GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION ARTS HS TEACHERS SUING FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION WILL FINALLY GET THEIR DAY IN COURT

Back in 2005 forty-five teachers filed a complaint with the EEOC that the DOE had discriminated against them because they were over 40 years old. The Daily News reported the filing and Randi Weingarten announced at the time that "88% of teachers brought up on disciplinary charges in the last three years were over 40."

A lawsuit involving 12 of the teachers, filed in 2006, is finally coming to trial. While some of the claims have been dismissed on technical grounds the 12 teachers have won significant gains.

In Shapiro v. NYC DOE, 06 Civ. 1836, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46327, Judge Jed Rakoff found that during the 2004-2005 school year, five teachers were transferred from Graphic Communication Arts and reassigned to another school. All were over age forty. In June 2005, sixteen teachers at GCA were given unsatisfactory ratings ("U ratings") for the year. Of the 16, thirteen were over the age of 40. A year later, in June 2006, eight teachers received U ratings, only one of whom was under age forty.

One of the teachers given a U rating in 2005 was plaintiff Diana Friedline, who was 53 years old at the time. Friedline has a New York State teaching license in commercial art and a New York City teaching license in cold type composition. She had been a full time teacher since 1989. In the Spring of 2005, Friedline applied for a curriculum writing position at GCA. The principal told Friedline that Friedline was not eligible for the position because she was certified with the wrong license. Friedline filed a grievance objecting to her non-selection for the position, which was denied. Friedline also applied to have a substitute vocational assistant student teacher placed in her classroom; but this application was also denied. When Friedline complained to the principal that these actions were prompted by age discrimination, he told her that he preferred to hire younger candidates. In June 2005, Friedline was giving a U rating for the year.

One of the teachers given a U rating in both years was plaintiff Josefina Cruz, who was 58 years old in June 2005. She has been a teacher of Spanish at GCA since 2003. In the Spring of 2005, she received 24 classroom visits in a two-month period, which she testified was well above the norm. Her schedule was changed seven times in two weeks. She was then given a U rating for the year. In January, 2006, Cruz failed to administer the oral portion of the Spanish regents exam because she had not been given exam materials, which were kept in a vault to which she had no access. She was then given a U rating for the 2005 year, served with disciplinary charges, and reassigned to the Manhattan rubber room.

Another teacher who was given a U rating in 2005 was plaintiff Anthony Ferraro, who was then 72 years old. He began teaching at GCA in 1985. In May, 2003, the principal requested that teachers planning to retire contact him to let him know of their plans. Ferraro contacted the principal but then changed his mind and decided not to retire. When Ferraro told the principal of his change in plans, the principal asked Ferraro's age and then expressed "extreme dismay" that Ferraro was planning to say on at the school In December, 2004, Assistant Principal Johnson repeatedly chided Ferraro for continuing to work and reminded Ferraro that Ferraro could be doing other things with his life, such as spending time with his wife and traveling. Similarly, Assistant Principal Seyfried told Ferrarro that he did not understand why Ferraro was still working and that Ferraro should have retired long ago. In June, 2003, the principal told Ferraro that Ferraro was doing a "deplorable job" coordinating the "LEARN" program, a work-study program through which Ferraro coordinated employment opportunities for GCA students in their chosen fields of study. The principal also told Ferraro that his teaching style was "outmoded" and "outdated."
In September, 2003, Ferraro was removed from his position as LEARN coordinator, but a year later he was reassigned to the position but given less time to perform the necessary work. In January 2005, Ferraro was removed from the position once again and replaced by a younger teacher who was not properly licensed to act as coordinator. Also, in September 2004, Ferraro, a licensed peer mentor, applied to serve as a mentor to new teachers, but the position was given to someone 20 years his junior who was not a certified mentor. Finally, on June 13, 2005, the principal told Ferraro his teaching style was "antiquated" and then days later, Ferraro received a U rating for the year.

Another plaintiff is Diana Hrisinko, who is currently 64 years old. She began teaching at GCA in 2002. Beginning in the fall of 2004, Resnick would come into her classroom unannounced, sometimes as often as five times per week. On February 1, 2005, Hrisinko was transferred from GCA and thereafter worked briefly as a substitute teacher before assuming a position at another school. She filed a grievance claiming that her transfer was illegal because younger teachers with less seniority remained in their positions at GCA.

Plaintiff Elaine Jackson is currently 69 years old and was the Assistant Principal for the English Department at GCA for one semester in the fall of 2003. During her one semester as Assistant Principal, Jackson increased the passing ratio of the English Regents exam. At no time did the principal tell her that he was dissatisfied with her performance. Nonetheless, she was fired in January 2005 and replaced with a younger male who lacked relevant experience for the position.

Plaintiff Midge Maroni, currently 61 years old, began teaching at GCA in 2002. She testified that in early 2003 she was "subjected to ageist comments and unjust criticism" as "Resnick [the principal] repeatedly made references to his desire to have a staff of young teachers." Resnick also said things such as "you don't take your profession seriously, you have old ideas." Maroni was subjected to frequent short, unannounced visits to her classroom from Assistant Principal Brand. During 2005, while Maroni was acting as advisor for the school newspaper, she complained to Resnick that her students lacked access to computers to produce the paper; the next year, a younger teacher received a computer to use for this purpose. In June, 2005, Maroni received a U rating for the year. The U was later dismissed in an arbitration proceeding.

Plaintiff Geraldine F. Whittington, currently 61 years old, began teaching at GCA in 1986. She has a state teaching license in Graphic Arts. Whittington testified that, beginning in 2004, Resnick criticized her for taking sick time to which she was entitled, threatened her with a U rating and treated her with hostility, refusing to address her or make eye contact. When Resnick visited her classroom, he glared at her in an obtrusive and hostile manner. In the spring of 2004, the computers and scanners in Whittington's classroom broke. Whittington heard that new computer equipment was given to younger teachers rather than to her (despite her seniority). Whittington retired effective July 1, 2004.

Plaintiff Fitzroy Kington, currently 58 years old, began teaching at GCA in 1992. During 2004-2005, Resnick repeatedly stood outside of Kington's classroom and shook his head disapprovingly. Assistant Principal Guttman told Kington that Resnick wanted younger, more energetic teachers on staff, and asked when Kington was leaving (even though Kington had not indicated that he had any plan to leave the school). During a social studies exhibition, Kington heard Resnick refer to "old, burnt out, tired teachers" who gave children detention and told them they were no good. In May 2005, Kington applied to transfer to another school.

Plaintiff Gloria Chavez, currently 59 years old, began teaching at GCA in 2002. During the 2004-2005 school year, Resnick began a pattern of yelling at Chavez and threatening disciplinary action against her. He also told her that she looked "tired," should start drinking caffeinated coffee and should modernize her teaching style. In 2006, Chavez did not administer the oral portion of the Spanish regents exam because she was never given the required materials by Assistant Principal Silverman Chavez was then served with disciplinary charges, given a U rating, and reassigned to the Manhattan Regional Operation Center.

Plaintiff Erica Weingast, currently 60 years old, became GCA's bilingual coordinator in 2001. In 2003-2004, Weingast was removed from an after-school assignment teaching English, and the position was given to a teacher who was 30 years younger than Weingast. Between 2003 and 2005, Weingast was "subjected to a campaign of harassment which entailed unwarranted criticisms of her management of [the] bi-lingual studies program." In June, 2004, Resnick began to scream at her in public and humiliate her at school. In June 2005, defendants told her to expect a U rating or resign; Weingast resigned.

Plaintiff Ismael Diaz, currently 64 years old, began teaching at GCA in 2003. During the fall of 2004, Silverman was "constantly" coming into Diaz's classroom, commenting on trivial matters and asking Diaz to attend to a bulletin board in the hallway. She also checked his lessons plans more than once a week. In May 2004, Resnick and Silverman observed one of Diaz's lessons and rated it "unsatisfactory". Resnick refused to speak to Diaz when Diaz said "Good Morning" in the halls. Diaz was given a U rating at the end of the 2004-2005 school year and decided to retire.

