Archive for May, 2023



The Contract Looms: UFT Delegate Assembly, 5-17-2023

Summary/Analysis: There was a packed agenda at the May DA. I can only offer a few words of summary and analysis, as my own schedule is equally packed. Here that goes.

Outside the DA, volunteers from United for Change handed out flyers with our five big demands before we concede a yes vote for any new UFT contract. Inside the DA, Mulgrew started with his usual summary of what’s happening in the State/City. We heard about the asylum seekers, and as of now it looks like they will not be housed in schools. We heard more on budget, including potential federal default and the unfortunate potential expansion of charters via the state budget. We then heard more on the ‘contract countdown.’ Unity is clearly in full on ‘get a yes vote’ mode, but adding some caveats to lower expectations. Weirdly, Mulgrew seemed to try and taper expectations on workplace issues and offer hope on the financials. But we aren’t going to beat DC37’s 3% – not by much. That’s been stated time and time again by his own lead negotiators at Executive Board meetings.  So if the hope Mulgrew is offering isn’t false, I’m lost  – especially since we clearly have no intention of striking. On the other hand, Mulgrew’s framing of the DOE on curriculum issues was very good. My only caveat is I personally (not speaking for New Action) would much rather see UFT fighting to have teacher ‘veto power’ over curriculum. UFT accepting city-wide curriculum mandates is acquiescence to our deprofessionalization.

During the new resolutions period, resolutions about Florida and the U.S. Supreme court were put onto the agenda. During the special order of business period, we passed the second of the NYC City Council endorsements. The resolution passed after an odd and somewhat hypocritical amendment, which supplanted all other debate. Using the old Unity trick to ‘bring all questions before the house,’ no debate ended up happening on the vast majority of candidates. Yay for democracy? As for the endorsement process before DAs, if anyone is interested, I sat on the hearing for who to endorse in CD1 a few weeks ago and offer my full thoughts here. There were also resolutions on other striking unions (not us of course, we’re ‘Taylor Law Proud’), the budget, and maternal mortality. In closing, I’ll note quickly that something seems off about the agenda order. Newer resolutions written by UFT staffers are inexplicably there burying older ones drafted by rank-and-file teachers. But, I’ll save dwelling on that for another time.

Informal Minutes Follow.

President’s Report:

Mulgrew: Asylum seekers. Constant challenge this school year. One group doing the work supporting asylum seekers are those in the schools. No plan of support, regardless of what they say. Have had dozens of schools – teachers running clothing drives, food drives, to help students/families. Now we see 150 cots dropped into a school gym. If it’s a last resort and we have a plan, sure. But it is NOT the last resort, it’s the easy thing for the City to do. We’ve contacted all over. No one is doing their jobs. Not a political issue for us, part of our daily lives. Armories all over, but under state control. Etc, etc. Not the time to say schools are the last resort. Simple things you have to do. First thing people want to know is have their been background checks. Yes. Second, are these standalone sights? Apparently, that has been part of this, but fine – who is handling safety for the asylum seekers and the kids. We need answers on things like this and things like impacted programs. No one talked to parents, why they’re upset. We officially filed for impact bargaining and still had to raise a ruckus to get a conversation going. In the next few days, we’ll find that they probably won’t use the school sites. But it’s the constant politicizing – crisis = schools. No! It has to be the last resort. Education is secondary for these children at this point, and we’re caring for them. If it’s the last resort, we’re OK, but we need questions answered and better communication. Only one building that’s been occupied, and we support these families, but City needs to do a better job. We’re here to help, but we need a plan.

Federal budget: defaulting on all debt? Hoping they figure this out. State level, session not over. Pushing with NYSUT and M. Person to get charters not expanded among other things.

