Did you notice "the fine print"...

...that this wasn't the first time this has ever happened, the previous time being March 21, 2002.

But, then, the BOE turned around and reinstated said policy a year and a half later.

Hmmm, wonder why they changed their mind?

I'm glad you asked...

Yes, it's because the last time they rescinded the nepotism policy (to hire the wife of BOE member as the District's Director of Finance and Payroll), the Cairo Association of Educational Support Professionals took them to court.

So, was last night's action legal?

I dunno...

...and as Rhett Butler told Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind back in the days when you weren't suppose to cuss in the movies: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Back in 2003, when the BOE "lost" and had to post their shame on the wall, they got their way anyway, rehiring the BOE member's wife even before the IELRB mandated posting.

DISCLAIMER:

Personally, I have nothing against the hiring of Tiffany Burris as CE Principal. Back in the day, waaaaaay back in the 1980s, the District was notorious for NOT hiring hometown applicants. Why? Because locals had friends and relatives who might raise hell if their loved one was mistreated or fired by the BOE. The "powers that be" figured it was safer to hire "outsiders", that frankly, no one would give a damn what happened to them. It took years (and maybe a paucity of applicants from outside seeking employment in a declining city) to break this pattern of discrimination.

So, hiring Tiffany Burris, a graduate of Cairo High School, I got no problem with that.

And, as I said not long ago, from my comfy place in the pasture, the machinations of CSD personnel moves just don't raise my hackles anymore.

Whatever...

So just what is the point of this post?

During negotiations between CAT and the BOE (back when I was in it, and reportedly since I have departed), the BOE frequently proposes removing various language items from the Contract, that those items are already covered by Board Policy, that we are already protected.

Our response: "No! If the right, the protection, is in the Contract, we can grieve any violations." (Take them to court as the CAESP did back in 2002, and as CAT has done on more than one occasion...and won, every damn time!) "If it's in BOE policy, you can simply rescind that policy, and we have no recourse."

Of course, the BOE cries foul...

...they always tell us that they would never do such a thing!

Yeah, right...

...about last night!

They say that those who forget or don't know their history are doomed to repeat their mistakes. Well, CATs have the minds of the proverbial elephant, they don't forget! (And since 1997, you can look it up in the CAT Tracks archives! :-)

DISCLAIMER II:

Speaking of history...

Yes, I re-opened old wounds with this missive, kinda got my old blood pumping again. There is some ugly history in those archives, the very reason that CAT clings so tenaciously to the language items in the Contract. Most of those items were won with blood, sweat, and tears...and five strikes.

After so many assaults on the membership, trust is hard to come by, must be earned one day at a time, one year at a time.

Fortunately, the past round of negotiations was a big step forward. And, it didn't stop with the signing of a new Contract. The BOE has been more inclusive of CAT, asking for input (looking before leaping.) In fact, during closed session last night, a BOE member even came out and asked a contractual question, which Madam CAT President was happy to answer.

So...