UFT Election Petition Day at Delegate Assembly - I will sign all petitions

I remember leaving the 2013 UFT election count and going to a MORE "victory" party at a bar where there were almost 100 people waiting to celebrate our first election. What a far cry from that event we are today. Most of those people have disappeared.

There will be a lot of activity at the Delegate Assembly today as 4 caucuses begin circulating petitions for the upcoming UFT election - Unity, New Action, MORE and Solidarity. Expect some chaos.

In normal times today would be one of my busiest days of the year - like the last 5 UFT (04, 07, 10, 13, 16) election cycles.

Ellen Fox and I would have been running a military like operation getting petitions ready for people this afternoon. In 2016, on petition day at the DA, we had everything ready for people as the DA ended and we all went to a bar around the corner for a massive petition signing event. Over 50 people showed up. (Where are they now?)

Today, Ellen and myself will be watching the DA from the 19th floor. There is little election excitement with the outcome already decided. (I predict a lower turnout due to the confusion of 3 separate opposition slates on the ballot.)

But I will be downstairs until the meeting begins to sign anyone's petition.

I have been urging a boycott of the UFT elections, so signing petitions might seem hypocritical.

UFT elections are fundamentally a farce, yet every 3 year cycle all the opposition parties get sucked in. They argue elections are an opportunity for caucus building and organizing. It never happens and after the results are in people are burned out.

I view elections as busy work for small caucuses which often retards the real work of organizing that needs to be done.

And all three caucuses have been scrambling to get the 40 required people to form a slate (Unity will have 800 people getting signatures). That is shameful, since in 2016 we had 300 people running on MORE/NA and could have had hundreds more. What a waste of resources today.

Oh, caucus leaders make all sorts of excuses about getting the message out and reaching rank and file, etc. But they do not state flat out that they cannot win. In 2016 we were very open -- we said we could win the high schools and nothing else -- and I was attacked by the leader of another caucus as not wanting to win or being a defeatist. I think the outcome of the last election, where I predicted the rough totals before they came out, has proven the point.

Each of the caucuses, including Unity, are dominated by a tiny group who are in control, leaving most members on the fringe. So they use the elections every three years to pump people up and downplay any hints that they are running in a futile exercise. Then after the election, they go back to running the caucus the way they want. Democracy inside caucuses, no matter what they say, is very limited. We found that out in MORE where attempts to run a broad-based democratic group were shut down by one faction that gained total control.

But I will sign all petitions, as a social act.

At last count 3 former disaffected MOREs I am friendly with will be running on the Unity line - and when they explain why it makes sense I will publish their reasons. They all assure me they did not have to sign loyalty oaths and have been told they are free to be critical. Given the state of the opposition, having people with some freedom to be critical inside Unity may be the best option. That MORE lost people to Unity who are very progressive politically is a sign of the dysfunction on the part of the controlling faction. A number of former MOREs say they will vote Solidarity.

But I won't vote for my pals running with Unity -- nor for anyone individually, as only slate votes are reported. And of course I won't vote Unity. But I will waste my ballot in another way.

Right now I intend to use my ballot to make a statement - invalidating it by voting for all three opposition slates and writing United Front with a check mark. It would be great if more people did that. The only future for an opposition to Unity is to build a big tent caucus, which is what MORE started out being but has turned into something else.

While I am still a MORE, I have no issues with the other caucuses, but my political views on the whole still line up with some people in MORE, especially the few ICEers left. My gripe in MORE is with a certain faction, not the entire group. And I will delve more into this faction in the future. I would still urge people to join MORE and help move it in a more positive direction.

My election objection this time especially is to the inability of the opposition to come together. This is mostly the fault of the faction controlling the MORE caucus which wouldn't run with New Action as we did in 2016. I urged them to run with everyone or not run at all so as to give someone a chance to win. I lost.

New Action is also at fault, to a lesser extent, because they wouldn't run with Solidarity, which was willing to run with everyone. There was a split in New Action over this issue but the anti-Solidarity forces won out. (I will delve deeper into the whys another time.)

But legitimate questions were raised as to the viability of Solidarity as a caucus and also worries by the liberal wing over an appeal to right wing populism. (I already noted one candidate who I would never vote for.) Not only because they didn't get a slate in the 2016 elections, but also because they have had almost no presence in the activities in the UFT since the last election and only have come to life for this election. However, many of us have lightened up on criticism of them and I may even attend one of their events.

The reality is that even if all groups did come together, they could at most win the high schools (a good bet) and the middle schools (a long shot). As for elementary schools - no shot. And that is the key to organizing -- reaching deep into elementary schools for the opposition would be a game changer in the union. And getting people inside the functional chapters. (Assume the OT/PTs will vote opposition on the whole.)

That was my original goal in MORE. To build a structure that went deep into the schools. The 2013 election was a base mark. I remember leaving the 2013 election count and going to a MORE "victory" party at a bar where there were almost 100 people waiting to celebrate our first election. What a far cry from that event we are today. Most of those people have disappeared.

The 2016 election built on that and I expected to make more gains in the 2019, especially in the elementary and middle schools. There are a lot of reasons for the crash in MORE that has dashed all these hopes for the prospect of building a force to challenge Unity. That analysis is for another time.

Unity Caucus to Independents: We'll Waive Loyalty Oath and Joining Unity

With UFT elections upon us, Unity Caucus leaders, well aware of UFT activists alienated by the ideologically restricted environment of the MORE Caucus, have been actively recruiting people who have a history of being critics of UFT policy.

One of the carrots they are offering is not having to sign the Unity loyalty oath which forces members of the caucus to support all policies, even if they disagree.

They are even offering deals where there is no requirement to even join the caucus. This is unprecedented and shows the influence of the Janus decision.

Why would Unity, faced with the weakest opposition in decades - meaning they will have no voice of opposition on the Ex Bd and barely one in the delegate assembly - take this step?

Unity attempts to create its own opposition
Word filtered back at the concerns within the top levels of union leadership over what happened in MORE, which was seen at the main opposition.

My analysis is that Unity has taken this step because they are nervous about the repercussions in the age of Janus in having an entire union Ex Bd with no political diversity would open them up to attacks from the anti-union forces as a sign of a one party non-democratic system.

Populism in the UFT?
I also feel that with MORE moving to the fringe, they fear the growth of a populist movement inside the UFT that may not operate under the usual opposition "rules of engagement" -sort of an old-boys and girls network of well behaved oppositionists.

Think of wild cat strike in red states and in Oakland (The Wildcat Underground: Oakland Teachers Pull Wildcat). Imagine a rogue school going off the rails! Just as Unity controls the membership, the opposition caucuses control the spigot of activism, channeling it into traditional lanes. Or even worse, an opposition movement urging people to leave the UFT and find another bargaining agent. They know MORE would never go in that direction.

You are free to speak openly
The story I am told is that Unity/UFT officials have offered a guarantee of freedom to speak openly. Maybe. I would bet that no matter what they say, not being opposed to the recent contract is a requirement.

There is no little irony that Unity on the surface is appearing to be more open than MORE. As one former MORE said to me, "If MORE is less democratic than Unity and throws people out who disagree, why not go with Unity, which at least has the toys?"

I don't necessarily agree but I can understand the thinking which was expressed to me this way:

"MORE blew up the opposition"
I see MORE having no future and none of the other caucuses either, especially in this divided election. If everyone ran together, we would have had a chance to win some positions. But now running with any of them is a losing proposition and faced with having no chance to impact union policy, why not let Unity endorse me? As long as I don't have to sign a loyalty oath and can maintain my freedom to be critical of union policy with the aim of pushing it in a progressive direction- why not?

I pushed back, feeling Unity was just using opposition people to give themselves cover as being "democratic."

"So what? MORE's blowing up the idea of a serious opposition in this election is a game changer. Point, set, match to Unity."