In order to prove an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case the teachers are required to show that they suffered an "adverse employment action." This has been defined as suffering a materially adverse change in the terms of employment. A teacher is not required to show a change in income or reduction of benefits. Thus teachers reassigned to the rubber room or receiving a "U" rating can show adverse employment actions, something the City has fought hard to prevent.

Judge Rakoff found that both "U" ratings and rubber room transfers can, if shown in the context of an Age Discrimination claim, be grounds for recovery.

The plaintiffs will have their day in Court to prove their claims before a jury in Manhattan Federal Court.

UFT HAILS NEW “RUBBER ROOM”AGREEMENT DESPITE ITS UNENFORCEABILITY

Cleverly waiting until after teachers left for their summer vacations Randi and Joel signed an agreement about several issues concerning the "rubber room." ICE has lobbied for years to provide due process to teachers and staff languishing in the "rubber room" and as the numbers swelled several inept measures were taken to answer the "problem."

First an alleged survey was undertaken. According to Randi only a few teachers assigned to the rubber room wanted their cases expedited. Nevertheless she appointed a three member team to "investigate" rubber room issues. The three member team was so effective it ended up alienating many of the rubber roomers and was part of the motivation for a class action lawsuit against the Union was commenced by the very teachers this fabulous trio was assigned to help.

The agreement reproduced below is not really an agreement. It is rather a statement of hopes and unenforceable goals and filled with precatory language. The Union is given almost no enforcement power if the DOE decides not follow the "agreement." Let's take the "agreement" point by point with potential problems outlined in red.

1. The DOE intends to provide the "general grounds" for the reassignment. The current practice is merely reassigning a teacher to the rubber room. Now, presumably, in the reassignment letter there will also be a "general ground"

Problem: Nowhere is "general grounds" defined. Also, SCI investigations (a large number of rubber room removals) are specifically exempt from disclosure. Also it is not clear whether the failure to provide this notice can be challenged in any forum.

2. Specific time timetables are provided in the "agreement." OSI has 90 days, criminal cases shall be transferred to the Administrative Trials Unit in 30 days and the DOE has 40 days to draft 3020-a charges.

Problem: While the DOE "will diligently attempt to comply with these timeframes" the agreement further states that this provision "shall not be enforceable through either the grievance processes set forth in the relevant collective bargaining agreements or any other legal mechanism"

3. Teachers shall be assigned to rubber rooms in their borough wherever possible.

Problem: The provision is subject to Chancellor's Regulation C-770 which leaves the DOE with the discretion which rubber room a teacher is assigned.

4. The DOE agrees to maintain rubber rooms as safe working environments.

Problem: The Public Safety Employee Safety and Health Act already provides this protection.

5. The number of arbitrators is increased with a special group of arbitrators assigned to incompetence hearings. A provision to provide for discovery where information is exchanged prior to a hearing.

Problem: The Union has long maintained that the reason that there are a shortage of arbitrators (and thus lengthy delays in the hearings) was because the DOE allegedly would only agree to appoint arbitrators they felt were anti-teacher. Increasing the number of arbitrators either means that this was untrue or they don't care who is appointed since it is doubtful that the DOE will accept pro-teacher arbitrators.

6. The last provision deals with an increase in the number of arbitration days that are allowed under the contract. Currently there are only 140 days permitted. Given the DOE and UFT's decimation of the grievance procedure it is clear that additional days were needed. Now the number has increased to 175.

Problem: The limitation of arbitration days, a dirty little secret, has caused delays and deals to be made concerning contract violations. While this increase is welcome given that class size and reorganization grievances count toward this yearly limit it severely delays important issues. Without the ability to obtain relief at lower levels of the grievance procedure arbitrations have been the only mechanisms to obtain contractual justice. Borough offices know all too well about the limits and unless a grievant is politically connected will generally refuse to go to arbitration. If one makes it through it will be delayed while "more important" grievances are heard.

So, what did we get from this "agreement?" Basically the UFT and DOE get to issue a press release that they are making efforts to lessen backlogs and empty the rubber rooms. In reality nothing will change unless the DOE wants to change. Doesn't sound like much of a labor-management agreement!

[Click on each page and your browser will magnify it so that it is legible]

ICE SOLIDIFIES ITS PRESENCE IN 2007-08

by James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

Many people were expecting the Independent Community of Educators (ICE) to just melt away after ICE and our coalition partners (Teachers for a Just Contract) lost our six UFT Executive Board seats in last year's UFT Election (even though we received many more votes in the 2007 UFT Election compared with 2004). Instead, we have persevered and emerged as a viable force within the Union at the UFT Delegate Assembly, on UFT Committees, on the blogs, through ICE-Mail and inside of many schools. As we look back upon the preceding year, ICE has established a strong record. We hope to move ahead to rebuild a strong Union from the ground up.

During 2007-08 when ICE was supposed to die, we have become very active at UFT Delegate Assembly (DA) Meetings. The DA is the highest policy making body within the United Federation of Teachers according to its Constitution. Each school is represented by a Chapter Leader and at least one Teacher Delegate. ICE has a number of elected Chapter Leaders and Delegates from the schools. In addition, each non-teaching (Functional) Chapter is represented at the DA too. The Unity Caucus majority (President Randi Weingarten's faction of the UFT) controls the DA. They have strict caucus discipline that they enforce on their members who risk losing union jobs and other perks if they vote against the leadership. The electoral system allows all of the DA retirees to come from Unity although a substantial minority votes against them in Chapter Elections. In spite of the stacked deck, ICE has made our presence felt.

One major ICE DA accomplishment concerned School Leadership Teams. In December, Chancellor Joel Klein unilaterally changed the rules so that Principals now make the final decisions on SLTs. This defies state law which calls for "Shared Decision Making" among parents, teachers and administrators. A parent from Queens filed a complaint with the State Education Department. We introduced an amendment to a DA resolution on SLT's. The ICE amendment asked for the UFT to join on to the parent's complaint. Our amendment carried. State Education Commissioner Richard Mills should be issuing a decision on this case soon. We hope that it is favorable. The law that gave the Mayor control of the schools expires next June. Any change in how the schools are governed needs to have real shared decision making in every school between parents, teachers and administrators as an important component. We will try to keep you updated.

In addition, ICE members have played a role on the UFT Committee on School Governance. When the report is issued by the UFT, our members will not merely rubber stamp it but rather they will analyze the UFT's proposal carefully before deciding on whether to accept or reject the UFT's position on school governance. Once again, please keep coming to this blog to see what's going on.

ICE also has representation on the UFT Social Justice Committee, UFT'ers Against the War in Iraq and the Committee on District Representative selection. The DR Selection Committee didn't meet this year, not even once. We, of course, want DR's elected by Chapter Leaders or members in a district and not selected by the President.

ICE's John Powers from Liberation High School has played a leading role in the fight to save our healthcare from being privatized. John wrote a resolution opposing privatizing healthcare that he motivated at the DA after three months of having it delayed by the Unity leadership. This issue is now more of a public matter than it was in the past. John also organized ICE'rs to attend several demonstrations against selling off GHI-HIP to private-for profit corporations. Although our resolution failed to carry at the Unity dominated DA, by the end of the year the privatization issue, which seemed to be a done deal, is now under close scrutiny and it could conceivably be stopped.

There are other areas where we have been active at the DA. ICE and TJC members have been instrumental in getting UFT support for teachers in Puerto Rico who staged a courageous strike this year. Our friends at TJC have led a movement to help fellow trade unionists who have been fired for their union activity in North Carolina. We have also spoken out on UFT political endorsements.

