Friday, December 28, 2012


The UFT is apparently using the leverage the law gives us regarding the new evaluation system and the DOE is not happy about it.  Therefore, the DOE has gone to the Public Employees Relations Board to file a charge against the Union.

It seems the UFT is linking an evaluation agreement to reaching agreements on how the new system will be implemented, which schools will be closed or phased out, reduction in paperwork and a salary increase.

Good negotiating guys!  It's more than likely just a coincidence that the phone calls referred to in the DOE PERB charge took place on December 6 and the ICEUFT piece that was linked by Gotham on evaluations was posted on December 2.  We probably had nothing to do with it but we are indeed satisfied that the UFT leadership is at least talking tough in negotiations.

I think this is hopeful news. Yes the UFT might just be saber rattling but I think President Mulgrew and lead negotiator Michael Mendel are fully aware that they cannot sell a lousy agreement on evaluations (the only kind the DOE would ever agree to) to the membership.

I do not believe PERB has the authority to impose a settlement so basically the public relations battle is starting over who is to blame if and when the city loses $250 million in state aid because there is no agreement on a new evaluation system.

You can read the DOE complaint in its entirety in the middle of the Post article that is linked above and I urge everyone to take the time to do so.

Hope you are all enjoying your vacation.

Thursday, December 20, 2012


No need for much editorializing here.  This letter from President Mulgrew speaks for itself on the state of negotiations on an evaluation system agreement.  Unless he is truly bluffing and just taking a tough negotiating stand, it looks as though this is not going to get done by Chancellor Walcott's so called deadline of December 21.

The letter below was sent to the Department of Education by UFT President Michael Mulgrew. It describes
the conditions necessary for there to be any future meetings between the UFT and DOE regarding 
development and implementation for a new evaluation system.
Dear Chancellor Walcott,
The Department of Education’s demonstrated inability to manage the school system correctly has led us to
have serious concerns about getting anything constructive done with you. Two and half years ago the state
decided to change this year’s standardized tests to the Common Core standards and since then you have
done nothing to create a curriculum based on the Common Core. You have now left teachers in a 
horrendous situation where they are scrambling to try to get material appropriate for these new tests to
teach their children.
Inevitably, this will lead to a drop in standardized test scores — which I know once again you will try to
blame on the teachers because you will not take responsibility for your incompetence. Despite all of this
and many other examples, the teachers in our schools have worked through Hurricane Sandy and many
other challenges to serve the children in our care, even as the union has continued to try to negotiate a
new evaluation system.
We were recently informed by our members in the schools that you have launched a new program, the
Teacher Effectiveness Intensive Three Week Cycle, without any planning or proper training for the schools.
Charlotte Danielson’s rubric requires intensive training in order for it to be used correctly, but you have
refused to certify or intensely train people so that they can properly use this tool. Your decision to launch this
new program without a plan that would lead to its successful implementation is mind-boggling to us.
Given this history, at this time we will only meet with you to discuss a planning and roll-out process 
for the new evaluation system — in case we ever get to such an agreement. We understand that 
an evaluation system that will create a constructive practice in each school that will enhance
instruction and benefit our
over 1.1 million students is a critical opportunity. An evaluation system that will change the culture of 
our schools is something that the UFT has been working on for over three years. 
We hope that you will not be party to wasting such an important opportunity. We await your 
communication to set up such a meeting on the planning and roll-out process for the benefit
of our children and our schools.
Michael Mulgrew
Michael Mulgrew
UFT President

Saturday, December 15, 2012


The following piece is from the UFT weekly Chapter Leader email update.

UFT blasts DOE for sowing “terrible atmosphere of fear” around the new evaluation system

UFT Secretary Michael Mendel sent a blistering email to Chancellor Dennis Walcott and his deputies earlier today charging that the manner in which principals and networks are practicing and preparing for the new evaluation system in schools “has been a disaster and that it has created a terrible atmosphere of fear around both the new evaluation system and the Danielson protocols.” He noted that in many parts of the city, teachers are being told that the new evaluation system is “a done deal,” even though many of the details are still be negotiated. In some cases, he said, teachers are being told that starting in January there will no longer be pre- and post-observations. “In many places,” he said, “eight or nine administrators are walking into a teacher’s room without warning, writing notes in the back of the room and leaving.” Mendel reaffirmed the union’s full commitment to a new evaluation system that supports professional growth throughout a teacher’s career and provides for a fair and honest evaluation process. But, he said, the present structure of the DOE and past practice since September 2011 “demonstrate that you cannot and will not roll it out successfully.” Mendel said that if the DOE does not insist that everyone “learn together in a non-threatening way,” the new evaluation system will be doomed to fail. “And let’s be clear,” he concluded. “This failure rests squarely on the DOE’s shoulders.”
It looks as though the rhetorical fight is escalating.

