Eterno Reports on Unity Rejection of rights for ATRs, Some history and video of the Nov 2008 Wine and Cheese ATR Rally

In the end a couple of the New Action people voted with the ATRs while the remainder of the New Action representatives and the Unity rubber stampers all voted with Barr and Ross against the ATRs having equal voting rights... James Eterno, ATRS GET PLENTY OF SUPPORT BUT NOT FROM UFT OFFICIALS, posted on ICE blog

It's hard for me to believe this report that some New Action EB members did not vote for the ATRs. Maybe James didn't see them cowering in the corners. (One of the really good guys in New Action, retiree Doug Haynes did support them.) Good I wasn't there because I would have confronted them. Well, this reaffirms the strong decision made by MORE to have nothing to do with New Action until they renounce their dirty deal with Mulgrew - which they won't. That their reps on the EB didn't support this unanimously is outrageous - word is that New Action leaders Shulman and Halabi voted with leadership. Shulman and Halabi called for liaisons in the borough offices as opposed to elected reps.

So typical of New Action - watch in the next election, where they will have Mulgrew at the top of their ticket, they will brag about how they support ATRs. Portelos was at the meeting last night -- let's see what he says about his pals in New Action refusing to support the ATRs.

MORE put up a reso last fall at the DA calling for the ATR chapter and were chastised by New Action leaders for not consulting them or doing it strategically. Charlatans have been selling alliances with New Action and promising that New Action would use its seats on the board to support ATRs - and other issues. (Maybe a reso at the Ex Bd or the DA calling on the UFT to actually support discontinued teachers instead of holding bogus rallies?)

When ATRs were created, ICE had James Eterno and Jeff Kaufman on the Ex Bd and they stood up strong against the creation of ATRs - the strongest voices opposed. Luckily, New Action did not have EB members in those years.

I know some people will be pissed at me for what I have to say below - but --

I would like to head to the AFT for an appeal. Is anybody with me?....Eterno

ATRs rally at Tweed - Nov. 2008 - it should have been at the UFT

Well, I guess going to the AFT to have Randi rule on this would make some people happy. Sorry, James, I'm not into the Einstein def of insanity -- doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Maybe having the AFT reject this will make a few political points - but to whom?

While I generally support James Eterno, I don't agree with legal action without street action to back it up. There's a lot more to fight for for ATRs than just having their own chapter. It would be a first step in asserting their rights -- but to me, how many ATRs are in a position to be willing to assert their rights?

I believe that once the charter cap is lifted and Farina starts combining more schools, there will be even more ATRs coming. Will they disappear into some vapor?

Here's my challenge to the the leaders of the ATRs. Go out and find every ATR you can and create a functioning organization. I used to hand out leaflets directed at ATRs with a meeting announcement at the DA asking the CLs to give them to the ATRs in their school. People actually showed up at some of these meetings through these leaflets. (We did this with rubber room people and called for a rally that the Unity/UFT leadership coopted.)

Show up at the UFT with a couple of hundred people and surround the building. If there are ----- whatever the number of ATRS there are --- where are they when it comes to political action? I imagine a batch showed up yesterday at the Ex Bd -- still not enough people willing to engage in this battle.

ATRs go to so many schools. Are they educating people about how the union is run? Are they making contact with people in all these schools as a way to develop a ground game for the opposition? Maybe I'm missing something, but what I hear is mostly silence, except from a few people. First create a real organization of ATRS.

Angel Gonzalez and I tried to create such an organization through GEM in 2010-11 - I kept a detailed list of ATRS and emailed them regularly. We had gone to hiring halls with leaflets and set up meetings as an organizing tactic -- Angel has a PhD in how to organize people -- it is not though legalisms or social media. It takes boots on the ground. I called a meeting and over 40 people showed up and 25 showed to a follow-up. Then some sniping at me started and I decided I was not going to get into the weeds and withdrew my organizing activities, which frankly took a hell of a lot of time.

The response from other people was almost funny. The original ATR organizers viewed our actions as a threat. And TJC tried to set up its own competing ATR group. Perfect examples of why Unity will always win.

ATRs in the past - the initial batch - seemed more militant.

In Nov. 2008, Marjorie Stamberg and John Powers organized ATRs and created an event that shook both the UFT and the DOE. The problem was that they let it die that day - like the demo was the end game. That abandonment led Angel and I to create an ICE ATR committee that turned into GEM.

