The Passing of Giants: ICE founders And RA Organizers Ellen Fox and Lisa North

I heard from Ellen Fox's daughter this morning that Ellen passed away on Friday, just two weeks after learning about the passing of Lisa North from Alzeimers. Lisa and Ellen were both core members of the Retiree Advocate organizing committee and joined along with me and Gloria Brandman around 2016. Lisa, who was the RA chapter leader candidate in the 2018 chapter election, hadn't been able to participate over the past few years, but she was a key player, especially as an expert educator with Bank St training, a stalwart in the anti-testing movement and. popular with everyone.

Ellen was an active RA member until about 6 weeks ago when we began to lose touch and she said it was due to phone and computer problems. Notorious for going to be in the middle of the night, she used me as her alarm clock to wake her up for our 10AM meetings. Over the past week my phone calls would not go through so Sheila from RA who lives nearby went to the apartment on Tuesday to check and a neighbor said she was in the hospital.

Both Ellen and Lisa had been in New Action from its earliest days in the mid-90s along with the late James Eterno and his wife Camille but left when the leadership made a deal with Randi to support Unity in the 2004 elections and became part of the founding ICE meeting in late October 2003. Think of it: James, Lisa and Ellen lost over the past year.

Ellen has left a giant oppo footprint in the UFT. A member of Teachers Action Caucus from its early days and through their merger with New Directions in 1995 to form New Action, Ellen was elected to the UFT Exec Bd as a HS rep on the NA slate in 1995, 97, 99. She was chapter leader at the massive George Washington HS campus in Washington Hts until transferring to Gregorio Luperon where she was also CL until she retired. 

 

As a founder of ICE her knowledge and experience helped guide the new caucus through the move of ICE into MORE in 2011. Ellen and I handled the petition campaigns for MORE in 2013 and 2016 and she was relentless in hunting down every piece of information we'd need for each candidate. And when we filled in the petition headings her handwriting was impeccable.

 

She left MORE along with the rest of us and joined the RA Organizers when we began Zoom meetings during the pandemic.

Her analysis of UFT politics was deep and insightful. She earned the love and respect even from the people running the union, with LeRoy Barr being a big admirer.

Her daughter said there would be no burial but a memorial sometime in January.

As for Lisa, I hear there may be a memorial in December but have no information yet.

Will Unity Echo Vote Suppression by Rejecting Electronic Voting (Again)? - It's time for UFT to Adopt Electronic Voting - Sign the Petition

In the last election, we had loads of people who did not get their ballots in the mail and when they requested another ballot, they were told by the AAA that the deadline passed, but they could vote in person. Tough commute from Florida or if you have a disability.

With the UFT election committee meeting (I''m a member again) coming up on November 26,  a push is being made to institute electronic voting as we did before the 2022 UFT election, which I review below.

First, Arthur hits the current attempt by gaining support with a petition.

Voting by Mail Is for Dinosaurs

UFT Unity adores it, but it's time for a change.

Arthur Goldstein

Nov 09, 2024

Please sign this petition. It asks that we use electronic voting, and/ or in-school voting (I very much prefer the former) for the next UFT election, so as to maximize participation. After you sign, please share it with friends, and post it to whatever social media you favor.

Why?

Mailboxes are all but obsolete. Yet UFT bosses insist on using them for elections. For at least as far back as I can recall, this has not worked well. A small minority has regularly chosen UFT leadership. If democracy isour goal, that’s less than ideal.

For years, voting participation in the UFT has been abysmal. In the last election, 75% of us could not be bothered to vote. Voting is too cumbersome or inconvenient for the overwhelming majority of our membership. That’s unacceptable.

UFT Unity resists efforts to improve this. In 2021, a proposal to use electronic voting was rejected by every Unity member of the Executive Board. Unity members vote in a bloc, as instructed. They sign an oath to do so. Oath or no oath, it’s absurd to point to mail-in voting as successful for our union.

 

Saturday, November 9, 2024

 

As a member of the UFT Election Committee for United For Change in the 2022, I and others pushed for the UFT to adopt electronic voting. With Unity stacking that committee any proposal for change was rejected.

I wrote about the issue in 2021:

Unity (Paid) Election Committee Reps reject UFC call for electronic voting

We (UFC) went in with the idea to avoid the ghost of UFT elections past of

The ghost of UFT elections

embarrassingly low turnout where the highest turnout is from retirees by expanding opportunities to vote through electronic voting. We don't even think electronic voting would automatically help us more than Unity. After all, they are so popular in the schools.

A Unity reso was made to disallow electronic sigs on petitions -- I misunderstood and thought they were banning electronic voting and objected but was told it was about petitioning -- one of them said he likes to see a wet signature on a petition. Weird but I guess I can live with wet signatures -- ich! I think we should allow non-wet signatures on petitions but that was not the hill I was there to die on.

But then came the fun part. We were asked to vote on the election posting which stated that ballots would be mailed out, and we did vote to accept that unanimouslybut they then said that meant there would be no electronic voting. Whoa - I withdrew my support and asked for this to be added after - Ballots will be mailed out - "and electronic voting will be allowed." 

We made strong comments. We pointed to PSC voting electronically -- backroom Unity comments are this 30K union is small. We raised the point that the AFL-CIO has endorsed electronic voting. And with Adams and Banks coming in, a low turnout was a signal to them that we are weak.

Wow! To Unity vote suppressors trying to increased turnout is a nuke. They looked desperate to kill it. So every one of them spoke against electronic voting with some weird arguments in support of low turnout -- like why do anything different when we've been "successful". The weirdest was claiming to protect teachers from using school computers to vote --- like no one has a a phone.  The final vote was --- SPOILER ALERT -- 8-5.

The next day (Dec. 15, 2021) we published:

UFT Exec Bd Vote Opposing Electronic Voting: Mike Shirtzer and another are Lone Dissenters, 13 Reasons For Electronic Voting as Unity Echoes Republican Vote Suppression

Do Mulgrew and company really believe that dues-paying members would have voted down an electronic voting option that would increase our union participation and give members increased access?... Mulgrew’s caucus-laden executive board used arguments against our members’ further enfranchisement that were reminiscent of those seeking to suppress and obstruct increased voting rights and voting access in our national and statewide elections. ..... EONYC

The other key issue at the Ex bd was endorsing the election committee recommendation not to include electronic voting in the upcoming election following its meeting last Thursday which I reported on last night - UFT Election Committee Meets, Petition Dates Set, Unity (Paid) Election Committee Reps reject UFC call for electronic voting.