Julie Woodward, from ICE, put pressure on the UFT leadership at the DA to not allow teachers who are removed to the reassignment centers (rubber rooms) to be permitted to be taken off of school budgets. If removing teachers in the rubber rooms from school budgets was not permitted, principals would have an incentive not to pull teachers from their classrooms unless it was absolutely necessary. ICE persists at being one of the groups speaking out in support of teachers reassigned. We also continue to head the movement to stop our schools from being closed while Unity basically passes meaningless resolutions opposing school closings and does nothing to back them up. (We will soon write more about the Jamaica High School situation, where we have been threatened but are still alive.)

At the DA, we called for the UFT to boycott hiring committees in schools that are shoved into other schools against the will of the people who are there already. The Unity majority said no. Furthermore, we proposed an amendment to a resolution urging the UFT to mobilize in support of our Absent Teacher Reserves and it was rejected. We keep pushing the UFT leaders fight to win back the right to grieve letters for the file without reopening the entire Contract. We exposed to the Delegates the huge rise in unsatisfactory ratings in the first year under the 2005 Contract when our right to grieve file letters was taken away.

We led the fight to make sure the question period and new motion period are not preempted at the DA as has been done too many times in the recent past by President Weingarten. We raised a couple of procedural points of order to ensure minority rights at the DA. We also headed the movement against school wide merit pay which Randi says is not merit pay. Some schools with ICE members working in them voted down the merit pay.

We supported the UFT's efforts against city budget cuts; ICE members and rank and file members from our schools were at the rallies against the cuts. Many of us also attended the candlelight vigil in support of teachers reassigned. We also encouraged our members to participate in other Union activities such as the recent survey rating the Chancellor.

Away from the DA, we called for a series of necessary electoral reforms as teachers are now a minority within the UFT. We fought to preserve the integrity of UFT elections as we have done consistently since ICE was formed in 2003. We told the truth about how Randi violated the Contract by not getting the "55 years old and 25 years in the system retirement plan" for new teachers. She succeeded for current teachers but failed for new hires who will have to make mandatory pension contributions for 27 years instead of the 10 year requirement under prior rules. ICE members also continue to advocate for other causes such as lower class sizes, an end to excessive testing and more.

At the school level, our Chapter Leaders and Delegates are toiling as hard as we can to support our members. In addition, our Chapter Leaders do our best to give informal advice to members from all over the city. In some ways, we have been able to set up a kind of "shadow union structure."

We encourage readers to look at the older posts on this blog to get more information on our record which we think is quite robust, particularly when you consider our lack of resources.

Have a great summer everyone!

Some Tidbits from Randi

ICE mail posted a transcript of last Sunday's Randi interview with Gabe Pressman. Here are some of the points we found interesting. Email us if you would like the entire transcript forwarded to you.

Randi Continuing the Myth of her Six Year Teaching Career

PRESSMAN: And how do you feel? (This question was on the survey rating the Chancellor.)
Ms. WEINGARTEN: Look, I think there's a lot of things--frankly, in this instance, my vote is not nearly as important as people who are day-to-day in the schools, you know. I taught myself for six years in this school system. But ultimately...
PRESSMAN: That was Clara Burton--Barton...
Ms. WEINGARTEN: Clara Barton High School.
PRESSMAN: Yeah.

Randi on Mayoral Control

She's waiting for the School Governance Committee report.

PRESSMAN: So what do you want to do now, bring back the board of--the old board of education?
Ms. WEINGARTEN: There has to be--we have--and I don't mean to punt this question, but I'm about to punt it. We have a committee. I believe in democracy within our union, and we have a governance committee that's been studying all of this. There are clearly--there's clearly been strengths and weaknesses to this governance system for the last seven or eight years. And ultimately, the bottom line for June '09 is to get to a governance system that ensures that every single kid in our charge succeeds. So, governance has to follow instruction. And so ultimately, you need a governance system that makes sure the mission of education is actually done well. So, the committee will report probably either at the end of June or at the beginning of September, and we will champion the committee's, you know, recommendations. But ultimately, some changes need to be done. I don't know exactly where that committee is coming out right now, but I actually want to follow the lead of my members here who are in the trenches every day.

Randi on Being the President of Both UFT &AFT

Let's score one for Norm Scott who believes there is little or no chance of her giving up the UFT Presidency any time soon.

PRESSMAN: And you expect to take over as president of the AFT while you continue as the president of the local here?
Ms. WEINGARTEN: I am--there's an election in July, and at this moment in time no one is running against me, and so assuming--it's--you know, I think everyone else in the world who looks at this stuff assumes that I will be president of the AFT July 14th.
Randi Thinks Bloomberg is Doing a Good Job

We've said all along the UFT is Part of this Fiasco.

PRESSMAN: And we're back here with Randi Weingarten.
So, as it stands now, how do you feel about the mayor in general? Is he doing a good job?
Ms. WEINGARTEN: Look, I think the mayor has--there's--I think the mayor has run this city well. There are things that I don't like about what he's done in the last few months. There are things that he doesn't like about what I've done. And--but ultimately, until the last couple of months where we have not spoken, we had had a very open dialogue.

ICErs and Rank and File Unionists Say “No” to Healthcare Privatization

By Billy Wharton, Organizer, Coalition Against Privatization

We had a great rally and march in NYC yesterday. About 300 people turned out in front of the office of GHI (a non-profit insurer in NY State) and we then marched to the office of United Health. Speakers included Ralph Nader, actress Vinie Burrows, Dr. Oliver Fein of the Physicians for a National Health Program, Chuck Bell from the Consumers Union and longtime socialist-pacifist activist David McReynolds. Jean Fox from the Private Health Insurance Must Go! Coalition and Billy Wharton from the Coalition Against Privatization shared duties as the MC.

We began the event by reading aloud three healthcare horror stories and holding a moment of silence dedicated to all the victims of private health insurance. The GHI section of the protest was high-energy. There is currently a proposal to "convert" GHI & HIP into a merged for-profit company. Many speakers spoke against this proposal and in favor of H.R. 676. Included here were rank-and-file trade unionists including John Powers from the United Federation of Teachers, Marvin Holland and Marty Goodman from the Transport Workers Union Local 100 and Ronald Crenshaw from District Council 37 who, despite their union leaders support of the conversion, found the courage to speak up. Ralph Nader, Dr. Fein and David McReynolds gave strong speeches demanding single-payer as both a human right and as part of the routine services that citizens demand from the government (fire, police and postal).

We then marched to United Health, a company which is housed in a massive glass monstrosity on 34th street. Vinie Burrows began this section of the march with a fine speech which highlighted the significance of Juneteenth and the overall struggle for social justice. Later, the Raging Grannies belted out some tunes including lines like "Oh Medicare, my Medicare, Why don't you pay for Long Term Care?" We closed with a fiery speech by Ajamu Sankofa of the Private Health Insurance Must Go! Coalition and call by the MC (me!) to treat the demonstration as a beginning point for further organizing.

Media coverage was unusual. I suppose that more people in Tokyo and Rome will know about our demonstration than in New York City. Film crews from Asahi news and an Italian TV station filmed and reported on the march. Longer-term reporters from A&E and Bill Moyers Journal also turned up. In addition, several independent media sources and our main trade union newspaper picked up on the story.

To follow up, we distributed leaflets for a meeting on June 26th at 6:30 pm at 339 Lafayette Street (Buzzer #11) to discuss both the GHI/HIP privatization and the struggle for HR 676. Overall, the demonstration was quite invigorating as I felt like we were at the beginning and not the end of something.

June DA Report: We Won Back Some Grievance Rights

by James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

For the greater part of the last three years since the punitive 2005 Contract was forced down our throats, the UFT leadership has been telling us that giving up the right to grieve letters in the file was really a gain. They argued that after three years if disciplinary charges don't result from a letter, then it can be removed. They never mention that material that is older than three years cannot normally be used in 3020A hearings, which is the process to discipline tenured teachers. This year the UFT has not admitted that they were wrong in giving up so many of our rights in 2005, however behind the scenes they have been trying to find new ways to fight file letters and we are winning back piece-meal what we gave away.

