Will Mulgrew Flip Flop on Mayoral Control Like Randi did in 2009?

Randi and Bloomberg do the flip in mayoral control renewal 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deja vu all over again?

Mulgrew at the Feb. 2024 DA on Mayoral control – 

-----when it sunsets, know what our position is. Want to be a little bit more. Position mayoral control, went through Cleveland’s, Boston’s, New Haven’s – they have mayoral control, the mayor chooses the final decision making panel (i.e. PEP), but the Mayor may only choose from people selected by nominating committee, of which they often have little control. Once put on these boards, they’re on a fixed term, mayor can’t do anything about it. Not saying what want, but have to dispel myth that changing mayoral control from way it is here—with mayor picking majority of PEP—is only version of mayoral control. People here fired for not doing what they’re told – that’s crap. Goal of last week was to tie different things together. Has the mayor supplanted school funding (yes), was there a financial reason (no)... How do you give the mayor any sort of control, who supplants funding, who removes money from funding despite being bound to lower class sizes by NYS law. One thing in that law that allows process to be stopped. Happens in a year in a half. Had all the money we needed and since then 2.5 billion dollars have been taken out of the capital plan, because trying to use financial review period to stop the law. ... Nick Bacon Notes at NAC

 Let me take you back to the 2009 battle over renewal of mayoral control:

Chalkbeat/Gotham Schools: The frustration began with a May 21, 2009 New York Post column, in which Weingarten indicated that she is open to allowing the mayor to continue appointing a majority of members to the citywide school board. A union task force recommended in February that the state legislature reverse that majority as a way to strengthen the board, known as the Panel for Education Policy or PEP.

Weingarten’s Post op/ed dismayed some members of her own union. “I was quite disappointed and angry, actually,” said Lisa North, a teacher who sat on the union’s task force to consider revisions to mayoral control.

North said the task force never seriously considered recommending that the mayor keep his majority of appointments, and so when union delegates ratified the committee’s final recommendations, she expected Weingarten to promote them. “The delegate assembly is supposed to be the highest authority of the union, and it voted for it,” she said.

I wrote this in June, 2009 - Weingarten Didn't Flip on Mayoral Control-- UFT positioning is akin to planes spreading tin foil to try to fool radar.

We opposed the very idea of a phony UFT task force dominated by Unity Caucus that would give cover to Randi's doing what she intended to do anyway over the past 7 years. (I have been a lone voice in ICE urging boycotting these farce task forces.) I spoke to Philissa (Kramer of Gotham) and made the point that Randi's flipping on the constitution of the PEP panel is just flack covering Randi's consistent support for mayoral control. More egregious, I told her, is her modifying the report of the UFT task force that spent a year addressing the issue that was voted upon at a delegate assembly. One of the few good things the report recommended was taking away the mayor's ability to appoint a majority of the PEP. That is where Randi has flipped. The task force was c0-headed by UFT VP Carmen Alvarez, who has been racing around the city representing the UFT on panel discussions and trying to give the impression the UFT supports checks and balances. Tsk, tsk, Carmen.

“I do feel betrayed,” said Michael Fiorillo, another chapter leader who sat on the union’s task force. “I just wish I could say I felt surprised.” He said Weingarten has veered away from members’ consensus on other topics in the past, and so he had early doubts that she would hold firm on the task force’s recommendations. (Fiorillo ultimately voted against the recommendations, saying they weren’t aggressive enough curbs on mayoral control.) “My guess would be the sense of betrayal would be stronger among people outside the union,” Fiorillo said, noting that union members were accustomed to watching Weingarten change her mind.

Weingarten doesn't exactly change her mind. What she does is throw up lots of tin foil like those planes trying to foil radar detection do in manipulating public perception of where the UFT stands. It is necessary to see through the flack and keep one's eye on where the real plane with the bomb is.

Why does the UFT leadership love mayoral control? Because it allows them to negotiate in back rooms with one person instead of opening up the process to democratic scrutiny. Totalitarians behave that way. When Obama was talking in Cairo today about bringing the light of democracy to places of darkness he might has well been talking about mayoral control and the UFT.

As I said then I do support the UFT current position of opposing the mayor choosing a majority of members on the PEP but will they stick to that position? Mulgrew still claims to be for mayoral control. If the mayor can't appoint a majority is it really mayoral control? Yes in the world of UFT machinations.

 

There is some teeth here but it still leaves the school system under the management of the Mayor who still gets to pick the Chancellor. (How about the PEP picking the chancellor?)

I don't want to see one man in control of the schools, especially with the privatization move. Imagine Giuliani in control.

We know from years and years - say about 50 or more, that the UFT fears the public getting too much influence. The argument has been "let the professionals"run the schools but the mayor is not a professional and often clueless. Look, no system is perfect. Even the ICE plan put forth in 2009 calling for a bottom up system where School Leadership Teams (SLTs) play a major role. It's detailed but worth reading - I posted it on the ICE blog last month - Mayoral Control: History Repeats.

