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.

Historical Perspective of Education Notes

A short history of Education Notes, its relationship to the UFT leadership, the formation of the Independent Community of Educators (ICE) and the Grassroots Education Movement (GEM) was distributed in the hard copy Dec. '09 edition of Ed Notes at the Delegate Assembly, where I have been handing it out almost every month since 1996. That's pretty much the entire Brazilian rain forest. There is a pdf available for downloading if you wish to share it with someone who has no life. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24276475/Ed-Notes-Dec-09)

I began publishing Education Notes in 1996 at Delegate Assemblies because I was frustrated at the process that allowed the chair, usually the UFT president, almost total domination of the procedures. If you wanted to get the floor to make a resolution they had total control over who got to speak and if you were too outspoken on issues not liked by the leadership, you could easily get shut out. By distributing Ed Notes before meetings, I got to say my piece, whether I was called on or not. Ed Notes grew in size from one sheet to a 10-14-page booklet and then in 2002 when I retired, it became a full-sized 16-page tabloid published 4 times a year.

Having come out of the opposition movement to Unity Caucus in the 70’s (I was mostly inactive in the union from the mid-80’s through the early 90’s) I became active again when I replaced a Unity Caucus chapter leader in 1994 at my elementary school, which had a “my way or the high way” principal for over 15 years and we had butted heads all the time. My becoming chapter leader freaked her out and I began publishing a school newsletter, often once a week. That freaked her out even more and I began to understand the power of the press, even at the most local level.

I took a look at the opposition groups and didn’t find much that appealed to me. New Action was the major opposition caucus and was fairly ineffective though it did win support in the high schools by winning the 6 high school Exec Bd seats on a regular basis. Six out of 89 gave them little leverage and after leading the successful battle against the first 1995 contract to be rejected by the membership, they started fading. PAC, a smaller opposition group was totally focused on the teachers who were losing their licenses when they didn’t pass the teacher exams. Teachers for a Just Contract took positions I agreed with, but I thought they focused too much on a narrow range of issues.

I would attend UFT Exec Board meetings and was so frustrated at the way New Action would deal with Unity, so often cowed into submission. There didn’t seem to be enough fight in them, though a few like Marvin Markman and James Eterno were at times effective. But New Action leader Michael Shulman was the dominant player and so often seemed to throw a blanket over the Caucus.

Thus I figured the only way to create some change in the union was to appeal to what I felt had to be a progressive wing of Unity. At that time, Randi Weingarten was about to take over the union and presented herself as leading that progressive force. She reached out to me, claiming she agreed with me on so many issues, sometimes through late night email exchanges. Her people whispered that she was going to make changes in the union to democratize it and even make changed to liberalize Unity. But absolute power --- you know the drill.

By 2001, it was becoming clear that Randi was not only not liberalizing the union, but also making it more undemocratic than ever. As a small example, the new motion period ever since I became a delegate in 1971, took place immediately after the question period. Suddenly, if Randi didn’t like a resolution I was proposing, she either eliminated the time altogether or pushed it to the end of the meeting. She became more and more of a demagogue. In 2001, I became increasingly restive as she started supporting merit pay schemes and mayoral control, and I became increasingly critical of her and Unity Caucus, seeing that whatever progressive wing there might be (and I had plenty of conversations with people who came off that way) was cowed by Unity Caucus discipline. It became clear that the caucus was like a black hole. Once you went in you never came out.

Many of the positions Ed Notes took in the late 90’s - opposition to high stakes testing and the ridiculous accountability it engendered, unbridled principal power, drastic reductions in class size, support for chapter leaders under attack, a stronger grievance procedure, total opposition to merit pay, a broader curriculum not based on standardized tests began to attract some of the few independent delegates not affiliated with the other opposition groups. People like Michael Fiorillo.

