UFT EXECUTIVE BOARD AFFIRMS NO DEMOCRACY IN HIRING DISTRICT REPS

There was so much that happened at the first Executive Board of the year. Arthur Goldstein's report is as usual required reading. This is some of what caught my eye.

First, in an astonishing admission on new people not signing up to be UFT members, we learn  this from Arthur's minutes of President Michael Mulgrew's report:

(Updated with clarification from Arthur)
Not sure number of agency fee payers, from 2000 down to around 400. Next challenge is process for new members, who are no longer members until we speak with them. We did new member engagement over summer. We had names and phone numbers. By first week we signed 2500 of 4000 members. Will probably be another 900 new teachers in next few weeks.

If 1,500 new people are not UFT members, that isn't too good if we had access to them under the new law over the summer. I also heard there were 1,200 Agency fee payers from other sources, not 400 as Mulgrew says. Even if we take the UFT at their word, how many of those 1,500 are consciously not joining the union? The UFT will call it a victory no matter how many join but over time if a significant number of new employees do not enroll in the Union, it will mean plenty of losses if that is the trend.

Also, how can the DOE still be about to hire 900 new teachers now when school has already started when there are so many Absent Teacher Reserves out there? I'm sure the licenses match for most of the new hires where ATRs could fill these vacancies.

The next part that I found interesting was UFT Vice President Carmen Alvarez retirement remarks where she talked about the "game changer" she thinks the next contract will be.

Here are her words as recorded in Arthur's minutes:

Alvarez—loves union, thanks for opportunity to support members and young people they serve. UFT allowed me to make a difference. Believes new contract will be game changer. Opportunity for you to create magic in schools. Thanks us.

I don't know what this means but we can be hopeful.

Finally, the UFT/Unity Caucus is incapable of changing on having democracy for District Representatives. So what else is new?  Before 2003, UFT District Representatives were elected by Chapter Leaders in their district. Bruce Markens and Tom Dromgoole in Manhattan High Schools were actually not members of the Unity Caucus and they won. Randi Weingarten changed the rules to make it an appointed position in 2003. Now the UFT wants to change the rules again so the appointments can come from a larger pool. I guess some Unity people need jobs and there is only one DR per district.

Continuing Resolution on the Selection Process for UFT District Representatives

WHEREAS, The Executive Board adopted a resolution on the selection process for district representatives  on June 3, 2003; and

WHEREAS, District Representatives Interview Committees have discussed more flexibility in their recommendations to the UFT President; and

WHEREAS, the interview committees make recommendations to the president, and half of the members on the committees will continue to be chapter leaders; therefore be it

RESOLVED, the committees may choose to interview and recommend any candidate from any district who meets one or more of the following criteria:

1) A present or past chapter leader for at least one year.
2) A present or past district representative for at least one year.
3) A present or past executive board member or at least one year.
4)  A present or past UFT officer for at least one year, and be it further

RESOLVED, the president may choose individuals for each existing vacancy from the committees' recommendations. However, if the president does not choose from the names submitted by a committee, the president will meet with that committee and explain the reasons for the selection.

New Action's Jonathan Halabi spoke against this resolution. Here again from Arthur's minutes:

Jonathan Halabi—I rise in opposition to this resolution.

District Reps should be responsible to the Chapter Leaders they serve. In the past Chapter Leaders elected their District Reps – now that’s real accountability.

Not only does this resolution not restore this basic piece of control to the chapter leaders – it allows DRs from outside the district, it allows a retiree to become DR.

DRs should be accountable to all the CLs in their district, not just those on the committee. That’s fundamental, you should be accountable to those you serve.

If we wanted to increase the pool, why require chapter leaders to come from the school they serve? If we wanted to increase the pool, why require executive board members to come from the UFT?

Needless to say the resolution passed with Unity saying we need a wider pool of candidates.