TWU's Democracy Test

Embattled Transport Workers Union Local 100 President Roger Toussaint is seeking to have his executive board appoint the next vice president of the local's Private Lines Division, which would ensure that someone who supports him gets the job.

Critics of the move, including two men - one a former running mate of the Local 100 leader - who ran for election to the post, charge that it violates the union's bylaws, which they say state that if a vacancy occurs on the executive board more than 18 months prior to the next union election, a special vote is supposed to be held.

Mr. Toussaint's supporters disagree, claiming those bylaws only pertain to the positions of division chair, recording secretary and secretary-treasurer, not vice presidents. That view is shared by TWU International President James Little, who has tried to cultivate friendly relations with Mr. Toussaint - a distinct contrast with his two predecessors, who made a habit of taking bites out of the leader of the International's flagship local in the midst of tense contract negotiations.

We have no way of knowing which side is right. It would seem strange, however, to treat vice presidential vacancies differently than other executive board posts when it comes to whether an election is needed.

And members of the Private Lines Division have been poorly served by a series of snafus concerning the recent elections for the vice president's job.

In the regular Local 100 election last December, Rod Bailey finished well ahead of the incumbent, Neil Winberry, and John Day, but the result was nullified when it was discovered that about 900 members of the division never received ballots.

Ballots were sent to those voters in May, but by that time, Mr. Bailey had left his job and given up his union status for an executive position with New York City Transit. Only 113 ballots were returned, well below his winning margin in the original contest, but he was ineligible to serve as vice president.

Mr. Winberry - who ran on Mr. Toussaint's slate - and Mr. Day have called for a new election, and both have been critical of their union's leader for attempting to make the choice without a vote.

Mr. Toussaint, who until the changes brought by last December's election was dealing with an executive board where a majority of the vice presidents were his political opponents, would undoubtedly like to further consolidate his recently gained control over the board.

Even if using an executive board selection to fill the vacancy would pass legal muster, however, we believe it would be a mistake for him to take that route.

Because of the 2005 transit strike, Local 100 has lost its dues checkoff rights since the beginning of June, and less than half the union's 34,000 members are making payments voluntarily, according to the most recent figures provided.

We believe, as we've stated more than once before, that it is a mistake for members to withhold dues payments during the union's time of greatest need, regardless of whether they are unhappy with their last contract or with Mr. Toussaint's sometimes-abrasive leadership style.

But it is untenable for the Local 100 leader to on the one hand demand that members rally to his side for the greater good of the union, and on the other insist that one segment of the rank and file be denied the right to democratically choose their representative on the executive board - nearly 2-1/2 years before the next mandated election - because of a peculiarity in the bylaws.

Mr. Toussaint can opt to be an inspirational leader or a man who takes refuge in legalisms to ensure greater control of his union. He can't be both.