Showing posts with label New Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Action. Show all posts

Monday, April 4, 2022

Reality Check - Handicapping the 2022 UFT Election: Part 2 - The Range of Possibilities

Let's face facts - If UFC were to win it all, it would be by a thin margin. And I'd bet my pension that Unity would protest and yell "Stop the steal." They are Republicans after all. Mitch Mulgrew.


In part 1 (Handicapping the 2022 UFT Election: Can United for Change Win? Part 1 - UFC Unique Coalition, Unity on the Attack, Will UFC Hold Together?) I talked about the UFC Coalition and how its every nature makes the oppo in this election different and also how the Unity campaign is different as an offset.  

I believe this election can range from slam dunk 80% win for Unity and nothing for UFC to a slim win for UFC, if not overall, then in certain divisions. Keys are turnout and GOTV efforts, both weak in the past. Retirees have the biggest turnout -- like 45% of the total voters, while working teachers are more like 25% or less. If both go up significantly it favors UFC. Unity knows that and will make GOTV claims but they really want low turnout. They actually brag that the 25% is actually great for union elections, ignoring that in Chicago, with in school  voting, they get 60% turnout. And don't forget -- they turned down all UFC attempts to use electronic voting. 

Let me recommend you read Jonathan Halabi with a realistic analysis of the possibilities in this election: The answer is “Mulgrew, Medicare, Pandemic”
Jon does a deep dive on the problems Unity and Mulgrew face, so go read it. His takeaway won't totally jive with mine, but here is his conclusion:

For people who follow elections, UFT elections are usually a snore. 12 officers, 95 executive board seats, 750 delegates, none of these are a contest. There is usually a tussle over the last 7 executive board seats. The high school seats. I held one of them for 11 years. But this year? At least those 7 seats in play, with a realistic chance for more, and an outside chance for the whole ball of wax. Observers and players alike are speculating about the margin. If Unity somehow loses votes from 2019 (83%), but stays at their 2016 level (76%), that will look like a huge victory for them. But I don’t think that is likely.

Will Unity lose some votes, or will they lose a lot of votes? Will they take a small hit but still sail in with 72%? If that happens, there’s no mandate for change. UFT members who want something different will be disappointed. Some Unity members among them. Of course UFC might win, and we should talk about that, a different day. But if the votes come out and Unity wins, but takes a big hit on the numbers – and that’s what I think will happen, will that send a clear message? Will Unity adjust some of its policies? Will they find a new leader?

I'd say anything over 70% for Unity is a win in the broader sense, even if UFC wins some Ex Bd seats -- especially as you go down Jon's list of Unity ills. If people ignore that in today's world, what would it take?
 
But if Unity gets into mid-60s or less, which would be an overwhelming win in normal elections, in the UFT that opens up real danger signs for Unity. UFC presents a real threat in the next election with a third or more votes and if it holds together (not a slam dunk there either - though any one caucus that thinks it should go it alone is committing suicide for the future of the opposition even if good for that individual caucus).

There are people in Unity who recognize that and this time, as Jon points out, Unity is taking this election very seriously - insiders tell me they expect to win it all - including the high schools. They are running a heavy campaign and let's not ignore that campaigns do work if done right. How they are playing out in the schools is something beyond me. 

And of course UFC is running a heavy, more far reaching campaign than I've seen - ever. Jonathan's view:

Broad Coalition: United for Change, the opposition coalition, is bigger and broader than anything we’ve seen in these last two decades. Maybe the coalitions is Unity’s biggest problem? You could make that argument. But I don’t think so. We had a pretty big coalition in 2016, and did win the high school division, but it wasn’t scary for Unity the way today is.

Jon goes on to address the issues that scare Unity but I think that this time doesn't compare to the 2016 coalition which was MORE/NA while Solidarity was out there very vocally even if not with slate status. And there was still some pushback against NAC which had been in coalition with Unity for a decade.

Plus the many new players who had never been involved before, some of them former Unity supporters.

The UFC coalition ranges from right of center to far left. 
 
Reminds me of the groups that have organized to run against tyrant Victor Orban in Hungry - they even are running a right winger for president. If Orban wins big is that a good sign for Unity? Orban vs Mulgrew for who has more control?
 
At least UFC didn't court the far right and has a well-supported Camille Eterno who appeals to many segments of the UFT. She was flyering in a school with a heavy Unity presence and got a great greetng from rank and file UFT members there.

Now you might read stories about the horrors of the MORE experience c. 2016-19 -- and they are not false. I experienced them first hand. So yes I was very wary of getting involved with MORE again -- especially with some people I knew all too well. 
 
But I found a new MORE - lots of new people. When I left there was a core of people who were active. I have found some wonderful people who I love to work with in this election and find myself in surprising agreement on a number of issues I had within MORE.
 
But I have a deeper understanding and so do many in MORE of the importance of coalitions. Remember - I and MORE broke over the ruining of the MORE/NA and potential Solidarity coalition in 2019 - it was my writing about that issue from some internal meetings that got me suspended -- the best thing that happened to me.

I can't tell you how many people who are center or even center left have told me they would never back a hard left group running against Unity -- and over the decades Unity has tried to brand the oppo as hard left but this year has had some problems, though some of their hacks have tried to make the UFC coalition look like a front group for MORE. 
 
That is the furthest from the truth. MORE certainly has the largest contingent and in the early stages of negotiations there was some concerns about balance, but despite some rough moments over candidates, things came together fairly well and all the groups have shown strength in various ways.

And I love how some people have emerged and how some have grown. Some serious talent in MORE, Solidarity (I brag all the time about how amazing Lydia has been) and New Action and Daniel Alicea with his outreach group.

I'm particularly proud of Retiree Advocate which has led a fight against Mulgrewcare and was instumental in bringing the UFC coalition together. Another sign of the failure of Mulrew who by his actions played a major role in the formation of UFC -- we can make him an honorary member.

I will dive deeper into the particulars of the election in Part 3-infinity where I will review the divisions and the potential outcomes for each.


Thursday, June 25, 2015

Revised - The Unity 300 - UFT Retiree Chapter Sends 300 to Delegate Assembly - Why I Am Boycotting the Election

Note the weakness of this argument as a reason to vote for RA against Unity:
Voting and participating in our nation’s elections and our union’s elections are the only way we can have a voice in issues that determine the way we live. By actively participating in the process we become a vibrant force in retirement.
The only way to have a voice? Where is the call for a democratic process in the UFT that would make elections mean something?
Why don't people vote? Because Unity has so locked up the process as to make it impossible to win anything.
Here was the one opportunity every 3 years to reach every retiree in the union and expose the sham of Unity caucus.
The worst thing about this is that it doesn't even talk about what this election is really about for Unity -- packing 300 more Unity delegates into the DA. It is not enough for the general UFT election process to be rigged -- but they make sure to fill the seats at the DA with loyalists who no longer have anything to lose in the assault on teachers.

This is pablum and what we would expect from the loyal opposition - if you can call it even that. Participating in this process without attacking it is endorsing some of the most fundamental undemocratic processes in the union. I'll pass on voting until RA or any other group of retirees really takes on Unity..... Norm to ICE mail
It may seem counter-intuitive for me to sit out the current retiree election and not vote for the Retiree Advocate, which is running against Unity in the retiree chapter election. I will vote for independent Roberta Reid - I give Roberta credit for putting in the effort - and a very few candidates I know). I consider RA to be New Action light.
Catering at Unity Caucus meetings

[See NYC Educator: New Action Takes a Position on Semi-Democracy]


Think of it -- every 3 years RA can send out something to 60,000 retirees and not a word of real criticism or exposure of Unity Caucus.

