One More Bylaws Committee Bomb

I left this bit out of my Bylaws Committee write-up (original post HERE) in an effort to keep the piece short, and it wasn’t really relevant to the point I was making. However, everyone I’ve told about this comment says that it’s too big of a deal to keep to myself. You can be the judge.

While justifying why the SDEA Bylaws should be changed to require all the Board officers to publicly support all Board decisions, SDEA President Bill Freeman gave the example of the TA in June. He said that if the TA hadn’t passed, that the District could have taken us to impasse and that would have been a disaster. At the time, I found the comment funny because the “disaster” that would have been imposed on us would be the exact same new contract that we now have. I had to shake my head because only now will Freeman admit that he opened our contract, that we could have been taken to impasse, and that it wasn’t an MOU or a Side Letter but, in fact, they sat down and bargained a new contract.

“Impasse” is what the District can declare when a deadlock has been reached in bargaining, allowing them to impose their last, best, final offer — which is what the SDEA concessions bargaining team had already swallowed. Impasse is something that can only happen when a union contract is open and contract negotiations are occurring.

Last June, members asked over and over again if SDEA was opening our contract by sitting down to “talk” about concessions with the District. Over and over again SDEA leadership and staff all told members that no, it would not open our contract. Bill Freeman even stood up in front of everyone at the raucous June Rep. Council, put on his best I’m-so-offended-anyone-could-accuse-me-of-anything routine, and emphatically stated that he wouldn’t open our contract. So either SDEA staff and leadership were boldfaced lying to our 7,000 members during the whole TA process, or they were completely incompetent and didn’t realize what they were doing until after the fact.  Either way, I’m not really reassured.

— by Shane Parmely, Twain and Garfield High Schools



2 thoughts on “One More Bylaws Committee Bomb

  1. If board members aren’t allowed to voice their opinions, then doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of a representative democracy? Just because certain members are out-voted, that doesn’t mean their opinion just disappears and they pretend that they agree with their opposition. I believe that’s why the U.S. government has three branches: for checks and balances. If Congress doesn’t like what the president does, our elected officials can call him or her out. If a vote goes differently than how a member wants it, shouldn’t they still be allowed to disagree with the decision while upholding it? What good would it do our union to have our elected representatives silenced?! That is a ridiculously terrible idea. Will the board members all have to applaud now when the president enters the room and not stop until he signals them? What is Bill’s motive for enacting this rule? Maybe I am misunderstanding why this is being proposed… can anyone help me on this?

  2. Pingback: NEW: What the new Kinder, Gentler SDEA Has Gotten Us « The Breakfast Club Action Group

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