wildredsandiego

Ad Astra, Per Aspera

Archive for the tag “shane parmely”

Breakfast Club Still Out To Take Over SDEA

If the campaign flyer was to be believed, then Shane Parmely and her Breakfast Club were looking to create a more harmonious SDEA.  In reality, their promises of being transparent, of working for all members, and pushing to reunite SDEA were like make-up on a duck: under the lipstick and eye-shadow…it’s still a duck.

After the elections were over, one would expect the winners to be thankful, and the losers to be gracious.  I was hopeful…until I received this email sent by Shane, Michelle Sanchez, and the other leaders of the Breakfast Club:

(I’m taking out the names of all the winners/losers of the election…you can get those from the .SDEA website)

Email title:  BC Candidates Win Board Majority but Lose Presidency…For Now

Two years of work just paid off in a BIG way. Remember, two years ago, immediately after winning on a “No Layoffs, No Concessions” platform, our union leadership took a hard turn towards concessions, towards collaborating with the district, and away from transparency and democratic inclusiveness within our union. And two years ago, a grassroots group of rank-and-file SDEA members decided we were going to do whatever it took, for however long it took, to take our union back.
 
Today, two years later, that finally happened. Based on the election results announced today, Breakfast Club reform caucus members will hold eight of the fifteen voting seats on the SDEA Board as of August 1. That’s a Board majority!!!
 
CONGRATULATIONS TEAM BREAKFAST CLUB — that’s all of us who worked these elections over the past two years. GO TEAM US!
 But a good Board with a weak President can only do so much. We’ll have the votes to block bad ideas but we may not have the power and influence to move our good ideas forward.
 
So what’s next? Doing what union members do: enforcing our rights. The unfortunate truth is that SDEA’s incumbents broke the rules all over the place. We did not get the fair election we deserved. With full-time released President Bill Freeman using union-paid time to campaign round the clock since January, with incumbents accessing office resources to gain publicity and campaign on union time, and with incumbent slate supporters even using the union’s official web resources to promote their campaign, it’s pretty incredible that we pushed them to victory margins as slim as they were. We’ll be spending the next few days compiling the list of all of the campaign violations that occurred, and we may need your help, so keep an eye out.
 
And no matter what, all of us need to be pulling together and uniting behind our union’s bargaining campaign, or we can get ready to live under the worst contract we’ve ever seen. Fighting tooth-and-nail for a strong bargaining campaign is exactly what our new SDEA Board majority will be working towards, and we’re going to need every single one of you standing with us to make it happen. Union democracy and union organizing are not competing priorities. They are both crucial to a strong union, and that’s what we’re all about!
POINTS:
1) “Take Our Union Back?”  I thought we were ALL the union.  I don’t remember being asked if I wanted my union taken back…especially by people who have no respect for the membership.
2) “Go Team US.”  Looks like we’re not all part of their team.  I guess if you’re not in The Club, you’ll have to sit on the bench while they play all of the positions.
3) “A good board with a weak president.”  Lindsay hasn’t even taken the post and they’re already disrespecting the office. This is a woman who has worked tirelessly for our entire membership.  She has bargained on our behalf, and is working to get us a strong contract.  She (and others) were instrumental in saving over 1,500 jobs last year.  And that’s a sign of weakness?  She sounds stronger than Superwoman.
4) “…our new Board Majority…”  “..we may not have the power to  move our good ideas forward.”  I thought this campaign was to unite the membership.  It seems that the Club is still working with an Us Versus Them mentality.  Expect to see unpopular motions being passed through willy-nilly.  And, who’s to say what is a “good idea?”  People who wanted  YOU to lose your job?  No thanks.
5) “…Lose [the Board] Presidency…For Now.”  This is the most insidious, most heinous part of their message.  The Clubbers now have a chance to work for real reform.  They had the chance to show they really meant to work together.  So of course their new focus is…searching for perceived campaign violations in order to force a challenge to the seats they lost.  I seem to remember last year they went after people in the aftermath of elections…and ended up costing our members over $40,000 in funding.
And they have the nerve to tell us we all need to be “pulling together” behind our bargaining campaign.  Which is being led by Lindsey Burningham, our new President…you know, the one they think is “weak.”
Watch out, SDEA members.  The Breakfast Club has blinded you with their lies of solidarity and cooperation.  Their mission is and always has been to create a climate of fear and division.  And with a board majority, they are now able to push through their own agenda, no matter how bad or ill-conceived it may be.  Be vigilant, lest you fall victim to their machinations.
I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message.  These are the musings of me, myself, and I.  I do not represent any other person or group.  And I most certainly do NOT support any decisions pushed through by a group of people who do not have our membership’s best interests at heart.  
Advertisements

