keven sandquist

More troubling, probably, is that hearing dissent from 10% of the members over an issue is somehow judged to be a failure of democracy. We don’t expect to please everybody. All Board members are acting as they each individually see fit, but each are also trying to do the best they can for TEA as a whole.

Eric can continue to snipe away at the honest intentions of the Board and all of you can continue to give him support to do that if you want. We are founded in democratic principles. But you should also ask, what purpose does this serve if TEA crumbles away and members lose their rights and their advocates. What do other unions and management make of this internal bickering? Do they see an organization that can be manipulated to their advantage? Or one that stands united and steadfast, and commands the respect other unions enjoy. Our democracy is not at risk here, but I fear our existence is.

An email written by TEA President Roger Browne went out to members on March 2, 2007 responding to letters circulating regarding the recent Secretary election. Note that this was a personal statement and NOT an official TEA Board response. It contains many assertions that in the following will be refuted, point by point, so that members may judge the facts for themselves and continue to demand accountability and transparency in our union’s dealings.

For those not interested in reading the details that follow, the key issues – still on the table as far as the Board is concerned – are:

· The Board wanted to meet and discuss the election runoff decision, and was prevented from doing so by the TEA President.

· In the absence of this discussion, half of the Board did not even realize they were being asked to decide the issue by email, and no motion was ever presented to approve the election results that the President sent out.

· Bylaws regarding election by majority of votes and the need for a runoff election for the top two candidates were ignored.

· The requirement to have the Board interpret TEA Bylaws was ignored by the President, who made numerous decisions without consulting the Board.

· Ballots were destroyed immediately after the election, despite the requirement that they be kept for 30 days.

Before getting into details, it is important to keep in mind the central issue in this whole discussion: TEA is supposed to be a union that acts democratically in the members’ interests in accordance with our Bylaw constitution. I raised a concern that this did not occur in the recent Secretary election process. The Board was to decide the merits of the request (made by both Alton and myself).for a runoff election. In no way is this suggesting that either eligible candidate for the runoff (Ken Madden or Alton Gaskill) has done anything wrong.

I am not interested in further conflict within TEA, and don’t think I should be attacked for bringing to light the concerns expressed below. I do believe that we should be a union of laws, not subject to manipulation and arbitrary decisions. We lose legitimacy as a union when our elected leaders are not allowed to meet and decide important issues together. It is for all the reasons elaborated on below that I believe we have failed to uphold the democratic principles and intent of the Bylaws.

The central fact remains that, despite multiple requests by Board members to meet, discuss and decide the issue regarding the need for a runoff election, the President would not do so. This was ascertained by asking Board members their understanding of the exchanges that occurred on February 22 and 23 (after the Secretary vote and prior to the President’s announcement of results). Further, as a result of asking Board members about this, and by reviewing the e-mails that were exchanged during the same time, I have learned that:

§ At least three Board members did not even understand they were being asked for a final vote for a determination on whether to hold a runoff election, and had stated they wanted to discuss this in person as a Board.
§ No formal motion for a vote declaring an election outcome was presented to the Board.
§ All three of these Board members believed a runoff was warranted under the Bylaws, and another has suggested that based on his subsequent understanding in discussion he would concur.

In my opinion this makes the President’s assertion in his email that “All Board members were given a chance to vote on this question, and the final count was 4-1 with one not voting” totally inaccurate and misleading.

The President wrote that “on the question of calling a (face to face) meeting of the board; there is no provision in the bylaws” and that he could not call a “special meeting” as a reason he would not call the Board to discuss the election issue as requested by Board members. This is (presumably deliberately) a red herring – and itself an interpretation of the Bylaws which should be decided by the Board. “Special Meetings” in the Bylaws are a specific remedy that does not address Board meetings. In fact, NOWHERE in the Bylaws is there any mention of procedures to call a Board meeting (or prohibit one from being called). By the President’s logic quoted above, the Board should never meet!

More properly stated, nothing in the Bylaws prevents the President from calling a Board meeting at any time. Indeed, one of the Board’s obligations (under Article VI Sec. C 2 g) is to “attend…the call of the President…” whenever he calls a meeting. Further, Article VIII Sec. D allows the Board to go into Executive Session at “any meeting, by a majority vote by the Board…” Whether or not the Board chose to go into Executive Session, they are free to meet at any time, and certainly should have in this case, given that it had been requested on an important issue by Board members. Indeed, under Article III a Board meeting could be called as either a Business Meeting or Executive Session.

