UFT Resistance Caucuses: We Need Them, But Why Not One Big tent?

We really need to just merge the opposition caucuses into one United for Change caucus.... comment on a chat

 

That was original intent of MORE from the ice perspective in 2010 when talks began.  As time went on others in MORE did not want a big tent, more of a boutique caucus which alone cannot win power in the UFT. So I gave up now on one big caucus and went back to forming election coalitions of caucuses and independents ... Norm

Reply: As great as that sounds, I don’t think it’s realistic. There are some issues that I don’t see people agreeing on. The union is just way too big for that. Ideally there would be a few healthy caucuses, like most democracies have a few relatively strong parities

Even with healthy caucuses there is competition for those few activists and a focus on caucus building. Another model would be one big caucus with sub caucuses internally that allowed for internal debates. DSA has that. I actually made a similar proposal at the first big More meeting. Recognize we start out with internal factions....Norm

 

Reply: It seems like one opposition caucus and one caucus that maintains power would pose the same problems as any two party system.

I began this series on UFT caucuses with:

• The Caucus Role in UFT in Elections: The ICE Experience: The Caucus model works very well for Unity over 62 years. Not so well for the other caucuses.

Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2024

• Recent (past 30 years) caucuses in the UFT: New Action, ICE, TJC, RA, MORE, PAC, New Direction, TAC - When caucuses begin to fail they often look to merge or form new caucuses.

• How open is a caucus to new people? Does it have guard rails for membership? Do people have to agree to caucus fundamentals before becoming a member? Caucus discipline? Unity is known for its guardrails and discipline.
  

So why don't all the groups form one big caucus?  There are major differences in how each caucus operates.

 

I've been a critic of caucuses even when I was in one, some of which I helped found. I tried to see beyond the often narrow confines of a caucus, with their rules and structures, which often (and still does) drive colleagues crazy. That is why I was most comfortable in the more free-flowing ICE, which I and James Eterno sort of ran (I drove him crazy too). But let's face it, there can be no organized resistance to Unity Caucus without caucuses, so love 'em or leave 'em, we need 'em. In fact in today's UFT world, the more the merrier.

 

I'm constantly criticized for looking back to the past. But as an historian of sorts I don't believe you can move forward without learning lessons of the past. In UFT caucus history, there are loads of lessons to be learned. 

 

Currently, there seem to be 3 major caucuses beside Unity: New Action, MORE, and Retiree Advocate, with Solidarity and ICE considered minor compared to where they stood in the election 3 years ago. Daniel Alicea as EONYC last time was a sort of one man caucus but with tremendous outreach. Now he's joined New Action. But ICE and Solidarity still exist in some form.

 

ICE, which ran with TJC in the 2007 and 2010 elections fundamentally gave up official election caucus status to merge into the new MORE in 2011 with the idea to form a big tent. TJC went defunct while ICE continued with a blog, listserve and meetings. ICE was the biggest contingent in MORE at the beginning, with the International Socialists (ISO) being the second. But there were others: NYCORE, Progressive Labor Party, Teachers Unite,  TJC remnants, and non-affiliated.

MORE began with many internal factions and I proposed formal recognition of the factions which would allow differences but keep everyone together for the purpose of building a force to ultimately defeat Unity. That didn't happen.

Some of us in ICE noticed a certain segment of MORE that did not seem to believe in the vision of winning elections; having Unity in power as a foil seemed to fit their needs. Elections were not important, other than as a means to build the caucus and promote an ideology. I could see that point, though if you declare yourself a caucus how to explain not running? While mostly people were on the left, some see union work as a building block to socialism. Others  saw union work in more simpler terms - use power to improve conditions for teachers and students.

After a few years, it became clear there was a division: big tent vs. a narrow ideologically driven one. That faction didn't seem to want to win, arguing that winning was corrupting. Underneath it all was a belief that you must build a caucus with "the right kind of people" that can take power with a "unified vision". Reject people who don't agree with the dominant ideology and only make alliances with those you disagree with when absolutely necessary, but with the goal of jettisoning those alliances when the caucus is strong enough to go it alone.

Ultimately this faction did just that: It jettisoned the ICE members, actually branding the mostly leftists in ICE as right wing, and purified the MORE caucus.

But even that doesn't always work out and divisions over the 2025 UFT election have arisen, but in a new context of the possibility of winning this time, which has created new pressures throughout the Unity resistance movement.

The retiree and para massive victories created the possibility that a unified opposition can actually win. 

For most of the Unity resistance, that was a no-brainer. But the purists, a minority faction in MORE, do not want to win in a united front because that would dilute their political stances and violate their principles. And I respect that. In a recent internal vote, around 125 voted for a united front (but with specific conditions) and 35 voted against.

There is some irony in that minority position, given how often these very same people bow down to their "allies" in Chicago and LA as caucuses that actually took over their unions -- they obviously ran to win - and not initially with a very heavy social justice agenda. Win baby, just win, first and THEN change the union. As a fan of those movements who was involved with them from the early days of 2009, I have never gotten an answer to the contradiction between them and the so-called NYC version of them. I know a guy doing his PhD exploring this issue between Chi/LA and NYC. I hope he illuminates the differences - I see him heading in the direction I lean - Unity Caucus.

And here's the reality: At no point can one caucus actually win a UFT election without making alliances, so that subset of MORE will go on spitting into the wind endlessly. In my early years in MORE I urged the new caucus not to waste resources in running but to use the election to build outreach but the newbies were so excited to run. After the 2013 election, there was a year or two of stagnation - actually a slow decline over the next few years. That always seems to happen between election years.

One of the Retiree Advocate elected delegates, Lois Weiner, recently wrote an article appealing to these dissidents, an article I have some issues with but don't have the time to address them at this point. It seems the philosophy that has been driving MORE also explains the ICE expulsion:

...building the caucus then contending for power (a chronology I’ve advocated in my work about teacher union reform). To some, joining the coalition without having the caucus we want in place seems a violation of principle.

That's a standard position of the election purists in MORE - running in coalition with people not on the same page as you is a violation of principle. The theory of caucus building by reduction or purges, is very standard on the left but a philosophy that has been a proven failure in NYC and leads to a narrow ideologically driven "club" more than a caucus. Put out dog whistles to both keep people away and attract the ones you want. 

The winner is always Unity.

But here is where Lois Weiner makes her appeal to the "don't run" dissidents by differentiating NYC from the other cities:

The vulnerability of the retiree victory in its chapter election makes joining the coalition and building a progressive politics within it all the more urgent.

