Posts Tagged 'Delegate Assembly'



Unpacking the October, 2022 Delegate Assembly

On October 12th, the UFT had its first DA of 2022. James Eterno at ICE-UFT has published detailed minutes, so I’ll focus on a few points of analysis.

Protest Outside: People on the phone missed out on the biggest part of the DA – hundreds of retirees protesting the UFT and MLC’s incessant moves to kick them off premium-free traditional Medicare outside UFT headquarters. One downside of hybrid DAs is that most of the ‘swing votes’ don’t get to see awesome work like this, often organized by Retiree Advocate.

Gov. Hochul: Gov. Hochul didn’t seem to notice the hundreds of people protesting Mulgrew’s mismanagement of our healthcare on her way in. Instead, she gave a glowing review of the UFT president, bordering on an endorsement: ‘Mulgrew has done such a great job advocating for teachers. [I’m] proud to work with Mulgrew and other teachers across the state.’ Many in New Action and other opposition caucuses did not stand to applaud Hochul, remembering how quick she was to renew mayoral control, which Adams promptly used to defund our schools. We also remember how slow she was to sign off on the class size bill. The list goes on. Nevertheless, she did sign off on the latter bill eventually, and it’s a good sign that Hochul doesn’t mind being seen with the teachers union.

One note remainder of DA: The remainder of the DA was dedicated to healthcare misinformation. Countering the hundreds of fixed-income retirees protesting outside, just two, highly paid executives of the UFT, Mulgrew and Geoff Sorkin gave their pitches like used car salesmen. Often dog whistling that their opposition does things for ‘political’ reasons (rather than out of the goodness of their hearts like Mulgrew and Sorkin) we heard one sided arguments on why Medicare Advantage will be awesome, as long as it’s the UFT’s Medicare Advantage. Former Unity (and once-opposition) exec-board candidate Arthur Goldstein published a good article recently on why he is not convinced by all the healthcare propaganda. It’s worth a read, though I disagree with his conclusions on opposition. But attendees last night didn’t hear from him. They also didn’t hear from anyone in the opposition. For our arguments, you can see what the ‘7’, including myself, said on healthcare at executive board last week. Indeed, until we get the chance to give our own ‘minority report’–something we must push for–UFTers might prefer to attend executive board sessions to the DA. You get a far more varied set of perspectives when Mulgrew and Barr have no choice but to call on everyone there.

No time for opposition: Mulgrew called on one opposition member all night – H.S. executive board member, Ilona Nanay (MORE), who asked a good question (and got a bad answer) on changes to the city council administrative code. It was no accident that Mulgrew called on a known opposition member during the question period, but not during the new motions period. During a question period, it’s easy for Mulgrew to regain control of the room. He can spend lots of time answering a short question, and making it clear that his perspective is the right perspective. During a new motion, opposition has far more space to convince the audience. Mulgrew knows that, so we haven’t been called on since last November, 2021 to raise one (and that’s when I was technically still a member of his Unity caucus). It’s also worth noting how obvious it was that Mulgrew knew who he was picking in advance. One of the people he called on, Maggie Joyce, is someone he calls on frequently to raise new motions. She is a familiar Unity face to him, often present at UFT functions. Another of the people he called on was raising a motion he noted before it was even raised (on migrant children). Our healthcare reso didn’t stand a chance.

We didn’t even get to the business of motions on 10/12’s agenda. We lost all that to the most brainwashing filibuster Mulgrew has ever given. I’ll give my same advice again – if you want to see diverse union perspectives, come to executive board meetings where you have any chance of actually seeing them.

April DA, 2022 – The Bizarro DA

It’s late, and I’ve got campaigning and packing left to do before a much needed Spring Break, so I’ll keep this short. James Eterno has already posted comprehensive minutes for those who want to see more detail. So, just some comments from me.

We got what appeared to be a UFC-informed DA today, but when Mulgrew is at the helm, appearances can be deceptive.

  • Mulgrew spoke for less time during his presidential report than he has in months, if not the entire year, probably a response to United for Change having put out detailed statistics about the March DA, which showed that Mulgrew’s filibuster is what keeps delegates from not doing business, not parliamentary procedures from UFC delegates. In fact, UFC delegates haven’t been called on to motivate a resolution since November. But this time, Mulgrew spoke for 45 minutes, leaving 60 minutes for questions, new resolutions, and resolutions. To be sure, nothing particularly new was in the president’s report that hadn’t already been said in previous DAs or in this week’s executive board meeting, but it was so short compared to what we’ve gotten used to, that one might forgive the repetition. Most delegates called on in the question period were Unity or at least independent, but Ryan Bruckenthal did pitch a good question on our role in helping the new Amazon and Starbucks unions.
  • In the new motions period, not surprisingly, we were not called on. Peter Lamphere asked to suspend the rules so that the period could be extended by 10 minutes so that we could try to get one of our three motions read, and interestingly a non-UFC delegate called a point of order or information to suggest Peter was wrong to do this. But, Michael Mulgrew sided not with the non-UFC candidate, but with Peter (Bizzaro!). We did not get the necessary 2/3 vote, but got almost half on the phone (potentially a good omen for the election). Interestingly, this was the only parliamentary procedure used by UFC that night, but there must have been five done by Unity Caucus members and independents. By the way, this took no time at all. There were no fits thrown, no attacks made on their character, just answers–even when the non-UFC delegates were ruled out of order. Hypocritical? Perhaps. Again, Bizarro DA.
  • Of the resolutions read, nothing required debate. Everything was unanimous. Nothing bizarro there, except the fact that there were resolutions in the first place. This led to some interesting moments of solidarity, including a particularly touching moment when a former first-responder spoke about his experience serving during 9/11. I can tell you that UFC candidates who were there, myself included, joined with everyone else to stand and applaud him. (It was a little less heart warming when, hearing that a handful of people voted against the resolution, someone in my section screamed something to the effect of ‘we’re teaching with terrorists!’) The next resolution, which resolved “that the UFT take a moment to recognize our outstanding school related professionals and to pay tribute to them for their important contributions to the New York City school system and to the United Federation of Teachers,” received an ‘against’ comment over the phone from Dermot Myrie (MORE), because (a) he couldn’t make a motion to amend over the phone; and (b) we should be making a motion to actually PAY school related professionals more, not just emptily recognize them. I think he had a point.
  • And, this time we went beyond 6:00 PM’s automatic adjournment. Mulgrew had refused to go beyond 6:00 every single DA this year since UFC’s big November wins. Last month, seemingly out of spite, he didn’t even let a resolution finish, because we had the audacity to try and make a motion to extend. He claimed then that they needed the room for a meeting at 6:00, after which I pointed out that the meeting he was talking about was at 6:30. Then he said they needed to get the room ready, and that was why they had to end mid-motion at 6:00, so I stuck around and saw that not a single chair was moved in that 30 minutes (we could have easily finished the resolution, and had another 10 minutes to work on other resos). Anyways, this time around a Unity person makes a motion to extend, and Mulgrew says there’s no point in even debating it, because he’s going to let us go past 6:00 either way. Hypocritical? Yes, definitely hypocritical. Again, Bizarro DA.

