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?  

Does the UFT leadership betray its members?

Sheikh Abdulaziz al-sheikh, the
 Grand Mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

It's really none of our business what UFT President Michael Mulgrew may have done with a female guidance counselor on a drafting table at Grady H.S. (click here to see the allegation).  What does concern us is the possibility that Mulgrew promoted his paramour to an important union job for which she was not qualified, and that he may have been compromised by his scandal when he negotiated with the DOE.

Leave it to NYCATR's ace commentator Philip Nobile to formulate the issue with just the right mix of clear reasoning and biting cynicism.  Here's what Nobile wrote as a comment to a Gotham Schools report about the scandal:

Would our UFT leaders betray members to protect their own interests? Is the Grand Mufti Moslem?

Click here to see Nobile's full comment.  

Mulgrew to ATRs: You are second-class UFT members

Marjorie Stamberg reports:

At the Wednesday, May 16 meeting of the UFT's Delegate Assembly , I raised the issue of the union's cynical "solution" to the UFT's disenfranchisment of ATRs in the union elections. Many ATRs had no place to vote in the union elections as they trudge from school to school on a weekly basis, where they are treated as non-people until they move on the next week. This week-to-week trek was agreed upon by the union and the DOE last spring, as part of the deal that there be no teacher layoffs. Last fall, I and others put forward motions that the ATRs be accorded their full voting rights with their own chapter. We have been fighting for this for several years, and it has always been brushed off with the excuse that their situation is only "temporary."  

Last week, the UFT leadership announced a "solution"--with chapter elections upon us, they decided that ATRs would vote at the school where they are for the week the elections are held. This is outrageous--how can ATR teachers effectively advocate for their needs when they are "here today, gone tomorrow," and the chapter representatives are not accountable to them? 

UFT President, Michael Mulgrew

Yesterday, when I raised this issue in the question period at the delegate assembly, Mulgrew refused to let me get a sentence out, interrupting me, harassing and yelling, "What's your question," "Make it a question," "That's not a question!" Following his lead, a passel of Unity delegates obediently picked up the jeer. Over the din, I was finally able to get out, "My question is, how do you justify this outrageous cynical disenfranchisement of the ATRs' right to vote?" and saying "the ATRs need their own chapter."

The Artful Dodger

Mulgrew answered with a time-honored evasion: The union is in arbitration, he said, because the DOE has not kept to its commitment to place ATRs in open positions and long-term vacancies. Until this arbitration is settled, the union is doing the "best it can" to give ATRs voting rights. He was silent on the fact that the weekly trek of ATRs is happening with the consent of the UFT leadership, which agreed to it as part of the deal on layoffs last spring.

Don't worry, I will keep on raising this issue. With more schools closing than ever, there will be a huge swelling of the ATR pool next fall. As we all know, "If you're not ATR, you could be soon." The fight for rights of ATR teachers is everyone's fight.

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

How important is the ATR issue?

You really gotta hand it to the UFT's "newspaper," the New York Teacher.  

True, they've never published the article that they promised about "teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve, including how teachers became part of the ATR." Still, they published some great articles in the latest edition (December 22, 2011).  For example:

*(p. 1) a headline stating, "Parents get information and resources from the union" (but not ATR teachers);

*(p. 8) a full-page article about the UFT's participation in the fight for  voting rights (which ATR teachers, who do not belong to any local chapter, do not have);

*(p. 13) a half-page editorial by our President, Michael Mulgrew, who writes that "2011 has turned out to be the year that people said 'enough'" (you're right, Mike--ATR teachers have taken enough abuse);

*(pp. 24-25) a two-page spread about the UFT's "Annual Parent Conference" (which means they meet with parents about as frequently as they meet with the ATR teachers);

*(p. 33) a notice about the New York Teacher obituary policy (where someday you might read about a teacher who served 23 years in the ATR).

The piece de resistance, however, came on page 38 of this venerable 48-page publication:

 *approximately 1/16 of a page dedicated to a summary of a resolution in support of the ATR that was passed at the December 7 meeting of the UFT's Delegate Assembly.  

