Ad Astra, Per Aspera

Archive for the month “October, 2012”

What We Learned This Week – Part Two

Hi – glad to see you came back for round two.  The fact that I had to split this into two posts just shows how far they’re willing to go to persuade you that their lies are some sort of truth.  And now:

“What’s Been Lied about These Past Few Weeks: PartTwo”

 SDEA President Bill Freeman won’t allow floor motions to make our election procedures in our Bylaws more secure.

I was there for that one.  You can read more here.  Suffice to say this is a big freakin’ lie, one of the largest whoppers ever told in the history of whopper-telling.  Illegally-presented motions from the floor are not entitled to be heard.  If you want your motions made, you’ve got to follow the rules.

Are you worried that our union leadership will retaliate against you for signing? 

Wow – talk about firing up the masses with rhetoric and innuendo.  As if we’d do anything as stupid as this.  If you want to believe everything you hear from a disgruntled group of people who wanted you to lose your job so they could enjoy a small raise then be my guest.   If you want to get your information from people who routinely disrupt union meetings with personal vendettas, more power to you.  We respect informed, well-researched, fact-finding people…and we’ll also show some respect to people who present well-reasoned, thoughtful opposing viewpoints.   Lemmings…not so much.

It’s official: The 25% recall threshold has been passed for one Board member, with three weeks still to go.

Really?  Just last week they were ONCE AGAIN complaining that they needed the SDEA staff to provide them with membership numbers so that they could find out how many signatures they needed to force your elected board out of office.  Now…less than two weeks later…they suddenly know how many signatures they have?  Methinks I smell a rat.  Either:

A – They’re lying in order to get you to believe their hype and possibly join their nefarious plan;

B – Someone from the board provided them with a complete membership listing.

Based on past history…the odds are 50/50.

First of all, the SDEA’s Bylaws state that it is our meetings, not our minutes, which are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order (they are actually two separate sections).

True – within RONR, minutes are in a separate section from the meetings.  HOWEVER…if you read the section on minutes, you’ll see that they are a part of the meeting and, as such, are governed by RROO overall.  Here’s the reference from the RONR website:

“Not only is it not necessary to summarize matters discussed at a meeting in the minutes of that meeting, it is improper to do so. Minutes are a record of what was done at a meeting, not a record of what was said. [RONR (11th ed.), p. 468, ll. 16-18; see also p. 146 of RONRIB.]”

We – as with any group that conducts board meetings – are well within our rights to follow Robert’s Rules.  To be fair, they weren’t much of a concern in the past, although it is stated in our governance documents that we should be following RONR for our meetings.  Why the big concern at this time?  If you’ve attended any of the Rep Council or BOD meetings you’d have your answer.

We want everyone to have a chance to speak to their concerns in a proper, respectful format.  That hasn’t been happening since The Breakfast Club came into being.  These changes, along with adherence to Robert’s, will hopefully ensure that future meetings will be run in the afore-mentioned proper and respectful format.

Well – that’s quite enough for one night.  I certainly look forward to their next posting full of “interesting facts.”

I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message.  These are the opinions of me, myself, and I.  I do not purport to represent any other person, group, or breakfast food.  Although…I’m glad that Hallowe’en is here because I can stock up on Count Chocula. 


What We Learned This Week – Part One

The regularity of negative postings from The Breakfast Club is almost as predictable as a full moon.  After every Rep Council or Board of Directors meeting, they find something else to gripe about.

Sadly, that means that my posts have become predictable as well:  taking to the cyberwaves to – once again – knock down their lies and innuendo in favor of the facts.  Unfortunately, I was unable to make it to the most recent BOD meeting due to a family obligation.  That doesn’t mean there isn’t anything to talk about, of course.  In the spirit of sharing information, I present:

“What’s Been Lied about These Past Few Weeks: Part One”

Since they continue to present the same information over and over, hoping beyond hope that our cadre of intelligent members will suddenly believe their “fact,” I’ll continue to present the opposing viewpoint.  Here are some of their most recent headlines:

Why is the SDEA Board recall so important? Because if it fails, so does our fully paid family health care.

This falsehood appeared just a few weeks ago, and I countered it here.  In a nutshell: It doesn’t matter WHO is, was, or will be sitting on this board.  Your health care, including Family Health Care, is fully paid for and provided for per our contract.

