NEW YEAR APPEAL TO INCOMING MAYOR AND CHANCELLOR: SAVE THE COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS

We have a new Chancellor now in Carmen Farina.  We wish her all the best as she takes over a school system where teachers have been thoroughly demoralized while parents have for the most part been marginalized.

We are doing a bit of praying that one of the new mayor and Chancellor's first acts upon taking office will be to give a reprieve to the academic, comprehensive high schools that are phasing out, including of course the legendary Jamaica High School.

My former colleague Marc Epstein wrote the case in favor of saving our doomed schools on Diane Ravitch's blog.  It is linked here and copied in its entirety below. 

Please help us out.

Will Mayor de Blasio Grant Clemency to Doomed Schools?

Marc Epstein taught at Jamaica High School in Queens, New York City, for many years. The school is under a death sentence, which means the end of many programs that served children with different needs. Here he makes a plea to Mayor de Blasio to save some of the doomed schools.

 

A De Blasio Clemency?

 

 This is the time of year that governors and the president issue pardons and clemencies.  They are issued to prisoners who have either been exemplary citizens during their incarceration or set free because extenuating circumstances indicate that their punishment didn’t fit the crime.
 
Mayors aren’t granted this kind of executive power, but this year Bill De Blasio does have the executive power to call a halt to the systematic elimination of several of New York’s comprehensive high schools that have had their fate sealed by Michael Bloomberg’s school closing policy.
 
Ostensibly, these school closings were to result in improved student performance in small schools that were placed within buildings occupied by the traditional high schools. It was an idea hatched by Bill Gates, an idea that he abandoned long ago.
 
In the waning days of his mayoralty, Bloomberg has embarked on a citywide tour, touting his legacy.  The papers have dutifully transmitted City Hall’s talking points, with hardly a demurral finding its way onto the printed page.
 
The Wall Street Journal’s 3,000 word “Bloomberg Reshaped The City” article credited the record high 60% high school graduation to Bloomberg’s stewardship of the schools and politely left out the inconvenient statistic that shows a record high number of New York’s high school graduates are unprepared for college and require remedial courses in math and English.
 
In an interview with Joel Klein, Bloomberg’s schools chancellor for over 10 years, that appeared in the Scholastic Administrator, Klein expressed his hope that the next schools chancellor will continue Bloomberg’s education legacy.
 
If only Mayor De Blasio will pick “someone who is committed to building on the progress of the last 11- plus years,” Klein’s tenure won’t have been in vain, at least according to Klein.
 
If that should be the case, we should prepare for record numbers of meaningless diplomas, more school closings, an unstable teacher work force, and a school system where academic apartheid defines education opportunity.
 
Record numbers of students now use mass transportation to get to the “school of their choice.” Why have 250,000 students using mass transit when many of them could walk to school instead, is a question that has gone unasked and unanswered by reporters and politicians for over a decade.
 
The community has been de-coupled from the neighborhood high school, because hardly a neighborhood high school exists anymore. The result is that parental participation suffers, after-school activities suffer, and the community suffers.
 
A record number of students attend boutique schools that screen their applicants.  I estimate that close to 10% of the seats available to high school students are now reserved for these students.  Most of these students used to help make up the population of the traditional high schools.
 
When Jamaica High School was handed its death warrant, the Department of Education, fearing a backlash from parents who simply didn’t buy the line that Jamaica was a failed school, cleverly carved a Gateway School out of the Gateway program that had existed in Jamaica for about 20 years.
And then, miracle of miracles, the new Gateway High School received an “A” on its report card!
 
Is there a serious argument that can be made for a public policy that is perpetually closing and reopening school houses because they are “failed”?
We’ve all heard of the Amityville Horror, but does that mean we should treat the schoolhouse as we would a haunted house?  But if closing and opening hundreds of schools is the new normal, we’d do better to hire Shinto priests to exorcise the evil spirits in these buildings rather than renaming and re-staffing them.
 
Our lowest performing students usually carry baggage that includes unstable home life, poor to no healthcare, limited language skills, and physical impoverishment. 
 
If instead of further destabilizing their school environment, Mayor Bloomberg had thrown his energy and resources into creating schools along the “Comer Model,” he might actually have had something to show to the public. 
 
The Comer school model developed by Dr. James P. Comer at the Yale Child Study Center has been around for close to fifty years and has a proven track record in addressing the problems of low achieving students in the inner city. But the lure of the well-meaning philanthropist with no expertise proved irresistible.
 
