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.

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.

New Action and Unity Caucus

A recent letter New Action/UFT sent out to its supporters made it perfectly clear: they will be running a slate in the UFT elections this coming spring. The letter confirmed that the alliance between New Action and Unity is tighter than ever. New Action has been praised as the “responsible opposition” by Randi Weingarten. The question can be asked: Can New Action truly be classified as an “opposition” when it is uncritical of the party it is supposedly opposing—Unity Caucus. In that case, exactly who will New Action be running against in the UFT elections this winter/spring?

New Action and democracy
The New Action letter states, “Weingarten stated that she was in basic agreement with our program with the exception of…union democracy.” But isn’t lack of democracy and the total dominance by one party, in turn dominated by one person, a fundamental cause of the problems the union is facing? Hasn’t the wide gulf between the membership and leadership led to Unity Caucus decisions that have brought us to the point where, in New Action’s own words, “all members of the UFT are at risk”?

New Action has claimed their alliance with Unity has benefited the members. They state, “…we continue to be an independent check and balance within our union, ” without demonstrating one meaningful check or balance that has benefited anyone in the schools.

“We believe the membership must be activated to establish a new union militancy,” New Action says. Yet they neglect to answer why the membership has not been activated by Unity Caucus or what happened to the “old” union militancy under the Weingarten/Unity leadership. It appears that New Action has declared a loss of faith in the rank and file as a means of forcing changes in the union, in essence choosing to become a lobbying organization with the leadership.

Do they really believe that their nudging at the top will change our union’s way of operating? If we need to build militancy in our union, shouldn’t they be organizing an effective organization at the grass roots level to challenge Unity’s disastrous policies, especially when it comes to democracy?

It is not New Action’s secret lobbying and cheerleading for the union leadership or their membership on various committees dominated by Unity (even some New Action members complain how they are ignored), but rather the open criticisms by ICE, TJC and independent union members that have moved Randi Weingarten to a more responsive and militant position on many issues.

In the 45 years Unity has run the union it has always taken away democracy, never granted more of it. Why would they do so now? New Action is no novice — no one should know better how undemocratically Unity operates than them. Their leader Michael Shulman himself had an election almost stolen from him in the 80’s after he won a high school VP position that led to him being tied up in courts for a almost a year. This was followed by a change in the rules in 1993 so no one opposed to Unity could ever win a VP position again.

With Unity Caucus opposed to democratizing our union, the only way to make the UFT more democratic is to force changes on the leadership by a grass roots organizing campaign. If New Action is in partnership with Unity, what recourse do they have other than begging for crumbs?

But it goes further than that. Why is New Action running against the rest of the opposition instead of running against Unity? By refusing to join ICE and TJC as part of the joint slate challenging Unity — they were invited to do so as far back as March, held off meeting with ICE for months, and did not respond with their refusal to join the slate until mid-September — New Action has made a choice to support Unity and to act as their stalking horse in winning back the 6 high school seats that New Action lost to ICE and TJC in the 2004 elections.

New Action negates its claim that it is for a more democratic union – by enforcing and supporting the tyranny of the massive, patronage-ridden, Unity machine.

Unity supported Mayoral control, Children First, schools rated based on high stakes tests, etc.
New Action’s recent letter stated: “Four years ago New Action warned of the dangers of imposing the ‘corporate model’ on our public system. Unfortunately it has come to pass…” Taking as its cue the fact that the Bloomberg/Klein axis of evil had placed the union under an attack on all fronts and was the major enemy, the letter states: “New Action/UFT, an opposition caucus, continues to work with President Weingarten in a bipartisan way to fight this unprecedented assault, to implement our caucus program and benefit the membership.”

