AN OPEN LETTER TO ELLIS MAUPIN, PRESIDENT, NTEU Chapter 213

FROM: Richard H. Moore

I am writing in my capacity as a private citizen exercising my rights as a citizen to respond to the insulting, false, and scurrilous claims of Ellis Maupin. For the record, I have served in many leadership capacities in organizations at the U.S. Department of Energy, including Vice Chairperson, Secretary's Diversity Council; First Vice President, Historian, and Parliamentarian, Blacks In Government; Parliamentarian, Women in Energy Chapter, Federally Employed Women; and Secretary, Council of Employee Organizations; and a former non-bargaining unit member of NTEU Chapter 213.

I AM NEITHER FACELESS NOR ANONYMOUS. I AM A MEMBER OF COFE, THE COALITION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. I PARTICIPATED IN THE MAY 5^TH DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. I HAVE STOOD UP TO INJUSTICE BEFORE AND I AM STANDING UP TO IT NOW. AMONG OTHER ACTIVITIES, I SERVED AS A CAMPAIGN ADVISOR TO ELLIS MAUPIN IN HIS LAST ELECTION. HE PERSONALLY AND DIRECTLY ASKED BOTH CHARLES WASHINGTON AND MYSELF TO ADVISE HIM IN THIS ELECTION. FOR REASONS THAT WILL SHORTLY BE OBVIOUS, I DECLINE.

Ellis Maupin released a letter dated May 22, 1999, with a two-page so-called "FACT SHEET" attached in which he questioned the veracity, honesty, integrity, and credibility of persons both named and unnamed. I am one of those unnamed persons. He claims to make factual representations, but offers little or no substantiation other than his self-serving, self-aggrandizing, hyper-inflated self-congratulating self-assessment. The facts stated in this letter can be substantiated with documents and witnesses. As there are statements being made by other witnesses to the events at issue, I shall let them present their own recollections so that you, the reader, may decide as to the veracity and truth according to your own judgments of merit.

As Ellis Maupin mentions Wanda Klimkiewicz and David Nolan by name and disparages them, I want to make a brief comment. I have known Wanda Klimkiewicz for a number of years now as a fellow DOE employee who has served in several organizations in common. Despite having assisted Ellis in his last election, I did not oppose Wanda Klimkiewicz personally and have always known her to be forthright, fair, helpful, honest, and conscientious in her dealings with me. Virtually every negative thing I have heard regarding Wanda was stated by Ellis Maupin himself or by someone reporting what Ellis had said. I have never seen any of his claims substantiated. I do not know Dave Nolan in other than one or two brief conversations, but I can state that his concerns about financial irregularities in the management of union funds have also been raised by former supporters and close friends of Ellis Maupin. Indeed, the questions of NTEU finances surrounding the May 5^th Demonstration are significant, and I can attest to his claims of spending between $3,000 and $6,000 for signs (he stated both figures), but those are matters to be addressed by union members. Ellis's comments about "character assassination" were gratuitous and ironic in the midst of his screed to impugn the characters of so many others.

Whether Ellis did or did not accept a gratuity to call off the May 5^th Demonstration is not the issue to me. His post hoc disingenuousness in saying that he was merely providing an alternative is laughable. He issued an NTEU flyer saying that a forum was being held in lieu of a demonstration. That was false. The Demonstration was held as planned. The forum was held specifically to create confusion and distraction, and thereby diminish the size of the Demonstration. This is particularly ironic because the possibility of a forum was my idea. I proposed it as a possibility if the Deputy Secretary had responded with sufficient evidence of good faith immediate action in consequence of our meeting with him on May 4^th. COFE had agreed ahead of time on what would constitute good faith immediate action, and Ellis Maupin supported that agreement. Indeed, contrary to Ellis's claims that COFE does not exist, COFE met twice as COFE in the NTEU office on May 4^th, and Ellis Maupin was present as a voting member. Moreover, while Ellis represents in his May 22^nd letter that only NTEU is a credible organization, the truth is that the Secretary had broken off direct communication with Ellis Maupin and was instead in direct communication with the heads of other organizations. It was because of the actions of members of COFE that the Secretary finally called Ellis Maupin, and it was COFE which decided to place Ellis in a seat at one end of the conference table when we met with Deputy Secretary Glauthier representing the Secretary so that our support for the union was clear and unambiguous. There are at least 10 people who can testify to that fact. The meeting with the Deputy Secretary was a meeting with COFE and its partners in the Demonstration, as stated directly to the Deputy Secretary in that meeting. The distrust that has ensued subsequently due to the actions of Ellis Maupin is not a fissure between COFE and NTEU, but between COFE and Ellis Maupin. COFE continues to maintain good relations with a number of organizations.