Board Candidates Should Pay Attention When Voting

This Just In:  Leader of the No Waffle Party Publically Waffles! A Nation Mourns.

A Presidential candidate for a Teachers’ Union should stand behind their decisions.  They should be aware of the discussions and decisions being voted on in their board meetings.  They should know all of the details before casting their vote.  And they never, ever, should waffle in public.

And yet, that’s just what happened at the February 19th Rep. Council meeting.  Shane Parmely, the leader of the notorious Breakfast Club and current candidate for SDEA President, approached the microphone and loudly announced her intention to waffle…on an issue that she originally supported.

At the previous week’s SDEA board meeting, a discussion was held regarding the upcoming SDEA elections.  The Board was discussing the chosen company, and the cost of postcard mailers announcing the election to our members.  The members felt that the cost of the mailers was prohibitive, and the Board voted against including them in the contract.  Ms. Parmely, according to her own words, voted in favor of that proposal.  She threw her support against including the mailers.  Ultimately, the motion passed.

Just one week later, at our Rep Council meeting, Ms. Parmely took to the microphone, and indicated that she was now IN FAVOR of including the mailers.  Why?  Well…apparently she wasn’t feeling well that night, or wasn’t paying close enough attention to the discussion, or was confused on the issue she was voting on.  At least, those were the reasons she gave while changing her mind.

That’s right:  The leader of the Breakfast Club…the subversive group whose motto proudly proclaims No Wafflingwaffled.  On an SDEA Board vote, no less.

Now, as an SDEA member in good standing, and one with intimate knowledge of board actions, I can say this with all truth and honesty: Not once did I see Mr. Freeman, Ms. Burningham, Mr. Mullin, or any other Board member vote on a proposal without first getting ALL of the information or discussing it thoroughly with their fullest attention. If a Board member didn’t understand the topic, or needed more information, they ASKED for clarification before voting.  Conversely, in my years of experience, if a board member was unclear as to the topic at hand, they ABSTAINED from voting.

They certainly didn’t vote one way, then publically change their minds one week later.

Is this the type of President we want on our Union Board?  Someone who votes on issues without their full attention being given to the topic?  What would happen if – God(ess) forbid – that vote had been about a contract issue, such as our salary increase or our health care?  What if they had been voting on YOUR grievance?  Wouldn’t you want a President who knows and understands what is being voted on?

I know I would.

And that’s just ONE reason we cannot allow The Breakfast Club to take over our union.  They will take us back to the dark ages, where we sat on the doorsteps of the Pink Palace, dressed in tatters in rags, with our empty gruel bowls held out in the hopes that someone, anyone, would hear our cries of, “Please, Sir…could I have some more?”

If you’ve been listening to their half-truths and lies as long as I have, you’ll know of what I speak.  If you’re new to their propaganda and are being swayed to the Dark Side, I ask that you to speak to a veteran of the Rep Council so that you get the full story.

Come April, I urge you to vote for the Strength and Unity slate of candidates.  They have ushered us into an era of prosperity and respect for teachers.  And that is exactly what we need at the helm of our union.

In Solidarity!

I’m Dennis Schamp and I approve this message.  These are the musings of me, myself, and I.  I do not represent any other individual, group, or breakfast pastry.  But I have developed a strange craving for a Nutella-covered-bagel.  Go figure

SDEA vs. UTLA: Brains over Brawn

Hello readers.  I’ve been away from this blog for a bit, because until now, things have looked quite rosy in our little corner of the education world.  However, with the spring SDEA elections rapidly approaching, the doomsayers from The Breakfast Club are once again trying to fill your heads with propaganda and half-truths, in order to scare you into voting them onto the union board and positions of power.