Probably right but I can still believe that out of the ashes of the opposition in this election, something may rise post-election, though not very likely.

I have urged people considering taking this step to run on an independent line in the UFT elections or form a mini-caucus so people who can't bear voting for Unity but who want to vote for them would have that option.

I myself am ambivalent. I have urged a boycott of what is even in the best of times for the opposition, a rigged election. I actually wanted to see Unity have all the seats and no opposition as a way to make a point.

I may write in some names or vote for all 3 caucuses, even if that invalidates the ballot, as a "vote" for a united front.

But maybe I will vote for my friends on an independent line anyway because as good old Ricky once said to Lisa, "the problems associated with a UFT election doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

UFT Elections: The Caucus of Goldstein and Schirtzer - Will They Throw Their Hat into the Ring?

Here is an astounding idea. Get yourself a pal and form a caucus and even though you need 40 to get a slate on the ballot, you can still get 2 pages in the NY Teacher in two separate issues to promote your ideas. That seems to be the outcome of rulings by the election committee, endorsed by the UFT Ex Bd at the Jan. 7 meeting.

As reported by Arthur in his Ex Bd Notes:

NYC Educator

UFT Executive Board January 7, 2018--We Support LA Teachers and Discuss Election

LeRoy Barr— All caucuses will get ads regardless of whether they have enough candidates to form a slate. 

NOTE: In the 2016 elections, Solidarity did not get a slate but did get the 2 pages in the NY Teacher, which we thought was Unity's way of trying to siphon votes from us. 

 Arthur Goldstein—If Mike Schirtzer and I decide that we want to run as a caucus, can we get 2 pages in the NY teacher for Schirtzer Goldstein caucus-The two of us could run and get two pages in NY Teacher to promote our duo--is that what Im hearing?
Barr—Those who don’t meet requirement want to have representation in NY Teacher. If you are saying you have two, will assume that is correct.
Washington Sanchez—In essence, what Arthur said is correct. The committee did not want to prevent this. We didn’t think that would happen. Committee reserved right to come back and revisit the issue. Was lengthy discussion, many different views. Because of Janus we did not want anyone to feel slighted.
Michael Shulman—Basically, what LeRoy laid out was essence of discussion. Was not unanimous. Some raised same concern Arthur did. Decision was any caucus would be allowed two pages. We will follow the practice of allowing space. Independents were given space in NY teacher. Perhaps individuals will get space allotted in line with what has taken place in past. 

And thus was born the caucus of Goldstein/Schirtzer. Will they toss their hat in the UFT Election ring? Will others join the caucus? Since they will not get the required 40 people in time to get on the ballot, they can run as independents and invite any of the other caucuses to endorse them.

Hey James! The caucus of Eterno/Scott? Nahhh! We have golf games to play.

Of course we know the game Unity is playing - divide and conquer.

The more the merrier and the more they can fragment the opposition. But speaking of MORE, guess who did the fragmenting of the opposition?

Petitions become available at the Jan. 16 Delegate Assembly. Come on down and become a caucus.

Breaking UFT Election News: A Gaggle of Caucuses Throw Their Wings Into the Race

Ed. Notes has learned exclusively that even more caucuses will be running in the UFT elections [in addition to the current ones, New Action, Solidarity and MORE.] The more caucuses the merrier. I may join every caucus - and vote for all of them too.


Ed. Notes reprint from Spring ‘99.

Here are the names of the groups and their basic platforms: 

SERIOUSLY INACTIVE CAUCUS (SIC): Will do nothing after announcing they are going to run.

TELEPATHIC INDEPENDENT CAUCUS (TIC): Will put out no leaflets, but will reach out by projecting their thoughts. 

PULL-OUT INDEPENDENT PARTY (PIP): Proposes that every teacher should be a pull-out teacher.

PUSH IN CAUCUS (PIC): Split from PIP. Wants every teacher to be a push-in teacher. 

PARTY OF ENERGY CAUCUS (PEC): Wants a health club in every school.

New Inaction Caucus (NIC): Self-explanatory.

POLITICAL ACTION for TEACHERS (PAT): Every teacher should run for office in UFT elections.  

PAY EVERY TEACHER A LOT (PETAL): Advocates accelerated payments for teachers. 

CAUCUS in OPPOSITION TO POLITICAL ENTITIES (COPE): Union shouldn’t engage in political activity.

Rumor has it that PIC, PAC and PEC will merge and be known as: PIC ‘A PAC ‘O PEC 'O.

Logo got Pic 'o pac 'o

There are reports of a merger of Unity Caucus and Progressive Action Caucus. 

This new caucus will tentatively be known as:  
UNPAC or PACUP, UP-NAC, PAC-NU, PUAC, CUP, PUC,  UPCHUCK.

UFT ELECTIONS ARE COMING! - 2001 edition --- If an opposition party runs in a union election and no one notices, did it really run?

I'm running a series from the Ed Notes archives on UFT Elections Past, where the ghost of ed notes makes an appearance to haunt the modern Scrooges in the UFT and use the past to show the opposition parties in the UFT the future - unless they change their ways.

That very same ghost of Ed Notes past also haunts me as I see how my views have changed over the years. Ed Notes published in hard copy from 1998-2005. Revisiting this history might be of some use for activists in the UFT. Or maybe not.

Reprinted from Ed Notes, Feb. 2001, Volume 4, No. 3

NOTE: New Action (NAC) was the dominant opposition group after the merger of two caucuses (TAC and New Directions) in 1995. 

The marginal Progressive Action Caucus (PAC) was formed in 1997/8 by a former leader of New Directions, Marc Pessin, to focus mostly in defense of teachers under attack over their licenses. Their vote totals were around 2-3%.

Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC) was not an election caucus until 2004 the same year ICEUFT formed as an outcome of the organizing efforts of Ed Notes.

[UFT] ELECTIONS ARE COMING! - 2001 edition
There’s an old joke about some political groups: Put 2 of them in a room and they’ll split into 3 groups. That seems to have happened to the opposition parties in the upcoming elections.  

New Action/UFT (NAC) and Progressive Action Caucus (PAC) are both running against Unity Caucus. It is not clear what role Teachers for a Just Contract will play. 

An email from Marc Pessin explains PAC’s position:  
“We will be running our own slate in order to project a radical education program. However we will run NAC candidates on our slate so as not to divide the opposition in areas like the JHS and HS where we have a chance of winning if NAC agrees. We will back their candidates. Others in our group also might want to run on the NAC slate as well.” 

This is a significant change from the ‘99 election where PAC ran a slate that almost prevented NAC from winning the HS Exec. Bd. seats. PAC now takes a rational approach to the UFT elections: run to make people aware of your point of view and don’t compromise your point of view to pander to the voters. Unity has so stacked the deck that it is impossible to win other than in certain select areas (See accompanying article “How Unity Stacks the Deck”). 

NAC has taken a different tack, attempting to find a broader base of support. But NAC often seems to appeal to the least common denominator, at times seeming to base its positions on the common bond of merely being anti-Unity. NAC has had a fairly low profile so far, considering the importance with which they view elections. (ie. No literature at the Jan. DA and a lack of coherance at Exec. Bd. meetings.) 

Ed. Notes will have an article in a future issue titled “The NAC Election Campaign: The Sounds of Silence” which poses the age-old philisophical question: If an opposition party runs in a union election and no one notices, did it really run? It will deal with the promises and failures of NAC. 

UFT Election Update: I'm a Petition Consultant

UPDATE: I was accused by someone in one of the other caucuses of favoring Solidarity in this post since both New Action and MORE have experienced people who know how to petition. I reject this idea. I feel that over the past 5 election cycles I have learned a lot about petitioning from experience. In 2004 and 2007, Ira Goldfine led the effort and he is one of the smartest people I know and he came up with some new wrinkles the other caucuses weren't using. I embellished what I learned from Ira. In 2016 I ran the campaign for MORE/NA in using my system. If I do say so myself it was the most efficient petition campaign run so far and we had what we needed 10 days early and turned everything in days before they were due. (I brought in Julie Woodward, the most organized person I've every met, on the Saturday before things were due to lead the collating of the petitions - the smartest thing I did.)

