CITY LOSES APPEAL TO HALT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER STOPPING BUDGET CUTS; DOE TELLS PRINCIPALS THEY ARE FREEZING SCHOOL BUDGETS (Update: DOE UNFREEZES SCHOOL BUDGETS)

 I never know where the incompetence ends and the bad faith starts with the city-Department of Education. You decide which is which after examining the latest DOE news.

The Department did not do too well in court again today as an appellate judge refused to lift the Temporary Restraining Order in the lawsuit seeking a second City Council vote on the school budget.

This is from Advocates for Justice. It was on Leonie Haimson's Twitter:

The email from the DOE to principals freezing budgets that was in Gothamist:

 

Freezing principals out of Galaxy Budgets today comes just nine days before the Open Market Transfer period is scheduled to end. If a teacher transfers between April 15 and August 7, he/she does not require the approval of the principal from the school he/she is transferring from, only the new principal must accept that teacher. The rules change after August 7. Leave it to the City/DOE to mess with this process. 

They are creating the chaos they say they want to avoid.

The DOE talking about savings is insane. This is also from Leonie:

An excess is not a layoff. The DOE-City doesn't save a dime by pushing a teacher's salary from a school budget to a central Absent Teacher Reserve budget. 

Update:

This came our way this evening.

I can't even attempt to analyze this to find some logic.

UFT WINS ARBITRATION AFFIRMING RIGHT OF NON-SHORTAGE AREA TEACHERS TO GET SIXTH PERIOD PAY INSTEAD OF COVERAGE PAY FOR TEACHING A SIXTH CLASS

We have followed the case all year of the Aviation High School shop teachers standing up for special per session sixth-period pay of $7,278 per semester for teaching an extra class each day instead of settling for cut-rate coverage pay of $45.38 per class multiplied by 85 days for a semester which comes to $3,857.30. The math clearly shows that many teachers have been getting cheated out of over $3,400 per semester because principals refuse to follow the contractual rules and pay teachers what they are entitled to for teaching a sixth class in secondary schools. We believed it was a no-brainer grievance as the right to receive sixth-period teaching pay for agreeing to teach a sixth class in secondary schools has been in the Contract since 1998, whether it was for a shortage area or non-shortage area class.

Nonetheless, this turned into a tough case because the UFT waited so long to challenge the improper policy so the DOE argued to arbitrator Melissa H. Biren recently that the UFT accepted without grieving a practice allowing the DOE to pay the lower coverage rate for over 20 years so the issue was moot now. The grievance procedure only allows teachers thirty school days from when a teacher knows there is a contractual violation to grieve. The DOE claimed the UFT was basically permitting the DOE to ignore the Contract for over 20 years which made the grievance completely untimely now since the UFT never challenged the Department of Education's policy of improperly paying coverage pay rather than the higher sixth-period rate. The DOE reasoned that they had established a policy that the Union had accepted.

The arbitrator rejected the DOE position. Instead, she ruled that only individual teachers at the school in question knew about the policy that violated the Contract but the Union had no knowledge that the violation was occurring. That claim requires about as much suspension of disbelief as when watching Superman fly but the DOE didn't prove that the Union had challenged them before so the UFT's unwillingness to stop an open violation of the Contract for decades didn't cost us here. My guess is the arbitrator probably knew the Union was aware of what was up but the DOE was so blatantly wrong in cheating teachers out of their proper pay that she was willing to suspend disbelief a bit.

The arbitrator may have been persuaded the UFT was right because of the testimony of UFT Academic High School Vice President Janella Hinds. Janella's involvement hinted to the arbitrator that this was an important case for the Union. Janella testified to Arbitrator Biren on what the difference is between Article 7N (Coverages) and 7O (teaching a sixth class for a special higher per session rate). She gave details on how coverages are for an emergency absence but the sixth class provision is for the entire semester so the teacher becomes the teacher of record for the class and so he/she plans the lessons, teaches the lessons, and assesses the class while in a coverage the teacher only teaches a lesson left to them by the regular teacher for an emergency for the day.

