Much Ado About Making Resolutions: ICE Reso at Ex Bd, Jan. 2007

With regard to closing schools:

The DOE is successfully implementing the Grover Norquist “Starve the Beast” policy and it must be stopped. Norquist recommends tax cuts and more tax cuts so that government won’t be able to function and then his people complain that the government is doing a terrible job and needs to be cut some more."
-----Jeff Kaufman, posted on the ICE blog, Jan. 2007

I find the NAC attack on ICE over the silly notion that presenting resolutions at UFT Executive Board meetings is the most important thing one can do extremely funny. Especially since that is all New Action does. ICE, you see, has been out there actually supporting people at closing schools over the years.

Today's court decision on the closing schools is a perfect example of how UFT resolutions mean little. There have been quite a few resos against closing schools over the years. Why did it take so long to go to court? As I read it, the complaint is over the way procedures were not followed. Tweed's arrogance ha been exposed. But expect them to do it more carefully next time. The UFT doesn't oppose the closing of schools - as long as the procedures are followed. But a good aspect it that Tweed will have to come up with some consistent "facts"- twisted of course - for why schools should be closed. Like, Eva needs more space.

While New Action makes empty resolutions in a sea of Unity clones, ICE people have been at closing school meetings and PEP meetings and charter invasion hearings speaking up in support.

Not that ICE never made a closing school reso when we were on the Executive Board. James Eterno reminded me today about this post on the ICE blog on Jan. 13, 2007 by Jeff Kaufman, currently ICE-TJC candidate for Assistant Treasurer. It exhibits the kind of work ICE did on the Exec. Board, with analysis of DOE policy behind school closings.

James Eterno, ICE's High School Rep, submitted a resolution calling for the UFT to get off the fence and call for a moratorium on the closing of schools before an independent evaluation can be concluded.

While hundreds of our members face excessing Weingarten showed how she can fiddle while Rome burns and substituted a watered down resolution which called for the DOE to "refrain" from closing schools.

Thanks, Randi. Way to stand up to BloomKlein who close schools for political reasons and to create large pools of excessed teachers. But what could we really expect, especially when you completed a sweetheart deal to continue the decimation of seniority, loss of grievance rights and other basic rights of our members? You showed your true colors when you "agreed" with the closing of Lafayette. The teachers and staff at Lafayette thank you as well.

The resolution follows:

January 2007 Resolution Calling for a Moratorium on Closing Schools

WHEREAS, the Department of Education (DOE) chronically mismanages schools, refuses to provide schools with adequate funding and then blames staff for failing results; and

WHEREAS, there is no valid evidence that proves the educational benefits of the DOE’s policy of closing schools, not admitting new students, displacing staff, and then reopening the same building as a different school or group of schools; and

WHEREAS, there is no clear standard for what constitutes a failing school yet the DOE in December announced the closing of five more schools; and

WHEREAS, the resulting period of uncertainty can have a deleterious impact on students in the effected schools as well as in neighboring schools that become severely overcrowded by accepting incoming students who would have gone to the schools being phased out; and

WHEREAS, new/redesigned schools do not have to accept special education and Limited English Proficiency students in their first two years of existence, thus creating fewer educational options for some of our students most in need, and concentrating disproportionate numbers of these students in other facilities, straining the resources of those schools too; and

WHEREAS, the 2005 UFT Contract eliminated Article 18G5, which gave staff in closing or phased out schools the “broadest possible placement choices available within the authority of the Board;” and

WHEREAS, the current Contract throws staff (experienced and new) from closing/phasing out schools en masse onto the “open market” where they must look for their own jobs or become Absent Teacher Reserves (day-to-day substitutes) thus discouraging UFT members from wanting to work in difficult schools; and

WHEREAS, many of the schools that replaced previously redesigned schools are now themselves failing and in danger of closing; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the UFT call for an immediate moratorium on the closing down/ redesigning of schools by the Department of Education until independent studies are done to assess the effectiveness of the newly redesigned schools as well as the overall impact of closing/redesigning schools on students, staff and communities throughout the system; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the UFT use part of its “Teachers Make a Difference” campaign to publicize the need for full funding of all schools, with particular attention paid to calling for extra funding for troubled schools in order to: lower class sizes, provide modern up to date facilities as well as safe and stable environments as an alternative to closing schools, displacing students and staff resulting in overcrowding of neighboring schools.

It’s time for the UFT to use its resources to stop allowing the Department of Education to get away with holding teachers and students accountable for their mismanagement.

The DOE is successfully implementing the Grover Norquist “Starve the Beast” policy and it must be stopped. Norquist recommends tax cuts and more tax cuts so that government won’t be able to function and then his people complain that the government is doing a terrible job and needs to be cut some more.

The DOE chronically under-funds schools. The courts have declared that the city doesn’t even give adequate funding for a sound basic education. The DOE adds to the problem by chronically mismanaging schools and then blaming us when schools don’t get everyone to be proficient.

Instead of thanking the teachers and other UFT members for performing educational miracles with so many students in situations that are virtually impossible, our schools are deemed failing by some criteria that nobody knows about. The schools are then closed down, we are displaced and have to apply for our jobs back in our own schools. Kids who would have gone to the school closing are directed to other schools which become more overcrowded and then they are deemed as failing. The new schools don’t have to take special education students or ESL students for two years so they look like they are succeeding but the success and extra funding later dry up and certain new schools have already been deemed as failures. This has been going on for years. This cycle must cease as nobody has shown any concrete evidence that any of this works for students

The UFT’s position on all of this has been to wait. In 2003 the Manhattan High School Chapter leaders came up with a resolution calling for a moratorium on the breakup and redesign of large high schools. I cosponsored the introduction of that resolution in this body and it was tabled. The UFT put together a small schools task force that called for among other things a study to be done on the effectiveness of small schools but it didn’t call for the DOE to stop closing schools until we have the data.

