New Action: No Action on Social Justice, But Lots of Talk

New Action claims that "action" is talking about something. They were the "first to call" and sometimes they "repeatedly call" for action, as if "calling" is action.  Hey, I call for world peace. I'll wait a few minutes to check if it worked. Maybe I should try doing it repeatedly.-- Ed Notes

I recall members of New Action enthusiastically supporting the creation of the UFT Charter School.  I was alone in my negative vote. I oppose charter schools and so does MORE because they take precious public resources away from the public schools. -- James Eterno, ICE blog

I can't tell you how much glee the MOREs are having with these New Action posts: The crew that actually MADE a movie defending public education and teacher unions. Or the crew that has not only "repeatedly called" for people to go to closing school and charter co-locos and PEP meetings, but ACTUALLY went and spoke and leafleted.

If you haven't read it yet see my post from yesterday with links to wonderful NYC Educator posts.

New Action Seeks Free Pass on Mulgrew Endorsement While Giving Cover to Unity on Lack of Democracy

The funniest is their claims on mayoral control when ICE took on that issue in the process of formation in 2003 because no other caucus even mentioned it. And I will point out that Ed Notes went after Randi for supporting it as far back as pre-ICE 2001, as James Eterno points out on the ICE blog today.

I was sitting behind James when Randi raised it at a May or June 2001 meeting and I watched NA dictator Mike Shulman run around to the NA Ex Bd members telling them not to oppose it (according to one NA EB member at the time) because Randi would be mad at them. I was yelling in the ear of James and NA's Bob Dehler, who turned around and told me how good mayoral control would be.

Here is James today on the ICE blog on mayoral control:

New Action states that they have opposed mayoral control from the start.  I remember it a little differently. While on the UFT Executive Board, I seem to recall the subject of mayoral control first came up around 2001.  The Unity majority brought forward a school governance recommendation that supported giving the mayor the majority control over the Board of Education.
Norm Scott showed up at the Executive Board and schooled me quickly on how it would be a disaster. Chicago was already ahead of New York on mayoral dictatorship; there were already horrible consequences for teachers and students.  I spoke up and voted against supporting mayoral control that night but I don't remember some of the other NAC members of the Executive Board voting with me. NAC had no position on the subject at the time. {James doesn't remember but NA member Bob Dehler turned to me at that point and said mayoral control is a good idea. --Norm} 

I also recall members of New Action enthusiastically supporting the creation of the UFT Charter School.  I was alone in my negative vote. I oppose charter schools and so does MORE because they take precious public resources away from the public schools.

I'm glad James brought up the enthusiastic support New Action gave to the UFT charter co-location of 2 public schools -- and note that issue is absent from their literature, probably because Mulgrew told them that was a no-no. ICE took a strong and immediate stand against the UFT Charter with Michael Fiorillo leading the way at the DA.


James and MORE and ICE members Lisa North, who left New Action to form ICE in 2003 after their dirty deal with Unity, and Gloria Brandman take apart the New Action claims at the ICE blog. James starts it off.

AN INSIDE LOOK AT NEW ACTION CLAIMS

New Action is supporting Michael Mulgrew for President in the UFT election. Ballots will be mailed today so now it is up to members to decide who will lead our union. The only caucus running an opposing presidential candidate is the Movement for Rank and File Educators (MORE).  MORE is running Julie Cavanagh for UFT President as most readers of this blog already know. This blog endorses Cavanagh/MORE.
Unity and New action are the two longest running caucuses (political parties) in the UFT.  Unity has run the UFT for five decades.  New Action opposed Unity for years.  I was a member of New Action from 1995 to 2003.  I was elected to the UFT Executive Board three times while in NAC. 

In those days they were a genuine opposition group that actually ran a candidate for UFT President.

When I was a new Chapter Leader in 1996, NAC co-chair Michael Shulman spent a great deal of time teaching me about the job and was a valuable resource as was NAC's Ellen Fox.  Therefore, it was very painful to leave NAC in 2003 after they decided not to oppose Unity's Randi Weingarten for UFT President, but it was necessary. Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox, Lisa North, Chris Ash and others have not looked back since we defected although I do miss my New Action friends.

New Action in its current form basically exists to confuse members into thinking they are still the main opposition group within the UFT.  They put out literature that looks critical of the leadership but they do not run against President Mulgrew; instead they endorse him.  In exchange they are given ten candidates for the UFT Executive Board that the majority Unity Caucus is cross endorsing so they are pretty much assured of victory.  NAC maintains this arrangement gives them a voice inside the UFT much like the Unity leaders say they have a voice at the table with Bill Gates and others. What good does that do us?

NYC Educator correctly points out that supporting the other party's candidate for president would be akin to the Democrats in 2004 saying they are the main opposition party and then supporting Republican George W Bush for president.  You wouldn't think that is much of an opposition, would you?

NAC is running for these seats and others based on their record.  However, a look at that record shows that some of what New Action is taking credit for is a little far fetched.

Currently, New Action is making many claims in their literature where they take credit for their accomplishments within the  UFT. Former NAC member (now running with MORE) Lisa North comments on what they do.

I'll interrupt James for a second. Lisa and Gloria have worked with the UFT social justice committee and pushed for many of the issues NA is trying to take credit for. I always told them not to waste their time there because NA would take credit for all the work they did. And so it has come to pass. But they are so socially conscious that won't stop them.


On the disappearing black and Latino educator, every activist in the city knows that ICE founding member and current MORE member Sean Ahern has been the leading voice on this issue since the issue first emerged. As a matter of fact I'm not sure the issue would have emerged if not for the work of Sean.

Defense of the Puerto Rican teachers
Give me a break on this. Angel Gonzalez who is as close as anyone can be to Rafael Feliciano who led the PR teachers, came to ICE, not NA for help in putting the issue before the DA (that's how I met him). And we supported him on the blog and at the DA. See if NA was writing about this issue in 2007 and 2008. In fact, Ed Notes was writing about the Puerto Rico teacher story and their withdrawal from the AFT all along. (Angel then joined ICE and he and I and a few others founded what became GEM in Jan. 2009.)


Stop and frisk
ICE/MORE's Jeff Kaufman, a former cop and lawyer, has been an activist in opposing Stop and Frisk, along with James Eterno's brother John, also a former policeman. They speak all over the state on this issue. MORE took an early stand on this issue and MORE people have worked with and supported the amazing work Teachers Unite does on so many related issues.