My writing teachers always taught me to write a conclusion, and I teach the same to my students.  In this case, however, I leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions about whether the UFT thinks the ATR issue is particularly urgent or important.  

     

  

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

Gypsy Teacher gets the cold shoulder

As I was walking to cover my classes-of-the-day at my school-of-the-week, I saw a familiar face smiling at me. I couldn't place him at first but I smiled back. He introduced himself to me and when I introduced myself I saw his smile slipping. He is the man that I begged to help me through emails and phone calls when they sent me to a school more than an hour from my house. After he failed to help me, I never heard from him again or had any contact with him until today. 

Anyway, I began to talk about the plight of the ATRs and how we are being sent to schools far and wide, most with no vacancies. He agreed that the plight of the teachers in District 76 was appalling. When I asked if a remedy was near, he heed and hawed and said that it would mean an informal agreement between the UFT and the DOE.

As I prodded him further he seemed to close down and look for an escape. "I have to teach my class," he said to me, as I continued to question him on what the UFT was doing to help the ATRs.  He just threw out something about Mulgrew playing politics which I didn't understand.

Then somehow we approached the topic of a class action age discrimination suit against the DOE and he stated we would never win and it would crumble in court. "Why?" I asked. He mentioned something about statistics; again I didn't understand. Maybe this ATR business is making me dumb but I just think he wasn't making much sense.

Anyway, he was inching away as I brought up the fact that principals are still using long-term or day-to-day subs to fill vacancies.  A case in point is my grievance, in which a day-to-day sub is working a full position that should be mine.  "Did you email Amy Arundell?" I told him the UFT was told by me AND others of subs in positions and still NOTHING is being done! 

Finally, he escaped into the men's room. I waited for him and asked him point blank why he was avoiding me and he just said he had to go teach his class, as he left me standing there frustrated and angry! Seems I feel this way a lot lately!










Picture credits: http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/give-someone-the-cold-shoulder1.jpg
                                                                                                http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_momsatwork/files/2010/01/mensroom.jpg

The UFT 1% turns a deaf ear

Remember the letter that Philip Nobile wrote to all the UFT bigwigs about the two-hour commute from Brooklyn to Staten Island that the DOE was subjecting him to?  You forgot?  It seems that the UFT forgot it about it also, since none of their top leaders chose to answer Nobile's plea for help.  Here is Nobile's post mortem on this sorry story:

Sad to say, but no surprise, none of the UFT 1 percent responded to my plea re ATRs condemned to hardship commutes. Apparently, Mulgrew et al. have other things on their mind. 

Thomas Bennett

Still, there is light at the end of the tunnel. BASIS rep Tom Bennett says that our complaints have not gone unheard:

"I certainly agree and echo your sentiments. The District 76 situation is a disgrace. We are certainly making this case in conversations with the DOE, and we’re hopeful that there are a few sane people left on the other side. I’ll let you know if I hear any good news."

Bennett told me later on the phone that some S.I. principals have been accommodating. So on Friday I called the faraway McCown Expeditionary School on the Island, this week's assignment, and said that I would be unable (i.e., adverse) to make the monastic 7:45am start. 

"Could you make it by 8:30?" I was asked. That I could do. I urge ATRS to follow the same route for the time being.

Photo credit:  http://www.uft.org/files/photo/thomas-bennett_0.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.

Wednesday the ATR teacher arrived late

Another gem by an NYCATR veteran, Philip Nobile:

Last week I was two days and two hours tardy for my rotation at the College of Staten Island High School for International Studies (CSI). The two days related to a daughter’s medical situation, the two hours to faulty HopStop.com directions from Brooklyn. 

