Proposal from MORE to ABC Coalition (Oct. 2024) - Why This Agreement Favors MORE Caucus and Hurts Broader Union Democracy

This is not coalition-building; it’s institutional dominance under the guise of “consensus.” -- response to MORE plan

If ARISE were to win, which of the 3 caucuses would have the major influence in running the UFT?

 

Tuesday, May 27, 2025 - 

 

Today is the last day to vote in person. There are lots of complaints from people who did not receive ballots and it it discriminatory to offer in person voting when there are so many out of town retirees or some who can't travel. But it sure gives an advantage to Unity Caucus members who work in or near borough offices. The other day only 21 people voted in the Bronx office. I could support in-person voting if there was an electronic voting alternative, which Unity views as not to its advantage. But apparently they do view in- person to their advantage. It will take a month after the election to find out how many late ballots came in, a number that may be in the thousands.

It is UFT election history time here at Ed Notes and with the end of the election and people looking ahead to what has become a somewhat toxic relationship between ABC and ARISE. In order to move forward we cannot bury the past. So I will post a series based on my view of the history since I've been there from day 1. I'm sure people will disagree and they are welcome to do so - no comments will be suppressed. 

Both sides have been accused of not coming together due to egos, past slights, and personalities. I push back on that. There were real differences on ideology, organizing principles, and the kind of audience a campaign was aiming to reach - irreconcilable differences at the time - and possibly going forward. Of course the election outcomes will determine the future. As I began pointing out almost a year ago, a key to defeating Unity would be, not retirees, but rousing enough of a segment of former non-voting in-service to go beyond 25%.

 

Assume all 3 components of ARISE will continue on their individual paths no matter the election outcome, though RA is under the major influence of NAC and not totally independent. For ABC, since it is not a caucus, the votes will determine its future. The attacks on ABC from both Unity and ARISE are aimed at diminishing the ABC votes to a point where ABC will just go away.

To set the groundwork, here is a  response to a proposal from MORE when ABC was one group to modify an original proposal from NAC to divide a future steering committee into four parts -- NAC, MORE, RA and everyone else (which became ABC). Behind the scenes the NAC group that designed their proposal to include MORE but limit their ability to take control of the UFT, which was a real concern, if we were to win the election. 

 

We began to meet in March 2024 - with independents and people from almost all caucuses and continued in August through early November. We were at first held up in moving ahead by MORE's internal system of deciding whether to join the coalition which lasted from August through mid-September. At all meetings until the vote was complete, MORE announced they were there only as observers, which led some to question whether they should be in the room given there was a chance they might not join and even run their own campaign. But most people, including many of the ex-Unity future leaders of ABC seemed to be catering to MORE. 

MORE had an internal split, with 35 out of about 170 voters who were opposed to joining the coalition - a position I can respect as fitting to MORE ideologists who claimed they shouldn't run with groups that didn't share their values, especially when it came to Palestine. (MORE's largest demo at a UFT DA had been a pro-Palestinian event where their CL and Delegates walked out to join). This group was very vocal with a lot of influence and there were internal concerns about them leaving the caucus unless some of their demands were met -- which created complications.

 

So there was push back from everyone when MORE came back with modifications of the NAC proposal and asked for more representation based on claims they were bigger, did more work and were harmed in the past in coalitions and wanted redress for these harms, even hinting that past criticisms on blogs like Ed Notes should be removed or censored. (They had made similar demands back in the 2022 UFC election with James Eterno being the fiercest opponent).

 

A vote was taken - 16-3 against MORE, with the 3 MORE reps voting yes and all the NAC, Unity defectors and independents voting NO. That led to all 9 MORE reps withdrawing from the coalition. 

 

Then NAC got cold feet over not being able to rely on MORE to do the bulk of the in-service election vote and secretly met with them and reversed themselves, agreeing to accept many of the MORE demands but not informing the others in ABC. At that point NAC members stopped attending the ABC meetings. A week later, what was left of ABC had clearly given up on working with the caucuses and declared they were going to run a slate in the UFT elections, inviting any individual, in a caucus or not, to run.

 

Before the final break occurred, there was an attempt to hold all the non-MORE elements together in ABC and approach them with a united front. One sidelight were hints from some leading MOREs behind the scenes that there were people in MORE willing to run as individuals with the ABC slate. This broke down with the NAC reversal and also the inordinate influence they had with Retiree Advocate. The secret meeting they held on Nov. 5 with MORE to renegotiate their demands was a final straw. Really, if you are looking for root caucus, check the actions of NAC then and through some of the insane attacks on ABC. NAC has the most to lose if ARISE does poorly since they were selling their decades of organizing experience. Assuming ARISE doesn't win - a good bet to make - can that coalition continue to function post-election? Another good bet to make.  As for ABC -- a collection of individuals, expect some relationships forged in the election to continue. Of course if ABC wins, that is another story.