Ever since 1998, teachers by contract in non-shortage areas have been able to use their professional period in secondary schools to teach an extra class and receive shortage area pay. Principals, however, have wrongfully used the coverage provision to cheat teachers by paying the coverage rate instead of the higher special per session rate. At Aviation High School, principals were shortchanging teachers in shop for over 20 years.

The situation changed this year because of the election of my former Jamaica High School and Middle College High School colleague Ibeth Mejia as Chapter Leader at Aviation. Ibeth knew we didn't stand for anything like ripping off teachers at Jamaica. She asked me to help with this and we did research that the UFT had been ignoring for years. We also publicized this issue in several of our blog postings to highlight how teachers were being cheated out of money when they took on an extra class in a non-shortage area. Ibeth was persistent in pressuring the UFT Grievance Department.

Arbitrator Biren sided with the teacher and the UFT. The DOE has to adhere to the Contract and can't ignore it to save money on the backs of teachers who don't happen to be in a shortage area. A DOE memo gives instructions for principals to ask for special per session pay for shortage areas as well as non-shortage areas. If the DOE doesn't allow it to be paid at the higher special per session rate, then the schools need to hire more teachers but they can't just assign coverages as that is not what coverages are for. If a teacher teaches an extra class for a semester or a chunk of a term as their class, they have to be compensated at the special per session rate. The shop teacher who filed this grievance will receive back pay.

In addition to the teacher who filed the grievance, my understanding is there are over 20 others at Aviation who have basically the same case and have filed separate grievances to receive the proper sixth-period rate.  The arbitrator has retained jurisdiction so hopefully, everyone at Aviation who grieved will be made whole. Unfortunately, nobody else who has been shortchanged over the last two decades will receive back pay. Thank you UFT for ignoring this for twenty years (oh yeah they didn't know).

If the teachers are retaliated against because they filed the grievance so now the DOE has to pay them what they are entitled to, I would hope the UFT will fight back. I know Ibeth and her team will stand up for each other and their school.

In addition, I really hope to see this be about more than one school. If a principal tells any secondary school teacher they can't pay you the special per session rate and can only give you the lower coverage rate if you teach an extra class, the precedent is here in this arbitration. Just say you want your proper money and get in touch with the Union. 

An important lesson to be learned here is the UFT will back chapters that stand up collectively as Ibeth's group did. This case, including the involvement of UFT Vice President Janella Hinds which I didn't know about until I read the arbitration decision, is further proof that a strong chapter is an enormous resource to collectively uphold our rights. It took over 20 years, but a new activist Chapter Leader woke up the UFT and has made a difference at Aviation High School. Those teachers are better represented because of her advocacy. 

Now it's your school's turn to collectively stand up for yourselves.

Finally, I am a bit more optimistic because this past spring Ibeth and six others from United for Change were elected to represent the high schools on the UFT Executive Board.

JUDGE DOES NOT VACATE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN FIGHT FOR CITY COUNCIL REVOTE ON SCHOOL BUDGET

 From Leonie Haimson:

You can read all the legal papers by clicking here.

INFORMATION SESSION MONDAY AT 4:00 P.M. ON SCHOOL FUNDING LAWSUIT

This came from Class Size Matters Executive Director Leonie Haimson this morning. 

Dear James--

1. Great news! Late Friday afternoon, Judge Lyle Frank of the State Supreme Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order to block the devastating school budget cuts, in response to the lawsuit filed by four parents and teachers on July 18. Our press release is here, along with a copy of the court order. This big win for NYC kids was reported on NY1, Gothamist, the NY Post, Daily News and many other outlets.

On Monday, the city will file papers arguing against the TRO, and on Tuesday, the pro bono attorney for the plaintiffs, Laura Barbieri of Advocates for Justice, will file reply papers. On Thursday, August 4 at 10AM the case will be heard at the NY State Supreme Court, and the public is invited to attend.

Meanwhile, Laura and I will be holding a briefing via Zoom this Monday, July 25 at 4 PM for those who are interested in joining the lawsuit as plaintiffs or just want to hear more about the case. You can sign up here.