City budget: people who we do business with all the time. The fear right now is that this administration will use the migrant crisis to torpedo the City budget. Important that the federal government does send money to NYS/NYC for doing this work. Most money is going to southern states, who are sending migrants to us. Still a lot of money inside of the NYC reserves. It’s about working with City Council. We had our breakfast 2 weeks ago in this room. All of our advocacy is out there. Other thing is, the City is supplanting State money. We get money from the state, they take it from education at the city level. So we are looking at the state to make a maintenance of effort or nonsupplant clause in all education funding. This has to stop. We’d be in a much better place if we got the right funding.

You have to start talking to people about city council elections. We need city council to stand strong with us.

Contract update: Rallies on the 24th. We are trying, both us and the City, to get this done before the end of the school year. If there’s anything new that needs to be implemented, we need it done then. The overall piece here is that we’re sick of having our time wasted and micromanaged. The only way to keep driving at that is keep doing the public events. The rallies are about elected officials also understanding this. This isn’t just about a little extra attendance work – micromanagement is an issue all over the country, but especially in NYC.

Class Size: City says class size should not be an issue. Some disagreements. We have a law, this isn’t a negotiation. It’s the law of the state, so you must comply to have 20% of all of the classes in our school system from next year period. Not my individual school, district, it’s 20% of all classes in NYC. Should be based upon economic need. So if you have a school with high economic need, those schools need to start doing the work right now. We have a list of these schools, so does the BOE. It’s all out in public. Now the clock is ticking – because the state budget has ended, so they have 30 days. Problem is we don’t know what document they’re putting out. They write political documents about how they don’t have money, but they do, they just keep supplanting it. Overall, your principals – you should be having these conversations.

Curriculum: One union we’re closest to is CSA. (Audible groans and laughter). Their feeling is the DOE won’t give the money for class sizes and then blame them. Our feeling is they should be out their demanding more money so they can comply with the law. That’s why it’s stronger than having it in the contract – it’s the law. First announcement with this mayor and chancellor – a curriculum initiative. Let’s go back 30 years. Every school district did whatever they wanted and it wasn’t working out so well. You can go back further, but for now, 30. There was no incentive for a mayor to fund education since they had no control – not that we support mayoral control – but we were woefully underfunded, had to do many lawsuits. We had scandals all over the place. It was often about the politics of the school district rather than child’s education. Then we went to a strict system of mayoral control. Now it became every school does whatever it wants. This is a perfect strategy if you set up a system where it’s never your fault. At that point, they sold a bill of goods to the public / CSA – you do whatever you want, we hold you accountable. DOE became an accountability system and nothing else. There you go. Then for last 23 years, we’ve been under that system – and it hasn’t been working well for us or the students. Some places, it works; other places, it doesn’t for a variety of reasons. Throughout all of this, the DOE, none of this was their responsibility, since they technically weren’t in charge. So, when the chancellor came to me and said he wants to do this – a phonetic based literacy curriculum. We have all these different systems. Schools can add onto the system we choose – we’ll give some autonomy. Mulgrew says UFT will support that if there is a training regimen. But there have been some real difficulties. DOE’s knee jerk is to hire a vendor. After 23 years, a bureaucracy not having to do any work, this is what we get. So we’ve been going back and forth. Our two vice presidents, Karen and Mary, have been working with them. We’ve gotten to a point where we can support this. Not saying it won’t be rough. So this is a big endeavor. Chancellor said that principals can’t have complete autonomy – you’re doing what I’m telling you to do. CSA didn’t react well at all, which is their business. They haven’t been reacting well to anything since then. But if they use that anger to sabotage things that will be good for our kids, that’s another issue. Some principals have said it’s a fad, or don’t throw away your curriculum, etc, etc. But, the idea here is something we haven’t done for over 30 years – we have a school system taking responsibility for the entire school system. We’re having all the CLs and superintendents for the 15 school districts, in this room, on next Tuesday. There will be vendors, but there will be teacher center all over this. Some credit to DOE: they started taking apart what the vendors have sent them and analyzing it. So this is a real program that we’re trying to take this challenge on. Will there be problems? Yes. 15 school districts would be the second largest in the country – it would be the size of Chicago combined with LA. Large challenge.

