By Theresa D. Daniels

Tough talk again rang out from the president’s podium at the November 2, 2005, House of Delegates meeting at Plumbers Hall, as Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) President Marilyn Stewart gave the President’s Report.

She continued: “They’re not going to give you squat. Everything we got in our contract, we had to walk for. We had to walk for.”

President Stewart continued by saying that young members might say, “I can’t go on strike. I’ve got rent to pay.” She said, “Didn’t we all have rent to pay? People who have worked for eight years, ten years, think they know what it means to fight for a contract. They don’t know. They don’t have the battle scars we do….Come a time when we’ll have to give them battle scars. If they cross the line, we’ll have to beat them down…. or, as young people say today, make it a beat down.”

Stewart went back to this theme throughout her report saying at the end, “We will have to prepare ourselves for the ultimate job action. I want you to prepare yourselves because this will not be fun. It has never been fun. But as I’ve said before, there are members working ten years that never [struck] and they say we work for a militant organization and that is far from the truth.”

By February 22, 2005, when he marched in the union’s protest against Renaissance 2010 outside Chicago’s City Hall, Peter Ardito (above center) was a full-time Chicago Teachers Union staff member. Ardito’s appointment had been highlighted in a story on the front page of the December 2004 issue of the Chicago Union Teacher (“New CTU staff position focuses on insurance”). Yet on November 2, 2005, a year after he began working at the union’s offices, Ardito was allowed to vote as “delegate” from Prosser Vocational High School in the election for high school functional vice president. While union financial secretary Mark Ochoa (following page) has been purging delegates on technicalities and president Marilyn Stewart has been purging members from union committees, Ardito was allowed to cast an important vote in the tight race for the high school executive board seat. Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.

Is tough talk a cover for “little do”?

Many delegates made comments after the meeting asking if Marilyn Stewart’s tough talk about a future strike was a cover for doing nothing in the meantime.

Sarah Loftus, director under former President Deborah Lynch, said she remembered when Lynch called for a strike vote during the contract negotiations in the fall of 2003 after months of being accused by Stewart and the UPC (United Progressive Caucus) cohort at delegates meetings and in UPC literature of not being a militant leader because she had not called for a strike.

“Ninety of them [UPC] stood up and voted No on the strike vote,” Loftus said, “after months of disruptive behavior at meetings calling for strike and disparaging Debbie [Lynch] for not doing so. And we [PACT—Pro-active Chicago Teachers and School Employees] never denied them the mikes (microphones) or shouted them down as they routinely do to their opposition now. They violate every law of civility now as they did then, except now that the UPC is in power it can stifle the democracy in the Union that PACT tried to uphold.”

Jerry Adler, former retiree delegate and now observer at these meetings, echoes Loftus’ sentiment when he writes in his literature that the House of Delegates meeting is now a “democracy-free zone.”

On condition of anonymity, one delegate said told Substance: “While continually talking about a strike when this contract she blames for everything is up in 2007, doesn’t it seem as if she’s sitting on her hands and using the contract as an excuse to do nothing? She’s proposed not a single job action in the face of school closings and teachers losing their positions. Eighteen teachers at Haugan School, twenty at Senn High School, lost their positions when Hauan went charter and Senn got the Naval Academy.”

H.S. Functional Vice-President election flap

Prior to the President’s Report, the high school delegates voted for a High School Functional Vice-President to fill a vacancy on the CTU Executive Board.

Election procedures were explained by Samantha Brick, chair of the Rules/Election Committee (and delegate from Northwest Middle School). The four candidates for High School Functional Vice-President were each given two minutes to speak before the voting took place.

The first speaker (by the luck of the draw) was Tony Gudwien of Kelvyn High School. He said he belonged to neither the UPC nor the PACT caucuses and, no matter which caucus was in power, he would work in the best interest of the teachers and the students. He had taught for eleven years and had served as delegate for six, he said.

The second speaker was Alex Ilich who this time did not claim he belonged to neither caucus (as he had in June, 2005, when he ran against Lynch to fill another such vacancy and lost). Many delegates viewed him as the UPC candidate — with much money being spent on expensive campaign literature in his first failed campaign. Ilich stated that he had been appointed to three union committees, co-chairing the legislative committee. He emphasized his thirty years of teaching, and said he was tired of all of the strife in the Union.

