10 Necessary Questions for Michael Mulgrew

"Moses showing the Ten Commandments,"
by Gustave Dore' (1865)

Moses brought down the tablets with the 10 commandments. Philip Nobile, admittedly a lesser luminary, merely has 10 questions to ask our UFT President, Michael Mulgrew.  

If the worst one could say about Michael Mulgrew is that once upon a time at Grady High School he fulfilled the adulterous fantasy of many teachers, then I’m not throwing the first stone. The boys of the Unity Caucus are famous for having a good time. Whether Mulgrew and Emma Camacho-Mendez did the lust and thrust in his shop several years ago is relatively small potatoes, even if there were evidence. But I would have preferred faster and more furious denial.

If the sex never happened at Grady, then Hochstadt’s grand conspiracy-blackmail-extortion theory wrapped in a suicidal lawsuit collapses. So why didn’t Mulgrew come out swinging in Sunday’s Post, at least to defend the honor of his good friend Ms. Camacho-Mendez? Instead, he told paid spokesman Dick Riley to say that Hochstadt’s “lawsuit was a catalog of absurd, false charges which we expect the court to dismiss."    

Bill Clinton proclaims, "I did not have sexual relations
with that woman."

Mulgrew’s Monday email to members was similarly bloodless in reference to “false and absurd claims of a wide-ranging conspiracy and personal misconduct, without stating any actual proof of either.” But why not a simple, case-closing statement: “I did not have sex with that Guidance Counselor at Grady.” Wouldn’t you rush to say that or its equivalent, if you were Mulgrew and you and your good friend were maliciously accused in the Post? Wouldn’t you have announced a libel suit against your greatest enemy in the press?

That’s what bothers me. Mulgrew is not acting like an innocent man. If he was spied in flagrante at Grady, it follows that there was a cover-up of some kind. So far, evidence goes in the other direction. The Daily News reported on Tuesday that “the city has confirmed Mulgrew was never removed from the classroom for any investigations during his teaching career, contrary to the lawsuit’s allegations. He also was never found to have committed wrongdoing by any investigators.”  Even Donald Herb, the retired custodian who supposedly saw the grappling lovers told the News that Mulgrew was a “good guy…We could tell he was a fighter back then. Now he's got some power and they're trying to take him down. That's all this is about." And Ivor Neuschotz, the former Grady Principal allegedly in the know, has kept silent.

Emma Camacho-Mendez's comment about
her alleged affair with Mulgrew was "clueless," says
Philip Nobile. 

Despite this cold trail, I’m leaning in the direction of the original sin---until Mulgrew and/or Camacho-Mendez convince me otherwise. The rumor is too widespread and robust to discount on Mulgrew’s tepid denial and Camacho-Mendez’s clueless comment in Sunday’s Post: “I have no comment on that. It’s the first I’ve heard of such an allegation. I have nothing to say to you.”   

The court of public opinion is not the same as the court of UFT opinion. Randi was compromised when she was in the closet and covered up Klein’s secret swiftboat campaign against her, only to be protected by Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon who also covered up Klein smear operation at Tweed. That’s what Randi told me,  Michael Mendel, Jim Callaghan, and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy in 2008.  Mulgrew needs to come clean with members, to assure us that he is not compromised. 

Herewith are ten questions to set the record straight:

1. Did you have a romantic relationship with Camacho-Mendez when you were both at Grady? Have you had a romantic relationship with her at any time? 

2. Did you have sex with her within Grady? 

3. Comacho-Mendez told the Post that she had never heard the Grady rumor before; what about you? 

4. The rumor has surprisingly long legs despite lack of confirmation; did anything happen at Grady that might have started it? 

5. Granted the circumstances, the appearances, and your and Camacho-Mendez’s less-than-indignant denials, you can understand why some members like me are skeptical and want a detailed response to the Hochstadt suit, even though it lacks proof. Will you hold a press conference and answer questions? 