2. While the Council is said to be negotiating in private with Mayor Adams to allow at least some of the budget cuts to be restored, on Friday it was revealed that the Mayor demanded as a condition that the Council agree to lock in school budget cuts in future years if enrollment continues to decline.

This would be completely unacceptable and possibly illegal -- especially if Gov. Hochul signs the class size bill, which would require the DOE to send more funding to schools. The Fair Student funding formula is aligned to excessive class sizes and must be totally revamped in any case.

Speaking of class size, please sign our petition to Governor Hochul urging her to sign the bill now has more than 9,000 signers. Please sign it yourself if you haven't already and/or share it with friends and allies.

More soon, Leonie

Leonie along with Advocates for Justice are doing the work that the UFT should be leading or at least joining in on. My educated guess is that the UFT is too afraid to publicly oppose Mayor Adams, particularly with the UFT Contract expiring in September. They fear antagonizing him. 

I personally don't think it matters much as there are two weak unions in NYC (DC 37 or the UFT) that mayors easily can count upon to settle on a contract for each round of collective bargaining, and then because of pattern bargaining, all other city unions are stuck with the pattern raises, or lack thereof, set by DC 37 or the UFT. This round will more than likely be no different. Whether DC 37 or the UFT goes first, it isn't going to much matter. Both unions settle for whatever the city offers traditionally. We touched on this in June but it was not one of our best-read pieces.

Anyway, I will be on the Zoom information session with Leonie and Laura on Monday and I hope some of our activist teachers/parents will join us. 

As for our anonymous comment army, please step forward.  I'd like to remind you not to complain so much if you aren't willing to come forward and get involved. 

JUDGE STOPS SCHOOL BUDGET CUTS PENDING A HEARING

This is from Class Size Matters Executive Director Leonie Haimson on Twitter:

Again we ask: Why isn't the UFT involved with this lawsuit?

More from Leonie:

GOTHAMIST REPORTS IMPASSE IN NEGOTIATIONS OVER RESTORING SCHOOL FUNDING

We can all wait a bit longer for the Mayor and City Council to reach an agreement on restoring funding to actual schools.

From Gothamist:

Sources close to the negotiations between the Adams administration and the City Council to restore funding to the city’s public schools said the deal has hit an impasse.

According to two sources within the City Council, the Adams administration has offered to restore $250 million in funding to schools only if the council will agree to sign a joint statement that future cuts to schools will be necessary in later years unless enrollment rebounds or the state or federal government provide additional money. The sources asked to remain anonymous so as not to hinder negotiations with the mayor’s office. So far, the council has refused to accept those terms. Council members are also seeking clarity around the precise total of the cuts the education department has planned.

We are still waiting to hear from UFT President Michael Mulgrew.

Thanks to the commenter who sent the Gotamist piece our way.

SOURCES SAY CITY NEAR DEAL TO RESTORE $250 MILLION IN SCHOOL FUNDING; CRITICS ALREADY SAYING THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT (Updated Twice)

This is from Jillian Jorgensen on NY1:

The city is in discussions to move $250 million in funding to schools that are facing steep cuts due to lower enrollment, sources told NY1 on Wednesday.

Sources said a deal between the City Council and Mayor Eric Adams' administration for the funding is close — but not yet finalized. It comes after weeks of protest from public school staff and parents.

We know schools are funded in large part based on student enrollment and that enrollment has been declining in recent years. Back to the NY 1 story:

...the de Blasio administration used federal stimulus dollars to continue funding schools as if they had not seen enrollment declines.

The Adams administration opted to phase that out, using some stimulus funding to offset declines but ultimately reducing Fair Student Funding to schools that saw enrollment drop by $215 million.

At many schools, that has meant sharply lower budgets — which in turn has meant "excessing" teachers. That means a school can no longer afford to keep those teachers on staff, and while they remain employed by the city, they must seek a job at another school with vacancies.

Those teachers are still going to get paid, whether from a school's allocation or from the central Department of Education budget. There are no savings to the taxpayers from these "cuts". 

