I was so harried yesterday that I totally missed the backdrop of Randi's appearance to pump up enthusiasm for Obama. Why was Randi there in a state guaranteed for Obama? Because teachers are so pissed at Obama that many are talking about voting Green Party. I am. While that won't affect the election here it may reduce Obama's margin and that could expose the UFT as weak and unable to even mobilize its own members. But scare tactics may well work. I can only hope polls show how disaffected teachers are with Obama.
At the DA it is one thing to hump for your candidate, another to suppress any voice of opposition which is the Unity modus operendi we know so well.
So yesterday I was too distracted to pay attention and I didn't even check to see if there was a resolution opposing the Obama nomination as a way of forcing a discussion at the DA and I'm happy Marjorie Stamberg tried to make a stand. I think we in MORE should have also been there for this but we haven't even gotten far enough in our discussions to reach this stage. Too bad because I think the UFT/Unity/AFT total support for Obama/Duncan is a catastrophe for teachers. I'm hoping MORE makes an issue of this in the campaign but I guess that depends on whether Obama wins or loses.
Later I'll post Margerie's back and forth with Michael Mendel.
HOW OPPOSITION TO AFT/UFT ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA WAS SUPPRESSEDby Marjorie Stamberg
It
was clear to all after a protracted pep rally for Obama at the October
17 Delegate Assembly, for which Randi Weingarten returned for a star
appearance, that not one word of criticism of Obama would be allowed on
the floor of the D.A.
I had distributed a one-page “Resolution on
2012 Presidential Election,” handing it out as delegates came in and
placing it on the literature table. The resolution began, “WHEREAS, it
is self-destructive to continually endorse Democratic Party politicians
(and Republicans) who are attacking teachers and seeking to gut our
unions.” And after spelling out
the roles of Rahm Emanuel and President Obama, the resolution ended,
“THEREFORE, Be It Resolved that in defense of union rights, public
education and the political independence of labor the United Federation
of Teachers hereby repudiates the national AFT endorsement of Obama and
calls for no vote for Democrats, Republicans or any party or politician
representing the interests of capital against the working class, poor
and oppressed.”
It was important that this opposition resolution
come before the body as the teachers unions have repeatedly provided
the troops for phone-banking and house-to-house canvassing
for the
Democrats. Yet, it was noteworthy that not one of the several opposition
groups in and around the UFT had a word to say about these elections.
The M.O.R.E. did put forward a supportable resolution against the racist
discrimination against black and Latino students in the specialized
science high schools. But on the critical
issue of breaking labor’s ties with the parties of Wall Street and
capital, nothing.
The centerpiece of the rally (which masqueraded
as a delegate assembly) was the performance by AFT president (and
Democratic National Committee member) Weingarten. She went on at great
length about if Obama is not elected, the Romneys, Michelle Rhees and
the PACs “are all privatizers,” that the election is all about “the
heart and soul of public education.” (Hello!? Rahm Emanuel? Arne Duncan?
For the past four years, Barak Obama and his team have been
spearheading the privatization of public education and attacks on
teachers unions, from Central Falls, RI to Chicago, IL.) In fact, the
assault on public education is a bipartisan offensive backed by both
capitalist parties, Democrats and Republicans alike.
After the
meeting had gone on an hour and a half and delegates were beginning to
leave, the floor was finally opened for “Motions directed to
the agenda.” I rose to say I had a motion in opposition to the AFT
endorsement of Obama. At this point in the past, they usually declare
that whatever I’m raising (such as occupying closing schools) is
“illegal,” banned under the Taylor Law, or whatever. This time, they
kept interrupting me every time I tried to say a word, calling out from
the stage that I was not allowed to motivate the motion, I couldn’t
summarize the motion, I couldn’t even the read the “Resolved.” UFT
secretary Michael Mendel declared from on high that I could only read
the title, claiming that this was according to “Robert’s Rules.”
I
responded that “I understand from this that there will be no criticism
of Obama allowed at this meeting,” and sat down. Mendel then became
irate and went on a protracted tantrum from the stage claiming that this
was not true, that his censorship was fully in accordance with Robert’s
Rules of Order, that it was
democratic because I had been able to distribute the motion (a strange
notion of democracy indeed). Mulgrew then took over and asked the body
to vote on whether or allow the motion on the floor. Even though they
had still not heard a single word from the motion, hundreds of Unity
Caucus delegates dutifully raised their voting cards to prevent it from
coming to the floor.
But this was not the end. In addition to
quashing opposition to Obama, they still had to push through their
pro-Obama motion. This task was assigned to Mike Shulman of the New
Action caucus who motivated at length the E-board resolution to mobilize
support for the president who is pushing non-union charter schools,
“merit pay,” and teacher evaluations based on student test scores.
The
second he stopped, I rose and said I oppose this motion and I want to
speak against it. A number of other hands also went up to speak. But a
Unity Caucus member up front quickly
interjected, “I call the question” to end any debate before it began.