In the end, despite the Bizarro context of this DA: a shorter presidential address, a question period that let one completely non-inflammatory UFC question go through, and almost all parliamentary inquiries/motions coming from Unity or otherwise non-UFC candidates, there was still no substantive change. Where it counted, we weren’t called on to read important resolutions. And there was just enough time to get through three resolutions that were inherently non-controversial (and offered no potential for UFC to make any inroads during the debate period). Therefore, bizarro as this DA was, there was nothing pro-UFC about it. Opposition was just as shut out as in December or March.

I’ll end by discussing the resolutions that UFC meant to pitch, but once again never got a chance to motivate. One would have committed the UFT to push for detailed plans to investigate and potentially end mayoral control. That resolution is long and complicated, but well worth a read (click the link above to see it). Another resolution focused on Tier 6, but unlike Unity’s otherwise similar resolution, had a radical resolve that would have bound the UFT to the following: “as part of this campaign, any politician who blocks or intends to block our efforts to fix Tier 6 must at a minimum be barred from receiving COPE dollars, our endorsement, or any other form of UFT support.” Finally, another responded to Unity’s abhorrent actions at the last Executive Board meeting and over the last few weeks to investigate and potentially out UFT members for things that could lead the DOE to discipline them. That resolution is short, so I’ll end by posting that resolution in its entirety.

Resolution Calling for UFT not to Initiate DOE Disciplinary Proceedings against a Member

Whereas DOE disciplinary proceedings, such as 3020-As, can lead to severe consequences for our educators, ranging from hefty financial penalties to termination of employment and/or discontinuation of our licenses.

Whereas, one of the primary purposes of our union is to protect educators from being disciplined and to mitigate the consequences thereof. 

Whereas, in recent weeks, UFT staff members and officers have publicly accused UFT members of misconduct, and therefore potentially alerted the DOE that there is misconduct done by UFT members worth investigating.

Whereas, in recent weeks, UFT officers have mimicked the tactics of DOE investigators, initiating witchhunts of UFT members for which they would only be able to effectuate consequences if they turned over their data to the DOE. 

Be it resolved that, whether secretly or publicly, UFT staffers and officers will neither extract nor communicate information to the DOE that could lead to initiation or exacerbation of disciplinary proceedings for our members.

If you’d like a UFT leadership that defends members rather than targets opposition candidates in a way that could harm their careers, vote United for Change. We’ll push for a union that defends everyone, not one that puts member livelihoods at risk out of sheer negligence if not for political gain. And yes, we’ll democratize the DAs so that they are perpetually and authentically democratic, not just occasionally and only superficially democratic.

Resolution on encouraging broad discussion

Resolution on encouraging broad discussion

(presented at the 12/16/13UFT Exec Board. Tabled. This resolution would change the rules of the Delegate Assembly so that if the question was called before there had been a speaker against, the chair would ask for a speaker against before preceding to a vote.)

Whereas, the United Federation of Teachers is a democratically run organization, and

Whereas, the UFT’s governing body is the Delegate Assembly, where policy is introduced, discussed, debated, and decided, and

Whereas, the Delegate Assembly is generally governed by Roberts Rules, with several specific changes, as the UFT has chosen, and

Whereas, on occasion, after a resolution has been motivated, the question has been called and voted upon without the nay side of the issue having been heard, and

Whereas, allowing one speaker opposed would not impose an undue burden on the body, and might enrich the discussion before the vote,

Therefore, be it RESOLVED that the rules of order of the United Federation of Teachers Delegate Assembly are amended by the addition of: “6. CALLING A QUESTION – Before entertaining a motion to ‘call the question’ on any matter, if there has not been a speaker opposed to the question, the chair will ask for a speaker opposed.”

 Introduced to the December 16 UFT Exec Board. Signed by Jonathan Halabi, Michael Shulman, Kate Martin-Bridge, Francisco Peña, Keith Fessell, Doug Haynes. Motivated by Jonathan Halabi. Tabled.

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
January 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 402,093 hits