Since reading and commenting on the most recent blogs there are a few things on my mind. First I feel like I need to know more about the time requirements of the job or president in a non-contract year. How many hours a week/month does Bob typically put in? What does he spend most of his time doing? As problems are addressed/solved at the building level, will that change the burden on the president? What are some of the tasks Bob currently handles that can be reassigned to VPs if we were to make a change?
After thinking more about it I’m not quite ready to jump on board the co-president model yet. I like the forward thinking vision behind the model but feel a bit cautious given issues like ACT 1 and some of the ideas Governor Rendell is considering such as consolidating school systems etc. Given the potential impact of these things I think it is very important that we strengthen the President’s position by reducing minor distractions that can be handled at the building level thereby freeing the President to address contractual issues that impact the entire membership.
I invision a system where there is a VP of Elementary members, a VP of secondary members and the President. In this system each VP would be responsible for staying on top of issues/concerns for thier level, and developing membership participation along with other assorted roles such as gifts for American Education Week, Scholarship Committee etc. etc. I believe this system may be more appealing to our members because it harnesses our members area of expertise and creates a system of shared responsibility. Futhermore, this model has the potential to establish clearly defined roles and strengthen the idea of Executive Council.
I agree with Rob that any change in responsibilities would necessitate a change in stipend.
What do you think?
Posted in Climbing Up Hill March 28, 2009
Everyone seems to be waiting for me to go first, so here are my concerns (in no particular order):
· We have a history of having Presidents who stay in office for 10+ years. Because of this, our association has become accustomed to relying on basically one person to have all of the answers and do most of the association’s work. Because of this, we pay our President a $13,000 stipend in acknowledgement. Our Vice Presidents, while asked to do substantial work, are only paid $1600, so clearly their workload should be substantially less than the President.
· We just rewrote our Constitution to include term limits for our officers. As currently written, our Constitution only allows a person to hold one office for three consecutive 3-year terms (i.e. 6 years maximum). While this was done to encourage more people to run for office, it also compound my first issue about compensation. If more people are to assume leadership roles more frequently, the President should be training people continually and delegating more responsibilities so that more people feel comfortable with the role and learn more before assuming office. This idea of delegating more responsibility to other officers makes me think that these people should be paid more and the President should be paid less to account for this shift in responsibilities.
· I am concerned that we have had a high school President for 16 years (in addition to mostly high school officers for the past 3-4 years). There is a notable lack of elementary officers. I think this needs to change. I think all levels need representation from their officers.
· Our board has equated Bob Young with SEA. Because he has been President for so long, and because he has assumed the overwhelming bulk of the association’s work and is considered the expert on all things SEA, our board does not perceive others in the association to have voices. Because they know of my intention to run for President, they have begun vilifying me in preparation for my assuming the position. I think we need to do something systemic to alter this pattern. What further compound this issue with Bob is that he is also our Chief Negotiator. At the PSEA negotiations training, the presenters strongly recommend that the President not serve as Chief Negotiator. Is this something that we need to also change systemically?
So here is what I have been thinking about as possible changes:
- I originally thought about having three co-presidents (one from each level – high/middle/elementary). They would split the responsibilities “equally” in terms of meetings and committees. They would have rotating terms so that during any one year, there would always be one president with three years of experience. They could each serve 2 three-year terms. The president with the most experience would be the official spokesperson for that year, and decisions would need a majority vote in order for them to be implemented.
- Another idea is to keep the same structure, but have it that the President, 1st VP, and 2nd VP must each come from a different building. In addition, we could make the term limits even stricter by saying that each person is allowed only one three-year term at a time. We could also specify a rotation regarding levels (i.e. the president first comes from the elementary level, then the middle, and then the high school). If we do something like this, I think we also need to spread the stipend money around so that the 1st and 2nd VPs and be given more responsibilities in anticipation for the assuming the role of president.
- I think we need to add language to the constitution that discourages the president serving as chief negotiator.
- In addition, Mary Boeni came to me with a concern about our grievance set-up. At the moment, we have a grievance chairperson, but no committee. When she did the Gettysburg training, she was told that a committee is essential and would help the process and take the burden off of one person (a theme in our association!). Mary also feels that a committee is needed. I think we need to look at our constitution language to see if we need to rewrite anything here to make a committee possible or even mandatory.
I am curious to hear other’s opinions. I would like to know if any other associations have organizational structures already in place that are working well and address my concerns. Please share your thoughts.
Posted in Climbing Up Hill March 25, 2009
First order of business is that we alla greed to stay an additional hour after our next rep council to address the issue of restructuring the officer positions. Bob has offered to provide dinner thorugh SEA resources. Kristy zlowtowski will be able to join us for part of the time.
As I see it there our several objectives for this committee To begin with we need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the existing structure for officers of our association. Then we need to investigate other organizational structures that may be viable alternatives. After concluding our research and discussion we need to agree on a proposal that we can make to the rep council as soon as possible. I would like to suggest that we make this proposal to rep council by the May meeting. Furthermore I would like to suggest that we use this blog as a forum for pulling together thoughts and ideas prior to our face to face discussion. I’m sure common themes/issues will emerge which will make our face time more productive. Ruthann will be meeting with us and I will ask her to share information prior to our meeting through this blog site.
As a test of this discussion forum please comment on this post by Sunday, March 22. Thanks
Posted in Climbing Up Hill March 18, 2009
