National Border Patrol Council - LOCAL 1613 BLOG

(Acting) Chief Fisher - Still just acting

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:28:00 +0000

(Acting) Chief Fisher is acting like he did while he was acting as the chief in San Diego. He has already willingly carried out his first order from his bosses in Labor Employee Relations. At their direction, he agreed to strip all employees from the bargaining unit if they volunteer for a detail to aid the Federal Air Marshals Service. After 9-11, agents were detailed to the FAMS, but surprisingly they continued to be recognized as bargaining unit members with rights and protections. Of course this was pre-Aguilar and at a time when management actually stood up for the Patrol and the agents instead of doing anything to get promoted.

To read more about the detail, the loss of your rights and protections, and what you are required to do to maintain your coverage with PORAC, please go to www.nbpc.net.

Suicide is Never the Answer

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:56:00 +0000

SUICIDE IS NEVER THE ANSWER

A sobering statistic in Law Enforcement is the fact that an officer is more likely to be a victim of suicide than a homicide. The suicide rate per 100,000 people is 11.1% for the population and 18% for Law Enforcement. Suicide is devastating to families, friends and co-workers.

It is something you have a hard time understanding when you hear about it happening. Especially, when it happens to one of your own. What do you think when you hear a story about one of your own who risks his/her life everyday for this country taking their life? It saddens me and it maddens me! As an Agent and as a mental health professional it makes me want to do more. I hope this information is useful. If only one suicide is prevented that is a victory.

I will start with some of the basic information.
Here are some of the warning signs:
1. Threatens to harm self.
2. Prior suicide attempt(s).
3. Disturbance in sleep/appetite/weight.
4. Thinking is constricted – all or nothing, black or white.
5. Increased risk-taking behavior.
6. Has plan and means for suicide.
7. Emotionless/numb.
8. Angry/agitated.
9. Sad/depressed.
10. Hopeless, not future-oriented; giving away valued possessions.
11. Problems at work/home.
12. Recent loss (status, loved one).
13. Under investigation.
14. Socially isolated/withdrawn.
15. Increased consumption of alcohol/drugs.

The problem is as Agents you do some of these things as habit in order to do your jobs. These things serve you well in our daily work but hinder your ability to get help when you truly need it. For instance, if you have problems at home, you try not to take it with you to work. You try to separate the two so you can do your job. You try to set home problem aside to get the job done, to make sure you have your fellow agent’s back when he/she needs you. The problem occurs when you get overloaded. You can only do this for so long before it overwhelms you. This can lead to what psychiatrist Karl Menninger referred to as “suicide by inches.”

“This refers to more gradual behaviors of self-destruction, like excessive spending in an effort to buy happiness, excessive drinking or compulsive adultery as a means to escape, addictively overworking at the cost of relationships with spouse and kids.” The Force Science News #101: Practical pointers for preventing “suicide by inches” Bill Lewinski.

As Agents you try to blow off steam in ways that don’t help sometimes, they just mask the problems. Going out and drinking (choir practice) is one of the ways you do this. It is something that is done in celebration some times. It becomes a problem when it is an escape. A way to forget about the problems at home and/or at work. You compound all of these issues and you have a dangerous mix. I am not trying to be Chicken Little here. I just want all of you to remember that suicide is NEVER the answer. It is a poor solution to temporary problems.

Some good suggestions I have found in this article and my practice are:
1. Talk to a Buddy. Talk to someone you can honestly open up to without worry of how they are going to judge you. Sometimes it’s nice to just have a sounding board.

2. Develop a Purpose outside of work. There is more to life than the “JOB.” Remember it is just that a job. When you leave or go on vacation the job still gets done. Find something you enjoy doing outside of work that is in line with whom you really are or who you want to be. It could be anything from going back to school to fishing to building model ships in glass bottles. You can also volunteer to help those less fortunate. That always puts things in perspective. Who cares what it is, just do something constructive, positive, fun and purposeful to you.

3. Pay attention to your mental health. Pay attention for the symptoms listed above and below. If you see them happening in your life or a friends or a co-workers intervene.
a. Are you banging in a lot?
b. Are you coming to work hung over a lot?
c. Are you always irritable?
d. Are you drinking frequently and excessively?
e. Do you feel as though no one will understand?
f. Are you worried about getting fired?
g. Are you having problems at home (divorce, break up, death in the family, bankruptcy etc.)?

These are a few things that may contribute to problems in your physical and mental health. If they are then gets some help at setting up a plan to deal with each of these issues. You are not the first person to have the problems and you will not be the last. You ability to deal with them might help you help someone else.

4. Consider getting a check up.
a. Go to you general practitioner if you don’t know what to do or don’t want to go to a “shrink.”
b. A yearly mental health check up was suggested in the article from The Force Science News and I think it is an excellent idea.

I know as Law Enforcement Officers you tend to not trust outsiders, especially mental health professionals. There are some good ‘shrinks” out there. Find one that fits with you. Mental health professionals understand that sometimes it is not personal; it is just that you don’t click. It is ok to shop around for a therapist. Yes, I said the word it is not a four letter one. Although it would be more acceptable to agents if it was.

Now I take my mental health professional hat off and this is straight from my heart as an Agent. We have a saying that we would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. Give things a chance to work themselves out. You cut off all options with such a final actions. With time the situation will lose some of its sting.

Think of it this way. Every Law Enforcement Officer hates a cop killer. Wouldn’t committing suicide be doing the same thing!

Overall remember watching each others back does not stop when you take off the uniform. During this holiday season and each day after let’s be there for each other. Don’t put on blinders because you don’t want to offend someone.

Again, SUICIDE is NEVER the answer!

For more information: www.thepainbehindthebadge.
www.psf.org (The National Police Suicide Foundation)
www.forcesciencenews.com
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) 1-800-467-3277

No matter the situation. You must remember that your life is a gift. How you choose to express that gift is up to you. Respect this gift and get help if you need it, but most of all remember things are never as bad as they seem and you are much stronger than you think!

San Diego Chief a No-Show at Agent's Funeral

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:05:00 +0000

I've always believed in leadership and that you take care of both your mission and your men. But lately here in San Diego Sector I have seen a disturbing trend by those who state they are "in command."

During the memorial services for Agent Nate Afolayan I looked around and saw only "acting" Assistant Chiefs and an "acting" Deputy Chief representing San Diego Sector. What really surprised me was that Chief Mike Fisher was not there since the union was scheduled to meet with him after the memorial service had concluded. It turns out that Chief Fisher had some very important training and could not find time to honor one of his agents who had died or to meet with the union. I could care less about the meeting, but to not attend the memorial service is inexcusable.

Now with the murder of Agent Rosas I thought there was no way the sector staff would pull the same moves again. Wrong. Chief Fisher was again nowhere to be seen at the services. "Acting" Chief Rick Barlow presided over the memorial services. What kind of training is more important than attending the funeral of one the agents you are supposed to lead? Unless his wife was giving birth or there was a death or medical emergency in his family, there is no reason on this earth that he shouldn't have been there.

Chief Fisher now has established a track record of disregarding fallen agents and their families in their time of need. There is talk that he may be the next Chief of the Border Patrol and that truly concerns me. If he continues to pull stunts like this he will perfectly fill the Aguilar mold. Honor First? More like Fisher First.

Border Patrol Agent Robert Rosas Memorial Videos

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:42:00 +0000

Special thanks to the Imperial Valley Press for creating and posting the following videos.

Thanks to the creator of the following video:

Border Patrol Agents mourn the death of fellow agent Robert Rosas

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:20:00 +0000

The National Border Patrol Council, Local 1613 is deeply saddened and angered by the brutal murder of Border Patrol Agent Robert Rosas. He was following a group of people who had crossed the border illegally into Campo, California (in eastern San Diego County) on the evening of July 23rd when he was fatally shot several times by unidentified assailants who fled back into Mexico immediately after the shooting.

The events surrounding this senseless tragedy are currently being investigated by the FBI. The National Border Patrol Council, Local 1613 is refraining from commenting on the specific details of the case to avoid jeopardizing the investigation and in hopes of expediting the capture of those who are responsible for this murder.

This latest act of violence along our border highlights the extreme dangers that Border Patrol Agents face while protecting the United States from the illegal entry of persons, drugs, weapons, and other contraband. Border Patrol Agents routinely work alone in remote areas due to the lack of manpower. Agent Rosas is the 108th Border Patrol Agent to lose his life in the line of duty, with 21 of those deaths occurring during the past decade.

Agent Rosas entered on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol on May 22, 2006, as a member of the 621st Session of the U.S. Border Patrol Academy. He is survived by his wife, a two-year-old son and an 11-month-old daughter.