Instead, we are left with the tired litany of the teachers and union as villains, and the mayor and his minions as heroic for taking them on. But beneath the surface Bloomberg has created a highly segregated school system that keeps the disadvantaged far away from the middle classes and the upwardly mobile.
 
If Mayor De Blasio wants to reverse this death spiral, he’d do well to grant clemency to schools like Jamaica High School and Beach Channel High School and give them the resources they need to make them work for the children and their communities.
 
In their heyday comprehensive high schools included students who were on multiple career paths. There were differentiated diplomas and a multiplicity of choices. The students might not have attended all the same classes together, but they played on the same teams, shared the same teachers, and developed mutual respect for one another.
 
Inexplicably that has been destroyed, and instead of these students existing side by side with each other in the same community, they live and learn as peoples apart.
 
When this consideration is no longer a part of our education system we all become impoverished.  Clemency is one way to begin turning this around.

LETITIA JAMES, OTHER POLITICIANS AND PARENT GROUPS SUE TO STOP LAST MINUTE BLOOMBERG SCHOOL COLOCATIONS

There is no regret at all about voting for Letitia James for Public Advocate.  She is keeping her promises on public education even before she takes office.  James joined with a group of other politicians and parents' groups, including Leonie Haimson's Class Size Matters, to sue the Department of Education to stop all of the colocations approved in October by Mayor Bloomberg's puppet Panel for Educational Policy.

One significant group was noticeable by its absence from this suit: the United Federation of Teachers.  (We have no idea if they were even asked to sign on.)

Advocates for Justice attorney Arthur Schwartz is handling the case filed in Manhattan court.

The press release is here.

You can read the entire lawsuit at the bottom of the press release or here.

If Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio does not go in a progressive direction on public schools, the opposition is  ready. The name Letitia James being featured prominently on this suit cannot be underestimated in its importance.

In other news, the amazing Patrick Sullivan, Manhattan Borough President appointee to the Panel for Educational Policy (Board of Ed), resigned as Borough President Scott Stringer moves to the Comptroller's office.  Patrick was often times the only person on the PEP speaking up for parents, students and teachers.  Hopefully, Mayor Elect de Blasio will tap him to be a mayoral appointee if Patrick wants it or maybe Patrick will run for office.  He has my support.

PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY BOARD RECOMMENDS BETTER SETTLEMENT FOR LIRR WORKERS THAN STATE WORKERS GOT

Thanks to Mike Shirtzer from MORE for sending out a Newsday piece that includes the full non binding arbitration award for most Long Island Railroad union workers.  Not only did the Presidential Emergency Board recommend decent salary increases for LIRR workers, it specifically rejected the 2011 state settlement with the Civil Service Employees Association, that included three years with no salary increases, as a pattern to be adhered to.

Instead, they looked to the arbitration and prior settlement of TWU Local 100 (New York City Transit Workers Union) as major precedents.  The favorable TWU arbitration was decided one collective bargaining round after the 2005 transit strike. The MTA went to court to try to block the arbitration award from being implemented and lost all the way up to the NYS Court of Appeals.

If you don't think strikes and/or a credible threat that a union can wage a successful one are important, think again. The ripple effects of the 2005 transit strike, thought of as a defeat for the union by many, are still helping to improve conditions for transit workers throughout the region and probably boosted other settlements as well.

Newsday summarized the terms of the non binding LIRR settlement this way:

The presidential board recommended annual raises for workers averaging 2.83 percent over six years, and increased health care contributions for all workers. It did not call for any changes in LIRR pension plans or to any work rules.

This certainly beats the daylights out of the 0%+0%+0%+2%+2% settlement negotiated by the CSEA with Governor Andrew Cuomo that Mayor Bloomberg wants all city workers to swallow.

The non binding LIRR arbitration is not yet a contract and it will have no impact on the UFT's non-binding arbitration, which covers our last round of collective bargaining with the city.   Most city workers received 4%+4% increases without givebacks in the last round.  The city is saying they can't afford to give the UFT those retroactive raises and they are attempting to get all city workers to accept three years without raises (the contract state workers agreed to) for the next round.

Will the LIRR decision have an impact on the next round of collective bargaining with city workers? 