In 2006 the Parents Citywide Council on High Schools called the Chancellor to substantially delay the implementation of small high schools in part because of the issue of special ed and ESL students not being accepted in new schools. I asked last year at this body if the UFT supported that resolution and I was sent a copy of the small schools task force and later the UFT sponsored a resolution reaffirming the value of large high schools but not calling for the DOE to stop closing schools.

Now we need to go further. When the DOE brings in an outside agency to review schools and they find Tilden High School is proficient and then soon thereafter it is announced that Tilden will be closing, there is something that doesn’t smell right. Small schools versus big schools is not the issue. The issue is what constitutes a failing school? It’s not only large high schools that are in danger. Schools that have already been redesigned are in trouble. Many of us are being threatened with being closed because we exercise our contractual rights. I have been told that I better tone it down or Klein will come in and shut us down.

What this resolution asks is for the DOE to stop shutting down schools until we can get some fair, independent studies done to assess the effectiveness of newly redesigned schools including examining the impact on neighboring schools. This resolution also asks for the UFT to publicize the need for fully funding all schools but particularly schools that are in trouble so we get what we need to succeed and stop the madness of closing schools, displacing students and staff and then overcrowding other schools where they then are deemed as failing. That cycle must end now.

This is a powerful resolution, with an analysis of the motives behind school closings 3 years before the UFT woke up. And we're still not sure they have. Of course, Unity and New Action ignored what we were saying. If there is a point to making these resos, it is to use them to educate people on the issues. Without putting this up on the ICE blog, the reso is meaningless, since Unity waters them down or rejects them. A fundamental difference between New Action and ICE is that we believe the UFT/Unity machine has to be beat over the head to move, not have a nice chat with them over policy. When we have an army of thousands at our backs we will be able to force change. Otherwise, we are talking into space.

ICE, TJC, Unity, New Action at TU/NYCORE Candidate Forum

On March 5 candidates from each of the 4 caucuses in the UFT held a candidates forum sponsored by NYCORE and Teachers Unite. There's a lot I could say about this event but for now I'll leave the videos talk for themselves. There is about 2 hours worth and since you-tube has 10 minute limits I will put them up in sections, unedited if possible.
Here is the final summing up where each rep got 2 minutes each.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpkggISk4v0

New Action Supported UFT Charter Schools

This comment

Thank God for New Action. The UFT needs change. The UFT needs to start to fight for its members who are fighting with all their might, all on their own against charter schools. It is terrible the UFT, the teachers unions, is sitting back and doing NOTHING! That is what teachers pay for and the UFT does absolutely NOTHING!

at the Gotham Schools posting that made it seem New Action was an opposition caucus led to my response below:

New Action at one time used to be for change, but as partners with the UFT leadership for the past 7 years that is all over. They used to actually have a decent platform calling the UFT leadership undemocratic and calling for democratization of the union. Now that they got theirs, all that has disappeared.

How can the UFT fight charter schools when they have two of their own? And occupying space in public schools. And New Action supported them all the way, with some New Action members volunteering in the charters. ICE and TJC were opposed to the establishment of the charters because it was clear what was coming down the line and having their own charters would make a fight impossible. The UFT strategy was to "show them we can do it with a union contract," which New Action has supported. Then they sign a contract with Green Dot charter, also not opposed by New Action. Now their strategy is not to oppose charters but to try to organize them. Sort of like going back to the 1950's. The charters will remove public schools and the UFT will try to sell charter school teachers on the concept of "look how incompetent we have been in defending NYC teachers, now give us a chance to screw you too."

I know. Some say better any union contract than nothing. But the idea is so ass backwards as to make your hair hurt. The tidal wave is coming and the UFT is using a thimble to bail. And New Action will be there with them all the way.

ICE, TJC, Ed Notes and GEM have been working on positions that place the charter attack on public education in context. We have also been on the front lines supporting public school parents and teachers in their struggles over shared space. It was no accident that ICE's Lisa North's picture was on the front page of the NY Times yesterday in the story on charters. Angel Gonzalez, other GEMers and I also were there to support them. New Action has had zero presence at any of these charter school battles, even less than the bare presence the UFT leadership itself has had.

Related:
The New Action blog doesn't allow comments.

Gotham Schools seems to think New Action is an internal opposition group

Have I got a bridge to sell them.

I left a comment at Gotham after they posted a link to the New Action positioning statement. Yes, NA is all about political positioning for the upcoming UFT elections so they can hold onto the 8 exec bd seats handed to them by Unity Caucus. The "house" opposition.

Calling New Action an internal opposition group is like saying Christine Quinn stood up to Bloomberg. New Action has been the UFT's house opposition for over 5 years. Weingarten ran at the top of their ticket in the 2007 election and all 8 of their exec board members were endorsed by the UFT leadership Unity Caucus. In the 2007 election they got the lowest vote total of all groups running but only won their seats due to Unity Caucus votes.

So how are they an internal opposition when the party in power controls their fate?

