Remember when the CLC was supposed to be member-driven?

We already went through the emails showing that members expected a public Zoom, platform presentations, and a group vote involving James Henry and Mike Caref. The Zoom was canceled, the vote never happened, and Henry was announced as the candidate anyway.

Read the CLC email chronology for yourself.

Now Episode 310 gives us the next phase:

Trust the slate.

At approximately 5:15, Henry says:

“It makes no difference as to what our platform is if we can’t execute it.”

He then says executing that platform requires having the entire CLC slate in office.

Henry portrays candidates running outside a complete slate as effectively lame ducks, says CLC needs its people elected from top to bottom, and later dismisses everyone outside CLC as more of the same.

To be completely accurate, Henry never literally says he will refuse to work with non-CLC officers.

But the message is still pretty clear:

Give CLC control from top to bottom, or they already have an excuse for why their platform cannot be delivered.

This sounds less like member-led reform and more like the same old establishment logic wearing different shirts. Our people are the only legitimate choices. Candidates from the Rhine–Peralta ticket and independents are treated as obstacles. If the agenda fails, blame the members for splitting their ballots.

A reform movement should welcome independent voices, build coalitions, and respect the choices of the membership. It should not require a straight-ticket loyalty oath before it can function.

So here is the question James Henry needs to answer:

If members elect you as president but choose Manny Peralta, other candidates aligned with the Rhine–Peralta ticket, or independents for the remaining offices, will you work with them in good faith?

Or are you already telling us that a Henry presidency only works if members hand the CLC the entire building?

That is not reform. That is a blank check with a pre-written excuse.

Corey Walton is running for national EVP, so I think his record and temperament are fair subjects for discussion.

In this original video, Walton tells CLC supporters not to participate in the “toxic atmosphere” on social media. He says they should not go lower when opponents go low and that they should remain civil.

I want to be clear that the video attached to this post is an edited comparison. It is not the original video. It compares that request for civility with previous clips of Walton calling union figures “cowards,” “liars,” “sellouts,” “punk-ass bitches,” “lazy bastards” and other names.

Profanity by itself is not really my concern. The question is whether civility only becomes important when Walton and his slate are the ones receiving criticism.

Lew Drass

The timeline with Lew Drass is worth looking at.

• In 2022, Walton released an episode “paying homage to my mentor Lew Drass.”
• On May 12, 2025, Walton called Drass a “sellout,” “spineless and gutless” and an “establishment lackey” in Episode 237.
• Drass publicly responded on May 19 in the first episode of his own podcast, DRASSTIC Measures: The Maiden Voyage. He still described Walton as a good advocate, but challenged his truthfulness and what Drass considered hateful rhetoric.
• Drass later went into greater detail and responded to additional allegations in Episode 3: Local Negotiations Part 2 and Lew’s Receipts.
• Walton then doubled down in Episode 239, calling Drass and other retired leaders “buzzards” and saying they would be “crushed.”

This started long before Drass became a candidate. The idea that Walton was simply defending himself from a political opponent does not match the public timeline.

Mike Caref

There was a similar change with Mike Caref.

Earlier episodes presented Caref as “The Expert,” “the honorable Mike Caref,” “The Shepherd” and “THE Mike Caref.” Walton said he loved Caref deeply and publicly supported him.

Once their political alignment ended, the tone changed. Caref later publicly disputed claims about why he left the CLC ticket. He also denied making the commitment that Walton’s side said he had made.

Anyone trying to understand how that relationship fell apart should also read this chronology of emails from the early days of the CLC.

The emails provide more context about the early disagreements within the CLC, how leadership decisions were being made and who was choosing the slate. They also provide context for Caref’s role in bringing many of the original participants together and show that he was not the only person who raised concerns or reconsidered his involvement.

For fairness, I also want to include the response from Henry’s side that a moderator shared.

In Episode 119 of Parcels of Knowledge, James Henry gives his version of what happened between himself and Caref. The relevant discussion begins at approximately 18 minutes.