Isn’t New Action obfuscating the crucial role Randi Weingarten and Unity Caucus played in allowing this “unprecedented assault” on the rights of UFT members? Weingarten had been a major cheerleader for Mayor Bloomberg’s takeover of the school system, had endorsed the appointment of Joel Klein as chancellor by failing to use the union’s power and influence and insist that an educator be put in charge of the school system, and had been an enthusiastic supporter of Klein’s radical (and eventually disastrous) restructuring of the school system. At the time Weingarten stated, “What Mike Bloomberg did today was declare war on the entrenched bureaucracy. The implementation is going to be tough. There are a lot of transition issues that have to be worked out. But it is breathtakingly possible.” (“Bloomberg and Klein Drop the Big One, While Weingarten Goes Along for the Ride”, Education Notes, Spring 2003 – currently appearing on www.ednotesonline.blogspot.com.) Since that time, many teachers have been scratching their heads in wonder at the lack of a rigorous public counterattack by the union leadership, evoking comments along the lines of “Weingarten seems to cower before BloomKlein and seems afraid of offending them.”

Did New Action abrogate its responsibility as an “opposition” caucus?
New Action states, “The Bloomberg/Klein/Bush assault [on unions] is constant and relentless” without referring to the role the UFT played, as if a union did not exist or was incapable of putting up any resistance to this assault — as if this attack took place in a vacuum. Shouldn’t New Action have used its influence to organize opposition to the policies of the leadership that left the union open to this onslaught? Did the largest and most influential opposition at that time contribute to the disaster befalling us by its refusal to organize teachers to pressure Unity to take a stronger stand? New Action was a vigorous supporter of the onerous “time for money” 2002 contract. Contrast this to the role New Action played in 1995 when it had been one of the leading forces in organizing the membership to turn down the infamous zero/zero contract in its first incarnation (it passed on the 2nd vote).

New Action “opposed” the 2005 contract but supports the 2006 extension
In Randi Weingarten’s announcement about the deal on the 2005 contract, she was able to state that the vote of the negotiating committee, which contained two members of New Action, was unanimous. Responding to subsequent dissension within New Action, there were a couple of leaflets criticizing the contract, but New Action did little to help organize opposition to the contract alongside ICE and TJC. New Action did not support the rallies outside the October DA or in front of the UFT HQ. Nor did they protest publicly when Unity pulled literature opposing the contract from teachers’ letter boxes, which violated one of the basic democratic rights of union members, a right which New Action had previously fought for.

Thus, the recent statement that “[We] felt the overall package was not in the best interests of the members and we recommended a no vote on the contract” is misleading. Weingarten was well aware of their lack of participation in rallying opposition to the contract. Their recent statement that “It is to President Weingarten’s credit that despite the fact that New Action opposed the contract, she continues to seek our counsel and accepts bipartisanship” underscores their total dependence on Weingarten’s god will. All New Action members on the current negotiating committee voted for the 2 year extension of a contract they supposedly opposed, with only the ICE and TJC members voting “NO.” (A leaflet handed out at the November Delegate Assembly called for a YES vote.)

New Action has placed its trust in Randi Weingarten, never making the connection for people in the rank and file that she is at the top of a massive Unity glacier that will never willingly reform the union while they endorse Weingarten’s actions that, despite her bogus talk about democracy and rank-and-file participation, demonstrate a “l’etat c’est moi (“I am the state”) attitude. In the process, New Action negates and ignores their own history of fighting and organizing against the Unity machine, while betraying the constituency that supported them during these struggles.

New Action has discovered its new constituency – a constituency of one — Randi Weingarten.

This article appeared in the November edition of Education Notes distributed at the Delegate Assembly. A PDF copy will be emailed to you or sent to you school for distribution of posting upon request.

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.

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.