Earlier in the school year, we were told about four teachers who challenged file letters in court and won. These letters were written following a Commissioner of Special Investigations report. The courts said a file letter for a tenured teacher cannot be strictly disciplinary. To discipline a tenured teacher requires a 3020A proceeding.

Fast forward to the June DA where we heard about the case of Todd Freedman who won his grievance on attendance from 2006-07. The remedy that he asked for was that the letter the administration wrote for his file be removed. According to Grievance Director Howard Solomon, the arbitrator gave him that remedy. The arbitrator also codified in writing that a teacher who gets a letter for file based on an underlying clause in the Contract can file a grievance and ask for the remedy to be that the letter be removed from the file.

For Todd the issue was Article 16 (attendance) and Chancellor's Regulation C-601 which would fall under Article 20 (matters not covered). The arbitrator, according to Solomon, said no specific number of absences automatically triggers discipline but a good faith case by case of analysis of the facts in a particular case must be done by a Principal. In this particular case, the principal had a policy that ten absences would lead to an automatic letter for the file. The arbitrator also said that there were five factors that must be considered which are: unusual circumstances, likeliness that the situation will recur, pattern of absences, employee attendance and work history, and the seriousness of the illness involved.

Freedman was then given a chance to address the Delegates. He told us that he had a bad year last year because of the death of his father and an illness. He then interestingly noted that the UFT Grievance Department told him to file a case under the Family and Medical Leave Act but it was Randi who supported his grievance (under Article 16). Why wouldn't the Grievance Department fully support this case from the start? Freedman concluded by dedicating his victory to his father. On a related issue, if a member is protesting a letter about Corporal Punishment, we were told to file a grievance under Article 20 (Matters not covered; the Chancellor's Regulation would be A420).

It is good news that we are winning back in pieces the ability to grieve letters in the file but this right should never have been surrendered in the first place and there are still types of letters that cannot be grieved. One final thought for our Unity readers: If the 2005 Contract was so wonderful and the new rights are better than the old ones, then why are we trying to win back our old right to grieve letters in the file? Please just admit that the givebacks were horrible so we can organize a campaign to win all of them back.

Randi's Report

When my wife and I walked in, Randi Weingarten was urging the Delegates to continue to fight budget cuts. We were urged to keep calling 311 and complain about cuts to schools. She also commented on the hearings for the Contracts for Excellence and how they have turned into Klein bashing. She then told us that collective action is the only way to move the DOE. We totally agree with her on this.

She then talked about the rights that excessed personnel have, including the right to stay employed. She also said that by Contract people in danger of being in excess must be told by June 15. It was then reported that 244 Chapter leaders responded to the UFT's online survey. (Unity readers I was one of them). When there are around 1500 schools, 244 responding doesn't seem that high. Randi said the excessing problem was severe in many middle schools. She also mentioned how the entire English Department from Lafayette High School was placed in excess. She concluded her remarks on excessing by urging people who believe they were excessed improperly to file grievances.

Leroy Barr's Staff Directors' report was next. He told us that the Borough Offices will stay open this summer from 9:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. from Monday through Thursday. He also said that 22,000 members have opted in to 55-25 and that the deadline is August 25.

The Question period followed. Someone asked why we are paid overtime at a cut rate amount (per session) and not paid time and a half like other workers. Randi said that it was because our overtime is voluntary but that we have won in the courts to make per session pensionable and in collective bargaining we could try to increase the rate. She said that now that we have essentially caught up to the suburbs in salary, we can look to improve in other ways. Readers: Have our salaries essentially caught up to the suburbs?

Other questions concerned using Article 8J to grieve a lack of a Pre-observation conference. Randi said we would attempt to fight this with a good case. A question was asked about computer access and Randi replied by saying that mandatory computer use was a new condition of employment and therefore we would ask for impact bargaining. Protecting Chapter Leaders who have been removed to the "rubber room" was also discussed.

Motions & Resolutions: Can you say Rubber Stamp?

Liberation High School Chapter Leader John Powers from ICE was successful in getting the Leadership to move the resolution on healthcare up to the front of the agenda. Powers has led the movement within the UFT to fight the privatization of our healthcare plans. GHI and HIP, two not-for-profit entities, have merged and may now be sold off and become for profit companies. Powers had a resolution that he has been attempting to introduce for months saying that we should oppose moving our main healthcare plans into the private for profit sector.

Unity proposed a watered down healthcare resolution that does not oppose privatization but calls for maintaining quality, affordable healthcare. Randi illegally motivated this motion from the chair. She then continued her assault on Roberts' Rules by calling on John Powers and not allowing him to present his substitute motion that opposed privatizing healthcare as an amendment. A substitute motion is a form of an amendment which is a debatable motion. Instead, Randi erroneously in my opinion called it a new motion and said that it needs a 2/3 vote to be placed on the agenda. We went scurrying through our Roberts' Rules and it took a while to figure out Randi was wrong but by that time John Powers had been given time to speak and he made some valid points about how healthcare companies that had been privatized in the past were as effective with 9 out of 10 people. He asked who would want to be that tenth person.

Vice President Michael Mulgrew spoke against Powers on what was supposedly a non-debatable motion and then Unity voted against the Powers resolution that opposes privatizing our healthcare. Randi then tried to sneak through the watered down Unity motion without allowing someone to speak against it and at that point I had seen enough and raised a point of order. Randi made a snide remark about how I wanted to speak just to delay important political endorsements but she told me I could speak. (Translation, my point of order was valid). I declined the invitation as there are people who are far more knowledgeable on this issue than I am.

Gerry Froenhoffer (ICE-TJC VP candidate for CTE schools in 2007) from Aviation High School then spoke intelligently on why privatizing healthcare is an important issue that needs a great deal of discussion and should not be voted on right away. He also talked about the history and mission of HIP. After that, the usual sounds were heard from the Unity faithful to end debate so they could rubber stamp the will of the leadership and so debate was closed. The vote, while clearly in favor of Unity's watered down resolution on healthcare, had some strong dissent.

Rating Joel Klein was next on the agenda and since the ratings were due on the day of the DA, this resolution was moot although it easily passed (Note to Unity readers: I worked very hard to have almost everyone in my chapter fill out the "Joel Klein Evaluations" and my wife and I along with friends from Jamaica and plenty of ICE members attended the rally on Monday afternoon).

Political endorsements followed as two controversial Republicans were debated. Lisa North from ICE said that with control of the New York State Senate up for grabs this November, it might be wise to endorse more Democrats so that they could win a majority in the Senate. Unity's people talked about the virtues of the Republicans they were endorsing and how they were good on our issues. Even our friend Gerry Froenhoeffer supported one of the Republicans. Randi left the chair and actually spoke from the floor in favor of a Republican candidate who was not pro-gay. All of the UFT endorsements easily passed. The Delegates also passed another resolution calling for the Executive Board to be empowered to endorse other candidates over the summer.

Finally, a resolution asking for the UFT to persuade the American Federation of Teachers to endorse Barack Obama for President was presented. Randi again left the chair to motivate this one and it carried overwhelmingly.

Another year of attending DA's is over. We hope you enjoyed the reports. Randi refers to the blogs at just about every meeting so you can bet she will read your comments. Comment away.

MY RETURN TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD; LIKE I NEVER LEFT

by James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

It's been a year since I was on the UFT Executive Board. For most of this school year, I resisted the requests from my good friend Ellen Fox and I did not go back as an observer to the Executive Board where I had served as a minority member for a decade. On Monday, June 9, 2008, I returned in order to show support for Marjorie Stamberg who was protesting a disputed chapter leader election where the UFT investigators had decided that the Unity candidate (Michael Friedman) had won and the non-Unity candidate (Marjorie) had lost. (Unity Caucus is the majority party that has controlled the UFT since 1960) What was it that she was protesting? When the election was announced, Marjorie asked for a list of who the Chapter members are in her chapter. Her GED+ chapter is a new chapter that exists in many locations so it would not be easy to contact everyone in the different sites. Unity basically said you have no right to know who is in your chapter.