On the anti-war issue
Gloria and Lisa were the key people in keeping this flame alive and ran the UFTers to Oppose the War listserve since its founding. 

Well, I'll let James, Lisa and Gloria continue (and my message to Gloria is: these guys are the enemies of union reform and prove it every day.)

"While it's true that NAC proposes some resolutions on important issues at Executive Board meetings, they do little or NO organizing!  It was MORE people who held meetings, sent emails, had rallies, circulated petitions, passed out fliers, contacted other community groups for support, etc. New Action is just like UNITY....pass a resolution and DO NO ACTION to organize to make a real change happen.  

 

Gloria Brandman sits on the UFT Social Justice Committee along with Lisa North.  Here is her critique (in italics) of New Action:

New Actions says they are: The only caucus to repeatedly call for action on the disappearing Black and Latino educators-   

Reality: This issue was originally brought to the Social and Economic Justice Committee (which is co chaired by a NAC and a UNITY person) by MORE's Sean Ahearn with support from Lisa and Gloria, Sean and other MORE people. Teachers Unite, and CPE worked on this issue even before it was brought to the UFT.

New Action says they initiated a resolution in Support of Puerto Rican Teachers Federation Leadership- 

Reality: Not sure if this is true but whenever Rafael Feliciano who was the President of the PRTF came to NYC, he spoke at many events in NYC, none of them organized by anyone in NAC.  It was GEM (Grassroots Education Movement) people who took leadership in supporting the PR Teachers and members of GEM who organized speaking engagements, forums  and fundraising events for  President Feliciano.

{IT IS TRUE GLORIA}

New Action says they called on UFT to support the April 9, 2011 anti-war demonstration. 

 

The Whole Story: This is positive but resolutions without actions do little to make change. It was members of ICE who are now MORE members that formed UFTers to Stop the War. UFTers to Stop the War brought anti-war resolutions to the DA as well as worked to make sure all high schools had information about opting out of military recruitment. NAC supported some of this work, but they did not do the organizing to bring any of it about. It was MORE people! And for the anti-war demonstration in Washington, DC on Jan 27, 2007 it was MORE members who requested and got the UFT to provide two buses, and Lisa and Gloria were the bus captains on the buses. One or two NACs may have attended as well. 

New Action says they achieved: 

 

Bipartisan Social and Economic Justice Committee passes rent control resolution
Bipartisan Social and Economic Justice Committee gets resolution passed  on Reducing the Environmental Footprint. Calls for an end to plastic bottles at UFT and for recycling bins. 

Reality: Not Bipartisan- There were people from three different caucuses at these meetings. 

(Bipartisan =including members from two parties or factions) I will say that getting rid of the plastic bottles at the DA is probably the most concrete and successful  action that has come about due to this committee!  

New Action says they exposed SESIS as a “nightmare.” Called for help for our members. 

Exactly how did they expose this? Most of them have never even seen SESIS as they are retired.

New Action says they won bipartisan support in solidarity with Chicago teachers

 
The Whole Story: It was MORE that brought teachers from Chicago here, wrote and circulated petitions, organized and participated in meetings, rallies and a march that started in Union Square.

New Action asks the UFT to join NAACP suit on selective school entrance exams
MORE actually proposed a resolution at the DA which was combined with the Executive Board's resolution and approved

New Action called for support for Seattle teachers who refused to administer standardized tests.
The Whole story: It was a MORE member who brought a resolution to DA.  it was combined with the Executive Board's resolution and approved

Back to James.

One final point: New Action met with some people from MORE last fall and NAC says there was an agreement that MORE would not attack them.  Kit Wainer from MORE was at that meeting and says no such agreement was ever made.  I know Kit and I will stand up 100% for his integrity.  I will be diplomatic and say that apparently there was a misunderstanding.

I am not so kind. They are lying skunks, and I hate to insult skunks.

Now here is the New Action attack on MORE's claim to be the social justice caucus of the UFT.

The Social Justice Caucus? Action vs Words

Published March 25, 2013

MORE Coalition- The Social Justice Caucus?

The MORE group has highlighted their commitment to fight for social justice in recent election material. They call themselves the social justice caucus.

On the other hand it is noteworthy that New Action/UFT has been in the forefront of the struggle for a non-racist, just society. While focusing on all the issues affecting educators in the schools, from the attack on veteran teachers, the attack on probationary teachers, the insanity of SESIS, abusive administrators, the fixation on standardized tests, and blaming educators for all the problems of the education system–New Action has taken action on ALL of the following–

The first to call for disaster relief for Haiti
The first to call for justice for Trayvon Martin
The first to call for an end to Stop and Frisk
The first to call for the defeat of Mike Bloomberg and support for Bill Thompson
The first to call for the defense of the fired leadership of the Puerto Rican teachers
The only caucus to repeatedly call for action on the disappearing Black and Latino educators
The only caucus to petition to end mayoral control
The first caucus to pass a resolution against gun violence
And New Action spoke up for organizing home care providers

MORE would like to have a record to match New Action but it’s not there yet. 

When the MORE coalition matches its actions with its rhetoric–maybe then it can wear the mantle of the social justice caucus!

 Let me just add one more thing.

Among the lies and misdirection from New Action, there is purposely calling MORE a "coalition" instead of a "caucus", a word branded all over everything MORE does, from the blog to the email to every single leaflet.

Why? Because a coalition is a group of groups, a notably unstable and often temporary alliance, which is the impression New Action is trying to give. about MORE. MORE is a caucus where individuals but not all members from many groups have joined.

There is an important difference and New Action, which itself formed as a caucus, not as a coalition between Teachers Action Caucus and New Directions where both those groups disappeared as entities. (TJC has disappeared and while ICE continues as a discussion group most ICEers are working inside MORE.)

Note that TAC was formed out of  Teachers for Community Control after the 1968 strike --- and where has that idea gone with New Action? They want to end Mayoral control but say precious little about local control. Some social justice caucus. And a reason why Ira Goldfine in my post yesterday pointed to how the early leaders of TAC who opened up schools in 1968 must be turning over in their graves.

Why I Am Voting YES on the MORE/New Action Election Alliance; MORE Strategy Vindicated

New Action has come to its senses and decided to align itself with tried and true activists in the MORE caucus. Opposition is finally coming together... NYC Educator, New Action Joins MORE.

