MULGREW IMPROPERLY CUTS OFF TWO WOMEN WHO CHALLENGE HIM AS HE CONTINUES TO ACT LIKE A DICTATOR AT THE DELEGATE ASSEMBLY

For the Unity people who read this blog, we want to give you a little primer on some of Robert's Rules. This is especially for the guy who asked about a higher authority at yesterday's Delegate Assembly. Unity's new line of attack is that we in the United for Change opposition to Michael Mulgrew's Unity Caucus want to disrupt meetings while Unity wants to get on with the work of the Union. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want the rules of democracy followed while the chair acts like a bully.

President Michael Mulgrew filibustered for about an hour and twenty-five minutes yesterday and Secretary Leroy Barr took a few minutes more in an hour and forty-five-minute meeting. There was little deliberation in a body that according to the UFT Constitution in Article VII, Section 6:  "The Delegate Assembly shall have the power to legislate all matters except those pertaining to the admission, suspension or expulsion of members of this organization." The DA is a legislative body that does not legislate because the President is incapable of yielding the floor to anyone who doesn't agree with him. The Unity faithful blame the opposition who made a few procedural motions (that is the only way to get the floor because the chair never calls on the opposition) that took up less than five minutes. Worse still, he cut off the two women who rose in a very rude way.

One of the ways to get the floor without being recognized by the chair is called a Parliamentary Inquiry. Can a Parliamentary Inquiry interrupt a speaker? This kind of inquiry according to Robert's Rules on page 293 is "in order when another has the floor if they require immediate attention." For those who don't know what a Parliamentary Inquiry is, here it is right from page 293 of Robert's Rules Newly Revised: "A Parliamentary Inquiry is a question directed to the presiding officer to obtain information on a matter of parliamentary law or the rules of the organization bearing on the business at hand. It is the chair's duty to answer such questions when it may assist a member to make an appropriate motion, raise a proper point of order, or understand the parliamentary situation or the effect of a motion."

Camille Eterno tried to make a Parliamentary Inquiry yesterday at the DA but as soon as she rose and said, "Parliamentary Inquiry!"  Mulgrew responded that he was giving a report so he doesn't have to listen to her. (What?) What was the Parliamentary Inquiry Camille wanted to make but was not permitted to?

"Since this body does not approve the minutes at the start of our meetings which is what is called for in Robert’s Rules of Order, shouldn’t the start of the meeting be the proper time to note an error in the minutes of the February DA? It must be noted that the Minutes from February’s DA reflect that the point of order I made was - “The president’s report is too long.” That is mostly inaccurate. The point of order was that Robert’s Rules says, on page 476, “Strictly speaking in a purely deliberative assembly, the officers make no reports.” Furthermore, on Page 22 it states that the chair is to maintain a “necessary position of impartiality.” The chair is not neutral in his reports or assigning the floor. The record needs to reflect accurately what the point of order actually was. What is the process to correct minutes?"

This next question is for Unity readers: When was the right time to make this Parliamentary Inquiry to correct the minutes?

Mulgrew wouldn't hear the Parliamentary Inquiry and arrogantly stated to Camille that he is giving a report and doesn't have to listen. He then rudely cut off Ibeth Mejia's Point of Order that followed. Ibeth correctly pointed out that Camille was entitled to the floor. The President loudly shouted, "You're out of order!" to her. The chair according to Robert's Rules page 253 should state that the point "is not well taken," not scream at the member, "You're out of order!" Mulgrew didn't listen at all to these two women but later recognized male members who made parliamentary Inquiries and another procedural motion. That has to be noted. Only the two women were cut off mid-sentence.

Let's be real. Mulgrew is still upset that he lost two votes in November at the DA and wants the opposition silenced until after his reelection. The DA is truly the legislative body that doesn't legislate.

This is the Parliamentary Inquiry I would ask:

Parliamentary Inquiry: Since the November DA when opposition Delegates won two votes at this Delegate Assembly, we have not been called on to speak by the chair for three straight months. We’ve only gotten the floor by raising appropriate procedural questions. What do we have to do to be recognized by the chair to raise a motion or speak in debate if we are not friends of your Unity Caucus but instead are members of United for Change? We are a legislative body; there are disagreements and factions. That's how it's supposed to be.

The answer of course is the opposition will never be called on until after the election. The UFT President runs the DA like a dictator. Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin couldn't do it better. (Norm has more details at Ed Notes.) Robert's Rules are based on adapting procedures of the United States House of Representatives for other legislative bodies. Could you imagine if Speaker Nancy Pelosi never recognized a Republican? Would you call that a fair Congress? The UFT is virtually a one-party state. The only way to stop it is by voting out Mulgrew. If we don't, it will only get worse.