So what you find below is for any caucus that is running. In fact I hope there are even more groups - all you need is 40 to run. So since there are already 3 to split the vote, why not others?

I am the self-proclaimed UFT election petition czar. Along with Ellen Fox. We ran the MORE 2013 petition campaign and the 2016 MORE/New Action campaign. We also ran the 2010 ICE petitioning. So along the way I've learned a lot of lessons. By 2016 I had the process nailed down. I'm so happy to be sitting this election out. The pressure was intense and took 6 weeks out of my life. We ran 300 candidates and a lot of trees died for us.

It is no surprise that I am getting requests for advice and despite urging a boycott of the election, I am maintaining friendly relations with all caucuses and non-caucuses associated with the UFT. So if asked I offer advice. Petitions will be available at the January 16 Delegate Assembly.

With 3 caucuses running this time, each will be running a more limited campaign with less candidates --- probably aiming for the 40 minimum needed with a bumper of 10 extra in case people get bumped. (Last time we had some people bumped - ie - not a UFT member.) If you come in with 40 and one gets bumped you don't have a slate.

Here are a few basics:
You can run all 11 officers on one petition, which needs 900 signatures. In 2013 I made the mistake of only giving this petition to the people in large schools and was pressed at the end. In 2016 I gave everyone a copy (you can make copies after you fill in all the info for the candidates). I made 100 copies and ended up with almost 3000 signatures. Any UFT member can sign. By the way -- there is only room for 60 sigs on one petition, so give people in big schools two copies.

At-large:
These are positions where any UFT can sign. That includes 48 Ex Bd and the 750-800 AFT/NYSUT delegates. You need 100 sigs for each candidate. Everyone who runs should carry their own petition and the officer petition.

Divisions - Ex Bd: These are where things get complicated. Each division can only be signed by people in the division. Which means if you are working your school you cannot have a functional sign for a teacher and vice versa. So it gets complicated.

There are 4 divisions: elementary (11), middle (5), high school (7) and functional (19), which includes retirees. Each needs 100 sigs.

I set up packets for people to carry around in their schools where they could get people to sign for all the candidates running in their division. Some found that people balked at signing for people they didn't know. It is tough to get 100 sigs in your own school, so the packets was a way around by getting a lot of people to try to get 20 - 30. Our elem people carried 11 petitions plus the officer and it took a lot of time. In 2016 MORE's Dan Lupkin was the champ, not only getting 15 colleagues to run, but also coming up with about 70 signatures on all 11 petitions. And he did it in a week. That took the pressure off on the elem schools.

Middle schools are always tough because there are not as many pure middle schools. K-8 counts as elem and 6-12 as high schools. So technically  MS are 6-8 only. Only 5 petitions to carry around. In 2016 MORE's Kevin Prossen was the champ with almost 90 sigs and for New Action Greg Di Stefano came through with the Staten Island MS.

High school is easy - in big schools. Arthur Goldstein alone covered them all for all 7 candidates. I went there to help him organize the signing. We also had a packet of 19 for functionals -- this is the toughest one. Finding only non-teachers in a school. I remember we got about 20-25 in Arthur's school. Ellen Fox did major work with this packet.

Depending on the number of candidates, you will still need to hold signing parties where you invite people for pizza and petitioning.

In 2007 and 2010 ICEUFT ran massive signing parties at Murry Bergtraum HS hosted by John Elfrank. We had 50 or more people show up to sign hundreds of blank petitions. These are tricky to organize, so be careful here. Ira Goldfine had the brilliant idea to get people to agree to sign in advance and we printed their name, school and file # on a master and then made hundreds of copies. All they had to do at the signing parties was sign their names 2-300 times next to their printed name. Took very little time - considering.

Well, good luck everyone. Have fun. I know I am.

UFT Caucus and Election History: 1962 - Present

Click on image to enlarge

UFT Election History - Updated*

Produced by Norm Scott, Education Notes

Early 60s – a few election campaigns between various Unity factions. Shanker takes power in 1964 election.
1969-1975 – TAC only caucus to run. (TAC descended from left-leaning Teacher Union). Gets roughly 25% of vote.

1975: Massive budget cuts come after election and strike in fall of '75--- All caucuses work to oppose the deal Unity makes with the city that leads to massive cuts. This is the opportunity to build a united opposition but instead---
1975-76: Coalition of School Workers (social justice oriented),
New Directions (bread and butter) emerges from split with CSW.

1977 election: TAC and Coalition of School Workers - United FightBack. (Note that hirsute guy 2nd from the top on the right.)
Two left-leaning caucuses combine bread and butter and social justice.
New Directions refused to join and runs own slate focused on bread and butter.
Outcome: 25-30% opposition vote split between two slates with ND getting a few % higher.

1979 – I don’t remember. I think my group - the Coalition of School Workers may have sat this out rather than have more than one caucus run against Unity. Or I might be getting 1977 confused with 1979.

1981: New Action Coalition - NAC
New Directions agrees to join election coalition between TAC and CSW only on condition that Marc Pessin be presidential candidate. Full slate of 800 people run. Focused on bread and butter in attempt to build opposition forces.

1983-1995: NAC runs as coalition of caucuses.
1985: Michael Shulman Wins HS VP but Unity refuses to seat him. (In 1994 Unity changes rules to prevent this from happening again by making VP elections at-large.)
1991: NAC wins 13 Ex Bd seats – HS and JHS - most ever.
1993: NAC wins no seats
1995: NAC wins 6 HS seats. TAC and New Directions merge to form New Action/UFT after election.
1995-2001: New Action wins HS seats in every election.*
1997: PAC caucus emerges to fight for those threatened with losing licenses – runs in election as a 2nd opposition slate to New Action. New Action puts two PAC high school Ex Bd people on its slate of 6 candidates. They win the HS seats.
*1999: NA and PAC run completely separately but PAC vote totals are 2% and NA wins HS Ex Bd in 3 way race - a very rare event.
*2001: PAC runs independent campaign but cross endorsed some NA candidates. Two NA Ex Bd candidates refuse PAC endorsement and do not appear on their slate but they win anyway in another 3 way race.

2001: UFT Elections changed to 3 years from 2 years.
2003: NA makes deal with Unity for HS EX Bd seats by not running against Randi for president. Emergence of TJC and ICE to push back against New Action deal with Unity.
2004: ICE and TJC – run independent campaigns and appear on ballot separately. There are 4 lines on ballot; Unity, NA, ICE, TJC. ICE and TJC cross endorse high schools and win 6 seats, leaving NA off EX Bd for first time since 1994.
2007, 2010: TJC and ICE run on one ballot line, leaving members with choice of NA and ICE/TJC --- NA candidates cross endorsed by Unity.

2013: MORE emerges from merger of ICE/TJC and others; Ballot line includes NA and MORE. Gets around 8500 votes.

2016: MORE and NA run on one line. Solidarity emerges but doesn’t get enough candidates to get a ballot line. Thus members see only Unity and one alternative for first time since 1995. But Solidarity running as individuals gets 1400 votes for president. MORE gets almost 11,000 votes.


=======

I have always believed history counts. It counts a lot and trying to make decisions without seeing what the road looks like behind you before venturing forward. Most younger people aren't that interested in looking backward but want to forge their own path - and end up making the same mistakes. I know I did.

With my generation of activists in the UFT leaving the field and a new group of people taking over the role, it will be interesting to see what happens. I and others who have been involved in the past may be sitting this election out unless there is an intriguing reason to get involved.