Bernie Madoff could win a credibility contest against Mulgrew's Unity Caucus so I'm not too concerned. I have been vocal of my support for MORE and my disgust with New Action. My disgust with NA was rooted in their support of Mulgrew's presidency. Now that NA has removed that support, my disgust is waning. MORE still has credibility in my book. ....Roseanne McCosh - PS8X

MORE held an extensive discussion at the MORE general meeting on Saturday, which included push back from some people over various issues related to the arrangement and asking what are the differences between MORE and NA, etc. (I'll get into some of those another time).

Kit Wainer, whose roots were TJC, led the discussion - he was also one of our reps in discussions with NA - and when I think back to where TJC stood on NA 10 years ago -- well to me this was something.

MORE is in the process of a membership vote on the proposal to endorse the election 2016 working arrangement with New Action.

I am voting YES.

This may surprise readers of Ed Notes going back to its beginnings in 1997. I have been a severe critic of New Action, even when my pals James Eterno and Ellen Fox were elected to the UFT Exec Bd as New Action. Of course once NA made its deals with Unity as far back as 2002/3, we became allies in ICE.

ICE offered New Action a deal for 2007 election
That didn't stop us from contacting New Action before the election in 2007 - ICE/TJC had defeated NA in the 2004 election for the high school Ex Bd seats - the only time NA did not have people on the Exec Bd since 1994. That offer was turned down and ICE and TJC continued to work together - which culminated in a merger of sorts in 2012 to form MORE with others.

When MORE formed, individuals from New Action were invited in and some did join MORE while continuing to support New Action. That did cause some tension. After the 2013 election when MORE significantly outpolled New Action in every division other than retirees, things began to change.

MORE stood firm on refusal to work with New Action
At first New Action asked for some working arrangements with MORE. We refused  - why help promote another caucus that was partnering with Mulgrew?

At a meeting in October 2013 Julie Cavanagh and I made that point very clear to New Action. We are ready to work with you when you agree to break with Unity. That offer has been on the table since then. I also pointed out that MORE is open to New Action coming in and serving on steering and bringing their experience to MORE. I pointed to the demographics - that MORE was the first opposition in decades to attract a younger generation of teachers - making groups like ICE. TJC and New Action at risk of becoming retiree caucuses. (There is an audio tape of that meeting.)

There were one or two voices in MORE that insisted we not adhere to that position and instead work with New Action even while they officially supported Mulgrew.

MORE stood firm, believing that working with a group that supports Mulgrew would be a disaster for MORE - witness Roseanne's comment above. Only by not compromising would New Action eventually come to see that an alliance would help them and MORE - or else they might be threatened with losing more ground to MORE in the 2016 elections.

And I will say that the old ICE core was much less receptive to New Action than some of the new MOREs who did not live that history.

Personal contact helps
Over the last year at every DA I would tell the guy handing out NA lit: When are you guys rejoining the opposition? He would laugh and say - maybe sooner than you think.



I have to say, that since that Oct. 2013 meeting, I did get the NA point of view and lost a lot of my hostility towards them and to most (not all) of its leaders. I got to hang out with Jonathan Halabi at the AFT14 convention in LA and enjoyed some of our conversation. I realized what an important ally he could be in so many ways.

Another thing that happened was that as MORE chapter leaders began to have contact with New Action chapter leaders, there was a growing mutual respect. Really, that is where a lot of this stuff happens. At the grassroots level.

Now don't get me wrong. My dream of one caucus - branding a clear alternative to Unity - has not come to pass. The slate will look something like MORE/New Action. I think that over the long term that is harmful. People might ask - if you guys can't get together into one organization, how can you run the UFT? Well, coalitions running unions have worked in the past. But at this point of the process, I am not worried about that. In the key area of the high school executive board, MORE will get 4 and New Action will get 3 and MORE gets to choose the presidential candidate.  Pretty much everything else will be split - where there is an odd number - MORE due to its stronger position, will get the extra slot.

At Saturday's meeting, the strengths more than the weaknesses of New Action were brought out. A 25 year old distribution network, the fact that they have been putting out some pretty decent literature over the past year or two - taking very similar positions as MORE. So I won't get into the negatives and the differences at this point.

If we win the high school seats and contend in other divisions we will be working together over the next 3 years. I assume Halabi will be one of the NA Ex Bd members and while MORE hasn't chosen anyone yet, I expect our 4 will bring a lot to the table.

Let's see how well we work together and revisit the issue in April.

New Action, Positioning Itself for UFT 2016 Election Sellout to Unity, Favors "Democracy" - When it Doesn't Affect Seats on UFT Exec Bd

[New Action] want[s] democracy except where it interferes with their keeping seats on the Exec. Board. Unfortunately democracy is not something we grant when it serves us, and deny when it doesn't. I would be happy to work toward democracy with New Action. The very best thing New Action could do would be to ally with MORE and work toward democracy across the board.... NYC Educator, New Action Takes a Position on Semi-Democracy

When Mike Schirtzer sent around a piece from New Action (I didn't even know they had a functioning blog) last night on how they support democracy, I laughed out loud -- louder than at anything I saw on Letterman's last show, which I was watching at the time.

More from Arthur Goldstein-

New Action is now embracing democracy, and rejecting the winner take all mode that shuts out the activists who speak their minds rather than that of Big Brother, Randi Weingarten, or whoever the hell it is that makes the calamitous decisions that have led us to the lowest point in teacher morale I've ever seen. They've taken the same position this blog has taken for years--that high schools ought to select the high school VPs, that NYSUT and AFT reps ought to represent everyone, not just those who sign oaths to vote as told, and that chapter leaders ought to select the District Reps who will support them.

Some facts on how New Action, working with Unity, subverts democracy in the UFT by keeping MORE, which got more votes than New Action in the last election, off the Exec Bd while New Action gets 10 seats via also have those 10 candidates run on the Unity slate. All they have to do in exchange is run Mulgrew (and Weingarten before him) as their presidential candidate.

For instance, MORE received almost 40% of the High School Ex Bd votes in the 2013 election -- 1335 and New Action around 700. Unity got around 1590. Do the math. 

MORE got NO high school seats on the Exec Bd while New Action and Unity split the 7 HS seats between them.

If New Action were not a dishonest organization, putting up a phony piece on how they are for democracy, since they supposedly believe in proportional representation for AFT/NYSUT delegates, they should offer to turn over 40% of the high school ex bd seats to MORE.