The LIRR arbitration panel, in rejecting the MTA argument that the CSEA settlement should be used as a pattern, noted that CSEA workers were facing a huge staff reduction crisis and received a job security agreement in return for three years without a raise.  The panel pointed out that a threat to jobs was not a comparable condition with the LIRR.  It isn't with the UFT either as teachers are heading for the exits as fast as they can because of the impossible teaching and learning conditions in the schools.

If we are going to consider anything close to the state pattern for our next contract, there had better be huge take-backs on working conditions such as the slaying the evaluation system and putting in preferred placement for Absent Teacher Reserves. How about following the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit settlement and actually lowering class sizes? Maybe we should fight for the ability to grieve unfair/inaccurate material placed in our personnel files, including observations, in a prompt way to somebody neutral.

CAN THE CITY AFFORD TO GIVE RAISES TO CITY EMPLOYEES?

The blogger Chaz has done some excellent reporting on our contract negotiations.  He believes the city has money to pay us real salary increases for two rounds of collective bargaining, not just the one where educators are behind most other city unions who received two 4% raises without givebacks.  His source is the usually conservative Independent Budget Office that released a report earlier this month saying city finances were in pretty good shape with billions of dollars in surpluses this year that are projected to extend into future years as well.

Buried very deep in the IBO Report, however, is an estimate of the cost of a retroactive UFT contract and the price of new contracts for educators as well as other municipal unions that would include modest 2% raises in the next round of bargaining. Here is what the IBO is saying:

Foremost among the reasons for caution are the expectations built into the budget plan with regard to a settlement of expired contracts with the city’s municipal unions. A costless settlement covering the years of expired contracts prior to 2014 may be more doable on paper than in practice. Depending on the terms of the settlements, the projected surplus could quickly evaporate. In May, IBO estimated that under one plausible scenario the cost of settlements with the unions could be $6.3 billion through 2014. In this scenario, the teacher and principal unions would get the same 4 percent raises other unions received in 2008-2010 and all the municipal unions would get 2 percent wage increases from the point their contracts expired in the years 2010-2013.

These IBO numbers are similar to the Comptroller's figures we cited last week here.

The city is expecting us to accept a pattern set by the State Civil Service Employees Association for a five year contract. The state pattern for this round is three years of zero raises followed by 2% increases in years four and five of a five year contract.  The federal pattern is worse with four years of 0% increases followed by 1% for the postal employees that will probably be copied soon for other federal employees. 

The case for decent increases for all of the unions is based upon large surpluses in the city budget.  Outgoing mayor Bloomberg created those surpluses largely on the backs of the municipal employees. We will say that inflation is eroding our standard of living so we need these modest raises just to keep up. We will quite rightfully point out that the city fiscal situation is much better than the state and federal budget pictures that the city is using to say there is no money for retroactive increases. Since we are in stronger financial shape than the federal and state governments, we deserve real salary increases, particularly since all of us are now working under expired contracts. 

The city will counter that NYC will only remain in solid shape financially if it holds the line on municipal employee salary increases.  Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio will more than likely cry poverty and cite the IBO and Comptroller's reports.  The city will then refer to wage freezes at the state and national level as indicative of very difficult times we have had to endure since the financial collapse and great recession of 2008.

Can NYC public sector unions take a stand against the state and national trend based on the city having more of an ability to pay?  I would answer that question in the affirmative if we took a collective, militant approach and were ready to fight for that money with whatever means labor has at its disposal.

However, if that is not possible, then what about getting something back in exchange for taking less money? Here I would contend, as commenters here have already done on this blog, that we have some leverage.  In exchange for accepting three years without a salary increase, state Civil Service Employees Association members received a job security clause in their agreement.  Here is how their website put it:

The agreement includes provisions to keep CSEA-represented state employees on-the job delivering essential services to New Yorkers. It will rescind imminent plans to issue layoff notices to CSEA-represented employees included in the 9,800 reductions previously announced by the Cuomo administration. It also provides other job security assurances for the life of the contract.

In New York City half of the teachers are quitting within the first five years so we would not need anything akin to the job security clause that CSEA has.  For our job security, we would require a total revamping of the teacher and principal evaluation systems.  Some of these repairs may require state approval. Are the changes worth fighting for? 

How about preferred placement for Absent Teacher Reserves?  This was in our contract for teachers when schools were closed before the horrific 2005 giveback laden contract.  Should we sacrifice some money to improve our working conditions?  Can we have both?  The DOE budget most certainly includes huge amounts of waste as Diane Ravitch's DOE insider reports. 