Saturday, we had to close registration for spring conference. We always get people walking in and it’s sold out. It’s gonna be a nice day. If you already registered, going to have a good time.

Staff Director’s report (LeRoy Barr):

Was gonna mention the spring conference, but it’s sold out (applause). Thank you for making sure our members signed up. Tomorrow is Haitian flag day. Celebrated each year on May 18th to celebrate Haiti’s independence from the French. Rallies on May 24th at 3:00 PM. We are in all 5 boroughs. Make sure to come out and bring folks out with you. Teacher appreciation week was last year. Was also national school nurse day and administrative employees on April 26th. CLs thank you for updating your consultation notes. We’re in May, so make sure you upload the 9th one. Being told that there are t shirts outside for you, so assume you’ll be wearing them when you come to the rallies. (applause). Goal is to raise 5k for the AIDS walk on 5th/72nd st this weekend. 5k run on Saturday, June 10th on Coney Island. First Book event at PS154. We give away books to students who come out. Juneteenth second annual walk, June 19th, Monday, have off, gather here at 52 Broadway and walk across the Brooklyn bridge. Next DA is on June 7th.

Question Period:

Dave Barry: In Feb. we passed a resolution on the Amazon workers in Kentucky. Currently, a few members have been removed as trainers. So we said in the reso we’d do things to help out. Took me a little while to find the resolution on the website, and we also said we’d donate money, so what’s the progress? What’s the AFT going to do on that? Are we putting it on social media?

Mulgrew: Yes, donations have been made. We’re working with the AFT. For next month, can get you more information. So, there’s a national effort to support these folks. Can get directly to you. In terms of emails, we send out a lot, so twitter is probably the way to go. If we send out too many emails, nobody likes it. Starting to see a shift as people think about things as workers.

Barrows: Calendar! Haven’t seen it yet. How will that affect SBOs, PTCs?

Mulgrew: Clerical day for this year is a clerical day. It’s not a PD day. Folks who have it get it to do their clerical work. If not, we will make a grievance and get you paid. Now on the calendar: many things that happen every year that require us to come to an agreement to move on to the next year. We’re having a hard time coming to agreements, probably as a result of other conversations we’re having. That’s all I’m saying.

Alexander Stimmel: Clarity about what we can talk to our members about in terms of what’s being negotiated. We haven’t heard much about money/raises, etc.

Mulgrew: Let’s just say, we’re far off. There’s a lot of people in our union who like to write about pattern bargaining. We can find ways around it. Our focus has to be to get as much compensation in our members pockets, not give back anything, and get relief from the craziness. Because, our profession…we have openings in every borough. We’re dealing with what the rest of the country is going through, and it’s not going to get better unless we get the right pay and respect. Micromanagement is disrespect. This constant ‘control your day each and every minute,’ no autonomy as a professional who dedicated their lives to helping children. Some sick people. We know about what’s happening in Florida, about policies that are failing. That’s what has to get stopped. That came across very broadly – one of the top issues for every chapter: stop wasting our time; stop the micromanagement. More than a third of our time is wasted by stuff that has nothing to do with our job. Yes, money is the number one priority, but this other stuff is important also. I’d like to do something creative.

Seth Gillman: Budget at the federal level. Federal gov rolling back money not spent on COVID. Don’t want to see money sent back.

Mulgrew: One thing that OMB should do quickly is spend the COVID money. Now, there’s been a large reduction in COVID money. So, it shouldn’t be an issue for us here in NYC.

Allison Kelly: How do the contract negotiations affect the SBO process? If they aren’t finished in time for the contract, how does that affect us with election buddy/etc.

Mulgrew: Real thing holding us up is calendar and workday. Think I answered that as best I could (read between the lines). If we do anything that affects the SBO…we hopefully can get the SBOs done within the next few weeks. We can always have provisions to have new votes in September, reopen processes. We’ll figure it out. What we’d like to do, if we have good conversations, is get the majority of SBOs done by the end of the school year.

