by Chip Mosher

Las Vegas City Life

October 11, 2007

THE TEACHER WAS ON THE PHONE asking a simple question. What happened to his arbitration hearing regarding the issue of a rogue administrator severely punishing him for doing the right thing? On the other end of the line, a Clark County Education Association (teachers' faux union) representative, Steven Horner, confessed confusion as to why, after nearly four years, the arbitration hadn't been held, since the average turnaround time to conduct such an independent hearing was 12 to 18 months. He said he'd find the problem and promised to call the teacher back with his case's status.

The teacher never heard back from Horner. Following multiple failed attempts to contact him again by phone and e-mail, the teacher finally gave up in a despair common to teachers who've had to rely on their faux union for such amateurish support in labor disputes.

Months later, the teacher ran into the evasive Horner at a picnic and, because they'd never met, introduced himself. The conversation went something like this:

"Yes, I know who you are," said Horner.

"Why didn't you call me back, as you promised to, about my arbitration that simply vanished into thin air?" asked the teacher.

"Because my boss told me not to contact you. I was just following orders," he answered.

"Like the Nazis?" the teacher said.

"Hey. Even you teachers have to bend over for your jobs on occasion, too," explained Horner.

"Only because teachers have been stuck with the Clark County Education Association to represent them against the school district," the teacher replied.

With that, Horner turned and walked away. How do I know this? Because I was the teacher.

That was last spring. This past week Horner's name popped up again at a local school. Recently, much to the amazement of many veteran teachers, their faux union is surprisingly showing up on campuses, trying to improve its decade-long image as an absentee, ineffective union. Sadly, though, this is not to fix its chronic incompetence, but rather the union is suddenly erecting a false front of concern for teachers -- in order to counter Teamsters Local Union 14, which also is vying for the right to represent the valley's teachers.

As part of the faux union's propaganda push, Horner was scheduled to appear at a school where, for teachers, he was a no-show. Exhausted teachers waited for him long after the school day ended. They had questions. Serious questions. Yet he didn't arrive. In his defense, Horner has said he came to the school's cafeteria, but didn't know exactly where to go for the meeting. After going to the main office, he apparently didn't possess the mental acuity to phone or page his female contact at the school, about where the meeting was. It was in her room, where the tired teachers were waiting, seemingly for Godot. Or, for a union to finally represent their interests.

And Horner's explanation?

"I did arrive at 2:05 and tried to check in no one [sic] was at the front desk however [sic] the AP [assistant principal's] secretary gave me directions, [sic] I will gladly reschedule at your convenience" [sic], Horner wrote to an unhappy teacher.

Note the shaky grammar.

Last year another teacher, being brutally terminated by the district, had been represented by Horner. Although she'd had many years of excellent evaluations in the L.A. Unified School District, this was her probationary year teaching in Clark County. Here, according to her, she'd been railroaded by a mean-spirited, vindictive principal -- a common occurrence in the district. Her contention was supported by several colleagues.

"I have called numerous times and I have not received any response to my inquiries regarding my termination. I am requesting a phone call from my union representative," she e-mailed Horner.

Days later, Horner e-mailed back: "As i told at our last meeting once the letter of non-renewal is issued then I turn over the documents to the lawyers. They will handle the the issues"

Again, note the grammar. This, from a man who represents teachers against district lawyers in disciplinary hearings.

The unlucky teacher, now gone from the district, responded to Horner: "That's the point. There have been no additional meetings, nor have you responded to my phone calls since the notice of my non-renewal."

Unfortunately, the elusive Steven Horner typifies the representation too many teachers get from their faux union, the Clark County Education Association. Sad to say.

Chip Mosher is a simple classroom teacher and faux union member.

by Chip Mosher

Las Vegas City Life

October 4, 2007

DEAR READER, I wanted to avoid the banality of school district issues this week by writing about the passing of French mime Marcel Marceau, and dead Buddhist monks on the streets of Myanmar. By writing about the death of such beautiful silence and, again, about the death of such beautiful silence. But not to be. C'est la vie.

Instead, I made the mistake of viewing local journalist Jon Ralston's gripping TV show Face To Face, which this past week featured leaders of two unions vying to represent teachers' interests in Las Vegas. Mary Ella Holloway, president of the Clark County Education Association -- teachers' current faux union -- verbally squared off against teacher Ron Taylor, a spokesperson for Teamsters Local Union 14.

The program started out predictably enough, each participant rhetorically jabbing and parrying politely, with both scoring minor points. Until halfway through the all-too-short 15-minute debate -- when Holloway, attempting to forensically sucker-punch Taylor, blurted out a doozy.

"We have access to his files," said Holloway, sounding and looking like J. Edgar Hoover in drag, while trying to discredit Taylor, a former member of her union.

Preceding and provoking this incendiary comment, the pit-bull-like host Ralston quoted, from an old news report, the executive director of the teachers' faux union, John Jasonek, who'd disparagingly said that Taylor had worked at five different local schools. But Taylor, a sought-after computer expert, responded -- honestly, it seemed -- that it was really six schools, in 15 years, where he was recruited by principals for his expertise.

On a video news clip, the faux union's Executive Director Jasonek, to trash Taylor, said: "Instead of being some righteous effort to make change from within, his [Taylor's] goal was to land a job with the Teamsters."

It's an odd statement from the top man at the teachers' faux union. Why? Because, according to inside sources, Jasonek led an effort last year to successfully oust Ron Taylor from this union, due to Taylor's efforts to create change inside the union -- the one which provides the bread and butter of Jasonek's documented personal financial affluence.

Following this insightful news clip, the debate took a turn toward the heart of the matter facing local teachers. This was the dialogue:

Ralston: You're just trying to hurt his (Taylor's) credibility, aren't you?

Holloway: We have access to his files -- but we can't talk about it.

Taylor: You have access to my files? You have access to my personnel files?

Holloway: No, no, no. The ones that are-- I-- I-- when CCEA--

Ralston: You see why he's so upset, if you have access to his personnel files? And it's said the school district is in bed with you--

Holloway: Please. Please. Please, Jon. It's not the personnel files. It's the files we have at CCEA when we do business with our-- with our people.

Ralston: That would have nothing to do with whether he's recruited by the principal of one of these schools or not.

Holloway: I think it would tell why he's changed schools so many times.

Whoops. After admitting she had access to Taylor's files and that she "can't talk about it," Holloway actually spoke about Taylor's files. "I think it would tell why he's changed schools so many times," she unethically said to Ralston. Thus, in her floundering, she ignored her own words and, even worse, Taylor's right to privacy.

On top of that, Holloway's weak implication that there was something nefarious about Taylor because of his "files" does little more than make a veteran teacher laugh. To many of those who have been around the school district a while, it is believed that many devious principals have often tried to keep good teachers in their schools by poisoning those teachers' personnel folders with outright lies. It's a pattern of Clark County School District ruthlessness against which the faux union's leadership, Holloway and Jasonek specifically, has consistently failed to protect teachers. Together, Holloway and Jasonek have bungled guarding the salaries and rights of Las Vegas teachers for most of a decade.