What does it mean to a union when retirees no longer facing the travails of daily teaching have a major say in UFT policy bodies? A lot of people complain about retirees voting in general UFT elections, especially when 52% of the votes cast in the 2013 election came from retirees. But that doesn't bother me that much and won't until an opposition can capture the majority of votes of the working teachers. Then I would go to court. So far that is not happening.

To me the more insidious undemocratic actions are the current chapter elections going on in the functional retiree chapter for chapter leader, an exec board and for 300 delegates to the UFT DA. The UFT constitution calls for one delegate for every 60 members in a chapter. That the retiree chapter, with probably close to 60,000 members, is treated the same as a school is beyond outrage -- (I believe the max number of delegates is capped at 300.)

When I retired I attended a few retiree meetings and found them worse than the DA -- the Unity leadership is only interested in using retirees for its political campaigns - but also the Unity 300 as a force to make sure they don't lose control of the DA.

This allows old Unity loyalists to participate in the DA - and in fact pack it when needed. Let me explain. The 300 don't show up at every meeting. When there is challenge from the opposition for an upcoming DA, Unity Caucus calls a post-DA meeting - with catering - to get those retirees out to the DA -- and I believe attendance is taken too.

The DA is packed with Unity loyalists - as Arthur points out today at NYC Educator - Why Aren't People Standing for UFT Delegate?
I represent the largest high school in Queens, we have multiple delegates, but making them come would not make a dent in the pre-determined results. When Unity leadership sends the message, everyone knows and acts accordingly. It's infuriating to see the DA represented as a place where decisions are made, as opposed to a place where people are telegraphed how to vote, with virtually no subtlety whatsoever. 

I have tried to get  dissident voices heard by leadership, and the DA is just about the worst forum in which I could do it.
Arthur talks about how James Eterno was shut down at the May 2014 contract DA. Julie Cavanagh who ran against Mulgrew was next at the mic and Mulgrew shut down the debate because he was so afraid of Julie's getting a chance to speak -- even people in Unity raised their eyebrows at this -- big, bad Mulgrew - afraid of a girl.

There are over 3500 delegates and the 300 retirees are less than 10%. But rarely do more than about 800 - if even that - attend. As Arthur points out - what is the point? To his credit, he shleps in from eastern Queens every month and writes up the meetings -- and then we head to Chipotle for dinner. Next year Eterno will be back as the only ATR delegate elected from a school to add his wisdom.

Let's assume half of the Unity retirees - 150 - come to the DA - the number jumps to 15-20% of the delegates. No wonder they voted down the major MORE resolutions this year on protecting ATRs by giving them a chapter, a reso opposing high stakes testing and support for the opt-out movement.

Now back to the Retiree Advocate, which advertizes itself as an independent caucus in the UFT retiree chapter with members from various groups, including ICE and New Action. But it is overwhelmingly New Action and their literature reflects the New Action non-militancy. There is not one word of criticsm of Unity Caucus or its undemocratic process, especially in this election that puts 300 delegates in the DA. Even a minimal call for proportional representation would make sense. (Meaning if RA gets 30% of the vote they would get 90 of the 300 delegates). And there is no call for controlling the influence of retirees in the general UFT elections. They refuse to take on these issues because they are pandering for votes.

-- RA is New Action light.

New Action, which has ran Mulgrew as its presidential candidate in 2010 and 13 (and Randi in 2007) is a major force in RA with some of their key people running. Two years ago, the leaders of RA acted as a front group for New Action in pushing hard for a MORE/New Action alliance and set up a meeting - which was controversial in MORE because many did not want to meet with New Action until they renounced their deal with Unity. But in a close vote, the meeting was set up and Eterno, Julie and I were chosen to rep MORE. James had an emergency and couldn't make it. NA and RA people pushed for cooperation. Julie made eloquent statements about how we cannot work with people who support Mulgrew -- we told NA to call us when they were ready to talk about alliances when they decide to rejoin the opposition. (There is an audio tape of that Nov. 2013 meeting.)

New Action, many of whom are running on the RA slate have jobs with the UFT - and in fact they are running New Action leader Michael Shulman, who makes 15 grand a year working for the UFT, for Retiree Ex Bd.

On this issue RA is silent. Thus I can't vote for slate that echos New Action to such an extent.

By the way -- I am a forgiving soul - the second I hear New Action gets serious about abandoning the dirty deal with Unity, in the interests of uniting the opposition, I would urge MORE to open a dialogue. But my guess is that New Action has too much to gain - in terms of Ex Bd seats - to give up that deal.


Saturday, May 30, 2015

EdNotesOnline Reprint, Dec. 2007 - Is New Action Really a Caucus?

Mike Schirtzer, who is digging up all the history of the caucuses in the UFT he can find - found this oldie that I published. Mike wants people to have the full context when New Action runs jointly with Unity with Mulgrew at the top of the ticket in the spring 2016 UFT elections. Of course, anything is possible and NA might contact MORE with the news it wants to rejoin the opposition.

Look at the numbers below. Mike Shulman, running against Randi, received 11,400 votes in 2001, the last time New Action ran its own presidential candidate. Randi, knowing the ed deform assault was going to get hot and heavy and with a unified opposition, their vote totals would go up, started contacting Shulman, who pretty much had control over New Action. Randi knew the weak spots. Flattered, Shulman bit. I actually attended a New Action Exec Bd meeting as the deal was taking shape in Sept. 2002 at the invitation of James Eterno, who was increasingly upset at the direction NA was going in. (A year later he, Ellen Fox and Lisa North would leave NA to help form ICE.)

One of them said how they felt they had more impact, now that Randi was listening to them, than they had over the past 20 years. I just smiled, since Randi has spent 4 years pulling the same scam on me/Ed Notes. I knew how that story would end. I had tried to put all the opposition forces together in a coalition soon after the 2001 elections, but there was too much infighting and positioning -- egos and politics.

New Action plays the positioning game - say they are opposed or for a policy but do nothing about it. And they have allies who even if they argue they are anti-Unity, want to be in the playpen with New Action and by association, Unity. 

I and most people in MORE would welcome New Action back into the fold if they would break with Mulgrew -- old grudges, etc must disappear in these times. That's what they have to do, as Julie and I, repping MORE, made that very point in our meeting with them in the fall of 2013. Still waiting for that call.

http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-new-action-really-caucus.html?

Friday, December 14, 2007


Is New Action Really a Caucus?

In the 1999 and 2001 UFT elections, New Action leader Michael Shulman received over 11,400 votes against Randi Weingarten in the UFT elections. PAC, another opposition caucus received 1300 votes. That's around 13,000 voting against Unity. That was the last election New Action ran a full slate. (I posted a reprint of an excellent piece by TJC's Marian Swerdlow that Ed Notes printed in April 2001 over at Norm's Notes at this link.)

New Action gave up being an opposition to join in a United Front with Unity. The result? Their votes shrunk almost in half by the next election in 2004 when
ICE/TJC wrested the high school Exec bd from them.