6. Will you sue Hochstadt, Betsy Combier, and the Post for reckless disregard of the truth? If not, why not? 

7. Norm Scott mocked Hochstadt’s grandiose claims while expressing contempt for Unity’s entrenched leadership: “The idea that the UFT had to be blackmailed to sell out the teaching corps is ludicrous when we know it is in their DNA to give away decades of hard won rights and pieces of the contract, whole chunks at a time. The interesting part of the charge was that Mulgrew took his supposed lady up the ladder with him to a juicy full-time patronage job at UFT headquarters. But really, does anyone expect people in power to function differently?”  Your response? 

8.  Randi came to your swift defense against Hochstadt, but you were silent last month when the Daily News, with the connivance of Walcott, smeared Eric Chasanoff  as a pervert teacher. Why did you let Eric twist in the wind? 

9. The 10-minute “open mike” at the start of Executive Committee meetings is the only chance that rank-and- file members have to confront you and your cabinet. But you allowed Secretary Michael Mendel to censor that small window of opportunity, forbidding dissenting members to speak more than once a term. Is this your idea of democratic process? 

10. One more thing: Are you sorry that you cynically killed the DA resolution to endorse Bill Thompson against Bloomberg, thus assuring four more years of teacher bashing?  

Why does the UFT ignore the ATR?

Why doesn't the UFT pay much attention to the hundreds of teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve? Why did the UFT promise to meet with them and fail to do so? Why did the UFT promise to print an article about the ATR but printed little more than a footnote?  Why has the UFT failed to do anything about the ATR teachers' lack of representation in the UFT Delegate Assembly?

Philip Nobile has an answer that most ATRs will find to be a good fit.

Why won’t the UFT meet with ATRs? It’s a no-brainer. Rubber- room teachers under suspicion had de-facto chapters with elected liaisons who had monthly rendezvous with top dogs like Michael Mendel and LeRoy Barr at 52 Broadway. They got respect. But not us, all in good standing. We are the union’s homeless, abandoned on the battlefield, disenfranchised by Mulgrew et al. 

A homeless family

Back in September, we had to twist arms to arrange borough meetings. Amy Arundel and Barr made the rounds in October, preening solidarity while denying our right to a chapter. Brooklyn Borough Rep Howie Schoor, not a bad fellow out of the foxhole, pledged a repeat meeting and guaranteed timely responses to our inquiries. 

Would that it were so. There has never been a second meeting and nobody at the UFT will say why. I reached out to the leadership four times this month without luck. On February 1, curious about the emergence of field supervisors, I wrote: 

The DOE's cockamamie plan to observe ATRs cannot be ignored. The UFT saw this coming, but as far as known, since ATRs are not in the loop, you guys have done nothing to protect us. The least you can do now is agree to ATR meeting in the boroughs--just like last October. Howie promised more meetings then. Can you give us a date?

On February 2, Amy Arundel, Our Lady of ATRs, responded in a terse email: “no teacher has been u-rated.” 

My same day reply: 

Good to hear from you. Yes, we know nobody has been U-rated...yet. But why wait and face a fait accompli? If I may say so, it's your job to get ahead of, not behind, the curve. 

The question on the table now is: What is the UFT doing about this development, if anything? You know that the DOE is up to no good with field supervisors. But you are keeping us ATRs out of the loop.  

The obvious next step is another ATR meeting in the boroughs during which you can consult us, your constituents, about our rising concerns. So tell us--will you arrange a meeting asap? 

Arundel went silent. 

On February 3, I emailed my Brooklyn District rep Tom Bennett, et al., about his nonchalant, party-line comments re field supes, and  I recast the idea for a meeting: 

The DOE did not consult the UFT on this arrangement. But that is no excuse for the union’s passivity. For example, Amy’s Antoinette-ish throwaway: “No one has been u rated.” 

Marie Antoinette offers a plate of cake.

You owe us solidarity. You can start with borough meetings, and fast. To the leadership: will you or won’t you call a second ATR meeting as Howie Schoor promised at the first one in Brooklyn? We deserve an answer. 

The leadership must disagree.  As for the courtesy of a reply, forget it.  Ever willing to extend a golden bridge of retreat, I gave Schoor another shot on February 8th:

Now your'e breaking two promises--not only your pledge to have another ATR meeting, but also to quickly answer ATR queries. 