Their insinuation that the SDEA Board of Directors has any influence or control over how our health care provider, VEBA, chooses to pay the district is a lie.

Their assertion that our positions on the board will affect your health care coverage is a lie.

If you were at the rep council meeting, you would have heard our Exec, Tim Hill, explain in detail how VEBA works, what changes have been in the works for a good part of the year, how these changes don’t go into affect until 2014, and how your health care is closed.  It’s too bad that the Breakfast Club members who were at the meeting chose to ignore those facts in favor of lying to the membership.

As SDEA Vice President, Camille Zombro had access to all SDEA members’ emails.

That’s true.  However, I’d probably have changed that “had” to “has.”

And as Vice President, she emailed everyone last year to express her concerns that SDEA President Bill Freeman was going to open our contract and that we educators were about to make contract concessions.

That’s true too.  In fact, you probably received two such emails.  Were you as surprised as I was that they came to you?

Absolutely nothing about her emailing members was illegal.

I think the jury might still be out on that one.  I still have the emails.  It’s clear from their tone that the messages were personal in nature, and not approved SDEA emails, making the use of the SDEA email contact list suspect.  The use of proprietary information from an executive session meeting – information that is done in closed session – shows disregard for union board procedures.  The fact that the email openly promoted The Breakfast Club group adds more proof that this was personal in nature, and breaks the fiduciary duty to uphold the decisions of the board.

According to Robert’s Rules of Order:

Robert’s Rules of Order define an executive session as a meeting or portion of a meeting whose proceedings are secret. Only members of the governing body are entitled to attend, but they may invite others to stay at the pleasure of the board. A motion is required to go into executive session, and a majority must approve it. Those present must maintain the confidentiality of the discussion, and anyone who violates that confidentiality is subject to disciplinary action.

When The Breakfast Club asks “Which bylaw did her email violate?” there is no bylaw per se.  However, the email certainly violated Robert’s as outlined above.  As such, disciplinary action was warranted, but not taken.

The fact that Camille Zombro was completely entitled to email membership and voice a dissenting opinion in her role as elected SDEA leadership is exactly why Bill Freeman is now attempting to have the Bylaws Committee rewrite our Bylaws so that he can prevent anyone from publicly disagreeing with him again.

Again – another lie. We’re not against public disagreement.  We’re against people with personal vendettas usurping our meetings for their own agenda.  The by-law changes will make it easier to run the meetings with member input that is thoughtful, respectful, and union-based.  Not this drivel that keeps coming in month after month.

More in the next post…

I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message.  These are the opinions of me, myself, and I.  I do not purport to represent any other person, group, or breakfast food.  Although…I’m glad that Hallowe’en is here because I can stock up on Count Chocula. 

Unsung Motions have Breakfast Club Up In Arms!

Good Evening Mister and Misses America and all the ships at sea.  FLASH!

Bill Freeman Kills Motion for Secure Elections?

Wow.   I didn’t know that Bill Freeman had that kind of power: able to ‘kill’ just by speaking?  As you might expect, from the fanatical tabloid headline, the facts from the meeting are a far cry from the Breakfast Club’s version of events.

Here again a point by point fact check, along with some in-depth analysis: (italics are from the latest Breakfast Club post)

Point  1: SDEA President Bill Freeman won’t allow floor motions to make our election procedures in our Bylaws more secure.

Pinocchio Factor – 5: What a whopper!

 Motions are allowed during specific periods of a council meeting or board meeting.  These motions were being made at the wrong time, and there was no advance notice of their request on the agenda.  Therefore, they were out of order, and were properly ruled so by the President.  Perhaps the Club should review proper parliamentary procedure for future reference.  Ms. Abts may grouse all she wants…the fact is she didn’t follow proper procedure, and was rightly stopped from making her motion.  Bill didn’t “kill” anything; he exercised his right as the leader of an elected body to refuse hearing improper motions.

And: to be perfectly clear – our elections have always been secure.  There has NEVER been any evidence of vote tampering, ballot stuffing, or other improper behavior.  To imply that our election procedure is not secure is an insult to this great organization.  The ballot procedures in place have been used for decades…even during the previous administration.  So why are they being called into question now?  Just another bit of evidence to show this is a personal attack, and not a political one.

Point 2: SDEA Executive Director Tim Hill announces that SDEA agrees with the District: Our elected ARs can’t put union materials in member mailboxes without SDEA’s approval.