The last time I found myself on this cognitively distant isle was when I ran the 1998 marathon. Otherwise, S.I. was the other side of Mars. I relied exclusively on the X17 bus to deliver me to CSI located just opposite the Marsh Avenue Mall in Eltingville. I waited at the Cortland St. stop in lower Manhattan. The half-hour ride was sure to deliver me before the 8:20 bell. But HopStop failed to mention that the express did not roll to S.I. in the early morning, which I did not deduce for far too long. As a result, I scrambled for the ferry, clueless how to proceed further. On board, I opened my laptop to scan CSI’s website for more precise directions: seven regular buses were listed. I randomly jumped on the one that dropped me off about a mile from the school, adding to my lateness. (The best bet from the ferry is the S61 to the last stop 45 minutes away.). 

But not to worry. Observing protocol, I called in my absence on Monday and alerted the main office when I was stranded by the phantom X17. I thought I was covered by a Columbia Presbyterian Emergency Room pass and the misguided HopStop advice written in my notebook. Not a chance. Before I could explain my predicament, the payroll secretary said she would have to dock me. Naturally and politely, I objected. Thereupon, Principal Joseph Canale Esq. (catch the Esq.) emerged from his nearby office to back up the secretary. 

“I’d like to tell you why I’m late this morning,” I said. 

“No, it’s your responsibility to be on time,” he replied, “we start at 8:20.” 

“You don’t want to hear why?” I said, not getting the hardboiled act. “I could have been in an accident.” 

“You don’t look like you were struck by lightning,” he persisted, “The contract says … [blah blah blah].” 

“I don’t appreciate your lack of empathy,” I said, glancing at the secretary, who was probably just following orders. 

“Don’t talk to my staff like that,” he said, escalating the tension. 

“I’m talking to you,” I said. “It’s your responsibility to listen to your teachers. But you won’t let  me tell you why I was late.” 

Mr. Canale is a lawyer. Prosecution seems to be his style. But in the end he chilled and let me speak. As for the hot potato of docking, we both let it go, resolution uncertain. 

On the other hand, CSI is an academic jewel encased in an architectural showcase building opened in 2009. It’s the highest ranking high school on S.I. and 17th in the city. An A rating and 83 raw score placed it in the 95th percentile. The students are serendipitously diverse—55% white and the rest almost evenly divided among Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. After a week in the rough and tumble of Bed-Sty’s F-rated Boys and Girls, CSI was a beatific surprise. The kids were charming, displaying none of the pathologies wounding hyper-segregated spots like B & G. 

However, apart from a single euphoric 9th grade advisory, I did nothing worthy of my (please stand) professional status. Too many ATRs are condemned to menial make-work tasks. At CSI I monitored the boy’s locker room before and after gym, checked the cafeteria boy’s room for smoking, and sat in front of a pile of report cards for two hours with two other staffers on parents’ afternoon last Friday. What a waste! And in the current crisis, a crime! ATRs should occupy 52 Broadway and demand that Mulgrew emancipate us from a faulty agreement signed without consulting us pawns. 

Mr. Canale treated me like dirt not because I was late, but because I was a late ATR, a lesser breed, a teacher to be used and abandoned after a week. Nevertheless, when I asked the payroll secretary to be relieved of Parents Night, he could have said no and put a letter in my file for disobeying orders. Yet he did not. I was allowed to skip the overtime. I left a parting note with the secretary on Friday saying that the docking was not a matter of money, but a matter of principle.

Photo credits:

     http://blog.silive.com/latest_news/2009/06/large_intl.jpg

     https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWOzgFpEFK21vkmQRPCpRtkUbqqIxGcGkFp3T8LunfxhlAbqlgOhoBxByRRCewJdrAmLBy5a5P2DjQWzTuGwMHiKjeEpdwfWJrHZEhYSrcTIclvZlvOACYVkeAiogRAihD7C9jl1D0ypGV/s320/smokin.jpg

Mulgrew admits that ATRs suffer from Taxation without Representation

I've waited for someone to come out and say it: the UFT's refusal to allow ATR teachers to form their own chapter amounts to taxation without representation. I need not wait any longer.  Marjory Stamberg, a veteran NYCATR correspondent, has reported that the issue was raised at the UFT Delegate Assembly meeting that took place on October 19, 2011.  And guess who more or less agreed that it is unfair for the UFT to collect dues from members who cannot elect representatives?  None other than the President, Michael Mulgrew. 