With UFT elections coming soon and MORE discussing the issue at the Nov. 17 meeting, I put together a history of UFT caucuses and a brief history of UFT elections. Mostly this is from memory so if there are errors let me know.

The lesson I see is that caucuses split, merge, dissolve, etc and Unity prevails, holding on to the same level of power or increasing it. Witness the 87% approval of the contract.

Since the formation of MORE I have believed that the membership is only confused by multiple opposition groups, even when they come together for elections and then go their separate ways. I had always hoped MORE would evolve into one big umbrella group. Instead the opposite seems to have occurred.

Look at the chart above over the 50 years that I have been active. All models seemed to have failed in building a force to challenge Unity. Even when New Action seemed to be the major opposition force from the mid-90s through 2003, they way they ran the caucus turned others off. Thus we had PAC, TJC with its own voice, Ed Notes which led to ICE and in the 2004 elections there was fragmentation once again. ICE and TJC which functioned form 2004-2010 elections barely worked together due to ideological differences. When ICE announced a new caucus there was a big reaction from people who left New Action and felt uncomfortable in TJC's rigid ideological jacket.

I supported the idea of MORE as a big tent and continue to believe in one opposition group under an umbrella that could hold diverse views -- sort of like the Democratic Party -- a place where ideas can be fought out but at the end of the day everyone is united in opposition to Unity. We seem far from that today -- the opposition may be more divided than it has been since the 70s.

My views have evolved - I lean to an uncaucus - don't make your own caucus the central issue but focus on the interests of the membership.

Let's face it -- Unity will never lose. Even the people in Solidarity who seemed to believe they could win in 2016 have faced reality.

MORE and New Action understand that the most that could be won are high school seats and if properly organized, middle school seats 12 seats out of 100. Is it all worth it? Even when you win Ex Bd seats, there is a tendency to make the activity of the opposition focus on the EB where you have only a tiny sliver of say. I think that happened to MORE and caused all sorts of problems. Some people seemed to become obsessed over what the EB people were doing instead of going forth and organizing.

A case for running
Though I have doubts even about this, it only makes sense to run as one opposition. Two slates on the ballot. Unity and the opposition. I've been promoting the idea of something called United FightBack where all those opposed to Unity could gather. (We used that in the 1977 campaign.)

A case for not running
Elections often become internally divisive. In the past few elections I've urged people not to run in the elections but to use the process to focus an issue-oriented campaign and even get Unity to take part. Focus on the issues, not on an election that most UFT members don't bother to vote in.

The opposition received over 12,000 votes in the last election but end up with 7 out of 100 seats on the Ex Bd and no delegates to the AFT and NYSUT conventions. There is a lot of work and effort for very little outcome.

The UFT election process is corrupt and a formal boycott with a campaign pointing out how corrupt it is and saying we won't participate in this process and calling for reforms is a legitimate position to take.

UFT Contract Vote: Where are the numbers? Lack of Transparency Leads to conspiracy theories

"Hey, Norm, I bet they began counting the ballots the minute you were out the door." Comment on my post on "observing" the contract vote last Friday.

I've always pretty much accepted the results to the AAA counts on elections and contract votes, especially when I was able to observe the counts. I saw ballots being pulled from envelopes early Friday afternoon. Why weren't they being put in counting machines?

This one took a hell of a long time and I pretty much accepted the story. But I also expected the detailed results to be published. Details like the % and hard numbers for each of the 14 contracts and also the % of those who voted on each contract. I would also like to see the numbers on each of the divisions - high schools, middle schools and elementary schools.

These numbers are available as every voter was checked off on master lists. But I will say that the primitive nature of how this count was conducted makes the voting snafus we saw yesterday look mild.

I went to the UFT Ex Bd meeting on Monday night expecting to get some real numbers on the contract vote, which according to UFT officials, went through Saturday and into Sunday morning. It didn't happen. I'm sorry the non-Unity Ex Bd people didn't push harder for answers. But only 3 of them were there, two from New Action.

We were told that the turnout was the same as in 2014 which I thought was over 90% but apparently it wasn't. I heard a number like 79%. MORE is reporting 70% voted as a sign that the 30% non-voters are a sign of protest, or disinterest, but I don't know where the numbers are coming from.

I was at the count in 2014 and I remember it all taking place in one day so I can't quite understand the delays.

People are contacting me and casting some doubts on the process and maybe even the outcomes.

Tossing out the 87% YES vote as the major outcome is misleading.
The reports on Sunday were that 80-85% of the teachers voted YES was confusing. My guess this is UFT/Unity spin --- where are the exact numbers?

The UFT leadership needs to get out the numbers ASAP as transparency is important and I hope they put out a fact sheet at the Delegate Assembly today. If there are still the same sketchy reports then I may jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon.

School Scope: UFT Contract Passes, Pre-Midterm Thoughts

My column submitted to The WAVE for Nov. 9, 2018.

Written Monday, Nov. 5.
School Scope: UFT Contract Passes, Pre-Midterm Thoughts
By Norm Scott

As further proof that I don’t have a life, I did my due diligence as an unpaid reporter for The WAVE by spending over half a day last Friday at the American Arbitration Association (AAA) attempting to observe the vote count for the new UFT contract. It turned into 5 hours of watching 30 workers opening over 100,000 outer, then inner envelopes before a nugget of a ballot with either a YES or NO or a “Go to hell” written on it emerged, to be stacked and ready for counting. Since there were 14 separate contracts being voted on, there were 14 colored ballots. I can’t imagine the range of 14 colors once we get beyond the primary ones.

UFT Contract Vote and UFT Election Update: The Split in the Opposition Doesn't Help

I am setting the over/under for this contract at 89% approval as that was the yes vote in 2006, the last early  contract.

James Eterno on ICEUFT Blog

HANDICAPPING THE CONTRACT RATIFICATION PERCENTAGES -

With UFT elections coming in the winter/spring and the contract vote ending today, there is a connection between the two events. With Eterno predicting 89% YES, I won't go that far.

My guess on the contract vote outcome on the teachers contract will be anywhere from 75% to 93% YES. The Unity campaign could only be counteracted by a strong NO campaign. It didn't happen.

[This is a reworking of my previous post: UFT Contract Vote Scorecard Update - Who's For and Who's Against?]

75% would be a major victory for MORE and ICEUFT blog, which led the VOTE NO campaign with yeoman work by James Eterno on the ICE blog, though Solidarity Caucus, with less outreach, also opposed. James' work has impressed people in MORE and there seems to be some healing going on since the rancor last April. The contract issue has closed a bit of the gap between ICE and MORE, though some ICEers are still outraged at the undemocratic behavior of MORE. (I promise to get into these weeds at some point.) How many NO votes can be attributed to the campaigns?

I think James' post, which by the last weekend had 14,000 hits, may have been the most effective of all:  EVERYTHING BUT THE KITCHEN SINK ON WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE NO.  But he has kept up a constant drumbeat.

Also see this excellent piece on the MORE blog:

Movement of Rank and File Educators

NYC teacher union loses all of the battles it never fights - The new UFT-DOE contract makes no change in the 50-year wait for lower class sizes, a fair grievance procedure, and a rational job security process, among ...

I know class size reductions cost money, but to leave this ragged grievance procedure in place is criminal.

New Action leader and Ex Bd member Jonathan Halabi urged a YES vote with reservations. New Action as a group has not even met on the issue so they have not taken a position. This is a problem for MORE. And for New Action. How do you run in the UFT elections against Unity without a position on the contract?

Two elected MORE/NA Ex Bd reps, Goldstein and Schirtzer, are strong YES votes. My beef with them is that it seems OK to wait another 50 years for grievance procedure or real class size relief. Two observations and parental leave are victories but let's keep an eye on where we should have been going. MORE will continue to lobby on the contract.