Their original sellout in 2003 was based on the same premise they are advocating in this post: it is time to fight Bloomberg. That was their excuse for not running a candidate against Weingarten in the last 2 UFT elections and they will not run a candidate against Mulgrew in the upcoming elections. Since they owe their continued existence to the beneficence of the UFT leadership, they cannot be critical or they will lose their support. Thus they have to come up with the "mistakes were made by the leadership but let's not dwell on them" argument to justify their sellout.

New Action mentions charters but in fact backed the UFT all the way when it set up its own charter schools in public school buildings while ICE and TJC took positions opposed, knowing full well the charter dagger was squarely aimed at the heart of the union.

The New Action statement says:

Today we need a united stand. We will need to talk about the mistakes that we as a union have made: Mayoral endorsement, governance, term limits, but another day. This is not the time for recriminations. This is the time for a united fight against this corporate mayor.

When is the time to talk about the mistakes of a misguided UFT leadership that New Action has been uncritical of since the sellout? Note there is no mention of the other mistakes: the 2005 contract – which both members of New Action who served on the negotiating committee at the time voted for despite their attempts to rewrite history. Or the mistake of the end of seniority. Or the ATR problem that was created by the UFT and BloomKlein. New Action supported the leadership throughout these "mistakes."

New Action has supported the UFT leadership without dwelling on the mistakes for all these years. They act like there will be a change despite the fact that New Action has been around for decades and seen little change in the way Unity Caucus operates.

There was a time when New Action put up a fight to create a more democratic union. Now they are part of the problem. Progressive teachers looking to reform the UFT in no way consider them an internal opposition, but a former opposition that has sold out to the leadership for a few Executive Board seats and some minor positions on the payroll of the UFT.

Voting for UFT Retiree Chapter - YAWN!

I just checked my ballot for the UFT retiree chapter. Ho, hum! I found about 10 people to vote for. I and other ICE retirees were asked to run on the RA slate. Most of us declined.

This retiree chapter elections every three years, as much as anything, exposes the UFT sham of democracy.

There are two slates running: Unity and The Retiree Advocate. Should be simple. Just check the RA box and mail it in. But there's a rub.

Many of the RA candidates are members of New Action. You know, the former opposition caucus that sold out to Unity for jobs and 8 seats on the Executive Board, which they only won because Unity ran them on their slate too. The same caucus that thinks that the Randi Weingarten leadership has been wonderful for UFT members.

So how do you run with Unity Caucus and against them? In the magic world of so-called UFT democracy, anything is possible.

Since Unity has a lock on the election, it makes no difference anyway. The new chapter chairman, with Tom Pappas's retirement, will be Tom Murphy and all officers and the entire executive committee will be Unity. So what? Those retiree chapter meetings are death. I used to go when the late Jeannette DiLorenzo ran them. She was a lady. An open mic and delicious pastries. About 10 seconds after Pappas took over he took away the open mic and fed us stale bagels. Goodbye.

But the most important aspect to Unity is the winner-take-all election for 300 Unity Caucus retirees to the delegate Assembly. Yes, I said 300. The over 50,000 retirees get the same 60 members to one delegate ratio as the schools do. With a room that holds 850 people, you can just imagine how crowded the DA might get if there's a cold snap in Florida.

Naturally, not all 300 show up every time. Only when Unity really needs them. Like when a tough vote might be coming up. Especially if the opposition manages to get a resolution added to the agenda that the leadership disapproves of. Then it's party time after the meeting to get all the retirees out for free food, stale or not.

Well, I picked my way through the ballot looking for RA people I knew are not New Action. A useless action, but I'm a good citizen.

That RFK Thing: Piling on Hillary -Updated

This blog has been pretty rough on Hillary Clinton, but this flack over her RFK assassination issue is a case of piling on. How can any of us who lived through 1968 forget any of it, especially since we were so young at the time? That it's exactly 40 years later with so many similarities is so freaky. I don't think she was making a bad point.

I am not an outright Obama supporter and think some of his stuff is pretty conservative, but I will probably vote for him, as opposed to some more left Green party or even Nader.

Let's not forget that Hillary has about 50% of the Democratic Party support. And, no, I do not think she should drop out. Why not take it to the convention? Lincoln won on the 4th ballot and I don't think he led on any of the first three, running 4th initially.
Will all this help McCain? Maybe, maybe not. I'm for the most democracy we can have.
Now, if only the Hillary support network led by the UFT would allow a bit of democracy to shine so Obama supporters get to say their piece.

Oh, and let's not neglect to mention the shameful performance of Unity Caucus lapdogs New Action Caucus, where some of their members furtively pass around anti-Hillary literature but remain silent at Executive Board and Delegate Assembly meetings.

1968 REVISITED: Ocean Hill-Brownsville

Lots of meat here. This one should be a "fun" event. I'm not sure the statement in the announcement that local communities ever had control of the schools is accurate.

I went on strike in '68 but did not know anything about nuthin' then. A few years later I met many of the gang that crossed the line and worked with them politically. I understand their position. There's plenty of blame to go around on both the UFT and community control side and I'm not sure what I would do if I were back then with my current knowledge of the UFT - my instinct is that if I intended to organize teachers in the UFT crossing the line is death. If you disagree with the strike, work to provide people with a balanced view and you can't do that when you are looked at as a scab. But then again, if you wanted to work with the community, as many teachers did then, staying out was also death. Oy vey!

This event will present only one side of the issue, but I will be there to get a better read. I'm currently reading Kahlenberg and Podair's book on the strike, which is much more balanced than RK.