Thursday, December 13, 2012


UFT President Michael Mulgrew gave a really strong impression at the December Delegate Assembly that there is little chance that there will be an agreement on a new evaluation system before the January 17, 2013 deadline. However, if there is an agreement, the Unity majority decided that it will not go to the membership for a vote even though it is a contractual change.

Mulgrew began his report by telling the Delegates that 88% of UFT members responding to a survey felt they were not supported properly in their schools; half said that students with IEPs are not receiving proper services and there is a huge increase in UFT Special Education Complaints.

Mulgrew went on to talk about politics.  He told Delegates that if a state's Democratic party cannot control at least one house of the legislature, then the unions in that state are in trouble and that is why Michigan passed a "Right to Work" law.  He stated that politics matter and that is why we worked so diligently to get an increase in Democrats in the New York State Assembly so now there is a super-majority and all three caucuses in the dysfunctional New York State Senate are talking to the UFT.  He carried on by saying that the so called "Right to Work" laws, where unions cannot automatically collect dues, are really a way to force unions to spend all of their time organizing and trying to collect dues.  He said the AFT and AFL-CIO are working on the situation in Michigan.  He then brought it back to New York by noting that same groups that worked to limit union power in Michigan are here providing funding for the same goals.

Mulgrew next talked about the mayor and the evaluation system.  He said that Mayor Bloomberg, the Daily News, Fox and the Post were once again attacking us.  He stated that Bloomberg never liked the state evaluation law because only 20% of a teacher's evaluation would be based on student test scores and the mayor didn't like that there was collective bargaining in the law.  He asserted that the UFT had to go to Albany to get an agreement in 2012 on the appeals process and so we are the only district in the state that will have an appeals process that is part of the law.  He then stated that when the law takes effect, it will be a stronger appeals process than what we have now (that is debatable for sure).

Mulgrew then announced that the mayor wants the new process for evaluations to hold teachers' feet to the fire and allow for transparency.  He stated that the mayor is fully aware that language like this will lead to fights with the UFT but that the mayor as a lame duck has no hope for getting legislation passed in Albany.  Mulgrew said he believes the mayor does not want an agreement on the evaluation system.  To prove his point, Mulgrew declared that Bloomberg's education legacy is in the toilet so he will continue to blame us.  What Bloomberg and the press most fear is that the UFT will help elect the next mayor.

Mulgrew closed this portion of his report by noting that the combination of our retirees and active members gives us a very strong ground game in elections so that a UFT endorsement really matters but delivering votes on the ground is even more important. He then pivoted back to the evaluation system by pointing out that the negotiations on the evaluation system are not going well and that we cannot trust the DOE to implement a new system even if there was an agreement.  He told Delegates that Walcott's December 21 deadline was an imaginary deadline.

He then emphasized that there is a strong possibility that there would be no evaluation agreement and that the UFT must prepare for an onslaught against us from the mayor, the Post, the News and Fox. He thinks the mayor's goal is to have our approval rating go down so we will be weakened in the mayoral election as the mayor's best hope now is to pick his successor. He added that we will not agree to an evaluation system that doesn't help us help kids and that state growth scores are out and show only 7% of teachers are ineffective and that won't change much because of the formula used, even if test scores plummet

Mulgrew also declared that Joel Klein's plan to destroy the school system would come close to being achieved but it would not be successful.  Danielson, five minute snapshots and all the other stuff they are doing to our members prove they don't have the ability to implement anything.

Mulgrew followed up by saying that the School Governance Committee would soon be meeting as would the Negotiating Committee and that we are moving ahead on the contract in Fact Finding.  He then told us he would be in Staten Island with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as one school had 78% of students displaced from their homes.  Mulgew went back to say that new Campaign Finance Board Charter Revision rules would make member to member communication more difficult and then he closed by saying the mayor's race was critical.