I say thee, “Nay!”  As evidence, I offer this commentary on their latest barrage of twisted facts, written by SDEA board member Shane Parmely.  (Her comments in italics.)

This past Wednesday, the Los Angeles teachers union UTLA Rep. Council voted to go to the bargaining table IMMEDIATELY to demand a 17.6% raise, plus lower class size, the restoration of laid off positions, and other member priorities. How? What? Why?Because it makes sense.

How nice for them.  I’m glad they felt like demanding things of their district.  I do believe that, when times warrant that behavior, marching in with anger blazing could get things done.  But, the climate in LA is much different than the climate in SD, and we have a better relationship with our school board than they do up there. 

In districts all over California, the money for raises and restorations is absolutely there. It’s just a question of how each district chooses to spend their increasingly large funds—and how hard each union pushes.

The money is absolutely there? Wow.  I didn’t know that the BC had that much pull in Sacramento, to be able to walk in and see the budget documents from the Governor’s office.  I’d love to see the proof of this statement, and how she was able to find out such information. 

On January 9, Governor Jerry Brown announced his planned state budget for 2014-2015, and it involves massive increases in funding to education, to the tune of $10 billion (yes, BILLION dollars) more than anticipated. According to CTA, that means a 10.9% increase over current, already increased funding levels. Plus, all remaining deferral debt (the imaginary future debt the District points to every year to justify their current cuts) is totally wiped out. Um, wow!

Yup, just like he’s required to do by law, the Governor released his first preliminary budget plan for the coming fiscal year.  Don’t those numbers look beautiful?  And yet, as we all know, by the time the final budget is released in May/June, those numbers change quite a bit.  Sometimes higher, sometimes lower, but NEVER what was discussed in January.  Brown has some high hopes.  Does this mean it’s true?  Who knows – but we shouldn’t base our desires on what might be…only what is.

What does this mean for SDUSD? A LOT. As in, A LOT OF MONEY. Based on the District’s July 1 budget for the current school year, our 13-14 ADA funding is $6,813.66 per student. Back in July, SDUSD projected that next year’s ADA would be $6,936.66—a measly 1.6% increase for 14-15. Brown’s 10.9% increase would put SDUSD’s 14-15 ADA at $7,556.35. That’s an extra $742 per student! With the District’s projected enrollment of 104,019 for next year, we’re talking almost $80 million above and beyond this year’s funding levels! It’s also $65 million more than the District thought they’d be getting next year. Again, um, wow!

Ah, yes.  The superintendent’s preliminary budget information makes for interesting reading.  If I’m not mistaken, there’s also a notation in that budget that our district is predicting a several-million dollar deficit in the coming year—at least, according to an article by McGee in the UT earlier this month.  So, which numbers are we to believe?  Again – who knows?  Just like the Governor’s first budget release is based on projections, so goes the Superintendent’s first budget release.  Why…because the district’s numbers are tied to the Governor’s numbers.  As we’ve seen in the past, once the actual state budget is released, our district budget changes drastically from the first projected numbers. 

That is why other teacher unions in California are wasting no time in reacting. In the plan approved by the UTLA Rep. Council, they are asking for raises to begin kicking in ASAP. As in, during the current 13-14 school year. It’s a “get it before they spend it campaign.” Sounds about right to me.

Well, of course.  Because being confrontational and demanding and bullying is absolutely the best way to get what you want.  Remember, the UTLA is “demanding” their money right now.  Demanding is great.  But it doesn’t always work.  In some cases, it’s the wrong thing to do.  Especially if you’ve built up a modicum of trust with the party you’re dealing with, like we have with our district.  To be sure, I’d love to have my restoration kick in right now.  But, unlike the Breakfast Club, I’m not willing to risk our upcoming contract negotiations to get it. 

I really hope that this lights a fire under our own union’s leadership to push for our raises RIGHT NOW. At OUR last Rep. Council, our SDEA ARs voted NOT to push for the rest of the 6% salary restorations we are owed to happen any sooner than July 1, 2014. Yup. Our Rep. Council voted AGAINST fighting for a raise for this year, led by SDEA Vice President Lindsay Burningham and President Bill Freeman, who turned over chairmanship of the meeting in order to speak against it from the Rep. Council floor. The motion to push for our salary restorations to happen now, not next year, was made by La Jolla HS AR Pat Thomas, and defended by many Breakfast Club caucus ARs. But it was defeated after comments defending the District’s budget by Freeman and Burningham, as well SDEA Board member Ramon Espinal, former SDEA President Terry Pesta, and SDEA Budget Committee member/Hoover HS AR Dave Erving.