Third candidate to speak was Devon Morales, teacher and coach at South Shore High School who had served as delegate for seven years and had taught for eight. He brought down the House when he said, “Vote for me and I’ll be there for you and me because my money’s not right and yours isn’t either.” He is a member of CEEC, the Chicago Educational Employees Caucus. CEEC was the caucus behind the drive to sign up ten thousand members on a petition to disaffiliate from the CTU, start their own union, or hold another election. The CEEC project ended last month when the Illinois Education Association and the Illinois Federation of Teachers agreed to a “no raiding” policy, as reported in the November Substance.

The last candidate to speak was Archie Moore, delegate from Collins High School, who has taught for thirty years, and served for three years on the CTU Executive Board, as well as on many Union committees, including the chairing of PAVE (Practical Arts and Vocational Education). He was endorsed by PACT.

Run-off election at December House meeting

When all of the officers’ reports had been given, election coordinator Samantha Brick announced the results as a win for Alex Ilich with 34 votes, Archie Moore with 30 votes, Devon Morales with 15 votes, and Tony Goodwien with 5. [The “CTU House of Delegates Report” now sent separately to all the schools in addition to the Union paper said he had 36 votes].

A number of delegates and visitors complained that Peter Ardito was allowed to vote. Ardito has been a full-time union staff member (coordinator, medical insurance) for a year, although he had previously served as delegate from Prosser Vocational High School. Ardito said that he was allowed to vote because he had not yet officially resigned, according to Lou Pyster who was a poll watcher for Moore at the election.

The officers were already congratulating Ilich as the winner when Debbie Lynch (now High School Functional Vice-President in the House) went to the mike to make a point of order. Financial Secretary Mark Ochoa, during whose report the election results were reported, refused her the right to speak, saying that she was out of order. Lynch repeated: “A point of order is always in order,” with President Stewart saying the latter part of it with her. Lynch was finally allowed to speak. She said that the Union’s constitution required that the winning candidate must have the majority of votes (50 percent of the votes plus one) not a mere plurality (the greatest number of votes).

Ochoa told her to put any objection to the election in writing and give it to him. The parliamentarian, Attorney Jennifer Poltrock, reiterated Ochoa’s statement and said the objection would be referred to the Rules/Election Committee. Lynch protested, saying that the Constitution was clear on the matter and no referral was necessary. She said that the Constitution rules superceded Roberts Rules of Order. When her point was denied, she left the meeting followed by about thirty-five delegates.

No one knew if the delegates who walked out after Lynch, left by coincidence, in disgust at the way the meeting was conducted, or in support of Lynch. Some UPC delegates cheered, but most sat silently.

Rules/Election Committee stacked?

By November, it had become clear that the Rules/Election Committee to which Lynch’s motion would was sent will have no “dissenting” voices on it. [I use the word dissenting because the Union leadership now in both speech and in the Union newspaper lumps together all those who disagree with it, both caucuses (PACT and CEEC) and any independent voices in the House. UPC floor speakers try to muddle the issues by referring to anyone who disagrees as “dissidents” if they are not mouthing the party line of the UPC loyalists. The caucuses are never named so union members were led to believe, for example, that PACT was promoting disaffiliation from the AFT/IFT, while in reality that drive has been spearheaded by CEEC.]

Several union committees are being purged of people who are not UPC members. Lou Pyster, former CTU Director of Research (under Lynch from 2001 to 2004), received a letter at the end of October removing him from the Rules/Election Committee. Pyster had been a member of the Rules/Election Committee for 32 years, serving under six Union presidents. Other members received the same form letter, saying that they were being removed from committees because their philosophy differed from that of Marilyn Stewart in some unspecific way.

At least one delegate was unappointed and then reappointed. Sandra Finkel, delegate from Franklin School (and the PACT member who submitted at the May, 2005, House of Delegates meeting the petition for the referendum on the mail ballot to the homes) has also been dismissed from the committee, but apparently readmitted (“It was a mistake,” she was told by Chair Brick, according to Finkel). But Finkel was dismissed again from the Rules/Election Committee with a letter handed to her by Financial Secretary Mark Ochoa after a meeting. Many delegates noted that this was in contrast to the democratic and inclusive way in which former President Lynch appointed UPC members to the unions committees. UPC members served on the committee all of the three years of her administration, among them Samantha Brick, Mary Ector, and John O’Brill.

The question about whether Ilich was elected or not was noted with irony by Deborah Lynch. “If a plurality was enough to win an election according to the Union constitution,”Lynch said to me after the November House meeting, “I would still be CTU President, and PACT, not UPC, would be in power.”