Proponents of union democracy and social justice teacher unionism should not wait out this election in anticipation of becoming stronger, more unified in shared principles, more democratic in functioning in time for the next election. The RA’s victory forces those who want a more militant, democratic union, in particular activists in the Movement for Rank and File Educators (MORE), a caucus inspired by CORE, to re-think the trajectory exemplified in CORE’s victory and its subsequent transformation of the CTU. CORE had and used the advantage of time we in the UFT do not have, time to build a unified caucus based on shared principles that fuse social justice with protection of economic protections for members, time to organize on its program to contend for leadership in a union election. Context counts. The comparative size of the school systems and their unions, along with decades of Unity’s rule, which has isolated reformers from possible allies in NYSUT, combined with the machine’s almost untrammeled exercise of power, its punishment of opposition and reward of those who take its orders, converge to make reformers’ task qualitatively different in New York than elsewhere, certainly in this country and possibly the world.

Credit to Lois, who I can't wait to see at the DA tomorrow, for seeing a new landscape. But let me point out a flaw that is a myth on the left - that CORE, founded in midst-2008 as a book club and won power in 2010, managed to build a unified caucus in a year and a half when they ran a campaign based on fighting closing schools and high stakes testing and defending teachers against attack and even attracting right wing supporters. MORE is now 14 years old since people first started meeting. If they haven't emulated CORE by now, then when?

MORE had to make an alliance in 2022 after their disastrous decision in 2019 to run alone (my opposition and reporting on that is what got me kicked out) and finish 3rd behind Solidarity and losing an enormous percentage of their 2016 vote. 

A few months later a key voice in that faction approached me at a DA and said, "you were right, Norm, we never should have run. As you warned it took a lot out of us even running a minimalist campaign." The 2019 lesson was learned and MORE joined UFC. And the majority still think that is correct. 

This time, as Lois points out, building a coalition to defeat Unity is even more imperative.

Next: A Way to Win: Offering a Different Paradigm for UFT elections: Less control by caucuses (not their elimination) and more from the rank and file. Plus the remarkable resurgence of the 30-year old New Action Caucus.

 

The Caucus Role in UFT in Elections: The ICE Experience

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.

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.

Sunday, Oct. 6, 2024

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/eterno/
  

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.

Coming next: 

So why don't all the groups form one big caucus? 

Examining other UFT caucuses on their success and failures.

Offering a New Paradigm for the next UFT election.

 

 

Reality Check - Handicapping the 2022 UFT Election: Part 2 - The Range of Possibilities

Let's face facts - If UFC were to win it all, it would be by a thin margin. And I'd bet my pension that Unity would protest and yell "Stop the steal." They are Republicans after all. Mitch Mulgrew.

In part 1 (Handicapping the 2022 UFT Election: Can United for Change Win? Part 1 - UFC Unique Coalition, Unity on the Attack, Will UFC Hold Together?) I talked about the UFC Coalition and how its every nature makes the oppo in this election different and also how the Unity campaign is different as an offset.  

I believe this election can range from slam dunk 80% win for Unity and nothing for UFC to a slim win for UFC, if not overall, then in certain divisions. Keys are turnout and GOTV efforts, both weak in the past. Retirees have the biggest turnout -- like 45% of the total voters, while working teachers are more like 25% or less. If both go up significantly it favors UFC. Unity knows that and will make GOTV claims but they really want low turnout. They actually brag that the 25% is actually great for union elections, ignoring that in Chicago, with in school  voting, they get 60% turnout. And don't forget -- they turned down all UFC attempts to use electronic voting. 

Let me recommend you read Jonathan Halabi with a realistic analysis of the possibilities in this election: The answer is “Mulgrew, Medicare, Pandemic”

Jon does a deep dive on the problems Unity and Mulgrew face, so go read it. His takeaway won't totally jive with mine, but here is his conclusion:

For people who follow elections, UFT elections are usually a snore. 12 officers, 95 executive board seats, 750 delegates, none of these are a contest. There is usually a tussle over the last 7 executive board seats. The high school seats. I held one of them for 11 years. But this year? At least those 7 seats in play, with a realistic chance for more, and an outside chance for the whole ball of wax. Observers and players alike are speculating about the margin. If Unity somehow loses votes from 2019 (83%), but stays at their 2016 level (76%), that will look like a huge victory for them. But I don’t think that is likely.

Will Unity lose some votes, or will they lose a lot of votes? Will they take a small hit but still sail in with 72%? If that happens, there’s no mandate for change. UFT members who want something different will be disappointed. Some Unity members among them. Of course UFC might win, and we should talk about that, a different day. But if the votes come out and Unity wins, but takes a big hit on the numbers – and that’s what I think will happen, will that send a clear message? Will Unity adjust some of its policies? Will they find a new leader?

I'd say anything over 70% for Unity is a win in the broader sense, even if UFC wins some Ex Bd seats -- especially as you go down Jon's list of Unity ills. If people ignore that in today's world, what would it take?

 

But if Unity gets into mid-60s or less, which would be an overwhelming win in normal elections, in the UFT that opens up real danger signs for Unity. UFC presents a real threat in the next election with a third or more votes and if it holds together (not a slam dunk there either - though any one caucus that thinks it should go it alone is committing suicide for the future of the opposition even if good for that individual caucus).

There are people in Unity who recognize that and this time, as Jon points out, Unity is taking this election very seriously - insiders tell me they expect to win it all - including the high schools. They are running a heavy campaign and let's not ignore that campaigns do work if done right. How they are playing out in the schools is something beyond me. 

And of course UFC is running a heavy, more far reaching campaign than I've seen - ever. Jonathan's view:

Broad Coalition: United for Change, the opposition coalition, is bigger and broader than anything we’ve seen in these last two decades. Maybe the coalitions is Unity’s biggest problem? You could make that argument. But I don’t think so. We had a pretty big coalition in 2016, and did win the high school division, but it wasn’t scary for Unity the way today is.

Jon goes on to address the issues that scare Unity but I think that this time doesn't compare to the 2016 coalition which was MORE/NA while Solidarity was out there very vocally even if not with slate status. And there was still some pushback against NAC which had been in coalition with Unity for a decade.

Plus the many new players who had never been involved before, some of them former Unity supporters.

The UFC coalition ranges from right of center to far left. 

 

Reminds me of the groups that have organized to run against tyrant Victor Orban in Hungry - they even are running a right winger for president. If Orban wins big is that a good sign for Unity? Orban vs Mulgrew for who has more control?

 

At least UFC didn't court the far right and has a well-supported Camille Eterno who appeals to many segments of the UFT. She was flyering in a school with a heavy Unity presence and got a great greetng from rank and file UFT members there.