When COFE met in the NTEU office on the evening of May 4^th, Ellis was asked explicitly at that time both whether NTEU Chapter 213 was still in support of the Demonstration and whether his quotation could still be used in another planned press release by COFE. He answered yes to both questions, as witnessed by a number of COFE members in attendance. Ellis did claim at that time that Robert Tobias, President of the NTEU National, had paged him several times while we were meeting with the Deputy Secretary, but he said that no one in the National office was able to tell him why. He then said he thought Tobias would ask him to call off the Demonstration and suggested that Secretary Richardson had gotten to him. Prior to then, Ellis had raised no issue with NTEU supporting the Demonstration, although he had complained over the weekend that NTEU was not fully in charge. Several of us found it odd that Ellis could be so certain he knew why Bob Tobias was calling without having actually spoken to him when no one else could even tell him a subject, and when he had not previously ever raised the possibility that the National could prevent a local chapter from taking lawful action on its members behalf. If this had been a concern, Ellis should have raised it in the COFE meeting held prior to the meeting with the Deputy Secretary when we specifically discussed the conditions under which we would call off the Demonstration or take other action. He voiced nothing but support.

In response to Ellis's concern expressed during the preceding weekend, however, COFE agreed to do even more to put the union in front. Contrary to Ellis's claim, however, we had absolutely no desire to use the NTEU for cover. In fact, we were insistent upon making sure that COFE was prominently featured - which is precisely why we issued our own press release. Ellis Maupin was fully aware that the press release was being issued, and had been provided the first draft. He was asked to provide a quote, but also said at that time that NTEU would be issuing its own press release. He was not asked to approve the COFE press release both because it was a COFE release and because NTEU was issuing its own. He was asked to supply a quote. The quotation attributed to him was from the NTEU brochure, which he prepared. He furthermore, in front of witnesses, agreed with the quotation when he was asked if there was any problem with it.

I have little to offer regarding the questions surrounding the Ghana trip except to say that I don't understand why it would take nearly 5 days for the president of the union local to see a major impropriety in the timing and the fact of the offer itself. I moreover find it curious that among the reasons Ellis cites for not going was that his passport was expired. That point would actually be irrelevant once the question of propriety was raised. That Ellis was concerned about it seems more suggestive of a course of events in which he was informed earlier than he admits and then endeavored to see if his passport could be renewed, before declining the offer. Nonetheless, to then say that he spent all that time in "Contemplation only because of protocol and respect for the Secretary" is a curious claim at best when a brief day and a half earlier he was actively planning a major demonstration and vocally complaining about the disrespect he felt the Secretary had shown him. Indeed, Ellis had complained of this alleged disrespect on repeated occasions before many people for many weeks prior. What then precipitated the sudden transformation?

Ellis states in his May 22 letter: "I am aware that management has taken a role in this election in an effort to prevent my reelection...." This is an especially curious and specious claim given the lengths to which Ellis has himself recruited members of management and other non-bargaining unit employees to join the union, precisely so they could vote for him. He has done this while chapter membership remains abysmally low compared to the total number of potential members in the bargaining unit.

Ellis characterizes Dave Nolan as having "a penchant for misleading statements" who "seems to never get the facts straight...." He further alleges "It seems to conveniently serve his purposes to 'spin' the information. The truth is never an issue...." I certainly wonder if this is not a serious psychological dysfunction on Ellis's part by which he projects his own character upon others. This is to me a sad commentary upon someone whom I thought was a friend and ally for many years. But, he lied to me, he lied to the members of COFE, and he lied to the members of NTEU. And, his lies were not small or innocuous. He has told and repeated big lies, putting them now in print and publicizing them, as if the boldness of the lies would somehow attest to their truth. The boldness of lies merely attests to the arrogance and narcissism of the liar.

I will not belabor the obvious, or insult the reader, by repeating the howlers of claims Ellis makes in the closing paragraphs of his letter, but I do want to ask why it is that Ellis Maupin seems to believe, as indicated in his second to last paragraph, that his rudeness in not answering messages, and inaccessibility in general, is a virtue and not a serious criticism of his inability to properly delegate authority, share responsibility and power, cultivate and develop the capacities of union members for leadership roles, and generally conduct the affairs of the local in an effective manner. Any manager who so conducted himself would, I strongly suspect, be roundly criticized by Ellis Maupin for dereliction of duties as a manager. Why does Ellis Maupin not perceive his role, in which 100 percent of his time is allocated to union business, as a manager of the local? That is certainly how his role is construed in Federal law, which does hold union officials responsible and accountable for the proper conduct and management of union business.

Finally, with regard to the accompanying "Fact Sheet:"

The May 5^th Demonstration was sponsored by a coalition of organizations, specifically, the Coalition Of Federal Employees (COFE).