Julia (d75 OT/PT): Asking about continuing education issues we’ve had – not been able to take classes remotely, been told we have to show up at school, even though scheduling issues. We get 1400 dollars for continuing education which we need for a license, but it’s been hard to get approval/reimbursement, so some have waited over a year to be reimbursed for classes. Remote classes / freedom of classes would help. Sometimes we’re asked to tie it to kids on our caseload, even if we have different caseloads next year.

Mulgrew: On consultation agenda. It’s gotten ridiculous for several titles. Can change to make this a free for all. Idea was classes should be germane to work, not students on caseload. Nothing about no online classes. Maybe bureaucrats are mad they have to go to school.

Julia: We have 3000 therapists, it’s different to get the approval. So where is the money going if we can’t use it?

Mulgrew: Next Tuesday, consultation, I’ll follow up. We had some interesting discussions with the groups who approve these classes. That’s the nicest way to put it right now. Everyone is now focused on this is broken and has to be fixed. Why not allow remote classes?

New Resolutions:

Margaret Joyce and Barrows: Attacks on public education and public employees unions in Florida. This month’s agenda.  In response to legislation being passed that’s attacking public education and unions. It’s trying to weaken collective bargaining rights. It impairs existing contracts and has constitutional issues. It has book banning, CRT banning (which is only taught at the college level anyways), and school vouchers (which are racist in origin by funneling away money from public schools where students are most protected from discrimination, and test scores aren’t even better). Unions have to now recertify to have 60% membership rate. If it’s less than 60%, they become bargaining agents.

On this month’s agenda: 82% yes.

Name missed: Resolution opposing overreach of the U.S. Supreme Court and its conservative agenda.

On this month’s agenda: 77%.

Resolution Period:

Mulgrew: Endorsement time, let’s have some fun.

See resolutions here.

Liz Perez motivates endorsement reso. We take this very seriously, come with a good heart, have a union who wants to protect our members. These folks vote for our protections. True, we might not always agree. The work we do every day – these folks can help us to reach our children the best way we can. We need the right people in these positions. We’ve done our work/due diligence. These candidates have been vetted, and we need to stand behind folks who will do right by us.

Lamar Hughes: Would like to propose an amendment. Wish to include Christopher Bay as an endorsed candidate for District 19 in Queens. Bay was also a candidate for the D19 seat. There was a lot of dialogue about conversations on who we should endorse. Members on the screening committee were informed, but we believe it’s in our members’ best interests to include both. Going forward from here, it’s time to gear up – we have to unseat the person in D19. They are not our ally. That individual has been disparaging to us. So, with pride and pleasure, I say that Christopher Bay should be included with Tony A. Members should have the opportunity to include both.

Mulgrew: Clarifies – same party, the goal is to do the general. Then there will be another endorsement for the general.

Point of Information: Ranked choice voting? Yes.

Barbara S.: It doesn’t make any sense. Can’t make a choice between two people and decide you want both. If we have an incumbent who is positive for us, then we look at the incumbent and choose them. If we say they’re wrong, then we select one person or another. We cannot say we like two. What happens if there are three? If there are three you like – don’t even make an endorsement. To select both, this makes no sense. Think it’s bad policy – decide who you like the best. Either say no to the incumbent and go to the challenger, but you cannot select two.

Point of information (Mary V.): The two candidates are not the incumbents. Vicky Paladino is?

Amy Arundel: Vicky Paladino is an enemy of public education. We had a rigorous process where we interviewed. We’re saying leave it to members of those 2, then we’ll get behind one of them.

Ilona Nanay: I thought last DA we tried to add a name to the process and were told no, it’s not the process, so I don’t understand what’s happening.

Mulgrew: That’s not what happened…Oh, we did explain…

Barr: At the last DA, the maker of that particular amendment asked us to endorse someone who was still in conversation at the local level. This is different. We’re trying to honor that process. That was a lot of conversation about moving behind both of these democratic candidates, so they can take on the incumbent. The other person was trying to short circuit it and not follow the recommendations of the process.