Pinocchio Factor – 1: It’s the truth!

Tim Hill correctly restated district policy as it applies to the district-owned mailboxes.  They may be used for official district business OR official SDEA business.  Flyers, handouts, cheat sheets, and the like that are not official SDUSD or SDEA documents are not allowed.  That is why you should not find any literature from the Breakfast Club sitting in your school mailbox – it’s against the rules.

Contrary to their twisting of the facts, items from The Breakfast Club ARE NOT APPROVED BY EITHER THE SDEA OR THE SDUSD!  If you should find any documents from their organization in your district mailbox you should contact your Area Representative or a SDEA board member immediately.  Be sure to hang on to the document in question, and deliver it to us with all haste.  Thank you.

Point 3:  SDEA still refuses to provide recall petitioners with the number of members until after the recall deadline passes. 

Pinocchio Factor – 1: It’s the truth!

Standing Rule O4, regarding recalls…again.  This is the 3rd time (that I know of) that Shane, Bobbie, and the other Clubbers have asked for this info, only to be turned down – not only by SDEA but by the ELECTION COMMITTEE!  You know: the people in charge of the recall procedure.  Their broken record request is beginning to show the people that this recall attempt is personal, not political.  They want us out at all costs and they’re willing to bend the rules anyway they can to see their objectives come to fruition.  How long will they continue to interrupt our council meetings with their personal vendetta? Only YOU have the answer to that, dear reader.

Point 4: SDEA makes final push to pass Prop. 30 and defeat Prop. 32

Pinocchio Factor – 1: It’s the truth!

And so it should be.  That is what we should all be working towards: a united membership against a united cause.  Not having to deal with petty prattling or personal panarchy.

Let’s get our rep council meeting back where it should be: dealing with real issues and site matters…and not these sad attempts at a governmental overthrow (their site frequently discusses “taking back the union.” )

I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message.  These are the opinions of me, myself, and I.  I do not purport to represent any person, organization, or breakfast food.  However, after trying the new Bear Naked Granola, I would totally do a commercial for it. 

FACT CHECK: By-Laws Committee Meeting

I know this post could be considered a bit late, since it deals with a committee meeting from over a month ago.  And yet, the information I was just given is quite revealing, and I felt that it should be shared with you, dear reader.

Back in September, Shane Parmely attended the by-laws committee meeting.  I’m going to guess that she attempted to take accurate notes.  Then, on Sept. 26, she posted a blog entry on The Breakfast Club outlining her viewpoint of what transpired at that meeting.  Her comments are rather damning, if taken at face value.  Naturally, when her post is compared to the official minutes of the meeting, you’ll see that her comments begin to unravel, showing once again that the Club believes that twisting the facts to their own purposes will convince you that they are right.  For my sake, and the sake of thousands of our brothers and sisters, I genuinely hope that you are not gullible enough to fall for their plan.

As to giving you the original link to the referenced post at their own website…I think I shan’t.  I’d rather not promote their blog.  But I have faith that you will seek it out on your own, then return here for the truth.

I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message.  These are the musings of me, myself, and I.  I do not purport to represent any other person, group, or breakfast food.  Although I do remember a lovely morning repast at a small hotel in Lucerne, Switzerland back in 1994 that was quite lovely.  

Teacher of the Year Supports SDEA Leadership

Thank Goodness for people Like Joey Lepetri.

Mr. Lepetri is the 12/13 Middle School Teacher of the Year, and a staunch supporter of SDEA.  He is a 17 year veteran teacher.  I wish I could get to know more people like him.

Recently, he created a flyer, outlining why he will NOT be signing any recall petitions.  I humbly share his viewpoints with you, in his own words:

Why I choose not to sign a recall petition: 

1) A recall will create dissension when we desperately need to work together.  A recall will divert our attention away from critical issues.  For example, we need to be unified to pass Prop 30 and defeat Prop 32 on November 6th. 

2) SDEA members spoke democratically last year.  We need to move forward in unity.  Even though I am sympathetic that there may be some hurt feelings and disappointment, we have a moral obligation to honor the election results. 

3) The tentative agreement was approved by over 3,000 members, not just the SDEA leadership. 

4) SDEA leadership received many emails from members as well as parents requesting that SDEA communicate and collaborate with the district to resolve the budget crisis in order to avoid layoffs, protect our classrooms, and keep our students safe. 