[One of the many errors contained in the November issue of the CUT (Chicago Union Teacher newspaper) occurs when President Stewart states in quotes that she [Stewart] had been elected in May of 2004 (page one, “Labor board dismisses 2nd Lynch ULP charge”). In reality, Deborah Lynch was “elected” president in May, 2004, by a plurality (the greatest number of votes), but because she and the PACT caucus didn’t get the majority (50 percent of the votes plus one) there was a run-off election on June 11, 2004. It was in the June 11, 2004 runoff that Stewart and her UPC party were “elected” — according to the AFT — by 500 votes in an election where 900 ballots were unaccounted for, where absentee teachers had voted in numbers never before seen, and where ballot boxes, as always when the voting is conducted at the schools, had no real security.]

Confusion in union publications

The “CTU House of Delegates Report” sent to the schools each month since September in a separate leaflet along with the bundles of Union newspapers implies in its November issue that Lynch was wrong to say that a run-off must be held for High School Functional Vice-President because no candidate won the majority of votes.

“Deborah Lynch disputed the election of Mr. Ilich, maintaining that the Union’s constitution dictates that the winner receive a majority of the votes cast,” the November leaflet states. “While the constitution specifies that requirement for officers elected at the traditional elections —in which all members cast ballots for their respective functional vice president — the constitution is silent on that issue in regard to elections by delegates to fill vacancies, which is covered in a distinctly different section of the by laws.”

By late November, it had been shown that for the exact same kind of election held in June, 2005 (where Deborah Lynch defeated Alex Ilich for the same kind of High School Functional Vice-President vacancy on the Union Executive Board) the rules that were enclosed in the delegates’ packet at the May, 2005, House of Delegates meeting for that June election (and any other such election to fill a vacancy on the executive) included a rule that said the winner must receive the majority of votes cast, just as Lynch had said. The House passed these rules at the May, 2005, House of Delegates meeting. The run-off election between Alex Ilich and Archie Moore will be held at the December 7, 2005, House of Delegates meeting.

Class size issue being ignored by Stewart?

President Stewart in her report to the House spoke of how the contract now says that principals need only “consult” the PPC (Professional Problems Committee) and the teacher of an oversized class at a school, and no longer have to come to a mutual agreement with them regarding the oversized class. She cited this as one more reason the Union cannot lead a good fight on oversized classes.

Since the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, Chicago Teachers Union financial secretary Mark Ochoa (above right, with union president Marilyn Stewart at a City Hall protest on February 22, 2005), has been utilizing technicalities, reportedly in cooperation with CPS officials, to drop delegates who oppose the United Progressive Caucus (UPC). Meanwhile, Stewart has been purging union committees of those who are not members of her political faction. Ochoa had overall responsibility for the conduct and integrity of the November 2 election for high school functional vice president, but he saw no problem in allowing union staff member Peter Ardito (previous page) to vote as the “delegate” from Prosser Vocational High School in the executive board election. Ochoa’s factionalism in attempting to purge long-time union activists has scandalized some of the union’s most stalwart members. Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.

The Chicago Union Teacher emblazoned the bottom of the front page of the November issue with this piece of news, as if the Union officials after two years of this contract had just now unearthed this language in the contract. The question raised by many delegates is how much the union can do about class size explosions across the city.

In a phone interview with Sharon Orlowek, coordinator of the Union Class Size Monitoring Panel, Union trustee (while also on the payroll as coordinator), and delegate at Johnson School, I asked her how the Union effort to monitor class sizes was succeeding. Orlowek said, “The Board is closing positions and cramming high school classes.”

She said also, as a side issue not directly bearing on class size because the Board can make changes to specialty classes, no matter how injurious to sound educational practices, that there were now AP (Advanced Placement) classes with 30 students since coordinator Donald Pittman’s memo saying there must be no AP class with less than 28 students. I said I thought the guidelines recommended that there be no more than 15 to 20 students in such classes and that that wasn’t what parents envisioned when happy to get their kids into AP classes.

Orlowek said that because of the language in Article 28 on Class Size in the 2003—2007 Board/Union Agreement, principals in high schools were “averaging” the total load of a teacher (the total number of subject matter students) instead of observing the maximum class size limits in the Contract. She said that many schools did not send the Union referrals with class size complaints, even though they had classes which were over the maximum class size, because teachers and delegates were so intimidated by the Board’s power.

I asked her if the Union had gotten class size figures from the Board so they could go into schools to resolve such problems. By doing it through Union initiative they would provide cover for the teacher or delegate who is too afraid for his/her job to complain about overloaded classes, I said.