Here is Stamberg's report:

President Mulgrew reported that since October 7, the number of ATRs has gone down to a little over 1,100.  If the principal gives an ATR a provisional placement, they can stay in the school.  ATRs that are not picked up will now be moved from school to school on a weekly basis. Mulgrew said the chapter leaders will make themselves available at schools to welcome the ATRs and help them with their problems at a new school. They should be treated with respect, as with any other staff member. A resolution was passed on dignity for ATRs.

Dave Pecoraro, Chapter Leader at Beach Channel High School put up a motion for an ATR chapter, which would elect a chapter leader and delegates.  I seconded the motion. His argumentation was that in May there will be elections for all chapter leaders and delegates.  ATRs are dues paying members and have a right to vote, and will not be able to vote if they don’t have a chapter.

The motion was defeated, but there was a good deal of support for it. The motion was opposed by the leadership which argued that this would make the ATR situation a permanent fixture, and they want that status to disappear. Mulgrew did acknowledge that the voting-franchise issue was a problem and they would work on it.

My own view is that as long as the DOE keeps recklessly closing schools down and throwing teachers out of their classrooms, the ATR situation will not disappear. No amount of incentives given to the principals will work.  There need to be systemic changes in the system. The problem arose out of the 2005 contract sellout when seniority transfer was eliminated and will not be resolved until those transfer rights are restored.

Several motions on ATRs were circulated but not allowed on the floor at this meeting.

Cartoon credit:

http://myloc.gov/_assets/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/BillofRights/BillofRightsLegacy/Assets/acd2a06257_standard.jpg

ATR meeting rocks the Skylight Diner

The following report was submitted by our contributor known as Absolutely Teaching Ready.

On October 21, over 50 ATR teachers and friends met at the Skylight Diner in Manhattan. Enthusiasm ran high, sometimes too high, as the diner management requested us to try to keep our voices down.

We agreed to give life to the ATR committee of GEM, we created several committees to publicize our plight, we discussed future actions at the UFT and possible legal recourse for the discriminatory practices against veteran teachers.

Support for a UFT  chapter for ATR teachers ran high. Truth is, if Michael Mulgrew's figure of 1000 ATRs is correct, 5% of us were there last night! This is an auspicious beginning. 

One weakness, however, is that we need to reach out to get more ATRs to participate, especially Black and Hispanic UFT members who are ATRs. Given the preponderance of people of color at the  recent borough meetings, this will be critical for our group's success.

There was general agreement with the thrust of GEM's literature and the demands in the petition. On this basis, we should move forward to request meetings with UFT leaders on the statistics the Union has collected concerning the age and race demographics of ATRs, numbers hired since June, average length of time in the ATR pool, and salaries.

The restraint of last night's attendees was indicative of their seriousness.  People refrained from talking about their own difficult situations to insure that the discussion would be more general, enabling us to come to broad areas of agreement.

Several people tied our issue into the broader crises facing the education system, such as privatization through charters, school closures and budget cuts. Also singled out was the DOE's overall effort to cheapen and dumb down education for working class children. Others discussed increasing unemployment, budget cuts, the issues raised by the Occupy Wall Street movement and our need to defend teaching.

Photo credit: http://www.skylightdinernyc.com/sites/1157/images/skylightdinerwelcome.jpg

The UFT's silence is deafening re: ATR representation

Philip Nobile, NYCATR's gadfly correspondent, recently canvassed twenty-two UFT representatives in Brooklyn with the following question:

If you were an ATR, would you prefer to have a chapter with a leader and delegate(s) looking out for your interests via regular borough chapter leader meetings and Delegate Assemblies, or not? Explain.

As you will see, the response was underwhelming.  Below is Nobile's follow-up email.

