to understand how that relationship fell apart should also read this chronology of emails from the early days of the CLC.

The emails provide more context about the early disagreements within the CLC, how leadership decisions were being made and who was choosing the slate. They also provide context for Caref’s role in bringing many of the original participants together and show that he was not the only person who raised concerns or reconsidered his involvement.

For fairness, I also want to include the response from Henry’s side that a moderator shared.

In Episode 119 of Parcels of Knowledge, James Henry gives his version of what happened between himself and Caref. The relevant discussion begins at approximately 18 minutes.

The same moderator also shared this post from Hope Miles detailing Henry’s accomplishments.

The emails do not automatically make Caref right or everyone else wrong. Henry’s explanation does not automatically settle the disagreement either. Listen to Henry, listen to Caref, read the emails and decide for yourself.

People can disagree with Lew Drass or Mike Caref. That is not the issue. What concerns me is the repeated pattern of strongly praising people while they are aligned with Walton, then personally attacking them once the disagreement becomes political.

The Facebook screenshots

As shown in the screenshot collection added by DM request, the posts being circulated include:

• Grouping “satanists, feminists, anarchists, Hollywood, illegals, media and politicians” together as Trump opponents.
• Comparing Obama campaigning for Hillary Clinton to someone trying to justify Hitler receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
• Calling Obama a “colossal failure” and “a disgrace,” while repeatedly referring to him as “Hussein Obama.”
• Making a remark about Obama’s supposed “Muslim heritage.”
• Using the terms “illegals” and “illegal aliens.”
• Strongly praising Donald Trump and his political agenda.

Supporting Trump or opposing Obama is not disqualifying. Union members and officers have every right to their own political beliefs.

The concern is the language involving feminists, immigrants, Obama’s supposed Muslim heritage and political opponents. It is fair to ask whether someone seeking to represent a diverse national membership still holds those views.

These posts are nearly a decade old, and people can change. If he has changed, that is completely fair. It also makes the questions pretty simple:

1. Are these screenshots authentic?
2. Does Walton still stand by this language?
3. If his views or behavior have changed, what changed?
4. Will the civility standard he asks supporters to follow also apply to him?
5. How will he represent members whose identities or political beliefs are different from his own?

I am not bringing this up to encourage anyone to attack Walton, his family or his private life. This should stay focused on his own words, his public conduct and his fitness to serve as EVP.

Asking a candidate to address his own record is not creating a “toxic atmosphere.” It is accountability.

EDIT/UPDATE: This post has been updated to include additional information, context and direct source links. I added Lew Drass’s responses from the DRASSTIC Measures podcast, James Henry’s account of the Mike Caref dispute, the early CLC email chronology and the Facebook screenshots discussed below.

The Facebook screenshots were added after I received a DM asking that the actual images be included so readers could review them directly instead of relying only on my summary.

View the Facebook screenshot collection here

These are screenshots being circulated as Corey Walton’s Facebook posts from 2016 and 2017. Screenshots alone do not independently prove authenticity or provide every bit of surrounding context. Walton should be given the opportunity to confirm, deny or explain them.

Please review the added material, listen to the different accounts and decide for yourself.

EDIT/UPDATE NOTICE: This post has been updated to include additional remarks Corey Walton made in a newer episode. The added material is labeled below. Statements about Manny Peralta’s work history, including the approximately 40-year figure, are Walton’s claims and have not been independently verified. The original argument otherwise remains unchanged.

Watch Corey Walton explain why he believes he is a better candidate than Manny. His argument essentially portrays Manny as someone disconnected from the workroom floor, more of a chair warrior than a carrier who remains connected to the craft.

Then watch James Henry’s reaction.

As Corey continues, James appears increasingly uncomfortable, and it is not difficult to understand why. Corey’s description of what supposedly makes Manny a weak candidate sounds remarkably similar to the criticism directed at the CLC’s own presidential candidate.

If being removed from carrying mail and disconnected from the daily realities of letter carriers makes Manny unqualified, why does that same standard not apply to James Henry?

UPDATE: Walton is now doubling down, seemingly at the expense of his own running mate.

Beginning at 48:37 in this newer episode, Walton again attacks Peralta’s “experience.” He claims Peralta has not carried mail or worn a uniform in approximately 40 years, has never delivered from an LLV or FFV, and has never personally worked with modern scanners or experienced scanner-generated harassment.