I knew of high school math and history classes, I told her, with over 40 students where the teacher and delegate did not want to complain because they said that principals were justifying going over the maximum on class sizes by averaging the total load of students for each teacher.

[The way this works in the high school is that a regular subject area class with a maximum of 28 students in each of 5 classes would give the teacher 140 students. The principals were honoring the total load number of 140, but allowing one or more of the teacher’s classes to be over 28.]

Orlowek expressed concern about these classes, but said that the Union didn’t try to seek out oversized classes on their own because they always wanted to give the delegates the option of taking action in the way that was best for their school. “Every school has its own culture,” she said, “and many are afraid that the cure is worse than the illness.”

I asked her if in the cases where the referral had been sent, and the class size monitoring panel had gone to speak with the principal, if principals were agreeing to make the changes necessary for a good educational situation to result.

Orlowek said that often the Union was not getting a good result, even though in the cases I had cited it was obviously not the best practice to have over 40 students in a high school subject class.

She said sometimes the complaint could result in a situation that was not very desirable for the teacher. In an elementary school, for example, the result could be a split class. She herself now had a split first and second grade teaching situation, she said.

I asked if in situations where there were heavy-duty violations the Union had explored other remedies in the Contract as Article 44-9 Health and Safety which says that “Teachers or other bargaining unit members shall work under safe and healthful conditions” (page 167) which a class of over 40 would obviously violate. She said the Union was now exploring that avenue. Orlowek added that the Union was there to serve the members in the best possible way.

Orlowek did not comment when I asked if she thought it was a good idea for the Union newspaper to point out to principals on the front page of the November, 2005, issue the change in the language of the class size article of the Contract, the change to “consult” from “mutual agreement.” I said it sabotaged unnecessarily the work of the hard-core delegates who were still successful in maintaining the contractual class sizes at their schools because legalese was hard for many to read and understand and was always open to interpretation.

(Exposing what they perceived as weaknesses in contractual language in the Union newspaper, reminded me of how in previous issues, the Union newspaper and the leadership had made it seem that ballots could not be mailed to the homes of Union members because vast number of teachers were using phony addresses and not living in the city, as teachers hired after 1996 were mandated to do. I felt it exposed teachers to a renewed onslaught of investigations.)

I asked about the remedies to overcrowded schools and classes cited in the Contract, such as changing boundaries, changing grade levels, compensation, adding teacher assistants to the classroom, giving the teacher more preps (preparation periods), or rearranging students.

She said that in the past there had been compensation in the form of teacher assistants assigned to bring down the ratio of adults to students in overcrowded classes in elementary schools. Orlowek said that more preps for the teachers had also been used in some of those situations in elementary schools.

Sharon Orlowek described the monitoring process to me. She said that when the delegate sends the Union the referral about oversized classes, Orlowek then assigns one or two retired teachers to the case and sends the Board a referral. The Board then assigns two principals to the case and the monitoring panel of three or four people thus constituted will go out on the referral. [I’ve since learned that the Union is sending out the retired teachers, but the Board is failing in many instances to do its part in sending out the retired principals.]

Orlowek said that though class size wasn’t grievable, she wished there were some way it could go to arbitration. She stated, “This joint Board/Union Class Size Monitoring Panel then makes its recommendations and the Board makes the final decision.”

Lynch supporters on class size disputes

Lou Pyster, former Director of Research in the Lynch administration handled the class size questions from 2001 to 2004. He said that he wanted to respond in a phone interview to the charges of the Stewart administration that the 2003—2007 contract language regarding class size had tied the Union’s hands.

“The Stewart administration is pretending that parts of ‘Article 28-3. Class Size Monitoring Process.’ and ‘Article 28-4. Class Size Supervisory Committee.’ do not exist,” Pyster said. “While saying that the Board makes the final decision, they are ignoring the joint Board/Union Class Size Supervisory Committee that the Contract says was to be established to oversee the class size monitoring panels and to resolve matters brought to the Committee by the panels.”

Pyster emphasized to Substance that Article 28-4 of the Contract said “joint Board/Union Class Size Supervisory Committee” and that the word that was used was resolve, meaning that the matters referred by the Supervisory Committee were to be resolved by both the Board and the Union. “The Stewart administration is grossly distorting the truth by saying that the Board makes the final decision on these class size matters,” Pyster continued, “and this is one more instance where they are not living up to their obligation to the Union members to use the protections built into the contract.”