I'm going to wager that the lack of a strong unified NO campaign will push the YES votes higher. But if the numbers are similar to 2014 where we had a stronger campaign that will be a sign of unhappiness in the rank and file. But much higher means an accepting rank and file of Unity rule. Don't tell me, as I heard someone say, that people voted YES holding their noses. A YES is a YES.

ICEUFT is having its monthly meeting tomorrow to discuss the contract vote and election possibilities.

I am observing the count most of the day but it probably won't be completed by the meeting and besides I cannot share the outcomes with people no matter how much rice pudding they shove down my mouth. (UFT Contract Vote Count Friday - Embagoed Till Sunday).

I am guessing based on previous contract votes where there were Vote NO campaigns. The most effective was in 1995 when teachers voted down the contract. One thing people may not know is that one division of the union can turn down their contract while others may vote yes. I was not yet active in the UFT other than as a chapter leader focused on my own school and I would bet my efforts there helped the school to a NO vote.

In 2005 ICE and TJC led a massive campaign, with rallies at the DA and the UFT and the vote count was intense -- close to 40% of the teachers voted NO. New Action, in alliance with Unity, was not part of the movement though they did issue a leaflet in opposition.

In 2014, MORE led the Vote NO with about 20,000 leaflets handed out as we went around to schools stuffing mailboxes. (Old vets like Eterno and I were somewhat disappointed in the MORE effort.)

Teachers voted 75% in favor but with 92% voting the 25% against came to 16,000 votes and there was another 4000 NOs from other divisions.

This time MORE led a Vote No campaign, but due to its internal issues that have led to a shrunken MORE, there was limited outreach in the schools but a more effective campaign on multi-media. MORES seem to think that in the schools they are in and active, there will be a NO vote -- I agree but there are too few of them.

The OT (Occupational Therapy) teachers are most upset as they were in 2014 where they did ratify the contract despite reports they were organizing to turn it down and this time they seem to be furious, so I will keep an eye on their vote. Expect paras to vote overwhelmingly -- maybe 95% YES.

UFT Election confusion

A contract vote over 85% would make the UFT election pretty much a waste of time. And many veteran opposition people are talking about sitting it out.

Here is what is clear. Things look bleak if not impossible to have one group opposing Unity -- which would be the only way to win the high school seats this time.

MORE in no way will run with Solidarity -- At the MORE meeting on Saturday someone branded it as a right wing group. I pushed back but apparently the Don't Tread on Me symbol is used on the far right and in the current political environment that is being used as a reason. Some people in New Action are using the same argument. Solidarity should address this issue publicly.

MORE may not even be willing to run with New Action due to the fact that NA is not taking a stand against the contract and Jonathan put out a YES vote. There would have to be some backsliding on its NO campaign to run Halabi as an Ex Bd member, though I can see that happening.

 

It was also pointed out that NA wants to focus on winning the high school seats. MORE does not agree -- that focusing on winning the high schools is a distraction and it wants to get its message out to all levels.

MORE does want the work NA would do in the election, since they are retired  mostly and would relieve the working MORE people to some extent, though given the last time when I handled the petition campaign for the election, NA can only contribute a limited number of signatures. So the bulk would have to come from the MORE people. But they would run a limited slate so that would take some pressure off.

What NA offers is a distribution campaign but NA would most likely put out its own lit instead of pushing the MORE line. 

 

But there is division in NA over running with Solidarity -- they are the "one opposition" people -- that there is almost no point in running if there are two opposition parties, while the other portion of NA wants to run only with MORE. A recent vote in NA leaned toward the pro-Solidarity people but that is still being revisited.

 

If the pro-Solidarity people lose they will not be involved in the election and that limits NA's distribution.

If MORE runs at all - which it probably will -- and probably with some accommodation with New Action if NA decides to abandon an alliance with Solidarity....

....it will be a limited campaign with the purpose of pushing it's political line on the contract and social justice issues. And a good chance it may run on its own. It has experienced people from Teachers for a Just Contract to run a limited campaign like they did when ICE ran with them -- they never put forth a lot of candidates.

The pro-election faction wants to use the campaign to push the "contract we deserve" campaign rather than focus on winning the high school seats.

There are people in MORE who do not feel MORE should run at all because it has shrunk over the years and needs to rebuild itself in the schools and that elections are a distraction. The argument that elections help you build has proven false in every single election I've been in. People emerge for a few weeks and then disappear after we lose badly to Unity.

MORE will discuss the elections at the Nov. 17 meeting.

That leaves everyone else -- and the question is if it is worth it to even run if there will be two opposition groups?

 

Solidarity has declared it is running, though I question whether it has the resources to do much of a campaign. It didn't get on the ballot last time because it was short of the 40 candidates. I assume they will get that many this time but doing all the election work is draining. Do they have the resources? They are willing to run with anyone. The elephant in the room for them is Portelos and some Solidarity people who attended the last ICE meeting said they have a broader base and he is playing less of a role.

 

Is it worth it for segments of NA, Solidarity and others who don't want to run with MORE to run a separate campaign?

 

Also there is the situation with EB members Arthur Goldstein and Mike Schirtzer who are alienated from MORE and free agents now and are being wooed by Unity. Both brought in a batch of high school votes in the last election. It is not clear what they will do, or even try to be on the Ex Bd again.

So at this relatively late date in the UFT election cycle, confusion reigns. James Eterno and I may start playing golf this spring.

UFT Elections 2016 Historical Analysis: Winning the High Schools, Part 2 - The 2014 MORE Retreat

I'm doing a series of articles related to the UFT election from the  caucus perspective because I feel there is a need for a historical record that may prove useful in the future. I want to get it all down before I don't remember who I am. As always this is my personal account based on MY memories, which may not always be accurate. So feel free to correct me or disagree. 

In Part 1 (UFT Elections: Winning the High Schools - Part 1)
I focused on the actions of Arthur Goldstein and James Eterno and credited the work of them and Mike Schirtzer and the New Action alliance with being the difference. In Part 2 I'll review some of the longer range thinking going back to the July 2014 MORE retreat. Part 3 will take us through the fall of 2015. Part 4 - how candidates were selected, who are they, the campaign itself, what worked and what didn't. Part 5 will look ahead to what skills and political points of view do these candidates bring to the UFT Exec Bd. etc. And also - is it all worth it?

Due to my verbosity and lack of organized clarity, there will be a lot of overlap throughout the series.

Part 2: Winning the High Schools: the MORE Retreat, July 2014

The MORE summer 6 hour retreat took place 14 months after the 2013 election to discuss goals for the upcoming school year and to reflect on the past year.

The 2014/15 school year would include the spring 2015 chapter leader elections, which were deemed a crucial arena, the outcome of which would influence the general MORE 2016 elections. MORE would need a major push to recruit and assist those willing to run.

In the 2013 UFT election the MORE HS Ex Bd slate finished only 150 votes behind Unity, which was somewhat of a shock. If the 440 New Action HS votes had not gone to Unity but to us we would have won. (See "The New Action conundrum" in Afterburn below.)

The retreat took place a few months after MORE was deeply involved in 2 major events in the spring of 2014.

MORE, Stronger Together, the 2014 contract

Running with Stronger Together in the NYSUT leadership election with Arthur Goldstein as the VP candidate and a slate of 5 NYSUT district delegates - James Eterno, Julie Cavanagh, Jia Lee, Lauren Cohen, Mike Schirtzer and Francesco Portelos.

The 2014 UFT contract battle where 25% voted against with an over 90% turnout (Note that about 25% voted for MORE/NA in the 2016 election.)

We learned a few things from both battles. There was resistance internally in MORE to running in the NYSUT election -- about a 50-50 split in a vote taken at a meeting. An online re-vote was called for but if the vote went against then the pro-election faction could then run without MORE endorsement. Seeing there was a split down the middle, the faction opposing the participation cancelled the online vote. A similar ideological difference of opinion within MORE has come up on other issues --- basically, how differing people view what form a caucus in the UFT should take.