A public viewing for Agent Rosas will be held on Thursday, July 30th from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Faith Assembly of God Church, 320 South J Street, Imperial, California 92251. A memorial service will be held on Friday, July 31 at 9:00 a.m. at the Southwest Performing Arts Theatre (located on the Southwest High School campus), 2001 Ocotillo Drive, El Centro, California 92243. Internment services will immediately follow at Evergreen Cemetery, 201 East Gillett Street, El Centro, California 92243.

MEMORIAL FUND:

A memorial account has been established for Agent Rosas and his family through Cabrillo Credit Union.

Cabrillo Credit Union
Robert W. Rosas Memorial Account
Account Number 186716-02.
www.cabrillocu.com
1-800-222-7455

Speech by Congressman Poe

House Resolution 681

Press release from DHS Secretary

Press release by CBP

Visit the Officer Down Memorial Page for Agent Rosas

Reports of Questionable Training at El Cajon Station

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:29:00 +0000

Training for a career in the US Border Patrol should be hard. If you work hard in training, the real thing should be easier. But training should be conducted with a purpose and a goal. Field Training Officers have a difficult and thankless job, but it is not a license to impose their will upon trainees. It is not the place to do the wrongs unto others that may have been done to you. Just because you had to do something when you were a trainee doesn't make it right or useful. Hazing trainees has no place in the Border Patrol.

Recently Local 1613 has become aware of questionable training methods being used at the El Cajon Border Patrol Station. Trainees are being run up and down trails not to learn the area or to work alien traffic, leaving us with the question: what is the point? Is it punishment or is there some training value to it? No one in the union is opposed to hard training, only pointless training that can get agents injured or killed. The weather in eastern San Diego county during July is conducive to heat emergencies. Bulletproof vests and poorly ventilated uniforms only make the problem worse.

On Sunday, July 5, 2009, agents were further subjected to training methods of little value. Trainees were forced to perform push-ups on hot blacktop which resulted in some agents injuring their hands. To literally add insult to injury, a Supervisory Border Patrol Agent took photos of this activity, yet did nothing to stop it. Again, where is the training value in any of this?

This kind of behavior accomplishes nothing except to placate the egos of those overseeing the trainees. It is obvious that the field training officers have not been properly trained and that management is condoning their actions. For this the FTOs should be removed from their position and the supervisor of the unit held accountable.

Local 1613 is also aware that trainees are being pressured and intimidated not to "rat" on anyone now that this situation has come to light. Any interference with the ability of an agent to exercise their right to union representation will be viewed as a serious matter and will be pursued in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or applicable third party procedures.

IMB Manager Up to His Old Tricks Again

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:00:00 +0000

Just when you think that the antics of Field Operations Supervisor Mike Apple can't get any lower, he surprises with another blatant attempt to get information to burn agents with.

Most agents are aware that Apple has people working at the RVS cameras who report to him when they see something they don't agree with on the video feeds. A few seconds taken out of context by someone far removed from the action can lead to months of investigations, grief for the accused agents, grand jury investigations, or even criminal prosecution. Apple's take on these situations seems to be slanted towards the accusers, not to the agents.

Recently we have become aware of Apple's latest "slash and burn" tactic. Certain shifts have a contact/cover unit that works between the primary and secondary fences providing back-up to the line units. To ensure that this unit provides ample coverage to the line units, Apple has enlisted the help of a new, highly-trained, supervisory unit: the minimum wage paid, LAPR card carrying, KIEWIT security officers.

From information provided by these security guards, Apple has given them his cell phone number so that they can inform him of how many times they see the contact/cover unit during a shift. Apparently Apple does not trust the agents enough to do their job correctly, nor does he trust his own managers to properly supervise those agents. If that is the case it is deeply disturbing.

Is this tactic known to and approved by sector and station management, or is it solely the design of one misguided manager? Members need to be aware of this new tactic and are advised to use caution when dealing with FOS Apple. Remember that according to our contract should Apple or any other supervisor wish to speak with you, and you feel that discipline may result from that conversation then you are entitled to union representation. With these kind of tactics currently being used by some supervisors, we advise that you call a union rep...quickly.

Unless the management at Imperial Beach does something to correct FOS Apple's actions, we foresee more events like this occurring in the future. Please contact us if you are aware of similar incidents.

Follow Local 1613 on Twitter

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:23:00 +0000

For those who use Twitter you can now get updates by following us at http://twitter.com/nbpc1613

Member advisories, issues, and news related to the Border Patrol and this union will be discussed on Twitter.

VRP Grievance Settled on Courthouse Steps

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:35:00 +0000

Facing another near-certain arbitration loss, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) attorney requested a meeting with the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) to discuss settlement for the grievance over the Voluntary Relocation Program (VRP). The parties were scheduled to meet on June 18, 2009 before an arbitrator. Fortunately, Labor and Employee Relations personnel did not play a major role in the settlement discussion, which allowed Border Patrol Management and the Union to reach a fair and equitable settlement in a short amount of time. We look forward to conducting business in a similar manner in the future.

Read more

In Memoriam - Harold Newton

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:52:00 +0000

The National Border Patrol Council - Local 1613 is deeply saddened to report that Harold Newton, brother of Border Patrol Inspector Theodore L. Newton, Jr., passed away on June 11, 2009 at approximately 2:18 p.m.

For those who do not know, Harold and the Newton family are very special members of the Border Patrol family. Since his brother’s tragic death on June 17, 1967, Harold fought tirelessly to improve the Border Patrol, to protect the agents, and to prevent another tragedy. While we cannot list all of his accomplishments, there are a few he regularly mentioned when he spoke: successfully lobbied on numerous occasions for increased manpower for the Border Patrol; successfully challenged Border Patrol policy which foolishly permitted two-man checkpoint operations; and successfully lobbied to make sure new agents were not assigned to the field prior to attending basic training at the academy. While this is just a brief list of his accomplishments, those who know Harold are well aware of how he is a remarkable advocate for the Border Patrol and all of its agents.

Information for the funeral services will be posted when the family provides the details. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Newton family during this difficult time.

Pictured below is Harold Newton (right) with Congressman Darrell Issa at the official ceremony to rename the Murrieta station as the Theodore L. Newton, Jr. and George F. Azrak Border Patrol Station.

VRP and in-sector (SDC) relocations

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:15:00 +0000

Local 1613 recently heard how Chief Fisher attended a muster at the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station (BPS) on March 25, 2009 and conducted a formal discussion with bargaining unit members. During the formal discussion, an agent asked about relocations within the San Diego Sector (SDC), and Chief Fisher told the agents who were present that the Voluntary Relocation Program (VRP) addresses in-sector relocations.

Local 1613 conducted an initial review to determine the validity of his statement and identified numerous agents in SDC who applied for a relocation within SDC under the VRP. The review determined none of the SDC agents were selected for the SDC stations they applied for under the VRP. Local 1613 will be working with the NBPC to review the data from OBP, if and when it is provided, to investigate the matter further.

Therefore, while Chief Fisher may technically be correct in saying the VRP addresses in-sector relocations, he conveniently forgot to mention how he failed to approve any in-sector relocations under the VRP. Apparently, Chief Fisher, like Chief Aguilar, thinks agents will never discover the truth about their statements on topics like the VRP. This is most likely due to their fantasy of operating in an environment where agents are afraid to challenge them for fear of retaliation and the union does not exist to remind them the Border Patrol motto is "Honor First".

As for the unlawful formal discussion held by Chief Fisher, Local 1613 will address the topic in a future update on our site so members can better understand the issue and assist us with holding him accountable for his willful violations.

Instructions on Accessing the Member's Section of the AFGE Website

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:08:00 +0000

On November 11, 2008, during the general membership meeting, members discussed problems they experienced when attempting to access the member’s section of the AFGE website and update mailing addresses. Click here or on the title above to read the instructions on how to validate your membership with the AFGE website. To read how to update your mailing address, once you have validated your membership with the AFGE site, visit the Members Services page of the Local 1613 website.

Chris Bauder

Member Advisory: Taser Training

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:41:00 +0000

Attention Local 1613 Members:

San Diego Sector recently announced Taser training for agents. According to the memo from Chief Fisher, agents are required to be certified with the baton and OC Spray. This assertion directly contradicts section 6.1.4 of the national policy which states agents who have previously been certified in either the collapsible straight baton or OC spray are eligible to be trained and certified with the Taser. In addition, the person who is in charge of the program at the national level gave assurances to the National Border Patrol Council that agents would not be required to be certified first with OC Spray.

Therefore, if you desire to be certified with the Taser and you are not currently certified with OC Spray, you are still eligible for the training. If someone says you are not eligible or you need to attend the OC Spray course first, direct them to section 6.1.4 of the national policy and please notify Local 1613 at 800-620-1613 ext. 80 or 81 or by email.