Pyster stated that the only part of Article 28-4 that the Stewart administration seems to understand is the second sentence of the Article which deals with the $2,000,000 committed to by the Board to reduce class size by at least one student in identified kindergarten and first grade classes. He said that Stewart and company claim that that is all the article is about, the rest of it—the first sentence — being “just words,” according to them, even though the very first sentence talks about the Supervisory Committee.

“If the Board is closing positions now, then they are violating the State of Illinois School Code which states that teaching positions cannot be closed after the 20th day of school, except in the case of some specially funded classes,” Pyster said,

“Positions in the high schools can be closed for the second semester because of under-enrollment,” he said, “but that must be done no later than the first day of the second semester, according to the State Code. The Stewart administration is not being aggressive enough in recruiting referrals about oversized classes, and are throwing up their hands and conveniently blaming it on the so-called ‘Lynch Contract.’”

Pyster said that in the Contract, the bargaining rights lost with the 1995 Amendatory Act were partially regained, and class size was no longer a prohibited item of negotiation, but became permissible.

The language in the prior contract was unenforceable, he said, because bargaining about class size was prohibited since the Amendatory Act in 1995. The language remained in the contract, but was a kind of ghost. Now the class size article was enforceable, Pyster said, through the process of the monitoring panel and supervisory panel where, in the final stage, the contract has the Schools CEO and the Union President negotiate the outcome in order to resolve a class size dispute.

He said that the records left by the Reece administration showed the monitoring panel under-utilized from 1999 to 2001, but during Lynch’s administration, especially in the second semester of the 2003-2004 school year after the 2003—2007 Contract, letters about class size were sent to all of the schools. Field representatives were required to go out and recruit referrals, Pyster said.

And while the Union never took away the power of the delegates to say no, delegates always agreed, since the Union was providing cover for them, Pyster said. The principals too seemed to welcome the Union intervention and almost always accepted the 28 in the contract as 28, he said (28 being the maximum class size for many regular subject area classes in high schools—total load for a teacher of such students would be 28 times 5 classes to equal 140 students).

“I’m positive that no principal when approached by a monitoring panel about an egregiously oversized class of 40 or over would be willing to look stupid enough to argue that the size was acceptable,” Pyster said.

For elementary schools, he said, the Lynch administration scrutinized the Board’s computer records on class size and learned the class sizes for all schools. Four different letters were sent out to the schools asking if the figures were true. For heavy-duty violations, the Union went out to the school whether or not the delegate responded to the letter.

“There are many things that can be done about class size monitoring based on this contract that are not being done. There are now additional remedies not in the contract before,” Deborah Lynch stated in a phone interview,

The Election for Pension Fund Trustees

In the President’s Report, President Stewart named the winners of the October 28, 2005, pension fund trustee election and cited the vote tallies saying that the membership had spoken. The three incumbents — outgoing President Pat Knazze, Rose Mary Finnegan, and Earnestine Murphy — lost roughly 6,000 to 8,000 to UPC Union leadership-endorsed candidates, two of them with with little to no experience in pension matters. Also defeated was Jacqueline Price Ward, past Recording Secretary under former President Deborah Lynch. A House endorsement had been pushed through for the union-endorsed candidates, as described previously in this report. The candidates reported that large numbers of union staff members conducted union meetings at schools supporting the “union endorsed” candidates and speaking negatively about the incumbents and Price-Ward.

The winners were Mary Hanson, Lois Nelson, John O’Brill, and Maria Rodriguez. Rodriguez, when president of the Board of Pension Fund Trustees, pushed through a politically motivated scare letter at vast fund expense and before the Union election of 2004 saying that Lynch put the solvent Union pension fund in danger of being merged with the state fund, which is less solvent. The same charge was repeated during the recent campaign by Rodriguez and others. According to Lynch and the four candidates, this was a lie, and one that is still being used for partisan political purposes.

Outgoing trustee and delegate from Blair Special Education Facility, Earnestine Murphy, asked during the pre-meeting question period why the Union staff was sent out to schools to campaign for the UPC-endorsed candidates instead of doing Union business. She complained that Union monies were being used in behalf of lies and half-truths spread by these staff members against the incumbents and Ward.

Recording Secretary Mary McGuire answered that these were the candidates endorsed by the Union and that was the reason their literature was dispersed at Union expense.

When the outgoing trustees presented their protest to the outcome of the election at a pension fund meeting held November 22, 2005, their complaints were turned down 7 to 0, with another identical vote upholding the election.

