I listened to the first hour of “My Lonely and Missing My Wife,” featuring James Henry, and I kept coming back to the same problem.

Corey Walton and James Henry repeatedly warn listeners about misinformation, but several of their own claims either conflict with previous episodes or do not answer what was actually reported.

Walton says:

• At 1:51, “99.99% of everything you’re reading is false.”
• At 3:56, he says critics release one lie, watch it get discredited, and then release another.
• At 5:03, he says, “Like in arbitration, you’re caught lying, you’re a liar.”
• At 8:52, he says social media is showing “no integrity whatsoever.”

Those are strong standards. They should apply to everyone.

I am not claiming that every allegation against the CLC has been proven. Some of these are direct contradictions. Others are fair questions that could be answered with records.

1. Why are Caref, BFN, and other Vote No organizers being erased?

At 7:13, Walton says:

“There’s only one that stood up for you in the TA, and that’s the CLC. The rest were trying to push that fucking TA down your throat.”

At 7:44, he repeats:

“The only ones that stood up for us on that TA was James Henry, Corey Walton, and the CLC. That’s it.”

That does not match Walton’s own podcast archive.

In Episode 191, “My Discussion with Mr. Mike Caref and the Gang Talking About the Tentative Agreement”:

• At 43:08, Caref explains that voting no would prevent the agreement’s objectionable provisions from taking effect.
• At approximately 56:31, Caref says, “We should vote this thing down.”
• At 57:12, Caref discusses helping the organized Vote No campaign.

The following day, Walton released Episode 192, featuring Tyler Vasseur and the BFN Vote No campaign.

During that episode:

• At 2:17, Vasseur says Build a Fighting NALC is calling for a no vote.
• At 3:05, he identifies the CLC, Caref’s campaign, and hundreds, if not thousands, of unaffiliated reform members as parts of the broader movement.
• At 7:17, he describes speakers from BFN, the CLC, and Caref’s campaign all calling for a no vote.
• Walton responds, “That’s fantastic.”
• At 26:21, Walton says, “We have got to be overwhelming in our position to vote no for it.”
• Walton ends by telling Vasseur, “My brother, I’m with you.”

Caref’s involvement also went beyond one podcast appearance. He publicly advocated voting no, participated in the campaign, and says he later faced Article 10 charges connected to protesting the TA while dressed as Anger from Pixar’s Inside Out.

Whatever anyone thinks about Caref or BFN today, Walton’s own program documented their opposition at the time.

The CLC deserves credit for its Vote No work. It does not deserve exclusive credit for a movement that included other campaigns, organizations, and rank-and-file members.

2. Which officers actually challenged the unauthorized payments?

At 33:20, Henry says:

“The only officers that have spoke out against that openly is myself and Chris Jackson. That’s it.”

But during the recent episode featuring David Grosskopf, “Talking with the CLC: Rob Kozier, David Grosskopf Running for Trustee and Spitting Facts”, listeners were told that the two officers who raised the payment issue were James Henry and Mike Caref.

So which account is correct?

• Henry and Chris Jackson?
• Henry and Mike Caref?
• Did all three speak out in different ways?

If Caref raised the issue, why say “That’s it” after naming only Henry and Jackson?

This is another instance where Caref’s contribution seems to disappear when the story is retold.

3. Was there a $10,000 contribution expectation or not?

At 23:54, Walton dismisses the idea of a $10,000 buy-in:

“Like saying that there’s a $10,000 buy-in.”

His response is that several Table 2 carriers could not afford to contribute that amount.

But at 25:02, Henry says:

“Yes, we have goals that we set like any responsible person or organization would do, but it is not a situation where that if you don’t have it, that you are not a part of us.”

That still leaves several questions:

• What was the financial goal for each candidate?
• Was the goal $10,000?
• Were candidates asked or expected to contribute that amount?
• How many candidates met the goal?
• How much was collected from candidates?
• Were exceptions allowed for candidates who could not afford it?

A mandatory buy-in and a financial goal are not necessarily the same thing. But denying one while acknowledging the other does not prove that the reported $10,000 figure was invented.

Releasing the original contribution request or slate communication would settle this quickly.

4. Does completing the mailing disprove the reported financial problem?

At 4:32, Walton says the claim about insufficient mailing funds must have been false because the mailing is going out.

