Today I’m sharing some reader feedback regarding Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero’s relationship with LULAC in comparison with her opposition to Right-to-Work and workers choice. Thanks for sharing your perspective, E.R.
Progressives always claim to champion “choice and freedom” but they oppose the right to work. Perhaps a legislators personal conduct is the best means to judge the flaws in the progressives’ argument against this legislation and their hypocritical stance that actually opposes choice. Progressives support limiting employment freedom because they are paid by unions to advocate for them and restrict access to employment which would benefit all workers. Bottom line progressives operate to enrich themselves and follow the path that benefits their own pocket regardless of laws or rules.
I guess when it applies to her own paycheck [Democrat Representative] Patricia Roybal Caballero is against LULAC’s constitutional rule that would force her to limit her employment. Her actions indicate when it’s personal, Roybal Caballero is in favor of her own “right to work.”
LULAC-Voice of the Mainland; November 13, 2015 – A Conflict – Representative Patricia A. Roybal Caballero
The Editor: There has to be a conflict. When you get elected to elected office in your community and you are an officer in LULAC, one has to go. Mickie Luna was elected to the City Council in Hollister, California this past year. She resigned her position as the National VP for the Farwest when she was sworn in as a member of the Hollister City Council. New Mexico State Representative Patricia A. Roybal Caballero needs to do the same, leave, one or the other.
Council member Luna’s compensation in Hollister is no different than Ms. Caballero’s compensation in New Mexico. Neither is referred to as a salary. Ms. Luna did the right thing. In ethical conflicts involving public officials, the laws generally state that a conflict exists if there is just a hint of a conflict.
There is a conflict for Ms. Caballero. The LULAC National Board should apply the provisions of the LULAC Constitution equally to all.
I checked up on E.R.’s comments regarding LULAC and it looks, at least to me, that LULAC Constitution bans their officers from holding political office while a board member of LULAC– then why is Caballero the National Parliamentarian for LULAC?
Not hold an elective or appointive political office at the timeof his or her election or appointment or at any time duringtheir tenure of LULAC Office. School Board or thosepositions where no wage compensation or enumeration isreceived shall not be deemed a political office.Members deriving employment wages from anyorganization owned by or that bears the LULAC nameare ineligible to run for or hold a LULAC office, electiveor appointive. A complete year must elapse from the lastemployment date before they are eligible to run for aLULAC office.
Have a thought to share? Email me here or leave a comment (if you don’t want it to be posted as a “BLOG COMMENT” please specify).
This blog needs your support!
It’s my intention to keep blogging through the legislative session with regular updates (hopefully daily!). Would you like to give me a boost? You can give a donation to keep this blog going by visiting PayPal here and using my email “firstname.lastname@example.org”.
This legislative session it is important to have a conservative political voice to counteract the far-Left radicals like the Santa Fe Reporter, ProgressNow New Mexico and the newly created NM Political Report. Any help you can give would be appreciated! 😉