If you went to any school in the city and took a poll on electronic voting would 99% oppose it? This is a true indication of how the UFT EB represents the 1% union bureaucrats, not the 99% membership.

Arthur Goldstein reported at that time- I'm not including the lame Unity arguments -- you can read them at NYC Educator--

Michael Shulman--(Election Committee member; Head of New Action, not on Executive Board)Thanks LeRoy Barr for invitation. Thanks Carl Cambria for chairing. Wants to discuss balloting. Favors voting electronically due to low voter turnout. That is key. Not a caucus issue. Big issue is getting membership to participate. Important to be proud of union democracy. We are not moving with the times. About 25% of our membership vote. That is unacceptable. There have been proposals to GOTV, but we are lagging. 

Since pandemic, our union uses secure electronic voting for DA, for CL, for SBOs. Not a radical new proposal. Other public sector unions doing this. We have capability, not as sole source. We could use both. If someone votes both, we could distinguish which came first and that would take precedence.  I come from older generation. I believe many younger teachers use electronic voting. Snail mail alien to them.

I put Shulman's entire comments down below, followed by the 13 points.

Mike Schirtzer (Independent)--Agrees with Shulman. PSC (Professional Staff Congress-CUNY union) has option of online voting. We are in a battle to enfranchise folks who lost right to vote. Eric Adams is looking to union bust. Need to show we are strongest and best union. DA and Town Hall numbers are staggering. We trust AAA to get it right. Teachers under 30 don't know where mailboxes are. Need to open options. 

Mike was elected on the Unity line in 2019 but has remained independent and it showed here. Mike has been nominated to run on the UFC slate for Ex Bd. I trust Mike's political instincts and actually would support Mike if he decided to run on the Unity line, which would make sense for Unity to be able to claim they have one independent voice on their slate

 Here is Shulman's comments to the Ex Bd:

A Missed Opportunity! Unity Votes Down Electronic Voting

By Michael Shulman, Chair, New Action Caucus

The UFT Executive Board had an opportunity to strengthen union democracy at last night’s (Dec. 13) meeting. Instead they clung to time-worn arguments that there was no evidence electronic voting would increase voter turn-out. My request to speak at the Exec. Bd. was agreed to, as I had fully expected. Unity would not leave itself vulnerable to the charge of being undemocratic. After 51 years of union activism, I was certain publicizing a negative reply would only embarrass Unity. They frankly would never allow it. And as an appointed member of the UFT Election Committee, I was in a unique position to make a presentation to the Board.

My arguments were pretty straightforward: Electronic voting would increase voter participation. 

In city-wide UFT elections around 25% of the membership usually vote. I stated that this was not a caucus issue (of course, I suspected otherwise) since it was in everyone’s interest to want higher voter participation. I pointed out that since the pandemic our union was utilizing secure electronic voting at delegate assemblies, voting for chapter leaders and delegates, and for school based options. I pointed to the fact that other public sector unions, such as the Professional Staff Congress, are now using this method for their general elections. I concluded with the reality that the younger generation of educators are using electronics on a daily basis. Why couldn’t we use both – electronic voting and mail-in ballots.

Here are some of the responses from our Unity colleagues:

1)     Nothing indicates electronic voting would increase turnout.

2)     There are a couple examples of voting in functional chapters that did not produce more voting.

3)     Members will use DOE email and cause problems.

4)     Voting on SBO’s has not been a success. We’re not there yet.

5)     The voting in one district is poor and did not increase voter participation

6)     There isn’t time to institute. It is questionable whether it would work. It is an untried idea.

7)     The head of the Retiree Chapter stated it is not certain it would work. We must campaign like Hell. We must do better outreach. The retiree chapter election produced greater turnout.

Only one member of the UFT Executive Board spoke in favor of my proposal. With one exception the motion was denied. Another victory for union democracy?? VOTE UNITED for CHANGE in the spring election. Run with us!

Daniel Alicea of Educators of NYC, a UFC coalition member, came up with the case for electronic voting. He may nail the 13 points to the door of 52.

13 Reasons Why We Should Have An Electronic Voting Option In the Spring UFT 2022 Elections - even if Mulgrew And Company Want To Stop You From Having It.

Do Mulgrew and company really believe that dues-paying members would have voted down an electronic voting option that would increase our union participation and give members increased access?

 

The State of UFT Elections: Membership Assembly - Who Are These People? Will Dormant UFT Members Arise?

The Membership Assembly is having ripples at my school.  One of our delegates and I were recapping it for people at lunch.  They want to know more. 

John Q. Teacher: I, and the other teachers at my school are confused about this. Are these meetings going to be used to organize a group of people to run in the upcoming election against Unity? "Making our voices heard" is nice and all, but is completely meaningless unless there is an organized group to run in the election. If Unity runs unopposed, they won't give a rats a** about a bunch of folks making demands. 

Anon:  Where are the caucuses? This seems ok but it's kind of worrying that none of the groups that I expect to see are represented here... is this group trying to be a spoiler? are they all gonna work together? what's going on???

Monday, Nov. 4, 2024

Will UFT Dormant Membership Arise?

These comments above were in response to the  Urgent Call to Action: RSVP for the UFT Members October Assembly which had almost 300 registrants and about 150 attending. One chapter leader came up with the lame excuse he had free tickets to the Yankee World Series game. No excuse. He could have zoomed from the Stadium. And they lost anyway.

 

My quick response:

Caucuses have been involved in some way - they have a process for making decisions - this group includes people from the caucuses but are a bit more impatient to get moving and not bogged down in caucus bureaucracy and also want to be more open to new voices and not only rely on the usual suspects. This is not a spoiler group. It only makes sense to run one slate against Unity or not run at all. What if there is no juice out there? Comments on blogs won't do. Needed are real bodies in the schools. Come on down.

