AFSCME critic fails to win presidency of MDOT supervisors union ⁠56%

By Mark Reutter⁠41%

6/20/2026, 1:29:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.8% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 519 faulty-reasoning hits from 316 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (12,770 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.70% of the article peer group.

William Parker’s bid to buck the AFSCME establishment and become president of newly minted Local 6368 failed in an election marked by extremely low turnover by Maryland Department of Transportation supervisors. 
Out of about 470 eligible members, less than 8% voted. 
Rahim Abdullah got 26 votes, compared to Parker’s 11, according to results posted by the union. 
“I was disappointed by the turnout,” Parker said yesterday. 
In an earlier interview, he said the election was poorly publicized and without a committee to supervise voting, amounting to an effort by AFSCME Maryland Council 3 President Patrick Moran to control the results. 
Moran did not respond to the charges. 
After The Brew posted the June 11 story, the local established an election committee and permitted Parker to contact members with campaign literature. 
Abdullah said Council 3 never encouraged or promoted his candidacy, and said he was a victim of a “smear campaign” by his opponent. 
Local 6368 was organized last year after the Maryland legislature extended collective bargaining rights to supervisors working at MDOT, including at the Maryland Transit Administration, State Highway Administration and Motor Vehicle Administration. 
AFSCME Local 44, representing sanitation and other blue-collar Baltimore City workers, has been engulfed in controversy over Moran’s efforts to keep its elected president, Stancil McNair, from assuming power. 
Moran installed Trevor Taylor, who twice lost the election to McNair, in charge of day-to-day operations, leaving McNair without an office at union headquarters on Bush Street. 
For Background 
• Allegations of unfair election practices surface at another AFSCME Council 3 local (6/11/26) 
• With their elected president sidelined, Local 44 members demand answers from AFSCME (4/29/26) 
• AFSCME Council 3 lost $1 million of membership funds in “phishing scam,” government documents reveal (9/26/25) 
• How the takeover of a Baltimore union helped AFSCME Council 3 recover from its phishing losses (10/15/25) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Mark Reutter: 4.9%Baltimore Brew: 5.2%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.5%Baltimore Brew: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Mark Reutter: 3.9%Baltimore Brew: 2.6%Availability Heuristic14.2%This article: 3.2%Mark Reutter: 0.9%Baltimore Brew: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.5%Baltimore Brew: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 2.2%Baltimore Brew: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 3.2%Baltimore Brew: 2.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.7%Baltimore Brew: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.4%Baltimore Brew: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Mark Reutter: 0.7%Baltimore Brew: 0.7%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 4.4%Mark Reutter: 0.2%Baltimore Brew: 0.9%Pessimism Bias4.4%This article: 21.8%Mark Reutter: 7.2%Baltimore Brew: 6.2%Negativity Bias21.8%This article: 10.1%Mark Reutter: 2.0%Baltimore Brew: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias10.1%This article: 8.5%Mark Reutter: 0.7%Baltimore Brew: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error8.5%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.8%Baltimore Brew: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.2%Baltimore Brew: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Mark Reutter: 3.0%Baltimore Brew: 1.1%Halo Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.6%Baltimore Brew: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Mark Reutter: 1.7%Baltimore Brew: 0.8%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.2%Baltimore Brew: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Mark Reutter: 1.5%Baltimore Brew: 0.8%Ad Hominem7.3%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.7%Baltimore Brew: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 3.4%Baltimore Brew: 1.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.8%Baltimore Brew: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.2%Baltimore Brew: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 8.5%Mark Reutter: 0.4%Baltimore Brew: 0.2%Circular Reasoning8.5%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 4.3%Baltimore Brew: 3.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.1%Baltimore Brew: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 2.9%Baltimore Brew: 2.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 1.1%Baltimore Brew: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.8%Mark Reutter: 1.7%Baltimore Brew: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.1%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.8%Mark Reutter: 0.3%Baltimore Brew: 0.4%Burden of Proof10.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 1.6%Baltimore Brew: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.1%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.3%Mark Reutter: 0.6%Baltimore Brew: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.2%Baltimore Brew: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.5%Baltimore Brew: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.0%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.1%Mark Reutter: 1.8%Baltimore Brew: 1.4%Unattributed Quote10.1%This article: 10.8%Mark Reutter: 0.8%Baltimore Brew: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection10.8%This article: 9.8%Mark Reutter: 3.8%Baltimore Brew: 5.1%Biased Writer Voice9.8%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.7%Baltimore Brew: 0.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 1.2%Baltimore Brew: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.1%Baltimore Brew: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Reutter: 0.1%Baltimore Brew: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

316 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers10%attributed speech284writer words
Selected voice

Rahim Abdullah

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words72% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rahim Abdullah: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%Rahim Abdullah: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Rahim Abdullah: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.