mea culpa
an acknowledgment of one's fault or error : [as exclam. ] “Well, whose fault was that?” “Mea culpa!” Frank said.
One union (CSEA chapter 586) member, who shall remain nameless, has twice left rebuttals to our recent posts re Thursday’s election, but, both times, he/she then deleted them—evidently.
I don’t get it. It's not as if these rebuttals were lousy. They make some good points!
The first rebuttal was posted late Saturday night (in response to The CSEA election brouhaha). The second one was posted two hours ago (in response to yesterday’s More on the CSEA election controversy: “silly season”?).
(Comments are automatically sent to my home email account (and the Reb’s), and neither of us deleted them. That leaves only the author—Member Z.)
Well, we want to be fair and let union leadership respond to our and others’ criticisms. So, for what it’s worth, here are member Z's points—and my responses.
Saturday’s "rebuttal":
“NOBODY is being disenfranchised. Maybe they are being inconvenienced, but there is a big difference between the two.”
(My response: people can make their own judgments about that. Some CSEA members work from 4:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (swing shift). The election is scheduled for 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, which is five hours after the shift. So it would be like a 9-5 worker being told that they can vote, but the polls are only open from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.)
“The constitution … states that the election must be held on the day of the December meeting, and polls must close before the meeting begins.”
(My response: (1) This element of the constitution does preclude some accommodations that have been suggested, but not the accommodation of opening the polls from midnight to 1:00 a.m. on Thursday. (2) Again, given that some classified workers work non-regular hours, it is hard to see the logic of the drafters [of the recent revision] in opting to include the “same day” rule.)
“The voting tellers do not get release time, and we have a limited number of people who are willing to serve as tellers.”
(My response: one of the suggested accommodations involves adding only one hour [from midnight to 1:00 a.m.] to the polling schedule.)
“[T]he change in voting that was accomplished this year [namely, allowing voting at both college campuses and not just at the location of the meeting] did not come about as a result of requests from the membership, but from the E Board itself.”
(My response: irrelevant. And again: that the rules were once worse than now does not justify their present failings, right?)
“Maybe you can say we were short-sighted, but the fact is that no one was complaining about the way voting was conducted in the past.”
(My response: first, one of the requested accommodations—adding the midnight-to-1 hour to the polling schedule—is entirely consistent with the existing constitution. Second, evidently, the E Board did not see a problem writing the constitution and setting the election in a manner that de facto disenfranchises some membership. “Shortsighted” is one word for it, I guess. Oblivious? Indifferent?)
“If the night shift staff felt they were ‘disenfranchised’ in past elections, they did not bring it to our attention. If they had, we could have overhauled the whole system.”
(My response: no doubt these members should have brought the matter to leadership's attention. But it is hardly surprising if these workers—a rather marginalized group, it seems to me—were simply unaware that a change in the rules could be made for the asking.)
 |
| A tree on the hill across from my place, this morning. Click on it! |
“...'silly season' is an expression used to describe the antics that happen during elections. You have a right to misconstrue [the] meaning if you wish.”
(My response: I don’t think I did misconstrue the author's meaning. The phrase “silly season” came up in this post by a union officer:
Whispers. Gossip. Innuendo.Plainly, the writer implied that those engaging in “whispers,” “gossip,” and “innuendo” are being silly, which ain't good, whatever it might mean. And there can be little doubt what that writer means by “gossip,” etc., for, in a post a few days earlier, she referred to three “myths,” including concerns from classified employees who felt disenfranchised by the Dec. 16 polling schedule.)
In a CSEA election?
Really?
Read below for a reality check. Fortunately, silly season will end Election Day, Dec. 16.
“[W]e are not opposed to further changing election rules. However, it is too late for this year – even the moving of the chapter meeting time, because of notice rules.”
(My response: glad to hear that the leadership do not oppose changing the rules! Perhaps it is too late to change the meeting time, but I don’t see how all suggested accommodations entail changing the meeting time. Further, even if nothing can be done to accommodate these members, I cannot understand why the leadership of this union is not apologetic about its actions—actions that leave some members disenfranchised. Frankly, I am mystified by this. Mistakes? —We all make 'em. But then you say, "My bad." No?)
“…I do know that our constitution is based on a template provided by state CSEA. (See http://members.csea.com/MemberHome/Portals/0/csea_pdf/pub_119.pdf) Judging from the template, it is standard practice for CSEA chapters to allow voting only at the December meeting each year. [Most] likely this is because most CSEA chapters are k-12 and comprise many campuses. That is most likely the reason it has been done that way all this time, even though it doesn't really make sense.”
(My response: informative. And I agree. It doesn’t really make sense. Perhaps some of the blame here should be directed at CSEA. Good point.)
“There is nothing nefarious going on here. We are not professional board members, we are classified staff members fitting in our CSEA obligations during lunch and after work and on weekends. (We do not have the luxury of having flexible schedules like faculty!)"
(My response: speaking for myself, I have not assumed that anything nefarious (i.e., wicked or criminal) is going on here. Nefarious is too strong a word. Still, I would challenge the union leadership to ask themselves whether they have erred in bringing about a situation in which some members are virtually disenfranchised. I think it is clear that they have. So do the right thing, even if all that it can be, for now, is a statement of commitment to do better!)
ONE MORE POINT: one reason I have pursued this matter is that I can think of few mistakes (by a union's leadership) more serious than disenfranchising some of its members, especially its most marginalized members. —And doing it for a long time, oblivious.—And then refusing to take the matter seriously when the disenfranchised members complain!
I just can't understand why these people didn't simply declare "mea culpa," then accommodate these few members and then resolve publicly to make the obvious changes to the constitution.
(Hint: you can stil do all that.)