That’s right – OUR Association Representatives listened to your group’s version of a bullying tactic and voted it down.  Quite handily, I might add.  Based on the number of NO votes I heard after the reading of your motion, I wouldn’t be surprised if several Clubbers voted against it as well.  And while members of the Board spoke against your motion, so did several general members.  While your intentions may have been admirable, the format of your motion was not.  It was an attempt at bullying, plain and simple.  And as we all know, bullies don’t last long, wherever they may be.  And therein lies the flaw of your nefarious plan.

 

Well, the extra $65 million in unanticipated funds in 14-15 frees up A LOT of funding for our District THIS YEAR—funds the District has been “setting aside” to fill their fake budget holes two and three years out. Those holes just got incontrovertibly filled. It’s never been more clear that the District has the money to pay us the raises we bargained back in 2010, right now. Shouldn’t we “get it before they spend it” too?

Unless you’re a financial analyst, and can show me how you arrived at this conclusion, you have no way under God’s blue sky to know what is and isn’t available for funding this year in our district.  Have you sat on a budget scrub panel?  No.   Have you reviewed their budget line by line with a CPA or other financial specialist?  I sincerely doubt it (but would be willing to retract that statement if you can prove that you have).  How did you arrive at the “fact” that “…the district has the money to pay us the raises…right now?”  Please show your work.  Because that would go a long way to make a believer out of me. 

That’s what I’ll be pushing for as an SDEA Board member. If you feel the same, let your SDEA leaders, starting with your elected site AR, know. The voters passed Prop. 30 to see lower class size, no more layoffs, and an end to substandard pay for educators. So what are we waiting for?

Hmmm.  As an SDEA Board Member, you should be pushing for the will of the people – the members you represent.  NOT your own personal agenda.  That’s a good way to have a recall petition started…

Bottom line:  We have contract negotiations coming up in just a few months.  SDEA has conducted barging sessions with over 80% of our members, and have a clear priority of what WE want to see in our new contract.  We have a contract in place now that is working well at restoring our previously-deferred raises.  Heck, we just received another returned furlough day, resulting in an additional .54% salary increase for the coming months.  And that was done without demands, without bullying, without anger.  It was done with collaboration and hard work. 

Marching into the district offices with a demand letter at this time will absolutely divide our union membership.  We will be fractured and our throats will be opened to the wolf at the door.  Our bargaining team and contract negotiation team will have wasted all of their hard work for nothing…and all because YOU want us to be like the UTLA.  Well, if you like the way their union runs, perhaps there is a teaching position for you in their district.    

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.  

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. 

IT’S THE SAME OLD STORY, EVERYWHERE I GO…

“I get slandered, libeled, I hear words I never heard in the Bible.” (hang in there – it’s a long one)
It still amazes me that there might be people reading the Breakfast blog and are still being swayed by their bombastic use of what they call ‘truth in advertising.’  The fact is, my friends, that they continue to relate the same old, tired, twisted versions of reality – useful for a personal agenda, but not so much if you want an unbiased version of the skinny.

1) Their headlines read like a tabloid headline: NEW: No Recall = No More Family Healthcare. It’s That Simple. 

Really.  They want you to believe that, should the  recalls not happen, you’ll lose your family healthcare.  Apparently they also know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, who the second gunman was in Dallas, and have solved von Daniken’s mysteries of the Chariots of the Gods.  Perhaps their next post might read “Batboy spotted in district headquarters!”

FACT: there is no correlation to who is on the SDEA board and the changing face of healthcare coverage in America.  None.  Don’t let them tell you otherwise – you’re too smart to fall for that blatant lie.

2) Now they’ve equated the changes in VEBA healthcare coverage as the fault of the current SDEA board.  Like we have that kind of power.  VEBA is a major player in the insurance business.  They cover many groups like ours throughout the state. These changes did NOT come about because of our membership’s overwhelming approval of our new agreement. These were being discussed at VEBA long before the summer had even shown its lovely face.

