Dissent 4 – March 27, 1998
I settled into a station of one of those goofy library cubicle thingamabobs, grading papers. From my lonely thingamabob, I could see the door of the union meeting room, which is important since, sometimes, Sherry [Miller-White] waits until the last minute to leave a note on the door saying “meeting canceled. Fuck you.”
Naturally, the meeting’s start time—3:00—came and went, and no one appeared—but that meant nothing. Soon, Sherry walked by and said “Hello, Roy,” unchirpily, but then she left again. Other union Brothers and Sisters appeared, and we all walked into the room. Evidently, we were waiting to be let into the room next door since someone else had signed out the room we now occupied. I mention this detail only because, in the world of Sherry and the Rep Council, life is just one such episode after another, as though they have all sworn a solemn oath of half-assery.
 |
| Sherry |
By 3:10, amazingly, a dozen or so people had gathered in the new room and the meeting was under way. (As usual, Sherry did not bother to determine whether a quorum had been reached.) She immediately distributed handouts; among them were minutes—yes, minutes!—of the last meeting, which were notable for such sentences as, “A motion by Bob Kopfstein and seconded by Sharon Macmillan, passed anonymously.” Yes, anonymously.
Sherry announced that we would begin with a “closed session,” which meant, of course, that non-Rep Council riffraff were obliged to leave the room. (Isn’t democracy wonderful?) Sherry turned to me and said, “I promise, Roy, just 15 minutes; I promise!” I left without comment, and so did Ronnie Lebauer. We walked to my lonely thingamabob.
Absurdly, from there we could hear everything that was said at the meeting, for the door had been left wide open, though it was rudely banged shut after a few minutes. Then we watched Walt D., another non-Rep Council union Sibling, walk up to the door, open it, and enter. Oddly, he did not exit, so Ronnie marched in and asked what gives, and, soon, they both walked out, which was good, since I was beginning to think that the Council just didn’t like people with “bauer” in their surnames.
 |
| Kopfstein |
Twenty-two (not fifteen) minutes after our exile, the door was reopened and we took our seats once again. The council—or maybe just Ken Woodward—seemed to be ridiculing those who had expressed distrust of the union leadership with regard to the contract ratification election. “There’s no satisfying them!” said someone. “Whadya gonna do with people like that?” said another.
But the meeting soon moved forward. Sherry revealed, I think, that the “6 month” rule in the bylaws (according to which those who are FA members for less than 6 months are not allowed to vote) is illegal. She remarked that the current bylaws contain internal contradictions.
Later, Sherry gave a fuller account of the need to revise the bylaws. There were two problems, she said: first, the election procedures were insufficiently detailed, and so the revised bylaws will provide details taken from CTA “boilerplate.” Second, “proportional voting” (according to which part-timers are only partial voters) needs to be changed or abandoned. Sherry, of course, has championed proportional voting in the past (e.g., at one of the recent Q&As).
We next looked over [Mike] Runyan’s “Board Policy 4000.5” (concerning discrimination and harassment). Somehow, I was not given a copy. Sherry said that, “basically, it says the Board has to obey the law.”
Next, we heard a bylaws update. As you know, at the last meeting, the Rep Council decided that only the Council would be allowed to vote concerning the ratification of the revised bylaws—in direct contradiction of the current bylaws which state that bylaws are to be changed by a 2/3 vote of the membership. Sherry finally acknowledged this, whereupon others exhibited a Carsonian “I did not know that” expression.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kopfstein suggested using a “refusal” ballot vote, a curious practice according to which members who do not vote are regarded as having voted in the affirmative. (See BELOW.) I indicated that, probably, the refusal ballot scheme is illegal. The Rep Council, however, was undeterred; the draft of the revised bylaws, they said, would be sent to CTA in Burlingame (from the 16th to the 24th), and those people would catch illegalities, if any, when reviewing it.
One might assume that, as a preliminary to the bylaws ratification election, members would be permitted an opportunity to examine the current bylaws plus the proposed changes. Sherry made no such assumption. She explained that the bylaws are 16 pages long and that it wouldn’t do to duplicate all of that material for everyone. Hence, she advocated distributing only those parts of the bylaws that are being amended. I suggested that we could not have an adequate ratification election on the amended bylaws unless the voting membership were provided a copy of the current bylaws plus the proposed changes. I explained, further, that it is not difficult to scan and reformat the bylaws in a more convenient form such that fewer pages are necessary. This had not occurred to Sherry, an apparent Luddite. In the end, I believe, the Council decided to provide to the membership the full text of the current bylaws plus the changes.