And during that time, 5,000 new teachers have disappeared from the district every five years. With the quietude of mimes. Or the silence of dead monks. Each with his own horror story to tell about those in charge, who, apparently, have had access to their files. C'est la vie.

Chip Mosher is a simple classroom teacher and faux union member.

Union making play for teachers

Teamsters say CCEA representation lacking

By ALAN MAIMON

Las Vegas Review-Journal

Armed with a litany of complaints against the Clark County Education Association, a local Teamsters union is fighting to bring teachers into its fold.

For months, representatives of Teamsters Local 14 have scoured public records and crunched numbers in search of ways to discredit the union that represents teachers.

At a news conference this afternoon, they plan to share their findings.

The goal is to convince a majority of the district's 18,000 teachers that the Teamsters can provide more effective representation, said Ron Taylor, a school district teacher and Teamsters organizer.

It's new terrain for a local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a spokesman said.

Galen Munroe, who is based in the group's headquarters in Washington, D.C., said he isn't aware of any school district in the country whose teachers are represented by Teamsters.
Taylor, a computer science teacher at High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs, hopes that will soon change.

"The biggest concern is that an association that represents teachers isn't watching out for the concerns of teachers," Taylor said. "That's what we'll do."

Local 14, which was chartered in 1955 and represents about 3,300 blue- and white-collar workers in Southern Nevada, needs to win the support of more than half of all teachers in the district to oust the current union.

The Teamsters couldn't meet that threshold when it recently tried to take over representation of the school district's support staff.

It plans to make a formal challenge to the teachers union as early as November.
To help woo teachers, the Teamsters are targeting both the education association and a community foundation that partners with the union.

Union officials also have concerns about the solvency of the Teachers Health Trust and the relationship between the union and school district.

A common thread through more than 100 pages of public records compiled by the Teamsters is the activities of John Jasonek, executive director of the teachers union and community foundation.

The foundation uses government funding and private donations to administer grants and other education-related programs.

A Review-Journal analysis of documents independently obtained by the newspaper raises questions about Jasonek's roles in the organizations.

He received $129,000 for 12 hours of work per week at the foundation between Sept. 1, 2004, and Aug. 31, 2005, according to the foundation's most recently available federal tax forms.
Another official received $124,500 in compensation from the organization.

Those payments accounted for a large chunk of the $625,000 the foundation spent on overhead that year. The foundation administered $813,000 in program services, which accounted for only 57 percent of its overall expenditures.

Both Jasonek's salary and the amount the foundation spent on administrative costs are far above national averages, according to Charity Navigator, a New Jersey-based evaluator of charities.

Several larger foundations in school districts including Houston and Dallas have spent less than 10 percent on overhead in recent years, a Review-Journal analysis of tax forms shows. None of the officers in those foundations has made a penny for their work.

Jasonek said the Teamsters are looking only at salaries and ignoring the good work of the foundation.

"I'm a little bit tired of it," Jasonek said. "You end up with a lot of innuendo and no charges. ... If somebody thinks we're doing something wrong, they should take it to some agency. I'm not going to sit here and justify what we do."

Since forming in 2000, the foundation has launched several initiatives, including the Student to Teacher Enlistment Project (STEP), a program that pays for the tuition and books of a group of Nevada State College and College of Southern Nevada students who commit to teaching in the district for four years after graduating from college.

Jasonek said his foundation's 2004 tax return, which was submitted to the federal government after several delays, doesn't tell the whole story.

For one thing, he works more than 12 hours a week, he said.

"I don't know where that number comes from," he said.

Public records show Jasonek made another $134,000 in the 2004 tax year in his role as executive director of the teachers union. The foundation's tax return says the union and foundation "reimburse each other" for certain expenses.

Jessica Word, an assistant professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who specializes in the management of nonprofit groups, said that line is troubling, "In general, if someone has decision-making authority over both sets of organizations and funding is passed back and forth, it's a basic conflict of interest," she said.

Taylor said he wants the teachers union and foundation to address his group's concerns. "Every time I confront anybody about this stuff, I get a different answer," he said. "I'd like to see them step up and explain what's going on."

by ANDREW KIRALY

September 20, 2007

Las Vegas CityLife

NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT: From September 2004 to August 2005, Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Jasonek picked up an extra $129,043 salary.

That's in addition to what he's already making in his official job as a top officer of the county teachers' union, for which Jasonek was paid $134,706 during the same period.

Jasonek's sweet little side gig is for the Clark County Education Association Community Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by the teachers' union. The foundation helps recruit minority teachers, tutors students in at-risk schools, doles out scholarships, and gives small grants to teachers to help out with everything from Elmer's Glue to buses for field trips. The foundation also operates a point-based, free classroom-supply store for teachers, who, with starting salaries of about $33,000, often find themselves dipping into their own wallets for classroom supplies. Need a new set of dry-erase markers, scissors or construction paper? The foundation is here.

"Some of these programs are nationally award-winning models," says Jasonek.

In the 2004 tax year, the latest for which information is available, the foundation spent more than $800,000 on these worthwhile endeavors. But the foundation has also proven to be a boon for people who run it. Also in the 2004 tax year, it spent more than $600,000 on overhead costs. Of that amount, about $400,000 went to salaries -- including Jasonek's -- which comprise about 28 percent of the foundation's expenses. It might make sense if those fat paychecks went for the long, grueling hours. The clincher is, it doesn't look like top brass is burning the midnight oil. On tax forms, Jasonek is listed as working 12 hours a week for the foundation.

"It's like working a part-time job at Subway," he explains.

But others can't help but wonder whether Jasonek -- and others -- are feasting on a foot-long greed sandwich. Indeed, Jasonek's not the only one who seems to be pulling down major bucks at the foundation these days. In the 2002 tax year, foundation Director Kevin Nielsen was paid about $58,000 from the charity coffers. Two years later, his salary from the foundation more than doubled; from 2004 to 2005 he pulled in nearly $125,000. Nielsen insists he's been earning roughly the same salary over the past few years, and says it's likely his salary was being split between the foundation and some other source -- which perhaps explains the puzzling language on many of the foundation's tax forms stating that "CCEA and the foundation reimburse each other for direct costs that each incur from time to time."

Rather than dredge up tawdry exposés of foundation salaries, Nielsen asks, why not focus on the programs? "I understand where people are coming from and how they might want to point fingers," he says, hinting at a mud-slinging campaign from the rival Teamster's union, which is currently vying to dislodge the teachers' union as the bargaining unit for the district's 18,000 teachers. "But the biggest secret out there is the Teacher's Aide Warehouse Store," the free classroom-supplies shop he runs for district teachers.