Or better yet, let New Action renounce its deal with Unity and rejoin the world of the opposition.

Arthur agrees:

I would be happy to work toward democracy with New Action. The very best thing New Action could do would be to ally with MORE and work toward democracy across the board. Our union has been unsuccessful in mobilizing membership, fighting apathy and cynicism, and that's why the overwhelming majority of members don't find it worth their while to even vote in union elections. 

It's time for leadership to stop building brick walls around opposition voices. I will help with that, if they choose. And if New Action wants to genuinely work toward that, I'll help with that too.

Despite the hectoring from New Action pal Francesco Portelos who has built his house of cards on an alliance with New Action, MORE has made it clear. It will work with New Action in partnership when they stop working in partnership with Michael Mulgrew and Unity Caucus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFT Election Analysis: How New Action Did in the Past 

April, 2001 edition of Education Notes (hard copy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor's Note, Apr. 2001 -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality of literature D
See above 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE and New Action to Run Joint Slate in Upcoming UFT Elections

MORE announced a potential ground-breaking agreement with New Action to run together in the UFT elections, subject to ratification by the membership. Read it here: morecaucusnyc
MORE and New Action Propose Joint Slate for UFT Elections

James Eterno and Kit Wainer, two former UFT presidential candidates were joined by the always amazing Lauren Cohen, chapter leader of PS 321K and a rising star in the movement, as MORE reps in meetings with New Action over the past month to hammer out an agreement.

There is a long convoluted history behind the announcement of a united slate for the 2016 elections by MORE and New Action, still to be ratified by the MORE general membership after a discussion at this Saturday's MORE meeting - the first of the school year. MORE steering has already voted to recommend ratification.

At Saturday's meeting MORE will also discuss and nominate potential presidential candidates. The agreement with New Action allows for the candidate to come from MORE.

I will be telling a more detailed story with background in upcoming blog posts because I think in order to move forward we have to understand the historical context and the lessons learned. I posted Part 1 of the history of opposition caucuses in the UFT  which took us up to the mid-90s.

• UFT Caucus History/Math Lesson: Long Division - Part I

My thesis has been that multi slates and multi caucuses has been a hindrance to developing an effective opposition. There is some irony in taking this position, given that I helped form a new caucus called ICE in late 2003 in response to the New Action deal with Unity, which disemboweled the opposition in the UFT. Over time it became clear to many of us that we needed to create one big tent and MORE was the result. New Action has been invited into the tent since MORE's formation. 

This is not exactly what is happening - at this point - though one might get that impression from  headline  from NYC Educator 
New Action Joins MORE - New Action has come to its senses and decided to align itself with tried and true activists in the MORE caucus. Opposition is finally coming together.

I wish New Action members actually joined MORE so we could build one brand for the opposition. But New Action prefers a joing MORE/New Action slate where we work together but as 2 separate organizations.

New Action and MORE are running much along the lines that ICE and TJC ran together in the 2007 and 2010 elections. I think that even though it is better than having 2 separate lines on the ballot it still sends a message to members - why do you need 2 caucuses?

ICE and TJC finally got the message that we had to be in one caucus together in order to move forward and withdrew from UFT electoral politics even though ICE maintains itself as a non-electoral caucus. I have no problems with various groups putting forth their ideas but for UFT elections I believe we need one group. While the current agreement with New Action is not an ideal one from my perspective, I view it as a beginning with the hope that New Action members will get involved in MORE and join MORE steering to help run it.

Many of us have been severe critics of New Action over the past decade, non more so than former New Action member who was tossed out, along with Ellen Fox and Camille Eterno and Lisa North when they balked at the deal with Unity and then joined me and other Ed Notes supporters to form ICE.  Here is James' take on the announcement on the ICE blog where some of his reservations seeps through.

MORE and NEW ACTION TENTATIVELY AGREE TO RUN TOGETHER IN 2016 UFT ELECTION

I will urge MORE members to ratify the agreement on Saturday because it is the right thing to do and a way forward for the opposition. MORE, unlike the older caucuses, has been successful in attracting a new generation of activists, mostly in their 30s with a long career ahead of them. Most members of ICE and TJC understood back in 2011 and 2012 that we had to give up some of our independence in the interests of building a force to challenge Unity. I am hoping that this elections is a transition faze towards that aim.

The reality of groups like ICE, TJC and New Action is that we are too loaded with retirees or soon to be retirees. You can't build an opposition on the backs of retirees or teachers looking down that road even though Unity relies very much on retirees to hold on to power.

MORE is being run by 8-15 year teachers, not even halfway through their careers. Retirees like me have been happy to take a step back and let them take over. They are the future.

Portelos - He's Just an Excitable Boy: Did MORE Tell New Action That Only MORE Can Choose the Presidential Candidate?

They [MORE] want democracy, but told New Action that only MORE can choose the presidential candidate. Now that's democracy.  ... Francesco Portelos, comment on a blog

I responded:

New Action proposed to MORE that the presidential candidate come from MORE subject to approval by New Action. New Action was invited to all meetings to discuss that choice.

Portelos sent me an email still claiming that MORE had dictated to New Action and mocking MORE's democracy.

Most intelligent people have learned to ignore emails from Portelos since any response may be parsed, edited and made public but I had been drinking too much wine, so I responded.

When Portelos engages in mistruths, distortions and outright lies they have been dubbed as a "Pulling a Porty." Most of the people in MORE and ICE ignore these misthruths, distortions and outright lies, which are bought wholesale by his supporters who feel he has no reason to tell lies. Until they get to know him better.

[Full disclosure: I was one of these people for years who believed what he was telling me. Until I saw the cracks and began to examine things in more detail.]

So, I finished my glass of wine and I sent the whining Porty an email informing him of the truth. I pointed out that New Action had been the ones to state that due to the higher MORE vote totals compared to New Action in the 2013 election that was a factor in their decision to give MORE the priority choice for president and would also decide that MORE gets to break any ties when there are odd numbers of candidates.

Portelos responded by disparaging the higher vote totals MORE received in the election as a factor and somehow raising that was not being democratic. In his world of democracy, if one caucus gets double or triple the number of votes it makes no difference. But hey, it was New Action that brought that factor up. If you polled people in ICE, MORE, New Action, TJC, etc, they would probably agree with New Action that MORE's significantly higher vote totals should be a factor. Watch the tune change if Solidarity should outpoll MORE in the election. Suddenly vote totals would matter. [I could write his press release now].