The President states that he received a letter from me “telling” him to hold a runoff election. This is false. The email I sent on the issue to the Board on Feb. 22nd clearly had a subject line “Status of election and request for a runoff ballot” and nowhere had such a directive. In fact, I quote: “I ask that you quickly announce and prepare the runoff ballots and hold the election per the Bylaws ASAP.” I would be happy to provide my email request – which was followed up by a similar request from the candidate Alton – to anyone who’d like to see it.

The Bylaw articles I cited are as follows:
ARTICLE IX ELECTIONS
SECTION A. BOARD OFFICER OPEN ELECTIONS

6. Counting of Ballots
c. The candidate receiving the majority of the ballots cast shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority of the ballots cast, (a tie), a runoff election will be held immediately at that same meeting.
7. Runoff Election
a. The Secretary will direct the procedures during a Runoff Election according to this
Section.
b. The tie will be broken by an informal anonymous written ballot vote cast at that same Annual Meeting between only the two candidates for each office receiving the greatest number of votes for that office.

This section of the Bylaws contains the heart of my objection to the election procedure, aside from the very significant issue of refusing to allow the Board to meet and even discuss this. The President in his email cited only the first half of the relevant Bylaws here. The reference to a tie as being less than a majority of the ballots cast is clear in the part he left out, 7B above, where a “tie” is broken by a runoff vote “between only the two candidates…receiving the greatest number of votes for that office”. If there is an absolute majority of ballots cast for one candidate, there is no need to break a tie as defined there.

It is interesting to note that a long-standing former TEA Board member, who helped author the Bylaws, has told the Board in past meetings that the above interpretation is correct (that an absolute majority is required for election to office). He noted that the point of having a runoff vote is so no candidate is elected by plurality.

Indeed, this issue was raised when I served as President (and had the exclusive authority to interpret the Bylaws) and Dave Crippen did receive an absolute majority of votes for the office he ran for. The objection then was that while that was the case, because there were other officers up for election and not all ballots marked votes for each office, Dave did not receive a “majority of the ballots cast” in the election as a whole. It was for this reason that the Board decided – after I had the Board meet and deliberate over the interpretation – it would be willing to call a runoff election then, but Dave’s opponent withdrew when notified of the decision, so no election was possible. (It is not true that we made it optional.) If the Board was willing to call a runoff under the much more tenuous definition of a majority of votes, why not now in a much clearer case?

Curiously, the President argues that because the Board did not do so in the recent election of Diane Fjarlie (who since resigned, creating the need for this election), there is no need to do so now. To say that because the Board violated TEA Bylaws once under his direction (this was before the Board was given authority to interpret the Bylaws by recent amendment) now gives the Board the excuse to continue to do so is false and dangerous. One would not find much sympathy in front of a judge by arguing that because you did something wrong before and weren’t caught, you shouldn’t have to abide by the law if you do it again! Interestingly, our legal counsel has stated that acting in conflict with the Bylaws does not establish it as a past practice where it conflicts.

(It’s also worth pointing out that the Board was explicitly notified by a candidate and myself of the Bylaw runoff clauses before this election result was announced and that is why Board members asked to meet to discuss it, which the President prevented.)

The President stated that the bylaw reference defining a majority as 50% plus one vote was irrelevant as it applies to contract ratification only. This entirely misses the point of the Board member who cited it – that it is the ONLY place in the Bylaws where “majority” is specifically defined, and that any other definition would conflict. Again, this means that the runoff election should be required when a majority (50% plus one vote) was not received by any candidate.

As to the use of Roberts Rules of Order, a Board member cited that as further evidence (in addition to the Bylaws and past Board understandings per above) of how a majority is defined. In fact they are relevant (though unnecessary given the above) because the election was held at a meeting, where per Article VIII Sec. F they govern “all meetings”.

As to whether there was an initial refusal to include a nominee, I will be willing to share with anyone who asks the email response I got from our President, and they can judge for themselves. I am not interested in embarrassing him though, and as his response contains unprofessional language I will not repeat it here.

Finally, the President is to “Preside at all meetings…and “oversee the maintenance by the Secretary of such records as the law and these Bylaws require…” as part of his obligations under Article VI Sec. D. This makes the claim that those counting ballots were “unaware of the one month rule for keeping ballots” irrelevant, as it is his responsibility to have done so.

