Bylaw fairy finally grants wish to four board members

Frontiersman Editorial Board

Score one for the four horsemen. As the MEA board adopted two bylaw changes recently approved by MEA members, the last days for Mike Janecek's membership on that board began -- and the end came swiftly. Janecek, who refused to submit to the board's now-mandatory drug testing rule, has been removed from the board. His removal has been the mission of four board members since he was first seated, and Janecek believes the new drug testing policy was specifically written to achieve that political end.

One is left to wonder what the real motivation behind the bylaw change really was. Those who championed the bylaw said that, since MEA workers are asked to submit to drug testing, it only seemed fair to subject the board to the same rules. Many MEA workers also have to be certified to work with high voltage -- perhaps board members should receive that qualification before being seated. Many MEA employees also pay union dues, so perhaps … well, never mind.

When the board decided drug testing should be required, were they driven by a strong compulsion to uphold the law, by a desire to ensure safety during dangerous votes or because they suspected drug use was affecting the performance of one or more board members?

Was it for one of those reasons, or was it because someone suspected Mike Janecek might just test positive, finally providing his political adversaries with the ammunition to remove him? If it hadn't been a drug test, would it have been something else? Perhaps we would have seen a bylaw to test for political affiliation or musical preferences.

It is possible to do a right thing for the wrong reasons, and this seems to be such a case. Janecek may not agree with everyone on the board, but he always takes the direct approach. He may stir the pot from time to time, but he leaves no doubt about who's holding the spoon, and he's always sure the light is on. Integrity doesn't always led to popularity. The political stew that has brought about his demise seems to have been concocted behind closed doors, and if that is true, it will likely cause the board some indigestion for some time to come. Legal action may follow this incident, but that may only be the beginning.

The board may have set a precedent here that will do more harm than good in the future. The lesson here might be that board members should be careful about who they cross -- and what weaknesses they expose. You're only an amendment away from being a spectator.