I don't get it.  Why won't you say yes or no to a meeting?

What’s not to get? Mulgrew et al. regard ATRs as an inconvenient marker of their impotence. They surrendered on grievances, seniority transfers, linking evaluations to test scores, and first year incompetence appeals except for 13 percent. ATRs could be next. It’s easier to sell us out when they don’t look us in the face.

Photo credits:


     http://i.huffpost.com/gen/230633/thumbs/r-HOMELESS-FAMILIES-large570.jpg


     https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5fQBRw3OWQEtZmvPj0JfkjzBFQAeYCabPOvkrbQ3PJLm8FBRo

A Tale of Two Resolutions

NYCATR's best-groomed writer, ATR in Perm, strikes again.

On the UFT Delegate Assembly's half-full ATR resolution passed in December:

Yes, the progressives are to be applauded for raising the ATR resolution. It had some important elements, such as clear, practical provisions for helping teachers to pursue new licenses.

However, crucial aspects are missing from the resolution:

1. Borough-wide elected representatives for ATRs. 
2. Rejection of any open-ended or loosely-defined ATR evaluation procedure by “field supervisors.” (We can't forget Michael Mendel's publicly wondering out loud that the one thing that we could be evaluated on is classroom management.)

Furthermore, the December resolution lacks the qualitative substance of the November resolution.

"Kids, let's make a Venn Diagram."

Compare the UFT's resolution with the one that was proposed in  November by Teachers for a Just Contract and GEM:

Resolved: The UFT will mobilize all members to rally at Tweed & City Hall at the earliest possible date, to demand: 

1. Until Every ATR within a license has a position, no new hiring in that license. 

2. ATRs with arcane licenses, or licenses in which there are few positions, be allowed to recertify in new licenses without loss of tenure or seniority. Those who have comparable and valid state licenses should be grandfathered into those state licenses.  

3. Audit principals’ hiring for possible race and age discrimination. 

4. Restore the contractual right of excessed teachers to the closest vacancy in their license.

Compare that earlier resolution to the December one that Mendel and company endorsed:

Resolution on Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) placements:

WHEREAS the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) crisis is a clear and direct result of New York City Department of Education (DOE) policies and mismanagement; and

WHEREAS even though efforts to resolve the crisis have been partially successful, the DOE still has not kept its promises nor met its moral and professional obligations to ATRs and has thereby wasted valuable human and economic resources; and

WHEREAS maintaining fairness and increasing productivity in the city’s teaching force require that the talents of all educators be utilized in service to students, parents and school communities; and

WHEREAS solutions to the ATR crisis need to be proposed and implemented without delay in order to maximize productivity, teaching and learning in New York City public schools; therefore be it

RESOLVED that the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) call upon the DOE to create a recertification program for ATRs for designated shortage areas and allow participating ATRs to take the requisite course work at the City University of New York (CUNY) free of charge or be reimbursed for the related costs of attending a private college or university at the CUNY rate per credit; and be it further

RESOLVED that the UFT urge the DOE to require that all ATRs be given an opportunity for permanent placement in vacancies in their license areas in their district or high school superintendency before the DOE approves any new hire in a license area where an ATR has not been given an opportunity for permanent placement; and be it further

RESOLVED that the UFT urge the DOE to place all ATRs into vacancies in their district or high school superintendency after September 15 of any given year on a provisional basis; and be it further

RESOLVED that the UFT urge the DOE to allow principals and ATRs at the end of the school year to either mutually agree to have ATRs as permanent staff members or allow them to return to the ATR pool.