Question called on all matters of the house.

Mulgrew: That will be for the amendment and the resolution as it stands at that moment.

85%: debate ends.

Amendment vote: 72%, passes.

Resolution as amended: 79%, passes as amended.

Resolution in Support of the Writers Guild of America:

Janella Hinds: 2 weeks ago on May Day, 11,000 members authorized a strike. Wasn’t taken lightly. Shut down production. They’ve taken the decision to strike. Total cost of their demands is hundreds of millions of dollars, but the corporations make billions of dollars. In the time of the strikes, many of these companies have lost billions of dollars. Just one of them could have met the demands, but this is not about austerity, it’s about breaking the union. We as educators have to stand strong. I ask for your support.

Dave Kazanzky: Only thing I love more than looking after your pensions is watching TV and movies. No reason that the writers should provide millions of dollars of revenue and create views and talk about their work and not be able to make a living doing it. Doesn’t make sense doing it. Stand in support.

Martina Meijer: While I am very pro-union, I don’t support this reso, because our union is free to tweet whatever we want. Not sure why we are pro-strike for other unions, but not for ourselves. This is not the right forum. The use of parliamentary motions like in the last motion (City Council) is wrong.

Name missed: No time have I heard we wouldn’t stand up to strike. Tell me your strategy – so don’t come to the floor/table unless you have one. Where is yours so we can stand together?

James ?: Calls question.

86%: passes.

Mulgrew notes that it was the last endorsement. Thanks members who have done the work.

Budget Resolution:

Ilona Nanay: asking folks to support. Show of hands for people who lost staff due to excessing. Nervous about next school year? Many hands up. This resolution is important. A budget is a moral document that demonstrates priorities. We have revenues that have gone up. We finally received foundation aid. Still in the midst of a pandemic and slowly coming out. Schools are vital to the community. Calling the UFT to ask the DOE not to cut budgets next year. We’re also asking for funding to be restored.

Janella Hinds: We worked together and collaborated. This is a statement from the entire high school division of the executive board.

Passes: 98% yes

Resolution to Reduce US Maternal Mortality Rates

Karen Alford: What do Beyonce and Serena Williams have in common? They’ve experienced complications during/after child delivery. What should be a joyous time is not for many. Women are bleeding out and getting infections, dying. There are complications during delivery/childbirth. This is a problem exacerbated for black women. We had the opportunity in March as part of the Black History Film Series to watch Aftershock. It’s there that a spotlight was put on. On April 13th, Biden proclaimed black maternal health week. This was necessary and defined during this week, from the white house, black women are 3-4x more likely to die during pregnancy during pregnancy. Bringing this here today because our moms are worth it. Think of children who are still here but whose lives are lost. We have to stand up. Must be attention shown in reference to maternal health disparities. So stand with us as a body to make sure that women leave hospitals and are alive to care for children.

Passes: 94% yes

Mulgrew: On the 24th, everyone will be out there, doing what they need to do.

UFT Contract Update: Countdown for ‘Chump Change?’

It seems like everywhere we’re getting signals that UFT leadership is readying for contract ratification. To get a ‘yes vote’ though, they’ll need membership to agree – whether it’s a good deal or not. And that work needs to start now – before we see the details and have second thoughts. At this moment, we don’t know much. We know that our raises are going to be bad -really bad. And we know nothing about changes to working conditions, except that our negotiators ‘had not necessarily heard back what they wanted to hear.’ So what’s that leave UFT leadership? They can’t promise us things we aren’t going to get if they want us to vote yes, so they have three ‘yes vote’ techniques:

  • Start selling the parts of the contract that they do know we are going to get, so that when it’s announced, members focus only on those few wins and forget the many demands that went unmet (or worse).
  • Begin focusing on when we get a raise, rather than how much will be in it. If we rush a bad contract, after all, we can get limited money quick. Summer is around the corner –a tempting time to dangle a few bucks in front of teachers and say ‘sure, we didn’t fix any working conditions, but wouldn’t you rather have this money now than wait until Fall to renegotiate?’
  • Host special events that serve to bring members together to feel good about the contract – and how successful we were in negotiating it.

