Jaime responds to Ambrose

Thanks, Ambrose.
The ACT decided to nominate the President of the Association to be the BOE Rep. There is no question of conflict on that one. That the President happens to be Betty Miller, at the moment, is where you are not comfortable. The issue was brought to the ACT general membership who decided, 76 to 3 that Miller may remain President of the Association.
The ACT decision is to ask the Governor to appoint the President of the Association to be the BOE Rep. Procedurally, to question Miller's status as a teacher, or her possible conflict of interest as an administrator vis-a-vis teachers, is a matter that should be presented to the ACT general membership. Any member or non-member of ACT can bring that up. But to request the Governor to disregard the decision of the teachers' association is again, to relinquish the right to make our own decision.
Besides, the strict dichotomy between teacher and administrator that AB is adhering to is the irresolute and dogmatic old Union view which no longer applies. In a time when management and labor in the private sector is finding ways to cooperate and collaborate, the alliances forged in the civil society towards common causes, and PSS' unquestioned though not-to-well implemented attempt at collaborative leadership teams, makes this assumption of conflict-of-interest perspective, at best, archaic.
But back to the main point: any question about Miller representing ACT as its President to the BOE should be a matter for the ACT internally to decide. It has thought that decision can be appealed. Let those who wish to appeal it follow procedure. But let us not surrender again our right to make that decision. Act's right to decide that it's President is its recommendee to the Governor for the BOE Teachers' Rep, is a valid and our current position. For me, that is non-negotiable.
Jaime Vergara
SVES