Leroy Barr gave the Staff Director's Report saying that disaster relief was still going on so members could donate at  He gave the revised date for Teacher Union Day as January 27 noting that Michael Mendel would be honored.

The Question Period was next on the agenda. The first question was about the Teachers Retirement System and Emblem Health being temporarily moved from 55 Waters Street due to Sandy.  Mulgrew responded that the Welfare Fund and TRS were functioning.

The next query concerned data points.  Mulgrew said DOE says people in pilot evaluation schools are ecstatic but our members in surveys say otherwise.  He added that people are not truthful in DOE surveys because they want to protect their schools from being closed.  UFT surveys, on the other hand, show that virtually everyone is unhappy.  Mulgrew thought the truth was somewhere in the middle  He added that we have 12 months left of Bloomberg but the dysfunction is worsening.  He said we are trying to fix things in the system but our members are demoralized.  He concluded that we have to keep member hopes up through Bloomberg's last year.

The next question was on excessive paperwork including the acuity tests.  Mulgrew answered that we are in arbitration on things such as curriculum writing as well as teachers writing units of study. He stated we shouldn't be writing curriculum.  He added that the DOE now has 250 accountability experts who need something to do.

The next query concerned the city budget and how much we stand to lose if there is no evaluation agreement in January.  Mulgrew replied that we now have a $23.3. billion education budget and we stand to lose $240 million if there is no agreement. He followed up by declaring that it is not the money, it's a game to the mayor so we should look out for layoff notices as our enemies will go against us as if there were a strike if there is no evaluation agreement.

The new motion period followed.  Political Director Paul Egan put forward a resolution supporting issuing of Green Apple Bonds to remove PCBs from schools within three years at a net savings of $339 million.  It carried.

Kit Wainer then made a motion for today's agenda to bring a resolution to support a membership referendum on any new evaluation system.  Kit noted that this was a huge change in the contract and alterations to the contract go to the membership for their approval. The resolution also called for a campaign to educate our members on the evaluation system.  He persuaded Mulgrew to ask for a suspension of the rules so that there could be a speaker on each side, even though the resolution was for this month. The motion for a speaker carried so Kit was able to tell the Delegates that he agreed with President Mulgrew that our members were demoralized and see the UFT as just another institution that does things to its members and they are responding by tuning out the UFT.  He pointed out that turnouts are very low in UFT elections and they are poor at citywide and district wide chapter leader meetings as well so we need to involve the members and not alienate them further.  He closed by saying that 1,000 members and a group of whole chapters signed a petition to support a membership vote on the evaluation system.

Leroy Barr was called on to refute Kit's points.  Leroy said that the membership elects Delegates and Chapter Leaders to represent members and the DA has a proud history of these duly elected representatives doing their job.  He then added that the DA is the proper place for the evaluation issue to be discussed and voted on particularly since there was a school based 150 person committee meeting regularly on the evaluation system.  He added that what the resolution comes down to is the power of the DA.  He gave examples of 1964 when the DA voted for a one day boycott and 2009 when the DA voted on an agreement that gave us two days back in summer vacation.  The huge Unity majority then sided with Barr.

I would like to comment here on this issue.  In 2002, when Randi Weingarten first decided to put extended time in our contract that would be up to the discretion of management to use, the extended time provision was so bad it had to be renegotiated in the fall of that year and then in June of every year up through 2005 when Randi gave away the store in that horrible contract.  Each time the extended time provision was renegotiated, it came to the full membership for a vote.  You can look that up because I remember running the votes annually at Jamaica. Extended time is a revision of Article 6A and changes properly were sent to the membership for ratification.

The reason why the 2009 change on having the two days before Labor Day back in summer vacation did not come to the membership was because it was primarily pension savings, which are governed by state law more than the contract.  Remember our interest rate on TDA Fixed funds went from 8.25% down to 7% for UFT members in that agreement.  CSA and PSC members still get 8.25%..  I called those the billion dollar days because that's what those two days will end up costing us. However, the alterations of our work day were always voted on by the membership as a contract change. The law specifically ties the new evaluation system to our next collective bargaining agreement so there is no excuse for not having a membership referendum on evaluations.