Now you might read stories about the horrors of the MORE experience c. 2016-19 -- and they are not false. I experienced them first hand. So yes I was very wary of getting involved with MORE again -- especially with some people I knew all too well. 

 

But I found a new MORE - lots of new people. When I left there was a core of people who were active. I have found some wonderful people who I love to work with in this election and find myself in surprising agreement on a number of issues I had within MORE.

 

But I have a deeper understanding and so do many in MORE of the importance of coalitions. Remember - I and MORE broke over the ruining of the MORE/NA and potential Solidarity coalition in 2019 - it was my writing about that issue from some internal meetings that got me suspended -- the best thing that happened to me.

I can't tell you how many people who are center or even center left have told me they would never back a hard left group running against Unity -- and over the decades Unity has tried to brand the oppo as hard left but this year has had some problems, though some of their hacks have tried to make the UFC coalition look like a front group for MORE. 

 

That is the furthest from the truth. MORE certainly has the largest contingent and in the early stages of negotiations there was some concerns about balance, but despite some rough moments over candidates, things came together fairly well and all the groups have shown strength in various ways.

And I love how some people have emerged and how some have grown. Some serious talent in MORE, Solidarity (I brag all the time about how amazing Lydia has been) and New Action and Daniel Alicea with his outreach group.

I'm particularly proud of Retiree Advocate which has led a fight against Mulgrewcare and was instumental in bringing the UFC coalition together. Another sign of the failure of Mulrew who by his actions played a major role in the formation of UFC -- we can make him an honorary member.

I will dive deeper into the particulars of the election in Part 3-infinity where I will review the divisions and the potential outcomes for each.

Revised - The Unity 300 - UFT Retiree Chapter Sends 300 to Delegate Assembly - Why I Am Boycotting the Election

Note the weakness of this argument as a reason to vote for RA against Unity:

Voting and participating in our nation’s elections and our union’s elections are the only way we can have a voice in issues that determine the way we live. By actively participating in the process we become a vibrant force in retirement.

The only way to have a voice? Where is the call for a democratic process in the UFT that would make elections mean something?

Why don't people vote? Because Unity has so locked up the process as to make it impossible to win anything.

Here was the one opportunity every 3 years to reach every retiree in the union and expose the sham of Unity caucus.

The worst thing about this is that it doesn't even talk about what this election is really about for Unity -- packing 300 more Unity delegates into the DA. It is not enough for the general UFT election process to be rigged -- but they make sure to fill the seats at the DA with loyalists who no longer have anything to lose in the assault on teachers.

This is pablum and what we would expect from the loyal opposition - if you can call it even that. Participating in this process without attacking it is endorsing some of the most fundamental undemocratic processes in the union. I'll pass on voting until RA or any other group of retirees really takes on Unity..... Norm to ICE mail

It may seem counter-intuitive for me to sit out the current retiree election and not vote for the Retiree Advocate, which is running against Unity in the retiree chapter election. I will vote for independent Roberta Reid - I give Roberta credit for putting in the effort - and a very few candidates I know). I consider RA to be New Action light.

Catering at Unity Caucus meetings

[See NYC Educator: New Action Takes a Position on Semi-Democracy]


Think of it -- every 3 years RA can send out something to 60,000 retirees and not a word of real criticism or exposure of Unity Caucus.

What does it mean to a union when retirees no longer facing the travails of daily teaching have a major say in UFT policy bodies? A lot of people complain about retirees voting in general UFT elections, especially when 52% of the votes cast in the 2013 election came from retirees. But that doesn't bother me that much and won't until an opposition can capture the majority of votes of the working teachers. Then I would go to court. So far that is not happening.

To me the more insidious undemocratic actions are the current chapter elections going on in the functional retiree chapter for chapter leader, an exec board and for 300 delegates to the UFT DA. The UFT constitution calls for one delegate for every 60 members in a chapter. That the retiree chapter, with probably close to 60,000 members, is treated the same as a school is beyond outrage -- (I believe the max number of delegates is capped at 300.)

When I retired I attended a few retiree meetings and found them worse than the DA -- the Unity leadership is only interested in using retirees for its political campaigns - but also the Unity 300 as a force to make sure they don't lose control of the DA.

This allows old Unity loyalists to participate in the DA - and in fact pack it when needed. Let me explain. The 300 don't show up at every meeting. When there is challenge from the opposition for an upcoming DA, Unity Caucus calls a post-DA meeting - with catering - to get those retirees out to the DA -- and I believe attendance is taken too.

The DA is packed with Unity loyalists - as Arthur points out today at NYC Educator - Why Aren't People Standing for UFT Delegate?

I represent the largest high school in Queens, we have multiple delegates, but making them come would not make a dent in the pre-determined results. When Unity leadership sends the message, everyone knows and acts accordingly. It's infuriating to see the DA represented as a place where decisions are made, as opposed to a place where people are telegraphed how to vote, with virtually no subtlety whatsoever. 

I have tried to get  dissident voices heard by leadership, and the DA is just about the worst forum in which I could do it.

Arthur talks about how James Eterno was shut down at the May 2014 contract DA. Julie Cavanagh who ran against Mulgrew was next at the mic and Mulgrew shut down the debate because he was so afraid of Julie's getting a chance to speak -- even people in Unity raised their eyebrows at this -- big, bad Mulgrew - afraid of a girl.

There are over 3500 delegates and the 300 retirees are less than 10%. But rarely do more than about 800 - if even that - attend. As Arthur points out - what is the point? To his credit, he shleps in from eastern Queens every month and writes up the meetings -- and then we head to Chipotle for dinner. Next year Eterno will be back as the only ATR delegate elected from a school to add his wisdom.

Let's assume half of the Unity retirees - 150 - come to the DA - the number jumps to 15-20% of the delegates. No wonder they voted down the major MORE resolutions this year on protecting ATRs by giving them a chapter, a reso opposing high stakes testing and support for the opt-out movement.

Now back to the Retiree Advocate, which advertizes itself as an independent caucus in the UFT retiree chapter with members from various groups, including ICE and New Action. But it is overwhelmingly New Action and their literature reflects the New Action non-militancy. There is not one word of criticsm of Unity Caucus or its undemocratic process, especially in this election that puts 300 delegates in the DA. Even a minimal call for proportional representation would make sense. (Meaning if RA gets 30% of the vote they would get 90 of the 300 delegates). And there is no call for controlling the influence of retirees in the general UFT elections. They refuse to take on these issues because they are pandering for votes.

-- RA is New Action light.