Chris Bauder
President
NBPC L-1613

Local 1613 Recommends Changes to Equipment on New Pursuit Vehicles

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:50:00 +0000

National Border Patrol Council, Local 1613 Secretary Thane Gallagher drafted a document to express the union’s concerns regarding how some of the new pursuit vehicles in San Diego Sector are being equipped. The document was mailed to San Diego Sector and the union is now awaiting a response. If and when the union receives a response, we will notify our members.

To read the recommendations, click here or on the title above. If you have any concerns or suggestions related to this particular topic, please email Thane Gallagher.

Chris Bauder
President
NBPC L-1613

San Diego Sector Ignores Proposals to Safeguard Employee's SS#'s

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:06:00 +0000

On July 11, 2008, a staff member from the Pine Valley (Campo) Border Patrol Station (BPS) administration sent an email to every employee assigned to the Pine Valley BPS. The problem with this email is it contained the names and social security numbers of practically every bargaining unit employee assigned to the San Diego Sector. In response, Local 1613 filed a grievance and proposed reasonable changes to properly safeguard employee’s social security numbers and prevent identity theft in the future.

In the grievance, Local 1613 proposed the Agency stop the practice of using social security numbers to identify employees in all cases except where absolutely necessary (i.e. Official Personnel Folder). Local 1613 proposed the Agency consider using some other unique identifier such as the last four numbers of the social security or hash id to identify employees. In addition, Local 1613 requested the Agency notify all employees of this unnecessary disclosure of their social security numbers.

Instead of considering the Union’s proposal or recognizing the potential harm to employees by this irresponsible practice, San Diego Sector said: “As you should be aware, CBP policy is established at the National level.” While the Union is aware of how all policies are now established at the National level, San Diego Sector should also be aware of how the negotiated agreement, specifically Article 33 J, requires management to forward the grievance to the level that the Agency designates as being responsible for the action being grieved. Since the “action” in this grievance involves the careless handling of employee’s social security numbers and a potential harm to employees with the improper safeguarding of the information, one would expect San Diego Sector to forward this matter to the Office of Border Patrol or Customs and Border Protection for proper consideration.

As you will see, it is apparently too difficult or confusing for San Diego Sector to forward correspondence from the union to the national level when necessary. This is proven again when San Diego Sector rejected the union’s written request for arbitration regarding this case. Instead of simply forwarding the union’s request for arbitration to the level management delegated to receive arbitration requests, San Diego Sector thought it made more sense to waste time drafting a new letter, having an Assistant Chief Patrol Agent review and sign the letter, and then mailing the letter to the union informing the union of how they were rejecting the union’s written request.

Since there were a few representatives from San Diego Sector involved with the drafting, reviewing, signing, and mailing the rejection letter and the response to the grievance, it is difficult to ascertain who made the irrational decisions in the responses from Sector. However, one thing is clear from this issue; nobody in San Diego Sector is willing to take the initiative to propose a change to internal practices which would safeguard employee’s personal information; and nobody at San Diego Sector is interested in reading or honoring the negotiated agreement, unless they are trying to figure a way out of avoiding protecting employees or avoiding proposals presented by your elected union representatives.

With regards to the use of social security numbers, Local 1613 would like to inform the members of some important information regarding this topic. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued a document titled, “Guidance on Protecting Federal Employee Social Security Numbers and Combating Identity Theft”. All employees should read this document and take action to protect themselves from future mishandling of their social security numbers. A few important points outlined in this document, which all employees should consider next time they are asked to enter their social security number on some nonessential form, are listed below:

5 CFR 293.105(b)(2) - Individuals asked to voluntarily provide their SSN shall suffer no penalty or denial of benefits for refusing to provide it.
5 CFR293.108- Agencies shall require all employees responsible for the creation, development, maintenance, processing, use, dissemination, and safeguarding of personnel records to be familiar with the rules of conduct presented in this section.
Unnecessary printing and displaying of the SSN on forms, reports, and computer display screens should be eliminated.
Access to the SSN should be restricted to only those individuals whose official duty requires such access. A listing of all access authorizations should be maintained and monitored regularly for continued applicability.

All members should take some time to read the correspondence between the union and San Diego Sector so you can understand how difficult it is for your union representatives to resolve a simple matter or propose solutions to protect you and your personal information. Just click on the title above or click here to view the documents.

Chris Bauder
President
NBPC Local 1613

Monthly Union Meeting Location Has Changed

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:48:00 +0000

Local 1613 will no longer be meeting at the Holiday Inn in National City for monthly Union meetings. Starting October 14, 2008, Local 1613 monthly general membership meetings will be held at The Handlery Hotel and Resort (click for The Handlery’s website). The Handlery is located at 950 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, CA 92108 (click address for map).

At the general membership meeting on September 9, 2008, the members voted unanimously in favor of temporarily holding general membership meetings at The Handlery Hotel and Resort. The Executive Board explained the reason for the relocation and discussed how the Executive Board believed the new location may attract more members due to the central location on I-8. While some members expressed concerns about the new location, the Executive Board explained the move is temporary, until the membership agrees to a permanent location. Members will have an opportunity during the next couple of meetings to express support for or opposition to the new location.

Please visit the meeting page of the website to view a map for the new meeting location.

Retired DCPA Beasley's Letter to Mayor Villaraigosa

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:42:00 +0000

The following letter was written by retired Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Harold Beasley. Mr. Beasley served as the Deputy Chief Patrol Agent in the San Diego Sector up until he transferred to the Tucson Sector. Mr. Beasley was one of the “leaders” with the foresight to help build a successful labor-management relationship that resolved matters at the lowest possible level and avoided unnecessarily wasting Border Patrol/taxpayer money on arbitrations. Mr. Beasley was responsible for many agreements that are now being violated under the direction of Chief Fisher, who effectively destroyed the once successful relationship within days of taking over as the Chief of the San Diego Sector without any regard to the history behind the relationship or the agreements.

[Letter Begin]

July 15, 2008

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Attn: Scheduling Office
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Mayor Villaraigosa:

I recently saw media coverage of a high ranking Religious Official from the Catholic Church in Los Angeles blasting the recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement work-site raids. This Religious Official referred to the ICE Agents as heavy handed, intimidating, gun slinging federal agents who had no right to conduct work-site raids, or words to the effect. He further referred to the poor criminal illegal aliens as the REAL VICTIMS and that their HUMAN RIGHTS were violated. Lastly, he said that the Catholic Church will fight the battle for the illegal aliens and that the Catholic Church fully supports amnesty for these poor victims, or words to the effect. Is he speaking for all Catholics?

Well after seeing this bleeding heart garbage, I looked at a few Los Angeles, California web-sites. There YOU were supporting the same issues and out right saying that Los Angeles, California is a SANCTUARY CITY for criminal illegal aliens. Therefore, I wanted to write you this letter and tell you how happy I am that YOU, the Catholic Church and your City Council want so badly to make Los Angeles, California a SANCTUARY CITY for criminal illegal aliens. I also want you to know that I am going to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Washington, DC and tell them to send all criminal illegal aliens to Los Angeles after they are released from custody for “FAMILY HUMANITARIAN REASONS”. You, sir, can take care of and support all the criminal illegal aliens that your little heart desires. We tax-paying, law abiding American Citizens are tired of our tax dollars going to support criminal illegal aliens.

I use the words criminal illegal aliens because listed below are just some of the crimes they commit every minute in this country:

They cross the border illegally violating Federal Law. We do nothing to them.
They enter into a conspiracy to pay a smuggler $1,500 to $2,000 to smuggle them across the border illegally, which is a felony. We do nothing to them.
Upon arrival at their destination, they buy counterfeit documents to get a job (social security card, legal resident alien card) committing identity theft. We do nothing to them.
They use the counterfeit documents to receive welfare. We do nothing to them.
They use the counterfeit documents at hospitals to give birth to their children for free. We do nothing to them.
They use the counterfeit documents to get a driver’s license. We do nothing to them.
They then enter into another felony to smuggle their spouse and 3.5 children into the United States. We do nothing to them.
They again use their counterfeit documents to receive welfare, free education and free medical care for the spouse and 3.5 children. We do nothing to them.

Some of your Los Angeles web-sites reference statistics about how these poor criminal illegal aliens contribute to the economy of the United States. Listed below are a few statistics that say they ARE NOT contributing to the economy of the United States:

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

11. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States'. http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

TOTAL COST IS $338.3 BILLION A YEAR!!!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp

Some of the Los Angeles web-sites further mentioned that the Immigration Laws of the United States are out-dated and need to be revised. I believe YOU made that statement as well. First of all, let me assure you that the United States has the most relaxed and fair Immigration Laws of any country in the world. Second, most of these criminal illegal aliens that are referred to in many of the Los Angeles web-sites as VICTIMS have been arrested and had their day in Immigration Court. They have been ordered deported from the United States and then just happen to forgot to leave the country as they assured the Immigration Judge they would do. Then a Warrant of Deportation is issued and these poor VICTIMS now become ICE Fugitives. Lastly, I want to list some of the Immigration Laws of Mexico to demonstrate to you how fair our laws are compared to Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states:

1. Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.

2. Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.

3. Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.

4. Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.

5. Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.

6. Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

7. Private Citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.

8. Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process."

Mayor Villaraigosa, please contact the Mexican Consul in Los Angeles, California and request a copy of the Mexican Law – Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Ley General De Poblacion, Capitulo IV – Emigracion, Articulo 77, Articulo 78, Articulo 79 and Articula 80. Read the Law carefully and you will see that a Mexican National violates their own law when they leave Mexico without the permission of the Mexican Government.

The United States Government and its brilliant politicians did an AMNESTY in 1986 and legalized somewhere between 5-10 million people. Now we have another 10-15 million people that we don’t know what to do with. I have a great idea that the U. S. Government can do since the previous amnesty did not work. Why don’t we ENFORCE the laws that we have on the books and also support the hard working men and women of the U. S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement who put their lives on the line every day and allow them do their job? DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff stated recently that even if we tried to enforce the law, we could not deport all the illegal aliens in the United States. I have another great idea. I am a retired Border Patrol Agent. Why don’t they bring back retired Border Patrol Agents and assign them to work with Border Patrol Agents and ICE Agents in problem cities throughout the United States? I believe the Border Patrol and ICE would demonstrate quickly to Secretary Chertoff how easy it would be to locate, apprehend and remove the vast majority of criminal illegal aliens. However, we all know that Chertoff is a Politician and he would not want to upset the Special Interest Groups, the Catholic Church or the Mexican Government by enforcing our laws and removing these criminals!!

Another big issue that really made me sick to my stomach was all the demonstrations last year with ILLEGAL ALIENS and STUDENTS waving a mexican flag in my face. Montebello High School was a perfect example with a mexican flag on top of the flag pole and the American Flag upside down under the mexican flag. If their loyalty is with the country of Mexico, then why don’t they get on the next train, plane or automobile and head south? We as taxpayers need to stand behind our law enforcement officers, especially the hard working men and women of the U. S. Border Patrol and ICE, and clean up this mess that our politicians created.

If your great city and the Catholic Church want amnesty for these criminal aliens and a sanctuary city to hide them in, then let’s do it. However, understand that your great city and the Catholic Church will receive NO FUNDING from the federal government and tax-payers. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona last year introduced and supported an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill that would have denied funding to a state or locality that did not cooperate with federal law enforcement officials by reporting suspected immigration violations. The amendment failed to clear a procedural hurdle. Senator Kyl stated that he will work hard this year to support similar legislation. Here is another great idea for your wonderful city. Why don’t you use the tax revenue generated by these criminal illegal aliens that you say pay taxes? The tax revenue generated from these criminal illegal aliens paying taxes can build housing and medical clinics on Church property for them and train religious personnel as nurses and cooks to work in the clinics and kitchens to treat and feed the criminal illegal aliens. This way you can have all of these criminal aliens and you all can support them and keep them in MEXIFORNIA.

One last question. Do you fight just as hard and demand amnesty and sanctuary for criminal illegal aliens that are Africans, Asians, Australians, Canadians, English, Iranians, Iraqis, etc.? Yeah, I didn’t think so!!

Harold R. Beasley, Sr.

CC: Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahoney
Governor Schwarzeneggar
Senator Boxer
Senator Feinstein
Senator Kyl (Arizona)

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Affirms the Convictions Against Agents Ramos and Compean

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:31:00 +0000

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the convictions against Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean for counts 1 through 5 and counts 11 and 12. The Court reversed and vacated counts 6 through 12 because the court determined the Border Patrol investigation was not an "official proceeding" within the meaning of the Statute.

I am shocked by this prosecution and decision and truly question my faith in the criminal justice system and my career in law enforcement. I know there are a few people, including Chief Aguilar and those who put their career before their honor, who argue Agents Ramos and Compean shot an unarmed and fleeing suspect in the back and failed to report the shooting. However, even if there was substantial evidence to prove none of the agents on scene verbally reported the shooting to the supervisors on scene and none of the supervisors on scene were aware of the shooting, I am confident the U.S. Attorney’s Office still would have prosecuted this case for several reasons, a few of which are cited below:

1. They made their entire case with the testimony of a career drug smuggler who illegally entered the United States and subsequently fled to Mexico to avoid capture;

2. They intentionally mislead the jury to believe the drug smuggler was not armed by irrationally arguing that no weapon was found (why would it be found if it was in Mexico);

3. They coerced and intimidated other Border Patrol Agents to testify against Agents Ramos and Compean by threatening them with prosecution (those same agents were later terminated by the Border Patrol for changing their stories);

4. They willingly mislead the jury by preventing pertinent facts about the smuggler’s career from being admitted into evidence;

5. They charged Agents Ramos and Compean with a law that was never intended to be used against law enforcement officers.

Read the decision.

Heat Wave Safety Tips from NOAA

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:37:00 +0000

Please review the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s article about Heat Wave Safety Tips (click the title above). The article also presents NOAA's National Weather Service Heat Index (see below) and explains how to understand the Heat Index.

There is an important note about the Heat Index table that must be considered when reading it: HI values were devised for shady, light wind conditions; therefore exposure to full sunlight can increase HI values by up to 15°F. In addition, strong winds with very hot, dry air can be extremely dangerous.

As Border Patrol Agents, two recommendations for preventing heat stress are out of our control: wear lightweight clothing to allow free air movement and wear light-colored clothing to reflect the heat and sunlight. As we all know, the Border Patrol uniform is dark colored which means it absorbs heat and sunlight; and the new rough-duty uniform is extremely thick which means it prevents free air movement. When the body armor is worn in addition to the thick, dark-colored rough-duty uniform, it will drastically affect your body temperature and your ability to keep your body temperatures normal.

If you know you regularly track groups on foot then take the time to check the heat index each day and be prepared to take the proper precautions to protect yourself and your partners in the field.

NOAA's National Weather Service Heat Index:

"The FBI - Antennae of Death"

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:32:00 +0000

"The FBI" is a show that aired in the 1970's. This particular episode, "The Antennae of Death" is based on the true story about Border Patrol Inspectors Theodore L. Newton Jr. and George F. Azrak (names, locations, etc. were changed, as indicated at the end of the video). Thanks to Harold Newton, brother of Theodore Newton, we received a copy of a link to this show after Harold spent time searching for the show ever since he first viewed it in the 70's. According to Harold, this episode aired on November 29, 1970. Click on the above title to view the video.

To read more about Border Patrol Insectors Newton and Azrak, click here:

The murderer, Jesus Navarro Montes

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:40:00 +0000

The following is a copy of the letter I sent this morning to all five San Diego members of the House of Representatives and both California Senators. I encourage all Border Patrol Agents and citizens to take action and demand a satisfactory outcome in this travesty of justice.

Dear Congressman Hunter,

I am writing to you on behalf of the 1600 Border Patrol Agents who serve in the San Diego Sector of the United States Border Patrol. It is with utter disbelief and a great deal of anger that our agents have learned that Jesus Navarro Montes, the murderer of Senior Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar, Jr., was released from a Mexican jail for “time served.” Even more galling is the possibility that this occurred due to the fact that the United States Department of Justice failed to file charges or request Montes’s extradition from the Mexican government.

This situation is unacceptable. Border Patrol Agents are not expendable pawns to be cast aside when it suits the U.S. government. Over 100 Border Patrol Agents have given their lives while defending this country against the dangers of criminals and drugs. Their sacrifice and especially that of Agent Luis Aguilar, Jr., cannot be forgotten or allowed to go unpunished because of neglect or bureaucratic mistakes.

Mexico is the recipient of billions of U.S. dollars in trade, foreign aid, and assistance to fight criminal smuggling organizations. This represents quite a bit of leverage that could be used to put pressure on the Mexican government to re-arrest Jesus Navarro Montes and extradite him to the United States where he should stand trial for murder. Agent Aguilar deserves nothing less and Border Patrol Agents will accept nothing less.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions concerning this matter. I appreciate your time and concern for this most important subject.