I repeat, I am not interested in further conflict within TEA, and don’t think I should be attacked for bringing to light the concerns expressed above. I believe all members have a right to demand that we uphold the democratic principles and intent of the Bylaws, the law that governs our democratic union.

Eric Mandel, former TEA President

From: Crippen, Dave
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:59 PM
To: Mandel, Eric
Subject: FW: interpretation of the bylaws

“Eric: I sent you a voice mail about your statement regarding the election. In that voice mail I referred to an e-mail that Roger sent to the Board asking for input about the interpretation of the bylaws. As you can see there is no motion to approve Ken Madden as the winner of the election, and no absolute timeframe to respond to his question. These irregularities led me to send an e-mail to Roger on Monday 2/26/07, which I forwarded to you, raising concerns about Roger’s actions in declaring the final election results.”

From: Crippen, Dave
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:26 PM
To: Browne, Roger
Cc: Davison, Eric; Franklin, Ade; Sandquist, Keven; Phillips, John
Subject: RE: Secretary Election

“I am concerned about the e-mail below declaring the results of the election for Secretary.

Last Thursday at 12:11pm, I requested, via an e-mail to the Board members, that Roger set up an executive meeting of the TEA Board as soon as possible to discuss interpreting the bylaws. At 2:00pm on the same day, Roger acknowledged, in an e-mail to the Board members, that he “had been requested to call an executive session to determine the interpretation of the bylaws for this vote for Secretary. At 4:17pm on the same day John Phillips, in an e-mail to the Board members, said that “an executive session is warranted so we all feel comfortable with our decision.” Based upon these e-mails, I assumed that the TEA Board was going to meet to discuss this. Then I received the e-mail from Roger declaring the official results. I am disturbed by this lack of protocol. Prior to Roger’s e-mail below, I was not even sure what the results were of the vote taken for Secretary, and did not feel that I could make a reasonable decision without that information.

In reading the bylaws, there is certainly conflicting language. Without any discussion, I would vote for a runoff election to ensure that the will of the majority of our members was listened to. If the majority of the members want Ken Madden as the Secretary then he should have no problem in a runoff election.”

I am writing a dissent to the decision made to certify the past election. While I do not have any issues with any particular candidate, I do take issue with the process by which the decision was made.

Also, I am not challenging the decisions, but the process. At this point, TEA needs to move forward and work on other issues, hopefully in a more democratic fashion, which is a basic unwritten goal of TEA.

There are several issues regarding the announcement by the TEA President on February 23, 2007 concerning the results of the secretary election.

For this election, 225 total ballots were counted. Ken Madden received 98 votes (43%); Alton Gaskill received 89 votes (39%); and Rita Ritter received 38 votes (17%). While all candidates are more than qualified for the job, a democratic principle has been violated along with some bylaws.

Before the results were formally announced to the membership at large, several members were made aware of the results. While there is not a bylaw that forbids sharing results with certain members before a formal announcement, it should be considered privileged until a formal announcement is made and, at a minimum, all board members are made aware of the results as soon as possible.

A member petitioned the board to consider a runoff election because Ken Madden did not receive a majority of the votes. This was an accurate petition and should, at that time, constituted a runoff election. Parliamentary procedure is the rule of law for organizations. While the organizations bylaws preside over rule of order, in absence or when bylaws are in conflict rule or order is there to provide a legal definition.

TEA is a 501 (c) 3 corporation under state law and therefore bound to provide members, at a minimum, bylaws. Robert’s Rule of Order is internationally accepter rule of order for organizations and corporations. State law also should be reviewed; conduct for meetings, privileges and voting are outlined in RCW 24.03.

A basic premise is at work that is the interpretation of the bylaws. Roberts Rule of Order addresses interpreting bylaws. Roberts Rule of Order concerning bylaws, when bylaw interpretations are made no interpretation can be made that conflict with another bylaw.

In addition, an opinion given to the TEA Board by the organization’s attorney, Jim Cline, would also lead the board to same conclusions I have made below. The opinion, issued in October 2006, stated that: “1. Whenever possible, conflicting provisions of a legal document should be harmonized so as to avoid the conflict; 2. Specific provisions override more general provisions.”

All election procedures are covered under Article IX.

The election was held under Article IX Section B – Special Elections. The procedure for a special election ends at item h – These votes will be counted by the Secretary and at least one full member. No other instructions follow.