Unity's people (Staff Director Leroy Barr and Special Counsel Adam Ross) argued that the UFT sent a piece of campaign literature from both candidates to all Chapter members and they had a forum for the candidates. Therefore, they had run a fair election. However, they didn't mention 146 Chapter members did not vote and maybe they would have been persuaded to vote for Marjorie had she been able to contact them. It is "Political Campaigning 101" that a personal contact with a potential voter is the best way to convince someone to vote for a potential candidate. Why do you think politicians hit the road so often to shake hands and kiss babies? Marjorie was never given that chance because she was not allowed to know who was in her Chapter. Democracy Unity style.

After Ross presented the report and Marjorie rebutted it, Secretary Michael Mendel, who was chairing, would not allow for a discussion, only questions. This was a mistake as clearly accepting a report is a main motion like any other that can be debated. Ultimately, the Unity majority surprised nobody by backing Barr and Ross however two of New Action's Executive Board members voted with Marjorie and four others abstained. The two who voted against Unity were Doug Haynes and Fransisco Pena.

Same old Executive Board; nothing much has changed.

"SPECIAL" CHAPTER LEADER MEETING: GRADING KLEIN & LINKING HANDS AROUND CITY HALL

by James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

On a steamy June Monday, there was a Citywide Chapter Leaders' meeting at the Marriot in Brooklyn. We were called in for two purposes: to organize people to join hands across New York City at City Hall and to pick up anonymous surveys to rate Joel Klein's performance.

We also found out there isn't much the UFT can do about us working in the oppressive heat in the schools.

The rally's objective will be to keep pressure on the City to put the money for schools back into the budget. The rally will be on Monday, June 16th after school. To our Unity readers who like to comment: I will be there and I will ask my Chapter members to attend as well.

The purpose of the surveys is to rate Klein and the central Department of Education. I seem to remember that we engaged in a similar endeavor in 2005 during the Contract fight. We graded Klein in the schools and then we announced the results at a rally inside Madison Square Garden. You see how much it accomplished. Within a few months we accepted the horrific Fact Finding Report that led to the terrible 2005 Contract where we gave away so many of our rights (longer day, longer year, weaker due process etc...). What makes us think there will be any different results this time around?

Please note again that I will hand out the surveys and encourage all the members of my Chapter to fill them out as I am a loyal UFT Chapter Leader. Also, I really do hope this does some good. However, forgive my cynicism because we've all seen this movie before. It didn't end too well last time. Maybe the sequel will be better.

UFT POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS BECOMING A "KISS OF DEATH"

Our Union has had a uncanny history of endorsing losing candidates for political office (remember the last two mayoral elections)...and it continues. In an unprecedented effort to elect Hillary Clinton we may have finally thrown in the towel.

Our losing endorsements continued with the defeat of UFT endorsed Elizabeth Crowley, a candidate in a special election for City Council from the 30th District in Queens. UFTers spent long hours campaigning for her in a losing bid. While the absentee ballots have not been counted yet our UFT candidate has apparently lost to Anthony Como, a republican machine backed candidate.

Here is what Randi wrote to the Chapter Leaders about Clinton and Obama yesterday, including a statement from AFT President McElroy:

As you know, Senator Barack Obama yesterday sealed the Democratic presidential nomination after a final flurry of superdelegate endorsements and returns from the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota. I wanted you to know our union’s response to this latest development and where we go from here. Randi

AFT President Edward J. McElroy’s statement on the Democratic primary:Congratulations to Sen. Barack Obama on becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. He ran an effective, well-organized campaign to win a competitive primary race that included several excellent candidates. We look forward to meeting with him as soon as possible.We also congratulate Sen. Hillary Clinton for her strong performance in the Democratic primaries. The AFT is proud to have supported her through our considerable member education and political mobilization program, and a grass-roots campaign that engaged members across the country. Our members’ votes and activism were crucial in many primary contests. Also, because of the extended primary season, we reached out to members in states that have rarely been in play in the presidential primaries. We will mobilize these members again in the fall, which means we will work even more effectively, and in more states, than in any previous election. The AFT’s endorsement in the primaries came only after a deliberative process that included face-to-face meetings with candidates, conversations with members about the issues that matter most to them, and direct questions to members about which candidate they believed would best address their issues. The AFT now will engage in a process to prepare to make an endorsement for this fall’s general election. The goal of the AFT in November, as in every election, is simple: to elect a candidate who will be a strong advocate for our members, their families and the communities where our members live and serve.

Should The Length of Our School Year Be Dependent on the Vicissitudes of the Calendar?

Next School Year Starts August 28

Next year, we will have to return to school at the earliest date ever: August 28. The kids are coming back on September 2.

The overall calendar is a little better than the last couple of years only because certain holidays fall on the right days. (Unity will probably claim this as a major victory.) However we are still working a week longer than many of the surrounding districts. If we had a fixed number of days like they do, we would be much better off knowing in advance how many days we are expected to work and not depending on where holidays fall.

There will be 187 school days for teachers and paras but 189 for guidance, secretaries and others.

The Scope of Education Law Section 3028

The Appellate Division, First Department, has recently defined the scope of Education Law Section 3028 which provides teachers with DOE paid attorneys whenever civil or criminal proceedings are brought against them for disciplining a student. The facts of the case, Timmerman v. Board of Education, 2008 NY Slip Op 3969; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3750, are not too unfamiliar.

In February 2006, Dolph Timmerman called the parents of three female students in his fifth grade class to report their disruptive behavior in the classroom. He made one call to each parent. A few days later, on February 13, 2006, the students made allegations to school officials that Timmerman had touched them inappropriately.

The following day, Timmerman was arraigned on charges of sexual abuse in the first, second and third degrees, and endangering the welfare of a child.

Pending his trial, he requested the Board reimburse him for legal fees and expenses that "are and will be necessarily incurred in his defense."

By letter dated March 9, 2006, the Board denied the request, reasoning that the criminal proceeding was not covered by the law.

Thereafter, on April 12, 2006, the criminal action against petitioner was dismissed and sealed.

The Board continued to deny Timmerman his attorney fees arguing that such a payment would open the flood gates of teachers seeking reimbursement for attorney fees whenever they were charged with inappropriate behavior.

The trial court agreed and dismissed Timmerman's petition.

In a one paragraph decision the Appellate Division reversed and found that Timmerman was entitled to his attorney fees and expenses. The Court found "since the record shows that the criminal proceeding against petitioner clearly arose out of disciplinary actions that he took against pupils, respondents should reimburse petitioner for the attorneys' fees and expenses he incurred in defending himself."

Randi Says Closing Schools Not a Bad Idea

Ever wonder why the city closes so many schools which displaces so many educators and leaves multitudes of children, particularly those with special needs and limited English proficiency, behind?

The one individual who could publicize the folly of closing schools (the President of the UFT) says closing them is "not a bad idea."

On the Charlie Rose show, UFT President Randi Weingarten said she prefers to help schools first but she is not opposed to closing them.

It appears that all of those resolutions the UFT passed saying we want the Chancellor to stop closing schools until we can assess the impact were all for show for us.
In the early nineties, there were around 35 high schools in Manhattan. Now there are about 100. We at ICE are quite sure there will be many more new schools created as teachers continue to blamed for problems that are way beyond our control and this shell game of sending students all over the place to more and more new schools carries on. By her own admission, Randi does not oppose this policy.

Thanks a lot Randi from all Absent Teacher Reserves: past, present and future.

The transcript below is taken from the Charlie Rose show. We put in the entire section on school closings.

