Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/25480
4A – Daily News – Saturday, February 19, 2011 Opinion D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 So much ugly Editor: There is so much "ugly" in Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 this world and the "100 years of Reagan" in the Feb. 15 issue of your disgusting paper has pushed me over the edge. I never will take your paper again and please don't ever give me a free copy. I am appalled at the idea that you would allow such hatefulness to be pub- lished. I don't think I need to explain why it's wrong to pub- lish stuff like that, I guess you do it in the name of being polit- ically correct. God help you. God does love you and I for- give you. I still don't want your paper. Please don't respond. Carolyn Fletcher, Red Bluff No accident Editor: While sitting in a left turn lane, my car was plowed from behind by an impaired driver. Since proper protocol was not followed by the Red Bluff Police Department, the case cannot be prosecuted as such. The District Attorney’s office has now termed it “a simple accident.” Syble Taylor, Red Bluff Polson column Editor: I have to admit I don't read (Don) Polson regularly, but I was thunderstruck as I read the first paragraph of Mon- day's (Feb. 14) column in which he cited the opening of the Declaration of Indepen- dence as the start of the US Constitution. I think that this amazing error of historical fact is a good rea- son for regular readers to fact check his work. And it may be a good reason to just not read his weekly rambling, pieced- together, hashes of conservative talking points. I would suggest that it would be far better to go directly to Web news sites and read the original op-eds/columns that he talks about in his column. J. Noel Eaves, Red Bluff Liberal cowards Editor: Hey Orval (Strong), while I people with college degrees. Like I said “self-ordained intellectual giants” they just think they’re smart. While Ahmadinejad may Your Turn may consider you a man of at least some character, because you identify yourself when making a post on the Topix- Forum page, I don’t believe you’re any smarter than your liberal cowards that hide in anonymity. Your appreciation is wast- ed. Just because there is an overwhelming majority of lib- eral college and university professors doesn’t prove their intellect, on the contrary, it explains why we have so many stupid anti-American have toned down his rhetoric on the Holocaust at Columbia, it was only because he was challenged about it before his speech. However, on many occasions he has denied it and called it a hoax, a myth and a fairytale. Here’s a quote from the New York Daily News dated Sept. 24, 2007: “But Ahmadinejad received a rous- ing round of applause when he took the stage after Bollinger's introduction and chided Columbia officials for their ‘unfriendly treatment.’” A rousing round of applause for a dictator that is often compared to Hitler, how un-American is that? Les Wolfe, Red Bluff Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 6031 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319-2102 STATE SENATOR — Doug LaMalfa (R) State Capitol Bldg., Room 3070 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Jerry Brown, State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224- 0454. The perils of trust Commentary “Our distrust is very expen- sive.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson Many of us have attended workshops during which we are asked to fall back blindly into the arms of someone behind us. That exercise was one element of trust building, the reliance on others to act appropriately. Trust is not always easily built, but even when established it can be a fragile commodity. In 1976 our then and current Governor signed into law the Edu- cation Employment Relations Law (EERA) which allowed for collective bargaining in public schools. Prior to that, employee representatives could only meet and consult with their school employers. Some “old line” school administrators thought they would have to fill the moat, deploy alligators, and pull up the draw bridge. The collective bargaining model is essentially an adversarial process, but many of our local school districts soon realized that in a small community where we all have to roll up our sleeves and work together after the negotiat- ing process is over, it is far better to try a more collaborative approach to the bargaining process. The Red Bluff High School District led the way in bringing a “win-win” approach to negotiations. This required better communication between the administration and the unions and paying more attention on the part of the employees; these are healthy requirements and lead to a more team feeling on the part of everyone. Other districts have tried versions of the Red Bluff High School approach. One of the provisions of the EERA is a certain amount of transparency to the bargaining process; the purpose of this provi- sion is to keep the public informed and allow them to have input into the process at key points. The law requires that “All initial proposals of exclusive rep- resentatives [the unions in this case] and of public school employers [the school board], which relate to matters within the scope of representation, shall be presented at a public meeting of the public school employer and thereafter shall be public records.” The EERA regulations further state “New subjects of meeting and negotiating arising after the presentation of initial proposals shall be made public within 24 hours. If a vote is taken on such subject by the public school employer, the vote thereon by each member [my underline] vot- ing shall also be made public within 24 hours.” The intent of this regulation is “that the public be informed of the issues that are being negotiated upon and have full opportunity to express their views on the issues to the public school employer, and to know the positions of their elected representatives.” (This and previous quotes are from regula- tions for public notice by Public Employment Relations Board, commonly referred to as PERB, Section 3547.) Several people have mentioned to me they did not realize the problems the Red Bluff Union Elementary School Board and the teachers were having; nor did those who talked to me under- stand how wide or narrow gaps between the Board and the teach- ers were. The question came up, “If the intent of the law is so clear, why was the news of the Red Bluff Union Elementary District’s bargaining problems such a sur- prise?” Part of the surprise was caused by the unusual actions by the School Board when the Board told the teacher representatives that the tentative agreement they allegedly spent two hours review- ing was in reality created without Board authorization. Perhaps another part of the surprise was a result of the collabora- tive manner in which the two parties have tried to bargain; if the parties had said clearly to the public "we want this" or "we want that" the dif- ferences between the two would have been clearer. That did not hap- pen, and the attempt at collaborative negotia- tions was derailed by the school board. Even then it was not clear how the widely circulated "tenta- tive agreement" differed from the Board's unknown position. The bargaining for this year [2010-11] began in May 2010 with the politely worded identical statements that each party wanted to discuss compensation and health benefits. No specific pro- posals or starting points were mentioned. I am sure this was because the parties thought they had a collaborative process in place, but the intent of the EERA is very clear: “the public [must be] informed of the issues that are being negotiated….” If a member of the public had wanted to know what was happening, an interested citizen would not have had a clue based on the initial proposals. While perhaps technically in com- pliance with the law because the two initial proposals spoke to “issues that are being negotiated”, it provides no information to the public about the “positions” of each party. Eight months later came the bargaining session that was not a bargaining session; this lead the board to reject the tentative agree- ment it apparently decided was Joe not a tentative agreement. The Board did not indicate what they had rejected nor did they indicate what the Board’s position was. The Board spokesper- son said “We looked at it very closely, and we [the board] basically had an understanding that that was probably not what we want- ed….What they [the teachers group] offered did not meet what the board has decided to do.” Harrop No member of the public could possibly have guessed what the “board has decided to do” based on that state- ment. On February 8th, the Board did indicate one of things it had decided to do: to go ahead and reduce certificated staff rather than look for ways to encourage senior staff to retire early or pursue their “discussions” with teacher representatives. The math of their decision is unclear at this time. It might be useful for the mem- bers of our elected School Board to read Getting to Yes, a classic book about how to make negotia- tions a positive process. The book has been used by many school districts to strengthen employee relations, and now is the time for a good refresher course. Many of us worry that the trust that was carefully crafted over time has been eroded and that the adversarial model of negotiations may once again raise its ugly head. I hope this is not so, but the School Board has a lot of fence mending to do. Joe Harrop is a retired educator with more than 30 years of service to the North State. He can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net.