As the Teamsters ramp up its campaign, something else seems to be ramping up, too -- a tide of resentment against the teachers' union for netting classroom instructors little more in recent years than token raises. Teamsters organizers are hoping to tap into that resentment as they begin to wave around executive salaries -- and other numbers (see sidebar) -- to show the Clark County Education Association has lost sight of its core mission of representing teachers.

"When you've got pay increases that come out to that, you'd think they're doing a fantastic job for teachers, getting good contracts, and offering great representation," says Ron Taylor, a school district employee and teacher organizer for the Teamsters Local 14. "The truth is, they're not."

Jasonek balks at criticism of his side-job salary, explaining he's paid based on what money he raises. "What's dirty is that [the Teamsters] don't raise a legitimate issue," he says. "If it's about my salary, so be it. If they want to raise an issue about the programs, let them criticize us for funding minority students [to become teachers], or let them criticize us having a scholarship in the name of a lady who was in the plane that went into the Pentagon [on 9/11]."

The way Jasonek sees it, his extra $129,000 salary is an incentive to bring in money for the community foundation, and was a factor in its rapid growth since it began in September 2000 as a "little $25,000 grant program," he says. Compare that to its 2004 revenue of more than $1.6 million, thanks to help from top-drawer corporate donors such as Citigroup, Nevada Power and Advantage Financial.

"Am I supposed to be penalized for doing a good job?" Jasonek says. "If I go out and someone says, 'We'll donate $2 million,' am I supposed to say, 'We better not take that because it might report on my salary. Sorry, I'll have to let the kids do without'?"

It's a fair question, but there are at least a few indications the foundation is a bit top-heavy on the payroll side. According to a 2006 report on foundation salaries published by the Foundation Center, a New York-based organization that tracks and analyzes philanthropic groups, the median salary for executives heading up foundations with less than $10 million in assets was about $50,000.

The folks over at the Wall Street Journal are a bit more liberal in their estimation. If you plug the parameters into their Career Journal's "Salary Expert" website, you'll find that even by their lights, Jasonek's foundation could trim some fat. The site reports that a charitable organization director working in Nevada earns an average salary of $80,890. The high end of that? About $107,000.

Of course, it's assumed that's a full-time position, and not just, say, a dozen hours a week. Even Jasonek might agree: Part-time work is for sandwich shops.

By Jean-Paul Renaud | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

September 7, 2007

Broward County teachers today are voting on a contract that more generously rewards the top union officials who negotiated it than rank and file educators.

If it is approved, about two-thirds of Broward's 17,000 public school teachers will receive raises of 5 percent or less. The most substantial increases, as high as 17 percent, will go to the most senior teachers — less than a third of Broward's educators.

In contrast, more than two-thirds of the 22-member Broward Teachers Union executive board, which negotiated the contract, have the seniority to qualify for the most generous raises, records show.

"I'm not surprised at all because one would assume that the people at the top level are the ones that are on the negotiating team," said School Board member Stephanie Kraft. "I don't think that sounds right. I guess it would be nice if they would look after all the teachers equally."Several board members said the situation, though not unusual for a school district, reflects the power of unions. Some teachers said it shows union leaders are out of touch with the rank and file.

School districts across the state have a complicated system of setting salaries, mostly based on seniority levels that officials call "steps." In Broward, there are 22 steps, and teachers typically do not see substantial pay raises until they reach the 20th level — or their second decade educating children. All salaries are based on 196 days of work and can be increased if teachers obtain additional academic degrees and training.

The executive board of the teachers union helped craft the contract with the school system. The board includes 15 educators with more than two decades of service to the district. Union leaders say their board's makeup is dynamic and diverse, and this year members argued about how to divide the raises.

"It's become much more diverse," said Pat Santeramo, who as union president collects a $150,000 salary. "There are quite a few younger people. They are all very opinionated, similar to the School Board."

Teachers at the beginning and middle of their careers often complain about the salary system.

"Everyone should be taken care of across the board," said Denise Haltrecht, a first-grade teacher at Coconut Palm Elementary in Miramar. "One step should not be neglected over the other. We all work just as hard. Just because you're at year 20 doesn't mean you're working any more than a beginning-year teacher."

On her 13th year as a teacher, Haltrecht and her 467 colleagues on that step will receive a 4 percent raise.

Some School Board members say the system is unfair.

"Everybody should be treated equally," said Chairwoman Beverly Gallagher. "I didn't agree with the step system. But if we don't agree to the steps, then we would be at an impasse and nobody would get anything. Everybody would just be waiting."

But Santeramo said there should be rewards for "longevity, skills, knowledge."

"How we do that could be restructured," he said, adding that the union will sit down with school district officials in the new year to devise a less complicated way of doling out raises.

One person on BTU's board is on step 20. The 419 other teachers on that step will be paid a base salary of $53,377, a 7 percent raise.

Another board member is on step 21, along with 413 other teachers in Broward. Their salaries will jump to $62,677, a 17 percent increase over last year.

And 13 board members are on step 22 and will see their base salaries climb to $70,000 — a 12 percent increase that will make the 4,000 teachers with that seniority among the highest paid in the tri-county area.

"It's just another example of people who are not experiencing what most teachers are experiencing," said Donna Shubert, a kindergarten teacher at McNab Elementary in Pompano Beach. "They have the years in and they're negotiating with their own mind frame."

Shubert has been a teacher for nine years and will receive a 5 percent increase that will raise the salaries of educators on step 9 to $40,980.

Santeramo, however, says the makeup of the union's executive committee has little to do with the way senior teachers are compensated.

"We look at trying to provide a fair and equitable salary for all the employees," he said. "We represent all 17,000 teachers."

One School Board member has a solution for those teachers who think their union doesn't represent them.

"This is a perfect example of why beginning teachers and those that are a few years into their careers need to be more involved and engaged in their union," said Board Member Jennifer Gottlieb.

Jean-Paul Renaud can be reached at jprenaud@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4556.

Union Negotiates Pay Raises… For Union Chiefs
Posted on September 14, 2007 at 9:30 am by WTH

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised when union representatives negotiate themselves bigger raises than they do for their own membership. But, it still rankles every time it happens… and it happens almost every time!

In this case it is the Broward County, Florida teacher’s union that has fenagled a higher raise for the top earners in the District than those at the lower end of the pay scale. It seems they have invented an absurdly complicated “steps” plan (there are 22 of these “steps”) where folks at the low end will forever get smaller raises than folks at the high end. Naturally, the union reps are all at the highest end of the scale.

Big surprise, eh?

Broward Teachers Union negotiates big raises for vets, little for newcomers

“Broward County teachers today are voting on a contract that more generously rewards the top union officials who negotiated it than rank and file educators.

If it is approved, about two-thirds of Broward’s 17,000 public school teachers will receive raises of 5 percent or less. The most substantial increases, as high as 17 percent, will go to the most senior teachers — less than a third of Broward’s educators.”