I don't quite understand how the DOE says their budget is $38 billion, but there is even talk about cuts to schools.

Critics are already blasting this possible deal to restore some funding.

Tom Sheppard is the Vice Chair of the Board of Education (Panel for Educational Policy). He says this on Twitter:

I fully concur.

We saw this from MORE UFT's Matt Driscoll also on Twitter:

 Matt is inviting everyone to speak at the Panel for Education Policy on the cuts this evening.  It is a teleconference. You need to sign up to speak from 5:30-6:15 p.m. to be able to talk during the public comment part of the meeting.

Update: No Deal Yet

This is from City and State Pro:

Mayor Eric Adams on Wednesday denied there's an agreement with City Council to boost public school funding by $250 million, following significant blow back after Council approved $215 million in Adams-backed cuts last month.

Details: The Council and the mayor were said to be close to a deal, according to a NY1 report, which noted the accord has not been finalized. Asked about it at an unrelated press conference on Wednesday, Adams told reporters he and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams (no relation) “have been talking since before the budget was passed,” but a deal has remained elusive.

Update 2: NY Post backs up NY 1

Mayor Eric Adams and the New York City Council are “very close” on a deal to alleviate an expected $250 million in school budget cuts using funds already allocated to the Department of Education, sources confirmed Wednesday.

One source familiar with the negotiations said it “possible” the lawmakers will reach an agreement later Wednesday.

Another source described a deal as being “close to the finish line,” with some details to be worked out.

Four sources confirmed the deal — first reported by NY1 — to The Post, though one of them said the precise dollar amount was “unclear” and “no one truly knows” the figure. 

An Eric Adams quote from the Post article:

“We have to be smart, we have to make the right decisions, and it’s not going to be the popular decisions, but we have to make the right financial decisions,” Adams said.

Since this isn't a layoff situation so excessed educator salaries just go from school to central DOE budgets, how are school cuts the right financial decisions?

PARENTS-TEACHER SUE DOE TO GET A SECOND CITY COUNCIL BUDGET VOTE; WHY ISN'T THE UFT INVOLVED?

This is from Class Size Matters Executive Director Leonie Haimson:

Dear James:

Yesterday, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of four parents and teachers in the NY Supreme Court by the pro bono law firm, Advocates for Justice, to halt the Mayor's damaging budget cuts to schools and require that the City Council have another opportunity to vote on the education budget.  Here is a press release with more detail and quotes from the plaintiffs; and here are the legal documents. If you’re going to read only one of them perhaps the shortest one that also outlines many aspects of the case is my affidavit.

In essence, the lawsuit is based on serious procedural errors committed by the Mayor and Chancellor, including by allowing the City Council to approve the entire city budget ten days before the Panel for Educational Policy held a hearing and voted on the education budget, which state law requires must happen first.

Instead, the Chancellor declared an emergency and sent the diminished funds to schools weeks earlier before the Council or the PEP had a chance to vote. In this way, he attempted to short circuit the legally mandated process.  The attorney Laura Barbieri and her team found that in twelve out of the last thirteen years, three different Chancellors have invoked the same bogus "emergency" with the same boilerplate language – each time without explaining how an actual emergency existed. The Daily News, AM New York, Chalkbeat, and NY Post reported on the lawsuit, among other outlets, in varying levels of detail and objectivity.

Even earlier in the day, there was a rally to protest the cuts in front of Tweed, organized by the Progressive Caucus of the NYC Council, at which many parents, advocates and Council Members spoke about the havoc these cuts would cause to schools and students' lives. Five of the members who had voted to approve the budget said they very much regretted their votes, apologized, and said their actions would be different moving forward: CMs Shahana Hanif, Lincoln Restler, Jennifer Guttierez, Shekar Krishnan and Carmen de la Rosa. CM Alexa Aviles who was one of only six members who initially voted against the budget was also there and explained why she had been so passionately opposed to these cuts. A video of this rally is posted on my blog here. These CMs are demanding the Mayor withdraw these cuts by Aug. 1.  Later in the afternoon, the Mayor claimed that his devastating cuts were only a “rumor”, in an encounter with parents also described on the blog.

