CAMILLE CALLS FOR EQUAL TIME FOR OPPOSITION AT DA BUT IS REBUFFED BY BULLYING ONE SIDED DEBATE

I did not do a report for the February Delegate Assembly because Camille went to the DA live so I was with our two kids and of course, their needs come first. I was not able to listen to the DA but Camille told me what happened.*

After Michael Mulgrew was blabbering for almost an hour in his monthly misuse of the chair, where he basically speaks on most issues that could come before the DA (mayoral control, retiree healthcare, etc.), Camille raised a point of order noting that strictly speaking there are no officer reports in Robert's Rules so what gives him the right to filibuster every month and not allow a minority report? She cited Robert's Rules (page 476) but Mulgrew didn't fully listen and cut her off. Mulgrew responded that Camille was out of order because the Delegates make up the agenda. What? That answer was a huge head-scratcher. I was an Executive Board member, Delegate and Chapter Leader for 23 years and we didn't get to look over the agenda and approve it. When Camille and someone appealed, Mulgrew let only his cronies speak in the ensuing debate, including Staff Director Leroy Barr and Assistant Secretary Mike Sill. Camille had her microphone shut off even though she was demanding her right to speak. A man and a woman surrounded her to take the mic away. That's a real fair debate! Maybe not.

For Robert's Rules experts out there, let us go back to the 16th Century when the parliamentary principle was established of a speaker in favor of something followed by a speaker opposed. It is on page xxxiv of Robert's Rules: "Alternation of the floor between opposite points of view when assigning the floor: 1592. It was made a rule, That the Chairman shall ask the Parties that would speak... and the Party that speaketh against the last Speaker is to be heard first." It's on page 29 of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised for modern times on how to alternate when assigning the floor.

For those who are not familiar with how the UFT operates at its monthly Delegate meetings, Camille was prepared to tell them how unfair it is but she didn't get the chance. In fact, nobody on her side ever got the opportunity to speak in the debate. Camille wanted to bring it to the DA and let the Delegates decide if the monthly meetings adhere to basic parliamentary principles of fairness. This is most of what she would have said.

Robert’s Rules states in the Introduction that Henry Robert based his rules of order on the United States House of Representatives and they were then adapted to other bodies such as labor unions, corporations, church groups, co-op boards, etc. because some congressional rules could not be applied to different kinds of democratic assemblies. The congressional principle of fairness for both the majority and minority was a main priority of Henry Robert. 

Let’s compare the DA to the U.S. House of Representatives: Imagine a Congress where there was an hour and 45 minute session and Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke from the speaker’s chair for an hour on virtually every major issue that could come before the House, and then had her assistant Steny Hoyer speak for a few minutes, and next up Speaker Pelosi took questions mostly from members of her own party for 15 minutes and then in the very short time when House Resolutions were up for debate, Pelosi called on members of her own staff who were on the Speaker's payroll as well as being Congressmen and women. Would you call that a fair system? That’s what we have at the DA basically. It's much closer to a one-party state that glorifies its leader than a democratic assembly.

It is called parliamentary law because it is based on the British House of Commons. We have been to the House of Commons and you can watch it in the USA on television. Every time someone from the government speaks, the opposition is then allowed to give their view. Even though the Conservatives have a huge 95 seat majority, questions are asked in rotating order between the majority party and the opposition parties. All reports, debates, and question periods follow this format. Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson cannot speak for an hour without opposition Labour leader Kier Starmer getting equal time. The speaker is completely impartial in the House of Commons (and in the US when she is presiding from the speaker's chair).

Robert’s Rules specifically says that the chair must be impartial but at the DA, the president gives a marathon report where he is obviously partisan on virtually all of the issues that the union faces and then he answers questions often from members of his own caucus so he pontificates some more. This deliberative body which had a great history in the 1960s under Charles Cogen and Al Shanker, when there were real debates, has been reduced to listening to a chair abuse his authority by endlessly filibustering and relegating debate to often symbolic resolutions for a few short minutes at the end of each session and then usually with the president calling on members of his own caucus. The UFT needs basic fairness of equal time for the majority and the opposition. Robert's Rules says the president should say the least, not the most. The UFT runs its business in a way that Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un could recognize as opposed to Jeffersonian democracy. 

That was a major part of Camille's argument. For those thinking Leroy Barr was right in his defense that this is how it has always been done so it is correct, I submit to you page 19 of Robert's Rules which Camille also had ready:

“...If a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a point of order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with.” 

The basic parliamentary principle violated for years at the DA is equal time for Unity and the opposition. The opposition is not going to get that time back if it does not demand it and fight for it.

I may need a break after this. I am not a violent man and wouldn't threaten physical harm on anyone. That said, I might not be quiet if I ever meet any of the people that abused my wife's position as the leader of the opposition yesterday.

*Here is a link to a Unity supporter's minutes of the meeting. We both pretty much concur on what happened. Debate was one-sided. The Unity people don't want to talk about the substance because they are 100% wrong.