As usual, Sherry spoke about the bylaws revision process—the identifying of internal contradictions, the correcting of typographical and grammatical errors, the inclusion of CTA boilerplate—as though it were a massive scholarly project. Evidently, she has even hired a typist for the project.
—Am I missing something? The revision process—at least as she describes it—should take no more than a weekend, typing included. What’s the big deal? Also: why haven’t members been solicited for input concerning revision of the bylaws? And what is the relationship between these revisions and the recommendations of the CTA “leadership team” that visited last year? Is the FA being forced to make these changes by the CTA? Inquiring minds want to know.
Eventually, we discussed Propositions 226 and 227. 226, you will recall, proposes allowing union members to redirect the portion of their dues that is spent on politics. Critics view it as an assault on unionism or at least on unions’ ability to collect money from members. The CTA, of course, opposes the measure, as do most members of the Rep Council, evidently.
Though I had said absolutely nothing about the matter during the meeting, the ever-boorish Mr. Woodward suddenly looked over in my direction and slyly remarked, “As we all know, Roy supports 226!” Among this group, Ken’s remark seemed to be the equivalent of saying, “As we all know, Roy favors puppy killings.”
In response, I pointed out that I had in fact never endorsed this initiative. Mr. Woodward then referred to the appearance of George Will’s pro-226 piece in the ‘Vine. I explained that I sometimes include pieces in the ‘Vine that do not represent my own view. (Indeed, in that very issue of the ‘Vine [2/13/97], I also reprinted, without commentary, a letter by Acting Chancellor [Kathie] Hodge which suggested that the district’s problems have been exaggerated.) This point, however, went nowhere with Mr. Woodward.
In fact, I’m not sure what to make of 226. I remain undecided concerning it.
Unfortunately, Mr. DeAguero chose this moment to challenge me concerning 226. He looked at me and said something to this effect: “Are you prepared to go on record endorsing [opposing?] 226?” Now, I must confess that I was irked by this question. Others in the room, evidently, are permitted to hold their views privately. I, on the other hand, am expected to reveal on demand to the Rep Council how I plan to vote in future elections.
I explained to Walt that, in fact, I wasn’t sure whether or not I favored 226. He said, “Well, you have a right not to answer my question.” I said, “I am answering your question; I haven’t decided on 226.” There is, of course, a difference between saying that one won’t state one’s decision and saying that one has not made a decision.
No doubt, at some future date, Mr. Woodward will don his “bratty school-girl” persona again and declare, “As you know, Roy refuses to tell us what he thinks of 226!”
At some point, a discussion of the much-anticipated April election ensued. Evidently, Mr. Kopfstein will design the ballots, which (I believe) will be “centralized”—that is, one ballot will be distributed that will include every item to be voted upon. (Does that mean that, say, a member of division X may vote on the Rep election for division Y? I certainly hope not.) The double-envelope system will be used for this election.
We are now in the NOMINATIONS period, which, I believe, will extend through the 21st of April. (I’m not sure about this date, so please verify.) I believe that the actual election is set for the period from the 24th until the 30th of April.
A discussion ensued about who may be nominated. Any active dues-paying member may be nominated to be a Division Rep, we were told. In the case of union officers, however, only members of the Rep Council may be nominees—or so declared Mr. Kopfstein, the union’s “bylaws specialist.”
Not so. Someone referred to the bylaws, which state the following:
A. Regular Elections“Oh.”
1. ...Any person(s) running for executive office must have been a representative or an active member in Union activities for a minimum of four years.
Anyone can make a nomination, apparently, and there is no form to fill out. Those who wish to nominate someone for office or who wish to nominate themselves should send word to Mr. Kopfstein, who indicated that he is “probably” the one to whom nominations should be sent.
I asked if the membership could be provided with a list of those who are currently in the Rep Council. I was told simply to consult any union newsletter. “Is that information accurate?” I asked. “Yes,” said Sherry.
No comments:
Post a Comment