By the 2007 election, New Action's vote from teachers in the schools was around 1600.With retirees (many of whom are not aware of the sell-out) their vote came to around 3500, a [someone do the math] drop from when they opposed Unity.

So how did that United Front work out for them? Actually, not bad. While having little support in the schools, New Action members serve on committees, they have jobs and offices at the UFT and run around pretending to be an independent caucus.

We wanted to inform the delegates of the situation since New Action distributes their pretend caucus leaflets at the DA. Ed Notes Print edition distributed at the UFT Delegate Assembly on Dec. 12, 2007


Why am I bothering to spend so much time on a group headed for obscurity? With Weingarten, New Action's guardian angel set to leave the scene, we want to hasten their move towards oblivion, as their existence confuses the members and is a road block in the formation of a true opposition. In 1991 New Action actually got 31% of the vote. 16 years later, it's 9%. ICE/TJC's 20% in '07 is a building block for a future opposition.

Note: A New Action executive board member on Weds. called this a hatchet job and tried to compare what they are doing at Executive Board meetings with ICE/TJC. "How many resolutions did you get passed," he asked? Meaning: you couldn't get the 83 out of 89 Unity EB members to support your resolutions while we can through our sucking up to Weingarten. Duhhh! Read on!


The Numbers Tell the Story

Let’s look at New Action’s vote totals on its own as compared with ICE/TJC and Unity in the 2007 UFT elections. (Slate votes only).

High Schools
Unity: 2,183 (57.7%)
ICE/TJC: 1,524 (36%)
New Action: 521 (12.3%)

Number of high school seats on Exec Bd:
Unity: 3 New Action: 3 ICE/TJC: 0

Huh! ICE/TJC triples New Action’s vote and gets NO seats. Assume some of new Action’s votes (in all divisions) came from people who had voted New Action for 20 years when they were the major opposition, didn’t know about the sell-out and were confused. A swing of around 300 votes would have given ICE/TJC all 6 seats.

Democracy INACTION.

High Schools: Total Ballots 19,799
4,568 voted (23%, down from a 31% return in 2004)

The drop of 8% in HS significant. But it gets worse in middle schools where 12,841 ballots were sent and only 2,384 (18.6%) voted, down from the 27.6% who voted in 2004.
Here are the dismal totals.

Unity: 1,499 (67.6%) ICE/TJC: 444 (20%)
New Action: 273 (12.3%)
Elementary schools:
Mailed: 36,912
Returned: 8,904 (24.1%). 34.3% voted in 2004.
Unity: 6252 (76.7)
ICE/TJC: 1337 (16.4%)
New Action: 562 (6.9%)

Results from Elem + MS + HS:
Unity: 9,934 68%
ICE/TJC: 3,305 22.6%
New Action: 1,356 9.3%

Think about it. Less than 10,000 classroom teachers out of 70,000 voted for Unity as a slate. Dismal indeed. Weingarten’s totals are higher with the addition of the New Action votes but even with the addition of the non-slate votes, probably less than 15,000 in all.

To the overwhelming majority of classroom teachers, the union is insignificant. New Action, which at one time got over 10,000 votes, is irrelevant, even with its 8 bonus seats from Unity to be the house opposition.

Six years ago, in Dec. 2001, Ed Notes wrote:

Unity’s biggest fear is that New Action will fade into obscurity and a real opposition might blossom. Unity needs a non-threatening opposition to claim “we are a democratic union.” What better opposition than New Action, growing steadily weaker and less effective? By breathing life into New Action, the union leadership can give them an air of legitimacy as the “loyal” opposition. New Action is perfectly happy to occupy the position. As long as they play this role for Unity, there is little chance of seeing a serious opposition take hold. If New Action didn’t exist, Unity would have to invent them.

Ah, how time flies. Six years later, New Action is handing out leaflets talking about how 8 New Action members were elected to the UFT Executive Board in the UFT elections in March 2007. Unity holds the other 81 and ICE/TJC hold no seats on the Ex Bd.

Ed Notes is making a return appearance at the DA to fill in the missing information.

New Action received an automatic 5 seats from their candidates that also ran on Randi Weingarten’s Unity slate.

The other 3 seats came from running with Unity on the high school level, where they split the 6 seats with Unity. ICE/TJC had wrested these seats from New Action in the 2004 election when Unity didn’t run any candidates in a deal with New Action to have them not run a candidate against Weingarten. This led to the foundation of ICE and the reincarnation of TJC as a caucus active in UFT elections. The 6 ICE/TJC Ex Bd member were such a thorn in Unity’s side, they made sure not to allow New Action to run on their own against ICE/TJC.

What has NA they done with the seats? While their leaflets try to give the impression they are taking action at the Executive Board, they have endorsed every single policy advocated by Unity and have played the role of rubber stamp. (Come to an Ex Bd meeting and see New Action Inaction.) Their last leaflet contained not one word about the UFT’s endorsement of the merit pay scheme even though many New Action members are opposed. The same top-down mentality exists in New Action as in Unity. True birds of a feather.


Sometimes I'm amazed at the predictive powers of Ed Notes.

From the May 2001 edition:

New Action Goes CURR
The non-Unity active membership has declared New Action a CURR (Caucus Under Registration Review). In dropping from 31% to 21% of the vote in 10 years ( a 32% decline) New Action has clearly failed to meet the standards. If there is no improvement in the next election, New Action will be closed and reorganized into a debating society.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

UFT Election Analysis (2001): How New Action Did in the Past - Ed Notes Redux, April 2001

In 1999, 33% (10,391) of active members voted for opposition candidates. In 2001, that went down to 30% (10,474)... Marian Swerdlow 2001 election analysis in Ed Notes, April, 2001.
MORE is going to use some of its summer series to address UFT elections, past present and future.  I thought I would start getting into the debate ASAP.

Even before New Action made its dirty deal with Unity, some people had their knives out for the way NA did business. I was one of these people.

Ed Notes published a preliminary analysis by then FDR HS Delegate (now chapter leader) Marian Swerdlow of Teachers for a Just Contract in April 2001 right after the UFT elections, the last election that New Action ran independent of Unity support. And the last time they ran their own candidate for president, someone not named Weingarten or Mulgrew.
34% of the votes in the election were cast by retirees in 2001 -- in 2013 the retiree faction was up to 52% of votes cast.
Marian came back for the May 2001 edition of Ed Notes with a follow up. Both are included below, along with my own Ed Notes report card grading of New Action (Marian was kinder than I was).

(I published Marian whenever she would let me because she often had some of the sharpest analysis of the issues.) 

The opposition Caucuses (New Action and PAC) received 11,400 and 1,300 votes in 2001, slightly more than in 1999, but Marian's analysis points to an erosion of support. I believe the 01 election results and the prospect of further erosion in 2004 is what made NA susceptiblt to Randi's offer to make a deal in 2004, 7, 10 and 13 and I would bet in 16 too.

I refered to the first Serdlow article 6 years later after another New Action election sell-out to Randi and Unity Caucus - Is New Action Really a Caucus? -- in an Ed Notes Dec. 14, 2007 blog post.

Check them out, given some of the recent talk (New Action, Positioning Itself for UFT 2016 Elections and here) about the role New Action plays as a Unity stalking horse.

Anyway, back to Marian's excellent analysis - and my report card for New Action, in the April and May 2001 editions of Ed Notes.