 

But let me say --- things in the past will not always be that way in the future, but relationships between people on both sides will continue to be forged and out of that some sense of working together can come. 

Here is an analysis of the flaws in the MORE demands from October, 2024, followed by the MORE document.

Why This Agreement Favors MORE Caucus and Hurts Broader Union Democracy:  While framed as a compromise, this agreement disproportionately benefits MORE and imposes structural disadvantages on the rest of the coalition and membership:

⸻

1. “Chapter Leaders First” Locks In MORE’s Influence
    •    MORE has more active chapter leaders than many smaller caucuses.
    •    Prioritizing current chapter leaders ensures MORE dominates e-board seats before any proportional division, undermining equal representation.
    •    This rewards current power structures instead of reflecting membership-wide support or building broader coalition capacity.

2. Platform Pre-Vetting by MORE Imposes an Ideological Gate
    •    MORE demands the coalition agree to MORE’s platform priorities upfront, including controversial or highly specific planks (like strike-readiness and New York Health Act).
    •    This creates an ideological litmus test that other groups must pass before decisions are even shared—undermining a true consensus approach.

3. Maintains MORE’s Autonomy but Limits Others’ Influence
    •    MORE retains the right to speak independently on any issue—even contentious ones like Palestine—but other groups must accept that without reciprocal control or shared standards.
    •    This opens the door to confusion, factionalism, and public messaging conflicts, which can harm the coalition’s credibility and unity during the campaign.

4. MORE Locks In Officer Representation
    •    By demanding 3 of the top 12 officer spots, including a top position, MORE secures disproportionate visibility and power relative to other caucuses, even if the electoral base is not equally strong.

5. Imposes MORE’s Governance Style on the Whole Coalition
    •    Requiring the use of MORE’s meeting norms and a community care-based accountability model forces other caucuses to adopt their internal culture.
    •    This is not coalition-building; it’s institutional dominance under the guise of “consensus.”

6. Undermines Long-Term Coalition Stability
    •    The proposal makes the temporary leadership body explicitly short-term, requiring a total renegotiation after the election—this benefits the strongest player now (MORE) and leaves others insecure in the long run.

⸻

Conclusion:

This proposal allows MORE to:
    •    Consolidate more seats through chapter leader preference.
    •    Dictate platform content.
    •    Retain full ideological independence.
    •    Secure a top leadership position.
    •    Control internal processes.

Other caucuses get equal officer seats only after concessions, limited say on platform, and no autonomy protections of their own. Rather than a power-sharing agreement, this is a strategic entrenchment of MORE’s influence at the expense of true democratic coalition-building—and by extension, a less representative, less inclusive vision for the broader UFT membership.

 

And here is the MORE proposal coming in mid-late October - 4 pages - after months of meeting and itching to get a campaign started. While I don't know for sure, I'm betting NAC caved to many if not all the demands. Note only 72 out of 500 members voted. I and most of ABC can actually agree with many of the platform ideas and in fact has a similar platform other than a few points.

 

MORE/Coalition Proposal: Goal and Summary
The goal here is to present what MORE wants out of this coalition all at once in order to avoid endless back-and-forth horse-trading. To this end, MORE undertook a weeklong survey of its dues-paying members over the course of a week. 

 

72 members responded. 

 

Based on those responses MORE has crafted the following proposal. We believe this is a significant compromise from MORE and should be broadly acceptable to all our potential coalition partners and we hope this can end the back-and-forth negotiation and allow us to
begin campaigning in earnest.
 

As a topline summary: 

 

MORE is willing to trade away proportional representation among the officer seats and the election coalition leadership body in favor of a “Chapter Leaders First” system for allocating the e-board seats. We believe this will improve the coalition’s chance of winning (because Chapter Leaders have natural and proven constituencies within schools) and prioritize expertise and experience as workplace organizers and union activists. Once every chapter leader represented by all of the groups has an opportunity to say yes to being a part of an e-board slate, the remaining spots will go to the four groups/constituencies as proposed by NAC according to equal representation and the groups can choose members to fill the remaining spots allocated to them as they see fit.
 

MORE would also like to see a small number of things added to the platform before seating the coalition leadership body to avoid any individual or caucus vetoing some of MORE’s priorities. We believe these additions are in keeping with the general spirit of the coalition and are not major asks, though we recognize some of these are areas where there may be disagreement among coalition members. We hope that other groups will accept these proposals in the spirit of compromise. 

 

Those are detailed below.

In exchange, MORE will agree to equal representation on the coalition leadership body and only 3 seats among the officer slate, including one of the top spots. We feel that this is a significant concession given our caucus’s size and the resources we will be bringing to the coalition. The coalition leadership body will run by consensus and will not make decisions likely to be deeply controversial without first going back to the caucuses that make up the coalition. The groups will decide by consensus for the top 12 officer spots.