New Action, which has ran Mulgrew as its presidential candidate in 2010 and 13 (and Randi in 2007) is a major force in RA with some of their key people running. Two years ago, the leaders of RA acted as a front group for New Action in pushing hard for a MORE/New Action alliance and set up a meeting - which was controversial in MORE because many did not want to meet with New Action until they renounced their deal with Unity. But in a close vote, the meeting was set up and Eterno, Julie and I were chosen to rep MORE. James had an emergency and couldn't make it. NA and RA people pushed for cooperation. Julie made eloquent statements about how we cannot work with people who support Mulgrew -- we told NA to call us when they were ready to talk about alliances when they decide to rejoin the opposition. (There is an audio tape of that Nov. 2013 meeting.)

New Action, many of whom are running on the RA slate have jobs with the UFT - and in fact they are running New Action leader Michael Shulman, who makes 15 grand a year working for the UFT, for Retiree Ex Bd.

On this issue RA is silent. Thus I can't vote for slate that echos New Action to such an extent.

By the way -- I am a forgiving soul - the second I hear New Action gets serious about abandoning the dirty deal with Unity, in the interests of uniting the opposition, I would urge MORE to open a dialogue. But my guess is that New Action has too much to gain - in terms of Ex Bd seats - to give up that deal.

EdNotesOnline Reprint, Dec. 2007 - Is New Action Really a Caucus?

Mike Schirtzer, who is digging up all the history of the caucuses in the UFT he can find - found this oldie that I published. Mike wants people to have the full context when New Action runs jointly with Unity with Mulgrew at the top of the ticket in the spring 2016 UFT elections. Of course, anything is possible and NA might contact MORE with the news it wants to rejoin the opposition.

Look at the numbers below. Mike Shulman, running against Randi, received 11,400 votes in 2001, the last time New Action ran its own presidential candidate. Randi, knowing the ed deform assault was going to get hot and heavy and with a unified opposition, their vote totals would go up, started contacting Shulman, who pretty much had control over New Action. Randi knew the weak spots. Flattered, Shulman bit. I actually attended a New Action Exec Bd meeting as the deal was taking shape in Sept. 2002 at the invitation of James Eterno, who was increasingly upset at the direction NA was going in. (A year later he, Ellen Fox and Lisa North would leave NA to help form ICE.)

One of them said how they felt they had more impact, now that Randi was listening to them, than they had over the past 20 years. I just smiled, since Randi has spent 4 years pulling the same scam on me/Ed Notes. I knew how that story would end. I had tried to put all the opposition forces together in a coalition soon after the 2001 elections, but there was too much infighting and positioning -- egos and politics.

New Action plays the positioning game - say they are opposed or for a policy but do nothing about it. And they have allies who even if they argue they are anti-Unity, want to be in the playpen with New Action and by association, Unity. 

I and most people in MORE would welcome New Action back into the fold if they would break with Mulgrew -- old grudges, etc must disappear in these times. That's what they have to do, as Julie and I, repping MORE, made that very point in our meeting with them in the fall of 2013. Still waiting for that call.

http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-new-action-really-caucus.html?

Friday, December 14, 2007

Is New Action Really a Caucus?

In the 1999 and 2001 UFT elections, New Action leader Michael Shulman received over 11,400 votes against Randi Weingarten in the UFT elections. PAC, another opposition caucus received 1300 votes. That's around 13,000 voting against Unity. That was the last election New Action ran a full slate. (I posted a reprint of an excellent piece by TJC's Marian Swerdlow that Ed Notes printed in April 2001 over at Norm's Notes at this link.)

New Action gave up being an opposition to join in a United Front with Unity. The result? Their votes shrunk almost in half by the next election in 2004 when ICE/TJC wrested the high school Exec bd from them.

By the 2007 election, New Action's vote from teachers in the schools was around 1600.With retirees (many of whom are not aware of the sell-out) their vote came to around 3500, a [someone do the math] drop from when they opposed Unity.

So how did that United Front work out for them? Actually, not bad. While having little support in the schools, New Action members serve on committees, they have jobs and offices at the UFT and run around pretending to be an independent caucus.

We wanted to inform the delegates of the situation since New Action distributes their pretend caucus leaflets at the DA. Ed Notes Print edition distributed at the UFT Delegate Assembly on Dec. 12, 2007

Why am I bothering to spend so much time on a group headed for obscurity? With Weingarten, New Action's guardian angel set to leave the scene, we want to hasten their move towards oblivion, as their existence confuses the members and is a road block in the formation of a true opposition. In 1991 New Action actually got 31% of the vote. 16 years later, it's 9%. ICE/TJC's 20% in '07 is a building block for a future opposition.

Note: A New Action executive board member on Weds. called this a hatchet job and tried to compare what they are doing at Executive Board meetings with ICE/TJC. "How many resolutions did you get passed," he asked? Meaning: you couldn't get the 83 out of 89 Unity EB members to support your resolutions while we can through our sucking up to Weingarten. Duhhh! Read on!


The Numbers Tell the Story
Let’s look at New Action’s vote totals on its own as compared with ICE/TJC and Unity in the 2007 UFT elections. (Slate votes only).

High Schools
Unity: 2,183 (57.7%)
ICE/TJC: 1,524 (36%)
New Action: 521 (12.3%)

Number of high school seats on Exec Bd:
Unity: 3 New Action: 3 ICE/TJC: 0

Huh! ICE/TJC triples New Action’s vote and gets NO seats. Assume some of new Action’s votes (in all divisions) came from people who had voted New Action for 20 years when they were the major opposition, didn’t know about the sell-out and were confused. A swing of around 300 votes would have given ICE/TJC all 6 seats.

Democracy INACTION.

High Schools: Total Ballots 19,799
4,568 voted (23%, down from a 31% return in 2004)

The drop of 8% in HS significant. But it gets worse in middle schools where 12,841 ballots were sent and only 2,384 (18.6%) voted, down from the 27.6% who voted in 2004.
Here are the dismal totals.

Unity: 1,499 (67.6%) ICE/TJC: 444 (20%)
New Action: 273 (12.3%)
Elementary schools:
Mailed: 36,912
Returned: 8,904 (24.1%). 34.3% voted in 2004.
Unity: 6252 (76.7)
ICE/TJC: 1337 (16.4%)
New Action: 562 (6.9%)

Results from Elem + MS + HS:
Unity: 9,934 68%
ICE/TJC: 3,305 22.6%
New Action: 1,356 9.3%

Think about it. Less than 10,000 classroom teachers out of 70,000 voted for Unity as a slate. Dismal indeed. Weingarten’s totals are higher with the addition of the New Action votes but even with the addition of the non-slate votes, probably less than 15,000 in all.