I might even write about '68 one day - but only from my fall-out shelter.

One of the fun ironies is that the old lefty guard of the former (and now bought out) New Action Caucus all crossed the lines in '68 and now traipse through the 52 Broadway with impunity. Thus, Randi's "liberal generosity." But we've always said she has no real ideology and it's all about what politics she sees is necessary to firm up Unity power - like having New Action on board with the paltry vote totals really has an impact.

No matter what she's done, that more than anything is what would make Shanker turn over in his grave. "Better dead than red" was one of Al's major themes. Some old-line Unity Caucus still seethe when they see the New Action crew around. But I do too - for other reasons.

Announcement:

1968 REVISITED: Ocean Hill-Brownsville
The Struggle for Quality Public Education: 1968-2008

Stanley Aronowitz, Sally Lee, Edwin Mayorga, Roberta Thomas & Jitu Weusi

Co-sponsors: New York Coalition of Radical Educators & Teachers Unite

In 1968, Ocean Hill-Brownsville, Brooklyn, was the site of an experiment that gave local communities control of their public schools. The controversy sparked from this movement still resonates throughout the city. This panel discussion will explore the political moment that gave rise to the community control experiment and will attempt to compare it to today's context. How are NYC Communities responding to the current mayoral control of our public schools? How do these contrasting forms of school governance impact classroom teaching and learning?

Panelists include: Stanley Aronowitz, author of Education Under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Debate over Schooling; Sally Lee, Teachers Unite; Edwin Mayorga, New York Coalition of Radical Educators; Roberta Thomas, Independent Commission on Public Education (ICOPE) and Jitu Weusi, Teacher in Ocean Hill Brownsville.

The Brecht Forum

451 West Street

(Between Bank and Bethune off of the West Side Highway)

212-242-4201

www.brechtforum.org

Thursday, April 10
7:30 pm

Sliding scale: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

Responding to New Action

Do they ever mention how many of the NA leadership are on the UFT payroll?

The New Action leaflet distributed at the January DA claimed we reported on their demise. Au contraire. We used the term “irrelevant.” They will never die as long as Unity Caucus is willing to breathe life into them. How often is it that you can buy your own home-grown phony opposition caucus and use it to as a tool to try to create confusion in the minds of the members? New Action MUST continue to exist so they can appear on the ballot in future elections even if Unity must perform a heart transplant. And probably a few other missing anatomical parts, but we won’t go there.

The leaflet went on to talk about how much they have been doing for the members, with their 8 seats handed to them by Unity as opposed to what ICE/TJC accomplished. Do you think getting Unity support to pass some resolutions, part of the life-giving “breath of Unity” has something to do with it? Think that ICE/TJC never got anything passed at Exec. BD meetings because they were actually an opposition and critical of the leadership? Has NA been critical of even one action on the part of the leadership from merit pay on?

They claim to have been against the 2005 contract, but their co-leader Michael Shulman voted for the contract as part of the negotiating committee, allowing Weingarten to claim the vote was unanimous.

So how well has their deal with Unity worked out? Very well for the leadership of New Action who are on the UFT payroll. As for the members: In the 2001 elections the last time NA ran as an real opposition to Unity they received 10,000 votes (21%).

The active membership expressed their opinion of New Action’s deal with Unity in the 2007 elections: combined totals from Elem + MS + HS: Unity: 9,934 68% ICE/TJC: 3,305 22.6% New Action: 1,356 9.3%. Help me with my math. It looks like a drop rivalling the stock market crash of ‘29. But NA doesn’t need the support of working teachers. They only have to keep their constituency of one – Randi Weingarten – happy. And so they have.

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.

Union Leadership Promotes New Action - 12/2001

While glancing through a back issue of Ed Notes, this item popped up from the December 2001 edition.

When [former UFT Staff Director] Tom Pappas said “We have a 2 party system in our union” at the last DA, a lot of people had to suppress a laugh. We assume Pappas was referring to New Action as the party of the 2nd part.

But exactly where has the 2nd part been? Now that NA has been lured into a United Front with the leadership as a show of unity until we have a contract NA has been completely silenced. Smiles had to be suppressed by Unity Caucus people, since they have little respect for NA and consider them opportunists. NA has put out little literature since the United Front.

Unity’s biggest fear is that NA will fade into obscurity and a real opposition might blossom. Unity needs an opposition to claim we are a democratic union. What better opposition than New Action, growing steadily weaker and less effective? Much of their support comes from being perceived as the only opposition game in town. But many of their supporters are disgruntled with New Action’s collaboration with Unity. They are also unhappy with the autocratic way the United Front policy was decided.

By breathing life into NA, the union leadership can give them an air of legitimacy as the “loyal” opposition. NA 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 NA didn’t exist, Unity would have to invent them.

Unity and New Action make nice

Ed Note:
It took two more years of New Action's canoodling with Unity Caucus before The Independent Community of Educators (ICE) came into existence in November 2003 and Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC) became more active as an opposition. In the 2007 election, New Action received only 9% of the vote, coming in last, behind the ICE/TJC slate, especially in the high schools where they doubled New Action's totals. The high schools had been a particular strength for New Action for 20 years.

But our prediction about Weingarten breathing life into new Action in 2001 came true in 2007 when their special arrangement handed New Action 8 seats on the Executive Board while ICE/TJC have none. The New Action EB reps have totally supported Unity on every single issue without a note of criticism. New Action goes to Delegate Assemblies with leaflets that totally support Unity and try to pretend they are a legitimate opposition.