In any case, we expect that the court will schedule a hearing on the lawsuit soon, as the attorneys are asking for an immediate temporary restraining order to stop the cuts from going forward while the substance of the case can be argued. I’ll let you know of further legal developments as they occur.

We totally support Leonie, the parents, the teacher, and the Advocates for Justice. I would happily sign on to the suit. I don't think I am alone there.

I have one important question:

Why is the UFT not involved in this lawsuit or the protests? 

The UFT Delegate Assembly passed a resolution last year on lowering class size. The budget cuts will certainly have a negative impact on class size. This is what the UFT DA said in November concerning a class size bill that was before the City Council:

Note it says the UFT will lobby for more funding sources and the Union is open to possible litigation. We also were going to support related state legislation. 

That state legislation to lower class sizes in New York City easily carried in the State Legislature but has not been signed yet by Governor Hochul. 

Where is the UFT push to put the lower class size bill over the finish line? Where are the rallies, the press conferences, the tweetstorms, the campaign to pressure Hochul to sign the bill or to get the Legislature to override her? 

Why isn't the UFT at the very least leading the protests to reverse the budget cuts?

Perhaps the UFT was too busy reelecting Michael Mulgrew and Randi Weingarten at the AFT Convention in Boston to get involved with what's happening back home. 

Or, maybe the UFT is too timid to take on corporate Democrats such as Governor Hochul or Mayor Adams publicly. 

The UFT siding with corporate Democrats over progressives will have real-world consequences on school budgets and class sizes. 

BLUE CROSS-BLUE SHIELD WITHDRAWS FROM MULGREWCARE

This came from UFT President Michael Mulgrew and Retired Teachers Chapter Leader Tom Murphy earlier today:

Anthem, the parent company of BlueCross BlueShield, has notified New York City that it is withdrawing from the proposed retiree health care plan.

The City and the Municipal Labor Committee are exploring their options for continuing to develop a unique Medicare Advantage plan for retired employees. We will keep you informed as the process goes forward, but we want to assure you that the UFT is never going to stop fighting to preserve premium-free health coverage.

Translation: Mulgrew is not through trying to privatize our healthcare.

Teachers of NYC commented on Twitter:

@UFTUnity it’s time to bury Mulgrewcare. This foolishness needs to end.

SOME 2022 AFT ELECTION RESULTS TO BRIGHTEN YOUR DAY

Until UFTers actually get involved to fix our Union by demanding proportional representation for AFT Conventions, the UFT is a big enough part of the AFT so you will see election results like these below forever basically. 

These results are so preordained that they are not even news.

NO BUDGET CUT FOR BANKS LEADING 55 DOE STAFFERS TO FLORIDA CONFERENCE

Sue Edelman strikes again with help from Cayla Bamberger. 

From the NY Post:

The Department of Education sent 55 staffers, including Chancellor David Banks, to a four-day conference on STEM education at a swanky hotel near Universal Studios in Orlando last week — even as its schools are facing devastating budget cuts.

Further down:

Conference organizers said New York City and other school districts purchased $2,750 memberships in the Global STEM Leadership Alliance. That covered participation in the summit Sunday to Thursday, an “extremely discounted” rate of $259-a-night at the 4-star Loews Portofino Bay Hotel, breakfast and lunch, as well as webinars and professional development year-round.

That cost would total a maximum $151,250 for all 55 city attendees. Some expenses were covered by a grant, according to the DOE, which would not specify how much.

“So while the plebes subsist on bread and water, our DOE colleagues enjoy the best the Loews has to offer,” a school administrator in New York griped.

The Post also gets a teacher to comment:

"Stay at a Motel 6 or something,” said a Manhattan middle school teacher who last month was “excessed,” or let go from the former school due to fewer students enrolled.

“At a time where we’re cutting resources for students to get STEM education, to do science experiments and take field trips, this money is going toward adults,” she added. “Money should always be going toward student experiences in the classroom and outside of the classroom — not toward adults off on vacation.”