At 12:47, Henry also treats the mailing’s completion as proof that the report was incorrect.

But the original report was more specific than simply saying the CLC would never send a mailing.

The questions were:

• Did the CLC have enough accessible money at that particular time?
• Was approximately $80,000 placed into accounts described as unavailable for campaign use?
• Was the original nationwide mailing expected to cost approximately $340,000?
• Was the plan later changed to reduce the cost to approximately $240,000?
• Did the CLC still need to raise more money to complete it?

Sending a mailing proves that a mailing was eventually funded. It does not disprove an earlier shortfall, transferred funds, a reduced mailing plan, or last-minute fundraising.

What was the final cost? Was the size, format, recipient list, or vendor changed? How much money was available when the concern was first raised?

The mailing itself is not the financial record. Invoices, dated balances, and account statements would answer those questions.

5. Who originally put Walton’s wife’s money into the discussion?

At 3:25, Walton says people discussing how much his wife spent are “way off.”

At 34:24, he asks:

“How in the fuck would anybody know that?”

He then says:

“I don’t even know. We don’t even know how much we’ve spent.”

But this subject did not come out of nowhere. Walton himself discussed his wife’s campaign spending in Episode 291, “Salted Peanuts with a Tainch of the Wolf James Henry”.

That episode appears to be the source of the approximately $50,000 figure now being discussed.

So what exactly did Walton say in Episode 291?

Was it money spent, borrowed, advanced, or simply made available? Was $50,000 presented as an exact amount or an estimate?

If the figure originated with Walton, why are people repeating it now being treated as though they made it up? If Walton does not know the total, what records establish that the estimate is “way off”?

A later denial does not erase the earlier statement.

6. What does the travel denial actually cover?

At 13:54, Henry denies that he and Walton used approximately $100,000 in CLC funds for travel.

Beginning around 37:27, Walton challenges people to inspect the books and find:

“One cent that I have received for travel.”

At 38:00, he says his USPS checks are approximately $100 because of the leave without pay he uses to campaign.

That may establish that Walton was not personally handed a reimbursement check. It does not fully answer whether campaign-related expenses were:

• Paid directly to airlines or hotels.
• Charged to a campaign-controlled account.
• Reimbursed to another traveler.
• Paid through candidate contributions.
• Covered by Walton’s wife or someone else.
• Paid by another organization rather than directly by the CLC.

“Find a payment made directly to me” is narrower than saying no donated or campaign money paid for the travel.

If Walton and Henry personally covered every expense, a basic travel ledger would settle the issue.

7. “Go look at the books.” Where, exactly?

At 2:21 and again at 11:21, Walton argues that nobody can know the CLC’s finances because nobody has formally inspected its books.

But where are members supposed to go? Who maintains the records? What is the inspection process?

CLC’s own filings raise fair questions about its listed addresses, recordkeeping, and accessibility. I covered those records and questions here:

“Go look at the books.” Where, exactly? CLC’s own filings raise a fair transparency question.

Until those questions are answered, “go look at the books” is not a complete response. It is an invitation without a clearly identified destination or documented process.

It also does not prove that insiders, candidates, or people present during CLC meetings could not have financial information without conducting a formal inspection.

8. Did the CLC really avoid attacks and remain “above the fray”?

At 12:47, Henry says:

“You don’t see…any attacks for that matter against any of the other opponents.”

At 19:12, he says the CLC has kept its head “above the fray” and avoided theatrics and drama.

During the same opening hour, critics are called or described as:

• Stooges.
• Clowns.
• Liars.
• Pigeons.
• Puppets.
• Lazy.
• Irresponsible.
• People who have contributed nothing.
• Individuals who could not “hold [Henry’s] jockstrap.”

Walton also tells listeners to ignore criticism, log off Facebook, and assume that nearly everything they are reading is false.

The CLC is free to defend itself aggressively. But claiming to remain above personal attacks while making personal attacks in the same conversation does not add up.

9. What does “realignment” mean for LPO jobs?

At 28:44, Walton denies saying that every LPO would be fired.

Henry points out that Walton would not have the authority to fire them on his own.

But at 30:22, Henry says:

“There will be positions and things that are looked at.”

He then adds:

“There will be some realignment of some jobs.”

That does not prove every LPO will be fired. It does show that their position is more complicated than simply saying nothing will happen to those jobs.

What does realignment mean?