Sincerely,
Shawn P. Moran

Local 1613 Mission

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:24:00 +0000

We are the guardians of non-supervisory Border Patrol Agents and support personnel assigned to the San Diego Sector of the United States Border Patrol.
We protect Border Patrol Agents against frivolous lawsuits, overzealous prosecutors, and unwarranted or disparate administrative actions.
We safeguard conditions of employment, agreements, practices, employee rights, and the labor laws of the United States.
We strive to ensure a fair and equitable workplace free from favoritism, intimidation, disparate treatment, and harassment.
We investigate and report fraud, waste, and abuse within the Border Patrol.
We seek to preserve the Border Patrol motto: “Honor First” and the oath of office sworn by all Border Patrol Agents.
We promote immigration laws and policies that contribute to the security of the United States and oppose policies that restrict the sworn duties of Border Patrol Agents.
We represent the employees with honor, judiciousness, and professionalism.

Border Patrol Agents Mourn the Loss of a Border Patrol Agent

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:02:00 +0000

National Border Patrol Council - Local 1613 (San Diego, CA) is deeply saddened to report the death of San Diego Sector Border Patrol Agent Jarod Dittman. Agent Dittman was traveling on Otay Lakes Road when the Jeep he was driving rolled over. The cause of the vehicle accident is being investigated by the California Highway Patrol.

Agent Dittman entered on duty with the U.S. Border Patrol on March 5, 2007. He was assigned to the Brown Field Border Patrol Station.

Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and coworkers during this difficult time.

San Diego Sector management continues to display contempt for your Union

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:39:00 +0000

NBPC Local 1613 has been forced to file another grievance recently regarding violations of two agreements that were made in 1998 and were honored by San Diego Sector for the past ten years. The following is the official grievance which was submitted to the Agency:

[GRIEVANCE - BEGIN]

March 3, 2008

Michael Fisher
Chief Patrol Agent
United States Border Patrol
2411 Boswell Road
Chula Vista, CA 91914

RE: Union Initiated Grievance

Chief Fisher,

The following constitutes a Union-initiated grievance filed in accordance with Article 33 F. of the 1995 Agreement between U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and National Border Patrol Council (hereafter referred to only as CBA). As per Article 33 F (2) of the CBA, I have been designated by T.J. Bonner, President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), to file this grievance.

The Union determined the violations complained of herein occurred as a result of actions initiated by San Diego Sector Labor and Employee Relations (LERS) Specialist Ralph DeSio and Deputy Chief Patrol Agent (DCPA) Richard Barlow. In accordance with Article 33 J of the CBA, if management deems this to be an inappropriate level for this grievance, the grievance will be considered timely and management will forward the grievance to the level it designates as being responsible for the action being grieved.

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2008, the NBPC submitted a request, in accordance with Article 7 F (2) of the CBA, for Union representatives to attend Union representative training on April 1, 2008 through April 3, 2008.

On February 11, 2008, Bobby Artis, Labor Relations Specialist (LRS), responded to the NBPC’s request and approved the training. However, LRS Artis said: “…local managers may authorize the use of official time for training by the designated NBPC representatives to attend the training…”

On the same day, LERS Ralph DeSio sent an email to Chris Bauder, NBPC Local 1613 Union President, regarding the NBPC training request. The email stated, in pertinent part:

Chris, Sector is in receipt of the attached request for official-time for the April 1-3, 2008 NBPC Training. Sector will only approve 30 man-days for this event which would imply 10 employees for the 3-days. The present list indicates 16 employees. Could you please provide me with an adjusted list that will support the 30 man-days so that I may check with the stations to ensure that the release of the employees is feasible?

Bauder called LERS DeSio on the same date to discuss the email. Bauder asked LERS DeSio why San Diego Sector was ignoring the prior local agreement from 1998 and the subsequent long-standing past practice that allowed the Union to go beyond the thirty “man day” maximum set forth in the CBA. LERS DeSio acknowledged there was a local agreement, but challenged the past practice. LERS DeSio said he believed management retained the right to approve or disapprove attendees.

Bauder explained how he was present during the meeting in 1998, and the parties agreed they would no longer be bound by the maximum number of man-days set forth under Article 7 F (1). Bauder said under the agreement, management retained the right to approve or disapprove attendees; however, management agreed they would only exercise their right if the number of attendees negatively impacted the operations at a specific station. Bauder asserted the current requested number of attendees was not unreasonable or excessive and should have minimal impact, if any, on the station’s operations. LERS DeSio agreed fifteen representatives was a reasonable number in a sector with over 1500 agents assigned to eight different stations.

LERS DeSio acknowledged San Diego Sector allowed Local 1613 to exceed the maximum number of man-days in previous years. However, he claimed the variances were only due to management’s decision and not the agreement or past practice. LERS DeSio also said he informed DCPA Barlow of the previous years where Local 1613 exceeded the maximum number of man-days. LERS DeSio said he would forward the information to DCPA Barlow for further review.

On February 21, 2008, LERS DeSio sent another email to Bauder. The email stated:

After our February 11, 2008, discussion related to your request and reasons that the Agency should grant 16 employees three man-days each for the April-1-3 NBPC Training, it went to the Deputy for further review.

The Deputy has directed the releasing of 10 union officials to use the 30-man-days for the three-day event as provided for by Article 7, Section F (1) of the national labor agreement. Anything above 10 will be allowed Annual Leave to attend the training IF the stations are not operationally impacted. That determination will be made at the station level. Therefore, this means the union will have to, at a minimum; reduce its request from 16 union officials to 10. Further, you will have to tell the Agency which 10 union officials will use the man-days so this can be coordinated with the stations for consideration to its work load requirements and proper entry into time and attendance records. Please provide the list at the soonest possible time so it can be effectively processed.

On the same day, Bauder replied to LERS DeSio’s email. The reply stated, in pertinent part:

As you expected, I will be filing a grievance on this matter. In the meantime, you can remove Shawn Moran and me from the list since we are on official time and our names probably should never have been included in that list, due to the prior agreement regarding the full-time positions. In addition, you can remove [name removed] from that list. I believe I told you before that his name would be removed. Finally, all other names shall remain on the list, but instead of three days for training, each will be utilizing only two days for training in combination with a/l since they have to request a/l for the business meeting anyway, which will result in the local only utilizing 26 man-days. I will be speaking with the representatives and if any of them are not interested in using two days of a/l for this event, I will inform you of those individuals so their names can be removed from the list. If you need clarification, please feel free to call me.

On March 3, 2008, LERS DeSio sent the following email to Bauder:

Chris - you said you would be speaking with you representatives and if any of them are not interested in using two days of Annual Leave or this event, you would let me know so their names can be removed from the list. Are there any adjustments to make?

Also – the Agency recognizes you and Shawn Moran on 100% official time for your regular Monday through Friday work week under Article 7 (A) to perform representational duties under Article 7 A 4 (a-h). However, Article 7 (F) 1 is not for representational duties but rather to attend training approved by management. Consequently, the Agency does not agree with your position that you and Mr. Moran should be excluded from the presented list of attendees to attend the training on April-1-3. Therefore, the present list minus [name removed] reflects 15 representatives - and with the use of annual leave for a day would constitute the full use of 30 man-days. Also, as stated earlier, the Deputy had approved 10 representatives to attend. The authority beyond the 10 has not yet been given. Once the final list is presented and the breakdown of man-days and annual leave is determined, it will be re-presented to the Deputy for consideration.

On March 7, 2008, Bauder spoke with DCPA Barlow. During the phone call, Bauder discussed LERS DeSio’s emails, and the agreement and subsequent past practice from 1998. Bauder explained how this was the first time in ten years since the agreement was made that the Union experienced problems with sector management approving attendees for training. DCPA Barlow said he did not believe he should have to abide by an agreement made with a previous Chief. Bauder explained the sole purpose of the agreement was to not be restricted by the thirty man-days set forth in Article 7 (F) 1 so that an adequate number of Union representatives could be properly trained to fulfill their duties under the CSRA.

DCPA Barlow said he spoke with someone in Labor and Employee Relations (LER) who informed him of the thirty man-days maximum under the CBA. He said LER told him every other sector was abiding by the thirty man-days and San Diego Sector should do the same. He also said LER informed him the CBA took precedence over local agreements and past practices. The Union explained there was case law from the FLRA that contradicted the guidance from LER. DCPA Barlow said he would allow fifteen representatives to attend, but they would only be approved for two days of administrative leave instead of three days. He also said station management had the final decision based on the impact to their operations.

Bauder asked DCPA Barlow about LERS DeSio’s email that misrepresented the terms of the local agreement pertaining to the full-time Union positions. DCPA Barlow said LER informed him of those terms. Bauder explained he was present during the meeting in 1998 and none of the terms cited in LERS DeSio’s email were ever discussed during the meeting. Again, DCPA Barlow reiterated his belief that he should not be bound by agreements made with previous Chiefs. Bauder provided the background for both agreements and discussed the underlying reasons for the agreements.