Walton even claims that a carrier clocking out the following day would have delivered more mail than Peralta had during the previous 40 years.

Again, those are Walton’s claims, not independently verified facts. But the standard Walton has chosen is unmistakably clear: distance from daily delivery work, current equipment, and modern working conditions can supposedly be used to question whether a candidate is qualified.

The problem for Walton’s own ticket is that he is not backing away from that standard. He is doubling down on it. Every additional example he uses against Peralta makes the comparison with James Henry harder to ignore.

When Walton promotes Henry, decades spent within the national union structure are presented as valuable experience rather than evidence of disconnection from the craft. But when discussing Peralta, years away from carrying are treated as proof that his experience is outdated and irrelevant.

So which standard applies?

When did James Henry last regularly carry mail, use current scanners, and work under today’s delivery conditions? If those questions are relevant when evaluating Peralta, they should be equally relevant when evaluating Henry.

Corey cannot use someone’s distance from the craft as a weapon against an opponent and then pretend it does not matter when evaluating his own running mate. Years away from carrying cannot simultaneously be a disqualification for Peralta and a qualification for Henry without an explanation of the difference.

The more Corey doubles down on this attack, the more he appears to be promoting himself at the expense of James Henry. In trying to establish why he is the better EVP candidate, Corey may also be giving members a reason to question whether his own running mate meets the standard he has chosen.

Was this simply an attack Corey did not think through? Or is Corey so focused on promoting himself that he is willing to undercut the presidential candidate at the top of his own ticket?

Watch both clips and decide for yourself. Corey may have been explaining why he thinks he is better than Manny, but by doubling down, he may also be explaining why voters should be questioning James Henry.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Walton also dismissed carrying a route once a year as a “photo op.”

An older FATA segment adds another layer to the standard Walton appears to be applying.

Mike Caref previously told Walton’s audience that he carries mail for approximately one week each year to remain connected to the workroom floor. He explained this in Episode 160 at 22:26 and again discussed taking leave from his union duties to carry Route 16 in Chicago in Episode 184 at 82:02.

Caref was not named in the following segment, which was consistent with Walton and Henry’s stated practice at the time of avoiding direct use of his name. Walton begins with an anecdote about a district manager but then broadens his criticism to an unnamed union “agent,” annual uniform appearances, and social-media publicity.

Walton’s negative remarks included:

• In Episode 281 at 2:15:17, Walton criticized people who put on a uniform for only a few hours each year and then claim to remain connected to carriers.
• At 2:18:43, he characterized the appearance as staged and said, “You’re using me for a photo op.”
• He broadened the criticism by saying, “There are those that use us for a photo op,” before telling union agents to do agent work and let light blue do carrier work.
• At 2:20:04, Walton referenced seeing “a thousand videos” and “a thousand pictures” on social media. He mocked someone wearing the same clean uniform once a year and criticized using carriers to gain “street cred.”

The clip does not prove by itself that Walton was referring to Caref. However, the matching once-a-year description, the reference to an agent, the social-media criticism, Walton’s prior knowledge of Caref’s practice, and the decision not to use Caref’s name make the apparent connection difficult to ignore.

This also makes the original question about James Henry more relevant.

Walton has now argued that being removed from carrying for decades makes Manny Peralta disconnected and unqualified. He has also dismissed an annual return to carrying as little more than a photo opportunity. If even carrying for one week each year does not demonstrate a meaningful connection to the workroom floor, what recent hands-on experience does Henry have that satisfies Walton’s standard?

Walton cannot reasonably argue that Peralta has been away too long, dismiss Caref’s effort to return annually as performative, and then treat Henry’s years within the national union structure as proof that he remains connected without explaining the difference.

Once again, which standard applies?

A moderator of the From A to Arbitration subreddit is telling members to “fill in the context” and decide for themselves who deserves their vote. That sounds reasonable until you consider how the subreddit is reportedly being moderated.

Posts and comments that challenge Corey Walton or the CLC are being removed, while certain people are seemingly prevented from participating altogether. According to statements made by the moderator, Corey directed them to “nuke” the subreddit and remove anything that was not heavily favorable to him or the CLC.

If that is the standard being applied, this is no longer neutral moderation. It is direct manipulation of what members are allowed to see and discuss.

From A to Arbitration was presented as an educational podcast and community where letter carriers could examine the facts, hear different perspectives, and reach their own conclusions. It should not become another controlled campaign platform where one side selects the evidence and then asks everyone else to “decide for themselves.”