Key points on the ATR issue that the resolution skipped over in the December version:

a) Unity-UFT created this mess with its approval of the 2005 contract (granted, this part will never fly, until another caucus replaces Unity's dominance);

b) the excessed position explosion stems directly from the schools closure policy (the urgency of which Unity only woke up to in the last couple of years);

c) the degradation of student programs leads to the mass demise of certain licenses: the student block programming of doubled-up English (“ELA”) and math classes (e.g., 5 periods of ELA alternated with math, to meet NCLB test mania prerogatives) crowds out student exposure to the arts, foreign languages (especially those other than Spanish), science, social studies and school libraries, thus creating the mass excessing of ATRs. (ATRs are especially alert that instead of in-house art or dance instructors, these topics are delivered sporadically from private foundations outside of the DOE, and Rosetta Stone software is replacing live foreign language instructors.)

d) ultimately, the ATR crisis is the direct result of the UFT's somnolent response until Winter, 2011, to Bloomberg's tidal wave of school closures. The break-up of the large high schools directly relates to the narrowing of course offerings and the explosion of ATR numbers. (of course, the wave of school closures so far has mainly hit the high schools; wait 'til they hit elementary schools, the bedrock of Unity support.)

I applaud the progressives for their ATR resolutions, Michael Mendel for apologizing for dissing the October ATR resolution and the UFT District Assembly bosses for authorizing assent to the resolution,but I'd like to know which part of the December resolution tackles the issues of ATR representation, possible race/age discrimination in the ATR excessing patterns, the DOE refusal to abide in good faith to a hiring freeze and work to place ATRs in assignments in their licenses, and the argument that the massive elimination of/excessing of job assignment categories should NOT be leaving the system.

At core, the notion that ATRs must wander the system, hat in hand, begging for a position is more of a free-market situation than a system that a union can be proud of.

Picture credit:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Venn_diagram_gr_la_ru.svg/220px-Venn_diagram_gr_la_ru.svg.png

Mendel mollifies; ATRs react

A teacher (?) in perm

An ATR teacher who goes by the name "ATR in Perm" forwarded to us a letter that UFT Secretary Michael Mendel sent to ATR teachers in Brooklyn Districts 13-23, 32, and 73 (the Brooklyn high school superintendency). 

Mendel's letter is a follow-up to the DOE's recent announcement that a group of administrators called "Field Supervisors" will begin evaluating ATR teachers.

Below is Mendel's letter (with a few key points highlighted by NYCATR). Following the letter is ATR in Perm's response; he who forwards the message gets first dibs at trashing it. 

Dear colleague,

The UFT has been informed that the DOE will implement a new supervisory system for ATRs in Brooklyn community school districts (Districts 13-23 and 32) and Brooklyn high school superintendency (District 73). They have labeled it a pilot, though they did not indicate how or when the pilot would be evaluated; nor have they indicated if or when they would extend this system to other ATRs. We were informed about this plan, but had no input into it. I am writing to assure you that the union will continue to make sure that your rights as a UFT member are not violated and your professionalism as a teacher is respected. 

The DOE has created a new position, that of field supervisor, with the intent that field supervisors will provide some measure of evaluative continuity to the members whom they observe and to whom they provide professional feedback. They have done this because state law requires that all teachers must be evaluated and rated. 

As always, the UFT will monitor the implementation of this new system carefully to make sure that it is implemented appropriately (e.g., that members are observed on things like classroom management, and not on things like content when they are teaching out of license — in other words, things that make sense). We will address concerns that come up with the DOE immediately. Above all, we will continue to hold the DOE’s feet to the fire on the main tenet of the June ATR agreement, which is to fill all long-term absences and leaves with ATRS and to help members in the Absent Teacher Reserve find permanent positions. 

We know that you play a valuable role in virtually every city school, under often challenging circumstances, and that your contributions are often unrecognized. We are committed to ensuring that ATRs are treated like professionals and are working to make sure this new supervisory system does that. 

If you have questions or concerns, please contact your district representative or Amy Arundell at aarundell@uft.org.

ATR in Perm: The UFT's Michael Mendell issued a letter on the UFT's position on the ATR teacher evaluations. Shockingly, the area that visiting teachers routinely have the most trouble with, classroom management, is an area that Mendell thinks is fair game for evaluating teachers.

"We are committed to ensuring that ATRs are treated like professionals . . ." Yeah? Well, why are you letting us get evaluated on handling kids who we've just met minutes ago? School tone, set by administration, as to whether they discipline students in a timely fashion or whether they coddle them, is the greatest factor (aside from home upbringing) in how kids will react to even the sternest and most confident Classroom-Management-minded teacher.