The same moderator also shared this post from Hope Miles detailing Henry’s accomplishments.

The emails do not automatically make Caref right or everyone else wrong. Henry’s explanation does not automatically settle the disagreement either. Listen to Henry, listen to Caref, read the emails and decide for yourself.

People can disagree with Lew Drass or Mike Caref. That is not the issue. What concerns me is the repeated pattern of strongly praising people while they are aligned with Walton, then personally attacking them once the disagreement becomes political.

The Facebook screenshots

As shown in the screenshot collection added by DM request, the posts being circulated include:

• Grouping “satanists, feminists, anarchists, Hollywood, illegals, media and politicians” together as Trump opponents.
• Comparing Obama campaigning for Hillary Clinton to someone trying to justify Hitler receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
• Calling Obama a “colossal failure” and “a disgrace,” while repeatedly referring to him as “Hussein Obama.”
• Making a remark about Obama’s supposed “Muslim heritage.”
• Using the terms “illegals” and “illegal aliens.”
• Strongly praising Donald Trump and his political agenda.

Supporting Trump or opposing Obama is not disqualifying. Union members and officers have every right to their own political beliefs.

The concern is the language involving feminists, immigrants, Obama’s supposed Muslim heritage and political opponents. It is fair to ask whether someone seeking to represent a diverse national membership still holds those views.

These posts are nearly a decade old, and people can change. If he has changed, that is completely fair. It also makes the questions pretty simple:

1. Are these screenshots authentic?
2. Does Walton still stand by this language?
3. If his views or behavior have changed, what changed?
4. Will the civility standard he asks supporters to follow also apply to him?
5. How will he represent members whose identities or political beliefs are different from his own?

I am not bringing this up to encourage anyone to attack Walton, his family or his private life. This should stay focused on his own words, his public conduct and his fitness to serve as EVP.

Asking a candidate to address his own record is not creating a “toxic atmosphere.” It is accountability.

EDIT/UPDATE: This post has been updated to include additional information, context and direct source links. I added Lew Drass’s responses from the DRASSTIC Measures podcast, James Henry’s account of the Mike Caref dispute, the early CLC email chronology and the Facebook screenshots discussed below.

The Facebook screenshots were added after I received a DM asking that the actual images be included so readers could review them directly instead of relying only on my summary.

View the Facebook screenshot collection here

These are screenshots being circulated as Corey Walton’s Facebook posts from 2016 and 2017. Screenshots alone do not independently prove authenticity or provide every bit of surrounding context. Walton should be given the opportunity to confirm, deny or explain them.

Please review the added material, listen to the different accounts and decide for yourself.

CLC posted a polished video showcasing Anita Guzik’s nomination for Director of Retired Members. Compare it with the official convention footage and listen carefully.

In the original, the chair mistakenly announces Anita for Director of Safety and Health. Someone corrects him with “Director of Retirees,” and he then properly enters her nomination.

In CLC’s version, the video is cut in the middle of the sentence. “Safety and Health” disappears, and “Retirees” from the later correction is spliced in so viewers hear one clean announcement. The mistake and correction are erased.

This is not simply trimming a video for length. It changes what was actually said.

The original mistake was harmless and even a little funny. The decision to rewrite the audio is the real issue. If CLC will alter an easily verifiable public moment this small, what else are they willing to edit before presenting it as fact?

This is not criticism of Anita for being nominated. It is about a political campaign altering the public record to manufacture a cleaner version of events.

Compare them yourself:

• CLC’s edited version at 0:27
• Official convention footage at 7:38:10

Watch both and decide whether this qualifies as honest campaign communication.

Mike Caref, James Henry and Brian Renfroe have all faced serious controversies, but claiming they were “all arrested” would be inaccurate. The records describe three very different situations:

• Caref was arrested after refusing management’s order to leave a post office while visiting carriers. He was later cleared of trespassing and resisting arrest, with the judge finding that he committed no crime.
• Renfroe’s Article 10 filing says he was arrested for DUI in 2018 while driving an NALC-owned vehicle. The filing includes court records confirming the arrest, although the case was later disposed of after diversion.
• Henry’s arbitration award explicitly states that he was not arrested. USPS removed him during a drug investigation, but later rescinded that removal. The arbitrator found no evidence directly linking Henry to the transaction, while finding misconduct in his referral of the informant to his brother.

