A few more questions about the contract

This is what has been swimming around in my head:

1. I understand that it is, as Dr. Alonso said, "short sighted" to want to know exactly how the evaluation will be tied to student performance before these things are brought forth by the state. But why is it impossible to define the AUs better? One union rep in on negotiations told me it could be collaboration after school, but this seems fishy. And why is it impossible to define, better, what a "model teacher" is?

2. I've heard that the actual elections was absolutely terrible, with waits of hours. If you're trying to convince people that you're going to be able to manage this new system of AUs and credits and that there won't be tons of red tape as there is now, things like elections need to be done much better. This sort of shortsightedness is why it's clear the vote is as much against the union as it was the contract.

3. Why haven't I heard any conversation about class size or class load in this?

4. There needs to be better definition between a 'satisfactory' and a 'proficient' evaluation, with less possibility of subjectivity and opportunity to grieve if subjectivity creeps in. Now that the evaluation is connected to salary, it only makes sense so corruption does not creep in.