I've included the article from substance below - but first some commentary from me. The thing to watch is how Members First will come under attack from the left and how that will play in the vote.
CORE Caucus, which has run the Chicago Teachers Union since its surprise election in 2012, is facing its first challenge since that election by a new caucus made up of many people, some of whom had left CORE.
This first challenge to the leadership in Chicago - the election will take place May 17 -- will be more interesting to watch than the UFT election. The process in Chicago is more democratic than here in NYC and no Unity type power structure has survived, as opposition groups won power in 2001 and 2010. There is room for a run-off if more than two caucuses run and also I believe it is easier to elect a broader variety of people.
If CORE trounces Members First it will be a sign that they have done an effective organizing job. If the election is close, even it they win, it means they have a lot of work to do in repairing internal and external relationships.
CORE is a caucus with similarities to MORE - except it actually was able to organize effectively a decade ago with the aim to win power and managed to do so. There seems to have been some turmoil within CORE as there were two slates running to represent CORE in this election -- I reported on that in February - Chicago CORE Caucus Holds Internal Election - it seemed the leadership slate didn't win - so there was some unhappiness internally -- but since then there has been radio silence.
The late George Schmidt reported on Members First events in Substance and came under attack from CORE people -- one of the charges against him when they attempted to purge him was that he attended Members First meetings - which he didn't -- but posted reports from others. A clear division in CORE was over that attempt to purge George -- CORE Attempted Purge of One of Founders George Schmidt Failed in Chicago - Eight Women of Color Speak on George's Behalf.
I reported this in April 2018 based on a report received from George in Feb. 2018 -- which so resonated as at the same time MORE was engaging in similar actions. My comment a year ago in which I predicted the attempt to purge me from MORE for reporting on ed notes:
The ideological roots of the people who urge purges in CORE and MORE are similar and the tactic is a standard one in certain circles on the left. George was also charged with publishing reports on CORE in Substance. There are already hints that some people in MORE, closely associated with the same political forces in Chicago, are criticizing my publishing info coming out of MORE and at some point I would not be surprised to see attempts to expel me from MORE. Recently there was a suggestion from a prominent MORE leader to expel someone from MORE over a nasty email that was sent. In the background are the same vague charges of sexism directed at certain males. I am trying to avoid contact and private conversations with some of these people because anything I say or do can be distorted.... April, 2018The views of George and many of us in ICEUFT corresponded pretty closely -- what I would call rationally, not ideologically driven progressive social justice. George was in town and met with a group of pre-ICEers at my house back in the summer of 2002, a year before ICE was founded.
The reaction of the ideologues is to brand such disagreement as right wing. Thus there are already signs of CORE people trying to brand Members First as right wing or attractive to right wingers. And we have seen internal ISO memos branding some of the people pushed out of MORE as being right winger - as ridiculous a claim as claiming George is a right winger. At least CORE gave George a chance to defend himself publicly at a meeting. The faction led by ISO in MORE just purged and suspended without even letting its own membership. I don't think ISO members functioned in CORE like they did in MORE according to what George told me - some ISO people supported him.
This is a debate I would love to have and every attempt within MORE to do so was deflected -- does a caucus exclude and then brand people who disagree? If in power like CORE there is something essentially wrong with that. In a caucus like MORE which supposedly wants to challenge Unity, I would welcome the debate.
Members First announced its existence as a push back to CORE.
See: https://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2018/08/update-on-chicago-teachers-union-las.html
Some excerpts from George in an ed notes piece on the attempted purge: https://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2018/04/core-attempted-purge-of-one-of-founders.html
2. LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND CORE STEERING COMMITTEE CLAIMS... The attack on me (and it included an attack on Substance) was based on lies, some ridiculous and some repeated enough to sound plausible to people without the time to pay attention. The facts included the fact that I had not "left" CORE to "join" Members First and that the claims (by a handful of CORE people now hiding out) that I was a "racist" and a "sexist" (among other things) had to be proved by citing certain specific actions, not by "feelings."George was critic of the direction CORE was leading the CTU -- that the membership wasn't being organized and that rallies became substitutes for that essential step - and along the way on the social justice train - the membership was being neglected.
More than a dozen people spoke eloquently about the work that I've done on behalf of the union, CORE, and justice. It was nice to be there, but sad that it had to have been fought out. Now it needs to be discussed how the majority of the CORE "Steering Committee" could try to lead the caucus into what amounted to a Purge Trial (or, as one speaker said, to turn CORE into something out of Orwell's Animal Farm). Were I asked I have suggested that the "steering committee" resign and schedule a new election, since one of the main points of the discussion was that CORE is evading the issues facing the members in the schools and instead murking around in stuff like this attempted purge.
3. A couple of the CORE leaders (Craig and Drew most loudly) claimed that Substance has been unfair to CORE by publicizing Members First meetings with announcements and reports while ignoring CORE meetings. I've already called one of those and offered him a change to report for Substance, with editing (as we all face). As you know, for months I've been begging for SUBSART about Chicago's schools and the mounting problems facing the rank and file in the schools, at times to no avail. I know that everyone (including those I love most) are facing enormous pressures at the local level, from poor security and discipline to raging "Network" attacks at the classroom level, but I can only post at substancenews.net what we get in accurate reportings. Let's see how this works out in the future.
Members First is somewhat akin to Solidarity here in NYC ---- and in essence the election in NYC which ends today with Unity winning everything comes down to a similar battle between Solidarity and MORE. I've heard behind the scenes whispers that the real reason MORE and New Action leaders didn't want to run with Solidarity was that Portelos appeals to right wingers. Maybe so - I know one right winger for sure running with them -- but I also know left wingers running with them. What about the middle wingers?
Members First! I don't like the name
While I do agree that a union leadership must take care of the essential needs of the membership I don't like the name Members First because there is something about saying to a world where you deal with children and parents who are crucial to your chances of winning any gains for the membership that they don't really count. I think here in NYC, the Solidarity name makes more sense because it is inclusive.
But similar issues in both NYC and Chicago are on the table, issues that have arisen in MORE and in CORE. A feeling that the faction leading MORE have pushed out the ICEUFT people -- who also feel that there must be a balance between social justice and fundamental union protections.
Here is the Substance article on Members First - or MF - written by Susan Zupan who is running on their slate.
http://www.substancenews.net/
