I'm back on chemo and had my second treatment yesterday - I'm on an every 2 week schedule. I even took my computer and worked on this item while I was there for a few hours and walking back to my apartment passed a street fair on E. 46 and look what I found: 
...many of the challenges associated with current methods, lost ballots, outdated addresses, inconsistent administration, chain-of-custody concerns, are exactly the kinds of problems modern electronic systems are designed to reduce. Secure platforms can incorporate verification, encryption, audit logs, and protections against duplicate voting in ways that strengthen accountability and transparency. But we didn’t seriously examine whether those tools could improve the process. Instead, the ARISE/Unity majority recommendation assumes that older methods are more reliable simply because they are more familiar.
I pushed hard for an electronic voting option but naturally there are loads of roadblocks. This time they came up with the constitution wrinkle - some language in the constitution that says you have to use written ballots. Christina Gavin pointed out that written can also mean electronic.Anyway, I pointed out the low vote totals for previous elections and handed out the ugly story on a chart. Like less than 20% of actives voted while 40% of retirees votes. After all the reasons we couldn't do electronic voting were pointed out I said I had raised this same reso 3 years ago and they promised to look into the issue but did nothing so we are back to ground zero.I also pointed out that in previous elections the leadership could count on the retiree vote to carry them through, now with that vote in potential jeopardy, the leadership should want very much to increase in-service vote for their own protection. But don't expect any creative ideas to come from the moribund leadership. They looked like turtles turned on their backs.
The best they could come up with was Queens District Rep James Vasquez with a reso to form a task force to "study" the issue. He also placed blame on the oppo people over the past 3 years for not bringing up the issue during that time. Duhhhh, James -- we know you guys never want electronic voting and you will forget all about your task force.
But Vasquez did not lose the opportunity to put out a dumb blog post attacking the opposition and blaming them for his own party's failures. That attack can be termed, "I'm scared shit we will lose and I will have to go back to the classroom and teach a full load instead of my one or two periods a day - and lose my second pension."
They met only three times and closed the book on facing the issue. They didn’t bother to study the processes of other unions that used electronic voting successfully, let alone why so few of us vote. This looks like nothing more than a setup with a clear, predetermined outcome. Apathy is Unity’s best friend, and they won’t risk giving the 72% of members who don’t vote a voice.
Instead, Unity bosses will enable live voting only in Unity strongholds, where their paid patronage cult members can tacitly remind folks where and how to vote. Most disappointing is that the two ARISE members on the committee, MORE’s Olivia Swisher and Retiree Advocate’s Michael Shulman, voted with Unity. Shulman is also a leader of New Action, which has been pushing electronic voting for a decade or more. What happened? You’d have to ask him.
Only ABC members Chad Hamilton, Daniel Alicea and Katie Anskat voted no on Unity’s restrictive voting plan.
Bennett Fischer, RTC CL:The results are in from the RTC executive board vote to fill RTC delegate vacancies. There were 21 people running for 11 spots. The 11 winners are: Renee C. Airhuoyo, Jocelyn Brathwaite, Michael Broucum, Laura Calamuci, Chris Griffin, Peter Matsoukas, Sonia Silva, Carolyn Tacey, Linda Weissman, Hazel Fershleiser, and Amy Arundell. We will submit your names to the union for certification.
And
therein lies a story. RA recruited 300 delegates to run with us two
years ago and we wiped out Unity. I recruited about 30 people to run
with us, including a former colleague who doesn't live in NYC.
Unfortunately he came down with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and died in
March 2025 but we know in October 2024 he wasn't interested in the DA
and I notified people we needed to replace him, along with a few others I
recruited who wanted to drop out and only ran as a favor to me because
they never thought they would win.
Apparently some people at the
UFT were telling Bennett we did not have the right to replace delegates
even though former Unity delegates told us former RTC leader Tom Murphy
just did it when there was a vacancy without even bothering to follow
the RTC constitution which explicitly says the RTC Ex Bd nominates and
votes on replacing elected positions.
Only in the last few
months has the RTC leadership gotten more aggressive on this issue. Not always
transparent (the constitution says any RTC member may attend Ex Bd
meetings but Bennett never announces that or sends out a link other than
those who are aware), this time Bennett made an announcement at the RTC
meeting and there were 21 candidates, including a few from Unity, one
of whom I actually voted for, though I had nominated LeRoy Barr who told
me if I did he'd buy me a drink but he declined the nomination - but
still owes me a drink.
Note that Amy Arundell did squeak into the final position (there was rank choice voting, indicating a level of hostility to her from the many ARISE connected RTC EB members. She should have been a slam dunk but the level of mistrust still reigns almost a year after the UFT election. In my opinion, the only way the Mulgrew administration continues to survive is due to this mistrust. Witness the story above about how ARISE voted with Unity. If Mulgrew was smart like Randi (which he isn't) he'd offer to work out a joint slate with ARISE in the next election. After all two of the 3 caucuses had a 12 year arrangement with Randi. (And by the way, Mulgrew broke that arrangement that helped Unity keep control of the high schools within 5 years of taking over --- see my recent blog on the level of incompetency - Mulgrewism is the UFT Version of Trumpism MAGA.
