An Example of When One Member Brought about Change.

On Behalf of WEA’s More Conservative Members #18 An Example of When One Member Brought about Change. 5.15.20 My second example is an NEA RA New Business Item that called for NEA members to encourage law enforcement officers and other public servants to refuse to cooperate with federal officers in enforcing immigration laws. Delegates were being asked to encourage teachers, counselors, administrators, police officers and other public official to break the law. You may think what you like about the concept of sanctuary cities or schools, but this was a major policy violation for NEA. And that would be the battle field upon which the issue was decided. One member was recognized to speak and asked the chair a question, “Did urging members to break the law violate NEA RA floor rules and, if it did, would the chair please rule this NBI “out of order”. After lengthy discussion behind the podium, the chair came back and ruled that the NBI did, indeed, violate NEA floor rules and then he ruled it “out of order”. Before I go on, it’s important that you understand that the NEA members supporting this item had spent the better part of a year getting the issue before the RA. And in the blink of an eye, their endeavor died. The makers of the motion had one last opportunity, according to parliamentary rules. They challenged the ruling of the chair and asked that his ruling be put to a vote of the entire assembly (often as many as 10,000 delegates). Their hope was that most of the delegates would support them. To the surprise of many that afternoon, the delegates resoundingly supported the ruling of the chair and the battle was over. This decision was brought about because one member out of ten thousand understood the rules and had the will power to speak out. It also required strong leadership to issue that ruling. I suspect for many of you this is a very different perspective of WEA/NEA. ------------ Ken Mortland is a member of WEA-Retired, continuing a long career of activism in WEA/NEA. He is also a lifelong Republican and a member of Mainstream Republicans of WA Board.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sec. of State Handles Calls for Help from Other States

On Behalf of WEA’s More Conservative Members #60 Examples of Sec. of State Wyman’s Media Appearances #3 - NBC - Coronavirus 'worst-case scenario': Could the presidential vote be done by mail? 3/26/2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/coronavirus-worst-case-scenario-could-presidential-vote-be-done-mail-n1168151 8.24.20 This series is in response to WA State Democratic Party Chairperson’s claiming Sec. of State Kim Wyman has not been “championing vote by mail across the country” . •Wyman said she's been inundated with calls from colleagues in other states seeking advice. •"The first thing I say is people need to understand the context," she said. "I am probably the biggest champion of vote by mail in the country, but it took us five years to move from polling places to vote-by-mail." •Every state that isn't used to voting primarily by mail will have to prepare for a huge increase in volume. •Voters need to be told not only how to v
Read more

ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION?

SERIOUSLY! ARE YOU KIDDIN’ ME!! #10 ARE THE ATTACKS ON USPS AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION? Aren’t These People Supposed to Know Better? 8.26.20 -The US Postal Service was created by an enabling act in the US Constitution. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). -Under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, election protocols are the responsibility of the States, subject to the US Constitution. (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) It is, therefore, my opinion that the recent actions taken by Pres. Trump’s recently appointed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy constitute a double assault on the US Constitution. Furthermore, the timing and targeting of mail sorting and delivery capabilities are clearly intended to disrupt the upcoming General Election and set the scene for a refusal by Pres. Trump to honor the results of the election, should he be defeated.
Read more

The Righteous US v. The Evil Them

Could This Be the Beginning of a Trend? #15 The Righteous US v. The Evil Them 7.8.20 There’s a great line, spoken by Ben Franklin, in the stage play/movie “1776”. I’m paraphrasing here, but it goes something like this…. “Revolution in the first person, our revolution, is always good. It’s only bad in the third person, their revolution.” As I look at the text of President Trump’s Mt. Rushmore speech, I see this concept in the form of an effort to emphasize an “US v. Them” scenario. On the Fourth of July, I would imagine a speech would emphasize the “WE”, but that does not seem to be the case. For example: "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children." To start with, I’m struck by the scenario of “our nation”, not theirs; the “our history”, not theirs; “our heroes”, not theirs; “our values”, not theirs; and “our children”, not theirs. It implies “they” are not p
Read more