I've talked about the state of oppo UFT caucuses in the past:  UFT Resistance Caucuses: We Need Them, But Why Not One Big ten

I've been a critic of the way most UFT caucuses operated even when I was in them, some of which I helped found. I tried to see beyond the often narrow confines of a caucus, with their rules and structures, which often (and still does) drive colleagues crazy. That is why I was most comfortable in the more free-flowing ICE, which I and James Eterno sort of ran (I drove him crazy too). But let's face it, there can be no organized resistance to Unity Caucus without caucuses, so love 'em or leave 'em, we need 'em. In fact in today's UFT world, the more caucuses the merrier. 

So what about the caucuses and the role they would play in a UFT election? I'm sure those caucuses that choose to run (not every caucus seems enthusiastic) will play a role.

Who are these people? Many are the usual suspects though in different configurations.  Sorry, you have to wade through a whole lot of preliminary crap in order to get the full context in follow-up blogs.  I understand the confusion, so let me try to clear a few things up, though there are still things I can't talk about -- you'll have to read the book.

Where Are the caucuses? the 1%

Ask the people you work with to identify UFT Caucuses - even Unity and see what they say. Ten percent might be able to give a cogent response -- actually more like 1%.

 

Let me state right up front. I'm in no way opposed to caucuses being involved in this election. I am opposed to any plan for the 3 self-identified major oppo caucuses meeting behind the curtain for months and deciding on the platform, the candidates and the format of the campaign  - the 6 men (and maybe a few women) in the room, and then sometime in January springing it on UFT members, going into 6 weeks of petitioning mode, then a few months of stuffing mailboxes (with little effect) and in May begging people to vote - which mostly they don't. Oh, the yawn!

In order to avoid caucus bureaucracies why not try something else? Gather a group of interested parties, hopefully with people from the caucuses, and start talking. Which is exactly what has been happening over the past past few months. Informal, ad hoc, open to people through the network. And over the past few weeks, that group has been expanding. And that has led to some of the most invigorating discussions I've seen in the UFT in some time. And I say this with some trepidation: Ex-Unity people have brought a lot to the table in terms of knowledge and analysis. And how little most of them know about the traditional oppo. I think the Unity people thought of oppo as a blob - they didn't distinguish the various components. Boy are they learning fast.

 

So why am I, who followed that model for election after election, now pushing back? One reason is that each caucus has its own procedures for making decisions. So imagine every major decision going back to some steering committee, or if not that, a tiny group of decisions makers at the caucus level and then going back to the election steering group to hash things out. Go watch grass grow.

A tiny group of decision makers (and I admit to being one at times) leaves out the 99% of working UFT members who wake up one day to find a slate - or two - or 3 - running against Unity. I could live with this process if it actually had some success in the past. But as one deeply involved in elections, the turnout  and votes for the oppo proves my point. Look at this chart below and how few in service people voted, especially in the 2022 election when all the 7 or 8 oppo united for the first time to force the first clear opp vs Unity face-off in decades. I went in expecting all these groups to pull people out in their schools and reach deeper into the 99%. 

It didn't happen.

 

No signs of a ground game -- except for James Eterno whose Queens network pulled hundreds of HS votes for UFC.

The results in terms of oppo votes were mostly the same as in 2016 when the oppo was much weaker. Sure UFC gained in % because Unity lost support, support that did not flow to the oppo, which if there was a real ground game, should have.  

 

Look at these numbers and compare to 2004 - other than retirees of course. Some of the discrepancies are due to D. 75 teachers being unfairly lumped into functional instead of their school chapter so they don't get counted for elem, ms and hs. Also the lower ms due to k-8 being elem and 6--12 as hs. Also note that from 2004 to 2022 there are 40k more UFT members while  turnout dropped on all levels.

Let's face it. No matter how many caucuses there are out there, the biggest one is over 70% non-voting DGAC- Don't Give a Crap. Let's take the 30 year RA out of it because we are no longer in the schools. NAC is 30 years old, MORE is 13 years old and has actually shrunk in size over the past 2 years while NAC has grown a bit, some from those leaving MORE.  ICE has become a minor player though we can play a role, as has Solidarity, which is still in business. Is the oppo stronger or weaker today than in 2022? (I will delve into this issue in a follow-up).

 

An election run solely by the caucuses had been a proven failure with "success" being electing the 7 HS Ex Bd out of the 102 members. After attending exec bd meetings after our "big win" in 2022 and seeing the energy drained from the oppo voices, this model has serious flaws unless infused with new people and new energy.

 

Let's win with the retiree vote is a dead end strategy

Now admittedly, things have changed since the June chapter and TRS elections (UFT's 3 Consequential Elections), offering people hope that the entire Unity machine can be defeated. 

 

But there is a fallacy in relying on the retiree vote to carry the day even if the DGAC numbers don't change much. If everything is equal and the retiree vote is the same as in June (not a sure bet), an oppo group might just eke out a win even with a lack of fundamental support in the schools. That thought seems to be driving some of the thinking in the oppo. And our leadership in Unity seems to actually be buying this argument and is running so scared they are actually making a lame attempt to service the members with school visits and love letters from Mulgrew. You might even notice improvements in healthcare --- score one for the oppo.

Let me blow a further hole in that thinking. RA won 63% based on Medicare, which Mulgrew is in a full scare propaganda blitz claiming he agrees. Will it work with most? No. But it might with some Unity people who deserted in the election and won't vote oppo in a general election that would make Unity lose control of the union. Expect some Unity votes to come home.

Also interest in this election by the new voters RA gained - expect some loses there.

And how much support does Marianne lends to this effort and activate her network of UFT retirees, a significant factor in the RA win.

Yes, I think we can win by holding some line in the retiree vote - and don't forget the para vote (though very low turnout usually) IF we get a significant growth in turnout in the HS, MS and Elem schools. And for that we need to REACH into the schools.

A new paradigm is needed to win the 2025 election

Are people out there who want to be involved in the UFT elections other than "just give us your vote"? People who could participate from the earliest days of a campaign? Imagine choosing candidates in an open forum instead of a back room. Sometimes I'm shocked at how little the union leadership AND the oppo leaders mistrust the membership.