Bennett was not 100% this would be a slam dunk. Imagine if Unity refused to seat our democratically elected delegates, like the Mississippi delegation at the 1968 Democratic convention. I know the RTC leadership doesn't have the guts, but if we can get at least 50-100 people there to demand our delegates get seated and then walk out en masse if they don't. Good luck with that. And I say that in reference to the following item.
Arthur had a reso calling for us not to have to pay $180 a month for a prescription drug plan that included a petition some of us have been circulating that already has 6k signatures.
The RTC Exec Bd supported the reso but there was push back on the petition, which has ties to ABC and you could sense the hostility from some of the leading lights with questions like "who is this going to?" and concerns over how the petition would be used.
I'll let Arthur tell you about it.
RTC Chapter Leader Bennett Fischer moved my resolution, demanding the UFT pay for our prescription premiums, up to number one on our agenda. I was pretty happy about that, and I’ve posted it below. It’s a mixed victory though, as the RA folks all voted to drop the second resolved, decoupling it from our online petition that’s already garnered over six thousand signatures.
This is a botched opportunity to build on a solid foundation and reach further.
It’s outlandish to leave six thousand signatures on the table.
Retiree Advocate is repeating an error they made early on. When we were first elected, they willingly surrendered the official UFT Retiree page, which had 6,000 followers, to a Unity Patronage Cult Member. After two years, they haven’t managed to recruit half that number. In failing to link to our petition, they toss away 6,000 signatures we’ve collected.
ABC is all about organizing. In September, we will take that petition into school buildings and build on it. No one in service wants to pay these exorbitant premiums. Members will read it and say oh HELL no.
It will be good to pass the resolution, but the RTC action that comes along with it, I’m afraid, could be as lackluster as that for 1096.
There were several rationales offered. Bennett said when he first saw it he thought it may have been created by teenagers who wanted to make trouble. It wasn’t my turn to speak. I really wanted to say I’m not a teenager, but yes I want to make trouble. Making trouble, you know, is how you get stuff done.
If you don’t believe me, ask Marianne Pizzitola, without whom we’d all have an inferior Medicare “Advantage” plan right now.
Several people asked who wrote the petition. I kept raising my hand to show I did, and it took a while before people understood.
Another objection was you can’t put a “hot link” on a resolution. Several people seemed to agree, but I was not among them. Better to start with 6,000 than zero. What could they be thinking?
RTC has not been great with petitions. When I tried to have them start a petition in support of 1096, the RTC Executive Board voted to “table” the suggestion. That’s a polite way of saying we are doing nothing, and indeed, aside from one strongly worded letter, mostly written by me, we have done nothing.
The comment about not putting links in a reso drove me wild because the link is an organizing tool and their mentality seems to be to lobby at the top - send strongly worded letters to Mulgrew - and not organize at the bottom. A reso that goes nowhere seems to satisfy them while many of us think a reso without an action component is a form of pounding your chest.
End Winner Take All - Install a Proportional rep
A bill moving rapidly through the New York Legislature—Senate Bill S.9577-A, sponsored by Senator Jessica Ramos, and Assembly Bill A.10835-A, sponsored by Assemblymember Judy Griffin—is being promoted as a measure to stop fraudulent communications that falsely claim to represent labor unions and their representatives.As detailed in The Wire’s investigation, the concern is not hypothetical.
In recent years, disputes have emerged involving UFTMembers.org, an independent publication critical of UFT union leadership. Other controversies have involved parody, satire, and internal political disputes within labor organizations. Reform caucuses and member advocacy groups routinely use union names to identify the members they represent. Independent newsletters, blogs, podcasts, and election campaigns frequently discuss union leadership, governance, elections, and policy decisions.
Those activities are not fraud.
They are part of union democracy.
Yet the legislation currently contains no explicit protections making clear that criticism, reform advocacy, parody, election-related communications, and internal organizing remain protected.
Read URGENT CALL and sign petition to amend the law.
Sign the Petition & Contact Legislators
👉 unionvoices.educators.nyc
Read Our Full Investigation
👉 thewire.educators.nyc/p/new-yorks-union-communications-bill
Stop Fraud. Not Dissent.
Bits and Pieces: The good, the bad, and the absurd
UFT Welfare Fund Should Pay for Retiree Prescription Premiums
Whereas, UFT retirees are on fixed incomes, and,
Whereas, $180 per month is a high premium, and,
Whereas, many UFT retirees pay for other family members as well, and
Whereas, this rate went up a whopping 50% over a two-year period, and,
Whereas, this is a hardship on many UFT retirees, and
Whereas, other union Welfare Funds, including those of FDNY, NYPD and DC37 cover prescription premium costs for members, and
Whereas, UFT officers frequently mention “premium-free health insurance,” and,
Whereas, UFT officers speak of our Welfare Fund as the best in the country, be it therefore,
Resolved, that our Welfare Fund must cover retirees just as other Welfare Funds do, and be it further,
Resolved, that we actively support and encourage signing of the petition at https://stopchargingretirees.org/ demanding UFT Welfare Fund cover the costs of pharmacy insurance premiums for retired members.
At the suggestion of RTC Exec. Board member Alan Stein, who pointed out members get $900 back, I proposed the following addition:
Whereas this costs members a net $2160 a year, or members with spouses 4320 a year,
