Francesco Portelos followed up and the UFT claimed I never responded to their reply. I didn't respond because I never received it.
The UFT's answer to our election protest that Absent Teacher Reserves and Leave Replacement Teachers are disenfranchised and not being given an equal opportunity to serve in the Delegate Assembly is that they have picked Staff Director Leroy Barr to make a report and present it to the Executive Board.
No disrespect to Mr. Barr, but since he was one of the people who was meeting with me and emailing me on the issue of ATR representation last fall and he has already rejected the idea of an ATR Chapter, it looks like he has a conflict of interest. He certainly is not neutral.
The leadership of the union has also relegated us to speaking during the open microphone segment before the meeting so we will not get a chance to present our protest beyond the letter we sent. To put it another way, we will have no opportunity to respond to whatever Leroy Barr says which you can bet won't be favorable.
Some of you may be thinking that this sounds worse than a Step I grievance where a teacher or other UFT member makes an argument to a principal about something they did and the principal just rejects it. The UFT policy is not as fair because at least the member gets to argue his/her case before the principal.
Election protests were handled a little differently when Randi Weingarten was president of the UFT. In those days, the people involved in a complaint were given the opportunity to state their case by asking and answering questions after the UFT did an investigation where they talked to all the parties involved.
You are all thinking "Kangaroo Court" by now. Maybe I'll be surprised and be proven wrong here.