Despite our differences we must love our organization enough to be truthful to its members. During our event to introduce the Executive Board Slate, members of the opposition slate made several claims; claims that can be proven to be either true or false by simply going back and looking at the evidence.
Below I have outlined both the claims and the evidence. This evidence was taken from the original news post we released when CPS created their compensation working group. This evidence consists of screenshots of original emails from CPAA and CPS. You should be able to find these emails in your own email account by simply searching for the subject lines, so long as you were an administrator and CPAA member in the fall of 2016.
Did CPAA Compel CPS to Create the Committee on Principal and AP Compensation?
ON October 26, 2016 President LaRaviere sent a message to our members and to CPS announcing the formation of our compensation “policy group” to push for long overdue raises for principals, assistant principals and other administrators. Exactly one week later, on November 2nd, CEO Claypool sent school leaders an email announcing that they were forming a compensation “working group.”The similarity between the CPS announcement and the CPAA announcement are striking:
President LaRaviere’s October 26th message began as follows:
Now that CPS has reached a tentative agreement with teachers, it is time they show how much they value the educators who lead their schools. Toward that end, CPAA is commissioning a policy group…. [read the full message here]
CEO Claypool’s November 2nd message began similarly:
As we work to provide clarity on what the new CTU contract will mean for you, we want to acknowledge what we all know: principals are overdue for a raise…. Every principal will have an opportunity to provide feedback as we move forward, beginning with a working group of principals…. [read the full message here]
During our March General Meeting at Pompei, I outlined the above facts. While I spoke, the candidate for president on the opposition slate--Cynthia Miller--got up and repeatedly yelled across the room that this was false. She claimed the committee existed before CPAA announced our compensation committee. However, it is clear from the evidence that the committee was announced after our policy group was announced. More importantly it shows that it was the threat of an organized group of CPAA members demanding fair compensation that prompted CPS to act and form its own compensation working group. As a result of our initiative and advocacy, CPS finally got on the path to giving school leaders their first pay raise in seven years. That is the simple truth.
Were Raises for Assistant Principals Included in the Original Compensation Conversation?
The candidate for president on the opposition slate--Cynthia Miller--claimed that assistant principals owed their raises to her because AP's raises were not included in the original discussion. However, Although CEO Claypool used the general term "principal" in the body of his email, the subject line clearly points out that his compensation message is addressed to both principals and assistant principals [see screenshot below and see full email here].
This was the subject line of the email announcing the compensation working group, and it means MIller's statement was patently false.
Furthermore, my biggest mistake as President was agreeing to Cynthia Miller representing CPAA on CPS' compensation working group because she allowed CPS to rob assistant principals of their pension contribution while serving on that group. Miller often talks about being "at the table." However, the CPS compensation group was the one time she had a chance to be at the table, and she failed our members when she failed to push back against the inadequate raise amounts and refused to push back against the policy change that robbed assistant principals of their pension contribution when they become principals. I hosted a meeting with Miller and CPS Chief Talent Officer Matt Lyons where I blasted the pension contribution policy and several other aspects of the salary structure. Miller did not utter a single word of protest in that meeting. Miller and her slate often talk about being "at the table" with CPS. However, when she had her chance to be at the table, she behaved as if she was more concerned with courting favor from CPS than with speaking up for the interests of our members. I am currently making plans with our legal team to sue the district in order to get that policy reversed and correct the consequences of Miller's failure "at the table."
From obfuscating our constitution's very clear criteria for being a regular member and running for president, to misrepresenting what occurred at our last governing board meeting, members of the opposition slate have done themselves and our organization a grave disservice with their unashamed willingness to employee creative fiction during our 2019 elections. That's the kind of thing candidates do when they don't have a record to run on. Perhaps the most disappointing and shocking misrepresentation of fact was the opposition's denial of the fact that they voted against my proposal to have an outside firm conduct our election for all contested positions if any candidate requested it. Both the vote and the denial were shameful and inexplicable.
In conclusion, I repeat my belief that despite our differences we must love our organization enough to be truthful to its members.
Every member of the opposition slate received this communication and was given a chance to respond. They declined.