CHARLIE ROSE: And if a school doesn't`t do well over a certain period of time, you shut it down?

RANDI WEINGARTEN: Close it. Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is that a bad idea?

RANDI WEINGARTEN: So, we've closed and redesigned so many schools in New York City, some of them have done better after they`ve been closed and redesigned, some of them have not. I actually prefer to help it first, but, no, not a bad idea.

NY TEACHER PRINTS LETTER AND ADMITS REGRET FOR ERROR ABOUT JAMAICA

Jamaica High School's big rally at the April 14 Panel for Educational Policy meeting continues to be a major UFT story. In the May 8, 2008 edition of the NY Teacher, the editors printed, virtually in its entirety, an angry letter I wrote complaining about their erroneous report in the previous issue that said Jamaica was closing. The letter is featured prominently, right below Randi Weingarten’s column. It is also the primary letter to the editor at UFT.org. The text is below. Members should call or email the UFT to express support for Jamaica High School.

We want to thank Randi for replying to our letter and NY Teacher editors Diedre McFadyen and Joe LoVerde for printing it.

Jamaica HS still breathing
May 8, 2008 4:43 PM
To the Editor:
Jamaica HS is not closing. The New York Teacher [April 24] erroneously printed that the Department of Education has decided “to close the school.” The DOE is downsizing Jamaica HS by opening a College Board School with funding from Bill Gates and Michael Dell within our building, but Jamaica is getting a new grade 9 class in the fall. We are open.
We showed up en masse to protest at the Panel for Education Policy meeting on April 14 primarily because our students will be treated as second-class citizens in their own building when the College Board School opens. We call it “academic apartheid.”
It is a sad day indeed when the Daily News writes a story about Jamaica HS that is more accurate than what is printed in our own union’s newspaper.

James Eterno, Jamaica HS

EDITOR’S NOTE: The New York Teacher regrets the error.

MAY DA REPORT

By James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

CLOSE VOTE BUT DA REJECTS HELP FOR 17 SUSPENDED TEACHERS IN PUERTO RICO

The May 14, 2008 Delegate Assembly in a close vote decided not to make a financial contribution for 17 teachers in Puerto Rico who have been suspended without pay since last October for objecting to unilateral changes in curriculum and school organization. The UFT DA had previously voted to support the teachers of Puerto Rico. These teachers had gone on strike in February for ten days in defiance of an unjust law that is similar to the Taylor Law in New York.

Jose Vargas, A Unity representative, argued that because the DA agreed to support the teachers in Puerto Rico in March, there was no need to have a new resolution that covers helping the 17 who have been suspended. The resolution, however, argued that “unions across the US, including the California Teachers’ Association and AFT Local 1021 made solidarity donations to the Puerto Rican teachers.” It was a very close vote and UFT Secretary Michael Mendel who was the acting Chair took two votes but he said that the resolution failed. It was close and Mendel later told me that he didn’t hear calls to count the votes (divide the house). From where I was seated, he appeared to be correct that the resolution didn’t carry but it was close.

GHI-HIP Privatization Debate Postponed Again

For the third straight month, the GHI-HIP privatization issue was not debated. Instead of denying us the floor during the motion period like in March and April, Unity has created its own completely watered down version of our resolution which opposed privatizing our healthcare. Unity’s proposal says twice that municipal employees and retirees should share in profits if GHI and HIP merge and are sold for profit. They add that we should ask the Superintendent of Insurance to wait until there are guarantees that any new company will “maintain quality, affordable health care for working families.” This is not exactly a strong resolution and certainly does not guarantee us any specifics in terms of holding down costs or expanding benefits.

Unfortunately, even the weak resolution never reached the floor. Acting Chairman Michael Mendel, who otherwise was professional and fair to both sides on issues that were debated, told Marilyn Voight Downey, who questioned the merger during the question period that the GHI-HIP matter would be handled when the resolution came up during Special Orders of Business. Therefore, he didn’t answer her question. When Special Orders were coming to the floor, Mendel listed several resolutions that would take priority since time was running out. Healthcare was not on this list. When John Powers from ICE questioned this, Michael said he would ask for another vote to extend time to discuss this issue and of course when that time came, the Unity majority voted to go home and not deal with healthcare.

Weingarten Report

President Weingarten was there at the beginning of the meeting and she gave a report saying that Bloomberg and Klein would fight back because they lost the battle in Albany so they cannot make tenure decisions on teachers based upon individual student test scores. She said that New York is now the only state with such a provision. She then talked about being on the Charlie Rose show. Her report then moved to the issue of job security and Klein’s latest attempt to fire Absent Teacher Reserves after 12 months or 18 months as they do in Chicago if a school is closed and a teacher cannot find a new job. Randi said she would not negotiate on firing the ATR’s but she added that it is now a national issue because of Chicago and Klein protégée Michele Rhee who now is running Washington DC schools and trying to fire excessed teachers after schools close. Randi then talked about how Rhee headed the New Teacher Project so she dismissed their report that was recently released that said excessed teachers should be fired after a year.

If I heard correctly, Randi also admitted that she wanted the ATR provision in the Contract because it would end bumping of junior teachers but she claimed she warned Klein that this would happen. She also said that the UFT argued that excessed teachers who want a job should all be hired before new teachers are allowed to be placed. We also heard once again about how the open market system (principals in charge of all hiring with no check on their authority) is wonderful. Bottom line: the Contract is closed. ATR’s can stay in the system as long as they want and not be fired without due process. Let’s move on.

The other main focus of the Presidents’ report covered the budget cuts. Randi said that our members would be fine if $450,000,000 is cut from school budgets because we have job security but that this fight is about the kids.

ICE asks: Are you feeling fine in your school?

Randi then played a new UFT television commercial. When the commercial was over, she spoke about putting pressure on the Mayor and the City Council. She said there would be multiple actions at schools. She also stated that the UFT is now working in a permanent coalition with parents, community groups, other school unions including the Council of Supervisors and Administrators. The goal of the coalition is to be champions for the children. She said the wounds from the friction between the UFT and communities from back in the late sixties and early seventies were only starting to heal in the last decade and this coalition would further the process.

Staff Director Leroy Barr talked about specific actions. Political director Marvin Reisken said we should make thousands of calls to the Mayor at 1-800-961-6198. He said to use cell phones and not school phones to make these calls. He also said we could go to the action page at UFT.org to send faxes. ICE recommends that members participate in these actions. At this point, Randi did not return to the chair and UFT Secretary Michael Mendel chaired the rest of the meeting.


Julie Woodward of ICE Questions Taking Reassigned Teachers off School Budgets

Julie Woodward asked why the UFT was not fighting the fact that personnel reassigned to the “rubber room” are taken off a principal’s school budget after sixty days, and put on a central budget. Mendel answered that cases should be expedited so that they are heard much more quickly but when Julie wouldn’t relent, he said that the UFT would like to see Principals have to pay for teachers who are reassigned on a school’s budget and not allow the DOE to pay them centrally.

Other DA Business

A question was asked about a Principal buying new furniture for their office. Michael Mendel answered that we should call Leroy Barr if this was happening in our schools.
Some of the new motion period was taken up by the Puerto Rico resolution. Then, a unanimous resolution was passed to send money from the UFT disaster relief fund to cyclone and earthquake victims in Burma and China. A third resolution in support of Sean Bell and against police brutality was referred to committee.

A District Representative and some of the Chapter Leaders who work with her talked about how they use Article 24 (professional conciliation) to improve working conditions for teachers. A resolution was passed on the ATRs to keep the Contract closed. The City Council legislative agenda was passed but ICE member Michael Fiorello proposed an amendment so we wouldn’t be acknowledging that teachers are supposed to be doing “extensive data analysis.” The amendment was rejected. The City Council and State Legislative agendas passed. Finally, a resolution on fighting the budget cuts was approved; a motion to support the Freightliner Five workers who were fired in North Carolina for leading a strike that Teachers for a Just Contract’s Megan Behrant introduced was passed, the UFT endorsed Sheldon Silver and Elizabeth Crowley and a resolution in support of the Art Institute of NYC’s faculty also carried.

