SDEA Elections Invalidated by Breakfast Club Breaking the Rules

The votes are in. The results…not so much.
On Thursday, March 28, the SDEA Board of Directors – under the watchful eye of a few Breakfast Clubbers – were presented with the first of what will turn out to be many challenges to our most recent election.

Challenges are allowed under our by-laws and election guidelines/rules. Reasons for challenges are also laid out within those hallowed tomes. They are there to ensure a fair and impartial election campaign, run so that each candidate has equal opportunity to win. Unfortunately, (and once again), some people from the Breakfast Club slate of candidates decided that these rules did not apply to them nor their elite group of members. Once again, the Breakfast Club decided that it would be just fine to
circumvent the election rules in order to win.

According to the SDEA election rules,
“5. District email addresses and/or systems shall not be used for campaigning.”
And yet, that’s exactly what members of the Breakfast Club did…use our district email system to campaign for their board, regional, and national seats.

During the Board meeting, Ms. Nieto, our election committee co-chair, presented the BOD with a copy of the challenge. It included the official challenge, a citation of the rule that was broken (#5 above), and a copy of the email that was sent, which listed EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE on the Breakfast Club slate. Ms. Nieto explained Rule #5 in depth, and the matter was discussed by the board.

Presented with such overwhelming evidence, the board discussion leaned towards upholding the challenge. As it should have been, if we were working from evidence alone.
But, one must remember that there are currently two members of the BC on the board: Barry Dancher and Michelle Sanchez (our secretary!). They, of course, voted along their “party lines” AGAINST upholding the challenge.

Their reasons? Well…
1) the email wasn’t sent by a candidate so it shouldn’t be considered. (See rule #5 – doesn’t mention who sends the email; only that it can’t be sent).
2) the members shouldn’t be held accountable for not knowing the election rules, so it shouldn’t be considered. (see rule #5 above…etc.)
3) The Candidates cannot be held responsible for the conduct of their members, so the challenge is invalid. (see rule #5 above…etc).

So, even when presented with evidence that the rules were broken, our two Breakfast Club Board Members chose to ignore those rules and vote against the challenge.

I ask you…is this the type of representation we want on our board? People who are beholden to a small, elite group of members who only represent themselves rather than our entire membership? It seems to me that upholding the standing rules, by-laws, and constitution of the SDEA would be part of their responsibility. By ignoring those three documents, Mr. Dancher and Ms. Sanchez are not following their fiduciary duty as a board member. Their actions are being influcened by outside agencies who do not have the best interests of the full membership.

This week is our next BOD meeting where – I predict – we will be presented with numerous additional challenges to the recent election, along with overwhelming evidence of the bending and breaking of our election rules. If you want to see how the Breakfast Club will handle these charges, I URGE, BEG, AND PLEAD you to give up a few hours of your Wednesday night and attend this meeting.

Any member may attend a Board of Directors meeting. Lately, our only observers have been members of the Breakfast Club…who take notes, then blog a portion of the proceedings to suit their fancy. If you want the full story, you’ll need attend in person.

I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message. This blog is the opinion of me, myself, and I. I do not purport to represent any union, agency, or breakfast pastry. Unless I’m at Von’s when the bagels come out of the oven at 6:30 a.m. Then I’m all over those puppies.