NYCATR gadfly stings horses and lipsticked pigs

Philip Nobile, our resident gadfly, has been corresponding with UFT officials again. NYCATR is proud to present Nobile's stinging messages to the UFT, and not so proud to present some of the UFT's responses.

MESSAGE #1:

December 2, 2011

From: Philip Nobile

To:  Thomas Bennett, Basis HS representative; Amy Arundell, Special Representative; Howard Schoor, Brookly Borough Representative; Cc: Michael Mulgrew, President; Michael Mendel, Secretary

Dear colleagues :

You have not responded to my email query of November 12 quoted below:

"According to Tom [Bennett], the UFT is talking to DOE about insane ATR commutes. I urge all deliberate speed. I just got my 3rd S.I. order in four weeks [Nobile lives in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn]. Please update. When did the UFT last speak to DOE on this matter and what was the conclusion?"

As you know, ATRs are discontented with their plight, especially considering that we are barred from the committee reviewing the agreement. This is typical of how Unity leadership operates. The top tells the bottom (ATRs) that they are unworthy of chapter representation or access to DA or chapter leader meetings. And topping off our disenfranchisement, you deprive us of basic information like the above.

Please answer my question. Thanks for your consideration.

Philip

MESSAGE #2:

From: Thomas Bennet

To: Philip Nobile

Dear Philip:

I said we are talking to them. By that I mean we had hoped that the DOE would see that a more sensible approach to the Tottenville-Bed-Stuy shuttle would be in everyone’s interest. I haven’t heard much from ATRs in the last few weeks, so I’m wondering if DOE has started keeping people closer to home? 

Your assertion that all ATRs are disconcerted with their plight, and their lack of equanimity arises from their ignorance of “secret” bargaining sessions, access to DA, and separate chapter representation is not borne out by my experience, and I speak with a lot of ATRs. 

Naturally, if I hear anything about a change of policy, I’ll let you know. And please keep me informed about any changes you experience in the field.

I’m still looking for you at Staten Island Tech. Perhaps we can team-teach my Global class one of these weeks.

T.B.

MESSAGE #3:

From: Philip Nobile

To: Thomas Bennett

Tom,

Apparently, we talk to different ATRs. I've never met a contented one.

Mulgrew's lipstick has worn off this pig. The ATR situation is akin to the rubber room fiasco, and the UFT's hands are all over it. How would you like to sub in a different school every week? Silly question.

Anyhow, why won't somebody tell me:

 (1) who from the UFT has talked to DOE about ATRs and when;

       (2) what was on the agenda and what was the DOE's reaction
       to commuter complaints, and the UFT's counter-reaction; and

       (3) why are no ATRs on the the UFT review committee?

These are basic questions. We need to know if you're fighting for us. In the name of transparency the UFT owes ATRs an explanation.

On the other hand, only co-teaching with you could carry me back to S.I. 

Philip

P.S. Howie promised future ATR meetings at the October fest. Do you have a date in mind?

Image credits:


     https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSahLVwPtYHgF-ELDgOL68q9D3iZQsUnHrD1dwDywEVAhuoSz13UA

     http://strategichighperformance.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/lipstick-on-a-pig.jpg

Michael Mendel's "Hissy Fit"

NYCATR is proud to present yet another account of the UFT Delegate Assembly meeting that took place on November 9, 2011. This account was written by a representative of Teachers for a Just Contract, a group that presented a resolution to "solve the ATR Crisis."

All three accounts of the meeting agree on one point in particular: UFT Secretary Michael Mendel is not in a hurry to help the members of the Absent Teacher Reserve. 

The big news was Unity’s response to the GEM-TJC resolution. Megan Behrent, a delegate from FDR High School, who is active in several rank and file groups, made a motion for the body to put this resolution on the December agenda for discussion and a vote. As she read each demand, there was applause from some of the delegates. 

Resolution to Solve the ATR Crisis 

Resolved: The UFT will mobilize all members to rally at Tweed & City Hall at the earliest possible date, to demand: 

1. Until Every ATR within a license has a position, no new hiring in that license. 

2. ATRs with arcane licenses, or licenses in which there are few positions, be allowed to recertify in new licenses without loss of tenure or seniority. Those who have comparable and valid state licenses should be grandfathered into those state licenses.  