Their argument against running with ST left some people scratching their heads but it reflected a political point of view and analysis that running in union elections without a base was a "run from the top" strategy that would have little political impact. This was especially true in the NYSUT elections because they involved local union leaderships, not the rank and file.

A counter argument was that many of these local union leaders involved in Stronger Together were not like the UFT leadership which is separated from their members but people who are active teachers. That running would create alliances around the state. That running would help establish a greater presence for MORE and also be an opportunity to present MORE positions since we would get speaking time at the NYSUT convention.

The outcome of the NYSUT convention was positive for MORE and built the leadership skills of people like Lauren Cohen and Mike Schirtzer who spoke at the convention to represent MORE (Video - NYSUT Update: MORE's Lauren Cohen and Mike Schirtzer Rock the House).

The rest of the MORE team, including Francesco Portelos who was on the MORE steering committee, worked well together and with the ST folks over the few days at the convention.  Portelos would leave MORE to form Solidarity 4 months later. But more of that another time.

Participating with ST in the NYSUT election had such an energizing effect on MORE, the faction that originally opposed running later came around retroactively and felt it was the right thing to do. (At a future point I will get into more details on the factions in MORE because the story is illuminating.) MORE established a firm relationship with many people outside the city and with opt-out growing around the state, a previously unknown Jia Lee was beginning to become a strong presence. With Julie focused on her child and her work in her school, new leadership was emerging in MORE.

Contract battle, May 2014
On the contract battle we learned a few lessons.

We put out articles, press releases and held widely attended workshops and happy hours and one main meeting, some of the best attended MORE events.

While we were well-organized at that DA at the NY Hilton and came out in force, we learned about limits to what we could accomplish. With Julie Cavanagh next to speak at the mic, Mulgrew closed debate.

We held a poorly organized press conference right after the DA vote and the distribution net to the schools which should have had in place as a result of the 2013 election was disorganized and somewhat inept.

But even if we were better organized we would not have affected the contract vote outcome very much more than we did. We just didn't have enough active people, a lesson in itself. What did happen after Unity CLs pushed contract vote was that some teachers who had never been active in union politics who were in schools with Unity CLs ended up finding MORE and have become active in the group. For me the spotty performance of MORE in the contract fight was a disappointment - but I viewed that as growing pains for a fairly new caucus.

The Retreat: Do we want to win the high school Ex Bd seats in the 2016 election?
Early in the 2014 MORE retreat I asked:  Does MORE want to win the high school seats in the 2016 election? If the answer was YES then MORE high school teachers would need to focus their attention on a campaign to make that happen and that campaign needed to begin in Sept. 2014, a year and a half before the election got started.

There was a mixed response. Some of the same ones who opposed the NYSUT  election run a few months before felt that MORE should not fall into a high school only trap where the middle and elementary schools were left behind. That winning only a tiny sliver of 7 seats out of 100 would not bear fruit and would not lead to bottom up organizing.

The New Action example - they won high schools repeatedly in the 90s, then what?
After all, New Action had been there, done that throughout the 90s and ended up in their infamous arrangement with Unity after the 2001 election. They never made inroads into the other divisions to the extent that they could seriously challenge Unity. Doomed in perpetuity to holding a minority stake, NA opted to accept Randi's offer of a seat at the table. The NA decision led to their losing the bulk of even the limited support they enjoyed in 2001 where they garnered around 3000 votes in the high schools alone. A pretty deep drop in 12 years to 440 votes in 2013.

What if MORE won?
I and others made the argument that even if we won these seats what exactly would be do with them? And do we put up our strongest MORE activists who help keep MORE running to focus their attention on an Ex Bd meeting every 2 weeks in a room full of Unity slugs who will vote as one? I had seen ICE from 2004-7 when we had those seats focus a lot of attention - and James Eterno can point to some successes there.

Maybe there were successes but not in any way that helped ICE grow. The outcome after the 2007 election when we didn't win the seats was a quick decline of ICE that lasted right through the 2010 election, which I opposed ICE running in for that very reason. I don't believe in even trying to engage in an election unless you are building enough of a base to actually be able to govern if you should ever win.

At the retreat, I offered an idea that MORE should look to people who are not deep into the work of MORE and broaden the voices on the Ex Bd beyond MORE. I pointed to Arthur Goldstein who after his run for NYSUT VP was enthusiastic about running with MORE for the Ex Bd but was not active in MORE. He was very willing to put his energies into the EB. [In the 2016 election it turned out that of the 5 MORE people elected, only Mike Schirtzer has been deep into running MORE over the past few years - I urged him not to run because I felt he should focus on the work in MORE - though Ashraya Gupta has joined the most recent Steering committee.] There was some pushback from people who thought that there should be a strong commitment to MORE if the caucus was going to be the instrument of getting a seat on the Ex Bd. I said frankly that without Arthur we wouldn't win and since he probably agreed with 90% of MORE positions things could be worked out -- but there could be no loyalty oaths or restrictions on what issues he would want to raise. Only a promise to support any MORE initiatives unless there was an issue he could not in all conscience support.

At the retreat Mike Schirtzer agreed with  me and also offered a strong case for aiming to win the high schools.  He said that an opposition must try to show a win at some point and given the high school numbers in the 2013 election MORE had a shot even with New Action on the side of Unity. Winning in 2016, even with all the pitfalls presented, would give the opposition some momentum and also demonstrate MORE's organizational capability.

Mike expressed the thought that he and others are in this to win not to just make ideological brownie points. He would not be involved otherwise.

We were working under the assumption that summer of 2014 that New Action would continue supporting Unity and that their total vote of around 2000 HS votes together would hold up and it would be optimal if we would need to almost double our 1440. 2500 seemed a more reasonable number to guarantee an absolute win even if Unity increased its vote. That would take a major outreach to the high schools beginning early in the upcoming school year.

Mike offered a proposal. That MORE would make the goal of winning the high school seats a priority, in addition to focusing on the recruitment and training of prospective chapter leaders during the school year.

The proposal passed. I offered a plan - that we form a high school committee that would aim at the 50 largest high schools, with borough captains and that MORE begin the spring 2016 campaign in the fall of 2014 by producing a newsletter and developing a potent distribution network to try to reach rank and file on a regular basis, not only during election time every 3 years. What about the elementary and middle schools? I felt that the high school people should work on the high schools and the other divisional people who were district based should focus on their divisions locally and build their networks out. I offered to take charge of the newsletter and to organize a high school committee.

In August I put together a newsletter for general distribution and had it ready as September began. I began planning on organizing the high school committee and had conversations with some key people. We distributed the newsletter as the school year began.

In mid-late August, internal strife from a number of directions began to hit MORE. By the end of September/early October, MORE stopped functioning  organizationally. 3 members, including Portelos, had resigned from the Steering Committee over various issues. I ceased working on the newsletter and the high school committee.

It wasn't until January 2015 that MORE began to come back, partially motivated by the idea that the chance to win the high schools, with the election season a year away, was slipping away. Part 3 will delve into the details.

Afterburn
The New Action conundrum
Back in November 2013, 6 months after the UFT election, at a meeting with some members of New Action to address requests to work together on some projects, Julie Cavanagh and I, as the MORE reps, made the point that we could never work with New Action on any basis until they broke with Unity and also pointed out that if they did break with Unity, together we could win the high schools seats in the 2016 election plus find other synergy (I can't believe I'm using corporate speak).

I said then that just a look at the demographics of MORE and New Action indicated where things were headed and not in the direction of New Action. I offered up the example of ICE, another aging caucus, which was no longer an active caucus competing with MORE. Or how TJC had disbanded to join MORE. I was not talking about a merger of even an election alliance but as an invitation for New Action people to get involved directly in helping build MORE. [Some New Action people disagree with some of my interpretations but there is a tape of the meeting.]