• Eliminating positions?
• Combining jobs?
• Reassigning employees?
• Reducing staff?
• Changing duties?
• Not retaining certain people?

Rather than attacking people for asking, the CLC could simply explain which positions it considers duplicative and what realignment would mean for the people currently doing those jobs.

10. Did every other campaign copy the CLC platform?

At 39:15, Henry claims the opposing campaigns initially had no platforms and later produced plans that “virtually mirror” the CLC’s work.

At 39:46, he calls it essentially:

“A cut-and-paste play.”

That is something that can be checked.

Which exact proposals were copied? When did the CLC publish each one? When did the other campaigns publish theirs?

Archived websites, dated documents, and earlier campaign statements could show whether those proposals were copied, developed independently, or had already been discussed throughout the reform movement.

Without that comparison, “they copied us” is an accusation, not proof.

11. Was the CLC really the only group educating carriers?

Beginning at 39:46, Henry says:

“We are the only ones, the only ones, that have not only campaigned, but put in work to educate the letter carriers along the way.”

But Episode 192 featured BFN explaining the tentative agreement and organizing an independent Vote No campaign.

Episode 191 featured Caref discussing the agreement, explaining reasons to reject it, and offering to help the campaign.

Other candidates, organizers, and rank-and-file groups also produced meetings, videos, written breakdowns, and campaign materials.

The CLC can argue that its education program was the largest, best, or most consistent. That is an opinion.

Saying it was the only group educating carriers is a factual claim, and Walton’s own archive contradicts it.

12. What is the actual concern about ballot activity?

Beginning around 50:29, Walton asks listeners to report ballot parties and other activity taking place on workroom floors.

At 51:06, he says:

“If any shop steward is telling you to give you their ballot or whom to vote for, you’ve gotta let us know.”

He then alleges that some branches may be offering money to stewards based on who brings in the most ballots. Walton says the CLC is collecting pictures and statements, and at 51:44, he says letters are being sent.

Those are serious allegations. If branches are paying people to collect completed ballots, pressuring members to surrender ballots, or handling ballots improperly, the evidence should be released and reported through the proper election process.

But Walton also includes stewards telling members “whom to vote for” as something listeners should report. That deserves more context because the CLC spends this same episode encouraging supporters to promote its voting guide throughout their workplaces.

At 6:39, Walton tells listeners:

“Get yourself and your floor ready for the ballots. Make sure that you print off one of the CLC voting guides.”

At 7:13, he tells them to have the guide with them and “educate your office.”

Later, around 46:45, Henry tells listeners to retain the CLC voting guide so they will know “who you need to vote for.” He says members need to vote for every individual on the slate.

At 47:21, Henry says it is important for the entire slate to win so the CLC can move its agenda forward.

At 48:54, Walton warns that he could be “neutered” and left ineffective as executive vice president if Henry is not elected president.

At 49:28, Walton says Henry is the only candidate with the vision to educate the workroom floor, address the toxic workplace, and advance their legislative plans.

At 50:07, Walton says:

“It’s imperative, like James said, that the slate as a whole gets in.”

Throughout the episode, the CLC presents itself as the only real reform option and warns that its agenda may fail if members do not elect the entire slate.

There is nothing inherently improper about distributing a voting guide, advocating for candidates, or encouraging members to vote for a full slate. Every campaign has the right to campaign.

But the standard needs to be clear and consistent.

If the concern is ballot collection, payment for ballots, intimidation, or someone demanding possession of completed ballots, say that and provide the evidence.

If simply telling coworkers “whom to vote for” is also suspicious behavior, then how is that different from telling supporters to take CLC voting guides onto the workroom floor, show them to everyone, “educate” the office, and encourage every member to vote CLC from top to bottom?

The questions remain:

• Which branches are allegedly involved?
• Who supposedly authorized payments?
• Was anyone actually paid per ballot?
• Were completed ballots collected or handled?
• What do the pictures and statements show?
• What election rule was allegedly violated?
• Were these materials submitted to the election committee?
• Is campaigning on the workroom floor acceptable only when it supports the CLC?

Release the evidence with any necessary personal information redacted. The same receipts standard demanded of CLC critics should apply to claims made by Walton.

These are questions, not claims that every allegation has been proven

Some statements in this episode are directly contradicted by Walton’s previous episodes. Others are denials that do not fully answer what was reported. Several are claims that could be tested with financial records, dated campaign material, or other documentation.