I thought that unions were all for the ‘little people”? What happened to that whole egalitarian concept that unions claim is their chief motivation?

I guess where it concerns getting raises for union bosses, the little guy will have to wait!

You know, they are only out to “help” you, dontcha?

Teamsters Assist CCEA Drop

Several teachers have indicated that they missed the
open window to drop CCEA. Since CCEA does not actively
advertise this open window, it seems only fair
teachers should be given another chance to drop. While
CCEA spent thousands of dollars recruiting new
teachers, they neglected to tell them that as a
probationary teacher they can’t really represent them.
They also failed to notify new members and old of the
fact that dues are increasing. The Teamsters feel this
is a travesty and are willing to assist teachers in
dropping from CCEA.

Any teacher wishing to drop simply send an e-mail
indicating their desire to drop and Teamsters is
providing a lawyer to handle the case. Free of charge
to teachers, nope, you don’t even have to sign an
Authorization Card. We would prefer you did, but this
is too important and we feel this is a just cause.

Go to the Teachers4Change website to complete this
email.

We have also heard that some teachers who dropped
their membership in CCEA are still having their dues
taken from their paychecks. These folks need to send
Ron Taylor (at the T4C website) an email.....

Don't forget the Open House at the Teamsters Hall on
Saturday, September 15..... Many folks have questions
regarding the the Health Trust...... Be there!!!!!

Ken
CCTL Moderator

It has been reported that Teamsters representatives were handing out organizational/campaigning materials at one of our New Teacher Orientations. It is inappropriate for any labor organization to engage in campaigning activities on District property during District time, the representatives were directed to immediately case and desist. CCEA has since asked for confirmation that the District will prohibit such conduct now and in the future, and that confirmation has been given. Please make sure everyone with supervisory responsibility over personnel and/or District facilities knows that the District cannot and will not allow any labor organization campaigning activities on District property during District time.

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

LEGAL OFFICE

INTRA-OFFICE COMMUNICATION

August 30, 2007

To: Executive Cabinet

From: Bill Hoffman

Subject: Collective Bargaining Campaign Activities
__________________________________
I am informed that the incumbent bargaining agent which represents District licensed personnel is being challenged by at least one other bargaining agent to become the recognized bargaining agent. It appears that campaign activities are occurring in some school sites. Please distribute the following memo, which discusses campaign activities, to appropriate administrators:

1. Pursuant to Article 2-1 of the existing collectively bargained agreement (CBA) between the District and the Clark County Education Association, the Association is the exclusive representative of all licensed personnel employed by the District. The District may not condone or approve of practices which would undermine CCEA’s exclusive rights of representation.

2. Article 7 of the CBA grants to the CCEA specific contractual rights regarding the use of School District facilities which are not available to other persons, entities, businesses or non-recognized labor organizations.

The District has the right to restrict the use of its facilities in a manner consistent with the CBA and the District’s Policies and Regulations.

a. School Mailboxes, Interschool Mail Service, and Faculty Bulletin Boards. The Association shall have the use of school mailboxes and the inter-school mail service for the distribution of non-defamatory and non-campaign related material initiated by the Association. The Association shall have the use of faculty bulletin boards for posting of non-defamatory materials and non-campaign related materials.

Copies of all materials shall be given to the building principal. The material will be clearly identified and the

Association accepts the liability for such material.

District teachers shall be permitted use of School District mail services for district-related business, but not for campaign related materials. School facsimile machines and copiers may only be used for district-related business, but not for campaign related materials. School mailboxes, mail services, and faculty bulletin boards may not be used for campaign purposes.

b. InterAct. The Association, the Teachers’ Health Trust, and the CCEA Community Foundation shall have the use of the District’s electronic bulletin board/messaging system through InterAct for posting of non-defamatory and noncampaign related materials. In addition, there shall be a link through InterAct to the Association’s website. This link may not be used for purposes of soliciting membership.

Messages, materials and announcements posted on InterAct must be approved in advance by the Associate Superintendent, Human Resources Division, or her designee. InterAct may not be used for campaign purposes.

c. Facilities. The Association shall be allowed the use of school buildings and premises for association meetings and activities on regular school days as long as arrangements have been made with the principal of the building. Such activities shall not conflict with any regular or special educational activities and shall not involve additional or extra custodial services and/or other unusual expenses to the School District. Use of the buildings on other than school days requires the approval of the Superintendent in addition to the school principal. Any added expense resulting from the Association use shall be paid by the Association. Individual teachers will not be prohibited from the responsible use of the school facilities.

3. Access by non-employee representatives for purposes of campaigning. As a general proposition, the District may refuse to allow non-employee representatives from nonrecognized union organizations to have access to District property, provided there is an adequate opportunity for organizers to contact employees without entering District “Non-working time” means break times and duty-free lunch 1 periods as well as those periods of time before work and after work.

“Non working areas” means areas where employees are not 2 performing duties associated with their employment, for example, the teachers’ lounge and school parking lots.

Do the rights of individual teachers outweigh the collective union?

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned this June the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling, reaffirming teachers’ individual freedom of speech rights take precedence over the collective unions’. This case came out of Washington after the Washington Education Association (WEA) was fined $590,000 for misuse of members’ dues by a county court.

The WEA appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, receiving a ruling in their favor. The WEA claimed in court that it had no 'fiduciary responsibility' to its members and that the law unconstitutionally ‘burdened’ its free speech rights. The Washington Supreme Court agreed only to have its strange legal logic thrown out by the highest court in the land. Click here to read the WorldnetDaily article.

This is a great victory for teachers across America. As a right to work state, Nevada teachers do not have to pay ‘collective bargaining fees’ if not a member as in Washington. The issue applicable to Nevada is the NSEA’s arrogant treatment of members is the same as the WEA with the union’s narrow political agenda being pursued at the expense of those they pretend to represent.

Teachers Tell Researchers They Like Their Jobs

By Vaishali Honawar

Education Week
Ninety-three percent of teachers reported satisfaction with their jobs 10 years after entering the field, according to a new survey that also found attrition rates for teachers were actually lower than for other professionals.

The report, released this week by the National Center for Education Statistics, surveyed 9,000 graduates who received their bachelor’s degrees in various disciplines in the 1992-93 school year. Nearly 20 percent of those graduates entered the teaching profession.

The findings from the survey debunk several long-held views on teacher pay, turnover, and job satisfaction. For instance, it found that only 18 percent of those who entered teaching changed occupations within four years of getting a degree. Given that other professions experienced attrition rates between 17 percent and 75 percent during that period, the number of career-switchers from teaching was on the low end of the scale, according to the data. More than half those who became teachers were still teaching 10 years later.

Teacher advocates and unions have long claimed that turnover among new teachers ranges from 30 percent to 50 percent within the first five years.