Resolutions followed next.  First was a resolution to support an organization called "New Yorkers for Great Public Schools."  Then, there was support for Pakistani factory workers. This was followed by some real drama. Peter Lamphere motivated a resolution asking the UFT to support the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's Federal Civil Rights Complaint against the specialized high school admission process.  This was a great chance for a Kumbaya moment as members of Unity, New Action and the new MORE Caucus all worked on this matter.  However, Kumbaya did not happen as Peter mentioned the 1968 strike and the UFT's divisive racial role.  He said the UFT still needed to mend fences on the race relations issue and that this would be a good way to do it. Unity stalwart Abe Levine rose passionately to declare the 1968 strike was about due process and stopping the forced transfer of teachers.  (Where are you now Abe when so many of our members are forced to transfer to a new school each week?) Abe said the strike was not about race.  Janella Hinds followed up with a substitute resolution that was approved by members in the impacted schools and Jonathan Halabi from New Action supported it. Then there was a vote and it passed.  Two more resolutions followed on national issues to oppose Republican plans to cut our social programs.  They easily passed.

That's all folks. I leave with two thoughts. Does everyone still believe the next sellout on evaluations is just around the corner?  If it is, then Mulgrew is one heck of a con man. Unity not allowing us to vote on whatever they negotiate, is another setback.

Saturday, December 08, 2012


I read the Daily News article on the evaluation system negotiations.  The News reported on what the mayor said on his radio show yesterday.

Mayor Bloomberg said that he would rather lose the money (now $250,000,000 in state funding) and make "painful cuts" to the schools or other agencies rather than cut a deal that doesn't "hold their (teachers) feet to the fire."

"If we can't come to an agreement, it's going to be very painful, but the city's certainly not going to sign on to any agreement that isn't a real evaluation agreement, and one that can be monitored by the public," Bloomberg told John Gambling according to the News. He added that he is still optimistic a deal can be reached.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew was quoted in the same News article as saying that he's not hopeful a deal will happen. He stated, "It seems the mayor is more interested in using the evaluations to hold teachers' feet to the fire, than he is in helping them do their jobs better."

Is this all muscle flexing and saber rattling or is this where negotiations truly stand now? I have read Norm Scott many times saying we should watch what our union's leaders do and not what they say.

Accountable Talk blogger believes the fix is in after he talked to a union official who came to his school.

I refer back to our piece from Sunday on how this will all play out. I expect that maybe the governor and AFT President Weingarten might become involved at some point soon.

The rank and file should put whatever pressure we can exert to convince the UFT not to cave in by agreeing to an evaluation system that relies on junk science and harassing observations to rate teachers.

Friday, December 07, 2012


The Administration at Jamaica High School informed me yesterday that our School Improvement Grant money will soon be on the school's budget.  One assistant principal asked if I felt a deal on the evaluation system was imminent now that the DOE will be releasing more funding to schools.  I said that I didn't think it was a done deal yet but everyone I talk to and what I see on the internet points in the direction that the negotiations are close to being finished.  In my circle, there is a strong consensus among rank and file UFT and CSA  members that principals and teachers will be completely sold out when the new evaluation rules take effect. Based on the parameters of the law, this is a reasonable prognostication but as always the devil will be in the details.

I read the Gotham Schools post yesterday on where the negotiations stand currently.  It looks to Gotham like things have not been settled but this does not look like it will end happily if the issues they are talking about are what's on the table.

Here is what Deputy Chancellor David Weiner laid out for possibilities on observations according to Gotham: "Should you have five (observations) a year of that pre-observation, observation, post-observation?  Should there be two pre-observation,observation, post-observation?  Should we eliminate the pre-observation and post observation and just make it an ongoing cycle of unannounced visits?  Should the observation be shorter-- should [observers] come in for 15 minutes at a time?"

Five observations in addition to the junk science of value added.  It's back to my probationary days.  What are they trying to prove?

If I were negotiating, I cannot see circumstances where I would agree to a deal with the current city regime as anything they would sign will not be a teacher friendly or principal friendly system.

What do you think?