Optics are bad here with the Chancellor demanding that schools tighten their belts as he hosts receptions in Florida in a 4 star hotel in part with public money. 

AFT CONVENTION STARTS TODAY

The AFT Convention is in Boston over the next four days. The United for Change opposition party in the UFT which received 34% of the overall vote in the recent UFT election, including 56% from the high schools, will have exactly zero representatives there. AFT President Randi Weingarten's Unity Caucus will send all 750 of the UFT Delegates to the AFT Convention because of the UFT's at-large voting system that basically disenfranchises high school teachers who often vote against Unity Caucus.

The email below came from President Weingarten this morning.

AFT

James,

Today we’re beginning our convention in Boston. It’s been an incredibly tough year for all of us, and I’m so glad our members will be able to be together in person this week.

I’ll be kicking off the convention with a speech this morning. You can watch my speech live and find a schedule of our sessions here.

Over the next four days, our speakers will include leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and first lady Dr. Jill Biden. We’ll have panels on gun violence prevention led by survivors of gun violence. We’ll have parent and community leaders like National PTA President Nathan Monell. And we’ll celebrate the historic affiliation of the American Association of University Professors with the AFT, discuss how to put patients over profits, and more.

We’ll launch our convention by talking about how we’re focusing on what kids need. In my speech, I’ll be discussing how we need to get back to the basics. Too many politicians have tried to divide parents and students for personal political gain, but parents and teachers know that this politicization doesn’t help our students.

I’ll be laying out our plans today. I hope you’ll tune in.

Thank you James for everything you do.

In unity,

Randi Weingarten

AFT President

For those who would like to read Randi's speech, go here.

Update

If you would like to live-stream the AFT Convention, go here.

UFT members should be able to live-stream Delegate Assembly and Executive Board meetings this easily too.

AFT POLL FINDS TEACHER DISSATISFACTION GROWING

Teachers are not happy with their working conditions. Here is some poll data to support this conclusion. The AFT uses Hart Research which is a respected polling company. When roughly 4 out of 5 teachers are dissatisfied,  something needs to be done. How about lowering class size for a start?

NO ANSWER YET ON UNITED FOR CHANGE ELECTION COMPLAINTS FILED JUNE 6

It has been over a month now since the Election Committee members from United for Change filed 31 election complaints with over 70 pages worth of supporting evidence to the UFT Election Chair.  The complaints alleged that the Unity Caucus violated federal labor law repeatedly in the spring UFT Election that Unity won. 

In case you've forgotten, some of the complaints were that President Michael Mulgrew misused his position as chair at the Delegate Assembly by turning the meetings into Unity Caucus campaign rallies and not allowing the opposition their legal right to speak at union meetings.

Another complaint alleges price gouging by the UFT by charging an outrageous price to send email attachments to the membership and not permitting direct emails (only attachments permitted) by United for Change to the members. There is so much more including not allowing the proper number of observers at the vote count that should be addressed.

The law gives the UFT and the parent Union, the AFT, three months to respond. One month has gone by and I checked with Norm Scott, who is one of the complainants, and he advised me that he has heard nothing. No investigation, no questions, no interviews, no requests for data, nothing at all from the UFT.

I would hope that the coalition would appeal to the AFT sooner rather than later where I also expect no justice. This process needs to get to the Department of Labor as quickly as possible if the UFT and the parent AFT won't respond.

I don't expect the Unity Caucus to operate like the Conservative Party in Britain where they could no longer take the lies of their leader and today they forced Prime Minister Boris Johnson to let the process start to pick a new leader. Yes, the Conservatives are protecting their political futures and Johnson was becoming a big liability after the latest scandal but in the end, there was some actual integrity in UK politics. I wish I could say the same for the politics among the UFT leadership.

ACTIVISTS NEED TO PUSH LEGISLATURE TO OVERIDE HOCHUL IF SHE VETOES OR POCKET VETOES LOWER CLASS SIZE BILL

The anger directed at Governor Kathy Hochul among education advocates is quite justified. Professor Diane Ravitch said Hochul is "double crossing the students, teachers, and parents of NYC" by not signing the bill to lower class sizes in NYC. Hochul is also double crossing the State Legislature by signing the bill extending  mayoral control of NYC schools while not signing the companion bill to lower class sizes. The bills were supposed to be a package.