In the end, we went home a little numb but at least the majority of the agenda was finished and we had a full question period and motion period. We commend Michael Mendel for at least sticking to the agenda and asking and waiting to see if there was a speaker against every motion before putting them to a vote. As for healthcare, there is a June 18 DA and a Chapter Leader Meeting on June 9.

Unity Literature Distorts as Usual

I was very reluctant to write the above lines complimenting Mendel, not because I don’t have respect for the way the Secretary runs meetings, but because the Unity readers of this blog will probably take the line out of context like they did a recent line from this blog about ATR’s not being fired after 12 months. Unity literature at the May DA quoted one of our blog pieces by saying: “…I have confidence that Randi would not agree to terminating the ATR’s after 12 months or 18 months or placing them on unpaid leave.” The full sentence from my April 29 blog piece reads: “As a dissident who has often been critical of the UFT leadership, even I have confidence that Randi would not agree to terminating the ATR's after 12 months or 18 months or placing them on unpaid leave.” It’s amazing how deleting a few words can completely distort a quote.

The whole premise of the first part of Unity’s leaflet is absurd. They maintain that we didn’t want to lock in a 5% raise and that’s why we voted No on the current Contract. We opposed it because it really was an extension of the 2005 Contract, the worst Contract in UFT history where we gave up so many of our rights. To win back those rights, we must fight back. Unity’s strategy is to tell us how wonderful we have it.

Who Should We Endorse For President?

(ICE, just like the UFT, has not formally endorsed a candidate for President. Unlike the UFT we have not been working, as a group, for a candidate without an endorsement. It appears that since Hillary is out of contention it may be time to begin the discussion of whether we should endorse someone and if so who we should endorse. Michael Fiorillo has started the discussion. We welcome further comments and blog pieces)

While it's impossible to underestimate the Clinton's compulsive will to power - which has a hint of the pathological to it - I find the idea of Hillary destroying Obama's chances of defeating McCain, so that she can be a viable candidate in 2012, a bit of a stretch. She already has a immovable bedrock core of people who intensely dislike her, for reasons valid and invalid, and a determined campaign to destroy Obama would send her negatives among Democrats and Independents off the charts. It's not that she, and certainly Bill, aren't capable of doing such a thing; it's that I think they are still sufficiently reality-based to see that it would likely forever poison the well against them. An honest cost-benefit analysis on their part would show that it would have only a remote chance of succeeding, while hampering their marketability as spokepersons for neoliberal trade policies, which seems to have been Bill's bread and butter in recent years.

As for Obama, appealing as he is on many levels, don't expect his election alone to successfully push forward a progressive, let alone radical agenda. Please keep in mind that since his election to the senate, he has:

- campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont in Connecticut.
- voted for all funding for war in Iraq.
- voted to renew the Patriot Act.
- voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill that was virtually written by the banks and credit card companies.
- voted to limit the ability to file class action lawsuits. (Hillary voted against this bill.)
- supported merit pay for teachers and the expansion of charter schools. I raise these points not to imply that we should refuse to work and vote for him.

I voted for him in the primary with - considering the political history of the past 35+ years - a fair degree of enthusiasm; I'll do so again in November if given the chance .However, don't think that a lot will happen unless he is pushed hard from, I hesitate to say it, the left.

Wall Street, and especially Hedgistan, is investing heavily in Obama's campaign, no doubt seeing it as venture capital investment to establish an equity stake in a possible Obama administration. Unless there is a surge of activism on many fronts, these people will continue to set the terms of debate.

As teachers, we've borne some of this, as Wall Street, corporate and foundation money has flooded into education, buying research and policies that undermine public education and teacher's unions in the "marketplace of ideas."

Fortunately, there's evidence that perhaps the tectonic plates are shifting somewhat. The May First ILWU strike explicitly protesting the war in Iraq on the West Coast docks was a profound event, underreported as it was. UAW members have been on strike against American Axle since February, fighting a two-tier wage system. There have been protests on Wall Street against the predatory nature of the credit system. Here in NYC, we may be seeing some cracks appearing in BloomKlein's PR fortress.By all means, let drive a stake through the Clinton's hearts - politically speaking, of course - and vote for Obama in November. Let's not just leave it up to him after that.

Best,

Michael Fiorillo
(Chapter Leader, Newcommers' High School)

ICErs Join Municipal Unions in Rally Opposing the Proposed GHI/HIP Conversion to For-Profit Corporations

In an unprecedented multi-Union display of solidarity ICE members joined the Coalition Against Privatization on Friday to rally at the Superintendent of Insurance and HIP offices against the proposed merger of our largest medical insurance carriers. While the rain came pouring down protesters' spirits were not dampened. Their chants to the Superintendent of Insurance and HIP workers caused wide-spread reaction from the evening rush hour crowd in downtown Manhattan. Beside the UFT members from the Transport Workers' Union, DC 37 and other municipal unions were in attendance.

Protesters criticized the failure of our unions and the insurance carriers to fully disclose their plans. While the UFT and other municipal union leaders may benefit from the conversion of these not-for-profit health care insurance carriers into for-profit entities it is clear that our members will be exposed to increasing co-pays, out of pocket expenses and diminished medical coverage as the proposed entity will seek to maximize profits. Ironically our Union has consistently criticized the Bush proposed and enacted privatization provisions of Medicare as being against the interests of our retired members.

What are our leaders planning to do with the windfall that the proposed conversion will net the Union? Why isn't this being discussed? Why have our resolutions calling for full and frank discussions about this monumental change been consistently tabled?

What is our leadership afraid of?

UFT Officers Agree Not to Reopen the Contract on ATR Issue; Resolved Clauses OK but Whereas Clauses Full of Unity Distortions

by James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

The 11 Officers of the UFT (The Administrative Committee) have approved a resolution that will go to the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly resolving "that the UFT reject the opening of our contract" over the Absent Teacher Reserve issue. It also resolves to press the Department of Education to stop wasting money and talent and try to find full time positions for Absent Teacher Reserves. This sounds good but a close reading of the whereas clauses that precede these two resolved clauses shows that the UFT leadership will go to any lengths to wipe their fingerprints from the dreadful ATR situation that they did a great deal to create by agreeing to the indefensible 2005 Contract givebacks.

The first whereas clause in the resolution opposing ATR negotiations states that the 2005 Contract provided "rock-solid job security for any educator who is ever excessed by the DOE, a new right we had never achieved before." Is this true? We need to go back as far as 1992 to examine the veracity of this statement. Article 17E which has stayed in the Contract since that era states, "Beginning in the Spring term in 1992 education funds in the Mayor's Safe City/Safe Streets Program will be utilized to eliminate tipping by establishing a dispute resolution program staffed by teachers." For those who do not remember, tipping was when high school teachers were laid off in the middle of the school year because student registers invariably dropped in the spring. We were told at the time that this was a no layoff clause. This provision has been used for years since to stop midyear layoffs.

In the 1995 Contracts when we were forced to endure two years without a salary increase, the UFT sold the first Contract that the membership voted down and the warmed over version that was subsequently ratified by telling us that at least we have job security. The actual language in 1995 Article 17F says: "...no employee covered by this Agreement shall be displaced or involuntarily separated from service except for cause or reason related to state civil service law (e.g., the movement of appointment lists and/or requirement to hire certified teachers, if available)." We were told this was ironclad language that protected certified as well as non certified teachers and when the clause was permitted to sunset in 1998, UFT leaders told us not to worry because we still had the no tipping clause which the Board respected. A similar job security clause to the 1995 version was in the 2000 Contract but it was removed from the 2005 Contract (officially the 2005 Contract ran from 2003-07).

