Idle Speculation,,,,

So the Union dissidents have taken the ultimate step, they are suing Ted Saskin and the leadership of the Union.

Why?

"The dissidents charge that Saskin was "improperly elected, he misrepresented salary figures during negotiations, and he illegally diverted tens of millions of dollars in union funds for his own benefit."

Which, if true, is pretty serious stuff.

Here's my two cents worth;

I think that at some point in the CBA negotiations there developed two distinct camps, Saskin's and Goodenow's. In the Goodenow camp there was lots of fight the good fight - ie. no agreement on a salary cap. I think the Saskin camp started off that way, and gradually moderated to something akin the position of the current CBA - eventually leaving Goodenow out in the cold.

As negotiations progressed after the lost season and another lost year loomed, the players themselves began to moderate their position towards Saskin's, and when the deal was finally struck between the two sides (labour/mgt.) Saskin's group emerged as triumphant in the struggle for the PA's leadership.

Exit Goodenow. Enter Ted Saskin.

And it is here that the complaint seems to have taken hold amongst the dissidents. Not that Ted Saskin isn't the most likely choice, or best qualified or even the likely winner, but that when Goodenow exited, the procedures to install Saskin were not followed.

The fact that much of the Union's machinations regarding Saskin's 'election' have been targeted towards confirming his placement (the Union has held at least two votes to confirm him, i.e. no other candidates offered for consideration, just a 'Yes'/'No' on Saskin) without considering at all the claims that there wasn't any transparency or democracy in the process of how he came to power, gives bite to the dissidents argument.

So here's the thing. Saskin should resign - for the good of the Union. If he wants to keep his job, let him campaign for it in an open election from candidates selected by the Union itself. Whether he is guilty of the other charges or not, the lack of transparency regarding his rise to power will stain his leadership so long as he doesn't address it by doing the right thing.

Saskin has the worst kind of crisis to handle, a crisis of legitimacy. He can choose to try and ignore it, hoping it will go away, something that is as sure to lead to the staining of his career and than if he were discovered to have the extracuriculour activities of a GOP congressman.

Or, he can come clean, take a do-over on who the PA head should be, throw his hat in the ring, and let his Union decide the right way how to proceed. Such a gesture would definitely take him temporarily out of power.

But I think it is the only sure way he has to get the legitimacy needed to stay in power.