From the NYC Public School Parents Blog:

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters said, “The fact that the Governor signed the Mayoral control bill without signing the bill that would require him to reduce class size at the same time is particularly outrageous. There can be no accountability without smaller classes for NYC kids, which the State’s highest court said were needed to provide them with their right to a sound basic education under the State’s constitution.  Smaller classes are also the top priority of K12 parents nearly every year on the DOE’s own surveys, and the class size bill passed 59-4 in the State Senate; 147-2 in the Assembly.  It is particularly outrageous that the Governor has chosen to renew the Mayor’s control unconditionally,  just at a time when he is slashing the budget for schools, causing class sizes to increase rather than decrease and students to lose critical programs and services.

NY government can be very strange. The margins were 59-4 in the Senate and 147-2 in the Assembly. By my simple math, that is way over the 2/3 margin needed to override a governor’s veto or pocket veto if the Legislature is not in session.

From the NY Senate webage:

While the Legislature is in session, the Governor has 10 days (not counting Sundays) to sign or veto bills passed by both houses. Signed bills become law; vetoed bills do not. However, the Governor's failure to sign or veto a bill within the 10-day period means that it becomes law automatically. Vetoed bills are returned to the house that first passed them, together with a statement of the reason for their disapproval. A vetoed bill can become law if two-thirds of the members of each house vote to override the Governor's veto.

If a bill is sent to the Governor when the Legislature is out of session, the rules are a bit different. At such times, the Governor has 30 days in which to make a decision, and failure to act ("pocket veto") has the same effect as a veto.

Instead of groveling before Governor Hochul to sign the class size bill, education activists should mobilize Legislative leaders to get back in session to have that override vote if Hochul refuses to sign the bill. 

Legislators showing a backbone on behalf of NYC school children more than likely won't happen so we will see mayoral control continue while our imperial Governor takes her time to decide if she should follow the will of the people's representatives and sign the bill to lower class sizes in NYC.

HOCHUL SIGNS MAYORAL CONTROL EXTENSION THROUGH 2024 BUT DOES NOT SIGN LOWER CLASS SIZE BILL

It is not surprising news that Governor Kathy Hochul signed the mayoral control extension into law but not the bill to require NYC to lower class sizes. After Hochul’s easy win in the Democratic primary on Tuesday, it looks like she does not feel she has to be concerned about UFT support. 

From Chalkbeat:

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a bill late Thursday that extends mayoral control of New York City schools for the next two years.

But her signature came with a tweak: The eight-member expansion of the city’s education panel, which was passed under the original bill, will be delayed by five months.

Mayoral control — which allows the mayor to choose the schools chancellor and appoint a majority of members to the city’s education panel — was set to expire at midnight Friday. 

The bill, passed by New York lawmakers on June 3, needed the governor’s signature to become law.

Further down:

Legislators passed the mayoral control bill earlier this month as part of a package deal with a separate bill that would force the city to lower class sizes across all grades. The class size bill passed nearly unanimously, but city officials and a budget watchdog have raised concerns that it’s going to be too costly to implement.

Hochul still hasn’t requested the class-size bill, angering some lawmakers, advocates and the city’s teachers union. 

“We are calling on the governor to sign this legislation now,” Michael Mulgrew, president of the teachers union, said in a statement Friday morning. “Our students can’t wait.” 

Hochul is probably in total panic after reading that statement. Then again, she is more likely to be laughing out loud.

The UFT needed to lobby and put real public pressure on before Hochul won the primary, not after. The UFT could have made any UFT support for a NYSUT endorsement conditional upon Hochul supporting the lower class size legislation. 

We did not and it is now a maybe or maybe not on whether she signs the lower class size bill. Will the Legislature then attempt to override her if she does not sign the class size bill into law? I doubt it.

What will the UFT then do? At most, a tweetstorm.