First in a series
Re “Why the UPCC Question? Mielke Has an Answer”
[img]1994|right|Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin||no_popup[/img]Whether the dislike is organic or otherwise, an unattractive adversarial gulf has carefully sprung up – pitting the Teachers Union and Assn. of Classified Employees on one side, the 17-month-old United Parents of Culver City on the other.
The seed of disapproval by the older unions has been planted, nurtured, and in recent months it has formed a potentially ugly backdrop to the increasingly noisy School Board election.
In spite of a strong defense of the two older labor groups’ tactics this week by Teachers Union president David Mielke, all of the momentum for hyping the rivalry or worse is being fostered by their side.
Why?
On May 22 of last year, several days after the parents’ union’s maiden organizational meeting in the lighted back yard of an unoccupied home, Mr. Mielke wrote a welcoming essay for the newspaper that opened thusly:
I am happy to see parents get involved. I am not sure how this group will interface with the PTA and site booster clubs. But parent involvement is a good thing. I have already contacted them and asked if I could come and make a presentation on the comparison data regarding employee compensation from the Los Angeles County Office of Education.
During the late August endorsement process by the Teachers Union and classified employees, one of the 10 questions for candidates alluded to the “anti-union backlash” that broke out after the bitter flap broke out in Februarty, 2012, over adjuncts serving in a low-profile teaching role at El Marino Language Immersion School.
That formation set up bombshell question No. 8:
“A result of this backlash was the birth of UPCC – the United Parents of Culver City. What do you know about this group? What is your participation in the group’s activities? How effective have they been in representing the needs of all of the students in our District? What part do you see them playing going forward as we deal with the issues the District will face in the future?”
Fighting words, they are.
Hardly are the sentiments of one pal toward another.
Instead, in conjures up the imagery of arch-enemies.
Are you now? Have you ever been?
These thorny concepts, designed to disrupt, bears the handprints of divorce court where the angry petitioner is seeking to trap the dreaded almost ex-spouse.
In spite of Mr. Mielke’s conciliatory 17-month-old words, question No. 8 was couched in the most threatening terms.
[img]2189|right|Scott Kecken||no_popup[/img]When Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin, president of the UPCC, and Scott Kecken, chair of the parents union PAC, sat down with the newspaper, they said, in unison, they were mystified by the language, especially since they bear no ill feelings toward the other side.
Earlier this week, Ms. Wisnosky Stehlin, baffled by the tone and the muscularity of the terminology, said she was “appalled” by question No. 8.
Emphatically, both leaders said, as members of the entertainment industry, they are pro-union. Ms. Wisnosky Stehlin has belonged to a union 25 years, and Mr. Kecken holds membership in two unions.
(To be continued)
