The above document was the basis for the "contract approval" vote in East Penn School District.
Such is politics in modern America. Such is political decision making. Such explains the problems we face at all levels of government. Which explains why so many things are screwed up in our country.
East Penn's teacher contract was not due for renewal until May/June of next year. Yet, the School Board rushed through an approval based on the above document.
At the October 13th meeting, the "contract" was presented for approval. The resolution read, "That the East Penn Board of School Directors approve the tentative collective bargaining Agreement with the East Penn Education Association as proposed with summary information per the attachment, subject to the solicitor’s Approval. And authorize the appropriate personnel to affix their signatures thereto."
It was introduced by School Director Ballard and seconded by Director Earnshaw.
The vote was:
Ballard, Earnshaw, Fuller, Gannon, Prinzinger, Richwine - Yes
Stolz - No
Jones & Kowalchuk were not present.
At the next meeting on the 27th, School Director Stolz asked for a copy of the new teacher contract and was told that "it would not be ready for a month." Stolz asked how a contract could be approved without a written copy for review. Board President Francee Fuller stated "it takes some time to process the paperwork."
Two weeks later, School Director Stolz introduced a motion to clarify the issue. It required a final approval vote AFTER a complete, written contract was provided for a period of two weeks to review.
Apparently, all the fiscal conservatives got all tongue-tied because there was no second. The lack of a common sense second killed the motion.
School Board Director Mark Prinzinger led the media charge against Stolz's effort. The Morning Call article covering the meeting recounted that, “He (Prinzinger) said that the board does not need to see the full text of the contract because only those figures have changed and the remaining language is the same.”
This raises some interesting questions. If the only changes were the "figures" then why does it take a month to write up a new contract? This sounds like a 'cut and paste' operation which would take less than 10 minutes. Even a fully typed contract from scratch, without any other changes, would not require more than a day or two. So why a month?
And another question comes to mind. If it will take a "month" to write up a new contract, why not just wait? The contract isn't due until late spring of 2009. Why not take the time to approve a contract in a timely and thorough manner? And it might be a radical idea, but why not wait until a complete copy is available for review before a "final approval" vote is cast?
This will require a thorough review of both contracts to see if there are any differences in other "details" or not. Such games have been played before by both unions and politicians. Many thought that the "details" of the Allentown police contract were pretty insignificant. Such "details" might bankrupt the city.
We hear of Washington politicians who don't even read the legislation they vote on. Harrisburg politicians are presented with legislation at the last minute to prevent a thorough review.
Yet, in East Penn School District, politicians have months and months to do this right. And they voted on a 'ghost' contract. Why?
5 comments:
Bernie O'Hare, take down your shameful and sadistic "Troll Parade" blog:
> http://trollparade.blogspot.com
The Banker
This is a bogus argument. Anyone familiar with labor negotiations understands that both Management and Labor vote to accept the specific changes agreed upon, not the contract language that is not changed.
Beating this dead horse just reveals you and Stolz's lack of experience. Just because you and he believe that the East Penn School Board is corrupt doesn't make it true. And if there was anything truly 'wrong' with the Board's actions with regard to this contract settlement, the media would be all over it.
This is a naive argument and the fact that you cannot learn the simple basics of labor negotiations is not an encouragement in finding your other opinions here credible.
Just because something is the way it is doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
Julian, good point! Been reading your articles for over 2 years. You seem to have unusual wisdom for your young age. I'm just glad you are on our side and believe you have a future in politics. Hope you weren't born too late!
Anon 9:54
I know nobody with any experience that you talk about who would approve ANY contract (union, sales, sports, buying a business, etc.) without having a final draft to review.
You display a stunning lack of realistic perception. Are you involved with government? Only those in government would use such an argument. Which explains why every level of government is as screwed up as it is.
I hope most citizens understand this - as they will.
As Jefferson said, to paraphrase, I would trust a jury of farmers to one of professors anytime.
I had an intersting conversation with a wise friend of mine who reads this blog. He follows politics though he is not a political hound like a lot of us. He lives in the real world.
His statement was simple. To paraphrase, "They agreed to that one piece of paper? How stupid are they?"
I think most 'average' voters would agree.
Post a Comment