Code (Lite) Blue: A Postal Podcast

The Letter and the Line Drawn

This episode wraps up the Exhibit A series with a reading of the Executive Council's response to the charges and the full rebuttal that was submitted. All six original charges are now on record. We end with a direct call to action for NALC members to get involved and hold leadership accountable.

Exhibit A Charge VI: Collusion and Concealment - Violation of Oath of Office and Article 10, Section 1

In this episode, we close out the original set of Article 10 charges filed on April 3rd with a pointed examination of Charge VI, a charge that calls into question President Renfroe's overall readiness and fitness to lead the National Association of Letter Carriers, as well as Executive Vice President Barner. 

Exhibit A Charge V: Charge Against EVP Paul Barner - Violation of Article 9, Section 2(b)

The curious case of Paul Barner is explored, where a man who had a hand at the elusive Rolando proposal failed to disclose it, placing himself in the same corner as President Brian Renfroe. The signs of collusion, of suppression, is made clear. 

Exhibit A Charge IV: Violation of Article 16.3 - Bypassing Required Membership Ratification

We start the episode with a revelation from the Matty Rose report; one that can have dire consequences for an already beleaguered NALC Executive Council. We then read Charge IV of Exhibit A (the original six charges)
We cite the Nolan Award and lay out, clear as day, that mediation, not arbitration, had been done. The members of NALC were deprived their right to receive the agreement for ratification, the same agreement they had already rejected.

Exhibit A Charge II: Dereliction of Duty - Failure to Implement Convention Resolutions

We examine Charge II of the original six Article 10 Charges, in which President Renfroe violated Convention Resolutions 12 and 22, failing to provide the NALC membership regular collective bargaining updates.  

Exhibit A Charge III: Neglect of Duty - Failure to Initiate Arbitration Timely

A ship without a compass. That was the situation in which the NALC was in over the two years of clandestine collective bargaining. We dive deeper into how President Renfroe seized control of the narrative, dismissing alternate proposals, shutting out the will of the members, and stalling arbitration. Framed as a quest for a "historic agreement," the truth was far more cynical: a deliberate effort to steer the union down a path that served ego over outcome.

Exhibit A Charge I: Violation of Article 9, Section 1(K) - Failure to Disclose Official Acts

We open the Exhibit A series by reading Charge I of the original Article 10 charges filed on April 3, 2025. We follow that up with reading a key portion of the Weir Report, which confirms the existence of a Rolando/Barner proposal. A proposal that was inexplicably tossed out by President Renfroe, and one that its details were never disclosed to the membership.

Before the Storm

In this very short episode, we reflect and prepare to revisit the early warning signs, the roots of the constitutional crisis: the original six charges filed on April 3rd, 2025. 

Charge VI: Unauthorized Revision of Constitutional Procedure

The final charge accuses the NALC Executive Council of illegally rewriting Article 10 by dismissing charges without investigation or Convention approval. Their April 16 vote bypassed both process and precedent, creating a dangerous new standard where officers can nullify the Constitution without member consent.
Included is a reading of the Final Statement of the Article 10 charges filed on April 23, 2025, as well as a call to action and awareness, a vote of solidarity, and a demand for the Executive Council to call for a Special National Convention to restore transparency, due process, and democratic oversight. 

Charge V: Dereliction of Duty Under Article 9, Section 11(e)

This charge alleges that the NALC Executive Council ignored a formal request for constitutional interpretation - a separate duty outlined in Article 9. Regardless of their vote on the charges, they were required to respond to key questions. Their silence constitutes a separate and serious breach of duty.