Re “Did School Board Violate Collective Bargaining Law Suit to be Filed?” and “This Was Not the Time to Tinker with School Calendar”
I read with shock (add in sarcastic background music) David Mielke’s and Debbie Hamme’s response to the School Board’s denial of their proposed calendar.
Do these two union representatives not get it?
Are the schools in place for the unions or the students?
Around budget-cutting time, we constantly hear Mr. Mielke and Ms. Hamme telling everyone who will listen that, “It’s all about the students,” and, “Don’t cut us. Cut the administrators.”
If it is all about the students during budget-cutting times, shouldn’t it be all about the students year around? Isn’t the education of the students the sole reason we have schools? Last I checked, schools weren’t funded so that union workers could have jobs. They are funded to educate our youth.
It appears that the calendar the unions want isn’t beneficial to the students. Even Ms. Hamme admits this in her letter. She explains the educators (she isn’t an educator) are concerned about when testing falls. In an effort to schedule mid-terms before Winter Break and give AP students the opportunity to have more instruction before AP testing, they are looking for a much earlier start date and “the CIF schedule for sports does not line up well with our [proposed] School Calendar.”
Ms. Hamme then tries to explain this away. In the process, she admits that the union-proposed calendar isn’t in the students’ best interest.
“While we understand the reasoning behind suggesting that changes be made, the time to address these issues is before the calendar is finalized, not after. We work very hard to make this a democratic process by using Survey Monkey in addition to forming a committee to represent the best interests of all stakeholders.”
According to school secretary Hamme, the process is more important that the education of students. I am glad that she made that clear.
Mr. Mielke is no better, claiming that “the Board, though, decided that neither the collaborative process nor the negotiated settlements were as important as their own individual views on when school should start.”
I am guessing Mr. Mielke saw a different meeting than I did. The Board, which incidentally has the right to approve or disapprove the calendar, apparently made an informed decision based upon neighboring district start dates and other factors. According to the unions, these factors are less important than the bargaining process and the unions’ negotiations.
Mr. Mielke comments that “perhaps the simplest solution is for this issue to come back early next month when the new [union-financed] Board takes office.” Mr. Mielke seems to forget, again, that the three remaining members already voted against his calendar.
Mr. Mielke goes so far as to threaten a lawsuit against the District because the Board didn’t approve the union’s desired calendar. In other words, Mr. Mielke is putting his vacation and that of his members ahead of the education of the students. I’m glad he made that clear.
It’s great to read thefrontpageonline.com. Without this site, I’d have thought that all School District employees and their union representatives were interested in the well-being of the students. Now I know otherwise.
Finally, Mr. Mielke claims that “the outgoing lame duck Board”: denied the union’s preferred calendar.
The present Board that denied the union’s proposed calendar is not a lame duck Board under any circumstances. With a five-person board, it takes three to make a decision. Three of the five members of the Board will be on the “new” Board next month. Those three make up a majority.
While Steve Gourley and Scott Zeidman might be considered lame duck individual Board members, the Board as a whole is not a lame duck Board. More importantly, the three remaining members each voted to deny the union’s proposed calendar. The vote was 5 to 0, meaning that every member of the Board (two lame ducks and three continuing members) each voted against Mr. Mielke’s and Ms. Hamme’s proposed calendar.
The Board put the students first, above the unions. Predictably, the only complaints have come from the union leaders.
We shouldn’t be surprised..
Mr.Arroyo may be contacted at 4AlbertoArroyo@yahoo.com