If you look through Ed Notes searching for mayoral control you will see me pounding the UFT leadership over the years, especially in the 2009 renewal battle where Randi did a flip flop when she changed her mind and renounced the position of the UFT's own Task Force on this very issue, thus handing Bloomberg another 4 years of control.

Sunday, May 24, 2009 - NYC Teacher Arthur Goldstein Speaks Out Against Mayoral Control

Marjorie Stamberg points to the flaws in the UFT 2009 position with something that could written today.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 - Bloomberg Front Group Uses UFT Pro-Mayoral Control Position

I just got an e-mail from our Chapter Leader alerting us that Mayor Bloomberg's funded lobbying group, Learn NY, is lurking outside the schools asking teachers to sign a petition supporting mayoral control. Even worse, they are saying that this is the UFT's position, so they're telling teachers it's ok to sign the petition. ...

starting in 2002 the union supported Bloomberg's power grab for control of the schools. Even today it says "the UFT's support for mayoral control was instrumental of the passage of the law" (from UFT School Governance Task Force report, February 2009).  ... despite its talk of "checks and balances," the UFT's proposal says explicitly that "the mayor should retain control of the school system" by selecting the chancellor, appointing five members of an education policy council, and control of the budget.

The UFT's "modifications" are for a couple more members to the education council appointed by the city council types, and a couple less appointed by the mayor. As if that would fundamentally change anything. As for the P.E.P.--the Panel for Educational Policy, it has well earned it's nickname of "Panel for Educational Puppets." 

When the vote on the UFT's position came up at February's special delegate assembly, many delegates were deeply concerned about any form of mayoral control. Many wanted the vote put off until they could bring it back to their chapter members for discussion. People had at most a couple days to look at the UFT report. But the vote was rammed through.

So, it's no wonder Bloomberg's hacks and flacks are trying to capitalize on the glaring ambiguity in the UFT's position.

And Randi even flip flopped off even these minor reforms, as pointed out in the Chalkbeat and NY Post articles below. 

Will Mulgrew do a Randi flip on appointing a majority of PEP members? And by the way -- that is no panacea because the mayor can influence others who appoint and get his way anyway.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/newyork/2009/6/4/21085414/randi-weingarten-under-fire-for-mayoral-control-position/

Randi Weingarten under fire for mayoral control position

By 

Philissa Cramer

 | June 4, 2009, 12:27am EDT

Randi Weingarten testifying at a mayoral control hearing in February. (GothamSchools)

A group of parent activists and union members is expressing anger with teachers union leader Randi Weingarten, telling her that she has dropped the ball in fighting for checks to the mayor’s power over schools.

The frustration began with a May 21 New York Post column, in which Weingarten indicated that she is open to allowing the mayor to continue appointing a majority of members to the citywide school board. A union task force recommended in February that the state legislature reverse that majority as a way to strengthen the board, known as the Panel for Education Policy or PEP.

Weingarten’s Post op/ed dismayed some members of her own union. “I was quite disappointed and angry, actually,” said Lisa North, a teacher who sat on the union’s task force to consider revisions to mayoral control.

North said the task force never seriously considered recommending that the mayor keep his majority of appointments, and so when union delegates ratified the committee’s final recommendations, she expected Weingarten to promote them. “The delegate assembly is supposed to be the highest authority of the union, and it voted for it,” she said.

In an interview today, Weingarten acknowledged that people have reached out to her with concerns about her position, including her own union members. “I did get a couple of e-mails from members saying, ‘Why are you doing what you’re doing?'” she said. She said that she empathizes with those concerns. “I totally and completely understand and concur with the frustrations that many have that this mayor and this chancellor have not listened to and respected enough the voices of those who go to our schools, their parents, and those who teach them,” she said.

But she also said that she has to weigh concerns about checking the mayor’s power against the reasons she supported giving the mayor control in 2002. “It’s always been a balance of stability, cohesion, and responsibility, which is what mayoral control brought us, and modifying it to create sufficient checks and balances and transparency,” Weingarten said.

Parent leaders, who had hoped to ally with the United Federation of Teachers to lobby in Albany, also say they feel alienated by Weingarten. Lisa Donlan, a Manhattan parent who is part of the Parent Commission on School Governance, which is calling for significant changes to mayoral control, said the Post column ended discussions between the union and parent leaders who are strategizing about how to lobby lawmakers. Donlan said the Parent Commission had been trying to identify areas of agreement among all of the groups who have suggested revisions to mayoral control so that it could present a unified slate of recommendations in Albany.

“We felt very comfortable going into that conversation [with the UFT] that we all believe that the mayor should not have control of the central board,” Donlan told me.

The confidence disappeared with the Post article, Donlan said. “That conversation did stop when [Weingarten] pulled back on the composition of the PEP,” she said. “We feel very disappointed that we don’t have the UFT advocating any more for that shift at the central level, where policy is made.”