These are conversations we should be having in the schools with our members each day. 

COMPTROLLER'S REPORT SHOWS COST OF UFT SETTLEMENT

Outgoing Comptroller John Liu's final report on city finances includes a section on labor costs (see below in italics).  I urge everybody to read the municipal labor portion closely. According to the report, revenue is coming in well but every municipal union is working under an expired contract.  The situation for educators is worse than for other unions because we are one round behind everyone else.

The pattern established with other unions back in 2008 - mentioned multiple times on this blog - is a 4% salary increase in year one + a 4% raise in year two without givebacks.  According to Liu, paying teachers and administrators that money retroactively will cost the city a whopping $3.5 billion in this fiscal year and  $900 million annually after that. (Why will it cost so much? Please read our explanation here.)  The city might swallow most of these costs (they may defer the retroactive portion) if we accept the city's offer to freeze wages for the following three years.

The city proposal for all of the unions in the next round of bargaining is to offer a contract based on the pattern set by New York State and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA).  CSEA agreed to a five year deal calling for 0% in year one followed by 0%  in year two and then 0% in year three followed by 2% in year four and another 2% in year five.  That settlement was a very bitter pill to swallow for state workers.

Will a five year contract that includes three years of a wage freeze fly with teachers and other city workers?

I believe the answer is probably yes because all of us have been working without contracts for so long that putting any raise in front of us will be something most workers will jump at and take.  If there was a grand bargain to settle both contracts at once, teachers would be looking at seven years.  The last UFT salary increase was in 2008!  Even if we obtained the 4 + 4 that everyone else in the city's workforce received, that would cover 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.  2011-2012, 2012-2013 and the current 2013-2014 school year would be our three straight years without an increase if we were to follow the state pattern for the next round.

The key is getting the retroactive money because that would increase our salaries for 2009-2011, which would then compound for the subsequent years.  There is talk of a cash payment instead of retroactive increases.  Such a deal would cost UFT members a huge amount of money. Would teachers accept it?

Staying on pace with inflation looks like a pipe dream.  Getting what every other city worker received is also not guaranteed but we should fight for these things. I can find plenty of savings in the DOE budget as I'm sure most of you could too.

Here is the part of the Comptroller's Report that deals with the municipal unions:

Labor
The City’s labor contracts with its major municipal unions have expired and members are currently working under expired contracts. The City has proposed terms for a five-year contract for each union which mirrors the 2011 five-year agreement between New York State and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA). That agreement included zero wage increases in the first three years and annual raises of 2.0 percent in the last two years of the contract. However, the City’s labor reserve reflects the cost of only 1.25 percent annual wage increases beginning in the fourth year of the current round of collective bargaining. A 2.0 percent wage increase in each of the last two years of a five-year contract will cost the City an additional $111 million, including retroactive cost, in FY 2014, $200 million in FY 2015, $325 million in FY 2016, and $410 million in FY 2017.

The Comptroller’s Office estimates that if all unions instead agreed to an annual increase of 1.0 percent over the five-year term of the contract, it will cost an additional $1.6 billion, including retroactive cost, in FY 2014, $770 million in FY  2015, $758 million in FY 2016 and $694 million in FY 2017. 

If the wage increases were linked to inflation, the additional cost would increase to $3.4 billion in FY 2014, $1.9 billion in FY 2015, $2.1 billion in FY 2016, and $2.4 billion in FY 2017.

The labor contracts for the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) are one round behind the contracts of the City’s other municipal unions. The City and the unions were unable to reach an agreement in the 2008 – 2010 round after the City proposed a settlement with no wage increases. The other municipal unions had settled for a two-year contract with 4.0 percent increases in the beginning of the first and second year of the contract. The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is in the final stage of a fact finding process that was initiated to resolve the deadlock between the UFT and the City.

PERB will shortly hold a final hearing on wage increases for UFT members and then issue a report detailing recommendations for a contract resolution. While PERB recommendations are not binding they have served as a framework for final labor contracts with the UFT in the past. A recommendation patterned after the labor agreements of the other municipal unions will cost the City approximately $3.495 billion in FY 2014, including retroactive cost, and $900 million annually beginning in FY 2015.

DA REPORT: PRESIDENT MULGREW ACKNOWLEDGES THE OPPOSITION IS ENTITLED TO HALF OF THE SPEAKERS IN DEBATE

At a rather sparsely attended pre-holiday Delegate Assembly meeting at UFT HQ in Manhattan, UFT President Michael Mulgrew actually conceded that opponents of measures are entitled to half of the speakers during debate.  This rather remarkable admission came after I made my first ever official "Parliamentary Inquiry" to the Chair.