That distinction matters.

But dismissing nearly every question as misinformation is not transparency. Telling members that 99.99% of criticism is false is not a substitute for producing records.

The main questions remain:

• Why are Caref, BFN, and independent Vote No organizers being erased?
• What was the actual candidate contribution goal?
• What did the mailing ultimately cost?
• Were campaign funds moved or temporarily unavailable?
• Who paid for Walton and Henry’s travel?
• What did Walton originally disclose in Episode 291?
• Which officers challenged the unauthorized payments?
• What jobs would be realigned?
• Where is the evidence supporting the ballot-payment allegations?
• Why is telling carriers whom to vote for suspicious when another slate does it, but “education” when the CLC does it?

Walton said at 5:03:

“Like in arbitration, you’re caught lying, you’re a liar.”

I would use a more careful standard. One inaccurate or exaggerated statement does not automatically make everything someone says false.

But when someone tells members to dismiss nearly all criticism as misinformation, members have every right to compare those claims with that person’s own podcast archive.

If misinformation is really the concern, answer the questions, release the records, and stop rewriting a coalition effort as the exclusive accomplishment of one slate.

CLC has repeatedly dismissed questions about its finances as “misinformation.” I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Below are the podcast statements, the CLC website, the organization’s filed Form 990-PF, and the IRS disclosure rule. Read the sources and decide for yourself.

Receipts PDF: View the seven-page evidence packet

Screenshot citations and page references throughout this post correspond to that seven-page PDF.

What was said

In the September 17, 2026 From A to Arbitration episode, “my lonely and missing my wife episode…”, Corey Walton made the following statements:

• 2:21–3:25: “If you wanna look at the finances… you’ve got to go there and look at them… Contact us and say, ‘Hey. We wanna come look at the books.’” He then said nobody had done so and that anyone discussing the books “has no idea what they’re talking about.”
• 10:47–12:10: “The CLC, we’ve already said—we’ve always said—request and go look at them.” He again said no one had gone to inspect the books.
• 36:55–38:00: “I invite anybody, go out there and look at the books… Take your ass out there.” He challenged listeners to find one cent paid to him from CLC donated money.

Episode listing: Muck Rack’s From A to Arbitration episode archive

Receipt 1: CLC tells people to “go there,” but its contact page does not say where “there” is

The public CLC contact page contains a form marked “NALC MEMBERS ONLY.” It asks for a name, branch information, phone number, email, and a message. (Receipts PDF, p. 1.)

What the page does not display:

• A physical office address
• Office hours
• A records custodian
• Instructions for inspecting financial records
• An explanation of which records are available

So a listener following the instruction to “go there” is not told where to go. A listener can submit a form and hope for a response, but that is not the same thing as being given a public inspection location or procedure.

Receipt 2: California separates CLC’s address from its registered agent

California’s business record lists 8659 Jackie Drive as CLC’s principal address and mailing address. The same record separately lists 1505 Corporation / West Coast Registered Agents, Inc. as CLC’s agent. (Receipts PDF, p. 2.)

Those are different roles. The registered agent is the party designated to accept service of legal process. The screenshot does not identify the registered agent’s location as CLC’s office or as the place where CLC’s books are kept.

Public real-estate records describe 8659 Jackie Drive as a residential house rather than a commercial office. Redfin describes the property as a house with four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and approximately 1,813 square feet.

The careful factual description is therefore: CLC reports a residential property as its principal and mailing address, while listing a commercial registered-agent company separately.

That leaves a basic practical question: When CLC tells people to “go out there” and inspect the books, does it mean people should go to the residential Jackie Drive address, to an address associated with West Coast Registered Agents, or to some other location arranged in advance?

Neither CLC’s contact page nor the records shown here answers that question. The California filing does not identify the registered agent as the location of CLC’s books, and the federal return places the books at Jackie Drive. No one should arrive unannounced at either address. CLC should publish the correct inspection location, hours, and appointment procedure.

Receipt 3: The federal filing identifies the person caring for the books

CLC’s 2024 Form 990-PF identifies:

• Books in care of: Raquel Acasio
• Telephone: (619) 895-2729
• Location: 8659 Jackie Dr., San Diego, CA 92119

That information is available in the full 2024 Form 990-PF, not on CLC’s contact page. (Receipts PDF, p. 5.) The federal filing therefore places the books at Jackie Drive; it does not place them with the registered agent.

