Earlier in the month I wrote the draft of an article covering the last Human Rights Committee Conference, to be submitted to the UTLA newspaper, The United Teacher, and posted it to the Human Rights Committee listserve, asking for revisions, corrections, suggestions, and photographs. A few corrections were suggested and revisions were made, and with the approval of the Chair of the Committee, Steve Seal I sent the article on, to UTLA staff member K.T. for publication. As we got closer to the submission deadline I contacted K.T. to make sure she had all the information she needed. She informed me that the UT was not going to use the article afterall, that “Ethel” and “Gilroy” had provided another article on the upcoming HRC/CAMS conference instead. No one had told me that a change had been determined. I was totally broadsided! I immediately called Steve Seal, the Committee Chair, and he said he had heard nothing about this either, that Ethel and Gilroy, instead of engaging in democratic dialogue and suggesting changes to the proposed article, or even proposing a substitute article, silently and behind the scenes, went about replacing the article that had been approved by the Committee, including the Committee Chair, with one of their own.
As it was, the first article was challenged by a key concept in journalism: timeliness. The conference had taken place last May and the article would be coming out in late September, early October. The emphasis on the HRC/CAMS conference was more appropriate, with a reference to other Committee activities and previous conferences placed later in the article. KT and I worked together to modify the CAMS conference article, adding descriptions and photos of the previous conference. The outcome was an article that was stronger than either of the two rival articles.
So, what’s the problem?
Ethel and Gilroy KNEW they were subverting my work, which is classic bullying. They had an opportunity to make changes to the article and even propose a different article or direction, when the matter was brought up on the listserve. They could have approached Steve with their concerns, if they had legitimate reasons for not working with me and the rest of the Committee, via the listserve, to revise the article.
This matter was addressed at the first HRC Meeting, on September 27, 2006 and the revised article was presented, hot off the presses much to the surprise of Ms. Ethel and Mr. Gilroy who sat silently as both Andy and I explained to the Committee what had happened and confronted E. and G. about what they had done. There was nothing to say in their defense.
This, along with the strange emails from Gilroy regarding the names I sent him from the sign in sheets, and the underhanded behavior of Camile, holding onto sign in sheets, that were my responsibility to add to the listserve, is typical bullying behavior.
Steve was confronted with the unanswered phone call and emails regarding this underhanded behavior, and finally provides the following email:
——– Original Message ——–
|Subject:||Re: second post: : Re: [utla-hrc-discussion] re: HRC issues|
|Date:||Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:19:05 -0700|
|From:||steve seal <email@example.com>|
I have discussed the matters with Gilroy and Camille and have received assurances that we will all be able to work together on our committee priorities. There should be no further personal attacks from anyone on the listserve or anywhere within this committee. I feel that the situation with Clarence and his attire is one that I really have no say in. It is not up to me to judge the attire of any person wherever they are. This is an individual issue and I think that it has been blown out of proportion under the rubric of sexual harassment. You are an important part of this committee and so are the others. We need to be able to work together, period. I think that much of the wording on the proposal that came out at the meeting will be useful to further our work, and I look forward to discussing it later at the next meeting.