5) Many of the proposed recalls are targeting elected leaders who are in their final terms and cannot run again.  Others will have a chance to run at the appropriate time. 

As a teacher with 17 years in our district, I have chosen not to sign a recall for any SDEA Board members. 

Joey Lepetri

2012-2013 SDUSD Middle School Teacher of the Year. 

Thank you, Joey.  Not just for your service to our students, but to your commitment to our membership.  Hopefully, more people like you will take a stand and Just Say No.

I’m Dennis Schamp, and I approve this message.  

Standing Rules Are Called RULES for a Reason

Don’t you hate opening up your email and finding that most of your messages are just spam.  Not the tasty kind, either.  You know what I mean: ads for medical supplies, requests to join some community or group, people phishing for your personal information.  I’d rather be forced to listen to [insert your most hated musical group here]  than deal with that.

Well, if you’re not careful, you may have to deal with unwanted emails from another source – The Breakfast Club.  I don’t know about you but, personally speaking, that is not something that I want clogging up my email inbox.

At last night’s rep council meeting, Shane Parmely and her Club once again tried to usurp our standing rules in their continued attempt to gather a complete listing of every single person in our membership.  She and her friends – who are behind these insidious recall efforts – want our Union to provide them with the names and contact information of every single member.  They continue to demand that our board  provide them with this information.

This is not the first time this has happened.  Several weeks ago, they tried the same thing, and were turned down…by the head of the election committee.  You know – the people who have been tasked to make sure that the recall procedures are followed fairly.

Of course, when the rules were explained to them, their answer was not “Oh, OK, thanks for the information.  I’ll be sure we do this fairly.”  Oh no.  As expected, Shane and her Club raised Cain, and began spreading lies about our board.  “They don’t even know how many members they have,” their blog claimed. “They’re taking your money for dues and don’t even know who you are,” they implied.

It’s sad to think that, in 2012, educators must resort to throwing tantrums them they don’t get their way…even after the rules are explained to them.  Several times.  By different people.  Here’s the rule:

Standing Rule regarding recalls within SDEA: 

 Section O:

4.  Monies from a unit’s treasury or indirect contributions in the form of use of a unit’s assets, facilities, staff, equipment, mailings, good will and credit, or in‐kind services must not be used in the recall process.

I don’t know about you, but to me that’s pretty straight forward:  Anyone running, initiating, or involved in a recall process CANNOT make use of SDEA staff to get information.

Even a non-union person would understand (I know – I read it to several people, and they agreed with me).  But – rather than follow the rules, Shane again asked the board to release your personal information to the Breakfast Club.  Our Board replied by reading her the rule – again – and telling her no – again.

But wait, she cried.  The secretary of SDEA is tasked with keeping a complete listing of all members within our union.  SHE isn’t a member of the SDEA staff, so SHE would be able to provide the Breakfast Club with our personal information.  Not so, we explained to her.  The membership list is the property of SDEA…NOT the property of the secretary.  That makes it part of the SDEA’s responsibility and therefore falls under the same Standing Rule.  As you might expect, the Breakfast Club didn’t like that.  Voices were raised, yelling again ensued, and rather than listen to the rules, Shane and her group continued their attack.

This exchange from last night’s rep council meeting can only lead to one conclusion: These recalls are not political in nature, but a personal attack against the members of our board.  When a reasonable person is denied a request, and is shown a legal ruling why, a reasonable person would decide to follow the rules.  Instead, the Breakfast Club tries time and time again to break our Standing Rules to get their way.  Their personal vendetta against our union is a slap in the face to our membership.

So, gentle reader, I ask you:  Do you want members of the Breakfast Club getting a hold of your personal information for their purposes?  Do you want emails filled with lies cluttering your in-boxes?  Do want people with a personal vendetta to destroy our union using your email address for their nefarious purposes?

If not, I urge you to write, email, blog, or Facebook on their site and tell them to stop.  Tell them to leave you out of their personal vendetta against our board.  Tell them to stop disrupting our meetings with their yelling.  Tell them to get back to the business of passing Proposition 30 and defeating Proposition 32.

Because THAT’s what we should all be working towards…not a personal attack against the membership of SDEA. .

I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message.  These are the opinions of me, myself, and I.  I do not purport to represent any other person, group, or breakfast food…unless my kids bring me breakfast in bed – even if they burn the eggs. 

Post Navigation