UFT Election Analysis: How New Action Did in the Past 

April, 2001 edition of Education Notes (hard copy)

UFT ELECTION PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
(as of April 8, 2001)

by Marian Swerdlow
UFT Delegate FDR High School
member, Teachers for a Just Contract/Class Action

The opinions expressed are those of Marian Swerdlow and do not necessarily reflect those of other members of TJC or Class Action.

Some of the results of the 2001 UFT election are now available, and we can compare them to the results in the last election in 1999.
Total number of members:
1999: 135,452 2001: 145,431
Total number of votes:
1999: 47,995 (34%) 2001: 53,385 (38%)
Votes for Weingarten (Unity):
1999: 35,596 (74.2%) 2001: 40,636 (76.6%)
Votes for Shulman (New Action):
1999: 11,366 (23.7%) 2001: 11,411 (21.1%)
Votes for Macklin (01) and Pessin (99) (PAC:
1999: 1,033 (2.1%) 2001: 1,338 (2.3%)

New Action won back all six high school executive board seats it won in the last election.

A little analysis: We can see that New Action did not lose any absolute support to either Unity or Progressive Action. In absolute numbers, Shulman lost fewer than fifty votes. What happened was that Unity gained in absolute numbers, hence its increased percentage. We may have a better idea where that increase in absolute numbers came from when we see some of the results by divisions. We also see that the membership of the union grew considerably, by about 10,000 members (around 7%). The fact that new hires continue to enter the workplace, while retirees continue to vote in union elections, accounts for some of this increase, although the information is not available to tell how much.

Some personal opinion: There is enough blame to go around for these shameful results. It may be tempting for some to blame New Action. They did run a campaign that was too brief, desultory, and unimaginative. I would argue, however, that they ran the best campaign their activist base permitted. Which leads to the question of why their activist base is so inadequate for the job of challenging Unity effectively.

New Action certainly has not strenuously reached out to attract activists. In fact, it makes it difficult for new people to get involved in New Action. They don't make it as easy as possible to contact them, they don't advertise their meetings and they don't have open meetings. They don't have activities for activists to get involved in, or to do in their chapters. The main activity they offer to activists is putting literature in mailboxes. Not the way to build leadership.

On the other hand, even if they did everything possible to attract, involve and develop activists, it is by no means clear they would be successful. The membership has grown dependent on being told what to do from above. If the leadership calls a rally at City Hall, they will show up in heartening numbers. But they have no initiative, no desire to organize themselves. They may want things to happen, but they don't want to be the ones to make them happen. That is not the fault of New Action. Nor is it patently clear New Action, or anyone, could change that. But New Action has done little or nothing to try.

New Action has approached this election, as every other, with the assumption that Unity was its best organizer, that by its failures, Unity would convince people to vote for New Action. Some New Action leaders felt that taking place as it did in our fourth month without a contract, they would increase their share of votes in this election. That did not turn out to be the case. The reason may be that the membership has grown accustomed to working without a contract: we have worked almost one-third of the last ten years under expired contracts. It is no longer something extraordinary. We have diminished expectations. I think the members accept Weingarten's argument that the best thing to do is to wait out Giuliani. The alternative is militancy, and most members don't accept that alternative.
Editor's Note, Apr. 2001 -

Ed. Note: Rumors that New Action is blaming its defeat on criticisms leveled at them by Ed. Notes have not been confirmed. We do know that they will NOT change the way they do things, no matter what the outcome of elections. See next issue for more analysis.
Some further analysis of the 2001 vote 
by Marian Swerdlow
Published in Education Notes, May 2001.

Further analysis shows that even if we look only at active members, the opposition slates lost overwhelmingly, and showed a loss of relative support.

Retiree votes-Weingarten: 16,067 (87.5%) ,  

Non-retiree votes -NA/PAC 2,275 (12.5%)  
Active votes- Weingarten: 24,569 (70%),  
Non-active votes- NA/PAC 10,474 (30%)  
Even among active members, Weingarten won overwhelmingly. However, 34% of the votes in the election were cast by retirees. Weingarten received almost 39.5% of her support from retir- ees. The opposition received only 17.8% of their support from retirees. 

Compared with 1999:
In 1999, 33% (10,391) of active members voted for opposition candidates.
In 2001, that went down to 30% (10,474).

The opposition lost relative support but not absolute support among active members. Weingarten gained both absolute and relative support among active members. In other words, the increase in the number of both retirees and active members voting went almost completely and entirely to Unity's benefit. 


In 2001, Weingarten received an additional 1,252 retiree votes, and an additional 3,788 votes from active members. The opposition received an additional 267 votes from retirees, and an additional 83 votes from active members. 

Marian Swerdlow, Teachers for a Just Contract
These views are Marian’s and do not necessarily represent TJC


New Action Post 2001 Election Report Card 
 by Norm Scott
 
Plays well with others U
It was incumbent for New Action to reach out to Progressive Action & Teachers for A Just Contract/Class Action. TJC had shown it could de- liver 75 people to demo in front of UFT headquarters. Ed. Notes started asking non New Action opposition people back in November whether they had been approached by NA about a joint election campaign. The answer was NO! I spoke to Marc Pessin of PAC in Dec. and asked if NA had contacted him about elections and he didn’t even realize there were elec- tions. Yet he was able to mount and run a campaign on such late notice. 

Regular newsletter U
A serious caucus needs a regular consistent voice that does more than have biographies of their Exec. Bd. members or have short punchy statements. Clearly, the membership needs some convincing arguments to vote an op- position into power. NA literature does not go into depth on the issues. One recent leaflet used only one side of a page and it had little more than slo- gans. When questioned about why waste an entire side of a page (Ed. Notes has to scramble for every inch) the response was: this is easier for people to reproduce for their schools. You could just see people running to their copy machines to get that one out. 

Quality of literature D
See above 

Way to run an election campaign D
No election literature out until February. The campaign should have started 2 years ago.

Level of activity of caucus: D
Where are those over 700 people who ran? Where are they at the Delegate Assembly? Where are the chapter resolutions? 

Executive Board Meetings: C
NA Exec. Bd members often seem overmatched. They try initiatives and then drop them. Their questions are often mere responses to Unity. They don’t pick up on contradictions in leadership positions which could then be used in future literature. It is frustrating to watch NA miss numerous oppor- tunities at these meetings. Witness our consistent campaign and exposure of the weaknesses of Weingarten’s position on school-wide merit pay. 

Graciousness in losing A
In a lovely leaflet distributed at the April DA, NA congratulated Weingarten on her victory and promised to work together in a spirit of Unity. I would have started the next election campaign. OK, it’s 3 years away, but I believe in early starts. I also believe in total war, no holds barred. 

Overall D
NA seems content to be the main opposition rather than forming a united front and engaging in an all-out fight against Unity. They certainly lack the militancy and activism of other groups. Not a week goes by that emails and phone calls go out from PAC announcing meetings and forums around the issue they are interested in. They have gone to court for unlicensed teachers and hold demos when needed. Yet NA considers them failures because of their low vote count. TJC pulled 75 people to a demo at UFT headquarters in Nov. and they are currently leading a fight against merit pay. And of course Ed. Notes, though not strictly an opposition party, has pushed the limits of what 1 person can do in being critical of the union leadership. 

New Action Goes CURR
The non-Unity active membership has declared New Action a CURR (Caucus Under Registration Review). In dropping from 31 to 21% of the vote in 10 years ( a 32% decline) New Action has clearly failed to meet the standards. If there is no improvement in the next election, New Action will be closed and reorganized into a debating society.


