The Brecksville-Broadview Heights Education Association and the Brecksville-Broadview Heights Organization of Support Staff want the district’s Board of Education to give up its right to unilaterally implement a contract.
In return, the unions have publicly said they would give up their right to strike.
The unions held a press conference at the Monday evening and called for the board to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, a legally binding contract, agreeing to give up the right to implement a contract for the unions’ right to strike.
“This pledge removes the private political agendas, which have no place in public education. This pledge puts the focus back on getting our rooms ready for kids, on putting student names on books and lockers, on preparing for football games, volleyball matches and cross country matches. This is a pledge to do what is best for the community,” spokesman Joe Zenir said in a prepared speech.
Zenir said Brecksville-Broadview Heights Education Association and the Brecksville-Broadview Heights Organization of Support Staff don’t want to strike, but they are prepared to do so if necessary.
Both unions have already passed a strike authorization vote. The , and the .
The unions said their goal is to put a contract in place that preserves students’ education and includes sacrifices from employees. The union contends that the board has a "political agenda” of forcing a strike by implementing a contract, and asked them to prove that they do not by agreeing to the “pledge.”
This agreement would include the promise to bargain in good faith and to continue to do so for as long as it takes.
As of 6 p.m., Board President David Tryon had not seen the pledge, but he said the board would take the ideas under advisement.
Brecksville-Broadview Heights Education Association President Bonnie Monteleone said a few words to the teachers and staff members gathered before the speech, noting that if the board does not agree to the pledge, the unions can still exercise their rights.
After the speech, Monteleone taped a copy of the pledge to the Education Center's doors, and members headed out to personally deliver copies of the pledge to the board members.
Thanks, "nonfriend" for your support - I think that is what it was. I am constantly surprised at what Rachel allows to remain on her edition - she clearly shows her bias more than other Patch editors. But, regarding this topic - here there has been the same post put on 5 different articles mentioning someones full name, linking that name to a poster. Even if that were me, it should have been deleted as I did not choose to have my privacy revealed, especially when there have been some vicious comments, bordering on threats, lobbied my way. This could even possibly open the door to some liability on the Patch's part should repercussions follow. However, I am still curious why I am, and have been, linked to this other person.
That's nonsense. And what about you - Who are you? Are you J.S. Daily? Why not take it even further - maybe the editors should have to start divulging those individuals who are using multiple aliases. Besides, from what I can see, the person I am being named to be, appears to be a private citizen. So, why invade their privacy - not to mention, why is their privacy being allowed to be invaded, other than to discredit someone people obviously don't agree with. All this is an obvious way to divert the discussion from the topic at hand. However, right now I really have nothing further to add since the teachers and union decided to comment on the proceedings going on behind closed doors at the negotiations - to me, THAT was very inappropriate and probably even worse according to how labor proceedings are suppose to go.
I would have no problem letting the editors identify me, as long as Lenore and Donald do the same. If they really are board members - that is something the public should know. If they aren't then they should have no problem with the editors of this site from assuring the public of that. Do they want people to think they are board members? That would be the only assumption left. After all, if they aren't board members, the editors of this site (I guess that's who is in charge) would not identify them, just let everyone know that they are not the board members. Like I said, I don't believe that you are Renee E. - I've seen her in action at board meetings. I would also figure she would want people to know it was her - and then she would try to drum up more interest in her web site.
They are having fun with you guys. IF you were truly serious about your claims, all you needed to do was look at their posts - and you would have seen they had postings on the PATCH while negotiations were going on last week.
I knew it! I was wondering if someone would respond with that one. A bit of a stretch, don't you think? To actually engage in reading Patch comments on several different articles and then reply to them that evening?? I know people don't think much of the board members, but do you REALLY think that during those meetings they actually took the time to pull out their smartphones or whatever to follow what people on the PATCH might be saying? Are you really believing that? Do you really think the PATCH is so high up there on their list of priorities during that time? If anyone does think this, then it just shows that people have blinders on and are unwilling to live in the real world. Come on - the PATCH??? Its not like sending out a few tweets to incite.
OK, you don't believe it, yet you'll say it and it is that kind of post that gets others going too. So, now she's a wife - you "heard" it, do you believe it? Or just another post to agitate others. Sorry that this comes across as strongly debating your words, but it has gotten to the point where people are saying things that they know are not true, yet they put it out there for one reason - to rile up others. Again, I apologize for taking it out on you.
Perhaps you are right, or maybe not. But I respect your honest opinion. Now hopefully people will limit their discussions to relevant matters. For me, unless someone or something sparks my interest, bye. I'm sure you will all manage without me. Good luck!
Tryon and Dosen aren't in the negotiations. So they could post anytime. I think it's interesting that neither have responded (Lenore L. or Donald) since JS posted. Must be something there…… You can have anyone check, I have only one account that I use on this site.
I just can't pull out from here - thanks a lot (said with a smile)! If that's true, I stand corrected. I would assume that the board members are all part of the negotiations. That's something I never heard of. So, then who does the union negotiate with if not the board members? I realize they have attorneys, but the parties are also present in union negotiation processes - but only certain individuals may do the actual speaking.
Also, Michelle was the first to report here that evening on the Patch that the board was "Hiding in a room NOT willing to negotiate" (her exact words). And, AnnL was "corroberating the FACT" when she said "the BOE has locked itself in a room and REFUSES TO COME OUT AND NEGOTIATE" (also her words in the quotes). I do not know how people who were not part of the process would be privy to this info, but apparently they were and I guess there were several tweets similar to the above. So, I think it would be safe to assume the the board members were part of the negotiation process. But, I am willing to listening to an explanation on how they are not.
The BOE negotiations team is no secret - Evans, Pepple (lawyer,) Rings, Ziegler. This is the first time there has been a board member in the negotiations. Usually the superintendent is in there. As to referring to the Board hiding out, it could very well mean the BOE's team.
Would you give Rachel permission to verify that you aren't a board member or related to one? That would settle it.
To the conspiracy theorists, I am not a teacher, board member, or a relative of either.
Lenore L. has given you permission to release the information that she is not a board member or related to one. Is this true? Is it the same Lenore L. who has been posting? This would clear up at least one part of this thread.