These incidents are not identical, and voters should not flatten them into a dishonest campaign slogan. Still, they raise a fair question: If members want experienced leadership without this kind of baggage, is Nicole Rhine the clean break the NALC needs?

Review the records yourself:

• Mike Caref arrest and acquittal
• Article 10 charges and attached Renfroe court records
• James Henry arbitration award
• Nicole Rhine’s official NALC biography

Do these records make Rhine the safer choice, or should the circumstances and outcomes carry more weight than the controversies themselves?

Mike Caref offers an ambitious platform centered on higher starting pay, stronger contract enforcement, transparency, training, work-life balance, and defending the future of the Postal Service.

James Henry and the CLC promise to eliminate two-tier pay and prorated COLAs, address the grievance backlog, reform headquarters, strengthen steward education, and hold management accountable.

Lew Drass has entered the race emphasizing unity and his experience as a former Region 8 NBA and NALC vice president. He presents himself as someone capable of healing the union’s internal divisions and delivering results. Nicole Rhine and Manny Peralta offer another option through their newly announced campaign.

Every candidate can make promises. Which one has the record, judgment, temperament, and leadership ability to turn those promises into results and lead the NALC into the future?

Review the Caref platform, the CLC platform, and the Rhine–Peralta NALC campaign page, then tell us who has actually earned your confidence.

EDIT/UPDATE NOTICE: This post has been updated to include additional remarks Corey Walton made in a newer episode. The added material is labeled below. Statements about Manny Peralta’s work history, including the approximately 40-year figure, are Walton’s claims and have not been independently verified. The original argument otherwise remains unchanged.

Watch Corey Walton explain why he believes he is a better candidate than Manny. His argument essentially portrays Manny as someone disconnected from the workroom floor, more of a chair warrior than a carrier who remains connected to the craft.

Then watch James Henry’s reaction.

As Corey continues, James appears increasingly uncomfortable, and it is not difficult to understand why. Corey’s description of what supposedly makes Manny a weak candidate sounds remarkably similar to the criticism directed at the CLC’s own presidential candidate.

If being removed from carrying mail and disconnected from the daily realities of letter carriers makes Manny unqualified, why does that same standard not apply to James Henry?

UPDATE: Walton is now doubling down, seemingly at the expense of his own running mate.

Beginning at 48:37 in this newer episode, Walton again attacks Peralta’s “experience.” He claims Peralta has not carried mail or worn a uniform in approximately 40 years, has never delivered from an LLV or FFV, and has never personally worked with modern scanners or experienced scanner-generated harassment.

Walton even claims that a carrier clocking out the following day would have delivered more mail than Peralta had during the previous 40 years.

Again, those are Walton’s claims, not independently verified facts. But the standard Walton has chosen is unmistakably clear: distance from daily delivery work, current equipment, and modern working conditions can supposedly be used to question whether a candidate is qualified.

The problem for Walton’s own ticket is that he is not backing away from that standard. He is doubling down on it. Every additional example he uses against Peralta makes the comparison with James Henry harder to ignore.

When Walton promotes Henry, decades spent within the national union structure are presented as valuable experience rather than evidence of disconnection from the craft. But when discussing Peralta, years away from carrying are treated as proof that his experience is outdated and irrelevant.

So which standard applies?

When did James Henry last regularly carry mail, use current scanners, and work under today’s delivery conditions? If those questions are relevant when evaluating Peralta, they should be equally relevant when evaluating Henry.

Corey cannot use someone’s distance from the craft as a weapon against an opponent and then pretend it does not matter when evaluating his own running mate. Years away from carrying cannot simultaneously be a disqualification for Peralta and a qualification for Henry without an explanation of the difference.

