Dear Fellow Members of the Assn. of Classified Employees:
Last week voting should have taken place at each site in the School District.
I say “should have” because as of the end of the school day on Friday, a few union members at my site still had no idea about any voting.
Nothing was posted in our staff room, nothing put in our mailboxes, no email sent to the secretary for posting. The voting process was solely left up to our site rep, who clearly did not inform everyone — creating an unfair vote count and an inequality to those members who pay their CTA/ACE union dues, but were left out of the voting process.
In addition, our site rep had one copy of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 6/24/11 and told us that was what we were voting on.
This MOU actually was approved by the Board of Education back on 6/28/11.
Therefore, I emailed Debbie Hamme, union president, to ask why we were voting on something that already has been Board- approved and already has taken place.
She replied that we were actually voting on the following:
For 2009-2010:
**New evaluation forms (which are already/currently being used by site administrators).
**The addition of progressive discipline language to the Board policy/administrative regulation regarding Employee Discipline.
For 2010-2011
**Four (reduced from six) furlough days (which already was Board- approved 9/27/11).
**Modifications to the contract regarding Agency fees.
How does the union expect us to vote on items when we are given either the wrong information or no information at all?
How is it possible to vote on something that already has been Board approved?
Shouldn't union members have an equal chance to vote on all topics at hand before the items go to the Board of Education?
Instead, voting seems to take place based on whomever the site rep chooses or by a handful of members who show up to a general meeting.
For example, the five furlough days of ‘09/’10 were ratified by the handful of members who showed up at one of the general meetings; the rest of us were completely left out of the process.
I'm curious about what Debbie means by “modifications to the contract regarding Agency fees.” Are the fees going up?
If yes, by how much?
Where is the additional money going?
After all, we have the right to know where every penny of our union dues is spent.
Our ballot is a piece of paper solely with check boxes for “yes” and “no.” This means our union can apply those votes to anything they want.
We need to demand that the topics we are voting on are preprinted on the same page as the “yes/no” check boxes. Otherwise, as you can see, the union is going to apply our generic vote ballot to whatever topics they want — and will keep us in the dark about it.
In addition, we have a right to have the supplemental information ahead of time to review it in case we have questions.
We should be confident in our vote.
Not rushed and/or pressured by our site reps.
I am not sure how the vote- counting takes place, but we need to have at least a few non-biased members included in the count because the leaders of the ACE union have proven dishonest and shady.
Back to the topic of the five furlough days from the ‘09/’10 school year:
In case anyone wasn't informed, Debbie Hamme allowed a couple union members to buy back some of their furlough days. While the majority of us took the financial hit of five furlough days, a couple employees only had to take one or two furlough days, depending on the employee.
To this day, no one has been able to give a clear and logical answer to this major fit of inequality.
Isn't it time we come together to get this union back on track?
Are you tired of being duped by those who claim to be our honest leaders of the union?
A union is supposed to fight for its members' rights. Our ACE union leaders seem to be violating ours.
Mr. Smith may be contacted at phillip_smith_67@hotmail.com