3. Audit principals’ hiring for possible race and age discrimination. 

4. Restore the contractual right of excessed teachers to the closest vacancy in their license.

UFT Secretary Michael Mendel

President Mulgrew then recognized UFT Secretary Michael Mendel to speak against the motion. 

Mendel’s performance could be described as a hissy fit, or of following the adage that “the best defense is a good offense.” He charged that the resolution was full of untruths and inaccuracies. He picked on the fourth demand, claiming that excessed teachers had never had such a right. His delivery was so excited and disorganized, that some listeners thought he said that before the 2005 contract, excessed teachers could be sent anyplace in the city. Others thought he meant something else.

Before the 2005 contract, there were many provisions of Contract Article 17 - Retention, Excessing and Layoff - that gave teachers the right to be placed in nearby vacancies. For example, in the 2000 contract, Article 17B, Rule 5 states, “To minimize the movement of personnel, excessed teachers shall be assigned within the district to appropriate openings and vacancies.” Rule 6, which applies when there is no vacancy within the district, states, “Where possible, the wishes of the teacher will be taken into account in his/her placement by the Central Board.” 

The fourth demand of the resolution summarizes the complex of rights that existed before 2005, expressing the essence and gist of these rights: teachers had the right to be placed in the nearest vacancy. Before the 2005 contract, when excessed teachers were placed, they automatically became appointed to their new school. (However, they retained a “right of return” to their former school if a position opened for them within a year.) 

(To complicate this issue, similar provisions still exist in the current contract. But they have been rendered void by the June 2011 agreement. But even before June 2011, the introduction of the “open market” system for filling vacancies (Article 18) in the 2005 contract had changed their meaning. Excessed teachers were no longer appointed to the school where they were placed. They remained ATRs unless the principal chose to appoint them: only through the open market system of hiring could they be appointed.) 

Mendel’s attack of apoplexy was not caused by semantics, by the resolution saying “closest” instead of the lengthy jargon of the contract. Mendel is one of the UFT’s most knowledgeable about the contract. He knows very well that, in practice, these provisions indeed gave teachers the right to the nearest vacancy. 

He also attacked the second demand, saying that no one had ever had these rights. Which is a strange argument: a labor movement that does not fight for new rights is a dying movement (which, not coincidentally, is exactly what the U.S. labor movement today is). He also said that a demonstration at Tweed would be inappropriate for such a demand, since these are state rules. However, many times the union has gotten changes in state law, for example, in pension contributions, by winning City support for them in negotiations. 

So Mendel’s substantive criticisms of the resolution are, upon examination, at best weak and at worst picayune. So, what’s up with the hysteria?

Mendel’s hysterics were an attempt to make up for the weakness of his arguments. He was successful. Even independents in the assembly were swayed by the show of emotion, even though they couldn’t follow exactly what he was saying. They assumed it was based on deep feeling, not a calculated move to distract from lack of substance. He was, figurative speaking, jumping up and down yelling “Look out! Watch out! Don’t vote for this! It’s terrible! It’s full of misinformation!” His goal was to defeat the resolution, because it meant the UFT would have to lead a struggle on behalf of the ATRs, and the UFT leadership lacks the will for that. At the risk of being simplistic, no one in the UFT leadership is an ATR, or even runs the risk of being an ATR. The leadership has nothing to gain from undertaking this battle.

But it goes further. Mendel wasn’t just intent upon defeating this resolution. His cries of “wrong!” and “not true!” were meant to discredit the opposition as unreliable, people whose ignorance is dangerous to the union. That’s meant to distract members from whose policies really are dangerous to the union.

Photo credit: http://www.uft.org/files/uft-sec-michael-mendel-thumb.jpg

"Demagogic Rant" by Michael Mendel

Marjorie Stamberg sent us a report about the latest UFT Delegate Assembly meeting on Wednesday, November 9.  We excerpted the parts that are of particular relevance to ATR teachers and their supporters. 

[During question period], most of the questions revolved around the delegates’ concerns for the situation with the ATRs. Now, those who are not picked up by a school which agrees to provisionally pay for them, are going from week to week to a different school. This is tremendously stressful.

