UFT DA Tidbits - Endorsing Mamdani, ABC and ARISE/Unity Reactions Differ, District 30 CLs Protest Firings

Sunday, July 20, 2025 

I started writing this on July 9th, the day after the special endorsement delegate assembly and nice weather and wasting lots of time watching TV at night led to avoidance. Plus others kept writing on the issue and I kept adding links to the point this has become a mess. I will not be deterred. For those intrepid souls willing to wade through this, I offer, up front, a few key takeaways while I put most of what I've been writing on hold for a follow-up. 

I am struck, though not surprised, at the very different reactions of the ABC crew compared to the effusive praise coming from both the Unity and the ARISE coalition members (MORE, Retiree Advocate Organizers, New Action). 

Unity people fall in line. If Mulgrew had endorsed Cuomo you would see the same level of effusivity. If he endorsed Adams, the same. Nosferatu? Hell Yes.

ARISE coalition members adhere to ideology over process (and democracy). People from the ARISE coalition groups supported Mamdani all the way and are extremely excited to see their fave endorsed by the UFT. Let's point out that Unity, MORE, New Action and Retiree Advocate are all legacy caucuses and if you don't support the basic ideology of the caucus (as I often have not) you are made to feel extremely uncomfortable - as I have been made to feel within the dozen member RA Organizing committee, which has operated on consensus, except when it doesn't.

The 3 oppo legacy caucuses echoed their UFT election misjudgements and jumped to support a bad process because of their caucus' support for a particular candidate who comes close to their groups' ideological favorite. 

A MORE tweet bragged: This is what a real Delegate Assembly looks like -- and posted this graphic  

The delegate red area included almost every officer in the room getting to speak plus assorted other Unity stalwarts. But the first speaker on the phone just happened to be a prominent MORE and ARISE and Mulgrew made sure to call on the co-chairman of New Action -- shades of bipartisanship.

The entire charade was "caucus member driven", not rank and file member driven.  

I'm sure MORE and New Action did not have time to take a vote of their members. MORE didn't have to.  It would be very unlikely to be in MORE and not be for Mamdani. No zionists left there. What about New Action? Their co-chair spoke for Mamdani at the DA but not for the caucus. As far as I know NAC did not formally endorse. But when it comes to RA, which is almost half made up of NAC, it did endorse. That is problematical since there were 300 people elected with RA and were not consulted. Only the 12 member RA Organizers (a steering committee of sorts) endorsed. I was the lone voice of opposition and while I personally support Mamdani, I objected to branding RA in this manner by ignoring voice of RA supporters, many of whom are concerned about confusion around Mamdani's support for the retiree struggle.

ABC does not view itself as a caucus with a firm set of beliefs one has to adhere to in order to "join." Actually there is no "joining". Anyone, no matter where they stand - within reason of course, is welcome under the idea of "leave your personal politics at the door", which came under much criticism from ARISEers. So while many ABCer affiliated support Mamdani, some do not. ABC believes in a big tent, which seems to enrage some ARISEers who turn up their noses at mingling with what they consider "deplorables". Imagine if ABC tried to engage in an endorsement process --- oy! 

So that is how ABC looked at the UFT endorsement process on such quick notice without internal discussion -- 

At the July 8 emergency DA I handed out this leaflet from ABC, making the point that I personally supported Mamdani:

• The UFT’s Endorsement Process Is Broken:  We need a member-led process with transparency, healthy debate, and accountability. We stand on our platform position that members should vote for major political endorsements. Creating a transparent, member-led endorsement process

 ABC made this prediction and it came true:

There may be some scripted debate. A rushed vote. But the outcome is already decided. And this outcome has the potential to damage our solidarity. This is not a democratic process. It’s a performance. And it’s insulting.

 One ABCer, a Mamdani supporter, did get a comment in at the DA and pointed out he would like time to get input from the staff at his school that elected him - and urged a delay until September to try to engage people and build support -- give some scrutiny to the awful alternatives and time to counter some of the ridiculous attacks like free buses (but not free Staten Island ferry) is socialistic.

Cheering the 63% vote at the DA is a false flag as to where the members stand. For all we know a majority may be against and how does that play out in the context of the UFT endorsement - often a kiss of death to a candidate? Some have been pulling COPE in response. Double OY!!

Revolt in District 30 (Astoria and Jackson Hts): 

Oh, and don't forget the not insignificant revolt from District 30 over the firing of their district rep. 