Activists within the teachers’ union are also showing their concern. “The idea that [Weingarten] would have a task force that spent a year studying the issue and then on her own, say something different … This is a betrayal of the task force concept,” said union activist Norm Scott.

“I do feel betrayed,” said Michael Fiorillo, another chapter leader who sat on the union’s task force. “I just wish I could say I felt surprised.” He said Weingarten has veered away from members’ consensus on other topics in the past, and so he had early doubts that she would hold firm on the task force’s recommendations. (Fiorillo ultimately voted against the recommendations, saying they weren’t aggressive enough curbs on mayoral control.)

“My guess would be the sense of betrayal would be stronger among people outside the union,” Fiorillo said, noting that union members were accustomed to watching Weingarten change her mind.

In the interview, Weingarten emphasized two checks to the mayor’s power that do not involve the school board: empowering district superintendents and parent councils to have more decision-making power. “There’s different kinds of ways to get to the standards I just set out,” she said, referring to her commitment to ensuring “checks and balances” and “transparency.”

Weingarten’s critics say that checks and balances are insufficient in a system that is fundamentally flawed. “From the Parent Commission’s point of view, unless we change the balance of power, all of the minor adjustments to the system would be severely handicapped,” Donlan said.

And the Randi flip:  https://nypost.com/2009/05/21/mayoral-control-2-0/

MAYORAL CONTROL 2.0

Published May 21, 2009, 6:25 a.m. ET

MOST of us who backed the 2002 law that gives the mayor control of the city’s schools believed that it would bring stability, accountability and cohesion to the system. We still believe there is promise in that model, and we want to see the law, which expires next month, renewed.

That is why we are offering the following suggestions to preserve it.

As many New Yorkers know, we think the model can be improved, based upon what we have learned in the last seven years, by creating more checks and balances. Think of it as Mayoral Control 2.0.

We have thought that a good way to do this would be to reduce the number of mayoral appointees on the 13-member Panel for Education Policy, which must approve policy changes, from eight to five. The mayor would no longer control a majority of members, but others with a stake in the system would be empowered. We have backed such a change in the law.

But because Mayor Bloomberg, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and others (including The Post) have disagreed, why not consider other possibilities that maintain the mayoral majority on the PEP but similarly provide for greater public input, broader discussion and more checks and balances on the mayor’s prerogatives?

What sort of alternative measures might work? Ultimately, it’s up to the Legislature to decide, but here are some suggestions:

* Give PEP members fixed terms. Under the current law, the mayor can remove his appointees at any time. Giving them fixed terms instead would make them more independent and allow them to weigh in on issues without fear of being removed.

* Require the panel to hold hearings on the school system’s expense and capital budgets. Although decisions may ultimately rest with the mayor and the Department of Education, public exposure and debate of these issues might also serve as a useful check.

* Have policy proposals made in public in advance of panel meetings, complete with a list of pros and cons about the issues being voted on. Again, the additional debate and exposure could help inform — and improve — ideas pushed by the mayor and could act as a brake on ill-conceived plans.

* Structure meetings to allow for more public discussion and have them broadcast and archived online.

The point here is not that any one of these measures is a prerequisite for renewing the law, but rather to note that there are many different possible ways to make improvements, bolster public input and provide greater balance. Indeed, other ideas may yet surface that would accomplish these goals.

In the end, all of us want a governance structure that creates and nurtures high-quality, safe learning environments that prepare children for college and life. The best such structure would ensure real discussion and debate before major policy shifts occur by creating an institutional voice for parents, students and teachers. That would lead to policies that best serve the interests of all parties.

We know, for example, that schools that are collaborative, where teachers’ voices are heard and respected, are better for learning. Likewise, schools with parental input are inherently stronger.

Thus, the Legislature could bolster the law to strengthen school-leadership teams, district-leadership teams and community-education councils as the 2002 law originally envisioned. Rather than being marginalized, these entities should be able to carry out their responsibilities so that parents have a role in decisions affecting their children and have their issues addressed.

Superintendents, who for a long time served as an important link between their communities and the central Department of Education, should also be re-empowered to provide schools with more local support, strengthen instruction and improve parental access.

To improve confidence in student-achievement data and increase transparency over spending, the Legislature could require broader access to the numbers — and perhaps even an independent analysis. The public’s trust in the data is crucial to its confidence in the system as a whole.

Finally, lawmakers should strengthen oversight and enforcement mechanisms. One shouldn’t have to go to court or hold a protest to get the school system to do the right thing.

There are many different ways to run our schools. As the debate over governance moves forward, we should be looking for ways to ensure that every child has a quality public school to attend that actually improves outcomes for its students.

Every company can improve its products. Teachers consistently work to improve their methods. So, too, can the Legislature produce a Mayoral Control 2.0 that improves the current system without totally reversing course.

Doing so would put the city on the right track.

Randi Weingarten is president of the United Federation of Teachers.