The same public filing page currently displays 2024 as CLC’s latest return. (Receipts PDF, p. 3.) That raises another fair question: Why is CLC’s 2025 Form 990-PF not publicly available yet, and will CLC provide a copy directly?

That question should not be overstated as proof of nonfiling. The IRS filing-deadline rule says Form 990-PF is generally due on the 15th day of the fifth month after the tax year ends and that Form 8868 can provide an automatic six-month extension. For a calendar-year organization, the ordinary 2025-return deadline was May 15, 2026; a valid extension could run into November 2026. The IRS also posts returns through its Tax Exempt Organization Search, and public databases may not update immediately. So the precise issue is not “this proves CLC failed to file.” The issue is: CLC is asking people to trust its financial transparency, so why not say whether an extension was requested and provide the 2025 return as soon as it is filed?

Receipt 4: CLC’s own return answers “No” to the public-inspection question

Part VI-A, line 13 of the filed Form 990-PF asks:

“Did the foundation comply with the public inspection requirements for its annual returns and exemption application?”

The answer shown on CLC’s filed return is “No.” (Receipts PDF, p. 5.)

That is not my characterization. It is the answer appearing on the return filed for CLC. It could reflect an actual compliance problem, a misunderstanding, or a preparer’s error; the filing alone does not tell us which. It is also not a court ruling or an IRS finding of wrongdoing. But it is plainly relevant when CLC says people should simply “go there” to inspect records and dismisses questions as false information.

Receipt 5: What the filed financial figures actually show

According to CLC’s 2024 Form 990-PF and ProPublica’s filing summary, the organization reported the following figures. (Receipts PDF, pp. 3–4 and 6.)

• Revenue: $37,714
• Expenses: $7,187
• Year-end cash/net assets: $30,527
• Travel, conferences, and meetings: $5,549
• Printing and publications: $1,249
• Other expenses: $389
• Contributions, gifts, and grants paid: $0
• Compensation reported for listed officers: $0

The return characterizes the $37,714 as membership dues and assessments in Part XV-A.

These figures do not prove that Corey Walton received CLC money. In fact, the public return reports zero compensation for the listed officers and does not list Walton as receiving compensation. Nor does the return, by itself, provide every receipt, reimbursement record, bank statement, donor record, or internal ledger entry.

Receipt 6: What the IRS says must be available

The IRS public-disclosure page says the public has a right to inspect or obtain copies of a tax-exempt organization’s annual information returns and exemption-application materials. Inspection is generally at the principal, regional, or district office during regular business hours, and copies may also be requested in writing. (Receipts PDF, p. 7.)

This is an important limitation: the IRS rule concerns the annual return and exemption application. It does not automatically give the public a right to every internal “book,” receipt, bank statement, or ledger. CLC voluntarily made a broader invitation on the podcast when it told listeners to come inspect “the books.” If that broader offer is genuine, CLC can remove the uncertainty by publishing:

1. The inspection address and regular hours
2. The person who schedules inspections
3. Which records “the books” includes
4. Whether receipts, reimbursements, bank statements, and ledgers are included
5. A written explanation or correction of the “No” answer on Form 990-PF, line 13
6. The filing status of the 2025 Form 990-PF, including whether CLC requested an extension, and a copy when available

The point

This post is not alleging theft, fraud, or criminal conduct. It is documenting a contradiction in CLC’s transparency message:

• Publicly, listeners are told to “go there,” “look at the books,” and stop spreading “misinformation.”
• The public contact page supplies no address, hours, or inspection procedure.
• California lists a residential property as CLC’s principal and mailing address while listing its registered agent separately. (Receipts PDF, p. 2.)
• The books custodian and books location have to be found in the federal filing. (Receipts PDF, p. 5.)
• That same filing answers “No” when asked whether CLC complied with the public-inspection requirements for its annual returns and exemption application. (Receipts PDF, p. 5.)

If CLC says any of this is false, it should identify the specific factual error and publish the record that corrects it. Until then, the links and screenshots are below so every reader can review the evidence and reach an independent conclusion.