Ed. Note: Unity’s share of the vote has grown from 69% in 1991. New Action received 31% in ‘’91, 24% in ‘99, 21% in ‘’01. Despite this steady erosion, NA has made few changes in strategy or tactics. Circumstances may be beyond their control, as Marian Swerdlow pointed out in our March edition. Randy Weingarten’s incredible abilities as a politician cannot be overlooked. She has an ability to reach out to people and make them think she feels their pain (sound familiar?). And she never stops working. (NA attacks about the salary she makes were rediculous.) So what’s an opposition to do? Stay tuned for the fall edition of Ed. Notes for some ideas.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Message to Ed Notes Readers: Why Join MORE? Do You Really Have A Choice? - Updated

Please join us now
http://more.nationbuilder.com/join_us -- MORE Caucus 
Really, with some warts and all, MORE is the only option if you oppose the UFT leadership and object to its partner, New Action's role as a stalking horse for Mulgrew and Unity. If the high school votes of MORE (1335) and New Action (whose 440 votes went to Unity (1590) in 2013 were combined, Unity would have lost those 7 seats.

(If New Action ever wants to come back into the legitimate opposition, its leaders should contact MORE, whose reps told them they will be welcome once they give up their deal with Unity.)

While I'm not in total agreement with Mike Schirtzer's call for MORE to run in the UFT 2016 elections Why MORE Will Run In The 2016 UFT Elections  if you do agree with Mike, then what option do you have than to join MORE? Oh, you think all you have to do is vote for MORE and not have to give anything back to the org doing all the election organizing and work? Do you want a name on a ballot or an actual campaign that costs money? Unity will have its chapter leaders and district reps stuff every mailbox in every school with numerous campaign lit. New Action will have its large core of retirees hit most of the schools with leaflets. Most MORE people are classroom teachers and need people in the school to become organizers and distributors.

See the disinterest not only from people who don't vote (I can understand that from them -- they are boycotting a meaningless election). But what about the 4500 people who did vote for MORE last time? Where are they? What about the 20,000 people who voted against the contract? It is time to stand up.

Where are all those people who are outraged at Randi's sellouts? Do you know that in the UFT elections, 750 Unity hacks are elected to go to NYSUT RA and AFT conventions to stamp out attempts to get the national and state unions to take a strong stand against ed deform and defend you as teachers from the onslaught? The UFT elections are the basis of Randi's control of the national union and Mulgrew/Randi attempt to continue control of the state union from the Stronger Together Caucus. The 2016 elections will continue that control (not that it is possible to stop them from electing these 750 slugs again.)


One of my thoughts in calling for a boycott of the election is this: Maybe those of you opposed to the Unity machine but sit on the sidelines don't deserve to have the right to vote against Mulgrew. 

Join MORE and also sign up to distribute info on MORE to your colleagues. If MORE doesn't listen to me and actually runs in 2016, they will need someone in every school to counter the Unity propaganda machine.

Keep Mike laughing - join MORE
I think it's 25 bucks a year to join MORE, a mere fraction of what you pay the Unity/UFT machine. If you want a campaign against Unity, put some skin in the game.  http://more.nationbuilder.com/join_us
I'll be looking for you

PS: And have some pity on poor Schirtzer - he wants to challenge Unity so badly and with a real campaign. Keep his hope alive!!!

Image Banner

MORE’s central priority will be the development of a UFT caucus. Our aim is to reach UFT members with our message of a more active and democratic union that can effectively fight back against what we have called the “ed deform” agenda and for the basic union rights of our members. We seek to reach members “where they are.” Different subsets of the membership experience the attacks on our profession and on our rights differently. For some, the testing frenzy has already transformed our work lives dramatically. For others, the new evaluation process and life under a terrible contract occupy center stage. Many of our members work under horrific and abusive administrators and that reality overshadows everything else.
Our hope is to reach rank and file members and help them become more actively involved in our efforts to turn things around. This will include helping members build stronger and more effective union chapters in their schools, connecting members with others around the city who are combating the impacts of standardized testing on our working conditions and our students learning conditions, encouraging members to join us in various efforts to challenge the UFT leadership and turn the union into one that can lead the fight on all of these fronts.

Please join us now
http://more.nationbuilder.com/join_us

Sunday, March 1, 2015

New Action Tries to Rewrite History, Distorts Story on UFT Charter While Some Brag About "Working" With NA

The UFT charter school came up for a vote at the Executive Board during a time period between 2003 and 2004 when opposition caucus New Action was solidifying their alliance with the dominant Unity Caucus.  New Action's high school "opposition" representatives started going with the Unity party line on just about every topic. The exceptions were my close friend to this day Ed Beller and me however on the subject of the UFT starting a charter school, Ed was with the leadership. Therefore, I was alone so UFT President Randi Weingarten was poised to ridicule me. .... James Eterno
In response to my post on the historical context of the UFT charter and New Action's support for the charter, a prominent member of New Action posted this:
Norm claims that New Action supported the charter. He provides nothing in writing, since there was nothing. Rather, he refers to an anecdote of one vote by one individual, acting on his own. In fact, Scott overlooks years of New Action literature in opposition to charters, preferring his alternate "anecdote as history." This method of attack says more about Scott than about anything else.
I was at all meetings related to the UFT charter - the info meeting, the Ex Bd vote and the DA where Michael Fiorillo from ICE spoke and we handed out a leaflet I believe. James Eterno's memory corresponds to mine and contradicts the New Action fiction. He responded on the ICE blog with his personal account. DEMISE OF UFT CHARTER SCHOOL REMINDS ME OF MY OPPOSITION TO ITS FOUNDING.

James was still on the UFT Exec Bd as a high school rep on the New Action slate elected in 2001 but he and Ellen Fox had already been pushed out of New Action for not going along with the cowtowing to Randi.

James Eterno continues:
I recall vividly being called on after the usual Unity [AND NEW ACTION] sycophants praised the charter school. I spoke out against the UFT running a charter school because we would have difficulty publicly opposing the expansion of charter schools if the union was running one and money would be siphoned away from an already cash strapped public school system to charters.  Randi stopped me in mid-sentence that evening and argued that I was making an argument against private school vouchers and not charter schools but I stuck to my position.
I seem to remember Mike Shulman going over to the other New Action Executive Board members telling them Randi didn't want any opposition on this and to remain quiet. Luckily, he had no control over James.

More from James:
After our debate, I was the lone no vote. A UFT charter school was a no-win proposition.  If it succeeded, the press would see it as a victory for charter schools.  If it did not work out, it would be seen as union failure. That's what is occurring now. Being opposed to all charter schools on principle, not just some we don't like, is a position I am quite honored to have stood up for as a lone wolf at the UFT Executive Board. 
New Action claims to oppose charter. They have been on the Executive Board for almost a decade. Where are their efforts to raise the issue at the EB and the DA if they are opposed to charters? Where are they at the co-location hearings? Did they make a stand when the UFT/Unity leadership capitulated to Cuomo last year when he pushed through the charter support plan that undercut De Blasio? Show me one resolution or public protest they have raised.