To the overwhelming majority of classroom teachers, the union is insignificant. New Action, which at one time got over 10,000 votes, is irrelevant, even with its 8 bonus seats from Unity to be the house opposition.

Six years ago, in Dec. 2001, Ed Notes wrote:

Unity’s biggest fear is that New Action will fade into obscurity and a real opposition might blossom. Unity needs a non-threatening opposition to claim “we are a democratic union.” What better opposition than New Action, growing steadily weaker and less effective? By breathing life into New Action, the union leadership can give them an air of legitimacy as the “loyal” opposition. New Action is perfectly happy to occupy the position. As long as they play this role for Unity, there is little chance of seeing a serious opposition take hold. If New Action didn’t exist, Unity would have to invent them.

Ah, how time flies. Six years later, New Action is handing out leaflets talking about how 8 New Action members were elected to the UFT Executive Board in the UFT elections in March 2007. Unity holds the other 81 and ICE/TJC hold no seats on the Ex Bd.

Ed Notes is making a return appearance at the DA to fill in the missing information.

New Action received an automatic 5 seats from their candidates that also ran on Randi Weingarten’s Unity slate.

The other 3 seats came from running with Unity on the high school level, where they split the 6 seats with Unity. ICE/TJC had wrested these seats from New Action in the 2004 election when Unity didn’t run any candidates in a deal with New Action to have them not run a candidate against Weingarten. This led to the foundation of ICE and the reincarnation of TJC as a caucus active in UFT elections. The 6 ICE/TJC Ex Bd member were such a thorn in Unity’s side, they made sure not to allow New Action to run on their own against ICE/TJC.

What has NA they done with the seats? While their leaflets try to give the impression they are taking action at the Executive Board, they have endorsed every single policy advocated by Unity and have played the role of rubber stamp. (Come to an Ex Bd meeting and see New Action Inaction.) Their last leaflet contained not one word about the UFT’s endorsement of the merit pay scheme even though many New Action members are opposed. The same top-down mentality exists in New Action as in Unity. True birds of a feather.


Sometimes I'm amazed at the predictive powers of Ed Notes.

From the May 2001 edition:
New Action Goes CURR
The non-Unity active membership has declared New Action a CURR (Caucus Under Registration Review). In dropping from 31% to 21% of the vote in 10 years ( a 32% decline) New Action has clearly failed to meet the standards. If there is no improvement in the next election, New Action will be closed and reorganized into a debating society.

UFT Election Analysis (2001): How New Action Did in the Past - Ed Notes Redux, April 2001

In 1999, 33% (10,391) of active members voted for opposition candidates. In 2001, that went down to 30% (10,474)... Marian Swerdlow 2001 election analysis in Ed Notes, April, 2001.

MORE is going to use some of its summer series to address UFT elections, past present and future.  I thought I would start getting into the debate ASAP.

Even before New Action made its dirty deal with Unity, some people had their knives out for the way NA did business. I was one of these people.

Ed Notes published a preliminary analysis by then FDR HS Delegate (now chapter leader) Marian Swerdlow of Teachers for a Just Contract in April 2001 right after the UFT elections, the last election that New Action ran independent of Unity support. And the last time they ran their own candidate for president, someone not named Weingarten or Mulgrew.

34% of the votes in the election were cast by retirees in 2001 -- in 2013 the retiree faction was up to 52% of votes cast.

Marian came back for the May 2001 edition of Ed Notes with a follow up. Both are included below, along with my own Ed Notes report card grading of New Action (Marian was kinder than I was).

(I published Marian whenever she would let me because she often had some of the sharpest analysis of the issues.) 

The opposition Caucuses (New Action and PAC) received 11,400 and 1,300 votes in 2001, slightly more than in 1999, but Marian's analysis points to an erosion of support. I believe the 01 election results and the prospect of further erosion in 2004 is what made NA susceptiblt to Randi's offer to make a deal in 2004, 7, 10 and 13 and I would bet in 16 too.

I refered to the first Serdlow article 6 years later after another New Action election sell-out to Randi and Unity Caucus - Is New Action Really a Caucus? -- in an Ed Notes Dec. 14, 2007 blog post.

Check them out, given some of the recent talk (New Action, Positioning Itself for UFT 2016 Elections and here) about the role New Action plays as a Unity stalking horse.

Anyway, back to Marian's excellent analysis - and my report card for New Action, in the April and May 2001 editions of Ed Notes.

UFT Election Analysis: How New Action Did in the Past 

April, 2001 edition of Education Notes (hard copy)

UFT ELECTION PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
(as of April 8, 2001)

by Marian Swerdlow
UFT Delegate FDR High School
member, Teachers for a Just Contract/Class Action

The opinions expressed are those of Marian Swerdlow and do not necessarily reflect those of other members of TJC or Class Action.

Some of the results of the 2001 UFT election are now available, and we can compare them to the results in the last election in 1999.
Total number of members:
1999: 135,452 2001: 145,431
Total number of votes:
1999: 47,995 (34%) 2001: 53,385 (38%)
Votes for Weingarten (Unity):
1999: 35,596 (74.2%) 2001: 40,636 (76.6%)
Votes for Shulman (New Action):
1999: 11,366 (23.7%) 2001: 11,411 (21.1%)
Votes for Macklin (01) and Pessin (99) (PAC:
1999: 1,033 (2.1%) 2001: 1,338 (2.3%)

New Action won back all six high school executive board seats it won in the last election.

A little analysis: We can see that New Action did not lose any absolute support to either Unity or Progressive Action. In absolute numbers, Shulman lost fewer than fifty votes. What happened was that Unity gained in absolute numbers, hence its increased percentage. We may have a better idea where that increase in absolute numbers came from when we see some of the results by divisions. We also see that the membership of the union grew considerably, by about 10,000 members (around 7%). The fact that new hires continue to enter the workplace, while retirees continue to vote in union elections, accounts for some of this increase, although the information is not available to tell how much.

Some personal opinion: There is enough blame to go around for these shameful results. It may be tempting for some to blame New Action. They did run a campaign that was too brief, desultory, and unimaginative. I would argue, however, that they ran the best campaign their activist base permitted. Which leads to the question of why their activist base is so inadequate for the job of challenging Unity effectively.

New Action certainly has not strenuously reached out to attract activists. In fact, it makes it difficult for new people to get involved in New Action. They don't make it as easy as possible to contact them, they don't advertise their meetings and they don't have open meetings. They don't have activities for activists to get involved in, or to do in their chapters. The main activity they offer to activists is putting literature in mailboxes. Not the way to build leadership.