“The take for a long time was that there is this incredibly high attrition among teachers from schools,” said Mark Schneider, the commissioner of NCES, an arm of the U.S. Department of Education. The report, he said, shows that teacher-turnover rates are actually lower than those in other professions.

“I understand why schools and school districts are upset about losing teachers, but it is part of the normal sorting process” in a dynamic job market, Mr. Schneider added.

The survey also stands on their head some commonly held beliefs about teacher salaries. Teachers’ unions have often cited low pay as a major reason for teacher dissatisfaction. But only 13 percent of those who left teaching by 2003 gave it as the reason for leaving. Forty-eight percent of those who remained in the profession said they were satisfied with their salaries.

Kate Walsh, the president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a research and advocacy group in Washington, called the findings “explosive.”

“What was surprising is how cheery the [teachers’] responses were,” she said. Education groups, including the unions, she contended, often cite teachers’ unhappiness in order to pressure districts and states for concessions.

Spokesmen for the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers said they were unable to comment on the report before the story was posted.

Racial Differences
The report’s findings are based on the NCES’ survey of baccalaureate-degree recipients conducted between 1993 and 2003. Participants answered questions via phone and the Internet and during in-person interviews. The report was prepared by MPR Associates in Berkeley, Calif.

Of those surveyed who were still teaching 10 years after earning their degrees, 90 percent said they would choose the same career again, and 67 percent said they would remain in teaching for the rest of their working lives.

The rate among African-American teachers, however, was significantly lower, with 37 percent saying they would choose to remain in the profession, compared with 70 percent of white teachers.

Nearly 20 percent of black teachers said they would leave if something better came along, compared with fewer than 10 percent of white teachers.

Ms. Walsh said the higher rates of dissatisfaction among black teachers could be due to the fact that more black teachers teach in high-poverty schools.

The study reaffirmed that attrition rates were higher among male teachers. While women (29 percent) were more likely to leave for family-related reasons, men (32 percent) usually left for a job outside the field of education.

A candidate’s age when he or she attended college also appeared to play a role in attrition rates: Those 30 or older when they obtained their degrees were more likely than younger graduates to remain in teaching.

Those who earned better grades in college were more likely than those with lower grades to remain in teaching.

The study offers a window into how college graduates perceive teaching. For instance, nearly half of all bachelor’s degree recipients in 1992-93 said they had never considered teaching or taken any steps to become educators.

Lack of interest, having another job in hand, and inadequate pay were the most commonly cited reasons for not pursuing teaching.

Math, science, and engineering graduates were among those most likely to leave teaching jobs to work outside education.

Teacher Magazine
August 2, 2007

Principal Pulls Rank, Teacher Quits

According to a New York Times article, Austin Lampros, a New York City math teacher, resigned from his teaching post at the High School of Arts and Technology in Manhattan this year after the school’s principal altered a student’s grade so she could graduate. Lampros told the Times that, although the student rarely attended class, failed to turn in homework assignments, and even missed the final exam, a school administrator gave her special treatment and a passing grade.

When a representative from the teachers’ union complained, Lampros was permitted to fail the student. Using an override privilege granted by her contract, the principal reversed that student’s grade again.

The article suggests that Lampros is one of many teachers in New York City who feels pressured by administrators to pass marginal students in order to boost declining graduation rates. “It’s almost as if you stick to your morals and your ethics, you’ll end up without a job,” he said.

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

Published: July 17, 2007

New York Times

A lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Washington State contends that the National Education Association breached its duty to members by accepting millions of dollars in payments from two financial firms whose high-cost investments it recommended to members in an association-sponsored retirement plan.

The case was filed on behalf of two N.E.A. members who had invested in annuities sold by Nationwide Life Insurance Company and the Security Benefit Group. It contends that by actively endorsing these products, which carry high fees, the N.E.A., through its N.E.A. Member Benefits subsidiary, took on the role of a retirement plan sponsor, which must put its members’ interests ahead of its own.

By taking fees from the two companies whose annuities N.E.A. Member Benefits recommended to its members, the N.E.A. breached its duty to them, the suit contends. The N.E.A. is the nation’s largest professional organization; its Web site says it serves 3.2 million workers in education, from preschool to university graduate programs.

The suit reflects heightened concern among retirement plan participants that excessive fees are diminishing their savings and enriching financial services firms. Last November, the General Accountability Office published a study concluding that retirement plan participants, as well as the Labor Department, needed clearer information on fees in these investment vehicles.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said they had been unable to calculate the total payments received by N.E.A. officials from Nationwide and Security Benefit since 1991, when the products were first endorsed by the organization. But a recent Security Benefit prospectus indicated that fees paid to N.E.A. Member Benefits might exceed $2 million a year. That prospectus said Security Benefit paid the N.E.A. subsidiary $510,000 a quarter.

The suit, filed in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, said that such payments were not disclosed to N.E.A. plan participants. Instead, N.E.A. Member Benefits maintained that it selected Nationwide and Security Benefit based on competitive criteria, the suit said.

Lisa M. Sotir, general counsel to N.E.A. Member Benefits, declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying that she had not yet seen it.

Michel Cole, a spokeswoman for Security Benefit, said it was against the firm’s policy to comment on pending litigation. Erica Lewis, a spokeswoman for Nationwide, said company officials could not comment until they had seen the complaint.

Lawsuits on behalf of pensioners are usually brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as Erisa, which requires organizations overseeing retirement plans to put their beneficiaries’ interests first.

The type of 403(b) programs at issue in the complaint are typically exempt from Erisa. But the lawyers bringing the case argued that because the N.E.A. actively promoted the annuity products to its members, it essentially stepped in as a plan sponsor. That made it subject to Erisa’s fiduciary duty requirements, the lawsuit contended.

“The Erisa exemption applies to situations where the employer does nothing more than arrange for salary deferral for its employees,” said Derek W. Loeser, a lawyer at Keller Rohrback in Seattle, which represents the plaintiffs in the case. “But in endorsed plans, the union together with the insurance company are taking over the role that the plan sponsor plays.”

From 1991 to 2000, Nationwide was the exclusive N.E.A. plan provider. The company sold its N.E.A. Valuebuilder accounts, with more than $860 million in assets, to Security Benefit Life Insurance Company for $72 million in 2000, the suit said.

Since 1991, the suit said, N.E.A. members have invested more than $1 billion in the Valuebuilder plan.

The fees levied in the Nationwide and Security Benefit annuities “far exceeded” those of comparable retirement vehicles available elsewhere, the suit said. The fees in one of the annuities recommended for the Valuebuilder plan reached 10.62 percent, according to the suit, making it exceedingly difficult for investors to make money in the plan.