When faced with the truth that New Action had initiated the suggestion that the presidential candidate come from MORE's ranks, Portleos  delved into his fiction library: "That's not what New Action says."

At that point I didn't even bother to respond.

Portelos makes up fictional people when facing the truth.

Will the fictional New Action person stands up publicly and affirm what Portelos assert "That's not what New Action says?"If there is such a person, I say "no guts, no glory."

Jonathan Halabi, a leader of New Action actually did affirm that my response was correct.

Jonathan said on the same blog...

It's not necessary to make stuff up. Norm is correct. It was our (New Action's) proposal. [Norm Editorial: Of course it is necessary for Porty to make stuff up.]

We suggested that the slate be split evenly, but that the presidential candidate come from MORE's ranks, subject to approval by New Action's executive board, which is exactly what happened.

In fact, the first meeting didn't feel very much like a negotiation at all. We came to quick agreement on all major issues, and spent the remaining time chatting and discussing strategy, details, etc.

Here's the actual language on the composition of the slate:

3. Allocation of Slots
• The allocation of slots, in general should reflect both the relative strength of the caucuses, and the history and significance of the caucuses.
• The number of delegate slots is sufficient that both groups may supply as many delegate candidates as they wish; we are unlikely to run out of space.
• The number of officer, divisional and at-large slots should be divided evenly, except where there is an odd number (eg, 7 high school slots) the extra seat will be filled by MORE.
• The presidential candidate will come from MORE’s ranks, and be agreed to by both groups.
• In the case of other officer candidates, and the divisional executive board candidates, the groups will review each other’s choices and agree to the specific candidates. If there are specific objections, the groups will discuss. In all other cases the individual group may choose its candidates without consulting the other group.

Jonathan

Of course there has been no retraction from Solidarity Caucus or Portelos. One of Portelos' people told me he still believes that MORE forced New Action into its choice for president and in the world of Solidarity what Portelos believes, no matter how far-fetched, becomes reality.

After all, he's just an excitable boy.

*Message to Solidarity members:
Remind us once again why MORE, ICE, New Action, NYCORE, etc. should support this guy for President of the UFT.

UFT Election Back Stories

Gotham Schools' Anna Philips has a report on the upcoming UFT elections (ballots go out March 7 and must be returned by April 6 - count is April 7 and is open to UFT members). I left a comment.

The reason Randi got 74% in her first election was that New Action, the main opposition at the time, was still a force and able to pull a quarter of the votes. Now they have sunk to below 10%, with many of those coming from retirees.

For a comparison of voting patterns over the lst few elections, see a spreadsheet we prepared 3 years ago at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pgxRf3gM4qtyBFmTshSW1fQ&hl=en

You wiil note that Randi's % dropped in 2007, but her vote total really dropped from 42,000 to 35,000 between 2004 and 2007 while the number of retirees voting for Unity remained constant at over 18,000 votes. Can it be that half if Unity's votes come from retirees? It's late and my eyes are bleary. But here's the skinny on the HS vote.

Elaborating on the high school executive board seats and why they are up for contention:

First of all, our 6 great candidates.

From ICE
Arthur Goldstein, CL of Francis Lewis HS, who you all know very well from his writings on Gotham.

Michael Fiorillo, former CL and current delegate from Newcomers HS who has also commented very astutely on many issues at Gotham.

John Lawhead, CL of Tilden, a soon to be closed school. John used to be at Bushwick HS which also was closed, so he is an expert on the politics of closing schools. He is also has been an expert on the high stakes testing issue for many years and has taught many of us in ICE the implications of the high stakes testing game.

From TJC
Kit Wainer, CL from Leon Goldstein HS, who headed the ICE-TJC slate in 2007. Kit has been a long-time activist and is one of the founders of TJC.

Marian Swerdlow, FDR HS, also a long-time activist in UFT politics and a former delegate.

Peter Lamphere, CL of Bronx HS of Science, who has been active for many years.

Some facts about this particular piece of the election

These 6 high school seats have been Unity's problem for over 20 years (the high school vote always split around 50/50), as they consistently lost them to the opposition, which used to be New Action.

But in 2003/4 New Action started making deals with Randi - they wouldn't run against her if she wouldn't run Unity candidates for these 6 seats, thus ceding them to New Action. Many New Action members also got part-time jobs at the UFT.

This dirty deal led to the formation of ICE (many from the Education Notes circle) for the 2004 elections and an alliance with TJC, which had been around for a decade but had never run in an election before 2003. Both groups had a lot to learn and had to build a new infrastructure from scratch.

With Unity not running candidates for these seats, the direct confrontation with New Action led to ICE-TJC winning those seats, which placed people like Jeff Kaufman and James Eterno (who has been on the EB as a New Action rep but left them over the Unity deal) on the EB. As someone who had been attending the EB meetings for a while, they brought a breath of fresh air to the meetings over their 3 years on the board, forcing Unity to address many issues, including the rubber room (Kaufman's short trip to the RR as an Ex Bd member made some headlines and his experience there and support for his colleagues, plus his legal background, brought many issues into the light.) Their voices were loud and strong in fighting the disastrous 2005 contract.

In order to still these voices, in 2007 Unity guaranteed New Action 3 of the HS EB seats by co-endorsing - which means a Unity vote counted for New Action- and took 3 seats for themselves. ICE-TJC got 36% of the vote and could not top the combined New Action (12%) /Unity (51%) totals, though ICE-TJC outpolled New Action in every division of the union except retirees. (Since New Action sold out their vote totals have dropped consistently amongst working teachers from the mid 20% to single digits in 2007). To make it clearer. New Action got 3 HS EB seats while getting only 521 votes while ICE-TJC received over 1500 votes and got no seats. UFT democracy inaction.

You can see a vote comparison of the 2004 and 2007 elections at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pgxRf3gM4qtyBFmTshSW1fQ&hl=en

New Action also received 5 additional EB seats for a total of 8 as a reward for keeping the independent voices of ICE-TJC off the Board.

We assume that a similar deal will be in operation in this election. If ICE-TJC can increase its vote in the HS to 50%, not an impossibility given the conditions, then the 6 people mentioned above, although an extreme minority out of 89 EB seats, would serve on the Board and give voice to a large group of disenfranchised teachers, paras, secretaries, etc.

