Letters to the Editor 

lETTERS TO THE EDITOR The materials in the Letters to the Editor are not edited and do not reflect the opinions of the RTAM Board.

Dear Editor 582 Lansdowne Ave Winnipeg Mb R2W 0H6 1st September 2012

Re Letter to the Editor June edition of KIT

There were two letters published in the AGM edition of KIT. Interestingly, the deadline for submissions was May 4th and the AGM was May 9th and yet these letters discussing the AGM were accepted and published. I wonder are some members “more equal” than others?

The letters make reference to actions I and others took at the Annual meeting so I believe a response to these letters is in order.

Wadelius’s Letter.

As always with Vaughn, his letter was rational and reasoned. However his premise was wrong. When he first joined the Board, he read the constitution and interpreted it to say that the organisation was “top down” i.e. that the Board controls all the activities. It would control therefore the agenda of the Annual meeting and if changes were to be made then it was up to the chair to decide whether to accept any changes or not. There was disagreement about this idea at that time and it was referred to the Policy and Bylaws Committee. A legal opinion was sought and obtained from a Dauphin lawyer, who had been recommended by Rita Warrian and Rosalie Bornn, members of the committee.

The opinion said that the members owned the organisation. The AGM is a meeting of members and that they alone can determine the Agenda. While it is useful to have a suggested agenda, it is only a recommendation. Thus any member could make a motion for a particular agenda which could be accepted, rejected or amended by the Annual Meeting.

Warrian’s Letter

At the recent AGM and in her letter published in the last issue of KIT Ms Warrian spoke about procedures. She stated that there was not a level playing field for RTAM members as some had more knowledge than others about the rules.

I will agree that there is no absolutely level playing field, no matter the topic nor the rules. Some will know more than others. Over 40 years of experience must give persons such as Wadelius and me at either MTS or WTA levels or both, access to a greater knowledge and experience. Rules of Procedure exist to ensure fairness and structural coherence in an assembly. The advantage of Bourinot or Roberts is that they have developed over a period of time and ambiguities have been reduced or eliminated. They are not subject to the vagaries, nor whims of the moment.

In the past Ms Warrian and I worked on the Bylaws and Policy Committee and it was at that time that the use of Bourinot’s Rules of Order was recommended to the Board. That recommendation was supported by Warrian, at least at the committee level. Further she always has access to those rules at AGM. So this would indicate she has some knowledge of Bourinot’s Rules of Order. As well she always has access to those rules at AGM.

Warrian compares AGM with children sorting out their own set of rules. Let’s extend that to our situation. Every

year a group of 80 people, many of whom do not know others in the group, come together for a day to address matters of common concern. The next year a somewhat different group meet. This is not the same as a small number of children who meet daily, where ideas can evolve and changes be made under the guidance of a teacher with power of veto. The analogy is so weak as to be without merit. Warrian seems to believe that the rules can be made up as you go along. In the middle of debate too may extraneous factors exist to make this possible.

There are no constructive ideas expressed in the Warrian letter.

Some constructive thoughts:

1. There has existed in the RTAM office a summary of the most commonly used rules. It would be helpful if that summary were to be distributed at annual meetings. In the preamble to the meeting it should be made clear that if a person does not know what to do to accomplish a task, he/she should ask the chair for assistance. That assumes the chair is knowledgeable of those rules.

2.All materials should be available beforehand so that background reading could be done prior to the meeting. The AGM is a business meeting and “homework” is required.

3Running a meeting, such as the AGM is not an easy task. It is not something that anybody can walk into without adequate preparation. The larger the group, the more difficult it is. RTAM has not had a chair with those experiences nor skills for a long time. It is not that the chair could not learn those skills, but the infrequency of meetings works against acquiring and honing such skills. Certainly chairs need to know the rules and assist those members present who want to become involved and do not know how to do so.

Vaughn has an idea which should be pursued. He suggests using an independent Chair who has the necessary skills and experience. “Independent” means that the Chair only chairs the meeting and is not part of the meeting. Such a Chair can not vote, nor enter debate. This also has the advantage that the President can enter debate (with no special considerations) and perhaps give factual backgrounds to the topics under debate. There are a number of people, within and without RTAM who have those skills and who could take on such a role.

What will not work is an ad hoc arrangement where you make up the rules as you go along.

In summary, the members own the meeting and an established set of rules and procedures make sparticipation accessible to all.

Terry Clifford

EDITOR'S NOTE

Yes, we did decide not to publish Terry's letter in the June issue of KIT because: a) it was received well after the deadline and b) inclusion would have meant "stopping the press", reformatting the entire publication and c) resulting in delayed delivery and d) the compromise was to give notice of a reply in the September issue. e) no, some members are not more equal than others.

Dear Editor

In the Spring 2012 Edition of KIT there appeared an article which referenced an opinion that the Minister of Education, Nancy Allan, had not consulted the RTAM Board regarding the recent appointment of a retired teacher to the TRAF Board.