Dan D. Otter is a teacher and operator of www.403bwise.com, a Web site aimed at educating retirement plan participants about high fees associated with some of the investment vehicles. He said teachers were especially vulnerable to problematic plans. “There is an army of agents trolling school districts across the country selling high-fee variable annuities,” he said. “I want all 403(b) participants to know how the plan works and also advocate for low-cost choices.”
According to regulatory filings, N.E.A. Member Benefits “recovers its costs through contracts with various program suppliers” as well as the N.E.A. In 2005, the corporation generated income of $52 million, the filings stated.

Ms. Sotir said that figure included income generated from many contracts, including those covering the N.E.A. credit card, home financing and life insurance programs. “Valuebuilder is a very small portion of that,” she said.

The suit against the N.E.A. is the second such case filed by lawyers at Keller Rohrback against an association that administers retirement accounts to its members. Last April, the firm filed a class action against the New York State United Teachers Member Benefits Trust, a retirement plan set up to benefit teachers in the state.

Edward A. H. Siedle, a lawyer and president of Benchmark Financial Services in Ocean Ridge, Fla., a company that investigates money managers on behalf of pension plans, also represents the plaintiffs in the case. “Investors may purchase annuities for lifetime income, but for unions, endorsing annuities is lifetime income,” he said. “Teachers deserve better.”

Half of new teachers leave the field within five years, according to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing students with qualified teachers.

A recent California State University study showed a quarter of California teachers leave the profession within four years because of bureaucratic impediments, unnecessary meetings and inadequate support. As a result, the state of California has spent more than $455 million each year recruiting, hiring and preparing replacement teachers.

Nevada has no state recruitment program and doesn't track statewide retention rates, costs or whether large class sizes or student discipline problems are driving teachers out of the classroom.

The nationwide problem of teacher shortages might be that teaching is losing its appeal.
Nat Lommori, superintendent of the Lyon County School District, remembers attending
out-of-state teacher career fairs years ago where hundreds, if not a few thousand, applicants waited for interviews.

"We didn't even take lunch," he said of a two-day affair in Greeley, Colo. "It was that busy. We don't even go there anymore because there's nobody there."

He said things are different because of the low pay.

"(Teaching) does not compare with other professions," he said. "These people have to get a bachelor's degree, and if you have a bachelor's degree in engineering or accounting, you're making $40,000, $50,000, even $60,000 coming out."

Rich Alexander, Douglas County assistant superintendent, said statistics show that people have several different careers during their lifetime.

"We are seeing that change in teaching," he said. "Simplistic solutions -- just pay them more to stay -- offers no assurance that they will stay and are little incentive compared to family and other issues."

Reasons to leave

Keith Rheault, Nevada superintendent of education, listed the three most significant reasons teachers leave off the top of his head: relocation, retirement and problems with a school district.
Gloria Dopf, deputy superintendent of instruction for the Nevada Department of Education, said the department handles licensure and related issues but not recruitment.

"The hiring and recruitment of teachers is a local function, so essentially, the districts have more direct access with teachers and have the ability of analyzing why teachers leave," she said.

Districts do track why teachers leave.

"The people that we do see leaving might be moving to another state or maybe closer to family," said Richard Stokes, associate superintendent of human resources for the Carson City School District. "Or, people are moving with a spouse because a spouse has relocated.
"We don't see all of the reasons as to why they're going," Stokes said. "We chat with them and find out why they're leaving. Sometimes, they don't go into why they're leaving."

Not all teachers have exit interviews, and only about 50 percent accept the invitation for an exit interview in Carson City, Stokes said.

Administrators are not sure how accurate the termination and resignation numbers are because some teachers resign before they are fired, said Tom Stauss, assistant superintendent of human resources for the Washoe County School District.

Lynn Warne, president of the teachers union for Washoe County, said resignations occur because of burnout, poor classroom conditions, unresolved discipline issues with students and too many students in a classroom.

"The class-size reduction that the state tried putting in place has led to team-teaching," she said. "The true spirit of class-size reduction has never been implemented or implemented correctly."

The poor physical condition of a school can lead to a drop in a teacher's spirit, said Warne.
"The deferred maintenance price tag the district carries is huge," she said. "Not only are the buildings falling apart, we're packed to the rim with teachers. It's a huge morale buster."

Many teachers leave to follow a spouse who is moving. Sometimes, the family moves to be closer to relatives. Of late, Stokes said he'd seen some resignations occur because of the high cost of gas. Teachers who lived in Reno left their job with Carson to work in the Washoe County School District, and vice versa.

Taking the reins

Ten years ago, Washoe County School District administrators noticed that teachers were flocking out the door. Eighteen percent left that year.

The school district started a mentoring program to provide teachers with support. In the past 10 years, the attrition rate has dropped from 18 percent to 5 percent.

Attrition is a reduction in staff numbers due to resignation, retirement or death. Retention is the percentage of teachers that return each year.

"We found new teachers need more support their first year because of the many demands a new teacher faces," said Sharyn Appolloni, program coordinator for the Washoe County School District's mentoring program.

"A novice teacher in their first years needs that support to be the best teacher they can be," Appolloni said.

Just this past year, the Washoe district matched 300 trained mentors with 300 first- and
second-year teachers.

New teachers take district-

offered classes, such as classroom management or math and literacy. Mentors meet weekly with new teachers, observe them in classrooms and accompany them on learning visits.
Teaching assessments show that mentored teachers perform at the same levels as veteran teachers in the classroom, Appolloni said. That means students benefit, too, she said. In addition, 19 instructional coaches were hired in 2006-07 and placed at schools to provide on-site professional development.

"The real beauty is they are there all the time helping teachers with what they need," said Susan Denning, a district coordinator with the teaching and learning program.
Carson City also provides a mentoring program. Teachers are given tips for managing the classroom, preparing for lessons, ordering supplies and setting up field trips. But there are no data showing that its mentor program has improved teacher retention rates.

"Since I have been at the Carson City School District, since July 2001, we replace 8 to 10 percent of our certified staff -- teachers, counselors, etc. -- each year," Stokes said. "The percentage has only varied slightly over the past six years. I don't have data that shows that our mentoring program is preventing teachers from leaving our district."

Hiring not a problem

Administrators in the Washoe, Carson City, Lyon and Douglas County school districts said they do not have problems hiring the teachers they need, except in a few niche areas, such as special-education or high school science and math.

"I would say that for elementary education, there are enough applicants for the vacancies we have," Stokes said. "Anything on the secondary level gets a little trickier because it's a
more-focused discipline."

This would be an excellent time to phone in your
questions and comments on the Teamsters, CCEA, and
AAE.

Hope you can join in on this stimulating conversation.
If you have any questions, please forward them to me
at --- keninvegas308@yahoo.com or place them in
this forum. I intend to ask MEH about her salary,
CCEA's poor performance when it comes to negotiations,
and CCEA's procedures on not representing first-year
teachers (probationary teachers) when it comes to
problems with school administrators.