Albert Shanker, Image and Reality

I came across this by TJC's Swerdlow and Wainer written shortly after Shanker died in 1997.

"The Shanker-Feldman vision has so weakened teacher unionism that government officials can now openly consider the privatization of public education. Therefore, the future of [public] education may depend on the ability of rank-and-file members to challenge the Unity/Progressive Caucus and replace the union's rhetoric of professionalism with a strategic vision of militance, solidarity and democracy."

Ten years later, we can see the results as the very future of public education and the power of teacher unionism at the school level is threatened like no time before. The combination of iron tight Unity Caucus control of the UFT and by proxy, the AFT, combined with Weingarten's strategy of coopting the main opposition - New Action - has left ICE and TJC to attempt to resurrect some semblance of opposition to Unity from scratch.

And I'm sure some people may have some critiques of their critique, so fire away.

The entire article can be accessed at Norms Notes at this link.

One more note: I've read interesting stuff TJC people have written that does not get out to the general membership. I think TJC people limit their scope by keeping apples and oranges separate. More openness would have mitigated the impact of Unity's "Red Scare" attack on Kit Wainer in the last election.

I'm Not a Fan of Stalin, but I am proud....

.... to be part of ICE where we can work with people in PLP and the UTP (see comment below from a UFT official.) We are open and democratic.

Unity just slithers out from under a rock.

I believe people should be open about their political affiliations, especially people associated with parties, since party membership on the left is not exactly like being a Democratic Party member but a serious commitment that informs much of their political activity. That goes for New Action or TJC or ICE.

I know this much about ICE - unless some people are hiding their affiliation, the only party people are PLP, who at least are honest about where they are coming from. If they believe in Stalin, sorry I do not agree, but support their right to have that belief and be part of ICE.

But the commenter below knows full well that there are people in New Action who agree with PL on that issue. Some of them may even be on the Exec. Bd. I support them all in their right to hold those beliefs. Everyone involved in union activities over the years knows full well the bulk of New Action support comes from the old left. Witness the 1600 retiree New Action votes out of party loyalty. Too bad they are not open. We actually had a few former retiree New Action old left supporters who ran with ICE after they finally grew sick of Shulman's collaboration. And they were long-time loyalists. We were proud to have them run with us.

ICE can handle old left, new left, independent left, democratic party, slightly left-of-center capitalists like me, and even a Republican or two. We are trying to build an open, democratic caucus, unlike Unity (and New Action, I might add, which even as far back as the late 90's I criticized for being run in the same top-down manner as Unity.

In fact, some of the caucus battles over the years can be traced to behind the scenes ideological battles between the right-wing Social Democrats, USA (Shanker, Feldman and possibly Weingarten- all old-time Unity people were in the party) and the Communist Party, USA which was reflected in the old Teachers' Union (TU) and its successor, the old opposition caucus TAC (60's - 80's), one of the groups that merged with New Directions in the early 90's to form New Action.

At the DA Unity leader (and slimebag) Jeff Zahler, castigated Kit Wainer for publicly condemning Albert Shanker's support for the VietNam War. Gee, Jeff, were you joining Abe Levine and, in fact, announcing your own support for that War in your condemnation of Kit?

See below for the comments on red-baiting.

Note the comment from the UFT Brooklyn Welfare fund at 10 am.

Anonymous said...

As long as you want to have an open discussion of your ICE comrades from Progressive Labor, Norman, why don't you share with us the fact that they are not exactly garden variety socialists, but ultra-Stalinists of the sort that think Stalin was a great leader of the international proletariat [http://www.plp.org/communist/stalinssuccesses.pdf] and that the problem with Mao Zedong was that he was not radical enough [http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/rr3.html#RTFToC6]. Their view of the great crimes of 20th century Communism was that it did not leave enough corpses behind.

They make a perfect match for ICE's friends in UTP, with their quotes from Charles Lindbergh.

Of course, if UNITY really wanted to "red bait" ICE and TJC, it could have raised these issues. Instead, it quoted the published writings of your candidate for President, Kit Wainer, on union topics germane to whether or not he should lead the union.

Since in your book using Kit's own words is "red baiting," not only in print but also at the DA, then it would seem that Kit himself must be a red-baiter.

STOP ICE-TJC RED-BAITING!!!

10:10 AM, March 30, 2007


Anonymous said...

Ask your comrades in New Action how they feel about Stalin. Next time make sure to inform the people who vote for Unity exactly who they elected to the Ex. Bd. Ask them if the people in the Soviet bloc are better off now or before the fall of the Soviet Union.

10:26 AM, March 30, 2007

ed notes online said...

Source of anon. comment 10:10

Organization: United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund Brooklyn, NY

Aren't we paying you to do union work? Or are you on a prep?

Breaking News: March 29, 2007

UFT vote count all day at Park Central Hotel, 7th Ave & 55th St. Election committee announced that mail received today will be counted. We may ask for Friday's mail also to be accepted. I will be there with Kit Wainer and Josh Kahn from TJC.

ICE meeting at Murray Bergtraum HS, Friday, March 30 at 4:15 to analyze election results, with a scavenger hunt to follow to find a restaurant in Chinatown.