On the other hand, even if they did everything possible to attract, involve and develop activists, it is by no means clear they would be successful. The membership has grown dependent on being told what to do from above. If the leadership calls a rally at City Hall, they will show up in heartening numbers. But they have no initiative, no desire to organize themselves. They may want things to happen, but they don't want to be the ones to make them happen. That is not the fault of New Action. Nor is it patently clear New Action, or anyone, could change that. But New Action has done little or nothing to try.

New Action has approached this election, as every other, with the assumption that Unity was its best organizer, that by its failures, Unity would convince people to vote for New Action. Some New Action leaders felt that taking place as it did in our fourth month without a contract, they would increase their share of votes in this election. That did not turn out to be the case. The reason may be that the membership has grown accustomed to working without a contract: we have worked almost one-third of the last ten years under expired contracts. It is no longer something extraordinary. We have diminished expectations. I think the members accept Weingarten's argument that the best thing to do is to wait out Giuliani. The alternative is militancy, and most members don't accept that alternative.

Editor's Note, Apr. 2001 -

Ed. Note: Rumors that New Action is blaming its defeat on criticisms leveled at them by Ed. Notes have not been confirmed. We do know that they will NOT change the way they do things, no matter what the outcome of elections. See next issue for more analysis.

Some further analysis of the 2001 vote 
by Marian Swerdlow
Published in Education Notes, May 2001.

Further analysis shows that even if we look only at active members, the opposition slates lost overwhelmingly, and showed a loss of relative support.

Retiree votes-Weingarten: 16,067 (87.5%) ,  
Non-retiree votes -NA/PAC 2,275 (12.5%)  
Active votes- Weingarten: 24,569 (70%),  
Non-active votes- NA/PAC 10,474 (30%)  
Even among active members, Weingarten won overwhelmingly. However, 34% of the votes in the election were cast by retirees. Weingarten received almost 39.5% of her support from retir- ees. The opposition received only 17.8% of their support from retirees. 

Compared with 1999:
In 1999, 33% (10,391) of active members voted for opposition candidates.

In 2001, that went down to 30% (10,474).

The opposition lost relative support but not absolute support among active members. Weingarten gained both absolute and relative support among active members. In other words, the increase in the number of both retirees and active members voting went almost completely and entirely to Unity's benefit. 

In 2001, Weingarten received an additional 1,252 retiree votes, and an additional 3,788 votes from active members. The opposition received an additional 267 votes from retirees, and an additional 83 votes from active members. 

Marian Swerdlow, Teachers for a Just Contract
These views are Marian’s and do not necessarily represent TJC

New Action Post 2001 Election Report Card 
 by Norm Scott
 
Plays well with others U
It was incumbent for New Action to reach out to Progressive Action & Teachers for A Just Contract/Class Action. TJC had shown it could de- liver 75 people to demo in front of UFT headquarters. Ed. Notes started asking non New Action opposition people back in November whether they had been approached by NA about a joint election campaign. The answer was NO! I spoke to Marc Pessin of PAC in Dec. and asked if NA had contacted him about elections and he didn’t even realize there were elec- tions. Yet he was able to mount and run a campaign on such late notice. 

Regular newsletter U
A serious caucus needs a regular consistent voice that does more than have biographies of their Exec. Bd. members or have short punchy statements. Clearly, the membership needs some convincing arguments to vote an op- position into power. NA literature does not go into depth on the issues. One recent leaflet used only one side of a page and it had little more than slo- gans. When questioned about why waste an entire side of a page (Ed. Notes has to scramble for every inch) the response was: this is easier for people to reproduce for their schools. You could just see people running to their copy machines to get that one out. 

Quality of literature D
See above 

Way to run an election campaign D
No election literature out until February. The campaign should have started 2 years ago.

Level of activity of caucus: D
Where are those over 700 people who ran? Where are they at the Delegate Assembly? Where are the chapter resolutions? 

Executive Board Meetings: C
NA Exec. Bd members often seem overmatched. They try initiatives and then drop them. Their questions are often mere responses to Unity. They don’t pick up on contradictions in leadership positions which could then be used in future literature. It is frustrating to watch NA miss numerous oppor- tunities at these meetings. Witness our consistent campaign and exposure of the weaknesses of Weingarten’s position on school-wide merit pay. 

Graciousness in losing A
In a lovely leaflet distributed at the April DA, NA congratulated Weingarten on her victory and promised to work together in a spirit of Unity. I would have started the next election campaign. OK, it’s 3 years away, but I believe in early starts. I also believe in total war, no holds barred. 

Overall D
NA seems content to be the main opposition rather than forming a united front and engaging in an all-out fight against Unity. They certainly lack the militancy and activism of other groups. Not a week goes by that emails and phone calls go out from PAC announcing meetings and forums around the issue they are interested in. They have gone to court for unlicensed teachers and hold demos when needed. Yet NA considers them failures because of their low vote count. TJC pulled 75 people to a demo at UFT headquarters in Nov. and they are currently leading a fight against merit pay. And of course Ed. Notes, though not strictly an opposition party, has pushed the limits of what 1 person can do in being critical of the union leadership. 

New Action Goes CURR
The non-Unity active membership has declared New Action a CURR (Caucus Under Registration Review). In dropping from 31 to 21% of the vote in 10 years ( a 32% decline) New Action has clearly failed to meet the standards. If there is no improvement in the next election, New Action will be closed and reorganized into a debating society.

Ed. Note: Unity’s share of the vote has grown from 69% in 1991. New Action received 31% in ‘’91, 24% in ‘99, 21% in ‘’01. Despite this steady erosion, NA has made few changes in strategy or tactics. Circumstances may be beyond their control, as Marian Swerdlow pointed out in our March edition. Randy Weingarten’s incredible abilities as a politician cannot be overlooked. She has an ability to reach out to people and make them think she feels their pain (sound familiar?). And she never stops working. (NA attacks about the salary she makes were rediculous.) So what’s an opposition to do? Stay tuned for the fall edition of Ed. Notes for some ideas.

Message to Ed Notes Readers: Why Join MORE? Do You Really Have A Choice? - Updated

Please join us now
http://more.nationbuilder.com/join_us -- MORE Caucus 

Really, with some warts and all, MORE is the only option if you oppose the UFT leadership and object to its partner, New Action's role as a stalking horse for Mulgrew and Unity. If the high school votes of MORE (1335) and New Action (whose 440 votes went to Unity (1590) in 2013 were combined, Unity would have lost those 7 seats.

(If New Action ever wants to come back into the legitimate opposition, its leaders should contact MORE, whose reps told them they will be welcome once they give up their deal with Unity.)