If the apathy is the same,  the winning caucus is Don't Give a Crap. And Unity.

So, some people have advocated a different kind of election. Sure the caucuses need to be involved, but we need to get at least a portion of the former unreachable 99% involved in the election process from the very beginning of the campaign. Open up the process and let the sunlight in. 

A campaign based on individuals - most of them from the caucuses of course - and inclusive of those who are in or recently left Unity plus ICE, Solidarity and independents. 

 

A melting pot that would be inclusive, not exclusive of a broader based UFT membership than we've seen before. Of course the conundrum here is what if we issue a call and no one answers? The DGAC caucus wins again. 

There is actually such a group of people in a nascent stage of organizing who have been meeting and were behind the survey and the membership meeting. And so have the caucuses with communication between them.

Coming next: How we got here and where we may be going. And avoiding a horror show.

 

I'm glad Halloween is over.

-------------

You can still fill out the survey:

Prep for UFT Elections - Fill out a Survey for UFT Members - What Are Your Concerns?

UFT Retired Teacher Chapter Meeting Takeaway: This is What Democracy Looks Like, Despite Unity Attacks on Those Who Have Saved Retirees Thousands of Dollars

What did we learn at the RTC meeting?

 

UNITY wants us to pay more for healthcare ....as they criticize lawsuits that's saved every retiree thousands of dollars so far. 

 

Oh, and they don't oppose co-pays, coming Jan. 1. Marianne's suit saved us from co-pays for over a year. Why does the Unity Caucus hate her? She is still fighting co-pays. See her latest update today here: https://youtu.be/FX6Vl5mKaRQ?si=30leWdjli7ma7vhb.

• Don't forget to register for a town hall: Urgent Call to Action: RSVP for the UFT Members October Assembly Tuesday, October 29, at 7PM

And don't forget to listen to Talk Out Of School:

What’s going on with the UFT Welfare Fund?- with Marianne Pizzitola and Ronnie Almonte

Here is the RA leaflet

After a slow start, the room was rocking with cheers and howls of approval at the appearance of Marianne Pizzitola. Going in, the room seemed divided roughly one third Unity, one third leaning our way and one third neutral. As Unity unveiled their attack dogs on Marianne, there was a palpable shift as people rose to applaud her responses and showed up in the 75% favorable votes on our reso calling for healthcare changes to go to a vote at the DA. 

Video montage of the RTC meeting: https://youtu.be/y_cDGILTlU0

Monday, October 28, 2024

Everyone seems to agree that the major reason Retiree Advocate won an overwhelming victory (63%) in the June chapter election, was due to the Medicare issue.

I agree. Some oppo pundits who I won't name think RA will be doomed to insignificance once the MeDAdv issue goes away. While it is possible the Unity majority will assert itself in the spring UFT election, there is another factor. Democracy.

Democracy is a dirty word in today's world. But if we drop the ball on that issue we will be just like Unity. We need to show UFT members that there is a difference from a Unity run machine. One of the best things about the RA coalition is we don't all agree and will contend with each other. No democratic centralism from the top for us. Well, maybe not from all of us as there are some strands on our side that would love to shut people like me up.

We will be doomed if we screw up running the RTC because there was outrage  at the lack of democracy in the imperious and arrogant manner Unity ran RTC meetings, which turned so many off. (We can only hope there is the same outrage directed at Unity over how the DA is run - DA Takeaways: All About Control as Mulgrew talked ...)

As I roamed the meeting, I pointed out to leading Unity retirees that they were given opportunities that we were denied by Tom Murphy for years. Some seemed to agree as Bennett bent over backwards. I even told them I miss them at the DA and if we had proportional representation, Unity would have gotten over 100 delegates out of the 300 we won. 

OK, I really don't miss them.

Led by chapter leader Bennett Fischer and the newly elected 25 member RTC Exec Bd which met before the meeting to solidify the agenda, we demonstrated how to organize and run a meeting with possibly 2k attendees even with Unity challenging guest speaker Marianne Pizzitola and lawyer Jake Gardener for NYC Retirees. 

Compare the RTC meeting with the DA and you can see what a change in leadership of the UFT can bring. So when Unity attacks us as bringing chaos, toss them reports (even from Unity slugs) on how well this meeting was planned and run. And btw - a big talking point for any group running against Unity in the next election - you won't go to a DA and have to listen to someone talk for an hour and a half. But keep expecting Unity to try to undermine RTC meetings.

Arthur, who was remote due to an illness, made the point in his comprehensive report, At First New RTC Meeting, We VOTE and PASS a Resolution:

A sea change from Unity-run meetings, where we had neither voice nor vote. A sea change from the tightly-controlled UFT DA as well. A sea change from Unity-run meetings, where we had neither voice nor vote. A sea change from the tightly-controlled UFT DA as well.

It’s a new day in our Retired Teacher Chapter. Our voices are no longer quashed. By a measure of three to one, we voted to take control of our health care. It may or may not come up for a vote in Mulgrew’s DA, but we’ve made our statement.

In a remarkable new hearing of both sides, Unity voices were allowed to speak in equal proportion to ours. From what I heard, they were out to delay so that we would not get to our resolution. They did not succeed.

Our voices are strong. We are strong. We are the first group of retirees to take a stand against Unity, and we won’t be the last. Bennett is clearly nervous and kind of needs to get his sea legs. That said, he led the meeting in an honorable and open fashion, giving more voice to the minority than was ever given to us, the majority, under Unity control.

One Unity person accused us of being uncivil. They are not accustomed to being outnumbered. Given their outlandish treatment of Marianne Pizzitola, I’d say they were being uncivil. Given Marianne’s rapid and assured response, I’d also say they wasted their time. Marianne is very smart, with an instant command of detail. She’d have made a great teacher.

I'll admit, as one of the planners of the agenda, I was concerned. I knew Unity would be there and put up resistance but I did not know just how strong they were. After all, they had been in charge for decades. 

I was heartened by their pathetic leaflet (right) which bragged about Mulgrew no longer supported Medicare and how he was the ONLY one in the MLC to pull out, while we all know he was the instrumental force in the MLC for MedAdv for years and browbeat smaller unions.