Bauder also discussed the term “administrative excusal”, as written in Article 7 F (1). The Union contends the term “administrative excusal” implies an excusal from the regular duties as a Border Patrol Agent. Since the two Union officials are currently serving in a full-time Union capacity, the parties understood in 1998 there would be no reason for a full-time Union official to request approval in advance for administrative excusal from his/her duties as a Border Patrol Agent to attend training when the full-time Union official is already administratively excused from his/her regular duties. DCPA Barlow disagreed and said his decision, which was based on guidance from LER, was final and the two full-time Union officers would now have to request approval in advance to be administratively excused from their full-time Union duties to attend Union training.

DCPA Barlow expressed his disapproval of content on the Local 1613 official website and blog. Specifically, he was upset about a picture of the Chief of the Border Patrol appearing as a puppet and on a Mexican Peso. He said he was dissatisfied with an article on the Union’s blog about Michael Fisher, Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) for San Diego Sector. DCPA Barlow insisted the article regarding CPA Fisher was inaccurate but he did not provide any specific references to inaccurate content.

DCPA Barlow informed the Union how he would meet with the Union in the future under two conditions. The first condition was the meeting would have to be restricted to one hour. The second condition was Local 1613 would have to remove all negative content from the official Union website and blog before he would meet. He further explained how the Union would be required to meet with him to resolve any issues before the Union could post any negative content on the Union’s official website or blog.

On March 10, 2008, for the first time since the training was approved by LRS Artis, LERS DeSio notified station management of the list of attendees and the dates for the training. LERS DeSio informed station management that the final decision to release a Union representative for the training was subject to workload review and the station’s ability to allow a representative to be absent during that period.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

During a labor-management relations meeting in 1998, San Diego Sector and NBPC – Local 1613 entered into a local agreement regarding training for Union representatives. According to the local agreement, the parties would no longer be bound by the maximum number of man-days for Union representatives to attend training, as outlined in Article 7 F (1). In addition, the parties agreed:

1. The Union would make every effort to provide training to Union representatives prior to certifying a person as a Local 1613 representative, when possible.

2. The Union would advise management in advance of any training that was to be conducted for Union representatives or prospective representatives;

3. The Union would provide management an advance list of attendees for the training. The number of attendees for a particular event would be reasonable and would take into consideration the needs of the Service so as to avoid negatively impacting the operations at a given station;

4. Management retained the right to reduce the number of attendees assigned to a station if management believed the number of attendees was unreasonable and would negatively impact the operations at the station where the attendees were assigned;

5. If the Union identified training offered by a third party (EEO, OWCP, FLRA, etc.) that appeared to be of mutual concern to the Service and the Union, and appropriate for joint training of management officials and Union representatives, then the Union would provide advance notice to management about the training so management could consider sending management officials with those requested to attend on behalf of the Union.

There were many reasons for this agreement, some of which are outlined below:

1. The agreement resulted from a discussion initiated by Chief William T. Veal. Specifically, Chief Veal asked about the increasing number of grievances and Unfair Labor Practices filed improperly by Union representatives.

In response, Union officers explained how Article 7 F. (1) of the CBA restricted the number of representatives who could attend training in a year. The Union discussed how Union representatives, unlike any other collateral duty in San Diego Sector, were expected to attend training on their day off or annual leave. As a result, Local 1613 had been forced to certify representatives without ever providing training due to the maximum number of man-days imposed by the CBA.

2. Both parties recognized the growth in the bargaining unit since 1995 when the CBA was signed and acknowledged the bargaining unit in San Diego Sector was expected to double by the year 2000. This meant the number of Union representatives at each station increased to accommodate the growth in the bargaining unit. Both parties questioned how a sector with 200 employees received the same number of man-days as a sector with 2000 employees.

Since signing this agreement, CPA William T. Veal, CPA Darryl E. Griffen, DCPA Harold Beasley, DCPA Paul Blocker, and all current and past (Acting) CPA’s, (Acting) DCPA’s, ACPA’s and (Acting) ACPA’s abided by the agreement and refrained from declining training for representatives because of the thirty man-day limit set forth in the CBA. The above mentioned officials never denied official time for training for representatives, never requested an adjustment to the list of attendees, nor have they ever refused to allow the Union to participate in training offered by third parties. Furthermore, the Union consistently fulfilled their obligation to take into consideration the impact to operations when identifying attendees for each station, and when possible, avoided certifying representatives before providing representative training.

The only reasons provided by the Agency for violating the local agreement were:

1. DCPA Barlow believes he does not have to abide by agreements made with previous Chiefs;

2. DCPA Barlow stated his decision was based upon the following LER guidance:

a. Article 7 F (1) of the CBA provided a maximum of thirty man-days for Union representative training and since every other sector was abiding by the CBA, San Diego Sector should do the same;

b. The CBA takes precedence over a local agreement or past practice, regardless of how long the agreement or practice has existed;

3. LERS DeSio believed management retained the right, under the local agreement, to limit the number of attendees without any rational justification.

To date, management has not mentioned the impact to operations at the stations where the attendees are assigned. Instead, LERS DeSio waited until March 10, 2008 to send the first correspondence about this training event to station management.

During the meeting in 1998, San Diego Sector and NBPC – Local 1613 also entered into a local agreement regarding two full-time Union positions. None of the terms cited in LERS DeSio’s email were ever discussed or stipulated during the meeting. Regrettably, it appears someone in LER dishonorably falsified the terms of the local agreement to justify the current violation. At the meeting, San Diego Sector management never attempted to limit the full-time positions to a Monday through Friday workweek; they never stipulated the positions only perform representational duties as outlined under Article 7 A 4 (a-h); and they never intended for the full-time officials to request approval in advance to attend training. As previously explained, both parties understood it was unnecessary to require a full-time Union official to request approval in advance to be administratively excused from his/her full-time Union duties to attend Union training.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

The Union contends DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio violated the following sections of the CBA, local agreements reached between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector in 1998, and the subsequent long-standing past practices that were established over the past ten years as a result of the local agreements:

1. The local agreement between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector from 1998 said the parties would not be bound by the maximum number of man-days set forth for in Article 7 F. (1) of the CBA, as previously outlined above.

DCPA Barlow did not challenge the existence of the agreement and subsequent past practice. Instead, DCPA Barlow provided three immaterial excuses to justify the unilateral abrogation of the local agreement.

LERS DeSio only challenged the past practice, but acknowledged Local 1613 had exceeded the maximum number of man-days in previous years. LERS DeSio believed management retained the right to limit the number of attendees under the agreement. He said neither the agreement nor the past practice required management to automatically approve the list of attendees. The Union informed LERS DeSio his belief was in part true, but under the agreement, management’s right to deny attendees was triggered by an impact to station operations, not the restriction regarding thirty man-days.

Neither LERS DeSio nor DCPA Barlow ever asserted a negative impact to operations, nor did they attempt to allege the number was unreasonable. On the contrary, LERS DeSio agreed fifteen representatives was a reasonable number in a sector with over 1500 agents assigned to eight different stations.

2. The local agreement between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector from 1998 regarding two full-time Union positions.

Someone in LER dishonorably falsified the local agreement regarding the two full-time Union officials. None of the criteria cited in LERS DeSio’s email was mentioned during the meeting in 1998. The parties understood the bargaining unit worked twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and for this reason, the full-time Union officials were not restricted to a Monday through Friday workweek. The parties also never specified the full-time positions were only authorized to perform representational duties under Article 7 A 4 (a) – (h) since the parties recognized there were other duties that did not fall within the list which could lawfully be performed by representatives, as is evident by the last paragraph of Article 7 A 4.

The parties also established the full-time positions would be administratively excused from performing their regular duties as Border Patrol Agents to perform full-time duties as Union officials. For this reason, the parties recognized the full-time Union officials would not be required to request approval in advance to attend training since the full-time Union officials would already be administratively excused from their regular duties.

3. Article 3A, A, which states, in pertinent part:

The parties recognize that from time to time during the life of the agreement, the need will arise requiring the change of existing Service regulations covering personnel policies, practices, and/or working conditions not covered by this agreement. The Service shall present the changes it wishes to make to existing rules, regulations and existing practices to the Union.

The Union never received advance notice from DCPA Barlow about the changes he wished to make to the local agreements and subsequent past practices. Instead, he unilaterally abrogated the agreement and long-standing past practice regarding training for Union representatives and he unilaterally changed the agreement and long-standing past practice regarding training for the full-time Union officials.

4. Article 6 A. which states:

The Service shall not impose any restraint (except as may otherwise be provided in the CSRA or this agreement), interference, coercion, or discrimination against employees in the exercise of their rights to organize and designate representatives of their choosing for the purposes of collective bargaining, Labor-Management Relations, or upon duly designated employee representatives acting on behalf of an employee or group of employees within the bargaining unit.