Mike Schirtzer, who was in diapers when the UFT charter was on the agenda (he was a late bloomer) posted this response to the New Action whine:
Yes, all your support of Mulgrew, begging for ex bd seats, and all those resolutions really show commitment to fighting charters. I was at countless co-location/charter hearing, I must have missed New Action.

Now, here's the funniest thing. The leader of a new caucus is actually bragging about working together with New Action as a major way to distinguish the caucus from MORE (which refuses to work with New Action until it renounces its deal with Unity). As Mike has pointed out, Weingarten and Mulgrew were at the top of the New Action slate as their presidential candidate, as recently as 2 years ago and Mulgrew will head their ticket in the 2016 elections.

Working with New Action = endorsing Mulgrew, no matter what language is being used to cover this up.

Afterthought
My personal break with a guy to whom I gave supreme support came over his insistence that New Action must be worked with in contradiction to the entire history of that caucus over the past dozen years and MORE's established policy that it would only work with New Action when its deal with Unity ended. A constant barrage of emails to MORE steering over this issue that has continued to this day and a willingness to break up the opposition to Unity. The alliance with New Action and in essence Unity, is designed to make sure Unity controls 100% of the Exec Bd seats in next year's elections by keeping New Action on and MORE shut out. No matter what you hear, that is the bottom line.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Testing Reso Voted Down at Delegate Assembly, New Action Squeals at MORE's Failure to Communicate

Did I tell you we got back from Singer Island and Delray beach Tuesday?
A commenter asked me to post appropriate photos for the blog and I can't think of a better one to show how dumb I am to be here in the cold at a UFT DA instead of staying in Florida. But the cat feeder went off to Costa Rica and we had to come back. And by the way -- I was treated to a nice coming up (70th) birthday lunch down there by the well-known commenter on blogs -- Schoolgal - which we got to do when my wife - who will brook no ed pol discussion in her presence - got into a mah jong game that afternoon. It was nice to get Schoolgal's perspective on things even though we don't always agree. Her optimism that Unity can be beaten is always refreshing.

The Unity gang pointed to procedural issues - as I pointed out they might in yesterday's post --Today's UFT Delegate Assembly: Jia Lee Will Attempt to Present Resolution to Support “The I Refuse Movement” to Oppose High Stakes Testing --- nice work Mark Corasham who at times pretends not to be just another Unity hit man. Yes, the reso was directed at NYSUT - but it called on the UFT to take this to NYSUT. And yes it said NY State Board of Education instead of Board of Regents or NY State Ed Dept. They just used procedural mish-mosh to mash the reso. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I got upstairs just as MORE's Mike Schirtzer took the floor to make the resolution -- Jia Lee had her card up but Mulgrew did not call on her - but nothing new for Mulgrew who probably sees Jia as a threat, just as he saw Julie as a threat and never called on her. Mike did me proud as my adopted political son -- I expect to see him in front of the DA handing out leaflets when he's 70 --in about 32 years - just in time to get that retro pay. He was so natural in front of the body --- I really haven't seen many people be able to do that over these years -- even from the opposition, who can seem so uptight. Not Mike. He told me he was speaking as if in front of his class. If Mulgrew ever calls on him again he will be a DA star.

Before getting to NYC Educator's report - Arthur and I enjoyed a nice Chipotle burrito after the meeting -- and I'm up at 1AM with heartburn - thanks Arthur -- Arthur and I do have people who go to the DA who read our stuff. I want to thank the chapter leader who I had never met before who came up to me before the meeting and told me he reads Ed Notes regularly along with all the major ed blogs. Sometimes I think I'm writing in a vacuum or for the usual suspects. He said I was often on point - which surprised me because I am told I write too much "fluff." Like now.

Anyway - before I get to No Action -- here is Arthur's piece on the reso -- his fuller report on the DA is at his blog:  DA Report—"I Refuse" Resolution Killed by UFT Unity—Supporter Shut Down by Mulgrew
Motion—Mike Schirtzer rises, raises motion for next month on behalf of MORE, to support I Refuse Movement. Circulates it. Mulgrew says it needs a simple majority to be placed on agenda. 
Mike says has been passed by several locals, that testing regime is out of hand, and that we should oppose high stakes testing. Says test prep saps joy from teaching, helps neither us nor our students. Kills creativity, critical thinking so we can do non stop test prep. Says we must starve the beast, that MOSL is junk science. Says if we’re gonna go to war against Cuomo, let’s take high stakes testing away from him.

Point of information—states we cannot make resolutions for NYSUT, and that there is no NYC Board of Education. Mulgrew points out other reference to NYSUT, makes disapproving noises, says DA does not have ability to bind NYSUT’s hands.

Sterling Robeson rises to speak against resolution, says we are against overtesting, but that we need tools to help drive instruction. Says parents need tests to ensure that they’re getting the “education they deserve.” Says we’ve supported this issue “from teachers of Chicago,” and in early grades. Says we’ve enforced it and reemphasized it over and over. States there is difference between opting out and refusing. Says it tells folks to tell their kids to refuse. Although there are pieces that are appealing to us, it goes to far. Urges this motion be defeated.

Mulgrew holds vote, I did not hear him declare outcome (it was clearly voted down, I would say 2-1) takes point of personal privilege, says he understands passion around this issue. Says resolution is out of order because it asks us to make decision about NYSUT. Speaks of how parents want tests. Says we’re in a fight and have to be smart about it, that we ought not to take a boilerplate resolution that was put together in other places. Says we should be against high stakes.

Supporter of resolution makes point of information—"Last resolve makes it clear that this resolution is only"—Mulgrew interrupts speaker before she finishes and says it’s already been voted on. Calls speaker out of order.
 Oh, and a post-DA conversation between Schirtzer and New Action's Shulman where Shulman complained loudly that if only MORE had communicated with New Action they would have fixed the reso and it would have passed. Sure. New Action has so much influence. They've been on the UFT Ex Bd through the grace of Mulgrew and in exchange for supporting Mulgrew or Weingarten in the past 4 UFT elections over a decade and we have seen so much "inaction" on the testing issue.

Julie Cavanagh and I represented MORE at a meeting with New Action in Nov. 2013 (which I audiotaped)  and made our position clear: We will be willing to work with New Action AFTER it renounces its deal of support for Mulgrew.

Still waiting.

What I find funny is that there is actually a group bragging about their cool relationship with New Action and how it gives them access to the UFT Ex Bd. Hope they have fun with that and see how far that gets them. NA will desperately try to cling to any group that actually does something.

Really, they should change their name from New Action to No Action. Shulman peeped a question at Mulgrew -- Sir, can you tell me if the New Motion period is over, Sir - and can I have some more porridge? Mulgrew said it was over and Shulman sat down -- like how about asking to extend? Next NA leaflet: NA makes strong point at DA.

By the way, communication means official between caucuses. New Action seemed desperate to establish official lines of communications with MORE. I told them to just come to any of our meetings. I might go to theirs - if they had any publicly announced.

Personally I have no problem saying hello and goodbye to most NA people (except Shulman). Since we had that meeting I no longer see them as evil. But when they try to pump themselves up into something they are not -- like a real opposition caucus that just happens to endorse their supposed opponents in UFT elections in exchange for gift ex bd seats - the truth needs to be told.

My advice is to just take those Ex Bd seats and those little UFT jobs - except for Shulman who gets around 15 grand a year from the union - and stay in their self-designed little cage.