A big tent caucus, with all its trials and tribulations is still my goal.
How can we expect the membership to trust us to run the union of we can't demonstrate we can co-exist in one caucus instead of splitting into multiple caucuses?

I and some others view the recent election alliance as a necessary step in moving toward one big tent caucus.

I will do some historical based posts on why multiple caucuses coming together every 3 years for elections had been a failure over the past 4 decades. A prime example: New Action formed in 1995 when the 2 leading opposition groups, Teachers Action Caucus and New Directions, merged.

UFT Elections: Winning the High Schools - Part 1

While MORE/NA won the high schools, let's not jump for joy and call it a smashing victory, as Kit Wainer points out in this deep analysis of the election:

In the High Schools MORE/New Action’s vote share [from their combined 2013 totals] actually declined slightly from roughly 54% to roughly 51%. It is difficult to know how Solidarity/Portelos votes would have gone had they not been on the ballot.

Read Kit's important insights,  not all of which I agree with, at

morecaucusnyc

2016 UFT election results: Some Good News, But A Great Deal Of Work Still To Do
With the Solidarity vote added to the MORE/NA totals we would have held our own from 2013 - remember - the NA votes in 2013 went to Unity. We could just as easily lost if Unity had managed to bring out just 300 more votes.

So despite all the work I describe below and will describe in the rest of this series - we held steady. But I contend we would would not have won if it were not for the efforts of a few people- and the New Action alliance.

What changed between 2013 and 2016? Eterno and Goldstein and Schirtzer and alliance with New Action -- Keys to MORE HS Victory

I touched on some of this yesterday

#MORE2016 UFT Elections: My High School Predictions On the Money As MORE Victory Costs Me Money

but I want to go into this in more depth:

In 2013 Arthur Goldstein, CL of Francis Lewis HS, one of the largest high school voting block in the city, did not run with MORE - he was never asked - my responsibility since I was his contact in MORE and didn't think he wanted to run because I had the impression after the 2010 election when he did run that he would run when we had a shot at winning and in 2013 there was no chance given the New Action/Unity alliance. Arthur didn't endorse MORE until the very end and did not do a GOTV campaign in his school. I bet we got very few votes from FL in 2013.

In 2016 the situation was reversed- In July 2015 Arthur said he would run and promised an energetic and enthusiastic campaign in his school. And so he did. He strongly advocated for an alliance with New Action as a key to winning.

I would bet at least half our margin of victory came from his school alone. While Arthur has not been a core member of MORE and has been a critic at times, there was no doubt in my mind that without him we could not win the high schools. We know that Arthur does not believe in loyalty oaths and has to be a free agent on the Ex Bd but he promised to support any MORE initiatives unless he felt it might go against a core belief. Arthur could not get on the Ex Bd without the MORE caucus and MORE's major chance at winning came from having Arthur on the slate. Arthur had proven himself as a relentless campaigner when he ran against Andy Palotta for NYSUT VP on the Stronger Together slate in the 2014 state elections. This arrangement was a win-win for Arthur and MORE.

Read his piece at NYCEducator on what the victory means for all of us: More/ New Action Victory Is a Win-Win

The other key factor was James Eterno's passion to win this one - one more win in case he should decide to retire in the next few years - though that is not currently on his agenda - but as an ATR, which he became in 2014, we know the jeopardy he faces.


Due to the closing of Jamaica HS where James was the chapter leader, he had contacts in high schools all over the city. He also had his own personal distribution list to many high schools all over Queens and he worked those contacts. I would bet that the other half of the victory votes came from the relentless work James has done over the past year.

Then there is Mike Schirtzer, whose school, Leon Goldstein, probably did not add to our totals from 2013 since with Kit Wainer there too it was a lock for MORE in both elections. But what Mike did was take the leadership of the group advocating for a win in the high schools. He lobbied MORE relentlessly to make this victory happen (some were not as enthusiastic and I will get into their reasons in the followups).

Mike, Arthur, James and I formed a team to spearhead things by starting a high school committee with a newsletter called High School Forum, at first informally, 16 months ago. MORE was struggling to emerge from its troubles and we decided not to wait because if we wanted to win the high schools we had to start in early 2015 and could not afford to wait for MORE to heal.

-----
Part 2 will go into more depth on the winding road - how we initially planned how to win even if New Action didn't switch and how we chose our candidates in the maelstrom of MORE internal politics. Let's not forget -- without the 450 New Action HS votes flipping from Unity to us we are not even in the ball game. One key to our strategy was reaching out to New Action.

Make sure to read Schirtzer's analysis: Mike Schirtzer on Why and How MORE Won the High Schools

And Jonathan Halabi of New Action: Deciding not to Vote in UFT Elections – A Rational Choice?

UFT Elections - Mike Schirtzer on Why and How MORE Won the High Schools

We don’t come in with empty promises. We offer advice from seasoned chapter leaders that have seen it all. Sometimes we had success, sometimes we do not, but the support that MORE offers has filled the void that has been left by our union leaders. We do not proclaim to be a romanticized savior, but we have been practical in the way we help our union members.... Mike Schirtzer

Schirtzer puts some red meat on the table even before he gets his Peter Luger steak. He makes a strong case for the work MORE did on a broad range of issues putting to rest some of the laughable charges of MORE not being interested in defending teachers. Mike and I are reality based organizers and activists. I will follow in a few days with my own version with more details on the work we did. I am never as optimistic as Mike is but I am an old curmudgeon.


Why MORE Won!
By Mike Schirtzer
Social Studies Teacher and UFT Delegate Leon M. Goldstein High School, UFT Executive Board Member- MORE caucus

#MORE2016 UFT Elections: My High School Predictions On the Money As MORE Victory Costs Me Money

James Eterno is the true hero of this victory and no matter what you read elsewhere I will stand by that.

I want to share my May 24 predictions for the high schools in my general pre-election predictions (Read my full predictions in the other divisions here.)

The 7 Ex Bd high school seats
MORE came within 150 votes of Unity in the high schools (1440) but the 440 New Action votes went to Unity. We'd win those seats if the numbers stayed the same this time. It is hard to believe the vote totals in high school for Unity can fall below the 1580 they got last time (out of 19,000 ballots). They have so many CLs in so many large high schools. I'm going to guess that their upside this time is 2200 but hope I am wrong. MORE and New Action together in 2013 had around 1900. Can they pump these numbers up this time? If they don't it says something about growth of influence of the opposition in the high schools. Let's say they also increase to around 2200 which makes things neck and neck - except --
But add this time the Solidarity wild card. Since they are not on the first page of the ballot as a caucus people have to vote for individual candidates. Watch the numbers for their high school people since every one is one less for MORE/New Action and if the election is close even a couple of hundred votes for Solidarity can give Unity the high schools and 100% control of the Exec Bd.
If we don't win the high schools I get my Peter Lugers

dinner from Mike Schirtzer. If we win the high schools I will gladly cover his dinner and maybe even take a few other MOREs with us.

I will take Mike to Lugers with joy - and if anyone out there wants to join us you are welcome -- but you are paying for yourself. (Well, I will pay for Jia if she wants to come - unless she is a vegetarian.)

Here are the election results
UFT Election 2016 High school:
MORE-NEW ACTION 2276-2292
UNITY: 2063-2077
Solidarity: 110-121
HS Ballots returned: 4747

I didn't do too badly did I, considering 19000 ballots were sent out.

When we were given the HS returns on May 26 I did some quick math and saw that we would need 2374 to win an outright majority. That worried me since based on my predictions I didn't see us getting this number and saw Unity with some upside. Like I said, neck and neck. The Solidarity totals were less than I expected - and I think they showed that people understood that even if they wanted to vote for Portelos their vote for the HS EB MORE/NA candidates was in their interest.

Adding up the high end totals of all 3 groups I get 4490. That would mean about 250 HS votes were invalid. Those invalid votes could have made a difference.