However, Article IX Section A.6 does provide further procedures for counting. Item c state that if no candidate receives a majority of the ballots cast, (a tie), a runoff election will be held immediately at the same meeting. It should be noted that “a tie” is not a majority. However, a tie, would only be resolved by a runoff election as would resolving that no candidate received a majority. A specific set of bylaws outlining procedures for counting ballots versus the more general bylaw in Article IX Section B. h.

In response to the e-mail sent by the member requesting a runoff election two board members agreed with the notion that a majority meant 50% or greater. Two board members defined majority as a plurality, the candidate receiving the most votes. One Board member requested that the Board meet and discuss the issue. One board member did not respond. It should be noted here and later that no meeting was held.

It should also be added the definition of majority is later used in the same article under Section F 5. A simple majority (50% plus one) shall be required to accept contract ratification. This bylaw is being more specific than the bylaw in Article IX Section A.6.

An important tenant of democratic parliamentary procedure stated in Robert’s Rule of Order is a plurality never elects, only a majority. This being stated, the word plurality does not exist anywhere in the bylaws and therefore should not be assumed or implied in the interpretation of any bylaws since the words are not the same or have the same meanings, in other words one cannot be used as a definition for the other.

Although past practice should not be considered as a method of interpreting the bylaws (Cline, 2006 e-mail), past practice is inconsistent. In 2006, Diane Fjarlie did not receive a majority of the votes and no runoff was held. The current board is at fault for not abiding by the bylaws and this should be noted. However, the point is somewhat moot since Diane resigned soon after the election. In 2005, Dave Crippen was not elected by a majority, a runoff election was suggested, but the candidate receiving the lesser number of votes declined.

Another request by the President of TEA was made to the board by e-mail. The board was asked to interpret the bylaws, but only specifically related to two issues.

a) In the absence of a process for counting votes in a special election, shall we apply the rules for a general election… or some new rule? Limit your answer to resolving this specific case, please. We can let the Bylaw committee worry about future elections.

b) If you believe we should apply that rule, then please interpret this piece of the language: “If no candidate receives a majority of the ballots cast, (a tie), ” does this mean 51% or does it mean the most votes cast.

Two out of the six board members requested a meeting and one board member not responding, the same board member that requested a meeting to further discuss this issue. At this point three out of six board members were requesting a meeting and specifically an Executive Session to discuss this issue.

Five board members agreed that a new rule was not necessary and is covered by the bylaws in Article IX Section A 6.

Two board members stated majority meant 50% or greater, two board members felt it meant plurality and one believed that a runoff should only be held in case of a tie.

If any discussion would have occurred in could have been pointed out to the members that thought it meant plurality were wrong. All legitimate sources of rule of order define majority as 50% or greater, even our own bylaws.

One board member did not respond, but maintained his previous stance of a meeting. I also assumed that a meeting would occur at a later time.

Within the same e-mail from the President, he states “I have been asked to call an executive session to determine the interpretation of the bylaws for this vote for Secretary. Interestingly enough, there is no provision for that in the bylaws.”

Within my response I stated that the bylaws do provide for executive session and that an executive session should be held regardless. Executive sessions are specifically defined in the bylaws under Article III. “Exectuive Session – An exclusive meeting, called by the Board, for business conducted primarily by the Board.” And further more in Article VIII Section D which outlines the purpose of executive sessions and that they may be called at any meeting of TEA. Interpretation of the bylaws is given to the board under Article VI Section C. Therefore it is primarily board business to interpret the bylaws. Also, according to Article VII Section D, the Board may call an executive session at any meeting. This is counter to a response that the President gave to further requests for an executive session.

Regardless of the belief by the President that any absence of direction for an executive session, a session should have been held so the board could come to agreement or at least have an open discussion on the interpretation. In this case, the President interpreted the bylaws on his own.

E-mail is not the place for debate, nor should the President assume that our vote was cast by responding to his e-mail, especially since the request was made to hold a meeting. E-mail communication is one way; it does not provide a forum for open discussions. Also, no motion was made to use the interpretation as the final decision of the board, therefore we would know if the board voted to decide on using the general election rule and the 50% majority definition.

There is a huge amount of responsibility placed on the TEA Board. Members do not have access to a higher organization, like AFL-CIO in defining bylaws and the conduct of the organization. Their only remedy is through Superior Court (PERC, communication). Therefore, the board is obliged to discuss matters thoroughly and, if necessary, involve a third party, i.e. lawyer or parliamentarian when interpreting bylaws.