While I'm not in total agreement with Mike Schirtzer's call for MORE to run in the UFT 2016 elections Why MORE Will Run In The 2016 UFT Elections  if you do agree with Mike, then what option do you have than to join MORE? Oh, you think all you have to do is vote for MORE and not have to give anything back to the org doing all the election organizing and work? Do you want a name on a ballot or an actual campaign that costs money? Unity will have its chapter leaders and district reps stuff every mailbox in every school with numerous campaign lit. New Action will have its large core of retirees hit most of the schools with leaflets. Most MORE people are classroom teachers and need people in the school to become organizers and distributors.

See the disinterest not only from people who don't vote (I can understand that from them -- they are boycotting a meaningless election). But what about the 4500 people who did vote for MORE last time? Where are they? What about the 20,000 people who voted against the contract? It is time to stand up.

Where are all those people who are outraged at Randi's sellouts? Do you know that in the UFT elections, 750 Unity hacks are elected to go to NYSUT RA and AFT conventions to stamp out attempts to get the national and state unions to take a strong stand against ed deform and defend you as teachers from the onslaught? The UFT elections are the basis of Randi's control of the national union and Mulgrew/Randi attempt to continue control of the state union from the Stronger Together Caucus. The 2016 elections will continue that control (not that it is possible to stop them from electing these 750 slugs again.)

One of my thoughts in calling for a boycott of the election is this: Maybe those of you opposed to the Unity machine but sit on the sidelines don't deserve to have the right to vote against Mulgrew. 

Join MORE and also sign up to distribute info on MORE to your colleagues. If MORE doesn't listen to me and actually runs in 2016, they will need someone in every school to counter the Unity propaganda machine.

Keep Mike laughing - join MORE

I think it's 25 bucks a year to join MORE, a mere fraction of what you pay the Unity/UFT machine. If you want a campaign against Unity, put some skin in the game.  http://more.nationbuilder.com/join_us
I'll be looking for you

PS: And have some pity on poor Schirtzer - he wants to challenge Unity so badly and with a real campaign. Keep his hope alive!!!

MORE’s central priority will be the development of a UFT caucus. Our aim is to reach UFT members with our message of a more active and democratic union that can effectively fight back against what we have called the “ed deform” agenda and for the basic union rights of our members. We seek to reach members “where they are.” Different subsets of the membership experience the attacks on our profession and on our rights differently. For some, the testing frenzy has already transformed our work lives dramatically. For others, the new evaluation process and life under a terrible contract occupy center stage. Many of our members work under horrific and abusive administrators and that reality overshadows everything else.

Our hope is to reach rank and file members and help them become more actively involved in our efforts to turn things around. This will include helping members build stronger and more effective union chapters in their schools, connecting members with others around the city who are combating the impacts of standardized testing on our working conditions and our students learning conditions, encouraging members to join us in various efforts to challenge the UFT leadership and turn the union into one that can lead the fight on all of these fronts.

Please join us now
http://more.nationbuilder.com/join_us

New Action Tries to Rewrite History, Distorts Story on UFT Charter While Some Brag About "Working" With NA

The UFT charter school came up for a vote at the Executive Board during a time period between 2003 and 2004 when opposition caucus New Action was solidifying their alliance with the dominant Unity Caucus.  New Action's high school "opposition" representatives started going with the Unity party line on just about every topic. The exceptions were my close friend to this day Ed Beller and me however on the subject of the UFT starting a charter school, Ed was with the leadership. Therefore, I was alone so UFT President Randi Weingarten was poised to ridicule me. .... James Eterno

In response to my post on the historical context of the UFT charter and New Action's support for the charter, a prominent member of New Action posted this:

Norm claims that New Action supported the charter. He provides nothing in writing, since there was nothing. Rather, he refers to an anecdote of one vote by one individual, acting on his own. In fact, Scott overlooks years of New Action literature in opposition to charters, preferring his alternate "anecdote as history." This method of attack says more about Scott than about anything else.

I was at all meetings related to the UFT charter - the info meeting, the Ex Bd vote and the DA where Michael Fiorillo from ICE spoke and we handed out a leaflet I believe. James Eterno's memory corresponds to mine and contradicts the New Action fiction. He responded on the ICE blog with his personal account. DEMISE OF UFT CHARTER SCHOOL REMINDS ME OF MY OPPOSITION TO ITS FOUNDING.

James was still on the UFT Exec Bd as a high school rep on the New Action slate elected in 2001 but he and Ellen Fox had already been pushed out of New Action for not going along with the cowtowing to Randi.

James Eterno continues:

I recall vividly being called on after the usual Unity [AND NEW ACTION] sycophants praised the charter school. I spoke out against the UFT running a charter school because we would have difficulty publicly opposing the expansion of charter schools if the union was running one and money would be siphoned away from an already cash strapped public school system to charters.  Randi stopped me in mid-sentence that evening and argued that I was making an argument against private school vouchers and not charter schools but I stuck to my position.

I seem to remember Mike Shulman going over to the other New Action Executive Board members telling them Randi didn't want any opposition on this and to remain quiet. Luckily, he had no control over James.

More from James:

After our debate, I was the lone no vote. A UFT charter school was a no-win proposition.  If it succeeded, the press would see it as a victory for charter schools.  If it did not work out, it would be seen as union failure. That's what is occurring now. Being opposed to all charter schools on principle, not just some we don't like, is a position I am quite honored to have stood up for as a lone wolf at the UFT Executive Board. 

New Action claims to oppose charter. They have been on the Executive Board for almost a decade. Where are their efforts to raise the issue at the EB and the DA if they are opposed to charters? Where are they at the co-location hearings? Did they make a stand when the UFT/Unity leadership capitulated to Cuomo last year when he pushed through the charter support plan that undercut De Blasio? Show me one resolution or public protest they have raised.

Mike Schirtzer, who was in diapers when the UFT charter was on the agenda (he was a late bloomer) posted this response to the New Action whine:

Yes, all your support of Mulgrew, begging for ex bd seats, and all those resolutions really show commitment to fighting charters. I was at countless co-location/charter hearing, I must have missed New Action.

Now, here's the funniest thing. The leader of a new caucus is actually bragging about working together with New Action as a major way to distinguish the caucus from MORE (which refuses to work with New Action until it renounces its deal with Unity). As Mike has pointed out, Weingarten and Mulgrew were at the top of the New Action slate as their presidential candidate, as recently as 2 years ago and Mulgrew will head their ticket in the 2016 elections.

Working with New Action = endorsing Mulgrew, no matter what language is being used to cover this up.