All the data we have supports the inference that UFT leadership is using all three of these methods to rush a yes vote. As Carl Cambria put it during Monday’s UFT Executive Board Meeting:

 ‘The pattern is out there, it’s not in our members pockets. We have to wrap up negotiations and put something before our members so that they can have something to ratify and get that money in their pockets and everything else. A lot of people putting in a lot of time. We’ll continue doing that until May 23rd and will have a fuller meeting then.’

The emphasis here is on getting something before our members (not necessarily something of quality). As for when, one key date, May 23rd, is raised. On that day, the full 500-member negotiating committee will all be together with only about a month to spare before we break for summer vacation. Might we vote then on a tentative agreement? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps instead, UFT leadership will really push the limits and wait until June, as they seemed to suggest in a recent chapter leader update. But, with only about a month to hold votes in the contract committee, the executive board, and the DA, before sending it out for a full membership vote, I’d be more surprised if we didn’t get that ball rolling on May 23rd. Then, in the invitation to the May 24th contract action—a mere day after that negotiating committee meeting—this is the language used:

“How many lessons have been planned, students have been served and services have been provided since our contract expired? It’s been a full year without a raise in sight. The DOE continues to believe that if they aren’t micromanaging our time, we aren’t working. Every day, we give our all so our students can have what they need. We have had enough! Let’s make our voices heard. The time is now for UFT members to get the contract we deserve.”

The wording here is telling.

  • The email mentions one possible win: less micromanagement of our time. Therefore, I might infer that some sort of win is projected on working conditions. Micromanagement of time would seem to refer to C6s and/or the extended day. If we could get some serious wins on that, many of us would be happy. Maybe other more critical demands will not be met, but that’s why they aren’t mentioned here. If teachers are going to vote yes, UFT leadership needs them to be laser focused on gains we’re actually getting, however minor.
  • The email does not mention the amount of money we will get. (Indeed, that number is quite low). It just says that we ‘deserve a raise now.’ It highlights the fact that it’s been a very long time since our last wage increase – but leaves out that UFT negotiated the 2018 contract to not have raises in its final year. Why are they twisting their own bad negotiating to get us to agree to a new deal now? My guess? The decent raise option is already out the door. Therefore, UFT leadership is shifting language from talking about the amount of a raise we deserve to its timeliness. Timely summer money is really the only counter Unity would have to opposing ‘no vote campaigns, should they arise. If opposition unionists were to argue that the deal wasn’t good enough to approve, UFT leadership could paint us as keeping people from getting their money. That’s money we’d likely get anyways as retro if we waited, so the value of getting it early is dubious if it means also committing to mediocre gains elsewhere. So again, the only argument would be ‘money in time for summer.’
  • I’ve always said that we should use every tactic at our disposal to negotiate better terms for our members. But if UFT is signaling everywhere that we’re about done, and if we’re likely to vote on or close to May 23rd, why the strike style’ event a day later? I mention this, because word from NAC members/affiliates is that the preparation meetings for May 24th have been feel-good Unity-heavy events that seemed to lack substance. Moreover, using an event like what is planned on May 24th for ‘yes-vote’ purposes rather than negotiating purposes would keep with the MO of other ‘Taylor law proud’ union leaders, such as those of DC37, who held a major rally on Feb. 16, only to announce a tentative agreement with the City the next day (Feb. 17). That deal, we now know, cemented one of the worst patterns in the history of the NYC labor movement. That pattern, we’re now stuck with. But it’s OK. As Mayor Adams put it moments ago:

Thanks Eric Adams. And thanks UFT leadership. By not organizing for a pattern that would pay us what we deserve, you’d almost think they agreed we ‘don’t do it for the money.’ To close: A reminder that these are New Action’s contract demands. If we don’t get them in this contract, I don’t intend to vote yes in exchange for ‘timelier chump change’ and slightly less micromanagement during my C6. I intend to fight for better.