Now here is some ATR power -- 6 years ago in 2 parts. Just the threat of this rally forced the UFT and DOE into some contract agreement and the UFT tried to kill this rally by holding a wine and cheese event at the UFT - and managed to lure people over there -- including the New Action people - of course -- look for some of them in the video.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ac-Ul1m8-0 - posted Jan, 2009.

On November 24, 2008, teachers without positions, known as ATRs, held a rally at Tweed. They had forced the UFT to endorse the rally but in the interim the UFT signed an agreement with the DOE. The leadership called for an information meeting at UFT HQ, a mile away at the very same time the rally was due to start. Mass confusion. I taped the UFTHQ while David Bellel did the rally. The back story is how desperate UFT leaders were to suppress the tape I made. In fact, today at the Delegate Assembly they will pass a gag rule to try to prevent future embarrassment.
MAKE SURE TO SEE PART 2: The SLOW March Up Broadway - where Randi tried to convince me to give her my tape.



Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG4xrbgiGqU - Posted Jan. 28, 2009

On November 24, 2008, teachers without positions, known as ATRs, held a rally at Tweed. They had forced the UFT to endorse the rally but in the interim the UFT signed an agreement with the DOE. The leadership called for an information meeting at UFT HQ, a mile away at the very same time the rally was due to start. Mass confusion. I taped the UFTHQ while David Bellel did the rally. The back story is how desperate UFT leaders were to suppress the tape I made. In fact, today at the Delegate Assembly they will pass a gag rule to try to prevent future embarrassment.



Why can the UFT reject these appeals for a chapter for ATRS? Because they can.

Here is James' compete report from last night's meeting.

http://iceuftblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/atrs-get-plenty-of-support-but-not-from.html

ATRS GET PLENTY OF SUPPORT BUT NOT FROM UFT OFFICIALS

A fairly strong contingent of Absent Teacher Reserves and our supporters were at the UFT Executive Board last night.  I was given the honor to represent the ATRs and Leave Replacement Teachers as we made the case for having a UFT Chapter with representatives of our own choosing.

Leroy Barr and lawyer Adam Ross represented the UFT and they made what all consider a case that was laughable at best and truly pathetic at worst.  They claimed that ATRs have an equal chance of winning elections at schools that some of us just got to today. In addition, when we are moved to the next school, they both said with a straight face that we can still be the Chapter Leader for the school we are just passing through this May.  The audience of ATRs and our friends just chuckled and had to be told to be quiet.

In the end a couple of the New Action people voted with the ATRs while the remainder of the New Action representatives and the Unity rubber stampers all voted with Barr and Ross against the ATRs having equal voting rights.

As one observer put it: ATRs have democratic rights on paper but not in reality.

I would like to head to the AFT for an appeal. Is anybody with me?

  Executive Board Appeal

May 4, 2015 

My name is James Eterno; I am a Temporary Leave Replacement Teacher at Middle College High School in Queens but with no permanent assignment.

I’m here tonight because there are many union members who happen to be Absent Teacher Reserves, Leave Replacement Teachers or Temporary Provisional Teachers have no chapter and therefore are being denied fundamental democratic union rights that are guaranteed in federal labor law. 

Pretend you are on a business trip to Hawaii for a month or even a little longer.  Do you think you should have a right to vote for who the governor of Hawaii should be since you happened to be there on Election Day? 

Do you think you should be eligible to run for governor of Hawaii because you happened to be in the state on Election Day? 

Both of these situations are completely ridiculous.  But this is basically the kind of chapter election system for ATRs the leadership of this union proposed and this Executive Board recently approved in the Chapter Election Guide and Bylaws for this spring’s elections. 

ATRS and Leave Replacement Teachers vote at the school we are just passing through in May even if the school has an election in June and we are no longer there. That violates the federal law. 

ATRs, Leave Replacement Teachers and Temporary Provisional Teachers are supposed to run for chapter leader or delegate from those same schools we are just passing through this May. This is absurd and also flies in the face of the federal law. 

Since the Delegate Assembly is the highest policy-making body in the union, it must be elected.  This is what the Landrum Griffin Federal Regulations say concerning eligibility to be candidates and to hold union office: 

Every member in good standing is eligible to be a candidate and to hold office subject to reasonable qualifications in the union’s constitution and bylaws that are uniformly imposed. 