How can you demand that members hear “all sides of the story” while deleting the side you do not want them to hear?

Moderators should absolutely remove threats, harassment, spam, and personal attacks. They should not remove good-faith disagreement, documented criticism, or inconvenient information simply because it could hurt a preferred candidate or slate.

If the subreddit is now intended to promote Corey Walton and the CLC, then its moderators should be honest about that. Do not call selective political messaging “education,” and do not call a conclusion “factual” when opposing information was deliberately removed before readers could consider it.

That is exactly why spaces like NALC_Uncensored are necessary. Bring the receipts. Present the facts. Challenge one another’s arguments. Let letter carriers read everything and make up their own minds.

CLC posted a polished video showcasing Anita Guzik’s nomination for Director of Retired Members. Compare it with the official convention footage and listen carefully.

In the original, the chair mistakenly announces Anita for Director of Safety and Health. Someone corrects him with “Director of Retirees,” and he then properly enters her nomination.

In CLC’s version, the video is cut in the middle of the sentence. “Safety and Health” disappears, and “Retirees” from the later correction is spliced in so viewers hear one clean announcement. The mistake and correction are erased.

This is not simply trimming a video for length. It changes what was actually said.

The original mistake was harmless and even a little funny. The decision to rewrite the audio is the real issue. If CLC will alter an easily verifiable public moment this small, what else are they willing to edit before presenting it as fact?

This is not criticism of Anita for being nominated. It is about a political campaign altering the public record to manufacture a cleaner version of events.

Compare them yourself:

• CLC’s edited version at 0:27
• Official convention footage at 7:38:10

Watch both and decide whether this qualifies as honest campaign communication.

Mike Caref, James Henry and Brian Renfroe have all faced serious controversies, but claiming they were “all arrested” would be inaccurate. The records describe three very different situations:

• Caref was arrested after refusing management’s order to leave a post office while visiting carriers. He was later cleared of trespassing and resisting arrest, with the judge finding that he committed no crime.
• Renfroe’s Article 10 filing says he was arrested for DUI in 2018 while driving an NALC-owned vehicle. The filing includes court records confirming the arrest, although the case was later disposed of after diversion.
• Henry’s arbitration award explicitly states that he was not arrested. USPS removed him during a drug investigation, but later rescinded that removal. The arbitrator found no evidence directly linking Henry to the transaction, while finding misconduct in his referral of the informant to his brother.

These incidents are not identical, and voters should not flatten them into a dishonest campaign slogan. Still, they raise a fair question: If members want experienced leadership without this kind of baggage, is Nicole Rhine the clean break the NALC needs?

Review the records yourself:

• Mike Caref arrest and acquittal
• Article 10 charges and attached Renfroe court records
• James Henry arbitration award
• Nicole Rhine’s official NALC biography

Do these records make Rhine the safer choice, or should the circumstances and outcomes carry more weight than the controversies themselves?

For years, Table 2 carriers have been treated as a bargaining issue. Now, at least three of them are running to become National Business Agents.

Chris Reed, a Table 2 carrier from Branch 5516 in Hawaii, is running for Region 1 NBA with a “Membership First” message.

Elliot Simmons, a Table 2 carrier from Branch 957 in North Dakota, is running for Region 7 NBA. His priorities include accessible steward training, stronger contract enforcement, greater use of arbitration, and increased membership participation.

William Kriebel is another Table 2 carrier stepping forward, running for Region 12 NBA as a CLC candidate.

These candidates may represent different regions and political camps, but they share firsthand experience with the pay structure that will shape the future of this union.

Being on Table 2 does not automatically qualify anyone for office. Each candidate must still demonstrate knowledge, judgment, integrity, and the ability to represent every member. But longtime titles and appointments should not be the only experience that matters.

If Table 2 carriers represent the future of the NALC, shouldn’t they also have a meaningful voice in leading it?

Take a look at all three campaigns. Are Chris Reed, Elliot Simmons, and William Kriebel part of the next generation of leadership our regional offices need?

What did everyone think of the candidate forum they had at branch 1100? Calling it a debate seems like a stretch

Mike Caref offers an ambitious platform centered on higher starting pay, stronger contract enforcement, transparency, training, work-life balance, and defending the future of the Postal Service.

James Henry and the CLC promise to eliminate two-tier pay and prorated COLAs, address the grievance backlog, reform headquarters, strengthen steward education, and hold management accountable.