New Action: No Action on Social Justice, But Lots of Talk

New Action claims that "action" is talking about something. They were the "first to call" and sometimes they "repeatedly call" for action, as if "calling" is action.  Hey, I call for world peace. I'll wait a few minutes to check if it worked. Maybe I should try doing it repeatedly.-- Ed Notes

I recall members of New Action enthusiastically supporting the creation of the UFT Charter School.  I was alone in my negative vote. I oppose charter schools and so does MORE because they take precious public resources away from the public schools. -- James Eterno, ICE blog

I can't tell you how much glee the MOREs are having with these New Action posts: The crew that actually MADE a movie defending public education and teacher unions. Or the crew that has not only "repeatedly called" for people to go to closing school and charter co-locos and PEP meetings, but ACTUALLY went and spoke and leafleted.

If you haven't read it yet see my post from yesterday with links to wonderful NYC Educator posts.

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

The funniest is their claims on mayoral control when ICE took on that issue in the process of formation in 2003 because no other caucus even mentioned it. And I will point out that Ed Notes went after Randi for supporting it as far back as pre-ICE 2001, as James Eterno points out on the ICE blog today.

I was sitting behind James when Randi raised it at a May or June 2001 meeting and I watched NA dictator Mike Shulman run around to the NA Ex Bd members telling them not to oppose it (according to one NA EB member at the time) because Randi would be mad at them. I was yelling in the ear of James and NA's Bob Dehler, who turned around and told me how good mayoral control would be.

Here is James today on the ICE blog on mayoral control:

New Action states that they have opposed mayoral control from the start.  I remember it a little differently. While on the UFT Executive Board, I seem to recall the subject of mayoral control first came up around 2001.  The Unity majority brought forward a school governance recommendation that supported giving the mayor the majority control over the Board of Education.
Norm Scott showed up at the Executive Board and schooled me quickly on how it would be a disaster. Chicago was already ahead of New York on mayoral dictatorship; there were already horrible consequences for teachers and students.  I spoke up and voted against supporting mayoral control that night but I don't remember some of the other NAC members of the Executive Board voting with me. NAC had no position on the subject at the time. {James doesn't remember but NA member Bob Dehler turned to me at that point and said mayoral control is a good idea. --Norm} 

I also recall members of New Action enthusiastically supporting the creation of the UFT Charter School.  I was alone in my negative vote. I oppose charter schools and so does MORE because they take precious public resources away from the public schools.

I'm glad James brought up the enthusiastic support New Action gave to the UFT charter co-location of 2 public schools -- and note that issue is absent from their literature, probably because Mulgrew told them that was a no-no. ICE took a strong and immediate stand against the UFT Charter with Michael Fiorillo leading the way at the DA.


James and MORE and ICE members Lisa North, who left New Action to form ICE in 2003 after their dirty deal with Unity, and Gloria Brandman take apart the New Action claims at the ICE blog. James starts it off.

AN INSIDE LOOK AT NEW ACTION CLAIMS

New Action is supporting Michael Mulgrew for President in the UFT election. Ballots will be mailed today so now it is up to members to decide who will lead our union. The only caucus running an opposing presidential candidate is the Movement for Rank and File Educators (MORE).  MORE is running Julie Cavanagh for UFT President as most readers of this blog already know. This blog endorses Cavanagh/MORE.
Unity and New action are the two longest running caucuses (political parties) in the UFT.  Unity has run the UFT for five decades.  New Action opposed Unity for years.  I was a member of New Action from 1995 to 2003.  I was elected to the UFT Executive Board three times while in NAC. 

In those days they were a genuine opposition group that actually ran a candidate for UFT President.

When I was a new Chapter Leader in 1996, NAC co-chair Michael Shulman spent a great deal of time teaching me about the job and was a valuable resource as was NAC's Ellen Fox.  Therefore, it was very painful to leave NAC in 2003 after they decided not to oppose Unity's Randi Weingarten for UFT President, but it was necessary. Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox, Lisa North, Chris Ash and others have not looked back since we defected although I do miss my New Action friends.

New Action in its current form basically exists to confuse members into thinking they are still the main opposition group within the UFT.  They put out literature that looks critical of the leadership but they do not run against President Mulgrew; instead they endorse him.  In exchange they are given ten candidates for the UFT Executive Board that the majority Unity Caucus is cross endorsing so they are pretty much assured of victory.  NAC maintains this arrangement gives them a voice inside the UFT much like the Unity leaders say they have a voice at the table with Bill Gates and others. What good does that do us?