And it would further drive a stake through the heart of New Action's bogus claims to be an opposition. If they lose, will it threaten their jobs at the UFT? Probably not, but if you detect an air of desperation on the part of New Action, you know why. Unity will probably offer a similar deal like last time and hand them additional seats in order to make phony claims of bi-partisanship. If ICE-TJC does win these seats, just watch New Action EB members line up on most votes with Unity.

Unlike ICE/GEM people, New Action has been absent from the line of fire of closing schools and charter school invasions (they supported the UFT charter school invasion of 2 public schools in East NY). Will the rank and file be aware of these differences? While the word has been out about New Action to some areas of the UFT, we theorize that a batch of New Action votes come from people who still believe they are the old New Action.


You can follow the UFT elections at the new ICE blog: http://uftelections2010.blogspot.com/

UFT Election Preliminary Results

These are not final as they were counting ballots that came in yesterday -- 700 and not all were counted. These results also do not have the non-slate ballots which take a long time to count -- so individual totals for every candidate will vary.

My % numbers are based on rough estimates and lousy math.

The major story is the incredibly low turnout amongst working teachers. Maybe 22%. Weingarten's "overwhelming" victory should be looked at in that context. Of course that also applies to our votes.

Weingartens' 10,000 votes TOTAL (on Unity slate) from elem, middle and HS is numbing. Add around less than 1500 she got from New Action (a portion of whom did not know they were voting for her.) So she gets less than 12,000 votes out of the teaching staff of 70,000? More likely closer to 11,000 or less real support. I view this as an overwhelming rejection of her leadership. We just failed to capitalize.

An enormous bulk of votes coming from the Unity/New Action totals -- over 20,000 retiree votes. New Action got 1600 and we got 1061 - 5% of retirees.

Out of 50,000 retiree votes sent out around 22, 500 voted. Only 18,000 count as they will be pro-rated.

HS
Unity got 2183 HS votes total out of almost HS 20,000 ballots sent out. We got 1524 and New Action got 521. That means Unity would have won barely if we got all the New Action votes -- but we would have challenged the election results if we had. New Action gets 3 ex bd seats with 521 votes. Democracy Inaction. They also got the 5 at-large seats for a total of 8 with an incredibly low % of votes.

Middle school returns were almost a joke. Out of 13,000 ballots sent out 2384 returned. Here are the results:
ICE/TJC: 444 (almost 20%)
Unity: 1499
New Action: 273

Elementary: Out of 37,000 ballots, 8,904 returned.
ICE/TJC: 1337 (15%)
Unity 6252
New Action: 562

Functional: paras, secties, nurses, speech, attendance, etc
Out of 42,000 votes, 9000 returns
ICE/TJC: 1032
Unity: 6464
Nw Action: 548

Loooking at the teaching staff in the 3 divisions (rough numbers):
70,000 ballots sent out. 15,000 returns
Retirees. 50,000 sent out. 22,400 returns

Positive Trends:
ICE/TJC buried New Action in every division except retirees where New Action got the bulk of their votes (almost half). The goal of replacing New Action as the recognized opposition has been met.

ICE/TJC increased their vote in every division from last time not as much by total but by %.

Negative:
the campaign obviously did not reach the membership. TJC put out about 90,000 leaflets and we did about 50-60,000. The impact if any must be assessed. TJC did a mailing to every middle school teacher in the Bronx. With 444 total votes that impact was probably negligible.

Putting a lot of time and energy into Exec Bd and the DA looks like a waste. The results bear that out.

If an opposition/alternative is to grow (and the removal of New Action as a legit opposition despite their 8 seats is and continues to be a goal) direct, continuous activity to reach the teachers in the schools is necessary. Only a group of people who have the will to do this will make a difference.

Look at the high school results; 1524 total votes.
Think of the number of large high schools with people running with ICE/TJC-- many with 200 members.

Off the top of my head:
Jamaica, Hillcrest, Bryant, Aviation, Stuvesant, Bergtraum, Norman Thomas, FDR, Francis Lewis, Port Richmond, Bronx High. Did the bulk of our votes come from these few schools? Then the leafleting campaign had almost 0 impact.

For Unity it is even worse when you think of only 2183 votes after all the power they have? And New Action's 521 with their massive leafleting campaign? Unity would still have won without them. Interesting that their red-baiting campaign was a slap at new Action too.

(And by the way, New Action is trumpeting that their web site has an objection - tepid at that and that Shulman called Randi and she sort of apologized. New Action grows more pathetic by the minute.)

Frankly, it did not look like either New Action or Unity were happy. The ICE/TJC people at the count had the most fun all day. No spirit is bowed.

The issue: Is there a way to wake up the membership in the schools? What strategy would it take to do that? If the answer is that is not possible, people must decide if it is worth continuing. If the answer is there is a way, then people must have the will.

Corrected: Whither New Action: Mulgrew Tops New Action Slate as 10 NA Candidates Run on Unity Slate, Including 2 co-chairs Shulman and Halabi

Historical correction sent in by Ira Goldfine:

In 1977 and 1979 we ran together with TAC and we called ourselves UNITED FIGHTBACK - in 1981 we formed NAC (the N for New Directions, A for Teachers Action Caucus and C for the Coalition of NYC Schoolworkers) and ran a full slate of 675 people with Pessin as the presidential candidate. We took nearly 30% of the total vote and over 35% excluding the functional chapter.

You won't see these facts stated anywhere in New Action literature as they play their
decade-old assigned role of trying to confuse UFT members into voting for them and dividing the forces opposed to Unity. It always wasn't this way.

From 1990-2001, New Action which formed as a result of the merger of two caucuses (Teachers Action Caucus and New Directions*), was the major voice of the opposition, not always the strongest voice (as Ed Notes began pointing out when I started publishing in 1997) but the major place people opposed to Unity were able to go. They were able to garner over 10,000 votes and win the 6 or 7 (depending on the year) high school executive board seats in every election except one during those years. In 1991 they also won 6 middle school seats, thus giving them 13 EB seats, the most an opposition in the UFT has ever had.

It was directly due to this challenge that Unity, after beating back NA in 1993 when Unity regained 100% of the EB, took the opportunity to remove the divisional vice presidents from being voted on by the members of the division to make sure the opposition never gets to be one of the 11 officers (now known as the AdCom). In other words, if the high school teachers voted NA the HS VEEP would still be Unity. Which is exactly what happened in the 1995, 97, 99 and 2001 elections.