A delegate from Madison High School asked about the procedure for ATRs in D 75.

The UFT remembers with pride that Albert 

Shanker assisted Dr. Martin Luther King in his

struggle to gain voting rights for all Americans.

Too bad the UFT doesn't protect the voting

rights of ATR teachers, who are disenfranchised

from UFT elections. 

I again raised the issue of the disenfranchisement of ATRs, saying that there are over 1000 teachers who do not now have the right to vote in any union election because they are not assigned to a school and they do not have their own functional chapter election.

Megan Beherent, a delegate from the Roosevelt HS campus put up a motion: Resolution to Solve the ATR Crisis, for a vote at the next DA. This called for:

1) a job freeze in every license area where there are ATRs who could fill the position;

2) for ATRs to be able to certify in new license areas without loss of tenure; 

3) to audit the DOE hiring for age and race discrimination; 

 4) to restore the contractual right of excessed teachers to the closest vacancy in their license.

                    

UFT Secretary Michael Mendel

There was much support as the motion was  read. However UFT Secretary Mike Mendel opened up with a demagogic rant (my description), saying the points in the motion were not true and advising the delegates to vote it down, which happened.

(The points under dispute were subsequently argued in the hallway with Mendel, who then ceded that the contract did in fact specify excessing rights for teachers in closing schools, however, not to the “closest vacancy” but “within the district.” Mendel’s intervention was purposefully designed to “send a message” to the delegates who follow the lead of Unity Caucus to vote the motion down from appearing on next month's agenda, which they did.)

A motion put up by New Action Caucus reasserting “Dignity for all teachers” was passed. This proposed various support measures for the ATRs but did not address the systemic issue that the ATR pool will continue to grow as long as the DOE is on a school-closing campaign, and until the rights of seniority transfer and excessing transfer have been restored.

Photo credits: http://www.uft.org/files/imagecache/medium/migrated_media/news/teacher/union_history/nyt20100204_56b.jpg
                   http://www.uft.org/files/imagecache/small/photo/mmendel.jpg

Business as usual at the UFT Delegate Assembly

The good folks at the GEM/ATR Committee sent us these tidbits of ATR-related news from the meeting of the UFT's Delegate Assembly on Wednesday, November 9.  The full report appears on the ICE-UFT blog.  

A question was asked about ATRs in District 75 being sent all over the city as it is a citywide district. The answer from Mulgrew was that people should contact the UFT if there are abuses.

The next question was about placing ATRs. The answer was that 212 have been placed.

A question from Marjorie Stamberg was about ATRs voting. The answer was that all members have a right to vote and that the Election Committee was examining the issue. (I didn't even know the Election Committee was active.)

Next up was the motion period. Megan Beherent from TJC (Teachers for a Just Contract) raised a resolution for next month that the UFT mobilize its members to rally for:

1-no new hiring until all ATRs in a license are placed;
2-re-certifying people without loss of tenure in arcane licences
3-auditing DOE hiring for age and race discrimination
4-restoring contractual right to closest vacancy.

There was some discussion about what rights excessed teachers 

previously had but Secretary Michael Mendel spoke against this motion saying that the makers of the motion misinterpreted what is going on. He stated that in the past people were placed anywhere in the city and that is no longer the case; he also argued that to re-certify people without going through the legal process would be unprecedented. After his strong plea the resolution failed to get on next month's agenda.

The Ronin Teacher predicts pusillanimous prevarications at UFT-ATR meetings

Marc Epstein, otherwise known as the Ronin Teacher, looked into his crystal ball and predicted what will happen at the meeting between the UFT and the ATR teachers next week.  We hope he's wrong.

A Japanese palmreader at work

The UFT will do everything in its power to convince the ATRs that they have their backs and that they won the LIFO War with Bloomberg.

Mulgrew - Casey- Mendel can't explain why: 

a) the hiring freeze was lifted in August just as the ATR pool was growing;

b) they agreed to allow ATRs to be moved from week to week--it's a mystery.