Thursday, December 06, 2012


Our last post on the potential for an evaluation deal for teachers has produced multiple comments expecting teachers to be sold out by the UFT.  Not one person thought there was much hope for the UFT to stand up to the mayor and governor and refuse to accept a new teacher evaluation system that is not fair to teachers. Or to put it another way, the fix might be in.

Time will tell if the naysayers will be proven correct. At the present time, what all of us must do is to tell the teachers in the schools that the UFT can ignore the arbitrary deadline set by the governor for a new evaluation system and remain under the current one.

The UFT could then sue for the $300 million in lost state aid that we stand to forfeit if there is no agreement.  How dare the governor deny the schools money because the mayor won't negotiate a fair deal with the teachers. The UFT sues based on many different grounds.

Buffalo teachers are in court right now.  They will not negotiate on the evaluation system until the city agrees to honor their contract in other areas. They are risking state aid. The UFT should also be contemplating using this tactic.

If we are not going to wage a fight now in New York City when the governor and mayor are basically trying to destroy tenure and make us employees who can be dismissed based on value added measures (junk science) that are totally invalid, then when will we ever stand up for ourselves?

NYC Educator has some ideas for a UFT commercial on this subject. His plan is to put it out there for the public and the teachers.  We should show a graphic that explains how inaccurate value added assessments are and have Mulgrew look into the camera to truly tell it like it is. We have been singled out by Bloomberg for punishment so we haven't received the salary increases that all other city unions got four years ago.  Now he wants to fire us on phony data.  It is time to go on offense. The advertisement could be for the UFT membership as well as the public.  "This is why we Fight" kind of stuff.

Meanwhile the Epoch Times has put out a lengthy article on the evaluation system negotiations where this blog is quoted.  Gotham Schools even linked to our last post which is very unusual.

Norm Scott also chimed in on the evaluation system at the UFT Executive Board the other night during the open mic period.  Norm and I haven't been there for a long time.  He made the case that the UFT should not make a deal with the mayor on a new evaluation system that uses junk science but Norm and others are calling the January 17 deadline  an "educational fiscal cliff."  I do not concur with that term as losing an increase in state aid is not taking anyone off of a cliff.  While the state funding is nothing to sneeze at, there is so much money that is wasted in the school system on non-education items that I am fairly certain the $300 million could be absorbed without the classroom being impacted. Would much of the $300 million even find its way to the classroom?  This is what a UFT mobilization campaign needs to be about.

If all the commentators are correct and we are about to be thrown to the wolves, it's time for the membership to pressure the leadership to do what is right by us.

Sunday, December 02, 2012


We have been asked what we think will happen concerning the deadline for implementing a new teacher evaluation system.  Since 20-40% of a teacher's annual evaluation will be based on growth in student test scores (what has been proven to be junk science) and the other 60% will be based on the notorious Danielson framework, teachers are justifiably nervous.

If there is no deal by January 17, 2013, the city stands to lose $300,000,000 in state aid.  The stakes are quite high.  However, New York State Law gives the UFT some leverage in the bargaining.  Here is what the law says (paragraph 8 of Section 3012-c of State Education Law) about the link between a new collective bargaining agreement and a new evaluation system:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, all collective bargaining agreements applicable to classroom teachers or building principals entered into after July first, two thousand ten shall be consistent with requirements of this section.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of any collective bargaining agreement in effect on July first, two thousand ten during the term of such agreement and until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement, provided that notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, upon expiration of such term and the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement the provisions of this section shall apply.  Furthermore, nothing in this section or in any rule or regulation promulgated hereunder shall in any way, alter, impair or diminish the rights of a local collective bargaining representative to negotiate evaluation procedures in accordance with article fourteen of the civil service law with the school district or board of cooperative educational services. 

Section 3012-c is the new evaluation system that grades teachers based on student growth on test scores as well as observations.  The key line is, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any conflicting provisions of any collective bargaining in effect on July first, two thousand ten during the term of such agreement and until the entry into a successor collective bargaining agreement."  What that means in English is that the new evaluation system by law does not take effect until we have a contract to replace the one that was in effect on July 1, 2010.  Our last contract expired way back on October 31, 2009.  The Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law keeps that contract in place until we have a new one.  Our last salary increase was May 19, 2008.  Contract negotiations right now are stalemated and have gone to fact finding. A non binding recommendation will be made by a three person state panel at some point in the near future.  Almost every other city union received 4% + 4% raises without givebacks in the current round of bargaining.  We should expect the same because of pattern bargaining which links all city union raises in contract negotiations.