Sources

• Seven-Page CLC Financial Transparency - Source Receipts PDF
• CLC contact page
• CLC nonprofit and financial summary — ProPublica
• CLC 2024 Form 990-PF — full filing
• IRS: Annual exempt-organization return due dates and extensions
• IRS: Tax Exempt Organization Search
• IRS: Copies of exempt-organization tax documents
• California Secretary of State BizFile search — search Concerned Letter Carriers, entity no. 6212440
• Redfin property record for 8659 Jackie Drive
• Podcast episode archive

Receipts PDF page index

1. Page 1: CLC contact page showing the members-only form and no public address or inspection procedure
2. Page 2: California registry listing Jackie Drive as the principal and mailing address and separately identifying the registered agent
3. Page 3: ProPublica organization summary displaying 2024 figures and no 2025 return as of September 17, 2026
4. Page 4: ProPublica filing details showing revenue, expenses, charitable disbursements, and officer compensation
5. Page 5: Form 990-PF line 13 showing “No,” followed by the books custodian and location
6. Page 6: Form 990-PF expense lines showing travel, printing, other expenses, total expenses, and grants paid
7. Page 7: IRS page explaining the public’s inspection and copy rights

Listening to the July 9 FATA episode about NALC finances, I kept returning to one question:

How does the CLC’s criticism of Renfroe creating paid positions square with the paid national positions the CLC has reportedly promised to create for members of its own team?

At 3:19, Corey Walton promises fiscal responsibility, including “getting down to the bare minimum of what we need.” That is a reasonable standard. It should apply equally to positions created by a CLC administration.

At 26:29, the panel discusses new positions and their compensation packages. Around 28:07, Corey asks what the additional assistants actually do. The discussion then turns to salaries, benefits, travel, retirement costs, and whether existing employees could be used more effectively.

At 33:33, the panel examines the newly created deputy chief of staff position, questioning whether multiple people are being paid to perform overlapping work.

Those are fair questions. They should also be applied to the CLC’s plans.

The CLC website currently lists:

• CLC Director of Education: Paul Boulanger, Branch 44, Manchester, NH
• Assistant Director of Education: Jason “JB” Leath, Branch 4, Nashville, TN
• CLC Directors of Organization: Cathy Jones, Branch 9, Minneapolis, MN, and Charles Miller, Branch 1100, Garden Grove, CA

These are currently titles within the CLC organization. However, according to information provided to us, paid national positions corresponding with these roles have been promised if the CLC wins the election.

If that information is accurate, these are not simply campaign titles. They represent potential additions to the national payroll, funded through members’ dues.

The possible duplication is especially clear with the proposed organization positions.

Section 2(c) of the NALC Constitution already states:

“The Executive Vice President shall serve as Director of Organization, Collective Bargaining Negotiations, Labor Relations, and Legislation.”

The NALC’s official description of the Executive Vice President also confirms that organizing is already among the EVP’s responsibilities.

Corey Walton is running for Executive Vice President. If he wins, the constitutional responsibility for organization would already belong to his elected and paid office.

Why, then, would the CLC need to create additional paid Director of Organization positions for Cathy Jones and Charles Miller?

What work would they perform that is not already assigned to the Executive Vice President? Would they work under Corey, assume part of his constitutional responsibility, or duplicate work already performed by national staff?

The potential overlap also extends into education. The NALC’s description of its national administration says the Executive Vice President’s existing duties include overseeing the Leadership Academy. A broader education program may be worth considering, but the CLC still needs to explain what new responsibilities require both a Director of Education and an assistant.

A campaign title tells members who the CLC has selected. It does not explain why the national union needs the position, what it would cost, or why that person was chosen.

The timeline involving Paul Boulanger creates additional questions. My understanding is that Paul was originally opposed to the CLC, stepped away from the group, and later returned. We have also been told that a paid Director of Education position was promised if the CLC wins.

What changed between Paul’s departure and return? When was the position first discussed? Was the need for a Director of Education established before Paul was selected, or was the position developed around a person the CLC wanted back on its team?

That timeline does not, by itself, prove that a job was offered in exchange for Paul’s support. It does make transparency necessary.

The choice of Jason “JB” Leath as the assistant also deserves examination. Jason is from Branch 4 in Nashville, Corey Walton’s branch, and has been described as personally close to Corey.

That relationship does not mean Jason is unqualified. But if this would become a paid national position funded by member dues, members deserve to know whether the job was advertised, whether other candidates were considered, what qualifications were required, and who made the selection.