This may be an accurate statement in terms of `consultation` but there are some mitigating factors surrounding the expression of this opinion which I feel compelled to share with the 8000+ members of RTAM. While serving as your RTAM President (2007-2009) I received a call from the office of then Minister of Education, Peter Bjornson, requesting a list of candidates to be considered for the appointment of a retired teacher to the TRAF Board. Unfortunately, having received the phone call late on a Wednesday afternoon with the response needed two days later on Friday, there was inadequate time to establish such a list so, through email consultation with our RTAM Board members, we decided that we would support the the incumbent.

I personally felt badly that we, as an RTAM Board, had not been aware of this process and had thus been unable to handle the request with due diligence. Therefore, at the onset of the following year, I asked for an Ad Hoc Committee to be established to create such a list of RTAM members who would have the interest, skill and willingness to have their names put forward. The result was that the chair of the Pension Committee accepted the task.

The request was reaffirmed as recorded in the minutes of January 21, 2010 as follows: "Pat Bowslaugh spoke about the nomination of our retiree representative to the TRAF Board and the call from the provincial minister on very short notice. Pat made a request to the Pension Committee to create a list of candidates and report back for the March meeting".

At the March 2010 meeting there was still no list nor has there been once since, albeit there is now (in 2012) a document provided describing a process for same. However, in the April 2010 minutes President Richard Benoit reported: ".....he had received a call from Minister Nancy Allan's office on March 30, 2010. He was advised that the Minister was considering next term's appointments to the TRAF Board. A reply was requested by April 16, 2010.`` An extension of time was necessary and thus granted to allow discussion at the Board meeting the following week. Once again there was a motion made to: "......support the incumbent as the RTAM nominee....." Also, through motion, the Pension Committee at the same meeting (April 2010) agreed to: ``develop a process, with respect to the RTAM involvement, for future appointments to the TRAF Board`.

This was two years ago. Such a process did not happen at that time so, subsequently, in January 2012, RTAM was informed that Minister Allan had made an appointment to the TRAF Board (without any consultation this time). This precipitated a further three part motion which directed the President to write a letter to Minister Allan to comment : `on the lack of consultation with RTAM about the appointment`` and further, ``the Opposition Parties be informed of the recent retired Plan member appointment to the TRAF Board and the lack of consultation with RTAM``.

Therefore, with the above information it is clear that there have been recorded communications with the Minister. The fact that, in a timely fashion, RTAM did not submit a list of possible candidates from which the Minister could have made an appointment to the TRAF Board need not be viewed as the misdemeanor of the Minister. To that end an apology to the Minister would do much to begin to rebuild a relationship with the governing body of the day. We must establish trust through positive communication efforts to earn the respect of those whose pens script our financial future.

Pat Bowslaugh 14 May 2012

8 August 2012

Dear Editor,

I have thought long and hard before writing in response to the letter from Rita Warrian that appeared on p. 6 of the summer 2012 issue of KIT, remarkably promptly following the AGM. The letter troubled me in several ways.

Please note that I write as an individual member of RTAM, not in my capacity as president of RTW. Our chapter has not discussed the letter, although I drew the attention of our members to it in a newsletter, outlining my reaction to it. No context other than the letter itself was given to explain what had happened to provoke Ms. Warrian’s complaint, and those few RTW members who did contact me tended to respond with a Simpsons-like “duh”. Furthermore, the time lag between issues is such that I fear that little useful discussion will arise in the pages of KIT. However, members of the Board can certainly take note.

Firstly, while I am sorry if Ms. Warrian feels aggrieved, I can see absolutely no useful purpose in fomenting discord among regions in a province-wide association, even were there a legitimate complaint. Ms. Warrian’s strictures against “those who were active in Winnipeg One [sic]” are most unfortunate. No one who put in countless hours in working for the WTA – Winnipeg #1 was our employer – or the MTS and thus, by extension, for other teacher associations need apologise for having learned something. Ms. Warrian, who has considerable RTAM experience, asks for “cooperation and collegiality”. Those goals will not benefit from the tone of her letter.

Furthermore, an AGM is a business meeting. Time at our AGM is short; issues are numerous and important, receiving reports and monitoring our Association’s activities, including our not-inconsiderable finances – those $2.25’s add up! As it is presently structured, there is no time for workshops on procedure or for breakout discussion groups, although some organizations allow for orientation sessions for new delegates. RTAM could certainly provide regional workshops for chapters on meeting protocol if required – and requested. Chapters could provide orientation for their own delegates. Vaughn Wadelius’s letter on the same page mentions a “summary of the rules [that] is provided for delegate use at the AGM.” I did not find that document in my AGM kit. It would obviously be useful for it to be provided well in advance, along with the agenda.

A very basic error, not providing a mover’s name, caused a motion to be invalid. The assembly did not think that the issue required the suspension of the rules. It is truly unfortunate if Ms. Warrian feels that anyone was “shot down” unfairly in the ensuing discussion.

Yours sincerely,

Doreen F. Pruden 128 Riverbend Crescent Winnipeg MB R3J 1K3 cleo128@mymts.net