Ken

Teachers Attacked

Reports of assaults against teachers seem to growing, particularly in big city schools. Sometimes they are verbal. Sometimes they are violent physical attacks. NPR’s Fresh Air host Terry Gross speaks with two veteran teachers, Ed Klein and Frank Burd, who were physically assaulted last year in their Philadelphia classrooms. Both Burd and Klein are white and taught at predominantly African American schools; however, neither perceived the incidents to be entirely racially motivated.

Music teacher Klein was relocated to a school one month into the school year when his former school dropped their music program. Entering a new school, with a class that was busy testing the limits and a staff that was overwhelmed, Klein struggled to get control of his classroom. Klein called parents frequently and, for the most part, they were responsive. He even saw changes in student behavior in a few cases. One day, however, a student told him he’d better stop calling home or he’d be sorry. Following that exchange, Klein was sprayed with a fire extinguisher on two consecutive days. On the third day, four students forced him to the floor where he suffered a broken jaw and a concussion.

For his part, after he approached a student to turn down his iPod during class, veteran math teacher Burd remembers little of his attack. Five broken bones and a brain injury later, Burd says, “I don’t feel betrayed by the students, I feel betrayed by the kid who did it.’

Will either teacher return to the classroom? Klein admits to good days and bad days, but is not sure if he will ever teach again. “I’m in a difficult position,” he told Gross. Said Burd, “I need to work. I like to work and I like teaching. I don’t know right now about the classroom. ...”

Posted by Elizabeth Rich

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 14, 2007

Contact: Booker T. Stallworth, Communications Director
(360) 956-3482

Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.

As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented. The result was approved unanimously, but there were three partial concurring votes. The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was issued in a pair of consolidated cases, Davenport v. Washington Education Association (05-1589) and Washington v. Washington Education Association (05-1657)."

"We are elated that the U.S. Supreme Court has honored the First Amendment rights of teachers by overturning the state Supreme Court’s decision," said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “The Court understood that the constitutional rights of teachers should be protected and are not superseded by the union’s statutory rights. This ruling will help protect non-member teachers from having their agency fees used on union politics against their will."

At issue in the case is a state statute that required labor organizations to get permission from nonmember workers before using mandatory dues for political purposes. “Nonmembers" are workers who have resigned from the union but are forced to pay collective bargaining fees as a condition of employment.

The WEA admitted to multiple violations during a state investigation and was fined over $590,000 by a Thurston County court.

The WEA later claimed in court that had no 'fiduciary responsibility' to its members and that the law unconstitutionally ‘burdened’ its free speech rights. The Washington Supreme Court agreed.

"The next step is to make sure the law is strongly enforced in state to ensure the WEA and other unions are in compliance. The WEA has been busily attempting to undermine the law while it was under Supreme Court review," Williams said.

Additional Information

For the most up-to-date information, photos, video, key documents related to the cases, and a weblog on the case, please visit www.teachers-vs-union.org.

###

A Theory X manager makes the following general assumptions:

• Work is inherently distasteful to most people, who will attempt to avoid work whenever possible.

• Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to be directed.

• Most people have little capacity for creativity in solving organizational problems.

• Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

• Most people are self-centered. As a result, they must be closely controlled and often coerced to achieve organizational objectives

• Most people resist change.

• Most people are gullible and not particularly intelligent.

Essentially, Theory X assumes that the primary source of most employee motivation is money, with security as a strong second.

Hard Approach | Soft Approach
Under Theory X, management approaches to motivation can range from a hard approach to a soft approach.

The hard approach to motivation relies on coercion, implicit threats, close supervision, and tight controls -- essentially an environment of command and control. The soft appoach is to be permissive and seek harmony with the hope that in return employees will cooperate when asked to do so. However, neither of these extremes is optimal. The hard approach results in hostility, purposely low-output, and hard-line union demands. The soft approach results in increasing desire for greater reward in exchange for diminishing work output.

It would appear that the optimal approach to human resource management would be lie somewhere between these extremes. However, McGregor asserts that neither approach is appropriate since the fundamental assumptions of Theory X are incorrect.

The Problem with Theory X
Drawing on Maslow's Needs Hierarchy, McGregor argues that a need, once satisfied, no longer motivates. Under Motivation Theory X, the firm relies on money and benefits to satisfy employees' lower needs, and once those needs are satisfied the source of motivation is lost. Theory X management styles, in fact, hinder the satisfaction of higher-level needs.

Consequently, the only way that employees can attempt to satisfy their higher level needs in their work is by seeking more compensation, so it is quite predictable that they will focus on monetary rewards. While money may not be the most effective way to self-fulfillment, in a Theory X environment it may be the only way. Under Theory X, people use work to satisfy their lower needs, and seek to satisfy their higher needs in their leisure time. Unfortunately, employees can be most productive when their work goals and higher level needs are in alignment.

McGregor makes the point that a command and control environment is not effective because it relies on lower needs as levers of motivation, but in modern society those needs already are satisfied and thus no longer motivate. In this situation, one would expect employees to dislike their work, avoid responsibility, have no interest in organizational goals, resist change, etc., thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. From this reasoning, McGregor proposed an alternative: Theory Y.

Motivational Theory Y
The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are continuing needs in that they are never completely satisfied. As such, it is these higher-level needs through which employees can best be motivated.

In strong contrast to Theory X, a Theory Y manager makes the following general assumptions:

• Work can be as natural as play if the conditions are favorable.

• People will be self-directed and creative to meet their work and organizational objectives if they are committed to them.

• People will be committed to their quality and productivity objectives if rewards are in place that address higher needs such as self-fulfillment.

• The capacity for creativity spreads throughout organizations.

• Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are common in the population.

• Under these conditions, people will seek responsibility.

Under these assumptions, there is an opportunity to align personal goals with organizational goals by using the employee's own need for fulfillment as the motivator. McGregor stressed that Theory Y management does not imply a soft approach.

McGregor recognized that some people may not have reached the level of maturity assumed by Theory Y and therefore may need tighter controls that can be relaxed as the employee develops.

Applying Theory Y Management - Business Implications
If Theory Y holds true, an organization can use these principles of scientific management to improve employee motivation:

• Decentralization and Delegation - If firms decentralize control and reduce the number of levels of management, managers will have more subordinates and consequently will be forced to delegate some responsibility and decision making to them.

• Job Enlargement - Broadening the scope of an employee's job adds variety and opportunities to satisfy ego needs.

• Participative Management - Consulting employees in the decision making process taps their creative capacity and provides them with some control over their work environment.

• Performance Appraisals - Having the employee set objectives and participate in the process of evaluating how well they were met.

If properly implemented, such an environment would result in a high level of motivation as employees work to satisfy their higher level personal needs through their jobs.

Here is the story you have waited for.

I know, it seems ridiculous that CCEA would be doing this while refusing to represent teachers and negotiate a decent contract. We hope you really think about the implications of what they are doing.