NYC Educator correctly points out that supporting the other party's candidate for president would be akin to the Democrats in 2004 saying they are the main opposition party and then supporting Republican George W Bush for president.  You wouldn't think that is much of an opposition, would you?

NAC is running for these seats and others based on their record.  However, a look at that record shows that some of what New Action is taking credit for is a little far fetched.

Currently, New Action is making many claims in their literature where they take credit for their accomplishments within the  UFT. Former NAC member (now running with MORE) Lisa North comments on what they do.

I'll interrupt James for a second. Lisa and Gloria have worked with the UFT social justice committee and pushed for many of the issues NA is trying to take credit for. I always told them not to waste their time there because NA would take credit for all the work they did. And so it has come to pass. But they are so socially conscious that won't stop them.


On the disappearing black and Latino educator, every activist in the city knows that ICE founding member and current MORE member Sean Ahern has been the leading voice on this issue since the issue first emerged. As a matter of fact I'm not sure the issue would have emerged if not for the work of Sean.

Defense of the Puerto Rican teachers
Give me a break on this. Angel Gonzalez who is as close as anyone can be to Rafael Feliciano who led the PR teachers, came to ICE, not NA for help in putting the issue before the DA (that's how I met him). And we supported him on the blog and at the DA. See if NA was writing about this issue in 2007 and 2008. In fact, Ed Notes was writing about the Puerto Rico teacher story and their withdrawal from the AFT all along. (Angel then joined ICE and he and I and a few others founded what became GEM in Jan. 2009.)


Stop and frisk
ICE/MORE's Jeff Kaufman, a former cop and lawyer, has been an activist in opposing Stop and Frisk, along with James Eterno's brother John, also a former policeman. They speak all over the state on this issue. MORE took an early stand on this issue and MORE people have worked with and supported the amazing work Teachers Unite does on so many related issues.

On the anti-war issue
Gloria and Lisa were the key people in keeping this flame alive and ran the UFTers to Oppose the War listserve since its founding. 

Well, I'll let James, Lisa and Gloria continue (and my message to Gloria is: these guys are the enemies of union reform and prove it every day.)

"While it's true that NAC proposes some resolutions on important issues at Executive Board meetings, they do little or NO organizing!  It was MORE people who held meetings, sent emails, had rallies, circulated petitions, passed out fliers, contacted other community groups for support, etc. New Action is just like UNITY....pass a resolution and DO NO ACTION to organize to make a real change happen.  

 

Gloria Brandman sits on the UFT Social Justice Committee along with Lisa North.  Here is her critique (in italics) of New Action:

New Actions says they are: The only caucus to repeatedly call for action on the disappearing Black and Latino educators-   

Reality: This issue was originally brought to the Social and Economic Justice Committee (which is co chaired by a NAC and a UNITY person) by MORE's Sean Ahearn with support from Lisa and Gloria, Sean and other MORE people. Teachers Unite, and CPE worked on this issue even before it was brought to the UFT.

New Action says they initiated a resolution in Support of Puerto Rican Teachers Federation Leadership- 

Reality: Not sure if this is true but whenever Rafael Feliciano who was the President of the PRTF came to NYC, he spoke at many events in NYC, none of them organized by anyone in NAC.  It was GEM (Grassroots Education Movement) people who took leadership in supporting the PR Teachers and members of GEM who organized speaking engagements, forums  and fundraising events for  President Feliciano.

{IT IS TRUE GLORIA}

New Action says they called on UFT to support the April 9, 2011 anti-war demonstration. 

