Tim Crawford is an IEA staffer. A paid employee of the organization. I’m not sure of his title. IT guy? Program development? Something like that.
I submitted my Organizer’s New Business Item on Friday at the RA. About 3PM. This was the NBI that called on the IEA board to create a member to member, opt-in, password protected database for the purpose of lobbying and political work.
Tech teachers have told me that an 8th grader could set this up for free in the time it will take you to read this post.
Okay. That’s a slight exaggeration. But, you get the point.
By 3:15 I had gotten my NBI back with a note that said the Budget Committee estimates a $24,000 price tag.
I was flummoxed (I just wanted to use that word. It sounds funny.).
The Budget Committee had met, calculated the cost and got it back to me in 15 minutes?
Well. No. It turned out that it was just Tim Crawford.
“He’s not here. He runs the RA and he’s around taking care of business.”
He runs the RA? And he has time and authority to calculate the cost of my NBI and get it back in 15 minutes?
Can I appeal this? Attaching a $24,000 price tag will kill the NBI.
“No.”
A few minutes later Mitch Roth, who is the chief lawyer for the IEA and a pretty straight shooter from my experience, comes by my seat and says that Tim is available to talk to me.
I go talk to Tim.
Tim spends another ten minutes explaining how he knows it will cost $24,000. I can’t explain it back to you. It was all the blah, blah, blah talk that bureaucrats speak.
I say, “Look, Tim. You just spent all this time telling me how it won’t work. I’m not married to this specific proposal. I’m willing to throw my NBI out if you have a better idea how to accomplish the same thing at a lower cost. But you haven’t offered me anything.”
Tim says, “You could make one yourself and we could link it to our website.”
“I could make one myself?”
So I tell Tim that his putting a $24,000 price tag on it will kill it. I know that. But I’m going to move my NBI anyway. I will lose. But a large number of people will leave the RA knowing that the leadership didn’t want members talking to members about political action.
And that is what happened.
Their fear that there might be an open process was transparent.
As it always is.
Fred Klonsky 