The New Action Sellout
For activists in the union, the dirty deals made between Randi and New Action Caucus in 2003 whereby they wouldn’t run a presidential candidate against her in the 2004 elections and she wouldn’t run Unity Caucus candidates against their 6 high school Ex Bd candidates was a seminal event. Dissidents in New Action who opposed the deal contacted me. James and Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox and Lisa North. They were outraged at the sell-out, especially over the fact that all of a sudden, New Action members were on the union payroll.

Eterno, who had been serving as a New Action Ex Bd member for years, turned down that guaranteed opportunity. We called a meeting of the New Action dissidents and the independents I had been meeting through Ed Notes. Incredibly impressive people like John Lawhead (now chapter leader of Tilden HS), Sean Ahern, Jeff Kaufman and Julie Woodward. Added to that were some of the people who I had been active with in the 70’s: Ira Goldfine, Loretta and Gene Prisco, Paul Baizerman and Vera Pavone.

Formation of the Independent Community of Educators
Out of that meeting on Halloween 2003 came the Independent Community of Educators (ICE), which decided to run a slate in the 2004 elections and challenge New Action for those 6 high school seats, which given the fact that Unity was not running for those seats, we had a chance.

In the meantime, TJC was emerging as another group willing to challenge the Unity/New Action alliance. There were some differences and some ruffled feelings at the time but TJC and ICE united to run one group for those 6 seats, and surprise, surprise, we knocked New Action out of the box by getting more high school votes than they did. This put Jeff Kaufman and James Eterno, along with some strong people from TJC on the Board. For the first time, I saw some fight at these meetings, as Eterno now out from under the New Action blanket, teamed with Kaufman to run Randi ragged. The schlep into the meetings every 2 weeks now became worth it.

By the 2007 elections Randi was desperate to get Kaufman and Eterno out of her hair at these meetings and took her alliance with New Action one step further. She ran a joint Unity/New Action slate for 8 seats, including the 6 high school seats. Thus, every Unity vote would also be a vote for these New Action candidates. Shulman, like a porno salesman with dirty pictures approached one of the former New Action members who was with ICE and offered one of these positions. He was turned down.

Thus, New Action, which actually tells people they have these 8 seats on the Ex Bd without telling them how they got them, tries to claim they are independent. But dare them to declare their independence by running directly against ICE/TJC and without Unity support and see what they will tell you. Shulman actually has the nerve to brag that he refuses to take the double pension from the UFT he could get for his job.

In the upcoming UFT elections, ICE/TJC are running a full slate for the officers and Exec Bd, with an outside chance to win back those 6 high school seats as a beachhead on the Ex Bd to force the leadership to examine its disastrous policies on mayoral control, testing, closing schools, charter schools - you name it, they have been wrong. In response to New Action’s contention its qualified support for Unity has helped the union, I ask them to show us where. By abandoning its historic role opposing Unity, no matter how weak that was, it left a vast vacuum that ICE and TJC have struggled to fill.

ICE/TJC Candidates for HS Ex Bd
There is a superb slate running for all positions, but for now I’ll focus on the six high school candidates, who if elected will have an impact:

Michael Fiorillo is an ICE founder, when Michael speaks or writes on the educational issues of the day, people sit up and listen. He was the chapter chairman at Newcomers HS and is now the delegate.

Arthur Goldstein was recently elected as Chapter Leader of Francis Lewis HS, one of the most overcrowded in the city. Widely published in numerous newspapers and a regular at the Gotham Schools blog, Arthur has established a national reputation as a witty and incisive commenter. In his short time as Chapter leader, he has led the battle to address the overcrowding issues. His commentary on the conditions in the trailer he teaches in has embarrassed Tweed on numerous occasions.