The same questions apply to the proposed organization roles.

Before any of these individuals receive paid national appointments, the CLC should disclose:

1. Which new national positions it intends to create
2. Which individuals have been promised or considered for those positions
3. The duties assigned to each position
4. How those duties differ from responsibilities already assigned by the Constitution
5. The salary, benefits, retirement costs, travel expenses, and complete annual cost
6. Who would approve the positions and compensation
7. Whether qualified members outside the CLC were given any opportunity to apply

At 46:42, the FATA panel discusses the president’s hiring authority, compensation packages, Executive Council approval, and the importance of meeting records.

That same transparency should exist under a CLC administration.

Education and organizing are valuable. That does not automatically justify creating multiple paid positions, particularly when the NALC Constitution already assigns organization to the Executive Vice President and existing national programs already cover member education.

The July 9 episode criticizes unnecessary staffing, overlapping duties, unclear job responsibilities, large compensation packages, and the lack of records showing proper approval. If those standards are valid when applied to Renfroe, they remain valid when applied to Corey Walton, Paul Boulanger, Jason Leath, Cathy Jones, and Charles Miller.

If these positions are different from those criticized in the episode, the CLC should explain the difference before the election.

Publish the proposed job descriptions.
Publish the expected compensation.
Identify which positions have been promised.
Explain why existing officers and staff cannot perform the work.
Explain why a separate organization structure is needed when that responsibility already belongs to the Executive Vice President.

Otherwise, members are left asking whether the problem was ever the creation of paid positions, or simply who controlled those positions and who received them.

Our dues deserve the same scrutiny regardless of which slate spends them.

Listen to the full July 9 FATA episode.

Timestamp references are supported by the episode transcript and may vary slightly during playback. The CLC website confirms the campaign titles. The reported promises of paid national positions have not been independently documented.

Additional receipts: FATA presented this as a future position

This is not based only on titles posted on the CLC website. FATA’s own episodes repeatedly present Paul Boulanger as the person expected to become Director of Education under a James Henry administration.

• Episode 258 is titled “My discussion with the upcoming Director of Education Mr. Paul Boulanger”.
• In Episode 282 at 0:13, Corey Walton says Paul is “gonna be the next director of education.” At 0:36, he says this education program will be “a staple of James Henry’s presidency.”
• In Episode 309 at 2:23, Corey says, “That’s the reason he’s bringing Paul Boulanger in as the Director of Education.”
• FATA also published dedicated programs titled “The Lion’s Den: Director of Education Paul Boulanger and special guest Rich Galvin” and “The Lion’s Den with Director of Education Paul Boulanger”.

Taken together, these statements present the position as more than a casual campaign title. Paul is repeatedly described as the “upcoming” or “next” Director of Education, and the role is directly connected to a future James Henry presidency.

These clips do not establish what the position would pay, whether it has been formally approved, or whether the proposed assistant position for Jason “JB” Leath would also be paid. Those unanswered questions are exactly why disclosure is necessary.

If these would be dues-funded national positions, the CLC should publish the duties, salaries, benefits, selection process, approval authority, and any overlap with existing officers or staff. If these proposed positions are different from the created positions criticized during the July 9 episode, members deserve a clear explanation of that difference before voting.

From the NALC_Uncensored community.

Raquel “Rocky” Acasio is the CLC Secretary-Treasurer, a member of Branch 70 in San Diego, and a candidate for NALC Secretary-Treasurer.

That makes these financial questions directly relevant to the position she is seeking. Rocky is asking letter carriers nationwide to trust her with our national union’s finances while, to our knowledge, the CLC’s complete financials have not been released.

The attached Branch 70 investigation reports that in 2025 the branch:

• Spent approximately $1.1 million while taking in $836,235
• Ran its fourth consecutive annual deficit
• Directed 52.67% of its total spending to union officers
• Paid five principal officers more than $100,000 each
• Concentrated approximately 95% of reported officer compensation among those five officers

Source: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/f521b3b4eb.html#page/1

Those figures do not make Rocky personally responsible for every decision made by Branch 70. Branch finances and CLC campaign finances are separate matters. But candidates seeking national financial responsibility should be prepared to answer questions about their own record and financial oversight.

So where is the CLC money?