ATRs that have per-session jobs like coaching might find it impossible to do those jobs as they are shifted around a large borough like Queens and Brooklyn. 

The ATR agreement really handed Bloomberg a LIFO victory by calling it something else. As if the life of a Ronin weren't bad enough, they threw in the right to move them around weekly.

The UFT is complicit in these terror tactics, or they are remarkably stupid. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.

Picture credit: http://lukehalliwell.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/japanese_fortune_teller.jpg?w=300&h=224

This job fair was a mockery!

Barbra Nahoum, an ATR teacher in Brooklyn's District 21, attended the mandatory job fair that was held at the Brooklyn Museum on September 20th.  She enjoyed herself so much that she ran home and dashed off the following letter to Michael Mulgrew, the president of the UFT.

Dear Mr. Mulgrew:

The parking lot of the Brooklyn Museum
features a replica of the Statue of
Liberty.  Whose liberty, we''re not sure.

Today was a humiliating day for teachers who were mandated to attend the Teacher Recruitment Fair. When I arrived with my ATR friends at the Brooklyn Museum, we received a ticket at the gate and then drove around looking for a parking spot. The parking lot was packed with cars and many teachers had to turn around and look for a spot on the street. When I entered the museum there was a check-in counter to sign in. The room was packed wall to wall with people. Most of the people in the room, I have seen at other Job Fairs in previous years. I also met a lot of new ATR's from my district, and I was very sad to see that they are now going to be joining me as a nomad in a school district. It is very apparent to me that this new teaching position "ATR" is here to stay and the club is growing by leaps and bounds.

The room was set up with long tables all around this huge room and half of the tables were empty, due to no-shows of principals, I assume. After I walked the room and it was close to 3:00 p.m., I was given a letter confirming that I attended this job fair. We then left the building and proceeded to walk to my friend's car. We then had to wait on a long line to pass the front gate. As we were waiting, I saw teachers handing the attendant money. I thought to myself, "Why are they paying when the DOE was sponsoring this fair?" When we reached the gate the attendant said, "You pay $7.00 because your ticket is not stamped." We then asked, "where do we get it stamped?" The attendant said, "I don't know." Why wasn't there a sign notifying ATR's that at the end of the fair you must get your ticket stamped? When we received a letter verifying our attendance at the end of the job fair, the Division of Human Resources staff should have asked for our ticket and stamped it. They did not mention anything about getting a ticket stamped. Many teachers were in a rush to leave because they have families and other obligations after school. The majority of teachers paid the $7.00 because none of them were aware that they were supposed to get their ticket stamped at the Teacher Recruitment Fair. There were no signs or any indication that they had to get their ticket stamped in order to be exempt from paying the parking lot fee. It was very obvious that they didn't want teachers to get their ticket stamped.

This event has turned out to be a money making event for people who own this parking lot. It is bad enough that we had to attend this event that was nonproductive. It is so disturbing that middle aged, experienced teachers are subbing and will probably never be regular teachers again in the DOE.  These teachers have many years of public service serving the children in the City of New York and this is the thanks they get. We serve the most important people in the community (our children) and our farewell gift is to be treated with no respect and we are looked upon by our coworkers as if we are rejects in this system.

This job fair was a mockery!

  

Barbra Nahoum

cc: Judy Gerowitz [UFT District 21 Representative]

Howard Schoor [UFT Brooklyn Borough Leader]

Michael Mendel [UFT Secretary]

Photo credit:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRT9vLM8LmVM6iSxL3gYp5C4CZXSytjXK_uxO-WSHdkVeFAV4uPS4ABzYObUQ

Quotation of the Day 9/7/2011

At a professional development session held today at 52 Broadway, the UFT 's Secretary, Michael Mendel, spoke about SESIS, the DOE's new computer system for recording and tracking information about Special Education students.  Here are some of Mr. Mendel's comments:

*"[SESIS] is close to a disaster" and "a major problem that we have to resolve."

*Because of SESIS, the city is losing "millions of dollars" in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements.

*"We are in the nightmare phase." 

*Some teachers and service-providers, particularly those in the Alternate Learning Centers, are required to record their work on SESIS, but do not have access to the system.