Since last month's complete evisceration of Robert's Rules where Mulgrew did not permit anyone to speak against a leadership sponsored resolution to only tweak the evaluation system in contract negotiations, some of us decided that we needed to truly cite chapter and verse if the opposition to the ruling Unity Caucus was ever going to be heard in a substantial way at UFT forums. 

Instead of using a simplified version of Robert's Rules as I have in the past, I went out and purchased the unabridged Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to take a detailed look at parliamentary law. When studying the book quite closely, I came upon something that showed in very clear language that, as I suspected, the opponents of measures were entitled to half of the speakers in debate. 

At the DA, opposition speakers are either shut out or maybe allowed one voice while members of Mulgrew's ruling Unity Caucus, who sign a membership obligation to "Support the decisions of the Caucus/Union leadership in public or union forums," are recognized one after another until they get bored and one of them moves to close debate.

Mulgrew then uses the fact that there is a motion to close debate on the floor, which is not debatable, to call on his supermajority to close debate and stifle all dissent.  He is correct that they can close debate but he is completely out of order in the way he assigns the floor.

Since we were prepared, I informed my friends in MORE that I planned on raising the issue at the December DA.  At the beginning of the question period I demanded a "Parliamentary Inquiry."  The President yielded the floor to me after saying something I couldn't quite make out.  Here is what I stated:

Parliamentary Inquiry

Pages 292-293 Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised say a parliamentary inquiry is called for if a member has an important question on a matter of parliamentary law bearing on the business at hand. I have an inquiry on parliamentary law.

Last month Mr. President, you stated that it has been settled that there does not have to be a speaker against each debatable motion.

This needs to be clarified.  I would like to call the chair and the Parliamentarian’s attention to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, Chapter II: Obtaining the Floor, Section 3 on Page 31, starting on line 8 where it states: 

“In cases where the chair knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the question…, the chair should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure.  To accomplish this, the chair may say, for example, “Since the last speaker spoke in favor of the motion, who wishes to speak in opposition to the motion?”

When are you going to assign the floor as per Robert's Rules so we can have real debate alternating between speakers for and against every debatable measure that is raised here until someone calls the question (makes a motion to end debate)?

(I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that he allowed me to say all of this uninterrupted but it does pay to be prepared.)  Mulgrew pounced on my point about last month saying that he was correct last month in the way he ended debate because when someone makes a motion to close debate and it is seconded, it is not debatable and it's up to the body to decide (A2/3 vote closes debate).  The President then looked to his Parliamentarian to dispose of the main inquiry.

The Parliamentarian must have said words to the effect that I was right because at that point Mulgrew acknowledged that the opposition is entitled to half of the speakers and he then declared that this is how he conducts Delegate Assembly debates (What?) and he would adhere to the rules by asking for alternate speakers both for and against each debatable motion.

OK ladies and gentlemen, it is now up to my fellow Delegates to make this ruling a reality. We are entitled to not merely one, but 50% of speakers in every debate.  My guess is we are going to have to demand our speaking time but it is there for the taking.

(On the issue of ending debate, I still maintain that Mulgrew has been wrong according to the Rules because he should have been alternating the floor throughout debate and since he knows all of the people in his caucus are obligated to support leadership motions, he has no right to call on two or three or four of them in a row.  The opposition is entitled to the floor directly after the speaker who motivates a motion yields the floor.  Let's see what happens when something controversial comes up.)

President's Report

Mulgrew began by calling for a moment of silence for Nelson Mandela. He also called for a moment of silence to honor the lives of Gene Prisco and other UFT members who had recently passed away.  After the moment of silence, there was a huge standing ovation and the DA sang a quick version of "Na na na na, hey hey goodbye" when it was announced that this was the final DA of the Bloomberg years and the mayor would be gone in three weeks.

National Scene
The budget agreement between Democrats and Republicans in DC is not bad.  Problem nationally is Detroit and Illinois where a bankruptcy judge in Detroit and the Democratic controlled Legislature and Democratic Governor in Illinois are cutting pensions.  In Michigan the constitution has a pension guarantee, like we have in NY, that says pensions are protected and cannot be touched.  There will be an appeal and our law firms are involved.  Worker pensions didn't cause bankruptcy in Detroit.  It was caused by poor government decisions and high bank lending fees.  The events in Detroit and Illinois are very serious and have national implications.