They are what they are. No Action.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

From 25 Years Ago: The UFT After Shanker by Lois Weiner and Bruce Markens

A lot to interesting insights about the UFT and the opposition from Lois and Bruce in this document published in 1990. Some good lessons for the new generation of teacher activists looking to challenge the half century of Unity Caucus control - well, maybe the lesson is the more things change the more they remain the same.

Lois Weiner and Bruce Markens were 2 of the most respected independent voices in the UFT. Bruce is truly the only independently elected district rep in history - he served for a decade as Manhattan HS DR despite repeated attempts by Unity to defeat him. He was so despised by Unity that when he retired I asked Randi to say something at the DA about his years of service and she refused. He was the reason she ended Dist Rep elections 2 years after he retired. Bruce and I are getting together with Mike Schirtzer and some others after the New Year to pass the historical torch so Mike can tell the story in 25 years -

and Mike met with Lois, Julie and some other MOREistas last week to get her current point of view.

I only met Lois after she had left the system and went into academia. She was the one who recruited Vera Pavone and I to write the review of the Kahlenberg Shanker bio which was published in New Politics. http://newpol.org/content/albert-shanker-ruthless-neo-con

Lois and Bruce have written an important historical document about Unity Caucus and the opposition from the point of view of a generation ago.

One of the things we see being sold by some today is the umbrella group idea where each caucus operates on its own and then comes together for elections or certain issues. Coalition caucus politics has been a failure throughout the history of the UFT opposition. ICE and TJC learned that lesson after a years of wrestling with each other and finally came together in MORE. Though there is still some internal wrestling, there is the sense that even a shotgun marriage is better than what was there before.

Here Bruce talks about how that worked out between 1981 (really since my group the CSW worked with TAC in the 1977 elections) through the writing of this article in 1990. NAC was the coalition of 3 caucuses initially and then 2. New Action was the result of the merger in 1996.


Imagine - in those years the opposition could pull high vote totals in middle and high schools but could never make a dent in the elementary and functional and of course the retiree divisions. In fact, in the elections following this 1990 article, the opposition won 13 Ex Bd seats  - its highest totals ever.


After New Action formed from the merger of TAC and New Directions in 1996 it had some success in the high schools by winning those seats through the 2001 elections. But seeing their advantage slipping away they jumped at the deal offered by Randi - don't run against her in exchange for Unity not running against NA for the HS seats. In 2003 I and others, unhappy with the state of the opposition - New Action, a fairly nascent TJC at that point and a 3rd caucus - Progressive Action - focused on one major item - teacher licensing - formed ICE as yet another alternative. (Hey - do you believe in choice?) While there was initial excitement that faded by the 2007 elections and ICE drifited into inactivity and into GEM and MORE. A real lesson for me - and others - which ultimately has led back to an attempt to create one unified opposition voice in MORE.

Attempts to brand Solidarity as a bridge group between New Action and MORE and a mostly dormant ICE will come to naught and maybe in 25 years someone will write this version of history.

If you have trouble reading the document below, go to this link where it will be larger.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/247106770/The-UFT-After-Shanker-Lois-Weiner-and-Bruce-Markens

Monday, August 26, 2013

Ed Notes Redux: UFT Election Results, 1999 - New Action Vote Drops 75% Over Years But They Gain More Ex Bd Seats

New Action Off the cliff
New Action  received 31% in ‘91. New Action received 24% in ‘99. PAC received 2%.... Ed Notes, May, 1999 election analysis
New Action with this tremendous drop in vote totals between '99 (11,500) and '13 (3600 - half from retirees) goes from 'winning" 6  Ex Bd seats in '99 to ten EB seats in '13. Ahhhh, democracy at work! 
I've been going through the archives for a project geared to making print copies of ed notes available online. Until that is done I am publishing items of interest that might provide perspective.

Note the trend from '91, soon after NA was formed from a merger of Teachers Action Caucus and New Directions in 1990 when they got 31% of the vote. By '99 the opposition totals dropped to 26% -- call it the Randi effect -- she was initially selling reform of the union. That had disappeared by 2001 but NA was not capable of organizing and when totals dropped again in the 2001 election Randi jumped in to buy herself an opposition caucus.

For the record, as an independent Ed Notes, after the 2001 election I tried to broker a united front between all opposition forces but it fell apart, which led me to start thinking of the need for an alt caucus and the concept of a citywide edition of Ed Notes (beginning in Fall, 2002 after I retired) which became the basis of ICE. It took another 10 years to forge the highest degree of a united front with MORE (except for the now outlier, New Action). So much irony all over the place.

There were 2 opposition caucuses running in 1999: New Action and Progressive Action, a group focused on the licensing issue. Note return totals- so much higher than today. Did the NA sellout have an impact on lowering vote totals? NA in the high schools with Paul Milstein running for HS veep received 2880 to John Soldini's 2517 yet Soldini was elected because the entire union voted for that position. Union dues without representation. Throw that tea in the bay.

In the 2013 election New Action got 452 slate votes to MORE's 1430 and Unity's 1592. Even better. NA's total votes has dropped in 14 years from 11,500 to 1900 working people plus 1800 retirees, many of whom still think NA is a real opposition. In other words almost half the NA vote came from retirees in '13. So how is that collaboration deal with Unity working out?

Yet, even better, New Action with this tremendous drop in vote totals goes from 'winning" 6 (or 7) Ex Bd seats in '99 to ten EB seats in '13. Ahhhh, democracy at work!

Think of these numbers given that 30,000 more ballots were mailed out in 2013 and about 4000 more in HS. Also note that over 17,000 votes were returned by retirees in '99 and about 22,000 14 years later with a much larger membership pool. Even though 52% of the total vote in a weak turnout, even retirees (with 25,000 more ballots mailed) are losing interest.



Here is my commentary from the May 1999 edition of Ed Notes:

UFT Elections: Looking at the numbers (non-slate votes not included). PAC votes basically irrelevant,except in Academic HS, so not included. 

Interesting Points 

Retirees are the happiest people in our union. They returned the highest percentage (51%) of the ballots, because they clearly had the time to wade through all the names. (The other 49% were too busy getting ready for The Earlybird Special.) Retirees are happy with the way things are going and voted for Unity by 85%. The 33,000 retirees are the 3rd biggest block in the union. After the massive retirement expected in 2 years, they will clearly be the largest voting block. At some point we have to deal with the issue of the impact retirees have on the working conditions of active teachers. If retirees didn’t vote, Unity would have received 67% of the total vote in- stead of 74%, still a significant victory.


Election Facts
Ballots mailed: 136,565
Ballots returned: 49,108 (36%)
Ballots not returned: 103,023 (64%)
Ballots mailed to active members: 103, 023 Ballots returned by active members: 31,908 (31%) Ballots mailed to retirees: 33,542
Ballots returned by retirees: 17,200 


There has been little change in voting patterns for last 5 elections. Unity’s share of the vote has grown from 69% in 1991. NAC received 31% in ‘91. New Action received 24% in ‘99. PAC received 2%. Their impact was minimal, other than perhaps causing some people who would have voted with the opposition, to not vote at all and could explain, to some extent, the higher than usual (69%) of ballots not returned by active teachers. That’s over 70,000 ballots not returned
by ctive teachers. Is it apathy or a silent vote against all caucuses?