NEW ACTION/UFT PROPOSALS FOR CONTRACT DEMANDS

  1. Pay raises in line with surrounding districts
  2. Maximum salary should be reached in 10 years like many other unions
  3. Reduce class size in every division
  4. Reduce caseloads of counselors, school psychologists, and other titles
  5. No agreement to place new hires into HMOs 
  6. End Fair Student Funding/Return to Unit Costing to end discrimination/harassment of veteran teachers
  7. Fight the attacks on Chapter Leaders and chapter members
  8. Fight abusive principals and place abusers on a UFT Watch List/Send teams into these schools
  9. Reinstitute seniority transfers
  10. End ATR pool by placement in vacancies
  11. Work to end school segregation
  12. Work to increase staff diversity
  13. Restore the right to grieve letters in the file
  14. Allow members to challenge principal’s judgment on observation reports
  15. Remove the Danielson Framework and decouple test scores from evaluations. Reform the evaluation system to be teacher led.
  16. Set penalties for administrators who repeatedly violate class size provisions
  17. And NO MORE healthcare givebacks!!!!

The UFT Endorsement Process: A Recollection and Critique

Last night, the UFT Executive Board approved the second and last round of City Council endorsements (full list at bottom of this article). While I did not agree with every name on the list, this time I can at least say that I was a part of the process. On Tuesday, May 2nd, 2023, I joined a subcommittee to make endorsement selections for Community District 1. It’s hard to say whether I was always going to be invited to this event (my school is in CD1) or if I was only invited because of my vocal criticism of the process. However, I’m grateful that I was invited, and I went.

The turnout was light, with only six UFT people showing up. This surprised me, because I remember seeing more people at my last iteration of an endorsement session, but that was also for a more wide-reaching position (Manhattan DA). In attendance was me (Nick Bacon), Ellen Gentilviso, Bridget Rein, Dennis Gault, Brian Dornicik, and Don Albright. I must say that everyone there took the process seriously and participated in earnest debate. Still, this was very much a Unity Caucus committee – I was the only opposition unionist there. Perhaps more alarmingly, only Brian and I were full-time teachers in the district, though Seung Lee later mentioned to me that the low turnout for in-service teachers was likely because of a conflicting AAPI event. Ellen also used to work at a school in District 1 before retiring (and is now a part-time staffer at 52 Broadway). The rest of the committee members were full-time UFT staffers, though Bridget Rein and Dennis Gault did not vote. Two members of the committee were also constituents, which I think was a plus.

The four questions we would ask were sent out before the meeting. They were mostly fine, though I should note that I wasn’t included in the process of writing them, and don’t completely have a sense of who was. In respect of the endorsement process, I’m not going to rewrite those questions here, especially if there is a chance that they will be used again. However, I will quickly note that making sure teachers (including opposition teachers) are the primary drafters of questions would help lend authenticity to the process.

The Candidates

CD1’s incumbent candidate is Chris Marte, a member of the progressive caucus. Two other candidates showed up, including Susan Lee and Helen Qui. Another candidate did not attend. While I did not sign an NDA, out of respect for the UFT members of the committee, as well as the politicians who showed, I won’t discuss the specifics here. But, I will say that I went in very interested in what would happen when the debate turned to Marte. Marte, you may remember, was a vocal supporter of the retirees who opposed Adams’ Mulgrew’s plan to amend 12-126. In other words, Marte was a candidate who sided with New Action’s view on retiree healthcare, not Unity’s (though please note that New Action itself has not endorsed Marte or any other candidate). Being as I was the only opposition person in the room, I wasn’t sure how it would go for him. But, after some debate, which I participated in, the committee decided to recommend that we endorse Marte – a welcome surprise.