In case you can't see it, read these whoppers, with my comments in red:

"Despite the future of retiree healthcare still being fought in the courts [by the NYC Retirees who we have and will do everything we can to undermine, including asking questions at today's meeting challenging their integrity], the Unity Caucus and its UFT leadership's opposition to the city's Medicare Advantage plan remains firm [As firm as we were for the city's Medicare Advantage Plan for the past 3 years until we lost the RTC election]. We have and always will stand alongside our membership..." [LOL, LOL, LOL]

We saw at the meeting and in leaked documents just how they were "standing alongside the membership" with their attempts to harass and embarrass Marianne, even demanding she leave the room while we debated a motion. The day after the meeting I received confirmation that Unity had a plan of attack when an anonymous source sent me internal memos - see my comments in red. As you can see from the leaks, they have no boundaries. 

• Leaked: Unity Caucus strategies and questions for Oct 22 RTC Meeting from LeRoy Barr and Vinny Gaglione

Arthur went deeper on Saturday:  

 

A Unity Member Finds a Conscience And anonymously sends the caucus lesson plan to Norm Scott

 Unity attacked Norm Scott a few weeks ago, misrepresenting his position. Last week someone with a conscience emailed him their marching orders for the RTC meeting. Those wheels of karma just keep on turning. 

If we don’t show up and make our presence felt, we risk handing over control of the Retiree Chapter's operations to a group that doesn’t reflect our values.

Actually, you “risk handing over control” to a group that was elected by an overwhelming majority. Cede control to members? Cede control to elected representatives? 

You can’t argue those things with her without a battery of facts that take so long to recite that you lose the audience before you start. Stay away from arguing about the plan. We are not experts on it.

The “battery of facts” I keep hearing from Unity is a battery of lies. And Unity members, who have sold us into Aetna’s Medicare Advantage without allowing us to vote on it, are not experts on it. Still, they had no qualms about telling us how great it was, or even forcing us into it. Aetna admitted, in court, that it would deny care, yet Unity still tells us it would not.

My head hurt from smacking myself each time a Unity clone spoke at the RTC meeting with the most illogical, ridiculous comments and questions. The worst offender was one of the Unity stalwarts who testified at the infamous City Council hearing where a gang of 5 Unity people who had previously defended the MulgrewCare MedAdv plan begged the Council to change the admin code so they wouldn't be forced into that same MulgrewCare by preserving their option to opt out and pay $200 a month for the same Seniorcare we have been getting for free. Huh?

You can see the Unity policy - Beg for higher healthcare costs. 

To top if off, she had the nerve to ask Marianne why she opposed the admin code change, meaning she was upset over not being able to pay more, instead of thanking Marianne for saving everyone thousands of dollars over 3 years.

You can't make this stuff up. 

Even better was a Unity long-time on the payroll hack, now a retiree but I'd bet is still on the payroll, had the nerve to ask how much Marianne is making off the backs of retirees who have saved these thousands of dollar? The place broke into an uproar and when Marianne answered how she makes nothing, she got rousing cheers.

 

I got to speak for the motion to call for a vote at the DA for major changes to our healthcare and a gaggle of Unity lined up at the mic to speak against. Of course they don't want a vote, even at the DA they control. They were hoping to stall out the clock for the 3PM adjournment.The question was called because Mulgrew was waiting to give his report -- he was at schools all day -- yes, Unity is working hard to counter the wave.

 

 Halabi has the numbers on the vote:

the vote on zoom was 909 - 208 to call the question; in the hall it was 231 - 47 to call the question. And at 1140 - 255 (82%) the question was called. On the resolution the vote was 186 in favor and 91 against in the hall, and 881 in favor to 277 against on zoom, for a total of 1067 in favor and 368, and the motion carried with over 74% in favor.

So, here was a test of Unity strength and 75% against sends a strong signal that the waning of Unity support in the June election was not a one-off.

 

Oh, and the most important thing about the meeting? Our own Michele Ravid has been working with the UFT food people and made sure there was improved food. 

 

Yummy.

Afternurn

A Unityite called a point of order - should non-union members be in the room - Bennett agreed and asked Marianne to wait outside. Even when she went outside to the lobby a Unity hack harassed her and demanded she leave the building, but was interrupted by the numerous attendees who came out to express their gratitude to Marianne and even hand her donations, some in front of Mulgrew, which is funny since Unity tried to question her funding source, hinting that some nefarious right wing anti-union group was backing her. Sure, anti-union groups are so anxious to defend out healthcare.

Arthur hit Unity again today: 

History Is SO Darn Unforgiving, And it's a long, slow learning curve for poor UFT Unity

DA Takeaways: All About Control as Mulgrew talked and talked and talked and talked and... and loads of UFT Staff on the Dole

Did Mulgrew lie at the DA? Marianne has the answer. 

 

Michael Mulgrew - Leaders Should LEAD, not LIE

  

Mulgrew insults retirees by accusing them as using healthcare issues as a campaign issue.  

Sure I don't really care about my medicare. When Mulgrew claims MEDADV is the same as Medicare, just Part C I should buy it.

...it’s presumptuous and offensive of Mulgrew to assume that retirees who are at the DA for the express purpose of saving their healthcare are merely candidates seeking further political office. Absurd. Election season is not a bad way to frame Mulgrew’s own conduct, though, who took out the Unity playbook this DA to use our dues for his own party’s campaigning.... Mulgrew controlled the DA by going so long with the President’s report that it seemed like there would be no further business - Nick's Notes

 

Monday, October 21, 2024

I had the best time at the DA - before and after the meeting. About 70 retirees attended in person and another 100 remote. The meeting itself? Eh. 

For me the best part of the DA Wednesday was seeing so many old pals who were elected in the retiree election.  And hanging out after. A poll of attendees asking for their reaction? "Hearing people name themselves as one of the 300 new/proud Retiree Delegates," was a major response. The enthusiasm in the responses to being a delegate was palpable. If Mulgrew thought he would drive retirees away, it didn't work.

By the way, there is another big meeting coming up tomorrow - the first Retired Teacher Chapter meeting of the year and we control the agenda. Unity is flipping out over the appearance of Marianne and her lawyer to report on the court cases. Mulgrew should show up and engage in a discussion rather than just make charges. If you are a UFT retiree, come on down - but register first. I can promise Bennett Fischer won't talk for an hour 13 minutes.  We gave him about 10-15 minutes.