The Union contends DCPA Barlow revealed his objective in violating the local agreements when he announced the conditions to the Union about meeting with him. The Union argues the conditions that require the Union to remove all negative material from the Union’s official website and blog and to avoid posting any negative material in the future without first speaking with DCPA Barlow is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the lawful activities of Union officials and coerce Union officials into compliance with his personal preferences.

The Union did not play a role in destroying the positive labor-management relationship that evolved in the San Diego Sector since 1998. Up until late 2006, San Diego Sector honored existing agreements and past practices and preserved the effective means of communication between Local 1613 and San Diego Sector. Since late 2006, San Diego Sector unilaterally abrogated or modified several local agreements and subsequent past practices, and dismantled the effective means of communication between the parties at the sector level. Consequently, the content which DCPA Barlow deems negative is merely a reaction to San Diego Sector management’s actions in the past two years. Instead of imposing unlawful conditions on the Union, DCPA Barlow should compare the counterproductive actions of San Diego Sector management in the past two years to the positive labor-management relationship which existed prior to 2006 to understand how to achieve his goal of preventing negative content on the Union’s official website and blog.

5. Article 7 F (1), which states:

The Service agrees that official leave may be administratively authorized for Union representatives to attend training approved by Management which is designed to advise representatives on matters within the scope of the CSRA, which are of mutual concern to the Service and the Union. Administrative excusal for this purpose will not exceed ten (10) man days per fiscal year for each Sector with less than 50 employees, 20 man days per year for each sector with 50-199 employees, 30 man days per year for each Sector with more than 200 employees, and 20 man days per year for the Council.

As previously explained, the Union contends the local agreements from 1998 modified Article 7 of the CBA. However, DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio disregarded those local agreements and subsequent past-practices. Therefore, if DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio intend to hold the Union to a strict interpretation of the CBA in violation of the local agreements/past practices, then they should be mindful of their obligations under the Article they claim they are enforcing.

The Union insists the delays in responding to the request were due in part to the improper interpretation of Article 7 F (1). LERS DeSio consistently stated Local 1613 was required to reduce the list to just ten attendees because of the thirty man-day restriction. However, the Union asserted the local agreement and subsequent past practice took precedent. Nevertheless, to avoid further delays and to comply with the Agency’s unlawful request, the Union modified the use of the man-days so each representative could attend by using only two days of official time in conjunction with their annual leave and/or scheduled days off.

LERS DeSio still attempted to restrict the number of representatives to just ten; however, nothing in the CBA gives the Agency the authority to dictate how the Union will use the thirty man-days. For example, the Union believes the Union retains the right, under Article 7 F (1), to determine how to use the thirty man-days. If the Union chooses to send thirty representatives to a three-day training event, with each representative only using one man-day for purposes of official leave, the only authority the Agency has regarding this decision is whether or not the thirty representatives can be administratively excused without negatively impacting the operations at a station.

Even after the Union asserted the right to determine how we intended to use those man-days, LERS DeSio still indicated DCPA Barlow only authorized ten representatives to attend the training. As previously mentioned, DCPA Barlow’s only reason for limiting the number to ten representatives was the maximum of thirty man-days, not the operational needs of a particular station. LERS DeSio’s assertion that DCPA Barlow must still approve the 15 is not based on any authority under Article 7 F (1) of the CBA; especially since the stations still had not been contacted to determine how many representatives could be released from the respective stations. That determination was not delegated to the stations until LERS DeSio sent an email to station management on March 10, 2008.

6. Article 7 F (2), which states, in pertinent part:

Management shall notify the Union of its decision no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of the agenda.

Based upon the previously cited chronological list of events, the Union contends the delays in responding to this issue are completely unnecessary and are rather ironic considering the fact LERS DeSio and DCPA Barlow claim they were enforcing the terms of the CBA. LERS DeSio and DCPA Barlow should have been mindful of the fifteen days that are provided for management’s decision. Prior to the email LERS DeSio sent to station management officials on March 10, 2008, DCPA Barlow and LERS DeSio never cited a negative impact to a station; yet the impact to operations should have been the only basis for denying representatives under the local agreement and Article 7 F.

RELEVANT CASE LAW

The FLRA has held a condition of employment is established when a past practice is established over a long period of time. In Department of the Navy, Naval Avionics Center, Indianapolis, IN and AFGE, Local 1744, 5-CA-80431; 36 FLRA No. 65; 36 FLRA 567 (August 10, 1990), the Authority found the employer committed an Unfair Labor Practice when the employer violated 5 USC 7116(a)(1) and (5) by changing the procedure for scheduling official time for representational meetings. The Authority rejected the employer’s argument that the matter was set forth in the contract since the past practice was established.

In U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and POPA, 39 FLRA No. 130; 39 FLRA 1477 (March 27, 1991), the FLRA concluded the employer could not unilaterally change a past practice in an attempt to conform with the collective bargaining agreement. In 31 FLRA 952, the Authority initially concluded that the unilateral implementation of the changes did not constitute an Unfair Labor Practice. However, the Union appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court, 872, F.2d 451 (89 FLRR 1-8013) and the court disagreed with the FLRA. On remand, the FLRA accepted the Court’s interpretation and determined a past practice did exist, which permitted official time for both grievance and non-grievance issues. The FLRA rejected the employer’s argument that the action was an attempt to enforce the contract and explained that an Agency may not change a past practice even if the established practice differs from the express terms of the parties’ agreement.

REQUESTED REMEDIES

The Union hereby requests the following remedies to resolve this grievance:

1. The Bureau shall cease and desist from:

a. Unilaterally changing conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees by changing existing past practices.

b. Unilaterally abrogating the local agreement regarding training for Union representatives;

c. Unilaterally modifying the local agreement regarding the full-time positions;

d. Violating the CBA, particularly Articles 3A A, 6 A, and 7 F.

2. Immediate and full compliance with Articles 3A A, 6 A, and 7 F of the CBA;

3. Immediate and full adherence to the provisions of law, the CBA, local agreements, and subsequent past practices, including the rescission of all unilateral changes and a return to the status quo ante and the maintenance thereof until such time the parties mutually agree to changes in past practices and/or contractual provisions;

4. For all representatives who were forced to use one day of annual leave to attend the third day of training, the Bureau shall restore the annual leave to the representative’s leave balance;

5. The Bureau shall be responsible for any financial losses caused to the Local for the untimely response to the Union’s request for official time to attend the training.

Due to the twenty-nine plus days it took for the Bureau to determine how to terminate, violate, and misrepresent the local agreements and subsequent past practices, the Union was forced to postpone notifying attendees. This resulted in a significant delay in reserving lodging and airfare. The Union contends the Bureau is responsible if Union representatives are charged a higher rate for lodging or airfare than the rates offered at the time the request was supposed to be adjudicated.

In accordance with Article 33 F. (1), the Union is prepared to meet to discuss this grievance. Please feel free to contact me directly to schedule a meeting regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Bauder

San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher shows contempt for your Union

1613blog@nbpc1613.org (NBPC Local 1613) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:17:00 +0000

Since taking over as Chief, San Diego Sector Chief Michael Fisher has destroyed the positive labor-management relationship that evolved between San Diego Sector management and Local 1613 since 1998. This is the first time since I have been a Union representative that I can honestly say I now understand why Union officials act the way they do in some locations. How is the Union supposed to respond when the management official in charge of San Diego Sector shows complete contempt for your Union and prior agreements without any rational explanation?

For the past nine years, I have participated in meetings between sector management and the Union. I witnessed the labor-management relationship evolve into an effective forum for resolving labor-management disputes. Chief Fisher, without considering the history of labor-management relations in the San Diego Sector, decided that the relationship was non-existent, eliminated the management-labor workgroup, and essentially terminated all effective communications between your Union and sector management. In addition, Chief Fisher has attempted to unilaterally terminate several prior agreements without even providing the Union as much as a courtesy notice.

Chief Fisher decided that he can do a better job than you in selecting your representatives. So, instead of meeting with your elected representatives, Chief Fisher formed a new workgroup called the Radar Screen Workgroup. Each station sends participants, which in some locations, the participants were hand-picked by management and in other locations the participants were selected by the Detail Management Team. In addition, supervisors were sent to represent your interests.

Now, I realize some may argue that we have always had workgroups in the past (i.e. Quality Initiative Workgroup). However, there is a major difference between the past workgroups and Chief Fisher’s workgroup. In the past, anything that was proposed by a workgroup of bargaining unit members and supervisors was presented to the Union prior to implementation. Under Chief Fisher, the Union is bypassed and whatever is proposed is implemented, regardless of what the majority of you may want or desire.