Academic High Schools
The only division where New Action had some success. They won half the Academic high school Executive Board seats (the rest were at large) and received about 52% of the vote. With PAC’s vote added in, the opposition polled 55% of the vote in this division. They did not win the Academic HS VP position because these positions are voted on at large, a change instituted by Unity Caucus after the last time an opposition candidate won this position.This is a bad policy for the union as it disenfranchises the divisional voters. 

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

New Action Seeks Free Pass on Mulgrew Endorsement While Giving Cover to Unity on Lack of Democracy

It's pretty obvious that New Action is independent of Unity...... Unity and New Action are running independent slates, but have cross-endorsed several candidates. Among the at-large seats, Unity has cross-endorsed 7 New Action candidates. They will appear on the ballot as New Action/Unity. And in the high school division New Action has 3 candidates cross-endorsed by Unity, and Unity has 4 candidates cross-endorsed by New Action. In addition, New Action cross-endorsed Michael Mulgrew for President.
---- Jonathan Halabi, New Action Chair
How does New Action look at themselves in the mirror? Ann Filardo (former TAC* Pres candidate) would turn over in her grave if she saw what Shulman is doing. I'd rather go with Unity than this scum..... Ira Goldfine, retired teacher, former coordinator of Coalition of School Worker election campaigns along with Teachers Action Caucus in the 70s and 80s. {*TAC is one of the 2 groups that merged in 1990 to form NA and Shulman came from TAC.}
It's oh so "obvious" that New Action is independent, it can blow your mind. It did NYC Educator's today.

Let's see -- Halabi claims independence from Unity while being dependent on Unity to win ANY ex bd seats. Does that work for you?

New Action is in a tither over the fact that MORE has linked them to Unity Caucus despite the fact that 10 New Action candidates are running on the Unity line, the only way they can win any executive board seats, thus giving Unity cover over the fundamental lack of democracy. Unity controls 100% of the executive board.

As example: in the 2010 election ICE-TJC received 1360 high school votes while New Action alone got 750 but since their candidates also ran on Unity they added the 2600 votes from the Unity coat tails.

By the way, if New Action had renounced its dependency on Unity this time and considered running a joint campaign with MORE I have no doubt we could have won a bunch of Ex Bd seats but New Action wants no MORE person on the EB as much as Unity doesn't.

[In a dream sequence, both New Action and Unity high school vote totals fall below 3000 and MORE breaks 3000 to beat them both -- hey gang, there are 19000 high school teacher votes out there -- get them out for MORE and make NA and Unity eat crow.]

In an email to the New Action troops, Halabi made this laughable comment:
MORE has shifted its campaign - from attacking Unity to attacking Unity/New Action. We weren't really expecting this, but it's not a great surprise either. (Even though they assured us a few months ago that they would not do this).  Looks like they panicked when they saw how widely our literature had gotten out. 
This is so funny. In fact MORE has barely mentioned New Action while they have used this occasion to attack MORE, which is a threat to their phony attempt to appear to be an opposition while being used by Unity to create confusion amongst the voters who are not aware of New Action's dirty deal with them. New Action having been around for 23 years may still carry some weight while the year old MORE is in the process of branding itself. Watch the MORE action and No Action over the next few years to see which group actually does stuff. (Have you EVER seen a No Action presence at a PEP meeting?)
  
I'll deal with their lie about MORE assuring it would give them a free pass --- did they think for a minute I and other ICEers would allow that? But they were worried Ed Notes would go after them and figured the MOREs had corralled me, something they never would or never could do. In fact, NYC Educator, not a MORE member or candidate, has done a much better job on exposing New Action than I have. See today's great post:  UFT's Fake Opposition Hates Being Called Fake Opposition.  Also see Neutered Action.

They are crying on their blog that Kit Wainer cannot control bloggers like NYC and me. Boo-hoo.
 
Is MORE in a state of panic over NA's distribution of literature? MORE has bigger fish to fry. NA always gets their literature out since they are massively loaded with retirees who spend an enormous amount of time going to schools, plus there is some evidence that Unity district reps are "assisting" especially in schools with MORE people running.

One way I know that MORE is far ahead of where ICE was in 2010 is that ICE retirees did so much of the distribution while this time I relatively have little to do other than picking up from the printer and delivering to distribution points. Meaning: we finally have many more activists in the schools than retirees doing this scut work.

When I was at the drawing of candidate ballot positions as a MORE rep with Unity's Bob Astrowsky -- one of my favorite Unity people -- (Shulman from NA didn't show) I was shocked to see how many retirees NA had to use to fill its Exec Board at large slate. In MORE we could have run without any retirees on the 48 member EB at large slate and only included the 5 or 6 retirees who were most active in MORE. In fact New Action could not fill the 19 slots on the functional EB and only filled 12. That was because they had to use their retirees to fill the at large EB positions. In addition, NA could fill only 10 of the 12 officer positions. (MORE filled 11 out of 12, the only seat we didn't fill since it is for a non DOE employee and would have meant someone like a charter school teacher running -- we have one in MORE but it wasn't the time.)

I know, this is arcane useless stuff for many people but it indicated the weakening condition of NA and the threat that MORE presents to them even more than to Unity. Until NA is totally irrelevant, an opposition will not be able to get traction in an election. I just have to convince my fellow MOREs of that.

Halabi continued: 
We haven't responded, at least not yet. We don't think too many people will be fooled.  It's pretty obvious that New Action is independent of Unity, supports them when they are right, opposes them when they are wrong, and tries to point them in the right direction when they are in between. 
Love that "pointing them in the right direction" thing. Like Mulgrew gives a crap about anything they say, knowing full well they have no where else to go. What I think is that some people will be fooled by the New Action phony attempt to present itself as independent of Unity when as I've shown they are totally dependent on Unity to win ANY exec Bd seats. Really, there comes a time when Halabi should hang his head in shame.

Now note this little cutesy point from Halabi:
The UFT Executive Board is up for election. TJC is dissolved into GEM into MORE and ICE is supporting MORE also (that’s a lot of names for one
caucus, er coalitioner whatever.)
er - next time you see Halabi ask him when the next New Action open meeting is taking place. Have you ever even heard of a New Action meeting? While MORE has struggled in monthly open meetings (which some New Action people have attended) to create a democratic organization the antithesis of Unity, New Action has endorsed in spades Unity's continuous violation of democratic principles in every aspect of the union. And functions not much differently than Unity. [Thus note the outrage above of my pal Ira Goldfine].

Here Halabi he saves the coup de grace for last.
Unity and New Action are running independent slates, but have cross-endorsed several candidates. Among the at-large seats, Unity has cross-endorsed 7 New Action candidates. They will appear on the ballot as New Action/Unity. And in the high school division New Action has 3 candidates cross-endorsed by Unity, and Unity has 4 candidates cross-endorsed by New Action. In addition, New Action cross-endorsed Michael Mulgrew for President.
Ooooh! IN ADDITION. An afterthought of sorts. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.

Given all this and the fact that the majority of teachers have no idea of what MORE or even New Action is about -- they would have to read deep into the NA lit to find they support Mulgrew, a number of anti-Unity people will be fooled into voting NA and giving Mulgrew another vote without intending to.

We will all be in the same room watching the results on April 25. I'll bring my NA repellent.

In a future post I'll take on the NA claims of being first in everything -- like did they forget that ICE ran against them and Unity in 2004 over the mayoral control issue? And ICE was first on testing? Jezz, they are like the FOX Faux News.