Arthur was remote:

In the first DA I’ve attended since I stepped down as chapter leader two years ago, Michael Mulgrew spoke for an hour and 12 minutes. When someone objected, he claimed the majority of people wanted this report. However, there was no vote on this report, and no way to know whether or not this was the will of the majority. Mulgrew said so, and clearly believes that should be good enough for anyone.

The first question in the brief question period, ten minutes I think, as opposed to the unlimited time for Mulgrew, was about health care. Mulgrew doubled down on the false narrative that UFT is the only union that opposes the MA plan. He repeated the same lies, established to be absolutely false in court, that he’s been using about the MA program.

----It's the Mike Mulgrew Show!

Arthur Goldstein

At one point in the 1 hour and 13 minute Mulgrew talk, newly elected retiree delegate Lois Weiner called a point of order:

Nick's Notes: After an hour of Mulgrewspeak, newly elected retiree advocate delegate Lois Weiner had had enough and called a point of order asking him to stop, please stop. He ignored her and kept going but you could see she forced him to go faster. Still, he ended around 5:40 when he opened up for questions.

I want whoever runs against Mulgrew to promise a 10-minute limit on president reports. Here's an idea, reverse the agenda and do the business end first and the president report last. Watch the exodus as people vote with their feet. (Mulgrew could also issue his report on video or in writing.) 

His filibuster left little room for the rest of the agenda.

It's all about control. Packing the meeting with paid staff is a control mechanism. As is the Covid excuse cap on attendees? Nahhh. The other day I asked this question:

• UFT Delegate Assembly - Why the 400 In-Person Limit? Hint: It's About Control, not Covid

And of course we saw the answer played out in real time.

 

DA Attendance limits on school-based but not on UFT staff: The place was crawling with them.

In a packed room the answer to the limit was obviously not Covid protocols. Some retirees who showed up were turned away. But I bet no UFT staff was turned away. Entire rows were reserved by some district reps. When there was applause for Mulgrew it came from staff and other Unity acolytes. So, another method of Unity control of the DA is district reps corralling the people in their districts in one area and keeping an eye on how they vote.

Note: the agenda for DA haven't changed from the Shanker days but Shanker had the confidence to allow oppo challenges. Randi, less secure, began to manipulate the DA and Mulgrew, the least confident and most paranoid, has taken things to a new phase of control. 

 

After Pres report comes Staff Director - LeRoy Barr, who is mercifully short. (Not LeRoy, the report.)

 

The 10 minute Question period:

Nick: Chris Balchin, another proud RA delegate asked the healthcare question: Now that you've withdrawn support for MAP and given that courts have found in favor of facts as presented by NYC Retirees. Will you submit amicus brief in support, send resources to UFT, etc.

Chris is super sharp -- he better wear a disguise next time to get called on.

Nick on Mulgrew response which prompted the Marianne video response above.

I said this in the executive board minutes already, but I’ll say it again: Mulgrew appeared deceptive when he claimed that the UFT was the only union officially against MAP (or, probably better described: this most recent MAP negotiation). In fact the Unity-led UFT led the charge for MAP and was one of the principle reasons we were in a financial hole (which we’re still in) that required us to find ways to make healthcare savings. For an article showing a vote in which many unions, but NOT the UFT (i.e. Mulgrew), went against the MAP decision before Unity lost an election, see here. Notice, Mulgrew seemed to defend the original MAP contract in today’s DA, which should make us wonder if it might appear in a new form if/when the City resumes negotiations.

Wait a minute: one of the principle reasons we were in a financial hole (which we’re still in) that required us to find ways to make healthcare savings. 

 

Who required us to side with the city against member so make healthcare savings? YOU - MADE THE DEAL.
Mulgrew tries to escape accountability  - like some god-like entity made that deal.

 

There was another interesting question:

CL from D24: Shortage of paraprofessionals. Is there any plan about the hiring freeze?

Nick tries to decipher the Mulgrew word salad:

Mulgrew: Sorry, sent this out but didn’t report. Yesterday, we sent an official notification to the commissioner, DOE, mayor – under corrective action plan for almost – can’t count COVID – roughly four years. Four years it’s gotten worse, not better. They’ll talk about two things that have gotten better – 1, more of the evaluations, especially for outside referrals, other thing is gonna tout that they’ve started increasing NEST programs. But now have more out of compliance. Not fighting with them.

Mulgrew's meandering no solution response made me want to call out:

Fix Para Pay

I saw one spineless anonymous Unity slug actually ask how the oppo intends to fix para pay? 

How about fuckn contract negotiations, the actual way we fix pay? But Unity slugs no longer think contract negotiations are a way to win anything much, which makes sense when you accept the city claim of not having money. The anti-Unity para vote in the election last spring shows they are not buying the "let's throw up our hands" Unity position.

 

UFT Resistance Caucuses: We Need Them, But Why Not One Big tent?

We really need to just merge the opposition caucuses into one United for Change caucus.... comment on a chat

 

That was original intent of MORE from the ice perspective in 2010 when talks began.  As time went on others in MORE did not want a big tent, more of a boutique caucus which alone cannot win power in the UFT. So I gave up now on one big caucus and went back to forming election coalitions of caucuses and independents ... Norm

Reply: As great as that sounds, I don’t think it’s realistic. There are some issues that I don’t see people agreeing on. The union is just way too big for that. Ideally there would be a few healthy caucuses, like most democracies have a few relatively strong parities

Even with healthy caucuses there is competition for those few activists and a focus on caucus building. Another model would be one big caucus with sub caucuses internally that allowed for internal debates. DSA has that. I actually made a similar proposal at the first big More meeting. Recognize we start out with internal factions....Norm

 

Reply: It seems like one opposition caucus and one caucus that maintains power would pose the same problems as any two party system.

I began this series on UFT caucuses with:

• The Caucus Role in UFT in Elections: The ICE Experience: The Caucus model works very well for Unity over 62 years. Not so well for the other caucuses.

Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2024

• Recent (past 30 years) caucuses in the UFT: New Action, ICE, TJC, RA, MORE, PAC, New Direction, TAC - When caucuses begin to fail they often look to merge or form new caucuses.

• How open is a caucus to new people? Does it have guard rails for membership? Do people have to agree to caucus fundamentals before becoming a member? Caucus discipline? Unity is known for its guardrails and discipline.
  

So why don't all the groups form one big caucus?  There are major differences in how each caucus operates.

 

I've been a critic of caucuses even when I was in one, some of which I helped found. I tried to see beyond the often narrow confines of a caucus, with their rules and structures, which often (and still does) drive colleagues crazy. That is why I was most comfortable in the more free-flowing ICE, which I and James Eterno sort of ran (I drove him crazy too). But let's face it, there can be no organized resistance to Unity Caucus without caucuses, so love 'em or leave 'em, we need 'em. In fact in today's UFT world, the more the merrier.

 

I'm constantly criticized for looking back to the past. But as an historian of sorts I don't believe you can move forward without learning lessons of the past. In UFT caucus history, there are loads of lessons to be learned. 

 

Currently, there seem to be 3 major caucuses beside Unity: New Action, MORE, and Retiree Advocate, with Solidarity and ICE considered minor compared to where they stood in the election 3 years ago. Daniel Alicea as EONYC last time was a sort of one man caucus but with tremendous outreach. Now he's joined New Action. But ICE and Solidarity still exist in some form.

 

ICE, which ran with TJC in the 2007 and 2010 elections fundamentally gave up official election caucus status to merge into the new MORE in 2011 with the idea to form a big tent. TJC went defunct while ICE continued with a blog, listserve and meetings. ICE was the biggest contingent in MORE at the beginning, with the International Socialists (ISO) being the second. But there were others: NYCORE, Progressive Labor Party, Teachers Unite,  TJC remnants, and non-affiliated.

MORE began with many internal factions and I proposed formal recognition of the factions which would allow differences but keep everyone together for the purpose of building a force to ultimately defeat Unity. That didn't happen.

Some of us in ICE noticed a certain segment of MORE that did not seem to believe in the vision of winning elections; having Unity in power as a foil seemed to fit their needs. Elections were not important, other than as a means to build the caucus and promote an ideology. I could see that point, though if you declare yourself a caucus how to explain not running? While mostly people were on the left, some see union work as a building block to socialism. Others  saw union work in more simpler terms - use power to improve conditions for teachers and students.

After a few years, it became clear there was a division: big tent vs. a narrow ideologically driven one. That faction didn't seem to want to win, arguing that winning was corrupting. Underneath it all was a belief that you must build a caucus with "the right kind of people" that can take power with a "unified vision". Reject people who don't agree with the dominant ideology and only make alliances with those you disagree with when absolutely necessary, but with the goal of jettisoning those alliances when the caucus is strong enough to go it alone.

Ultimately this faction did just that: It jettisoned the ICE members, actually branding the mostly leftists in ICE as right wing, and purified the MORE caucus.

But even that doesn't always work out and divisions over the 2025 UFT election have arisen, but in a new context of the possibility of winning this time, which has created new pressures throughout the Unity resistance movement.

The retiree and para massive victories created the possibility that a unified opposition can actually win. 

For most of the Unity resistance, that was a no-brainer. But the purists, a minority faction in MORE, do not want to win in a united front because that would dilute their political stances and violate their principles. And I respect that. In a recent internal vote, around 125 voted for a united front (but with specific conditions) and 35 voted against.

There is some irony in that minority position, given how often these very same people bow down to their "allies" in Chicago and LA as caucuses that actually took over their unions -- they obviously ran to win - and not initially with a very heavy social justice agenda. Win baby, just win, first and THEN change the union. As a fan of those movements who was involved with them from the early days of 2009, I have never gotten an answer to the contradiction between them and the so-called NYC version of them. I know a guy doing his PhD exploring this issue between Chi/LA and NYC. I hope he illuminates the differences - I see him heading in the direction I lean - Unity Caucus.

And here's the reality: At no point can one caucus actually win a UFT election without making alliances, so that subset of MORE will go on spitting into the wind endlessly. In my early years in MORE I urged the new caucus not to waste resources in running but to use the election to build outreach but the newbies were so excited to run. After the 2013 election, there was a year or two of stagnation - actually a slow decline over the next few years. That always seems to happen between election years.

One of the Retiree Advocate elected delegates, Lois Weiner, recently wrote an article appealing to these dissidents, an article I have some issues with but don't have the time to address them at this point. It seems the philosophy that has been driving MORE also explains the ICE expulsion:

...building the caucus then contending for power (a chronology I’ve advocated in my work about teacher union reform). To some, joining the coalition without having the caucus we want in place seems a violation of principle.

That's a standard position of the election purists in MORE - running in coalition with people not on the same page as you is a violation of principle. The theory of caucus building by reduction or purges, is very standard on the left but a philosophy that has been a proven failure in NYC and leads to a narrow ideologically driven "club" more than a caucus. Put out dog whistles to both keep people away and attract the ones you want. 

The winner is always Unity.

But here is where Lois Weiner makes her appeal to the "don't run" dissidents by differentiating NYC from the other cities:

The vulnerability of the retiree victory in its chapter election makes joining the coalition and building a progressive politics within it all the more urgent.

Proponents of union democracy and social justice teacher unionism should not wait out this election in anticipation of becoming stronger, more unified in shared principles, more democratic in functioning in time for the next election. The RA’s victory forces those who want a more militant, democratic union, in particular activists in the Movement for Rank and File Educators (MORE), a caucus inspired by CORE, to re-think the trajectory exemplified in CORE’s victory and its subsequent transformation of the CTU. CORE had and used the advantage of time we in the UFT do not have, time to build a unified caucus based on shared principles that fuse social justice with protection of economic protections for members, time to organize on its program to contend for leadership in a union election. Context counts. The comparative size of the school systems and their unions, along with decades of Unity’s rule, which has isolated reformers from possible allies in NYSUT, combined with the machine’s almost untrammeled exercise of power, its punishment of opposition and reward of those who take its orders, converge to make reformers’ task qualitatively different in New York than elsewhere, certainly in this country and possibly the world.