COFE prepared a detailed set of materials, which have been reproduced with slight modification at the COFE web site ( http://omnist.com/COFE ).

Many people have now heard of COFE because it has been mentioned, among other places, in Inside Energy.

COFE does not have officers. It has members and spokespersons. I am one of the spokespersons. COFE does not release membership lists, for a variety of reasons, but members may individually identify themselves. COFE also has affiliations and alliances with other organizations. COFE does not, however, make representations on behalf of those organizations without explicit authorization.

To add a further comment on the matter of whether anyone has heard of COFE, however, I should like to point out that Ellis Maupin, in his capacity as president of the local NTEU chapter, has been a member of another organization that few people have heard of, the Council of Employee Organizations (CEO), but that is an irrelevancy to the question of whether the organization itself is, or can be, effective. Different organizations have different purposes, missions, and ways of operating.

As already mentioned, COFE is in the public eye, but that is not at all what COFE is seeking. COFE's mission is real change to eliminate injustice, and the only meaningful evidence is whether that is accomplished, not whether COFE's name is known.

The matter of the news release has already been discussed, but, to reiterate, Ellis did release his own, was informed of COFE's, did agree with the quote, and had no authority to approve or disapprove the press release as such by COFE.

NTEU did not call off the Demonstration, but Ellis Maupin certainly attempted to, including placing late night calls to a COFE member.

Rock Newman can speak for himself as to what Ellis Maupin told him, but we can assume that that was not NTEU talking.

Demonstrations and rallies are done on whatever basis their organizers determine. COFE, as the organizer of the May 5^th Demonstration, determined that it was by majority vote - a rule to which the organizers have adhered since the beginning, even before NTEU was invited in.

The reader can judge for his or her self as to how "unseasoned" any one of us are, but I shall comment only that "consensus" is a curious term coming from the mouth of a politically elected union official who routinely trashes his opposition and in fact does so in both his letter and "Fact Sheet." The irony is that "consensus" is the official decision making procedure for two other organizations - one is the Secretary's Diversity Council, which Ellis Maupin insists he opposes, and the other is the CEO, that other organization which few people are likely to know much about. Consensus has never been the basis on which COFE agreed to make decisions, but COFE has a high regard and respect for organizations which do understand and properly abide by the consensus process. Ellis Maupin apparently thinks that "consensus" means physically threatening and otherwise attempting to intimidate people - as he attempted to do to me personally before the members of COFE, raising his fist and beginning to strike a blow.

Of course, people were free to choose either option on May 5^th, but free choice is considerably constrained by an intentional disinformation campaign that included Ellis's misleading flyer and statements by a number of people (reportedly, including the guards) to the effect that only persons on official leave could demonstrate. Anyone on lunch break could demonstrate.

As to the allegation regarding Ellis Maupin being asked a question of any kind in the forum - I don't know. I wasn't there. I was outside demonstrating.

Ellis told COFE members that he thought Bob Tobias was going to order him to call off the demonstration, to which we responded variously that any union member could still exercise their rights as citizens, and how could Bob Tobias call it off anyway? We have yet to hear from Bob Tobias himself. Ellis did not say that NTEU was withdrawing. In fact, he said at that time that NTEU was still fully in support of the demonstration, and he would have to deal with Tobias when he actually talked to him. We certainly do not know whether they talked or what they talked about. We only know what Ellis Maupin represented to us.

My anger is spawned by the very simple fact of Ellis Maupin's lying, deceit, betrayal, duplicity, disingenuousness, and arrogant, insulting, narcissism in publicizing these false claims at other's expense. I have no need for NTEU's cover, as is self evident by my actions. I cannot be represented by the union because I am a non-bargaining unit employee. As Ellis Maupin well knows, COFE was formed because many employees are not, and cannot be, represented by the union. COFE exists to represent the interests of all employees, not in any capacity as a union, but as a serious advocacy organization intent on systemic, institutional change.

The fact of COFE preceded its name, but its name arose well before April 27, 1999. That Ellis had not heard the name previously merely attests to his absence from several meetings about which he was informed.

Blacks In Government, of whom I am a member, participated through its members. COFE was the organizing group. The minutes of the BIG membership meeting before the demonstration will substantiate the discussion that occurred there.

I know nothing about the NTEU signs except what Ellis claims. I have never seen them. Nonetheless, I carried a sign that said COFE at the bottom. COFE would have prepared many more of its own signs in advance except for the fact that Ellis Maupin repeatedly told COFE that he would provide signs. That was at Ellis's insistence, not COFE's. COFE only asked that they be available several days before hand, not at 10 A.M. on the morning of a Demonstration. I can only wonder as to the reasons for the delay.