Please note that I don't see anything in the law that prevents the UFT from making a side agreement with the DOE that just covers the evaluation system.  However, since the law links the evaluation system to having a new contract and we haven't had a raise in four and a half years, the UFT would be giving away its bargaining leverage if we agreed to decouple the contract from the new evaluation system.  Mulgrew and company are not stupid. Unless the people who call them complete sellouts are right, it is unlikely that the UFT will agree to any evaluation system that isn't tied to a new contract. 

Unfortunately, Governor Cuomo's January 17, 2013 deadline for an agreement on evaluations is looming and cannot be ignored. I don't mean to sound uncaring here but that $300 million is a drop in the bucket in a city education budget that has over $20 billion in it. My school is supposed to get some of that School Improvement Grant state money.  The Principal informed the School Leadership Team that the money is being held up.  I am not surprised as it would seem that the city knows there is little chance of a deal being reached on the evaluation system and they are prepared to lose the funds.

What will happen between now and January 17th?  Expect a great deal of bad press attacking the UFT from the New York Post, Daily News, Gotham Schools, NY Times, E4E, etc...  The media will put pressure on us to make a deal on the evaluation system without getting a new contract.  They will say that we don't care about the children. In actuality, we are the ones who care about the students. A bad evaluation system that makes us do more teaching to tests will have an extremely adverse impact on the kids.  Will the UFT stand up to the press attacks?  I see three possibilities as to what will happen when the clock runs out in mid January:

1. There will be a grand bargain that gives teachers a contract, settles the Absent Teacher Reserve question (I don't believe the UFT will allow ATRs to be fired if they can't find a job within a specific period of time), and creates a new evaluation system.  We will not be happy with whatever is negotiated as far as rating teachers is concerned because our jobs will depend in part on what NYC Educator rightly calls junk science.  However, we would receive those retroactive salary increases and maybe a little more money to persuade us to accept an evaluation system that we probably won't like. We would also probably agree to some kind of Newark style merit pay for teachers rated highly effective.  I see a grand bargain as very possible especially if Cuomo and AFT President Randi Weingarten step in to "help out" the negotiations and pressure Mayor Bloomberg to concede a little. The UFT leadership is usually willing to give in but there are lines they have not crossed and hopefully will not.

2. There will be no agreement on the evaluation system or the contract and the UFT will take the hit.  I see this as quite possible.  Mulgrew then emerges as a hero to the teachers for standing up to the mayor and the state right before the UFT election.  He will be given credit even though the membership is not mobilized and is pretty much demoralized.  We can't put any real pressure to move negotiations to make contractual gains. The question is not whether we will have a good evaluation system.  What we are asking is, "How bad will it be?"   If there is no deal, the usual suspects will attack us and life will go on. Bloomberg will threaten layoffs and the press will continue to condemn us but we will have our jobs.  The contract and evaluation system will not be settled until we have a new mayor who will inherit the problem. I think if you polled the UFT membership, this is the scenario a strong majority would probably vote for.

3. We have a side agreement that settles the evaluation system but the contract remains unsigned. I can't see the UFT giving up the bargaining power the law gives us on this issue. It is the only leverage we have to obtain a new contract. Fact finding is not binding on either side.  At the DA, Mulgrew sounded as if he would be willing to lose the $300 million in state funds.  Was he just saber rattling?  Showing the Legislature and Cuomo how unreasonable Bloomberg has been in negotiations would not be that difficult. The UFT would be extremely foolish to accept a new evaluation system without a contract unless it is a really fair system.  Can you see the Mayor agreeing to a system that is favorable to teachers? I can't.  Remember, the DOE seems to be pricing into this year's equation that the School Improvement Grants won't be coming.  I will check for an update on this at school to make sure that the money still has not come on our budget.

The State can always extend the deadline for an agreement but then we still end up back with the three possibilities for how this will play out unless the politicians try to change the law to take away our bargaining power.  Since Bloomberg is a lame duck and the UFT and NYSUT did very well endorsing candidates in the last election, I don't see the law being changed.

I am certainly open to any other ideas on how this plays out. Please send us your scenarios.