I had to leave the count before the results were in. Before I left James Eterno, Francesco Portelos and I huddled in the hall. We suspected that AAA and Unity had info and were not sharing stuff with us. Portelos told us he had seen a number on the screens - that Jia had over 10,000 votes. But no high school numbers.

As I headed uptown to the ICE meeting ( UFT Elections - Some thoughts) I worked the numbers over. If we got over 10,000 I tried to estimate if we could have broken the 2374 mark and could not see a way to get there. I was giving Solidarity around 300 and saw Unity coming around 2200. Francesco's report gave me some hope since he didn't see if it were in the low 10000 or closer to 11000, which of course it was.

Then I thought about two wild cards this time:

Arthur Goldstein, Chapter Leader of Francis Lewis HS, one of the largest group of UFT members in the city, did a massive Get Out the Vote campaign and I myself walked out of there with about 110 sealed ballots to mail. And we guessed that another 50 or more voted. Now only the teachers votes counted for the HS Ex Bd - the high number of functionals in the school were not votes for Arthur but for the funt ex bd slate. So figure around 150 votes for the HS slate out of that school alone- last time in 2013 Arthur endorsed MORE at the end and did not do a GOTV - so I looked at FLHS as mostly new voters adding to the MORE/NA totals of last time. That put us at around 2050-2100.

Later that day we held a happy hour GOTV event for Fort Hamilton HS, an even bigger school and a long-time New Action stronghold - the returns were disappointing - if they had matched FL we would have won hands down with closer to 2400.

The other wild card was James Eterno who since Jamaica HS closed and teachers scattered, has contacts all over the Queens high schools. James alone was able to drop off close to 4000 leaflets during the election using his contact list. No one in MORE came even close to this number. His people have enormous respect for James I we hoped would be active in their schools for our slate. I figured James alone, being in a new school that never voted before plus his Jamaica HS army would give us another 200 - and so it seems it did.

James Eterno was relentless and tireless and is the true hero of this victory and no matter what you read elsewhere I will stand by that.

Soon after I got to the diner James texted that we won and I called Mike and Arthur to tell them the news.

Coming soon:

• Mike Schirtzer on Why MORE won the high schools.

• My own analysis of why James and Arthur were the keys to victory and how the 2 of them, along with Mike and I spent over a year and a half plotting a winning strategy --at times out of the bounds of MORE - what went right and what went wrong. How MORE chose its candidates, the sometimes difficult arrangement with New Action, the internal debates in MORE over the candidates and content of literature, and how we ended up with 5 great MORE people to go with the 2 New Action Ex Bd people, one of whom I do not know. It is an interesting and revealing tale which I will tell in multiple parts over the next few weeks that includes some skulduggery from some people within MORE and will reveal some of the problems MORE faced in the past and still faces going forward. (Come to the MORE June 11 meeting to see how things are playing out.) It is a story that at times will direct some heat at me from both MORE and New Action. But it is a story people need to know so they understand just how difficult, time consuming and wrenching this work can be when you not only have to fight Unity but even people you work with -  and why I am considering doing other things with my time, though I am always torn due to loyalty to the hard work of so many MOREs.

UFT Elections 2016: MORE Press Release

In a follow-up I do a reality based analysis on what led to winning the high schools while also pointing out that we are now back to where the opposition was in 2001, with still a lot less votes in the high schools than it got then.

New Leadership Elected to UFT Executive Board

May 29, 2016 — Leave a comment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contacts: Ashraya Gupta

Jia Lee

media@morecaucusnyc.org

NYC High School Teachers Vote for Change, Electing MORE/New Action Social Justice Slate to Union Leadership

Teachers Poised to Bring Change to Crisis-Ridden NYC Schools as National Wave of Teacher Activism Continues

NEW YORK- In an historic victory for social justice reform in the nation’s largest union local and largest school system, NYC high school teachers have created a rupture in the 56-year near-monopoly of the UFT’s Unity Caucus by electing the MORE/New Action reform slate to the union’s executive board. 

The victory will bring a voice for progressive change to the table in the union’s coming 2018 contract negotiations. The tri-annual election for the leadership of the UFT exposed a deep crisis in the New York City schools, with a new report from MORE demonstrating that 32% of NYC teachers are unable to make photocopies for their students when they need to, nearly one in five city educators works more than 20 hours of unpaid overtime per week, over half teach in overcrowded schools, and that behavior support, special education, ESL, and other mandated services for students are often criminally lacking.

Marcus McArthur, newly elected to the UFT Executive Board said, “The rank and file have cast a vote for more democracy, more teacher autonomy, and more justice for our schools. I look forward to representing their voice and collaborating with my colleagues on the executive board for a better public school system in NYC.”

Decaying working and learning conditions are generating a rank-and-file upsurge in the UFT, with vote totals evidencing a continued ebb in support for Michael Mulgrew’s Unity Caucus and a turn toward activism. MORE/New Action’s victory follows the growing national trend of social justice reformers coming to power in teachers union elections and leading strikes for critical improvements in the schools in Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Paul, Detroit, and other cities across the country in recent years.

MORE’s Executive Board member Ashraya Gupta said, “In a year when public-sector unions were under threat, it is heartening to see a vote for a more democratic UFT. The increase in voter turnout and the win for MORE and New Action means New York City teachers are mobilizing for the schools and city we deserve.”

Mike Schirtzer another new Executive Board member adds, “For far too long the leadership of our union has been disconnected from the real problems we face in our schools. They have signed on to one anti-public education policy after another, without watching out for the best interests of our members or the students we serve.”

Presidential candidate Jia Lee observed, “The high school win is a crack in the glass ceiling that keeps Unity caucus’ in power. Rank and file educators are galvanizing a more humane vision of our teaching conditions and our students’ learning conditions. There’s much more work to do, and I’m really looking forward to the future knowing we have principled voices on the executive board.”

While MORE/New Action’s victory for the high school board seats will bring much-needed change to UFT leadership, machine politics continue to dominate the union. In an effort to consolidate control over the union, in 2012 Unity Caucus increased the cap on retiree votes (a group that traditionally votes for Unity, since they led the union when they were in service) from 18,000 to 23,500. In 2013, retirees cast more than half the ballots for UFT leadership, with only 17% of active members voting. In 2016, 25% of in-service members voted, contributing 28,582 ballots, while 24,464 retirees voted, mostly for Unity Caucus.

UFT Elections - Unity and E4E Perfect Together: Chalkbeat Ignores MORE While Promoting E4E

The teacher advocacy group Educators 4 Excellence praised both Mulgrew’s election and the increased voter turnout.... Chalkbeat

Chalkbeat, the Home of Ed Deform Faux Journalism, funded by the same deformers who fund E4E, never has missed a beat to promote E4E while ignoring the real reformers - years ago in GEM and recently in MORE. Nothing speaks to this issue than their laughable article on the UFT elections. Not even a quote from someone in MORE?

I was going to write this piece Friday night. Too tired. Then Saturday night. Too tired. Then Sunday night. Too tired. Now I don't really have to write this piece because it has been done for me. Thanks to the prolific Arthur Goldstein NYC Educator, 

I was out with Arthur last night in Park Slope having a celebratory election victory drink with Julie Cavanagh and Jia Lee - what a treat hanging out with the 2 MORE presidential candidates from 2013 and 2016 schmoozing with these amazing ladies.

I told Arthur I had been planning to do a piece on the outrageous Chalkbeat UFT election coverage in this piece.

Arthur told me he had written an email to the Chalkbeat "reporter" and I said that would be a waste of time and suggested he do something on his blog. So what a joy to read Arthur's piece today, leaving me to copy and paste it and freeing me to go out and sit on my deck. Thanks Arthur - and I owe you that $12 beer at the Hilton next spring when Stronger Together challenges Unity.

http://nyceducator.com/2016/05/chalkbeat-ny-misses-big-picture-shows.html#disqus_thread