Afterthought
My personal break with a guy to whom I gave supreme support came over his insistence that New Action must be worked with in contradiction to the entire history of that caucus over the past dozen years and MORE's established policy that it would only work with New Action when its deal with Unity ended. A constant barrage of emails to MORE steering over this issue that has continued to this day and a willingness to break up the opposition to Unity. The alliance with New Action and in essence Unity, is designed to make sure Unity controls 100% of the Exec Bd seats in next year's elections by keeping New Action on and MORE shut out. No matter what you hear, that is the bottom line.

Testing Reso Voted Down at Delegate Assembly, New Action Squeals at MORE's Failure to Communicate

Did I tell you we got back from Singer Island and Delray beach Tuesday?

A commenter asked me to post appropriate photos for the blog and I can't think of a better one to show how dumb I am to be here in the cold at a UFT DA instead of staying in Florida. But the cat feeder went off to Costa Rica and we had to come back. And by the way -- I was treated to a nice coming up (70th) birthday lunch down there by the well-known commenter on blogs -- Schoolgal - which we got to do when my wife - who will brook no ed pol discussion in her presence - got into a mah jong game that afternoon. It was nice to get Schoolgal's perspective on things even though we don't always agree. Her optimism that Unity can be beaten is always refreshing.

The Unity gang pointed to procedural issues - as I pointed out they might in yesterday's post --Today's UFT Delegate Assembly: Jia Lee Will Attempt to Present Resolution to Support “The I Refuse Movement” to Oppose High Stakes Testing --- nice work Mark Corasham who at times pretends not to be just another Unity hit man. Yes, the reso was directed at NYSUT - but it called on the UFT to take this to NYSUT. And yes it said NY State Board of Education instead of Board of Regents or NY State Ed Dept. They just used procedural mish-mosh to mash the reso. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I got upstairs just as MORE's Mike Schirtzer took the floor to make the resolution -- Jia Lee had her card up but Mulgrew did not call on her - but nothing new for Mulgrew who probably sees Jia as a threat, just as he saw Julie as a threat and never called on her. Mike did me proud as my adopted political son -- I expect to see him in front of the DA handing out leaflets when he's 70 --in about 32 years - just in time to get that retro pay. He was so natural in front of the body --- I really haven't seen many people be able to do that over these years -- even from the opposition, who can seem so uptight. Not Mike. He told me he was speaking as if in front of his class. If Mulgrew ever calls on him again he will be a DA star.

Before getting to NYC Educator's report - Arthur and I enjoyed a nice Chipotle burrito after the meeting -- and I'm up at 1AM with heartburn - thanks Arthur -- Arthur and I do have people who go to the DA who read our stuff. I want to thank the chapter leader who I had never met before who came up to me before the meeting and told me he reads Ed Notes regularly along with all the major ed blogs. Sometimes I think I'm writing in a vacuum or for the usual suspects. He said I was often on point - which surprised me because I am told I write too much "fluff." Like now.

Anyway - before I get to No Action -- here is Arthur's piece on the reso -- his fuller report on the DA is at his blog:  DA Report—"I Refuse" Resolution Killed by UFT Unity—Supporter Shut Down by Mulgrew

Motion—Mike Schirtzer rises, raises motion for next month on behalf of MORE, to support I Refuse Movement. Circulates it. Mulgrew says it needs a simple majority to be placed on agenda. 
Mike says has been passed by several locals, that testing regime is out of hand, and that we should oppose high stakes testing. Says test prep saps joy from teaching, helps neither us nor our students. Kills creativity, critical thinking so we can do non stop test prep. Says we must starve the beast, that MOSL is junk science. Says if we’re gonna go to war against Cuomo, let’s take high stakes testing away from him.
Point of information—states we cannot make resolutions for NYSUT, and that there is no NYC Board of Education. Mulgrew points out other reference to NYSUT, makes disapproving noises, says DA does not have ability to bind NYSUT’s hands.
Sterling Robeson rises to speak against resolution, says we are against overtesting, but that we need tools to help drive instruction. Says parents need tests to ensure that they’re getting the “education they deserve.” Says we’ve supported this issue “from teachers of Chicago,” and in early grades. Says we’ve enforced it and reemphasized it over and over. States there is difference between opting out and refusing. Says it tells folks to tell their kids to refuse. Although there are pieces that are appealing to us, it goes to far. Urges this motion be defeated.
Mulgrew holds vote, I did not hear him declare outcome (it was clearly voted down, I would say 2-1) takes point of personal privilege, says he understands passion around this issue. Says resolution is out of order because it asks us to make decision about NYSUT. Speaks of how parents want tests. Says we’re in a fight and have to be smart about it, that we ought not to take a boilerplate resolution that was put together in other places. Says we should be against high stakes.
Supporter of resolution makes point of information—"Last resolve makes it clear that this resolution is only"—Mulgrew interrupts speaker before she finishes and says it’s already been voted on. Calls speaker out of order.

 Oh, and a post-DA conversation between Schirtzer and New Action's Shulman where Shulman complained loudly that if only MORE had communicated with New Action they would have fixed the reso and it would have passed. Sure. New Action has so much influence. They've been on the UFT Ex Bd through the grace of Mulgrew and in exchange for supporting Mulgrew or Weingarten in the past 4 UFT elections over a decade and we have seen so much "inaction" on the testing issue.

Julie Cavanagh and I represented MORE at a meeting with New Action in Nov. 2013 (which I audiotaped)  and made our position clear: We will be willing to work with New Action AFTER it renounces its deal of support for Mulgrew.

Still waiting.

What I find funny is that there is actually a group bragging about their cool relationship with New Action and how it gives them access to the UFT Ex Bd. Hope they have fun with that and see how far that gets them. NA will desperately try to cling to any group that actually does something.

Really, they should change their name from New Action to No Action. Shulman peeped a question at Mulgrew -- Sir, can you tell me if the New Motion period is over, Sir - and can I have some more porridge? Mulgrew said it was over and Shulman sat down -- like how about asking to extend? Next NA leaflet: NA makes strong point at DA.

By the way, communication means official between caucuses. New Action seemed desperate to establish official lines of communications with MORE. I told them to just come to any of our meetings. I might go to theirs - if they had any publicly announced.

Personally I have no problem saying hello and goodbye to most NA people (except Shulman). Since we had that meeting I no longer see them as evil. But when they try to pump themselves up into something they are not -- like a real opposition caucus that just happens to endorse their supposed opponents in UFT elections in exchange for gift ex bd seats - the truth needs to be told.

My advice is to just take those Ex Bd seats and those little UFT jobs - except for Shulman who gets around 15 grand a year from the union - and stay in their self-designed little cage.

They are what they are. No Action.