Since I have been a member of 157 I have heard from the dais more than once that the presence of numerous security guards were stipulated in a contract between 157 and the school. Last night we found out that was not the case. According to VP pro tem Gerry Gausman ,E board member Paul Capurso lied to him about the entire affair and went so far as to say 157 had a verbal agreement with the principal who required 15 guards. Another lie. The school only requires 1 guard to prevent kids from entering our meeting.
Why would the 157 e board deceive the membership in this manner? Gausman said that, according one e board member, it was done because the 608 people could become rowdy. Ye of little faith! One might wonder if money is at the heart of it.
Why did Capurso miss the meeting? And Sontag ? Why did Trustee Hatcher walk out of the meeting without a word? Who else was absent? Very interesting.
Levi: Correct me if I am wrong. Did Gerry say, he was able to reach a compromise with the executive committee, reducing the cost of security personal for local meetings from fifteen security guards to seven, I believe he said he wanted just one.
The vice principle of the school where we hold our meeting met with Gausman and agreed that one security guard was suitable for the meeting.When Gausman went to E-Board meeting and communicated this to the E-Board they voted this down . The E-Board wants all the security regardless what the membership has expressed to them. How come nobody questions this or holds the E-Board accountable?
John- I will continue this dialog in greater detail when I have a few more minutes. But maybe you can answer one thing that has been troubling me. Why were we led to believe there was a contract with the school requiring a larger security detail?
John Guererra- I"ll answer any questions you have to the best of my knowledge. I have some too. Can you tell us anything about the misleading statements regarding the security firm? Lawrence told the membership we were bound by contract with the school for whatever the number was. Capurso told Gausman the same. Now we know it wasn't true. Who else knew?
To answer your question:The night Davenport was assaulted I left the meeting by then and he has already weighed in on the subject of security guards.
As for the constitutions: It's difficult to know how it went in the meeting. I think if the e board was more interested in helping the membership take our union back from the UBC supervisors and less interested in falling into line with them against the will of the membership, we would've already had the books. The fact that Gausman didn't object to the minutes means little. Maybe he didn't hear them or maybe he was thinking he would address it in his report. The worst thing he did was to not object. Granted,that was a mistake.
As for the transition meeting: I was asked to be on the transition committee and I turned it down after the initial meeting because, as an elected trustee I owed it to the people from my local to make a stand against the UBC supervisors who lied to us, dissolved our local, gave back our raise, invented a bullshit local, raided other trades, used our money like their own atm, put themselves on the board of trustees to our pension fund,talked about selling our real estate and much more. I have done more as an outspoken member than I could've as a "transition team member" and I can hold my head up and say "fuck them".
Can you tell me if this transition committee exists? Has it ever existed? Are you on this committee? What have you been able to accomplish from the inside?It sounded like bullshit from Spencer and Ballantyne then and now.
I wasn't offered an eboard position so I can't answer for those who were.