When a question was raised at the DA yesterday about the red-baiting flyer Unity sent out, Randi as usual cried about how she has stood up to such terrible personal attacks -- like questions about her teaching credentials and said she lives as honest a life as anyone she knows. (Except for that statement on NY 1 she made not long ago claiming she taught 5 periods a day for 6 years.) Randi then gave Unity head Jeff Zahler the floor to engage in another round of red-baiting, saying he was proud to have sent that out and reading excerpts in an attack on Kit Wainer. He said accusations of McCarthyism are not true because in those times Kit would be thrown out of the union and not even have a job. He attacked Kit for criticizing Al Shanker for supporting American foreign policy (like the was in Vietnam, which apparently in retrospect Zahler must also support. When he started frothing at the mouth Randi signaled "enough" and he sat down like a good boy.

Kit tool a point of personal privilege but didn't go beyond referring to the TJC response on their web site. Many thought he should have gone on the attack the way NYC Educator did and said he was proud to be a socialist who is willing to fight for a strong union and if Randi was a socialist our people wouldn't be in such trouble.

By the way, not one New Action member said a word or tried to say a word. so ironic since Unity had always red-baited them. I had a brief confrontation with some New Action people before the meeting when I castigated them for lying down with snakes and for not standing up. They argued they had sent a strongly-worded protest to Weingarten and said something on their web site. Whoopdee-doo! They should have come to the DA and handed out a leaflet. No guts, no glory! They also said they objected to the counter red-baiting in TJC's response. Let's see what Zahler and his friends in New Action have to say when his Unity faithful finds out they have elected members of a certain leftist organization who ran on the Unity slate to the Executive Board. Call this counter red-baiting if you want. If you lie down with snakes, expect to get bitten.

Having been involved with people from the left in union politics for a long time, I always feel people should be open about their political affiliations, especially if they are associated with a party which can have such a major impact on their political stance. That goes for people in TJC and in New Action. The word "Independent" in ICE has a lot of meaning. There are a lot of left people in the group but they are truly independent, people not comfortable with left party ideology. At least the 3 Progressive Labor Party members in ICE are out front, though sometimes in an awkward way.

Speaking of which....

Ironically, Jonathan Lessuck from the Progressive Labor Party (and ICE) got up right after Kit on a point of order to make the annual PLP May Day motion because Randi had shunted the New Motion period to the end of the meeting as she usually manipulates that time. She began that with me back in 2000 when she didn't want one of my motions in front of the body and actually called me outside to apologize. She was fairly new, with a Unity party still loyal to Sandy and looking for allies - not nearly as arrogant as she has become. That was my first indication (ok, I was slow) of how manipulative she was.

Jonathan has proven very adept at handling himself in these sticky situations. I was almost hoping he would say what Kit wouldn't in a rigorous defense of left activism in the union but when Randi engaged in an attack on him for daring to upset the democratic process because there is a backlog of so many motions (due to her long reports, invitations to DA's to politicians and DOE officials, etc.) but as usual, she tried to blame Jonathan. But he turned the tables on her when he called her Dusty, followed by "oops! When under pressure I get mixed up with my repressive, dictatorial principal." The place rolled with laughter and even Weingarten had to laugh. Humor is the best way to work this crowd and unfortunately few use it. Kudos to Jonathan.

When his first sentence of the May Day resolution mentioned the word Communist I said "Uh, oh!" but he saved the day with a great case for celebrating May Day as a way to reinvigorate the labor movement. When the vote was taken even Randi said it was 70-30 against. 30% of the DA FOR the May Day motion? Holy Cow! We must be moving left. More kudos to Jonathan.

When people ask how it is to have PL people (Jonathan, Carolyn and Joan) working with ICE I answer that it has been a pleasure to have their viewpoint which is very pro-student, presented. (I know I'm simplifying - I object to them pinning every ill in the world on racism.) All to often, all you hear from teachers is the bad stuff about students. One of the reasons PL and ICE can work together is that we have always tried to deal with the rights of teachers and students (and parents.) Sometimes people, even in ICE arecritical, saying a caucus should only worry about teachers. My view is that is not a caucus I am interested in. Again, kudos to Jonathan.

I hung out in the back of the DA with Josh Heisler a teacher at Vanguard HS in the Julia Richman complex. Josh works with NYCORE (New York Collection of Radical Educators.) I met Josh through Sally Lee from NYCORE and Teachers Unite. Josh is doing work on anti-military recruitment. It was Josh's outrage at receiving the Unity red-baiting attack that spurred NYCORE, which usually doesn't get involved in UFT internal struggles, to endorse the ICE-TJC slate to their very large mailing list. I'm hoping we can get Josh to work with us in ICE.

The more I meet people like Josh and Sally, the more I appreciate the fact that there are still young leftists (Peter, Megan, Ellen from TJC) out there battling. Change in the UFT will only come from being spurred by the left and there is hope. I know there is a right-wing anti-Unity sentiment out there but it is not organized and frankly, I don't see that happening. If the right wants to get rid of Unity it will have create a caucus, join with the left, or sit on the sideline. Though I do not view myself as a leftist, I love meeting and working with them and there is a glimmer of a future for a movement.

Red-baiting from New Action Supporter? You Decide

When New Action candidate and blogger jd2718 posted a report on the debate on the war at the February 2007 Delegate Assembly, there were signs of the coming red-baiting buried in the report. Here are the details:

An openly Communist political party called the Progressive Labor Party has been active in the UFT since I can remember. They have a contingent of teachers in many schools all over the city. Though most PL people in the UFT do not join caucuses, they have been long-time supporters of Ed Notes and when ICE came together in the fall of '03, a few members of PL became part of the process and have been somewhat active in ICE since, with 3 PL members running on our slate. Though ICE'ers have been critical of both their politics and their tactics at times, we also find a lot of common ground.