 

The Whole Story: This is positive but resolutions without actions do little to make change. It was members of ICE who are now MORE members that formed UFTers to Stop the War. UFTers to Stop the War brought anti-war resolutions to the DA as well as worked to make sure all high schools had information about opting out of military recruitment. NAC supported some of this work, but they did not do the organizing to bring any of it about. It was MORE people! And for the anti-war demonstration in Washington, DC on Jan 27, 2007 it was MORE members who requested and got the UFT to provide two buses, and Lisa and Gloria were the bus captains on the buses. One or two NACs may have attended as well. 

New Action says they achieved: 

 

Bipartisan Social and Economic Justice Committee passes rent control resolution
Bipartisan Social and Economic Justice Committee gets resolution passed  on Reducing the Environmental Footprint. Calls for an end to plastic bottles at UFT and for recycling bins. 

Reality: Not Bipartisan- There were people from three different caucuses at these meetings. 

(Bipartisan =including members from two parties or factions) I will say that getting rid of the plastic bottles at the DA is probably the most concrete and successful  action that has come about due to this committee!  

New Action says they exposed SESIS as a “nightmare.” Called for help for our members. 

Exactly how did they expose this? Most of them have never even seen SESIS as they are retired.

New Action says they won bipartisan support in solidarity with Chicago teachers

 
The Whole Story: It was MORE that brought teachers from Chicago here, wrote and circulated petitions, organized and participated in meetings, rallies and a march that started in Union Square.

New Action asks the UFT to join NAACP suit on selective school entrance exams
MORE actually proposed a resolution at the DA which was combined with the Executive Board's resolution and approved

New Action called for support for Seattle teachers who refused to administer standardized tests.
The Whole story: It was a MORE member who brought a resolution to DA.  it was combined with the Executive Board's resolution and approved

Back to James.

One final point: New Action met with some people from MORE last fall and NAC says there was an agreement that MORE would not attack them.  Kit Wainer from MORE was at that meeting and says no such agreement was ever made.  I know Kit and I will stand up 100% for his integrity.  I will be diplomatic and say that apparently there was a misunderstanding.

I am not so kind. They are lying skunks, and I hate to insult skunks.

Now here is the New Action attack on MORE's claim to be the social justice caucus of the UFT.

The Social Justice Caucus? Action vs Words

Published March 25, 2013

MORE Coalition- The Social Justice Caucus?

The MORE group has highlighted their commitment to fight for social justice in recent election material. They call themselves the social justice caucus.

On the other hand it is noteworthy that New Action/UFT has been in the forefront of the struggle for a non-racist, just society. While focusing on all the issues affecting educators in the schools, from the attack on veteran teachers, the attack on probationary teachers, the insanity of SESIS, abusive administrators, the fixation on standardized tests, and blaming educators for all the problems of the education system–New Action has taken action on ALL of the following–

The first to call for disaster relief for Haiti
The first to call for justice for Trayvon Martin
The first to call for an end to Stop and Frisk
The first to call for the defeat of Mike Bloomberg and support for Bill Thompson
The first to call for the defense of the fired leadership of the Puerto Rican teachers
The only caucus to repeatedly call for action on the disappearing Black and Latino educators
The only caucus to petition to end mayoral control
The first caucus to pass a resolution against gun violence
And New Action spoke up for organizing home care providers

MORE would like to have a record to match New Action but it’s not there yet. 

When the MORE coalition matches its actions with its rhetoric–maybe then it can wear the mantle of the social justice caucus!

 Let me just add one more thing.

Among the lies and misdirection from New Action, there is purposely calling MORE a "coalition" instead of a "caucus", a word branded all over everything MORE does, from the blog to the email to every single leaflet.

Why? Because a coalition is a group of groups, a notably unstable and often temporary alliance, which is the impression New Action is trying to give. about MORE. MORE is a caucus where individuals but not all members from many groups have joined.

There is an important difference and New Action, which itself formed as a caucus, not as a coalition between Teachers Action Caucus and New Directions where both those groups disappeared as entities. (TJC has disappeared and while ICE continues as a discussion group most ICEers are working inside MORE.)