Dear colleagues:

This is your last chance to take part in a survey re an ATR chapter granting full, normal representation. The response so far has been surprising. Not because one of you actually took the survey seriously enough to reply (in the negative of course), but because the rest of you did not bother to render an opinion.

I had hoped that the survey would counter the common belief that UFT reps are Unity zombies censoring all thoughts deviating from the President's office. Surely, some of you have reservations about Mulgrew's policy of denying hundreds and hundreds of ATRs, and maybe in the future thousands and thousands, the same union connection and support that non-ATRs take for granted. Remember, even suspect reassigned teachers, the lowest of the low, had elected liaisons and monthly meetings with Leroy Barr at 52 Broadway.

N.B.: The single rep who had the courtesy to answer the survey did not answer the direct question: If you were an ATR, would you prefer a chapter or not? Here is the response: "Don't make ATRs a permanent, separate group.  Does that mean you would have different rights--a different contract from classroom teachers? Remember what happened to the ed evaluators. It is not a good idea."

And my reply: "Thanks for your reply, and you need not continue the discussion.

But let me comment on your points:

(a) permanent, separate group: no more permanent than the former liaison arrangement with rubber roomers,no more separate than separate chapters in schools already.

(b) a different contract: same contract with ATR provisions maybe, that's up for discussion and ATRS should be part of it. It would be to UFT's benefit to get direct feedback from us, just as it did with rubber-roomers. 

If I understand you, you believe that ATRs are better off with a permanent and separate form of union representation from classroom teachers. Actually, what ATRs want is what all other members in good standing have--full representation. Why are we wrong?"

[P.S.  The Sunday deadline passed without further response from the reps.]

Photo credit: http://www.residencialhusares.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/gadfly.jpg

UFT to ATRs: Information, Yes; Organization, No Way in Hell

Report from the Brooklyn ATR Meeting (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)

By Philip Nobile 

A crowd of over one hundred, mostly over 40 years of age, listened to a 45-minute presentation by Special Rep Amy Arundell and Co-Staff Director LeRoy Barr and then asked lots and lots of questions about our absurd predicament for almost two hours. The presenters were incisive and sympathetic in the information department. Apparently, they had cooled off from their hot meeting in The Bronx on Monday. 

“We know the DOE will screw things up and we’ll stay on top of this,” promised Barr who repeated the party line that ATRs should be happy rather than angry with their new deal. “It was not an ATR agreement, it was a no-layoff agreement,” he emphasized. “The DOE said you didn’t work. They wanted to lay you off. We will not allow them to lay you off.” 

Nevertheless, Barr’s solidarity soon evaporated when he squelched the unanimous clamor for establishing borough chapters to represent our interests. “We’re not here to talk about that,” he said, adding with typical top-down arrogance, “that’s not what you want.” 

The Information 

Arundell, a former middle-school Social Science teacher from the Bronx, is the UFT’s personnel person and now its designated ATR authority and apologist. She began with the mechanics of next week’s rotation and later addressed specific inquiries. Some highlights: 

►Brooklyn high school teachers will be assigned to District 73 or District 76 (including, horrors, Staten Island). K-8 teachers will remain in the districts from which they were excessed. This is a contractual right. 

►Principals cannot keep you in your current school unless they hire you to fill a vacancy, budget you on Galaxy, and inform the DOE.  No exceptions. 

►Your file stays in the school from which you were excessed and it’s unclear where files go if your school is closed. 

►You can be observed anytime, even if you’re teaching out of license.  

►Ratings are up in the air. No agreement yet with the DOE, but the UFT is opposed to evaluating teachers who spend only one week, or even one month, in a school. 

►If you’re absent, see the payroll secretary. For long term absence, contact Special Representative Debbie Poulos. For personal days, call your District Representative. 

►If you don’t get a new assignment in your DOE email by Friday, October 7, continue to report to your current school next Tuesday, October 11.