NYS
UFT has not taken a position yet on Governor's tax commission report.

NYC
The first deputy mayor that Mayor Elect de Blasio has chosen used to work for the old Board of Education.  Bill Bratton, de Blasio's choice for police commissioner, is saying the right things.

As for Chancellor, the UFT is comfortable with the people being considered because they are real educators.  We are talking to the incoming administration. The new mayor has to fix many city agencies.

Our enemies are saying the city can't afford to give us a raise.  UFT disagrees.  We need a raise.

We are hoping to have a Chancellor by January 1 who is an educator and then we have to negotiate a contract as well as rebuild the school system.  The President thanked people who came out to December 5 and December 9 actions.  We must fight to move the city to the right place.  The rest of the country is looking to us.

SESIS
Another 900 checks will go out in December.

Teacher Evaluation System
Both administrators and teachers agree that there are too many observations, too much paperwork and too many components in the new evaluation system.  The President closed by wishing all happy holidays.

Staff Director's Report

Staff Director Leroy Barr reported on several holiday activities that the UFT is involved in and gave the date for the next DA.

Question Period

I demanded and got the floor first with my parliamentary inquiry (see above).

Question: What is going on with fact finding?

Mulgrew Answer: Last hearing for non binding fact finding arbitration is today (Wednesday).  There is one outstanding issue.  The report is due in January and even though it is not binding on either side, fifty years of precedent show that it will be used as a framework to make a contract. If as stated above, we are on the same page as the principals on fixing the evaluation system, we may be able to get something done.

Question: Are there any deficits in our pension system?

Answer: No.  Unlike other states, NY is not passing state budgets that don't fund pension contributions.  Neighboring New Jersey went 18 years without making pension contributions.

Question: ICT teacher and other teacher in the same room getting the same ratings on observations.  Is this proper?

Answer: This is not proper.  Keep giving us information for grievances.

Question: How will the Affordable Care Act impact on our health plan?

Answer: At this time we have already seen benefits as children are now covered up to age 26.  The UFT has a drug cap of $100,000 which is very high.  UFT Welfare Fund always paid if someone exceeded the cap but now other unions which had much smaller caps can no longer have a cap and must catch up as the ACA has done away with these kinds of caps.  The insurance company regulations in the law don't kick in for another 18 months so the staggered implementation of the law does create problems

New Motions 

There were no new motions.

 

 

Discussion on Fixing Teacher Evaluation and Repairing the Structure of the School System

President Mulgrew called for a discussion on how we want the teacher evaluation system to change under the new mayor and what we want the school system to look like.  He said that since this would be subject to negotiations, he would like us not to report on this so we won't. We will only say that MORE people played an active role in this part of the meeting.
 

Special Order of Business

There was a Resolution honoring legacy of Nelson Mandela in the fight for justice and equal opportunity for all; one calling for NYS to halt the inBloom contract for collecting and storing sensitive student data; another calling for inclusive language for UFT members who are not teachers; one to repair NYC's electoral system, and finally a resolution to show solidarity with beleaguered Philadelphia Educators and students.  None of these were very controversial and all passed I think unanimously.  Mulgrew did actually ask if someone wants to speak against one of them.

That's all folks.





INSIDE UFT-CITY FACT FINDING FROM REUTERS

Reuters is finally giving us some news about contract negotiations between the UFT and city.  Apparently, the city is arguing that they legally cannot pay us the retroactive salary increases because it would bust the budget.  The city wants to avoid having to give UFT members the 4% + 4% raises that other city workers received in the last round of collective bargaining. Compounded over four years, it would be a substantial sum as we have reported.  Here is a portion of the Reuters article:

With just three weeks remaining before his team cedes power to Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, Bloomberg's administration will cite accounting rules at a closed-door state hearing on Wednesday as it tries to shut the door on any retroactive raises being paid out as bonuses in future years, according to people taking part in the hearings.

In the administration's view, the rules stipulate that any lump-sum payout must be booked in the year it is made, not spread out over years. The amount owed would be too big a hit for any one year and would break the city's balanced budget requirement, they say. The stance effectively closes down any attempt by the teachers for a settlement along those lines, at least with the Bloomberg administration.

