SDEA Executive Sessions 101

Like any democratic body, our union has an elected Board who meet periodically to make decisions about the future and direction of our union. The Board, comprised of 16 elected SDEA members, usually meets at least once a month. These meetings are open to the general membership to observe.

However, there are four things that the Board is allowed to discuss in “Executive Session” which the general membership is not allowed to observe. According to Section 5.16 of the SDEA bylaws:

5.16  The Board of Directors may conduct executive sessions during which discussions shall be exclusively limited to:

1) Hiring, firing and/or evaluation of Association staff;

2) Personnel cases or grievances involving members and the District;

3) Strategy and tactics related to bargaining; and
4) Litigation.

This same language is repeated in our Standing Rules in Standing Rule 2.07, Subsection A-16. Those are the only four things that can be contained within Executive Session, and they are only supposed to be discussed, not voted on. Everything else, including votes based on discussions in Executive Session, is required to be out in the open so members know what is going on. That is a fair rule, because as dues-paying union members, we have a right to know what our elected leaders are deciding to do with those dues.

Recently, the SDEA Board has been having discussions in Executive Session that are not allowed to be in Executive Session. They have also begun conducting votes in Executive Session. That is a violation of our Bylaws and Standing Rules, and raises concerns about transparency in our elected union leaders’ decision-making process.

Here is an example. Just this past Monday, May 14, SDEA Secretary-Elect Michelle Sanchez attended part of the SDEA Board meeting to observe. The agenda included an Item 5.7 as an “Action Item” entitled “ED/CTA Managers Position.” This is in reference to our now-vacant Executive Director position. Three years ago, the SDEA Board decided to make our SDEA Executive Director an independent employee of SDEA rather than a CTA manager, which is what it used to be. Whether or not our Executive Director is SDEA’s own independent employee, or an employee of CTA, is a big deal (read this article to see why), and can have a broad impact on our union.

This Action Item 5.7 was listed as separate from Executive Session Item 3.0 entitled “Personnel Updates.” Action Item 5.7 was clearly not a personnel discussion about a specific person, but rather a broad discussion about whether the Executive Director position should remain independently ours, or go back to being a CTA position. As such, it is something any SDEA member should have been able to observe.

Instead, the Board moved into Executive Session to discuss (and possibly vote on) Item 5.7, and so told Michelle that she had to leave. Michelle and any other member who wanted to should have been able to observe the discussion and vote.

Why won’t SDEA’s Board conduct our business out in the open as our governing documents require them to?

If you would also like more information about this, you can:

  1. Contact an SDEA Board Member
  2. Attend an upcoming SDEA Board meeting yourself. Contact SDEA President Bill Freeman to find out when the next Board meeting is. We hope to see you there!

4 thoughts on “SDEA Executive Sessions 101

  1. It’s interesting to watch the speculation being bandied about as fact on some of these “articles.”
    Since Michelle clearly was not involved, nor present, during the executive session…how can she or anyone from your group begin to know exactly WHAT was discussed regarding the Executive Director position? Unless…someone from the board is intentionally leaking privileged and sensitive information to the public…
    Oh Hell – see how easy it is to speculate on things you don’t know about?

    Please – stay focused on the big issue of helping our brothers and sisters retain their jobs. These speculative discussions on ‘what might have gone on’ are taking the focus away from our real issue.

    • “how can she or anyone from your group begin to know exactly WHAT was discussed regarding the Executive Director position?”

      This is exactly the problem–things being done in secret that affect all SDEA members yet keeping everyone but the inner circle in the dark and expecting trust without any verification. Why keep these meetings secret?

      • Arnie – as with any company or corporation, there are certain sensitive items that should only be discussed by the elected board. This is a function that has been in place since boards of directors have been in existence. They are kept this way for legal reasons – in effect, protecting the rank and file from any legal ramifications that should arise from said sensitive discussions. When instructed to do so, through legal means, the board then informs the rest of our membership about those discussions.
        The trust comes from the fact that you voted us in. At least, I hope you voted. If you’re not willing to trust what we do, you have a couple of options: 1) vote for someone else; 2) run for office yourself and join in the decision making process.

      • Don’t you think executive sessions were happening under Camille’s watch as SDEA President? The Executive session are nothing new to
        SDEA. I wonder how transparent HER executive sessions were. Maybe we should have been a watch dog then also. Sometimes decisions need to be made that don’t LEAK out to the outside. You need to ask yourself why NOW is it a problem?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s