Note that TAC was formed out of  Teachers for Community Control after the 1968 strike --- and where has that idea gone with New Action? They want to end Mayoral control but say precious little about local control. Some social justice caucus. And a reason why Ira Goldfine in my post yesterday pointed to how the early leaders of TAC who opened up schools in 1968 must be turning over in their graves.

Why I Am Voting YES on the MORE/New Action Election Alliance; MORE Strategy Vindicated

New Action has come to its senses and decided to align itself with tried and true activists in the MORE caucus. Opposition is finally coming together... NYC Educator, New Action Joins MORE.

Bernie Madoff could win a credibility contest against Mulgrew's Unity Caucus so I'm not too concerned. I have been vocal of my support for MORE and my disgust with New Action. My disgust with NA was rooted in their support of Mulgrew's presidency. Now that NA has removed that support, my disgust is waning. MORE still has credibility in my book. ....Roseanne McCosh - PS8X

MORE held an extensive discussion at the MORE general meeting on Saturday, which included push back from some people over various issues related to the arrangement and asking what are the differences between MORE and NA, etc. (I'll get into some of those another time).

Kit Wainer, whose roots were TJC, led the discussion - he was also one of our reps in discussions with NA - and when I think back to where TJC stood on NA 10 years ago -- well to me this was something.

MORE is in the process of a membership vote on the proposal to endorse the election 2016 working arrangement with New Action.

I am voting YES.

This may surprise readers of Ed Notes going back to its beginnings in 1997. I have been a severe critic of New Action, even when my pals James Eterno and Ellen Fox were elected to the UFT Exec Bd as New Action. Of course once NA made its deals with Unity as far back as 2002/3, we became allies in ICE.

ICE offered New Action a deal for 2007 election
That didn't stop us from contacting New Action before the election in 2007 - ICE/TJC had defeated NA in the 2004 election for the high school Ex Bd seats - the only time NA did not have people on the Exec Bd since 1994. That offer was turned down and ICE and TJC continued to work together - which culminated in a merger of sorts in 2012 to form MORE with others.

When MORE formed, individuals from New Action were invited in and some did join MORE while continuing to support New Action. That did cause some tension. After the 2013 election when MORE significantly outpolled New Action in every division other than retirees, things began to change.

MORE stood firm on refusal to work with New Action
At first New Action asked for some working arrangements with MORE. We refused  - why help promote another caucus that was partnering with Mulgrew?

At a meeting in October 2013 Julie Cavanagh and I made that point very clear to New Action. We are ready to work with you when you agree to break with Unity. That offer has been on the table since then. I also pointed out that MORE is open to New Action coming in and serving on steering and bringing their experience to MORE. I pointed to the demographics - that MORE was the first opposition in decades to attract a younger generation of teachers - making groups like ICE. TJC and New Action at risk of becoming retiree caucuses. (There is an audio tape of that meeting.)

There were one or two voices in MORE that insisted we not adhere to that position and instead work with New Action even while they officially supported Mulgrew.

MORE stood firm, believing that working with a group that supports Mulgrew would be a disaster for MORE - witness Roseanne's comment above. Only by not compromising would New Action eventually come to see that an alliance would help them and MORE - or else they might be threatened with losing more ground to MORE in the 2016 elections.

And I will say that the old ICE core was much less receptive to New Action than some of the new MOREs who did not live that history.

Personal contact helps
Over the last year at every DA I would tell the guy handing out NA lit: When are you guys rejoining the opposition? He would laugh and say - maybe sooner than you think.



I have to say, that since that Oct. 2013 meeting, I did get the NA point of view and lost a lot of my hostility towards them and to most (not all) of its leaders. I got to hang out with Jonathan Halabi at the AFT14 convention in LA and enjoyed some of our conversation. I realized what an important ally he could be in so many ways.

Another thing that happened was that as MORE chapter leaders began to have contact with New Action chapter leaders, there was a growing mutual respect. Really, that is where a lot of this stuff happens. At the grassroots level.