No Way In Hell Organization 

Several attendees, including this correspondent, protested the UFT’s pretense of representation via strange and ever-changing Chapter Leaders and soon-to-be overwhelmed District reps as back-ups. Without chapters of our own, we are out of the normal union loop, unable to attend chapter meetings and forbidden access to Delegate Assemblies. Even our allegedly lesser brethren in rubber rooms of yore had elected liaisons and monthly meetings at 52 Broadway. Denying such basic union rights to ATRs is unconscionable. 

Arundell pre-emptively defended the UFT’s third class representation of ATRs: “I will respectfully disagree that Chapter Leaders are not capable of representing you,” she said, raising her voice. “YOU ARE REPRESENTED. YOU ARE NOT A DISTINCT CLASS.” 

Nobody in the audience bought this poppycock. Cheers and clapping greeted the following dissents. 

►Herb Michael, former Chapter Leader, said: “I’m not convinced I’m really represented. We’re in a special situation. That’s why there’s a special agreement including a committee to review compliance. I’d feel more comfortable if some ATRs looked at it. We need to meet on a regular basis. Why can’t we have a motion on the floor to elect a chapter leader?” 

This is when Barr claimed that he knew better and that we didn’t want chapters to represent us. Adopting Randi Weingarten's line against rubber room chapters, he said, “You don’t want to be in a permanent class.” Such strained reasoning--as if chapter status would mean anything more than standard representation for us outcasts. At the least, Randi appeased reassigned teachers with monthly meetings in Manhattan. But ATRs in good standing are deprived of that small kindness. 

►John Lawhead said: “I’m amazed at the innocence of your assumptions. I’m in a school with no Chapter Leader. And now you’re telling us that District Leaders are going to make up the difference? What kind of union do you want to be, merely a service organization? You’ve got to use us in some way. We could be reps in schools.” 

By this time, Barr was gone and Brooklyn Borough Rep Howie Schoor stood in at the podium. He was whispering in Arundell’s ear while Lawhead spoke and may have missed his larger point about the UFT’s soul. But puffing up, he said that he would make certain that District Reps did their jobs. 

►Your correspondent, former Chapter Leader and three-year graduate of Brooklyn’s Chapel St. rubber room, spoke up: “I wanted to thank LeRoy for telling us what we want. But I know what we want; (turning to the audience): How many of you want a chapter for ATRs? (the room erupted unanimously in favor and I turned back to Schoor). Will you explain why we can’t have a chapter and will you give us your sign-up list so that we can better organize? 

Schoor and I have a complicated history. He is a nice fellow and has been generous with his time and assistance over the years. But just as often he has failed in nerve apropos my quarrels with the UFT and DOE. For example, I sent him three emails prior to the meeting asking for permission to briefly organize ATRs on site before the start of his informational session. No response. So I renewed my request on arrival. The answer was no. “It’s our meeting,” he said. I reminded him that his Special Rep Liz Perez, speaking for Barr, originally rejected my suggestion for an ATR gathering and that today’s meeting was just as much ours as the UFT’s. That got me nowhere, of course. Thereupon I entered the packed conference room and while people finished up their noshes, I defied Schoor by introducing myself and urging my colleagues to press our agenda as outlined in a Grassroots Education Movement broadsheet handed out by Norm Scott of ednotesonline. Schoor tried to shut me down almost immediately, but let me finish without interruption. 

As for our demand for a chapter, ever Schoor, the tone-deaf bureaucrat, declared that Union policy was made by the Executive Committee and Delegate Assemblies blah, blah, blah. And no, he would not share the sign-up list. In retort, I jabbed, “Such is the democracy we work in!” 

As the meeting wound down, two older female ATRs summed up our frustration with cris de coeur eliciting loud cheers. Said one: “Mulgrew doesn’t seem to care. Notice he’s not here and I bet he won’t be at the other meetings either.” 

And the other: “It's all about age and money. School aides are teaching classes in my school. Principals will not hire us. Where is the union in this? I want my dues back.”

Photo credit: 
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvJMVRz32Ds33koGKwBmBvrKnWMP3hhs9YfOTIDSHNbQf08Zye1Q