President Mulgrew said there could be no debate; I called out that “pro”
and “con” speakers are always heard on a motion. He said that speakers
on both sides are not required, that is not in Robert’s Rules of Order,
why don’t I ask the parliamentarian (Mendel!) who ruled that indeed both
sides did not need to be heard. Debate was cut off and the motion
(surprise, surprise) was voted.
Since to carry out this
censorship, the authority of Robert’s Rules was cited, let me add that
the UFT leaders’ claim is entirely false. In fact it directly violates
Part I (Rules of Order), Article I (How Business Is Conducted in
Deliberative Assembly), which states under Point 4:
“When a
member wishes a resolution adopted after having obtained the floor, he
says, ‘I move the adoption of the following resolution,’ or ‘I offer the
following resolution,’ which
he reads and hands to the chair.”
But I was not allowed to read the resolution, to summarize it or even read the one-sentence “resolved.”
Moreover,
when on the leadership resolution to endorse and mobilize for Obama the
question was called without hearing any opposition speaker although
several hands were raised and I verbally objected, this also directly
violates Robert’s Rules, which explicitly require that both the pros and
cons to be stated before the body, unless there are none. Indeed, the
rule in question, under Article VII on Debate, is written as if in
direct response to the strong-arm methods of the UFT leadership. Here it
is:
“The right of members to debate and, make motions cannot be
cut off by the chair's putting a question to vote with such rapidity as
to prevent the members getting the floor after the chair has inquired if
the assembly is ready for the question. Even after the chair has
announced the vote,
if it is found that a member arose and addressed the chair with
reasonable promptness after the chair asked, ‘Are you ready for the
question?’ he is then entitled to the floor, and the question is in
exactly the same condition it was before it was put to vote.
“Debate
is not closed by the chairman’s rising and putting the question, as
until both the affirmative and the negative are put, a member can rise
and claim the floor, and reopen the debate or make a motion, provided he
rises with reasonable promptness after the chair asks, ‘Are you ready
for the question?’ If the debate is resumed the question must be put
again, both the affirmative and the negative.”
You couldn’t ask
for more clarity. Mendel’s bullying claim that there was no violation of
democratic procedure since delegates could read the motion is
ludicrous. So why have elections or debates at all?
But the main
violation which occurred at our union was
not the manipulation and outright negation of Robert’s Rules, it was
the trampling over the union members’ rights to discuss and debate major
issues. And finally, for a labor union to vote for a capitalist
politician, and one who has been in the leadership of the agenda of
corporatization, privatization of schools and union-busting, is a
class betrayal, which we will all pay for.
The motion I was not allowed to read is appended below:
RESOLUTION ON 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
And Einstein’s Definition of Insanity*
WHEREAS,
it is self-destructive to continually endorse Democratic Party
politicians (and Republicans) who are attacking teachers and seeking to
gut our unions; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Rahm Emanuel declared war on the Chicago Teacher Union even before taking office; and
WHEREAS,
the Democratic mayor has sought to
institute “merit pay,” teacher evaluation based on student test scores,
the closure of over a hundred schools and their replacement by
privately run non-union charter schools, which Chicago teachers
valiantly resisted in their recent strike; and
WHEREAS, these
policies would lead to the layoff of hundreds if not thousands of
teachers and deprive our students, particularly those from poor, African
American, Latino and Asian families of a quality public education; and
WHEREAS,
in his vendetta against teachers unions, Mayor Emanuel was carrying out
the policies of Democratic president Barack Obama and his education
“czar” Arne Duncan; and
WHEREAS, the Democratic Obama
administration’s program of “Race to the Top” is the continuation of the
destructive “No Child Left Behind” policies of the Republican Bush
administration; and
WHEREAS,
in 2010 President Obama praised the firing of the entire teaching staff
of
Central Falls, Rhode Island by a vindictive and corrupt school board,
as well as the firing of hundreds of teachers in Kansas City, Missouri;
and
WHEREAS, Democrat Obama had and has no significant
differences on education policy with Republican teacher-basher McCain in
2008 or with Republican labor-hater Romney in 2012, backing the
corporate “reform” agenda to regiment education in the interests of big
business; and
WHEREAS, Democrats and Republicans have joined in
wars for global imperial domination against Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya,
while waging class war on working people here, deporting 400,000
immigrants a year, presiding over racist police violence, racial
profiling of African-American and Latino youth (“stop and frisk”) and
wholesale dismantling of civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, the Working Families Party is nothing but a shill for the Democrats; and
WHEREAS,
the American Federation of Teachers and National
Education Association have called for the reelection of President
Obama, the man who bailed out Wall Street and seeks to privatize public
education;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in defense of union
rights, public education and the political independence of labor the
United Federation of Teachers hereby repudiates the national AFT
endorsement of Obama and calls for no vote for Democrats, Republicans or
any party or politician representing the interests of capital against
the working class, poor and oppressed.
*Not E=MC2 but “Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results”.
--submitted by Marjorie Stamberg,
UFT Delegate, GED-Plus, District 79
Class Struggle Education Workers