There is no job security clause in the current 2007-2009 Contract. Article 17F is no longer about job security but instead covers a voluntary buyout for ATRs. The UFT's claim that there is "rock-solid job security" does not hold up under careful scrutiny. To put it another way, would you rather have a clause in a Contract that says you have job security or have the UFT leadership tell you that you have job security?

As we see it, if there is a financial crisis (certainly possible in the current economic climate), the Mayor could lay off anyone as long as he follows civil service procedures which call for the last employee hired citywide within a license to be the first to be fired. What prevents layoffs is not the Contract but DOE's preference for new employees who are easier to control than veterans. The new teachers would have to be let go first and so the DOE finds a so called education commission to manufacture a fake ATR crisis and then they pressure the UFT to end what is left of the civil service system.

The next whereas clause in the AdCom resolution talks of the 7,000 members who have used the open market transfer system to move to "jobs of their choice." Who are they kidding? It's jobs of Principals' choice, not UFT member choice. Schools are now principal political hiring fiefdoms that cleverly circumvent the intent of civil service rules that have their roots in the 1880s when the Pendleton Act put in place civil service examinations for federal jobs. A civil service hiring system normally bases personnel decisions on how well an applicant scores on an objective, competitive exam. The higher you score on the test, the faster you get hired. The purpose is to eliminate patronage in government job appointments. This type of hiring system is used for most city jobs and was used by the Board of Ed until recent years. Joel Klein, with the UFT's approval in 2005, has taken us back to a patronage system that past trade unionists fought bravely to end.

When the UFT talks about the success of the open market hiring system, they always compare the open market to the seniority transfer system of the past. However, by 2005 only about half of the schools were using the seniority transfer system and they only needed to post half of their vacancies. UFT leaders now seldom mention the SBO transfer and staffing plan that the other half of the school system used. Under this system schools had hiring committees that were made up of a majority of teachers and those schools had to post all of their vacancies and hire based upon objective criteria that included seniority. There was an expedited grievance procedure if someone was rejected by a personnel committee. Clearly, there was at least a check on the Principals with the SBO system which was given away by the UFT in 2005 along with seniority transfers. This is a major cause of the current ATR mess.

The next two whereas clauses in the new ATR resolution state that the Department of Education has consistently in bargaining tried to fire the ATRs but they are constantly rebuffed. This is true. The problem is the UFT created this problem by agreeing to patronage hiring and transfers, i.e. the open market. The 2005 Contract ended preferred placement for teachers who are excessed if a school is closed. It also stopped placement in a vacancy if someone is in excess because they were the junior person in a license within a school. The UFT agreed to insert the words "unless a principal denies placement" into the Contract to give principals a veto over any staffing decision. The UFT accepted the "imperial principal" concept for hiring and now they are surprised to find the DOE is pushing strongly to eliminate the last vestiges of the civil service style personnel system: who can be terminated. To put it another way, we gave away the hiring and transfer system so why would anyone be shocked that DOE wants complete control of the firing system too? (Weakened due process fits in here as well but that's another article.)

Another whereas clause in the UFT resolution on ATRs says that "the DOE never followed up to negotiate after we agreed to do a buyout in the 2006 contract." Why doesn't the UFT add that the buyout for ATRs is supposed to be voluntary?

A later whereas clause criticizes the DOE for creating the financial disincentive to hire senior teachers. The UFT leaders fail to mention that the UFT agreed to the new funding formula for schools last year and called off a giant rally with parents and other activists to protest it and in return there were only minimal modifications made to the so called fair student funding formula. A year later the Keep the Promises Coalition has been revitalized but we have to build the momentum again.

Then to top it all off, the UFT has to take a cheap political shot at ICE when the final whereas in the ATR resolution declares: "the Delegate Assembly passed a resolution in February not to reopen the contract over anecdotal reports of a spike in letters in the file because it understood the protection provided by a closed contract." Meanwhile, the NY Sun on Monday, May 5 reports that there have been private meetings between the UFT and the DOE over the ATR issue for seven months. The Contract has unofficially been reopened to discuss what management wants, not what we need.

We stated back in February on this blog: "ICE has attempted to ask that the contractual provision concerning letters in the file be reopened as per a letter labor Commissioner James Hanley sent to Randi back in 2005 when we were giving away many of our basic rights. We wanted to introduce a resolution seeking to revisit only the letter in the file provision, not the entire Contract." The 2005 letter from Hanley said that the city would reexamine the issue if there was an increase in letters. Those negotiations with Hanley should have taken place right after we saw U ratings going up a year ago. We missed the opportunity to go on the offensive and instead we are once again defending what few rights we have left.

As yet another year winds down and more schools and programs are being closed and phased out, the ATR situation will only worsen. For the UFT to act as if they didn't play a major role in creating this disaster is revisionist history at its worst.

Instead of trying to persistently excuse the inexcusable concessions from the 2005 Contract in their resolutions, UFT leadership should be acknowledging that because we were not organized properly, we had to give up way too much in 2005 and those givebacks are hurting the school system. The only way we will win back a transferring and staffing plan that is like the old SBO process, a full summer vacation, no more cafeteria or hall duty, the right to full due process and other take-backs is if the UFT admits that teaching and learning conditions are dreadful and will only be improved with real Union action.

On May 14 at the next Delegate Assembly, I will vote for not reopening the Contract on the ATR issue. However, I hope someone points out that Unity's need to politicize the ATR issue and rewrite history is quite disheartening.

JUST SAY NO TO REOPENING THE CONTRACT RANDI

by James Eterno, UFT Chapter Leader, Jamaica High School

According to the April 29, 2008 NY Sun, Mayor Bloomberg will ask for the UFT Contract to be reopened. The City apparently did not gain enough concessions in 2005 so they want yet another bite at the apple by asking that the Contract be renegotiated so that they can fire excessed teachers after 12 months if we can't find a new position. The Sun is predicting a full scale battle. I see no reason to drawn into any combat.

A simple look at Article 32 of the Contract should end the discussion. It says, "This Agreement and each of its provisions shall be effective as of October 13, 2007, and shall continue in full force and effect through October 31, 2009. Negotiations for a subsequent Agreement will commence no sooner than April 30, 2009 upon request of either party filed two weeks in advance or as otherwise mutually agreed." Since it is not April 30, 2009, there is no valid reason why the UFT should consider new Contract negotiations at this time. No mutual agreement should mean no new negotiations.

Furthermore, for the City to even ask for the issue of firing Absent Teacher Reserves to be raised again is a foolhardy move that could easily be considered bad faith. The fact finding panel who made the disastrous recommendations that formed the basis for the punitive 2005 Contract agreed with the UFT on the ATR issue. Here is the actual language: "Fourth, the City/DOE has recommended that an excessed teacher who does not find a new position within 18 months of being excessed be terminated from the system. We specifically reject this proposal." Specifically rejecting a proposal is pretty strong language from arbitrators who obviously favored most of management's giveback demands such as taking away our ability to grieve letters for file, forcing us back in the cafeteria and halls, lengthening the school day and school year, weakening due process, etc... Even after the Contract expires in 2009, there would be no reason to entertain the city proposal as the Taylor law would keep our existing Contract in place until we have a new one.

Additionally, civil service law would have to be altered and I don't think other unions in New York State would be eager to see a change to allow ATRs to be fired as it would set a horrible precedent. If the UFT agreed to amend the Contract so we could be laid off after 12 months of being in excess, the entire labor movement's principle of last hired=first fired would be gone. Tenure would mean nothing. Chancellor Klein could close or reorganize virtually every school. Our rights would basically disappear. As a dissident who has often been critical of the UFT leadership, even I have confidence that Randi would not agree to terminating the ATR's after 12 months or 18 months or placing them on unpaid leave. It should not ever be considered.

There is nothing to negotiate; this proposal should be labeled dead on arrival.