Then Randi, in what is perhaps her most brilliant move, made an offer to New Action which was worried about losing the high school seats in the 2004 elections (Unity pushed through a change from 2 to 3 year terms). She would not run ANY Unity candidates for those seats if NA wouldn't run anyone for president against her.

New Action bit and thus was born a collaboration that has turned NA into a shell of what it once was (check the vote totals as they dropped to an afterthought over the past decade.)

But proving the old adage that lemonade can be made out of lemons, the actions of NA spurred 2 other groups into action. Readers and supporters of Ed Notes, which had been critical of New Action for its tepid role as an opposition even before they did the dirty deal, formed the Independent Community of Educators (ICE-- one of the major forces behind MORE today). They were joined by key defectors from New Action: James and Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox and Lisa North. ICE, founded in late 2003 and just a month old, decided to run a slate in the 2004 elections.

Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC), a decade old advocacy group in the UFT, also decided to run for the first time in the 2004 elections. Both groups ran a joint slate for the high schools directly opposing the New Action slate, which without Unity running at all for these 6 seats, assumed they would win. New Action didn't, which pissed Randi off to no end.

The ICE-TJC slate won those seats and put people like James Eterno and Jeff Kaufman on the Ex Bd. For James it was a continuation of his years as the NA rep but now combined with Kaufman, the two of them raised hell with the Unity agenda, challenging them in a way they had not been before. One can imagine how people like NA dictator Mike Shulman felt sitting and stewing at EB meetings watching James and Jeff do their thing. And plotting with Unity how they could remove these thorns in both their sides.

And remove them they did in the 2007 and 2010 elections when they made sure a mix of New Action and Unity controlled the high school seats by running 3 from each caucus on both the Unity and New Action slates. In addition, New Action was given 5 more EB seats at large, including Shulman, who as a retiree finally made it on to the board.

In both elections, ICE-TJC almost doubled the NA high school vote but when their totals were added to the Unity total that shut out ICE-TJC which got no seats on the board.

A look at the 2010 HS slate voting totals: Unity 2600, ICE-TJC 1350, NA 750. A total of roughly 5000 votes out of a potential of almost 20,000.

In the 2013 elections with the rise of MORE, Unity needed New Action more than ever and has rewarded them with 10 EB seats. Thus if you look at the ballot you will see 10 New Action (and 4 Unity, including Mulgrew) running on both slates.

When you see your ballot you will notice that there are only 2 presidential candidates. Julie Cavanagh for MORE and Mulgrew with Unity/New Action next to his name. Thus there are only 2 real choices in this election, not 3.

And if you are a high school teacher you will see an interesting mix of EB candidates for your division. 7 MORE people and 7 mixed New Action and Unity. These are winnable seats if high school teachers come out to vote and vote for MORE, thus giving a real opposition a beach head in the exec bd. Thus it is crucial to get out the vote from the 25-27% in the last election which would give MORE a chance to defeat the NA/Unity combo.

In an upcoming post I will tell you about these 7 MORE people.

-----

*A history of the roots of New Action: Teachers Action Caucus (TAC) and New Directions (ND)

In 1990 the 2 major caucuses in the UFT merged into one caucus with a lot of promise.

TAC was founded in 1968 as an outgrowth of Teachers for Community Control (TCC), which consisted of people who had been associated with the old left Teachers Union which had disbanded in 1964 after suffering from years of persecution from the Board of Education over their ties to the Communist Party. (The very founding of the UFT was part of this anti-left push, but that's for another time.) TCC supported the community against the 1968 UFT strike and when they formed TAC they were branded scabs for many years by the UFT. Despite that they ran campaigns in UFT elections and found a following among teachers on the left, many of whom entered the system in the late 60s. Some were with what was termed the "New Left" and internally there were struggles between what was termed the "Stalinist pro-Soviet" old left and the mostly Trotskyist New Left.

As a non-leftist I entered into this world in the fall of 1970 in my 4th year of teaching. I was associated with a group of left-oriented people who were in neither camp but willing to build alliances. We tried initially with TAC but found that organization locked in its own narrow frame of politics and could make no headway moving policy changes. So we left and formed not another caucus but an advocacy group called the Coalition of NYC School Workers. We had no intention of running in elections but spent a lot of time analyzing and writing on policy and we attracted a large group of followers, including many from the New Left/Trotskyist groups who had no where else to go even if they were unhappy with some of the direction we were heading in.

Sometime in late 1975/early 1976 they split the CSW in half and formed New Directions which was aimed at running a slate in the 1977 UFT elections directly against Unity and TAC. We were adamantly opposed to doing that and formed an alliance with TAC to run together in the 77 elections. I believe we called ourselves New Action Caucus. ND ran its own course, but in some irony they threw out the Trotskyists that had fomented the split from us. (The trots formed a new group that never was a caucus that was called "Chalk Dust" and it lasted until the late 80s.)

It wasn't until around 1980 that New Directions began to join with us to run in elections throughout the 80s, even winning the high school vice president seat for Mike Shulman in 1985, an event that shook Unity. (Some irony here and an entire story how Unity sued themselves that the election was unfairly run and forcing another election, thus keeping Shulman from being seated for almost a year).


Sometime after that, ND had another purge, tossing out their leader Marc Pessin (I could write a book on him) who was apparently obstructing a move to merge with TAC, which had been a bitter enemy and would never have joined with ND as long as he was involved. ND had moved steadily to the right in a sense in that it ignored almost all social issues. Which was interesting and seemed to pave the way for a merger between the old left TAC which had been branded as scabs for breaking the 68 strike and more right ND.

The idea of Unity making a deal with anything to do with TAC was inconceivable until both Shanker and Feldman were out of the picture given their history of ani-communism. Even people like me were preferable and I had quite a few conversations with some of the upper echelon Unity people who loved my critiques of New Action, who they considered spineless. And so they turned out to be.

When Randi made the deal with New Action in 2003 there was just a bit of churning and turning in the graves of the old UFT right wing social democrats. The old guard was not happy, but there was such turnover in Unity, there was no real resistance.

Ed Notes Redux: Why I Left New Action by James Eterno

I should not be surprised that the newer activists who are teaching 15 years and less often don't have a full understanding of the historical context behind many issues. Recently there has been some discussion inside MORE about New Action and I see the need to connect some of the dots. I am going back into the Ed Notes print archives for some stories and here is one from James at the founding point of ICE where he left NA to help create ICE and wrote this piece for the January 2004 edition of Ed Notes.