As an open and democratic organization, ICE welcomes the discussions engendered by the views PL supporters bring to the table and we have grown to respect their views and the passion with which they express these views.

At DA's they mostly give out PL, not ICE literature and when they have tried to do both, we have spoken to them that it is not correct to confuse people as to which group they are representing. Mostly, they have complied with our wishes.

I was downstairs giving out ICE literature at the Feb. DA when a contingent of students came in with signs, led by someone I was not familiar with. Later I heard they were allowed into the DA. When I read jd2718's report, these people were labeled as ICE supporters instead of members of PL. No names, no mention of PL, just "ICE supporter." And mentioned 3 times — as "calling for the UFT to oppose imperialist war."

Gee, I've searched our archives and can find no expression that ICE has taken such a position, though there are certainly people who work with ICE that might agree. And others that might not.

The word "imperialist" is something I have discussed with out friends in PL as being a buzz word that is meaningless out of context to teh average person not steeped in left politics who hears it and in fact hurts whatever ideas PL is trying to get across. I also have pointed out that when a member of PL expresses their view as being in favor of Communism to an audience at a DA or at an ICE meeting, the meaning as understood by that audience is completely off base to what I assume the PL'ers really mean. Or maybe not. But I think it is a mistake on their part, despite the fact that we all absolutely love PL'er Derek Pearl, the charming 70-year old Brit who often made such proclamations. (I used to sit in front of him at DA's to block Randi's view, as she always tried to call on him as a way to avoid opposition resolutions.)

The Feb. DA
The entire action PL engaged in at the Feb. DA obviously had nothing to do with ICE and in fact I do not know how jd2718 knew which speakers were ICE supporters (as there were a lot more PL people who I did not know present) unless there was some help from his friends in Unity or New Action. The affiliation of members of PL have been well-known to anyone who has attended DA's for a while.

I wonder what jd2718 would say if someone representing the Communist Party speaking about how the old Soviet system was better for the people of eastern Europe, were mis-labeled as New Action supporters. I bet if he took a poll of his caucus, he might get some interesting answers on this question. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Here is the relevant section of jd2718's post (my emphasis added).

In February, at the DA, ICE supporters brought students with signs against military recruiters on campus. The students were allowed to address the body, and offered fiery remarks. An ICE supporter moved a resolution - the exact language is not in front of me, but the sense follows: 1. The UFT opposes imperialist war. 2. The UFT has a resolution against the War in Iraq. 3. The UFT should oppose military recruiters in public schools for the duration of the current war. Jeff Zahler, a Unity leader, moved a motion eliminating point 1. He also spoke of extending the last point (3, the ‘whereas’ ) so that it referred to military recruiters at any time, and not just during the Iraq War. (either Jeff or a later speaker made that into a second amendment).

There was debate. An ICE speaker was so upset about the loss of inflammatory language, that he forgot to speak in favor of widening the scope of the opposition to recruiters in schools. Veterans who are delegates and chapter leaders spoke. One was upset by the tone of the discussion, didn’t want us to be against the troops, but agreed that students who want to sign up should go to a recruitment station rather than have the recruiters come to the schools.

The next time jd2718 gives a report, I suggest he name names and true affiliations instead of joining the Unity red-baiting bandwagon. I won't hold my breath, as jd2718 never misses an opportunity to take a pot shot at ICE.

Unity Propaganda Machine Treads in Dangerous Territory

Considering the attack on ICE-TJC presidential candidate Kit Wainer as being old-century, the McCarthyite tactic of branding the opposition as "Reds" seems so old century. But this is an old tactic on the part of Unity Caucus. Ironically, they used this time and again against their current allies New Action, many of whose leaders have strong connections to socialist political parties and are themselves so-called red diaper babies, whose parents actually faced persecution by the real deal, Joe McCarthy himself and have a visceral response to "Red-baiting." Not the least of risks for Unity in taking this action is the potential is the negative reaction from some of New Action's core members who have gone along with the Unity/New Action deal out of loyalty.

Of course, there's the UFT legacy itself where most of the leaders are/were members of the Social Democrats, USA. And then there's the additional danger that the same right-wing audience Unity is trying to incite against ICE-TJC will come back to bite them. What if the right wing anti-Unity forces (of which there is a considerable number) start mud-slinging and get other areas, such as race-baiting or gay-bashing? Ultimately, a right-wing group, not comfortable with some of the politics of ICE or TJC will spring up. Unity may consider that a good thing, but when you get what you wish, sometimes there is a high price to pay. They ain't seen nothing yet.

Before I even knew about the mailing, calls of outrage started coming. Some thoughts expressed were, "Isn't it a slam dunk Unity will win? This smacks of the kind of desperation of someone who is losing a political campaign instead of expecting to win with a 90% vote. Why is it so important that a 70% majority is not enough? "

I agree sending out this to the homes of so many people appears desperate but desperation is in the eye of the beholder.

To Randi Weingarten/Unity/New Action there are a lot of balls in the air in this election.

The most common analysis I heard from people is that Weingarten is most interested in an overwhelming victory so she can sail into the sunset with a glorious victory and head off to the AFT in the summer of '08.

It is not that simple. For Weingarten, it is important to keep the ICE-TJC vote low as a way of margianalizing ICE-TJC, which if it starts attracting 25-30% if the vote, threatens to pass the vote totals New Action was getting when it was THE opposition. For Weingarten to leave an orderly union for her successor, she must reduce the threat ICE-TJC present and promote her home grown opposition New Action.