John Lawhead, now chapter leader at Tilden high school, was an ICE founder. He contacted me when he found a copy of Ed Notes in his mailbox at Bushwick HS and wrote some articles. His depth of knowledge on educational issues, particularly on the high stakes testing, is astounding. I went with him to a conference of activists opposing NCLB (remember the UFT/AFT was supporting it) in Birmingham Al, back in early 2003 and hobnobbed with the national resistance to NCLB and high stakes testing. There is not one ICE meeting that goes by that John doesn’t say something that puts things together in a way that makes me say “Aha!”

I’ve known the TJC candidates for years, but I’ll leave it to them to provide more details in their campaign literature.

Kit Wainer, chapter leader of Leon Goldstein HS in Brooklyn for many years, was the ICE/TJC presidential candidate in 2007. Every time I hear him talk at a meeting, he makes complete sense and says it in an amazingly impressive manner.

Marian Swerdlow, who was a long-time delegate from FDR, has been a stalwart of the opposition for almost 20 years. She is as good as anyone I’ve met in breaking down an issue and analyzing it. For years Ed Notes published her awesome DA minutes, which she is still producing. They are not to be missed. If for nothing else, it is worth seeing her on the Ex Bd for those delicious minutes. Imagine the impact Swerdlow, with her ability to think on her feet, would have when Unity tries to pull its shenanigans.

Peter Lamphere, chapter leader at Bronx High School of Science, has been engaged in an epic struggle with a horror story of a principal. Peter was one of the leaders of the 20 math teachers who filed a complaint over harassment. He is as impressive in a public forum as anyone I’ve seen.

Formation of GEM
I must conclude with an account of the origins of the Grassroots Education Movement (GEM), which has been leading the battle against charter, schools and school closings. GEM emerged out of an ICE committee addressing the ATR issue in Jan. 2009. Spearheaded by John Lawhead and Angel Gonzalez, a recent retiree who had been part of the FMPR group supporting the teachers in Puerto Rico and had come to ICE for help and joined, the committee began to address the issue of the roots of the ATR issue by bringing together NYCORE people who were fighting high stakes testing and people from closing schools (it was Lawhead who put these concepts into a neat package for us). GEM held a conference and a march from Battery Park to Tweed last spring and during the summer worked up in Harlem to support the teachers and parents being invaded by Eva Moskowitz’ Harlem Success schools. In a short time, GEM has become recognized throughout the city as the group to go to for support, since the UFT has left such a vacuum.

....to be continued

UFT Elections by the Numbers: 2013 Results Are Baseline for #MORE2016

One reason I am usually pessimistic about UFT election outcomes is that the numbers rarely change drastically from election to election. At times in the past we did expect change. Like after the 2005 contract we expected better outcomes in 2007 - they were better but not by all that much. But when the day comes that the numbers get shaken up by a serious percentage we will know something is shaking.

Why an opposition can't focus on retirees or functionals: lack of resources
52% of the returned votes in 2013 was by retirees. 

The participation results, listed by division:

                               Mailed  ballots           Returned ballots

Functional:         51,040                          7,704

Retirees:              58,357                          22,462

Some people tell us to go after retirees. I'm opposed to putting resources into retirees - there are 50 years of thousands of Unity Caucus retirees who are still alive and they would never switch. I think the recent retirees might vote for us. Last time between MORE and New Action we got about 3000 votes from retirees.

Here are the totals:
                                   2013                                      2010

Functional Division (non-teachers)

MORE                       951                                                 708 for ICE/TJC

New Action             754                                                  1,175

Unity                         5,167                                              7,337

Retiree Division

MORE                       1,490                                             1,037 for ICE/TJC

New Action              1,880                                            2,234

Unity                          18,155                                          20,744

Unity lost about 2000 but MORE and New Action made little gains - in fact New Action lost a lot of functional and retiree votes.

While we are running a full 19 member functional slate for Ex Bd with secretaries, paras, OTs, guidance, social workers etc we still need a critical mass in each of these units to make inroads. So we can't do very much inside the functional units unless we have people who work in those non-teaching areas to do some essential organizing. But most of them are scattered among many schools and a big change in the functionals can only be expected when we see their individual chapters captured from Unity iron-clad control.