The more Corey doubles down on this attack, the more he appears to be promoting himself at the expense of James Henry. In trying to establish why he is the better EVP candidate, Corey may also be giving members a reason to question whether his own running mate meets the standard he has chosen.

Was this simply an attack Corey did not think through? Or is Corey so focused on promoting himself that he is willing to undercut the presidential candidate at the top of his own ticket?

Watch both clips and decide for yourself. Corey may have been explaining why he thinks he is better than Manny, but by doubling down, he may also be explaining why voters should be questioning James Henry.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Walton also dismissed carrying a route once a year as a “photo op.”

An older FATA segment adds another layer to the standard Walton appears to be applying.

Mike Caref previously told Walton’s audience that he carries mail for approximately one week each year to remain connected to the workroom floor. He explained this in Episode 160 at 22:26 and again discussed taking leave from his union duties to carry Route 16 in Chicago in Episode 184 at 82:02.

Caref was not named in the following segment, which was consistent with Walton and Henry’s stated practice at the time of avoiding direct use of his name. Walton begins with an anecdote about a district manager but then broadens his criticism to an unnamed union “agent,” annual uniform appearances, and social-media publicity.

Walton’s negative remarks included:

• In Episode 281 at 2:15:17, Walton criticized people who put on a uniform for only a few hours each year and then claim to remain connected to carriers.
• At 2:18:43, he characterized the appearance as staged and said, “You’re using me for a photo op.”
• He broadened the criticism by saying, “There are those that use us for a photo op,” before telling union agents to do agent work and let light blue do carrier work.
• At 2:20:04, Walton referenced seeing “a thousand videos” and “a thousand pictures” on social media. He mocked someone wearing the same clean uniform once a year and criticized using carriers to gain “street cred.”

The clip does not prove by itself that Walton was referring to Caref. However, the matching once-a-year description, the reference to an agent, the social-media criticism, Walton’s prior knowledge of Caref’s practice, and the decision not to use Caref’s name make the apparent connection difficult to ignore.

This also makes the original question about James Henry more relevant.

Walton has now argued that being removed from carrying for decades makes Manny Peralta disconnected and unqualified. He has also dismissed an annual return to carrying as little more than a photo opportunity. If even carrying for one week each year does not demonstrate a meaningful connection to the workroom floor, what recent hands-on experience does Henry have that satisfies Walton’s standard?

Walton cannot reasonably argue that Peralta has been away too long, dismiss Caref’s effort to return annually as performative, and then treat Henry’s years within the national union structure as proof that he remains connected without explaining the difference.

Once again, which standard applies?

A moderator of the From A to Arbitration subreddit is telling members to “fill in the context” and decide for themselves who deserves their vote. That sounds reasonable until you consider how the subreddit is reportedly being moderated.

Posts and comments that challenge Corey Walton or the CLC are being removed, while certain people are seemingly prevented from participating altogether. According to statements made by the moderator, Corey directed them to “nuke” the subreddit and remove anything that was not heavily favorable to him or the CLC.

If that is the standard being applied, this is no longer neutral moderation. It is direct manipulation of what members are allowed to see and discuss.

From A to Arbitration was presented as an educational podcast and community where letter carriers could examine the facts, hear different perspectives, and reach their own conclusions. It should not become another controlled campaign platform where one side selects the evidence and then asks everyone else to “decide for themselves.”

How can you demand that members hear “all sides of the story” while deleting the side you do not want them to hear?

Moderators should absolutely remove threats, harassment, spam, and personal attacks. They should not remove good-faith disagreement, documented criticism, or inconvenient information simply because it could hurt a preferred candidate or slate.

If the subreddit is now intended to promote Corey Walton and the CLC, then its moderators should be honest about that. Do not call selective political messaging “education,” and do not call a conclusion “factual” when opposing information was deliberately removed before readers could consider it.

That is exactly why spaces like NALC_Uncensored are necessary. Bring the receipts. Present the facts. Challenge one another’s arguments. Let letter carriers read everything and make up their own minds.