By getting more votes than the ICE-TJC upstarts New Action can claim, despite their alliance with Unity, they are still the main opposition, albeit totally tied to Unity's apron strings. They also have to prove to Weingarten that they are viable and that she still needs them. It should be pointed out that despite enormous inroads ICE and TJC made into the New Action support base 3 years ago, New Action with the addition of retiree votes actually outpolled either of the 2 groups.

For ICE and TJC, this election is about establishing a base of support and then building out from there. (ICE got less than 5% and TJC around 6-7% in 2004.) It takes a long time to establish a brand name and both groups are beginning to work themselves into people's consciousness as an alternative to both Unity and New Action. But legitimacy as an opposition will not truly come until they begin to reach into the 25-30% range.

As pointed out in a recent article in The Chief, the real battle is in the high schools where Weingarten is desperate to keep the ICE-TJC people off the Executive Board where they can raise questions about UFT policy. They would be especially dangerous when she is not around to keep things under control. A lot of issues are coming up with the expected UFT support for the current system of mayoral control (with just a few cosmetic tweaks) high on the agenda. No embarrassing questions, no answers.

Weingarten is so enamored of New Action's leader Michael Shulman because he has proven time and again he can control the troops. When she announced the purchase of the new buildings on Broadway in 2003 just as the alliance with New Action was in the earliest stages, some of the New Action members on the Ex. Bd at the time wanted to raise questions. Shulman, not a member of the Board, passed by each one and ordered them not to raise any questions. "Randi doesn't want this to become an issue, so don't say anything," Shulman said.

Now there's the kind of opposition Randi can be proud of.

Unity Uses Red-Baiting - Just Part of their MO

Mr. Welch: Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?


That there is a large core of activists who have shunned UFT internal politics has been a well-known fact. Activating this group has not always been easy, as many of them view the UFT leadership as unmovable and the opposition movement devoid of the kind of politics that are of most interest to them.

Today's Unity mailing that slithered into UFT members' homes red-baiting ICE-TJC presidential candidate Kit Wainer has provoked many of these progressive UFT members into outrage and shock. The emails and phones have been burning up with offers to help in the final days of the election campaign from people who have had little prior interest.

Will the Unity intent to garner last minute votes backfire in the long run by waking up a potentially activist left-oriented section of the UFT that has been ignoring internal politics?

This is not the first time Unity has resorted to red-baiting. When New Action was not yet sucking up to them, Unity regularly slimed New Action's leadership for ties to left wing political parties. What will be New Action's response to the Unity attack on Wainer when they were themselves so wronged? And how does Unity's attacks on Wainer jive with the history of their current allies in New Action? Members of ICE and TJC always condemned the Unity mud-slinging at New Action in the past (and won't sling the enormous amount of mud on Unity personnel they have accumulated.) But now all we can expect from New Action will be the sounds of silence. Getting those seats on the Executive Board come with a very high price in principles, whatever ones are left.

Read TJC's strong response on the Norm's Notes blog.


I received this email tonight from a former New Action member:

"We used to go to Mike Shulman's home on Saturday mornings signing countless times to ensure a large number of NAC names would be on the ballot. As a former chapter leader, I had Mike come to our school--an elementary school--where the opposition message to Unity was warmly greeted.

When he and his inner circle betrayed us by pandering to Unity for jobs, it left us with a bitter taste.

The New Action ad in this week's UFT rag looks like it was an anti-NAC piece written by Unity."

The more you hang out with the sleaze, the sleazier you become.

UFT Election News - March 12, 2007

It is not often that people leave Unity Caucus, which can be compared to black hole where some good people desiring to change the union enter, never to emerge. Once enticed with job opportunities, free trips and other perks, the desire for change seems to go south.

Former Unity Chapter Leader running with ICE
That is why the Jerry Frohnhoeffer's move from Unity to the ICE-TJC slate is so remarkable. Jerry is chapter leader at Aviation HS, one of my favorite schools. He is running for Vocational HS VP against Mike Mulgrew from Unity. You can read his bio at my other blog, Norm's Notes.

Building a viable opposition
I met a new Unity CL recently and he is and has been a critic of Unity and even ran against the Unity CL at his school who was humping the 2005 contract. When he won he looked around for signs there was a viable opposition building. When the vote was taken on the 2006 contract he looked for signs in the vote totals that something had been built since the 2005 contract, and seeing the 90% YES vote decided that Unity was his only option. He hopes to reform them from within. Good luck!

He is wrong about that vote being the key. Many people opposed to Unity voted YES. The building of a viable opposition takes a lot of coalescing of forces to create a political movement. Seeing things evolve over the years there's room for hope. New Action's desertion has left a void in the infrastructure of an opposition. No matter how ineffective they were as an opposition, they did have the ability to get literature out. TJC started building 15 years ago but with New Action still around, the going was slow. Once it was clear they were aligning with Unity TJC began to have much greater success. ICE, starting out 3 years ago also has been building infrastructure and the election process is part of that building effort. No matter what the result in this election, the opposition is not going away. And if we should see the farce of New Action holding 8 Exec Bd seats, Unity 81 and ICE and TJC none, there is no better demonstration of the lack of democracy in the UFT.

Next: New Action History Lesson 1

See you at tonight's UFT Exec Bd meeting. Come on down. I'll be hovering over the ribs.