Structure proposals:

The coalition will adopt a 12-person steering committee that will be run by consensus involving 3 Unity breakers/independents, 3 members of RA, 3 members of NAC, and 3 members of MORE. The primary task of the group will be to prepare and propose an officer slate and facilitate subcommittees of the coalition. MORE agrees not to seek more than 3 seats (including one top spot) on the officer slate. All parties agree that there
needs to be a consensus on the 12 officer spots. This body is intended as temporary and will cease to exist after the election and any further collaboration between the parties will need to be renegotiated (this is not to say that MORE wouldn’t want to continue collaborating after the elections but we are wary about signing onto a decision-making body under a time crunch that winds up becoming permanent).

The coalition will adopt a "chapter leader first" policy for the remaining 90 e-board seats. This will increase our chances of winning since chapter leaders have proven constituencies. It will also prioritize giving leadership of the union to rank-and-file organizers. We will open up a period of time where each group solicits chapter leaders from their groups to run on the e-board slate. After that period closes and all current CLs are seated
the remaining seats will go 25-25-25-25 as proposed in Nick Bacon's proposal.

The coalition agrees to use MORE's meeting norms, including a cedar to assess and intervene when those norms aren't followed. The coalition also agrees to create an accountability committee to address past harms between people involved in the coalition and any harms that may come up in the campaign. Individuals with a community care background will assist in developing this accountability committee so it can be as effective as possible in resolving harm between the parties involved.

The coalition will agree that MORE and all other groups will be able to continue their work around areas that are not covered in the coalition platform, including Palestinian liberation, as long as our messaging around non-covered issues does not imply coalition support for those issues. No censorship will be applied to MORE’s social media accounts, literature shared with other union members, or events that MORE holds such as rallies, town halls, etc.

Platform proposals:

The coalition will agree to leave geopolitical issues off of the table in exchange for including language about defending members' right to free speech and protecting teachers who are targeted by media attacks and right-wing harassment campaigns.

The coalition will include on their platform to redirect UFT resources towards organizing at the chapter and district levels. Provide all chapter leaders, delegates, and chapter activists with organizer training, not just instruction on contractual minutia. Organize and empower strong chapters to take action at the school level and to educate and activate members to build up to being strike-ready by the next contract negotiations so we don't preemptively take our strongest weapon off the table during negotiations with the city.

The coalition will include on their platform to advocate for legislation like the New York Health Act, already approved by the UFT delegate assembly, that will permanently solve our union's healthcare crisis and allow contract negotiations to focus on wages and working conditions. Ensure that all members, including members who move out of state after retirement, have guaranteed access to high-quality healthcare and not a cut-rate Medicare Advantage plan.

The coalition will advocate for an end to the mayoral control system that has led to chaos and uncertainty at the individual school level. We will work with community and parent allies to establish a replacement system that will not resemble Unity’s short-sighted and incomplete plan to add one additional PEP member. The coalition will promise to defend curricular autonomy that has come under attack during the current mayor and
current chancellor's administration.

The coalition will advocate for a financial investment and commitment from the Department of Education to implement comprehensive restorative justice and conflict resolution programs in all schools. This will address disparities in discipline and the school-to-prison pipeline.

The coalition will advocate for wage increases that represent a real and significant raise over inflation and focus on sharply raising paraprofessional pay to ensure a living wage for all UFT members. The coalition will advocate for across-the-board increases to the FSF formula or other school funding mechanisms to ensure that schools are fully funded and to avoid any excessing associated with wage increases. The coalition will include in their literature and messaging a particular focus on fighting for significant increases for
paraprofessional wages and equivalent benefits such as LODI.

The coalition will commit to significantly reforming UFT leadership structures.
● Replace winner-take-all elections with proportional representation.
● Adopt level-based elections for level-based VPs.
● Adopt election by chapter leaders and delegates for district and borough reps.
● Adopt an open bargaining system for future contract campaigns.
The coalition will commit to adopting permanent reforms to the DA. This will need to be fleshed out but should
include things like:
● Creating a process where any DA proposal that meets a certain threshold of co-sponsors will be agendized in the order it was received.
● Limiting officer's reports to a total of 30 minutes and Q&A to a total of 15 minutes to ensure at least an hour for discussion and voting on all proposals and resolutions.
● Adopt a "consent agenda" for all non-controversial proposals to avoid wasting time.
● Adopting and strictly adhering to an alternating 1-for, 1-against system for all internal debate and restricting calling the question until after at least 4 members have gotten the chance to speak.
● Preventing the e-board or ad-com from unilaterally blocking the consideration of political issues and allowing the delegate assembly to have meaningful debate and take binding votes on controversial political issues.