While attention was focused on the Mamdani endorsement, another significant event occurred at the July 8th DA when CL and Del from District 30 (Astoria and Jackson Hts) protested the firing of Ashley Rzonca, their District Rep.  Was she viewed as too friendly with Amy? Others were fired for what looks like similar reasons. Mulgrew's crackdown is in line with other dictators who instead of reading the tea leaves  - 54% Unity vote - Unity defectors being a significant factor-  and redressing the issues, Mulgrew has doubled down, using fear which leads to loathing. Consider the District 30 firing a major unforced error. I pity the district rep they put in her place.

If you are free Tuesday, come on down: 

 

 

Ashley Rzonca speech at CEC 30 meeting:

 

See a video of protest.

 

 

 

District 30 Delegates Protest Firing of Dist Rep

 

CL Leah Lin Raises Point of Personal Privilege over firing of D. Rep Ashley Rzonca

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mulgrew had her mic turned off. 

 

Leah Lin video. I have to talk some more about the growth of Leah as a leader over the past 6 months - but not today.

 

Friendship with Amy led to Firings.  Coming soon to Unity Caucus?  Polygraphs to test loyalty.

More Leah Lin:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DL5mtkESWKk/?igsh=MTJ0ODJqN2ZtdzY5Nw%3D%3D    

 

UFT Election Winning Strategy - As Simple as ABC - Go Where the Votes Are and Meet the Candidates on Feb. 11

When bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robs banks he answered: Because that's where the money is.

I apply the same logic in response regarding UFT elections. I don't put down getting votes from anywhere -- The aim is to win and for those who don't realize --

If you really want to win go where the votes are. 

 

Otherwise you are running not to win, but to make a point. 

\

Now I do see people turning their noses up at some voters -- like Unity defectors or the non-lock step ideologues or heaven forbid, the potential 30-35% UFT Trump voters.  If you turn up your nose at potential voters, you don't want to win.

Saturday, Jan. 26, 2025

 

Many critics who attack me for daring to think outside the box, assume that if two slates run in the UFT election, it is impossible to beat Unity. 

 

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes

 

So let's look at how to to turn the impossible into the improbable into the possible: A win for ABC.

 

It may seem "improbable" for ABC to win, but I believe a win is impossible for ARISE in a 3-slate race. Thus, only a vote for ABC can turn the improbable into the possible and Sherlock says that must be the truth. 

Elementary, my dear Watson.

And on Feb. 11 you can meet the ABC candidates. http://rsvp.uftmembers.org

  

Unity Must Go in order to win

I've been accused of changing positions in mid-stream. I have always been in favor of one slate to challenge Unity. I also believed that we can't win unless we weaken Unity at its core -- in the schools where they have an army of chapter leaders and influencers, especially in the elementary schools where there are 36 thousand potential voters and Unity always wins big. (66% in 2022).

Going back to the late 90s and looking at a weak and ineffectual opposition back then, I decided that winning over people in Unity would be essential to winning an election and I initially aimed Ed Notes at appealing to Unity people who wanted change in the union. And I did get an audience. But the minute I made even the mildest criticism of the new leadership under Randi, I lost them. So I switched into full-blown oppo mode.  Now I see the first real opportunity for a permanent break in Unity at the in-service level to go along with the break in the retiree and para chapters.

 

In the past elections, winning a sliver, the high schools and maybe the middle schools was the realistic goal. But conditions have changed and I'm not interested in slivers. The idea of winning the entire enchilada is what has gotten people so excited. They seem to take winning for granted. I don't take anything for granted.

 

And conditions have certainly changed since the 2022 elections when every voice of the opposition was involved in United for Change.

 

I change due to changing conditions. And the numbers for UFC were not great. Somehow people think that the current version of UFC, a weakened ARISE - with 3 caucuses involved - two of which are no stronger than they were in 2022 - would win if they were the only ones running because the third caucus, RA, seems so much stronger based on its big win last June. My claim is that RA as an organizing group of 11, is not really stronger than it was in 2022 and in terms of a general UFT election it has the same limited direct outreach. RA won 63% due to the influx of voters, many from Unity, and many coming from Marianne's supporters. Many Unity voters may just drift back in a general election.