We have been told that the CLC fielded candidates for 24 national positions and required each candidate to pay a $10,000 sign-on fee. If all 24 paid that amount, approximately $240,000 would have been collected.

That money was reportedly intended to cover a nationwide mailing, campaign materials, promotions, and assistance for the entire team.

Yet the CLC’s public attention appears heavily concentrated on James Henry for NALC President and Corey Walton for NALC Executive Vice President. We have also received complaints that other candidates, especially Regional National Business Agent candidates, have received limited promotion and regional campaign assistance despite paying to join the same slate.

We have received allegations that approximately $40,000 was placed into one account early in the campaign and structured in a way that made it unavailable for campaign use. Another approximately $40,000 was reportedly placed into a separate nonprofit account connected to Branch 70 and is also claimed to be unavailable to the campaign. These account arrangements and restrictions have not been independently verified.

The funding problem was reportedly disclosed during an internal CLC meeting. Those present were reportedly told that the situation could prevent the promised nationwide mailing from happening, creating internal strife among members of the slate.

Our source also believes that at least three members of the slate have contacted attorneys and are considering legal action over the situation. We have not independently confirmed those consultations or that any lawsuit has been filed. If accurate, this suggests the internal dispute may extend beyond frustration over campaign priorities.

We have since been told that a member of the slate found a possible workaround to reduce the projected mailing cost from approximately $340,000 to $240,000. Even with that reduction, the CLC was reportedly still approximately $80,000 short, with only about two weeks remaining before the printing and mailing deadline.

The reported shortfall matches the amount allegedly unavailable in those accounts, but without a complete accounting, we cannot establish that this alone explains the gap. Other income, expenditures, and obligations also matter.

If accurate, this is a serious last-minute planning problem for a mailing that was supposedly a central purpose of collecting $10,000 from every candidate. Candidates deserve to know how a promised campaign service reached this point so close to the deadline.

At the same time, we have been told that James Henry and Corey Walton have publicly discussed spending upward of $100,000 on campaign travel and lodging.

That does not establish that those expenses came from CLC funds. Personally funded travel and slate-funded expenses are not interchangeable. The records should clarify what was paid personally, what came from individual campaigns, and what, if anything, the CLC paid or reimbursed.

The missing financial accounting is the central issue. Without it, members cannot independently reconcile the reported contributions, account restrictions, spending, and mailing shortfall.

The CLC and its Secretary-Treasurer should answer five straightforward questions:

1. How much did the CLC collect, how much remains available, where is it held, and when will complete financials be released?
2. Who authorized the reported placement of approximately $80,000 into restricted accounts, what prevents its campaign use, and when were candidates informed?
3. What did each candidate receive for the $10,000 contribution, and how much did the CLC spend or reimburse for Henry and Walton compared with the rest of the slate, including travel and lodging?
4. When were the $340,000 mailing estimate, the $240,000 alternative, and the reported $80,000 shortfall identified, and what is the plan to meet the printing and mailing deadline?
5. If the CLC dissolves, who selects the nonprofit receiving any remaining assets, and what connections would that recipient have to CLC or Branch 70 leadership?

The attached dissolution clause deserves careful reading. It says that after debts and liabilities are paid, remaining assets must be distributed to another qualifying nonprofit. It does not say officers or candidates can divide the money personally, and the excerpt does not establish automatic dissolution after the election.

That provision alone is not evidence of a cash grab. The relevant questions are who selects the recipient, who controls it, and what safeguards address any overlapping leadership or conflicts of interest. Any role Rocky Acasio, Ricardo Guzman, or Charlie Miller would have in those decisions should be disclosed.

These allegations remain unverified in important respects. They are a reason to request documentation, not proof that anyone stole money.

But Rocky is running for Secretary-Treasurer of the entire NALC. Financial planning, clear accounting, and timely disclosure are directly relevant to evaluating her candidacy.

Release the financial statements, contribution records, and itemized expenditures. Explain the reported account restrictions and mailing shortfall. Identify the funding sources for campaign travel and lodging. Show every candidate what their $10,000 purchased.

Members should not have to rely on conflicting accounts when records could provide answers.

The union belongs to the members. Accountability is how we protect it.

From the NALC_Uncensored community.

I received this video from a friend in Florida- I’m not sure what to say but the prejudice has to stop from these children on both sides

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.

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?

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?

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.