The Caucus model works very well for Unity over 62 years. Not so well for the other caucuses.
The premise for his and succeeding series of posts is that caucuses in the UFT are a necessity, but I question whether they should be the main driving force in UFT elections. I agree with their argument that they have the infrastructure and I don't preclude them using that infrastucture to support the effort. But they want control and that is where I push back.
Sunday, Oct. 6, 2024
That model hasn't worked very well but this time after the retiree and para and TRS elections, which had some caucus, but not all support, there is a feeling the model can work this time if there is a coalition like UFC from 3 years ago. I disagree. The vote totals for UFC were not much better than they were in 2016, but Unity votes slipped. A coalition might win this by default instead of a mass show of support. That would still be a leadership even if not Unity from the top. Without a major influx of new blood, mimicking the success of RA (which did have a massive influx of new blood even if from old people) will be impossible. Also can RA hold onto its 63% support if the Medicare issue fades.
Technically a caucus is any two or more people who come together over common interests. But in the UFT they mean a group that competes in UFT elections. A group that isn't interested in elections is more of a club.
The very fact there are competing groups that only come together for UFT elections to challenge and otherwise go their separate ways is the best friend Unity Caucus has. Let's face it, caucuses with a major aim of recruiting, generally put their own interests over the bigger picture, which is ending Unity's reign over the UFT. In fact over the 55 years I've been active in resistance groups, there have been few between elections examples of caucuses working together, Unity's best friend. This year, things may only get worse.
Why ICE was different
Let me just say that ICE was a factor in UFC in the 2022 election with James Eterno leading the way. Without James I have no stomach for making a case for ICE to have a share equal to other groups. ICE is not a caucus anymore in the traditional sense but still a collection of people with influence. In fact we are meeting on zoom tonight.
- UFT tribute to James Eterno: https://ufthonors.uft.org/eter
no/
My experience in helping form ICE in late 2003 was a bit different than how other groups began. It was sort of serendipity.
The major oppo caucus, New Action, had just made a deal to work with Unity. I ran into Michael Fiorillo at a joint Unity/New Action rally and he was shaking his head. "What do you make of the NAC argument that Bloomberg is such a threat we need bipartisanship?" I said that kills the voices of resistance. We should get some of the gang together to talk about it. And so we did.
Teachers for a Just Contract had decided to become a formal election caucus. I had met a bunch of people who were not happy with TJC and its ideoligically driven program that at times seemed to be grafted onto the UFT but didn't touch on so many issues of concern, so I called them together, not to form a caucus, but to discuss the situation. Was NAC right to ally with Unity? Did TJC politics, molded by the ideologies driving the group, work for people? Some of us had attended a few TJC meetings and came away unhappy.
This pre-ICE group meeting attracted over 20 people, including James and Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox and Lisa North who had left NAC (or been asked to leave). Most people were leftists of some sort but also pushed back against the TJC line of what they saw as a shallow, ideology driven program - which some recognize remnants in the current program MORE, with roots back to TJC, offers today.
ICE decided to run in the 2004 election to raise crucial issues ignored by others
The meeting and those that followed were very program driven on issues no other group were focused on: the danger of mayoral control, high stakes testing, closing schools, attacks on teacher control of the classroom, class size, and others, all issues fundamentally ignored by the other caucuses. Three weeks later, we decided to form Independent Community of Educators (ICE), not as a permanent caucus, but for the election in order to put forth our program in the NY Teacher. We did unite with TJC on the high school candidates only and surprisingly we won those 6 seats. It was only after that election that the group decided to stay together as a caucus and be active at the Exec Bd to support Jeff Kaufman, James Eterno and Barbara Kaplan-Alpert out winning HS candidate.
- Independent: Left leaning, we are non-sectarian and not tied to any party or tendency.
- Community: We are part of a broader community than UFT members in a school.
- Educators: We are broader than just teachers and include secretaries, paras, etc.
There is some irony that I helped found yet another caucus when I had always advocated bringing everyone together into one big tent, which I had tried to do with Ed Notes back in 2001 when I called all caucuses together for a few meetings to work together for the next election -- before a fistfight broke out and I gave up.
ICE Uncaucused
The caucus model did not work out very well for ICE. We ran with TJC in 2007 and 2010 with little progress (NAC was still in alliance with Unity and was granted a number of exec bd seats and jobs), which is why we shifted to a non-caucus group called GEM (Grassroots Education Movement) where we did amazing work for two or three years - not focusing on UFT stuff, we fought charters, high stakes testing, closing schools and made a great movie. Then we got sucked into forming a new caucus (MORE) and GEM died. Some of us think that was a major mistake. It turned out the new caucus model hasn't worked out very well either in terms of taking power in the UFT.