  

Is it a reasonable qualification that if I want to serve as a delegate or chapter leader, I have to run for office in a school where I have absolutely no right to a job in that school when my term of office would begin in July? Past union policy has been that once a person is removed permanently from a school they are no longer the chapter leader, particularly after 3020a cases are settled and a person becomes an ATR.  That is why Mr. Portelos is no longer chapter leader at his school.   

Is there now a change in policy where people can serve as chapter leader if they no longer are in a school? That might help to stop vindictive principal excessing of our chapter leaders but if that is the new policy, I would like to know why Mr. Portelos is not chapter leader at his former school and why he can’t run again there?  

The whole policy of us voting in schools we are just passing through makes a mockery of democracy.  Remember, federal regulations say qualifications have to be reasonable and uniformly imposed.  Clearly the regular members of a chapter have an automatic advantage over ATRs in chapter elections.  That is not reasonable and certainly not a uniformly imposed regulation. 

In the past we were always told that ATRs can’t get our own chapter because we don’t want to institutionalize and thus accept what is a temporary position.  This argument was always weak but now it is completely mistaken because the UFT embedded a whole Section 16 into the contract that concerns ATRS. We have weaker due process rights; we are compelled to go on interviews, some for jobs which don’t exist and we are forced to resign if we happen to not check our emails and miss two interviews.  Due process be damned for ATRS.  Some even can be denied interviews by the Chancellor.  (Now with out of time schools coming, a new category is being created that looks like year to year ATRs.)  We are embedded. There is even a temporary group of teachers that was recently assigned to a chapter; Peer Validators. They exist in the contract for only two years and yet they were sent to the teachers assigned chapter.  Only ATRs are constantly told no. 

ATRS/Leave Replacement and Temporary Provisional teachers have been asking for almost a decade for our own chapter with a chapter leader and delegates to deal with our unique status.  I don’t know too many executive board members who have walked in our shoes. Functional chapters such as the guidance counselors use the chapter leader in the building they are at and then can call on their own elected central guidance chapter leader and delegates when needed for unique guidance issues.  Several categories of teachers including teachers assigned and teachers of the home-bound have their own chapter leader too.  If you continue to insist the temporary nature of the position is a problem, we have a solution:  We can put in the bylaws that we will dissolve the ATR chapter if all of the temporary provisional, leave replacement and atr teachers are placed. We can even make it one of our goals. The citywide Ed Evaluator chapter was dissolved.  We too can be dissolved if some sanity returns to the Board of ed and we no longer exist.

As for this evening, without wanting to show any disrespect, I was told that Leroy Barr was chosen to make the report on our election complaint.  Leroy spoke passionately against an ATR chapter in October at the DA and he rejected my arguments in November when we met for our equal voting rights. His lack of objectivity on this subject presents a conflict of interest. 

I would like to close by asking an important question: If this body rejects our very reasonable request for fair voting rights and equal rights to serve in office for ATRS, Leave Replacement Teachers and Temporary Provisional teachers, then we will go up the ladder to the AFT who we have already contacted and then to the Department of Labor who I have spoken to and they are interested in our case. Some, not me, are going to go to PERB too.  The UFT is going to waste a large amount of time, money and effort fighting against its own members because we want to vote and serve in office in the same way as everybody else. Ten or twenty delegates and a chapter leader won’t make much of a dent in any caucus majority at the DA so why is anyone afraid of us?  We want to have the same voting rights and rights to hold office as all other UFT members. Save that money, time and effort by giving us fair democratic rights.  Create a chapter for us tonight. 

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

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

Unity just slithers out from under a rock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See below for the comments on red-baiting.

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

Anonymous said...

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

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

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

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

STOP ICE-TJC RED-BAITING!!!

10:10 AM, March 30, 2007


Anonymous said...

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

10:26 AM, March 30, 2007

ed notes online said...

Source of anon. comment 10:10

Organization: United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund Brooklyn, NY

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

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still waiting.

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

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

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

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

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

They are what they are. No Action.