According to several Clark County Education Association officials, the money in question has been accounted for. Yes, we’re talking about the mysterious whereabouts of those exorbitant tuition fees drained from the pockets of hard-working teachers for the Center for Teacher Excellence program, also known as Advanced Studies Certification. In a recent conversation with union insiders, it was revealed that Executive Director John Jasonek has commented he would be more than happy to show the public the union books on CTE. However, he doesn’t, according to our sources, want the public or the union rank-and-file to view CCEA’s overall operating books. Apparently he explained to several officers at a CCEA Senate and Executive Board meeting that the union has $1,000,000 tucked away in various accounts, so the UniServ representatives won’t know about the extra money. (Yes, that’s one million dollars!) It seems these UniServ reps have been seeking raises, and Jasonek has different plans for the stashed cash. Remember the CTE program? It’s the one where teachers paid $3,600 to receive a $3,000 raise; while the state-run program, RPDP, had been charging $810 for the same teacher raise.

After months of Teachers4Change following this pile of money, some courageous teachers have started coming forward with revelatory information. As usual, CCEA tried to close ranks to cover up the dirt in this story, typical of their behavior, but, in this case, they haven’t been able to keep the truth from coming out. Executive Director Jasonek in a board meeting was heard telling the audience that CCEA is using CTE money for a union building fund. Apparently CCEA wants to build an ivory tower to house their hard-working association officers. The idea is to house all union facilities in one central location-- i.e. Association Offices, Teachers Health Trust, etc. Considering what a fine job the union has done to serve the interests of teachers for the past eight years (we jest!), this building fund may be a tough pill to swallow for the average, suffering rank-and-file teacher.

While teachers are trying desperately to figure out how to climb up a last notch on the already-pathetic teacher pay scale by meeting the heavy financial requirement of the CTE program, CCEA is saving for a brand-spanking-new building from the pockets of these teachers. Even further, teachers who are not union members and taking these CTE classes are also contributing significantly to the CCEA building fund. According to one source, Jasonek was happy to report that non-union teachers would be, unwittingly, bankrolling the new CCEA building. In fact, the source said, that was one of Jasonek’s main selling points. And what do you think the name of the new union building is going to be? Hmmm. Does the name Jasonek ring a bell?

Maybe the time has come for teachers (both members and non-members) to bring
a halt to deception like this. Isn’t it bad enough teachers keep coming out on the bottom, over and over again, with this union in charge? Perhaps the time is here for teachers to start paving a new road; to head in a different direction. Because teachers deserve so much better than what they’ve been getting from CCEA.

However, by far the more important issue is who caused AB459’s untimely death and forced its withdrawal. My knowledge and research of many events, experience and observance during the past two years make me believe that this killing of AB459 was committed by the CCEA at the insistence of the Clark County School District. The basis of this belief/position is the following.

1. For months, Mr. Segerblom has told me we needed just one Senate Republican vote to get this bill through the Senate as he would be able to get all the Democrats. It was my responsibility as a Republican to get at least the one Republican vote. I worked hard on this from November to May 16, and it appeared at the end we may have had the one Republican vote--better yet, it was on the Senate Education Committee. The degree of difficulty with the Republicans was not their unwillingness to help teachers but justified animosity toward the teachers’ union.

2. On May 9 at the Senate hearing, Mr. Segerblom reaffirmed we were definitely “very close” to winning if we could get the one Republican vote.

3. On May 9 at the hearing, it appeared the CCSD was quite concerned at losing the Senate vote as they put on a full-scale “dog and pony show” urging the Bill’s defeat with numerous witnesses from several educational organizations, CCSD’s lead counsel, a representative of the administrators’ union, and CCSD’s chief lobbyist. School Board members were present in Carson City and in the Las Vegas audience, and there was at least one major CCSD employee at the hearing. They had both rooms stacked and at the hearing one Republican on the committee made statements that had to cause concern to the CCSD. AT THIS HEARING NEITHER THE CCEA NOR THE NSEA SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE BILL NOR ADVOCATED FOR IT IN ANY WAY.

4. Within days thereafter (May 12), I received good information that at least one Democrat on the Committee was going to vote against the Bill. That Senator is the one who owes her election entirely to the teachers’ union and teachers money as the union contributed approximately $350,000 of teachers’ dues money to get her elected even though she was at the time employed by the CCSD. Wouldn’t you think that the union could get her vote if they wanted to?

5. In my May 16 pointed conversation with Mr. Segerblom, he emotionally informed me that every Democrat on the committee (Weiner, Horsford, and Woodhouse) were going to vote against the bill guaranteeing its defeat. Some of his other comments about the union and other matters were enough to tell me the union had let him down and put him in a position that he had to walk away from the Bill and not force a vote in the Committee. I ask you and the world who else but the teachers’ union has such power over an Assembly Education Committee Chairperson and an Assemblyman Bill sponsor who has guided the bill to a 42-0 vote in the Assembly to force the killing of this Bill by withdrawal.

6. It is clearly evident that the beneficiaries of this effort by the teachers’ union is the Clark County School District and the three Democrat Senators on the Committee who were saved from having to vote. I do not believe that the four Republican members of the committee were at all hesitant to vote.

7. Most condemning of the teachers’ union is that we know that in important prior acts it has favored the CCSD over its dues paying teacher members.

Conclusion--I am more convinced than ever that the teachers of the Clark County School District have no friends in the education system in Clark County. Even the Nevada PTA with enthusiasm spoke against the bill at the recent hearing though two of its past presidents (Parnell and Smith) and its incoming President (Mo Dennis) as members of the Assembly voted for the Bill. In my well-considered opinion CCSD teachers should now consider four possible actions. These are:

a) Seek and obtain employment elsewhere. b) If you stay teaching in Clark County, seek out union representation other than the CCEA/NSEA as it is foolish to keep spending over $600 per year to have that money used to work against you. In this process be very careful that all your union needs and coverages are secure and safe before making such a change. As a disclaimer, I do not recommend, support, nor am I affiliated with any union of any type. c) Turn your frustration into “action energy” and support with participation all efforts to bring relief to Clark County teachers, and d) If for no better reason than humanity, get the word to teachers that are considering coming to the CCSD to be aware of the teacher abuse problems and issues in the CCSD.

Sincerely,
Charles E. Thompson

By Kathleen Parker
The Washington Post Writers Group

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- In a new twist in American race relations, a federal court has ruled that a white teacher in a predominantly African-American school was subjected to a racially hostile workplace.
The case concerned Elizabeth Kandrac, who was routinely verbally abused by black students at Brentwood Middle School in North Charleston. Their slurs make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon.
Nevertheless, despite frequent complaints, school officials did nothing to intervene on Kandrac's behalf, arguing that the racially charged profanity was simply part of the students' culture. If Kandrac couldn't handle cursing, school officials told her, she was in the wrong school.

read the rest of the article