Credit to Lois, who I can't wait to see at the DA tomorrow, for seeing a new landscape. But let me point out a flaw that is a myth on the left - that CORE, founded in midst-2008 as a book club and won power in 2010, managed to build a unified caucus in a year and a half when they ran a campaign based on fighting closing schools and high stakes testing and defending teachers against attack and even attracting right wing supporters. MORE is now 14 years old since people first started meeting. If they haven't emulated CORE by now, then when?

MORE had to make an alliance in 2022 after their disastrous decision in 2019 to run alone (my opposition and reporting on that is what got me kicked out) and finish 3rd behind Solidarity and losing an enormous percentage of their 2016 vote. 

A few months later a key voice in that faction approached me at a DA and said, "you were right, Norm, we never should have run. As you warned it took a lot out of us even running a minimalist campaign." The 2019 lesson was learned and MORE joined UFC. And the majority still think that is correct. 

This time, as Lois points out, building a coalition to defeat Unity is even more imperative.

Next: A Way to Win: Offering a Different Paradigm for UFT elections: Less control by caucuses (not their elimination) and more from the rank and file. Plus the remarkable resurgence of the 30-year old New Action Caucus.

 

The Caucus Role in UFT in Elections: The ICE Experience

The Caucus model works very well for Unity over 62 years. Not so well for the other caucuses. 

The premise for his and succeeding series of posts is that caucuses in the UFT are a necessity, but I question whether they should be the main driving force in UFT elections. I agree with their argument that they have the infrastructure and I don't preclude them using that infrastucture to support the effort. But they want control and that is where I push back.

That model hasn't worked very well but this time after the retiree and para and TRS elections, which had some caucus, but not all support, there is a feeling the model can work this time if there is a coalition like UFC from 3 years ago. I disagree. The vote totals for UFC were not much better than they were in 2016, but Unity votes slipped. A coalition might win this by default instead of a mass show of support. That would still be a leadership even if not Unity from the top. Without a major influx of new blood, mimicking the success of RA (which did have a massive influx of new blood even if from old people) will be impossible. Also can RA hold onto its 63% support if the Medicare issue fades.

Sunday, Oct. 6, 2024

Technically a caucus is any two or more people who come together over common interests. But in the UFT they mean a group that competes in UFT elections. A group that isn't interested in elections is more of a club.

The very fact there are competing groups that only come together for UFT elections to challenge and otherwise go their separate ways is the best friend Unity Caucus has. Let's face it, caucuses with a major aim of recruiting, generally put their own interests over the bigger picture, which is ending Unity's reign over the UFT. In fact over the 55 years I've been active in resistance groups, there have been few between elections examples of caucuses working together, Unity's best friend. This year, things may only get worse.

Why ICE was different

Let me just say that ICE was a factor in UFC in the 2022 election with James Eterno leading the way. Without James I have no stomach for making a case for ICE to have a share equal to other groups. ICE is not a caucus anymore in the traditional sense but still a collection of people with influence. In fact we are meeting on zoom tonight.

• UFT tribute to James Eterno: https://ufthonors.uft.org/eterno/
  

My experience in helping form ICE in late 2003 was a bit different than how other groups began. It was sort of serendipity.

The major oppo caucus, New Action, had just made a deal to work with Unity. I ran into Michael Fiorillo at a joint Unity/New Action rally and he was shaking his head. "What do you make of the NAC argument that Bloomberg is such a threat we need bipartisanship?" I said that kills the voices of resistance. We should get some of the gang together to talk about it. And so we did.

Teachers for a Just Contract had decided to become a formal election caucus. I had met a bunch of people who were not happy with TJC and its ideoligically driven program that at times seemed to be grafted onto the UFT but didn't touch on so many issues of concern, so I called them together, not to form a caucus, but to discuss the situation. Was NAC right to ally with Unity? Did TJC politics, molded by the ideologies driving the group, work for people? Some of us had attended a few TJC meetings and came away unhappy. 

This pre-ICE group meeting attracted over 20 people, including James and Camille Eterno, Ellen Fox and Lisa North who had left NAC (or been asked to leave). Most people were leftists of some sort but also pushed back against the TJC line of what they saw as a shallow, ideology driven program - which some recognize remnants in the current program MORE, with roots back to TJC, offers today. 

ICE decided to run in the 2004 election to raise crucial issues ignored by others

The meeting and those that followed were very program driven on issues no other group were focused on: the danger of mayoral control, high stakes testing, closing schools, attacks on teacher control of the classroom, class size, and others, all issues fundamentally ignored by the other caucuses. Three weeks later, we decided to form Independent Community  of Educators (ICE), not as a permanent caucus, but for the election in order to put forth our program in the NY Teacher. We did unite with TJC on the high school candidates only and surprisingly we won those 6 seats. It was only after that election that the group decided to stay together as a caucus and be active at the Exec Bd to support Jeff Kaufman, James Eterno and Barbara Kaplan-Alpert out winning HS candidate.

• Independent: Left leaning, we are non-sectarian and not tied to any party or tendency.
• Community: We are part of a broader community than UFT members in a school.
• Educators: We are broader than just teachers and include secretaries, paras, etc.

There is some irony that I helped found yet another caucus when I had always advocated bringing everyone together into one big tent, which I had tried to do with Ed Notes back in 2001 when I called all caucuses together for a few meetings to work together for the next election -- before a fistfight broke out and I gave up.

ICE Uncaucused

The caucus model did not work out very well for ICE. We ran with TJC in 2007 and 2010 with little progress (NAC was still in alliance with Unity and was granted a number of exec bd seats and jobs), which is why we shifted to a non-caucus group called GEM (Grassroots Education Movement) where we did amazing work for two or three years - not focusing on  UFT stuff, we fought charters, high stakes testing, closing schools and made a great movie. Then we got sucked into forming a new caucus (MORE) and GEM died. Some of us think that was a major mistake. It turned out the new caucus model hasn't worked out very well either in terms of taking power in the UFT.

Coming next: 

So why don't all the groups form one big caucus? 

Examining other UFT caucuses on their success and failures.

Offering a New Paradigm for the next UFT election.