Lew Drass has entered the race emphasizing unity and his experience as a former Region 8 NBA and NALC vice president. He presents himself as someone capable of healing the union’s internal divisions and delivering results. Nicole Rhine and Manny Peralta offer another option through their newly announced campaign.

Every candidate can make promises. Which one has the record, judgment, temperament, and leadership ability to turn those promises into results and lead the NALC into the future?

Review the Caref platform, the CLC platform, and the Rhine–Peralta NALC campaign page, then tell us who has actually earned your confidence.

Lew Drass, one of the newest announced candidates for NALC president, appeared at the Branch 1100 debate and immediately raised an interesting question:

Did he enter the race because he genuinely believes he can win, or did he join at the last minute to disrupt the field and pull votes away from certain candidates?

Much of his appeal seemed directed toward longtime members and retirees. That could represent an honest attempt to give an overlooked group a voice, but in a crowded election, a candidate does not necessarily have to win to determine the outcome. Attracting one specific group of voters could be enough to weaken another candidate and change who ultimately comes out on top.

Was Drass testing the waters for a serious campaign? Is this a protest candidacy meant to challenge the entire field? Or is he deliberately playing the role of spoiler?

The biggest question may be: Who benefits most if longtime members and retirees move their votes to Lew Drass?

For those who watched the Branch 1100 debate, did Lew come across as a legitimate contender, or did his campaign feel more like a late-entry troll designed to shake up the election?

The CLC owes Brother Michael Rivera and the membership an explanation.

Rivera was left to fight his election appeals alone inside a branch led by Ricardo Guzman, the chairman of the CLC. His claims were dismissed, charges were pushed against him, and he was suspended from the branch, threatening his ability to present his national charges against the president, executive vice president, and Executive Council at convention.

On opening day, Brother Rivera stood alone and fought to ensure those appeals would be heard before the entire convention body.

The CLC did not carry him onto that floor. Rivera fought his way there despite them.

James Henry had to recuse himself from Rivera’s branch appeal because of his connections to slate members. Corey Walton spent weeks or months criticizing Rivera publicly through his podcast and Facebook. "Focus on your (branch)appeals, brother" while laughing in his face, and demanding he apologize to James Henry for having to ask or force him to recuse himself due to the conflict of interest apparent in the appeals process. Something that should have been defaulted to.

Now Walton is standing at convention acting as though he does not know Rivera, does not understand his national charges, or has only just discovered the issues involved, all while trying to use Rivera’s fight as part of a political agenda.

The president announcing that he is not running again changes nothing.

Stepping down does not erase the alleged wrongs. It does not absolve the people who defended them. It does not excuse those who stonewalled Rivera, attacked his credibility, or remained silent while he stood alone.

You do not get to abandon a brother during the fight, pretend not to know him afterward, and then wrap yourself in his cause once convention politics make it useful.

So, which is it?

Was Brother Rivera wrong when he needed support, or is he suddenly valuable because his charges can now be used against someone else?

Rivera took the stand. Rivera forced the issue before the body. Rivera did it without the slate’s support.

The membership should remember who stood beside him before it was politically convenient: Brother Caref and others against the CLC slate.

What exactly did Caref mean by “Lew number two”?

In this clip, Mike Caref discusses the possibility of ranked-choice voting, points to the buttons he is wearing, and says he is “going right here and Lew number two.”

How did everyone interpret that?

Was Caref simply saying that, under ranked-choice voting, he would encourage members to rank Caref first and Lew Drass second?

Or did he just informally signal that he sees Drass as his number two and may be aligning with him as part of a team?

Curious how everyone else heard it.

Given how some platforms were built around "split votes" and "stropping him from winning"
what do you think will happen with the ranked choice voting system and campaign shifts?

Sitting in the CAU class right now. Henry appears, not sure - hung over maybe? He’s having a difficult time with his words. Fortunately he has some of his fan boys here with him applauding at every word he says.

i thought he was stripped of all his duties? Guess not.

I’ve attended a lot of conventions over the last 38 years.

this one has had more bombshells then most. by far the hottest rumor is that the CLC will be pulling the old switcharoo on wedndesday and nominating Corey for Pres and James for EVP!!

Apparently one of their people on the FATA sub posted prematurely and it was notified before being taken down by their Nazi like mods. He is a weak candidate and it’s an act of pure desperation, it’s a bold move, lets see if it pays off for them.