Focus on non retiree vote areas of the union
So my strategy and focus is on the teaching portion of the union where retirees don't vote:  the 3 basics --  elem, ms, hs divisions where a total of 23 Executive Board seats can be won which would give the opposition close to 25% of the seats and and a real foothold.

Elementary schools are the long-term key to winning power in the UFT
The key to any opposition getting a serious hold in challenging for power in the UFT is in the elementary schools which have been death valley for opposition caucuses - forever.

Let's look at Unity Caucus total for 2010 and 2013 in Elementary School Division (11 EB seats)

   Mailed  ballots(2013)           Returned ballots

Elementary:         34,163                          7,331

                              2013                             2010

Unity                          5,111                                7,761

Unity dropped over 2500 votes in elem schools alone between 2010 and 2013. 34,000 elem ballots were sent out. The historic problem for the opposition has been a serious lack of penetration out in the far flung district schools where Unity gets many elem CLs into the caucus. The District Reps keep a hawk eye on them to make sure they don't stray into opposition territory.
And they still can only manage less 7300 returns.

Look at the MORE and New Action totals:

Elementary School Division

                                  2013                                                2010 

MORE                       1,140                                               703 for ICE/TJC

New Action                534                                                 978

Basically MORE picked up what New Action lost plus a few hundred. Total of about 1700 - a number that makes me so pessimistic about making big inroads into the Unity majority in the elem schools. I've also seen Unity recover from big drops and it is not impossible for them to bounce back up to 7700. There is no way to gauge because last time we were surprised at all the low totals. But you never know. Theoretically, if MORE/New Action doubled their vote to 3400 (and I have no indication this might happen) and Unity dropped again - well, I can dream.

Which is why all the elementary school ed notes readers can go into their schools on May 6 and take out an organization sheet and go around the school and ask people if they will vote for MORE - and then send those tallies to old Norm so he can get an idea of where things stand. Then you can do one better -- have them bring in the ballot  - everyone has to make sure to not screw up the ballot or it won't be counted. Ideally, since so few people use snail mail and don't even know how to find a mail box, make sure all the ballots get mailed that day.

Middle schools - a slim maybe
Now let's take a look at the middle schools which the opposition one once - in 1991.
                                  2013                                                        2010

Middle School Division

MORE                       398                                                  248 for ICE/TJC

New Action               161                                                    421

Unity                        1,185                                                 1,981

                               Mailed  ballots           Returned ballots

Middle School:   10,807                          1,879

Astoundingly low totals of return and votes for both Unity and MORE and New Action. Unity dropped 800 ms votes and MORE gained 150 while New Action lost 250. If they doubled their vote to 1000 this time and Unity lost 200, VIOLA!

High schools in play
Now when we get to the high schools things get interesting.

                               Mailed  ballots           Returned ballots

High School:      19,040                          3,808

The returned totals are sad and the Unity totals dropped by 1000 between 2010 and 2013 - but they picked up the 452 from the New Action cross endorsement.

High School Division

MORE                       1,430                                              1,369 for ICE/TJC

New Action              452                                                  774

Unity                         1,592                                              2,595

Now if you just assumed the same totals as 2010 the MORE plus New Action would outpoll Unity in the high schools. But never underestimate Unity and I don't assume they will not do what it takes to increase their votes to fend us off. What I would love to see one day is the MORE/New Action vote once again, as it did in the 90s, reach 3000 in the high schools. Pipe dream I know but to me that would be a break. I think with the closing of so many big high schools the large opposition vote totals of the past is something we may not see again.

The totals will be a reflection of the work MORE people are able and willing to do in their own schools to get out the vote. Too bad we can't track the individual school voting pattern - we could reward the MOREs whose schools did well with wine and song and punish those who didn't do well by withholding snacks at meetings.


This data was compiled by Peter Lamphere.