But, a larger issue is yet to be resolved and has been reflected in other decisions and discussions within TEA under the current president; the undemocratic nature in which business is conducted. While this was just a “backfill appointment,” (stated in President’s e-mail) there have been other times when open debate and discussion was suppressed or an attempt to suppress.

As stated earlier, I do not wish to decertify or object to the election. I only wish to share my dissent with the TEA Board and the membership. In the future, it is my hope that the democratic principal will be followed and the Board will best serve its members by having open discussions and debates when disagreement on issues arises.

Yours in Solidarity,

John Phillips

I am stating my opinion just like you.
I still believe that removing the statements without first reviewing why, is wrong. Not that many members appear to have looked at the site to see the statements. Anyone who went to the candiate’s forum heard each persons statement and as you noted, we all got the TEA Times. One issue is that members were directed to the site if they wanted to read them. Communication was mentioned by more than one candidate’s statement as an important element needed to assist TEA as we move forward. No one expressed that anything said was in error or not valid for public comment, at the forum or afterward, although some did disagree with various statement positions. Big deal, look how you disagree with mine. That is what open discussion is for, like yours and my opinion. I do not know what statement caused this alarm and action. As far as I know, only one person does know. I think that if we have this open communication we say we need, shouldn’t whoever has the issue bring it forward and shouldn’t whoever is labeled as the cause of the complaint have the opportunity to represent their position? If we don’t want what we say and what we think to be made public, then should we to not have public statements of our positions at all? I simply think that one person making rule for all is not appropriate, but that style does seem to be the model our generation has advanced and appears to embrace.
It is my understand that the VEBA vote was open to all represented groups. Not specifically TEA. I participated in that vote along with those in my represented group in TEA, just like the other represented folks in other unions made their votes. I was never aware where TEA had anything to do with making this option available solely to us other than what was discussed in the Board meetings, although, I do not know first hand all of the contacts and efforts that were made. I was under the impression that the VEBA option came from the County and the joint labor groups, of which we are not a part, but it allowed TEA to be covered under their agreement. I do agree with other comments that have been made asking about the other 65% of sick leave hours on retirement.
I am not suggesting or stating that TEA has done nothing for any of its members. That is why TEA exists. Many of us have worked hard to get where TEA is today and I do not discount that effort for a minute, including your effort. I clearly do not shamefully understimate anyone’s work for the support of us all, specially yours.
I am not a public speaker. I am not the fastest wit to battle words with you or anyone. I am expressing my opinion as a single member, just like all of us have the right to do. Clearly, I know what work is done by our board and I know who does that work. I also know that you and I will not work at King County long enough to have the compensation used to base our retirement income equal to that of our counterparts in WW. I think this is wrong of the County. I believe TEA members contract provisions should be equal value to those granted to other WW union contracts.
I still encourage each member to become actively involved in our Association and to get to know first hand the issues that are in front of us. The more aware each of us become, the more responsive TEA will be for us all.

keven sandquist

The TEA site was not “shut down,” despite the writer’s assertion that it was. Yes, some content was removed – specifically, candidate’s campaign statements. This brings us to the next item.

Next, regarding “censorship and control” –

* Only TEA members should be concerned with candidate statements or campaign issues.

* All TEA members were sent, and presumably received, the TEA Times email containing the candidate statements and campaign issues.

* Therefore, no TEA member was denied access to candidate statements or campaign issues.

This does not strike me as an example of either censorship or control. Instead, I characterize this issue as one of “how public do you want your laundry” rather than a censorship and control issue. Instead, I argue that removing candidate statements from a world-accessible web page is not some act of censorship (or some effort to extend some undefined “control” over something, but rather common sense.

Finally, none of this has anything to do with contracts, mediation, retirement, or anything else mentioned in the writer’s comments. In those comments, the writer asserts that the TEA leadership is less concerned with “issues that benefit and improve all members” than with “the petty issues that are being pushed by a few.” Yet, to take only the most recent examples, it must be said that TEA’s leadership made it possible for soon-to-retire members to vote on their VEBA status, rather than have it dictated to them by HR. And it was TEA’s leadership that made it possible for WW designers to petition their exempt/non-exempt status with HR — or is this one of the “petty issues that are being pushed by a few”?

I hope he’s not reffering to the “censorship and control” matters from the beginning of his comment. If so, he grossly overestimates the time and effort required to make a web site change, and shamefully underestimates the amount of time and effort TEA leadership expends “to protect and improve our current work issues and make a better retirement future for each of us.” The writer himself is on the board; he should know better.

keven sandquist