Ed Notes: Jan. 2004

New Action/Unity in Corrupt Bargain
Why I Left New Action!!!
by James Eterno, UFT Executive Board

Since 1824, historians have debated and criticized an alleged corrupt bargain that made John Quincy Adams President of the United States, even though he had fewer votes in the general election than Andrew Jackson.  In exchange for the presidency, Adams supposedly agreed to dole out a patronage job to Henry Clay if he would prevent Jackson from securing the White House. Adams was elected President by the House of Representatives where Clay was a leader, and soon after Adams appointed Clay as his Secretary of State.  This little bit of presidential history is being repeated in UFT politics, except now the corrupt bargain is being made before the union’s presidential election.

A deal between the two main caucuses (political parties) has been reached.  New Action has agreed not to run a candidate for president against Randi Weingarten in next spring’s UFT Election but they will run a slate for other positions.  How can a political party (NAC) run in an election and not run for the top office?   Would any citizen vote for the Democratic Party’s Vice Presidential candidate next year if the Democrats decided not to run a candidate for president against Bush, but a Democrat ran for VP?  If NAC is not opposing Randi, why run at all?  What will be their slogan?  “Randi and New Action. Perfect Together.”  Anyone who votes for NAC will be voting for a fraudulent opposition and essentially supporting Weingarten. 

In return for not running against Weingarten, Randi’s Unity Caucus has agreed to open up part time union jobs for New Action (NAC) members and to not run candidates against NAC’s six High School Executive Board candidates in the upcoming election.  Unity also agreed to have an organizing committee that includes NAC members to organize weak chapters and to have a bipartisan UFT Action Committee formulate an action plan. Finally, Unity will support a change to the UFT Constitution to allow a caucus to replace its UFT Executive Board members if seats become vacant between elections. These cosmetic changes will not exactly alter the Union’s fundamentally undemocratic structure.

This modern UFT version of the corrupt bargain has convinced me to end my eight year association with New Action.  I joined NAC in 1995.  NAC leader Michael Shulman helped me a great deal when I became chapter leader of Jamaica High School in 1996.  Furthermore, since 1997 I have been elected three times by the high school teachers, with NAC’s endorsement, to the UFT Executive Board.  My resignation may cost me my Executive Board seat, but I would rather lose my seat than to be involved in a sham election.

Shulman, NAC Co-chair David Kaufman and their cohorts believe that the UFT is in a war with Bloomberg/Klein and we all have to pull together and support our president to fight the common enemy at City Hall.  Shulman is half correct.  We are under attack from the city, but NAC’s leaders are wrong because we have an obligation to challenge a UFT president who might not even try to truly fight City Hall.

Bloomberg/Klein have: eliminated the Education Evaluators, virtually ended sabbaticals, laid off paras, imposed double period block programming without our input, imposed 50 minutes of extended time in most schools twice a week in violation of our Contract as well as State Law, deprived us of the right to choose the best approach to how we teach in many classrooms, and they are refusing to hear safety grievances.  These are just a few of the many indignities that have been heaped upon us.  The UFT has filed grievances, had a rally and gone to court but meanwhile Klein continues to abuse us.  Weingarten is not winning the war and I wonder if she really wants to clash with the city.

Ask yourself the following fundamental question.  Do you think Weingarten/Unity will risk dues check-off (the union’s right to automatically deduct $37 in UFT dues from each of our paychecks)?  Automatic dues check-off could be lost if we have a real job action.  A job action could deprive the Union of the funds that support its huge patronage system.  I hope my fears are unfounded; however I seriously question whether the UFT leadership will encourage anything more from the membership than symbolic actions, and without a full scale mobilization, Bloomberg/Klein can continue to mistreat us.  Therefore, it is crucial that we have a real choice for UFT president in 2004.

Had Britain followed New Action’s logic and backed its prime minister during World War II, when they were not winning in 1940, Neville Chamberlain (appeasement’s great champion) would have remained at the helm and Winston Churchill would never have ascended to power.  The UFT needs a Churchill now and not a Chamberlain.  At least we should have the option to vote for a different line of attack.

Traditionally, New Action took a militant approach to unionism.  Strong, valid criticism of Unity/Weingarten for allowing our union to be weakened to its current state was what led to NAC winning the high schools in the last four UFT Elections.  However, since the last UFT Election in 2001, NAC has moved closer to Unity, although there have been bitter disagreements within New Action.  At some point last summer [2003], Shulman and Weingarten met and the corrupt bargain was proposed.  Later in the summer a majority of New Action’s Executive Board, despite a great deal of strong dissent, agreed not to run a candidate for president in the upcoming election.  With the corrupt bargain in place, Unity and New Action are now virtually interchangeable.  Hundreds of rank and file New Action members never heard about this deal.  I resigned from NAC as I could not conceive of supporting such a bogus election scam.

Unfortunately, the biggest losers in the corrupt bargain are the members of the UFT.  We could be deprived of a serious choice for UFT president in 2004, an election that will determine the future direction of the Union.  That is of course unless some rank and file group can come together and save the day by nominating a viable alternative to Weingarten to run for president.

This modern UFT version of the corrupt bargain has convinced me to end my eight year association with New Action.  I joined NAC in 1995.  NAC leader Michael Shulman helped me a great deal when I became chapter leader of Jamaica High School in 1996.  Furthermore, since 1997 I have been elected three times by the high school teachers, with NAC’s endorsement, to the UFT Executive Board.  My resignation may cost me my Executive Board seat, but I would rather lose my seat than to be involved in a sham election.

In the UFT election held in March 2004, James Eterno, running for HS Ex Bd on the newly formed ICE/TJC slate won the HS seats from New Action (as part of the corrupt bargain, Unity did not run) thus ushering in a 3 year era of militant opposition to Unity/New Action policies on the EB led by James and Jeff Kaufman. In the 2007, 10 and 13 elections, Unity and New Action cross endorsed candidates to make sure this would not happen again. But in the 13  election, MORE got within a few hundred votes of capturing the 7 HS EB seats from the NA/Unity slate.

Don't think there isn't some heavy worry going on over at NA/Unity HQ over this possibility and developing strategies to counter the possibility that MORE could win any EB positions in the next election.