The counter argument from the UFT:

At an earlier hearing, the teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers, which has been working without a contract since 2009, argued that under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, rules for municipal budget keeping do not require an arduous one-time cost.

An accounting expert for the United Federation of Teachers also cited a 1991 deal when the city deferred part of a teachers' wage increase, paying $47 million out in 1995 and 1996 -- with interest of 9 percent -- and thus setting a precedent for the practice of deferred payments.

The city is arguing they can't afford to pay us all they owe us in one year so forget it while UFT is saying to spread the payments out as they did in 1991.

Who is right?

"It's a very big bill attached to this retroactive pay raise, and (the Bloomberg administration is) specifically raising this as a deal breaker," said Barry Epstein, an accounting expert at Cendrowski Corporate Advisors, who testified on behalf of the union. "Essentially what they are saying is, we'd be happy to pay this to you except we can't do it because we have a balanced budget law and this will bust the budget."

"My answer to that is they are misinterpreting their accounting requirements," Epstein said.
The mayor's office and the Department of Education declined to comment. But other people familiar with the proceeding supported Epstein's characterization on the city's position.

Thanks to Jeff Kaufman for sending this out.

WHO TO PICK FOR CHANCELLOR?

I look to Valerie Strauss for accurate information on the public schools.  Her Answer Sheet blog at the Washington Post is essential reading for anyone interested in saving public education.  Strauss weighed in this morning on the intrigue surrounding Mayor Elect Bill de Blasio's selection for the Chancellor's position.

According to The Answer Sheet, de Blasio's first choice for NYC Chancellor was Stanford professor and the head of President Barack Obama's education transition team: Linda Darling Hammond. However, she apparently turned him down.  I guess it is good news that Darling Hammond is de Blasio's preferred Chancellor.  However, some of the other names being thrown around in the press would be, as Reality Based Educator calls them, deal breakers.

The mayor elect stated yesterday that he has not yet made up his mind and is still looking at potential Chancellors.  Let's try to remain optimistic that a non deformer will be chosen as Chancellor and that de Blasio will keep his campaign promise to truly break from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's pro charter, anti-teacher, anti-student, anti-parent, anti--public education policies.

Reality Based Educator suggests we put pressure on de Blasio to pick a Chancellor who we can live with.  Go here to send a message to de Blasio's team. 

DETROIT BANKRUPTCY JUDGE PERMITTING PENSION CUTS IS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the city of Detroit, Michigan can cut pensions of municipal workers even though the pensions are protected by the Michigan State Constitution. According to the judge, federal bankruptcy law supersedes the state constitution.  New York has a similar constitutional provision guaranteeing government worker pensions, including teachers.

This is supposed to be ironclad protection against cutting benefits for active workers and retirees.  State and municipal government workers fulfilled their end of a contractual bargain by working a set amount of years so the pension money was supposed to be guaranteed by the government.  Any cuts to benefits were only supposed to happen future employees. That is why New York keeps creating new pension tiers. Current employees and retirees are not impacted when there is a new pension tier passed by the state. We are now up to Tier VI in New York.

Should we worry in New York about Detroit style pension cuts?  The answer is we are obviously in much better shape financially than Detroit so I don't believe our pensions are in any imminent danger.  However, this case sets a terrible precedent that will more than likely be used by many states and local municipalities to cut pension benefits for government workers.  As the race to the bottom continues for the middle class and working class, it looks like bankruptcy will be the newest tool used against government worker pensions as it has been done in the private sector.

This quote from the NY Times says a great deal about what we are facing:

“Last night, as a public employees’ union leader, you went to bed thinking, ‘My workers’ pensions have special protection; I can continue to play hardball,’ ” Karol K. Denniston, a lawyer with the firm Schiff Hardin who has been advising residents of California cities on fiscal issues, said Tuesday after the judge issued his ruling. “This morning you woke up and found yourself in a new world.”

Another quote lays out the dangers beyond bankruptcy for our pensions:

"It’s a horror film,” said Anders Lindall, a spokesman for Afscme in Illinois, where the state legislature voted Tuesday to cut back retirees’ cost-of-living adjustments as part of a broad effort to bring the state’s pension system into balance. Illinois, like Michigan, has an explicit reference to protecting public pensions in its Constitution.

In this new world, we have to have a revitalized labor movement.  Keeping this in mind, it is important that we have a good showing at today's labor rally at Foley Square in Manhattan after school.  Mayor elect Bill de Blasio needs to see that New York is still a strong union town.