How Unity Uses At-large Voting to Control the UFT

UFT Election Notes - Feb. 25, 2007

Statistics (rough):
80,000 teachers in schools.
20,000 non-teachers (paras, secretaries, social workers, guidance, nurses, etc.)
55,000 retirees
Total: 155,000 members

If you break down the UFT election into categories, you can see the inherent lack of democracy built into the system. All 11 officer positions are voted on at-large — the entire membership, which includes 55,000 retirees. Even the divisional Vice Presidents -- elementary, high school, middle schools and vocational schools - are included. They used to be voted on only by their division but Unity changed the rules to assure they will never be threatened with having even one opposition member on the AdCom (Administrative Committee.) All 11 officers are also members of the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly.

Using at-large voting is the key to control, since retirees make up 1/3 of the union membership and vote overwhelmingly for Unity.

What about the other 78 members of the Executive Board?

42 members are also elected at-large. So far, 53 (42 + 11) for Unity.

14 functional (non-teachers, including retirees) are as good as at-large: make the total 67.

The 22 remaining members of the EB come from the 80,000 teachers actually working in the schools: Elem (11), Mid Schl (5), HS (6).

So let's say the majority of people actually teaching in the schools vote for ICE-TJC. Let's take an extreme case and say 75%- around 60,000 teachers vote to elect ICE-TJC in these three divisions. That would give the representatives of the 80,000 teachers in the schools only 22 out of 89 seats on the Executive Board, leaving Unity with over 75% of the EB seats.

If this scenario ever occurs (even with a 51% majority), the opposition would have a very good case to make with the members that there must be fundamental change in the constitution that can allow such blatant manipulation. We can guarantee Unity will respond in ways to try to maintain control. One way is to dilute the % of working teachers in the UFT by adding nurses, home workers, etc., a process that is already in the works. Thus, the United Federation of Teachers may one day be a union where teachers are a minority.



Unity Caucus will organize banana pickers to solidfy its reputation as running the biggest banana republic in North America.

So far, the opposition has been able to win the 6 high school seats on a fairly consistent basis and once won the middle schools. They have never gotten close in the elementary schools. When New Action, which had been winning these high school seats went over to the dark side and joined with Unity in the 2004 elections, that spurred TJC become active in elections for the first time, while leading to the formation of ICE in response to the New Action sell-out. The result was that the ICE-TJC high school candidates defeated New Action.

But holding 83 out of 89 seats is not enough control for Unity. This time they are endorsing the New Action candidates for high school Ex. Bd. so that a vote for the Unity or the New Action slates will count as a vote for the New Action candidates. If they win in the high schools there will be no ICE-TJC members of the Executive Board. In addition, Unity has guaranteed New Action at least 5 seats on the Board by running 5 New Action candidates at-large.

Commercial, commercial, commercial
That is why it is so important for high school teachers in particular to vote the ICE-TJC slate (DO NOT VOTE ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS). The six ICE-TJC people running have a lot of experience as part of the opposition to Unity for many years.

James Eterno (Current EB member, and a member for many years, CL Jamaica HS)
Jeff Kaufman (Current EB member, CL Rikers)
Peter Lamphere (Teacher at Bronx High School of Science, former Delegate. Columbus HS)
Sam Lazarus (CL at Bryant HS and the instigator of the Region 4 rally against Reyes Irizzary.)
Nick Licari (CL at Norman Thomas HS for many years, TJC Pres candidate in 2004)
Marian Swerdlow (Del, FDR HS and active in the opposition for 15 years.)

(More extensive biographies will be posted soon.)

Election these 6 people to the Executive Board will preserve some vestige of representation for opposition voices to Unity.

A list of ICE-TJC candidates for officer and executive board can be found at http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/

Unity Uses Red-Baiting - Just Part of their MO

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Retro UFT History Lesson: How Unity Killed Divisional Vice President Elections

Most teachers don't know that Unity changed the UFT constitution to preclude high school teachers from selecting their own academic VP. This is because Mike Shulman committed the unpardonable sin of winning with New Action one year. That was back when New Action was a real opposition, before Randi bought Mike and the rest of them off with patronage jobs....

NYC Educator, Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Dues Deduction Without Representation is Tyranny

Prepping for today's meeting with Bruce Markens, Ira Goldfine and Vera Pavone for some insights into the past and how that affects the present and future, Mike Schirtzer found this old Ed Notes post from Dec. 2006. It looked to be well-written so I assumed it was from NYC Educator. But no, it was actually me. What a pleasant surprise. We'll get into more details on the history of New Action and the impact of its sellout to Unity in 2003/4 in future posts.