 

As a member of the RA org committee of 11, I was the lone dissenter from joining this coalition and urged RA to stay neutral, and could play a mediator role. MORE and New Action needed RA to be part of the coalition as a way to sell a winning strategy because both of them, which aim at the in-service people, understand they have failed to attract a wide enough following with in-service people to win without the retirees. My position has been that the oppo have opposed the impact of retirees on elections for decades but now are switching course in mid-stream and that to win an election loaded with retirees would be destabilizing and further alienate the in-service where a majority are on Tier 6. How do they feel about being led by people who are on Tier 1, as ARISE is offering?

I try not to stick with a pattern of a losing strategy. In 2022 I believed in all caucuses and non-caucuses should get together in United for Change. And the outcomes of that effort was disappointing, to the point I have been willing to look at alternate ideas. I am still for one slate, but not the same kind of election management under caucus guidance, like UFC was. Instead I believe in one slate under a broad based and group of individuals capable of growth from the ground up, whether people are in a caucus or not --- but not to allow a small group of people to make the basic decisions -- call it a steering committee -- instead to open up the process to the broader based UFT membership. In other words, we don't just want your vote in May, we want you involved from the ground up in the entire process.

 

So let's go back to the opening question: where are the votes? 

Certainly retirees where 39% return ballots and the recent flip from Unity in the RTC election is major. Clearly, many former Unity voters flipped over the Medicare issue and voted for RA. Will that flip hold for a general election? While those former Unity voters may have been pissed off enough at Mulgrew and Tom Murphy's role to vote them out, are they willing to turn over the entire union to a group consisting of RA, New Action and MORE, with MORE being the dominant player in this group? Frankly, I don't think so.

But given another alternative that includes a number of people who have left Unity, these voters may feel they have another place to go rather than go back to Unity. It's as simple as ABC.

Where else can we find votes? Remember the Para election where Fix Para Pay won 75% in an admittedly low turnout vote in a para chapter that has 27k potential voters? Unity has noticed and is suddenly showing interest in making paras welcome, though fixing their pay is not on their agenda. But there is a group that is very committed to fighting for para pay and to fight for other things issues they want - like ILOD - Injury in Line of Duty protection and other issues beyond pay like some prep time. Can the para unit be energized to vote in this election and where are those votes likely to go? It's as simple as ABC.

Now how about the disaffected anti-Mulgrew Unity Caucus people? I don't mean the full-time staff who are clinging to their jobs, but the rank and file Unity people who are often chapter leaders, some with after school jobs? How many potential votes do they offer? The important issue in this case is can they bring their staffs and other Unity friends along with them, which could add up to thousands of votes? While there's no way to tell since most Unity are silent (though sending private encouragement), there are underground indications of a growing revolt, that if it catches on, will make a major dent in the Unity votes. And we have been seeing an erosion of Unity votes over the past elections. But Unity voters will not go to a MORE tinged group. It's as simple as ABC.

How about retirees? The assumption since June was that the same massive vote would go to Retiree Advocate. But they've aligned with MORE, leading to these comments on my last blog post:

John Q Teacher: I thought that RA was Mariannes's baby? Why would she abandon it and secretly endorse ABC? I'm confused. I really wish she would speak publicly about where she stands on who she is supporting.  

 

Anon: This shit is just too complicated to follow. I was a retiree. I will vote for whoever Marianne recommends. Stick that up your ass, Mr. Mulgrew.

Marianne has clearly leaned toward ABC, and made reference to ABC in public comments, sparking the Unity attacks on her. So where will her followers go? It's as simple as ABC.

Now, let's look at the vast unknown -- the 80% of working UFT members who don't vote. This is the territory that both Unity and the caucuses, following the same formula in every election, have not been able to mine. Why would they be more successful this time? 

 

Can a new campaign paradigm make a dent in the 80% non-voters? Here I won't claim It's as simple as ABC because it hasn't been successful before, so let's call this an interesting premise, that if proven correct, will make it as simple as ABC.

 

What are these new tactics? I ain't saying just yet as many ideas are still in process, but turnouts for ABC events have been very promising. And email lists are growing. I will get deeper into the unique experience I've had working with ABC in future posts.

 

ABC has a chance to win in a 3 way race by draining Unity votes and winning new voters in the schools and old voters from the retirees. Whether it works or not, we will learn a lot.

For my money, a vote for any group other then ABC is a wasted vote.

Everyone is invited to run with ABC. Sign up here.