Now don't get me wrong. My dream of one caucus - branding a clear alternative to Unity - has not come to pass. The slate will look something like MORE/New Action. I think that over the long term that is harmful. People might ask - if you guys can't get together into one organization, how can you run the UFT? Well, coalitions running unions have worked in the past. But at this point of the process, I am not worried about that. In the key area of the high school executive board, MORE will get 4 and New Action will get 3 and MORE gets to choose the presidential candidate.  Pretty much everything else will be split - where there is an odd number - MORE due to its stronger position, will get the extra slot.

At Saturday's meeting, the strengths more than the weaknesses of New Action were brought out. A 25 year old distribution network, the fact that they have been putting out some pretty decent literature over the past year or two - taking very similar positions as MORE. So I won't get into the negatives and the differences at this point.

If we win the high school seats and contend in other divisions we will be working together over the next 3 years. I assume Halabi will be one of the NA Ex Bd members and while MORE hasn't chosen anyone yet, I expect our 4 will bring a lot to the table.

Let's see how well we work together and revisit the issue in April.

New Action, Positioning Itself for UFT 2016 Election Sellout to Unity, Favors "Democracy" - When it Doesn't Affect Seats on UFT Exec Bd

[New Action] want[s] democracy except where it interferes with their keeping seats on the Exec. Board. Unfortunately democracy is not something we grant when it serves us, and deny when it doesn't. I would be happy to work toward democracy with New Action. The very best thing New Action could do would be to ally with MORE and work toward democracy across the board.... NYC Educator, New Action Takes a Position on Semi-Democracy

When Mike Schirtzer sent around a piece from New Action (I didn't even know they had a functioning blog) last night on how they support democracy, I laughed out loud -- louder than at anything I saw on Letterman's last show, which I was watching at the time.

More from Arthur Goldstein-

New Action is now embracing democracy, and rejecting the winner take all mode that shuts out the activists who speak their minds rather than that of Big Brother, Randi Weingarten, or whoever the hell it is that makes the calamitous decisions that have led us to the lowest point in teacher morale I've ever seen. They've taken the same position this blog has taken for years--that high schools ought to select the high school VPs, that NYSUT and AFT reps ought to represent everyone, not just those who sign oaths to vote as told, and that chapter leaders ought to select the District Reps who will support them.

Some facts on how New Action, working with Unity, subverts democracy in the UFT by keeping MORE, which got more votes than New Action in the last election, off the Exec Bd while New Action gets 10 seats via also have those 10 candidates run on the Unity slate. All they have to do in exchange is run Mulgrew (and Weingarten before him) as their presidential candidate.

For instance, MORE received almost 40% of the High School Ex Bd votes in the 2013 election -- 1335 and New Action around 700. Unity got around 1590. Do the math. 

MORE got NO high school seats on the Exec Bd while New Action and Unity split the 7 HS seats between them.

If New Action were not a dishonest organization, putting up a phony piece on how they are for democracy, since they supposedly believe in proportional representation for AFT/NYSUT delegates, they should offer to turn over 40% of the high school ex bd seats to MORE.

Or better yet, let New Action renounce its deal with Unity and rejoin the world of the opposition.

Arthur agrees:

I would be happy to work toward democracy with New Action. The very best thing New Action could do would be to ally with MORE and work toward democracy across the board. Our union has been unsuccessful in mobilizing membership, fighting apathy and cynicism, and that's why the overwhelming majority of members don't find it worth their while to even vote in union elections. 

It's time for leadership to stop building brick walls around opposition voices. I will help with that, if they choose. And if New Action wants to genuinely work toward that, I'll help with that too.

Despite the hectoring from New Action pal Francesco Portelos who has built his house of cards on an alliance with New Action, MORE has made it clear. It will work with New Action in partnership when they stop working in partnership with Michael Mulgrew and Unity Caucus.

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.