By the way, Mike Shulman collected $12,500 for his UFT patronage job as reported in the most recent LM-2 (2013) report. There is some fiction going around that New Action people only make around $1200 a year and that is too little to make them sell out. Most do but not at the top.

One note -- the 1995 contract battle where the membership voted it down the first time was led by NAC (or New Action -- not clear it the merger of TAC and New Directions had taken place yet) and also by Bruce from his position as District Rep.

Here is the Ed Notes post from Dec. 28, 2006:

Unity Spins and Grins: A History Lesson

NYC Educator has posted a proposal for a petition calling for divisions to elect their own VP's instead of at-large. Here is an explanation of the history of the change.

There is a debate going on at the NYC Educator blog in UFT democracy, or lack thereof. Since 1994 Unity caucus amended the constitution to eliminate the direct election of divisional vice-presidents -- e.g. Academic HS, Vocational H.S., Middle Schools, Elementary Schools--by constituents of each division and instead had these Vice Presidents elected on an at-large basis by the entire membership, including retirees.

A Unity spinner on the blogs actually claimed this is a good thing, ("The notion that the executive branch should be elected together, in order to provide a minimal unity for governing, is hardly an anti-democratic one.") even trying to compare this to having the US President and VP come from the same party. Naturally he distorted the facts of what really happened to make his case, which NYC Educator trashed in his response.

I asked former Manhattan HS district rep Bruce Markens what occurred while his memory is still intact. (Bruce's long tenure as the lone non-Unity Dist. Rep. despite constant attempts by Unity to defeat him was one of Weingarten's motivations in ending the election of DR's.)

In the mid-80's the opposition was still a coalition called NAC (New Action Coalition, a combo of 3 caucuses with a piece of the name from each one -- some of the founders of ICE were with the Coalition of NYC School Workers).

Mike Shulman won the 1985 election for HS VP by 94 votes over the Unity incumbent George Altomare, one of the founders of the UFT. This sent shock waves throughout Unity and they got Alomare to challenge the election claiming improprieties, a joke since the Unity machine ran the elections.

Naturally, the election committee upheld the protest and they refused to seat Shulman. They finally agreed on an arbitrator and his report called for a new election. This time, without a slate headed by Shanker at the top, Shulman got 62% of the vote. He was not allowed to take his place on the AdCom until Jan/Feb 2006.

With the next election coming in 1987, Unity dumped Altomare and recruited John Soldini from SI (where they could get the large HS vote out for him) to run against Shulman and Unity geared up all forces for the ‘87 election. Schulman almost won again, losing to Soldini by only 21 votes.

He lost again in '89 and by 110 votes in '91 election. But in that election, NAC also won the junior high ex bd seats, giving them 13, the most they ever had. Their JHS VP candidate also lost by about 150 votes. With the opposition seemingly getting stronger, Unity clearly had to do something to keep the wolves at bay.

Their opportunity came after the '93 election when inexplicably, New Action lost the high schools and junior high schools, giving the opposition no voice on the ex bd.

Unity formed a task force to "improve" the election process. It had no specific mandate to deal with the issue of changing the divisional vps to be elected on an at large basis.

At an ex bd meeting in early Jan. '94 they sprung the " improvement" - taking all divisional elections of VP's out of the divisional and making them at-large. A few days after, they sprung it at the Jan. DA, (historically one of the least attended of the year). There also just happened to be a snowstorm that day (Did Unity rig the weather?) guaranteeing an even lower attendance of non-Unity people.

But Unity assured a quorum would be there to make the act legal by threatening Unity Caucus members with the loss of their part-time union jobs and banishment from the slate, which assured a free trip to the AFT and NYSUT conventions. Thus, Unity was able to steamroller through the "improvement" in the election process.

In our so-called democratic union the Unity way, you can change the constitution without having to get membership approval.

But even if they had gone that route, the Unity machine would have spun this “improvement” to the members in some fashion. Without an effective opposition to oppose it (the inability of New Action even at that time to put up a semblance of a fight is indicative of some level of ineffectiveness) the members are helpless against the machinations of Unity. One more argument for the building of an effective opposition to Unity as opposed to the phony bogus opposition New Action has become with all their leaders on the UFT/Unity payroll.