One of your elected Union representatives attended the last Radar Screen Workgroup. During the meeting, your elected representative listened to Chief Fisher as he praised the workgroup for their ideas. Ironically, a majority of the ideas he praised them for were ideas that were presented by the Union in the past and rejected by Chief Fisher. The following is a list of items from the last workgroup meeting:

1. Within Sector transfers-VRP should now allow for in-sector laterals.

In 1999 and then again in 2005, Local 1613 proposed a system for San Diego Sector Agents to transfer to another station within SDC at no cost to the government. The main difference between the Local 1613 proposal and the Office of Border Patrol’s VRP was that the selections were to be made by seniority since the government was not paying the agent to move. Another difference is that every station in sector would have a predetermined number of openings and every agent in sector, regardless of location, would be eligible to participate.

Chief Griffen was in favor of this program, as was every other management official who we spoke with during our negotiations. However, when Chief Fisher took over, the Union learned that Chief Fisher abandoned the idea. Chief Fisher never had the courtesy to notify the Union of his decision.

As for the VRP now handling in-sector transfers, we will have to wait and see what happens. We have already learned that there are several restrictions on which stations are participating, but for unknown reasons, that information is secret. Furthermore, does anyone understand the purpose behind asking an agent to fill out an application, as if they were applying for a new job, when the agent is just requesting a transfer from one location to another? Clearly the purpose of this application is to make it easier for management to deny a transfer for personal reasons. This is why Chief Fisher prefers this system for in-sector transfers.

2. Create or update station standard operating procedures

After witnessing the manner in which some stations responded or didn’t respond after September 11, Local 1613 proposed that management review and update as necessary the SOP’s for the stations. In addition, we proposed that the agents be made aware of the SOP’s, specifically what was expected in an emergency.

3. BIC and station Intel units providing updates briefings at muster

When operations became more Intel driven and Intel units were given more authority, Local 1613 requested that agents in the field be better informed as to the Intel that was being gathered. One aspect of this request was that station Intel units provide updates at muster.

4. Additional manpower

Since 2001, Local 1613 repeatedly questioned the lack of manpower and resources in San Diego Sector that were necessary to operate under the current National Border Patrol Strategy. Local 1613 also requested that Imperial Beach station not flex east until the appropriate resources and manpower were provided to the station. However, under Chief Fisher, that flex occurred without any regard to the safety hazards that exist when there is an insufficient number of agents to occupy a given area, especially an area that is prone to a high number of assaults against agents.

5. Station to Station Standardization

Local 1613 consistently requested the standardization of policies throughout sector. This resulted in Chief Griffen forming the Standardization Workgroup, which consisted of management and Union representatives. In addition to standardizing the disciplinary process throughout the San Diego Sector, we attempted to standardize the DMT policies. Chief Veal and Chief Griffen supported a standardized DMT policy and Local 1613 worked with various management officials throughout SDC to develop a standardized sector DMT policy that would have resolved many issues that are present with the existing outdated policies. However, Chief Fisher rejected this standardized DMT policy and again, never had the courtesy to notify your elected Union representatives.

6. Contracted Hospital Watch

Hospital watch has been an ongoing problem since at least 2000. Previously, Local 1613 requested that Detention and Enforcement handle hospital watch, as this fell within their duties. When DHS was created and we lost all of our Detention and Enforcement Officers, Local 1613 asked management to consider contracting out that position to ICE since the DEO’s were now under ICE. In addition, Local 1613 proposed a hospital watch program that required two agents to oversee a detainee in the hospital. There were several reasons for this program, but the foremost reason was the liability issues involved when just one agent was assigned to a detainee. Under Chief Griffen, an agreement was reached that required two agents for hospital watch. Under Chief Fisher, this agreement is being dismantled without any discussions with your elected Union representatives.

7. Press releases will be sent to stations. Goal of having several releases per week carried by the media.

Although Local 1613 has not previously requested that the press releases be sent to the stations, we have routinely proposed that sector PIO become more aggressive in releasing positive news to the media for consideration. Since we deal with the media on a regular basis, we realize the media will ultimately choose what to publish, but that sector PIO should work toward challenging the media when they misrepresent the facts. The local’s proposal also discussed the perceived lack of support by management for agents who are involved in critical incidents.

8. Non-traditional awards of gift cards, etc. on a timely basis to agents and supervisors.

Local 1613 engaged in discussions with the previous Chief’s about awarding employees with other available means since the existing methods were restrictive. Although we never suggested gift cards since that money would have to be allocated or taken from the sector budget, we did propose that management award people with comp days. Due to our proposals, the previous Chief’s did award agents with comp days in certain situations. Under Chief Fisher, we are already hearing problems with the granting of comp days for certain situations (i.e. to reward agents who participated with the recent fires).

9. Team Leader, OIC development.

With the elimination of the Senior Patrol Agent position, as we knew it before the across the board positions were approved, Local 1613 proposed that management make every effort possible to provide agents with opportunities that once existed, like the Team Leader and Officer in Charge positions.

10. Limit time on sector details based on training and experience requirements.

As previously mentioned, Local 1613 worked with management officials under Chief Veal and Chief Griffen to revise the existing DMT policies and to standardize these policies into one sector policy. The revised sector DMT policy specifically addressed establishing a set time for details. However, Chief Fisher rejected the standardized sector-policy and instead is working to dismantle the DMT policies at your stations so that we can go back to the days of nepotism, cronyism, and control of the rank and file by fear of retaliation.

11. Early retirement training for agents.

Local 1613 has regularly requested additional retirement training for agents. At the last meeting we had with the now-dismantled labor-management workgroup, Local 1613 requested more training and that request was granted. We realized that the retirement training has always been disproportional to the amount of agents who need retirement training. Consequently, in the past, Local 1613 successfully sponsored retirement training for our members; however, that required coordination with sector officials. Under Chief Fisher, the only coordination we have observed is a coordinated effort to remove your Union from the workplace and to dismantle all the labor-management relations that were established over the past ten years.

A sampling of some of the other items raised by your management-appointed representatives:

Rapid response and dynamic operations based on threat assessments.
Rename sensors according to zones they are in.
More station level STRIKE teams.
Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
Sector Training to provide briefing of SDC Enforcement Strategy and National Border Patrol Strategy to agents and stations.
Briefings to stations regarding Special Ops Units and their missions.
Reorganization of Special Ops Division.
Monthly/Quarterly meetings between stations and Special ops Units.
Implemented online system to increase direct contact between field and the Chief.
Install flat-panel TVs in muster rooms.
Install Chief’s mailbox on Outlook.
CBPNet- Ask Chief Fisher icon.
Increased Command Staff visits to musters. (Anyone aware of these?)
Frontline Newsletter. 1000 copies will be sent to stations and units. Family news to be included.
Training with DCPA Barlow for new supervisors.
Sector Training to explain Intern responsibilities. Field Training Unit program and Post Academy to visit musters to explain.
More leadership training to be held at DTAC and Range.
Civilian analysts for Intel thus returning agents to the field.
Command 101 Program.
Technical Training Course for new supervisors.
Mentor program through Wilson for new supervisors.

As you can see by the above list, some of your management-appointed representatives were looking out for your best interest and attempting to resolve important issues that affect your conditions in the workplace. I am curious how many agents agree that the Agency should hire civilian analysts to handle Intel or how many agents wanted to learn more about the Special Ops units. More importantly, how many agents want to hear more propaganda about the National Border Patrol Strategy? I think it is safe to assume every agent has heard more than enough about this Strategy since Chief Fisher arrived in San Diego Sector.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Chief Fisher does not respect your right as an agent to be a member of a Union, nor does he respect your right as a Union member to designate a representative of your choosing. Instead, Chief Fisher has decided it is in his best interest to circumvent your elected Union representatives and meet with agents that are selected by management. Basically, Chief Fisher has determined that management can do a better job than you in selecting who speaks on your behalf.

Now you may not participate with the elections of Union officials or you may not be actively involved with the Union, but here is the difference: with the Union, you have the ability to decide who represents you; with Chief Fisher’s program, you never will have a say in who represents you. Furthermore, you have no recourse if that person promotes their personal agenda or even better, management’s agenda.

All that is required of you by your Union is to stay informed, check the Union websites, and communicate with your Union representatives (email, phone, meetings, etc.); attending meetings isn’t even necessary with the current technology that is utilized by your union. If you regularly disagree with a particular Union representative on an issue, you always have the option of changing that person at the next election. If the person is appointed, you should express your concerns with your elected Union officials; otherwise, how are your elected officials ever going to know there is a problem. So, you decide, do you want to retain the right to choose who represents you on issues that affect you in the workplace or do you want management to retain that right and make the choice for you?