In fact – if you’ll remember – healthcare was one of the things that Bill and your board kept off the playing field during the agreement negotiations.  Healthcare was not touched.  These changes are not district mandated, nor were they initiated by the district.  VEBA is a company that is in business to help us…but they need to make a profit to survive.  They are allowed to change the way they distribute their HC coverage.  It’s not some secret plot, nor is it a devious way to keep you from having insurance.

If you had private insurance, through Blue Cross for instance, they could decide how your coverage could change at a moment’s notice.  They could raise your premium without so much as a by your leave.  Because – like VEBA – they need to make money  in order to exist as a company.

Remember – that’s a change in GROUPS.  You get to pick your healthcare every year and can choose the plan that best suites your needs.  These super composite rates paid by the district ensure that we receive continued full coverage at the best possible price. Now, they’re looking at a change in group levels, which might change how your co-pays and/or deductions work.  Just like any other insurance company is allowed to do any time of the year.  Without advance notice.

Sorry, Breakfast Club – this is NOT something that is the fault of the SDEA board.  It’s a fault of the economy. Oddly enough – VEBA has done similar changes in past years…while OTHER people were in charge of the SDEA board.  Why weren’t they involved in a recall effort?  Why weren’t they blamed for changes in health care group costs? Because it’s absurd to blame someone for something that is not in their control.   Otherwise, we’d have have recalls every year for the past several years. Do you remember those?  Neither do I.

FACT: We still have our heath care coverage 100% paid for by the district.  It’s in our contract.  Full coverage.  It was off the table in our Ratified Agreement.  We cannot control the state economy from our small room at SDEA HQ. We cannot control how VEBA chooses to create their group coverage systems.  These costs are the fault of our economy, plain and simple.

3) Notice their tired story about some ‘no layoff’ clause that we should have tried to negotiate with the district.  If you research unions and contracts across the United States, you’ll find hundreds of stories about unions attempting to include no layoff clauses into their contracts.  Many of them succeed in getting the language approved…and then end up “enjoying” layoffs in the coming year anyway.  Why?

Because in times of financial hardships, no layoff clauses are UNENFORCEABLE.  Here’s some evidence:

‘Top court rules ‘no layoff’ clause fails to shield jobs”

http://tinyurl.com/7bzevye

“Court rules “no layoff” clause doesn’t mean what it says”

http://tinyurl.com/9q6ud7q

“Municipalities may be able to lay off despite contractual no layoff clause”

http://nymuniblog.com/?p=1724

FACT: Even IF our negotiation committee had put a No Layoff clause into our Ratified Agreement, there is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that the district would be bound to honor it.  Based on case law, and the continuing financial / economic situation in our state/country, any intelligent person would be able to determine the outcome of a no layoff clause next year.

FACT: A No-Layoff Clause would not be enforceable due to financial distress.

4) Their claim about being “100% right about Bill Freeman, his board and our contract” just doesn’t hold water.  Take a look back at my rebuttals to their posts and you’ll see facts countering their speculative fiction narratives.

FACT: They hope that, by posting the same stories over and over with the same twisted truths, that – sooner or later – you’ll believe it.  “If it’s on the Internet, it must be true.”  That follows the same logic as American legends.  They might be tall tales, but if they’re told enough, someone might believe it.

FACT: if the district comes gunning for us next year, I’ll be one of the people at the front of the line telling them to take a hike – and I bet you will be too.  We’ve done our part more than enough times.  But…this will only work if we ALL stop bickering whining and start working together.

5) The only truthful statement in their post is the concern about the lower support numbers for Prop 30.  There’s some nasty advertising coming out of the other side…even using “teachers” to call for the failure of 30.  Now that’s appalling.  Unless the public in SD sees us working together on this, we’re in danger of failing…and that will be a disaster.

Of course, with our focus divided between personal attacks AND convincing the public of 30’s merits, we’ve got a tough road ahead of us.

Please – ignore these recall efforts.  They’re divisive, invasive, and costly ($35 – 40,000 of your money).

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 group, organization, or breakfast food.  Unless we’re at a church pancake breakfast as a family.  That’s a meal I could support.

Post Navigation