With Marte’s potential endorsement by the UFT at the next DA, we finally are backing a councilmember who actively worked against Unity’s 12-126 amendment. That’s only fair, After all, UFT members were fairly evenly divided over whether the administrative code should be changed. In contrast, the UFT has also endorsed candidates willing to do things supported by virtually no one in the union – like pulling funding from public schools and handing over more money to Charters. The difference is, many of the candidates supporting such anti-UFT policies were endorsed in the early round, which means more time to benefit from our endorsement (and potentially, from our COPE dollars).

Going Forward

I repeat that everyone on the committee I worked with—Unity or not—acted professionally and served their function well. There are still definitely changes that could be made in the endorsement process. Notably, some unionists aren’t sure there should be an endorsement process at all, especially for candidates who are not obvious friends to unions/educators/public schools. To such critics, we should dedicate more of our political weight and COPE dollars to lobbying efforts instead. I think there’s an argument there, but as we do currently have an endorsement process, we need to make some changes.

Firstly, I’d note that something about the endorsement process reminds me of the approach for hiring principals and assistant principals, also known as the ‘C30.’ I’ve written at length with critiques of that process, although more to show that it’s a charade when used to hire administrators. In the endorsement context, I believe that the process is followed more fairly, but that new issues expose themselves as a result. Most notably, by confining our endorsement decision to how people in the room feel that candidates answer four questions in bite sized answers, we end up with limited information. To that end, what questions we ask becomes extremely important. But also, we need to make sure we are doing outside research. Otherwise, we risk going for the most ‘articulate’ candidates even when there are people in the room whose policies will be better for us. In my committee, it was clear that all the members were somewhat knowledgeable of the candidates, but I don’t remember feeling the same way when I sat on the endorsement process for Manhattan DA. To that end, I have big concerns that some of the committees may be making ‘less than informed’ decisions. Therefore, some pre-meetings, where research on the candidates is discussed, would help to improve the process.

Secondly, in addition to adding a more robust ‘research process’ to the equation, for any C30 style process to work it’s key that there are as many distinct voices as possible in the room, and that teachers get as much of a say as possible. To that end, the most important thing we can do is make the process more transparent, more teacher-led (or really ‘member-led’), and more diverse.  There are non-Unity people who have told me they’re always told by UFT staffers that they can’t join the endorsement process because committees are ‘too full’ to include them. Based on the numbers I saw on May 2, I sincerely doubt that it’s ‘full committees’ preventing opposition unionists from serving. Let’s include them. We need bigger and more politically diverse committees (in the sense of caucus affiliation), who have a say not only in which candidates we recommend for endorsement, but also in what questions we ask them to make our decisions. Indeed, let’s include independents too. Let’s send out ‘calls to apply,’ so that everyone who might be interested in participating has a chance to do so. That’s a bare minimum in how to achieve an endorsement process that works for our members.

The Full List of Endorsements from 5-8-2023

 Christopher Marte from CD 1, Carlina Rivera from CD 2, Gale Brewer from CD 6, Inez Dickens CD 9, Eric Dinowitz from CD 11, Oswald Feliz from CD 15, Althea Stevens from CD 16, Amanda Farías from CD 18, Tony Avella CD 19, Sandra Ung from CD 20, Tiffany Cabán from CD 22, Robert Holden from CD 30, Lincoln Restler from CD 33, Jennifer Gutiérrez from CD 34, Chi Ossé from CD 36, Sandy Nurse from CD 37, Shahana Hanif from CD 39, Darlene Mealy from CD 41, Chris Banks CD 42, Wai Yee Chan from CD 43, Kalman Yeger from CD 44, Farah Louis from CD 45, Mercedes Narcisse from CD 46, Amber Adler from CD 48, and Kamillah Hanks from CD 49,


Learn more about

our UFT Caucus

Content Policy

Content of signed articles and comments represents the opinions of their authors. The views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily the views of New Action/UFT.
Follow New Action – UFT on WordPress.com
May 2023
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Blog Stats

  • 401,256 hits