The complaint will be pursued, according to Rose Mary Finnegan. Among the seventeen complaints were the following: There were no election returns from 81 schools. There was an identification number on each ballot, so many people refused to vote fearing that it was not a secret ballot.

[In answer to a question about this, Treasurer Linda Porter that the identification number was a way to control the ballots because the Pension Fund, who had organized the vote, didn’t want people going voting from school to school. She said no one would go through the pains of going through the ballots to match the name of the voter on the outer envelope with the way he/she voted. Well, let’s believe that—in this atmosphere where neutral delegates who have been allowed to work in some capacity with the Union are being confronted when they don’t vote the party line at House meetings.]

Other complaints dealt with the lack of security for the ballots (ballots arrived days before the election was one example), individuals denied the opportunity to vote, inadequate time to vote, key determination on the validity of the ballots, unexercised — blank or incomplete — ballots, the canvassing committee not present full-time during the tallying of the ballots and not present to receive the report, the involvement of some trustees in the election, accusation that the Union spent money on election judges, that people were told how to vote, that the literature of all the candidates was not posted, and that the ballots did not arrive at the tallying location until after 6:00 p.m.

The RTAC (Retired Teachers Association of Chicago) endorsed candidates — Vaughn Barber, Walter Pilditch, and James Ward — won for the retiree pension fund election. Barber and Ward were also endorsed by the Union. Mary Sharon Reilly (who was endorsed by the Union) lost the election to Walter Pilditch who was endorsed by RTAC, but not by the Union.

The retiree trustee pension fund election was done by mail ballot, as could have been the contested and complaint-riddled active-teacher trustee election.

Anyone with complaints about that election should contact Jacquelyn Price Ward at Marquette Elementary School, Pat Knazze at Hendricks Elementary School, Earnestine Murphy at Blair Elementary School, or Rose Mary Finnegan at 773-324-9193.

Other issues in the President’s Report

President Stewart spoke about the collection for hurricane relief. She addressed the problem with non-union charter schools and said that parents didn’t know they were getting a raw deal at these schools. Stewart said that New York and Philadelphia had good charter schools, while Chicago’s charter schools were just about union-busting.

She talked about grievances won under the Contract: when teachers are laid off due to budget cuts, seniority must be honored; teachers get 100 percent of their sick days if they have 34 years of service; fifty teachers hired with incorrect or no position numbers got their pay; and high school teachers working six classes for no extra pay got their 1.2 salary adjustment. In a violation of the Contract, the Board was trying to take away the 1.2, according to field rep Nate Dickson.

Stewart said that that a field rep and teacher met with an AIO (Area Instructional Officer) who seemed to think that if a teacher wrote a good lesson plan, they must be a good teacher. So 700 teachers in 37 schools were spending up to ten hours a week making things look good in print, she said.

She further talked about the eight “Fresh Start” schools and getting away from principal evaluation which, she said, doesn’t work. She also spoke about the LEAD dinner which gathers politicians and Union members, and where Jessie White was honored. He had paid Union dues for thirty years, and we might have to ask him to strike with us again, Stewart said.

Stewart said House Bill 230 passed 115 to 0 in the House, and would pass in the Senate in a few days and would allow teachers for whom it would be advantageous to pay into medicare on a one-time only basis. She also mentioned the website family watchdog.US that can be used to monitor sex offenders living in your neighborhood.

Prior to introducing Jim Dougherty, President of the IFT, Stewart spoke about the “dissidents” who approached the IEA/NEA (Illinois Education Association/National Education Association) wanting to affiliate with the association. She could have named the caucus, as their literature for disaffiliating from the CTU had “CEEC” all over it.

Dougherty was yet another unscheduled speaker, not on the agenda, as has happened at virtually every meeting conducted by the Stewart administration. Many delegates believe this is an effort to run out the clock on these meetings and keep the Union business conducted to a minimum. At this meeting, she announced that there would always be a guest speaker at each meeting from now on.

She said the CTU contacted the IFT (Illinois Federation of Teachers), and they found out what was going on. She said, “The good news is we stopped it and protected our pension” (a reference to keeping us scared that the two pension funds may somehow merge though no one is promoting that). She said of the IEA, “They don’t care about you. They just want our money.”

Stewart said that the IEA promised our parent organizations that they would not pursue organizing any CTU members and would not interfere in the internal Union politics or policies of the CTU.

IFT President rallies the troops

IFT President Jim Dougherty spoke movingly, but at great length, about many issues: about his strike victory when he was president of his “little union” in Skokie and how union solidarity won the day; how in his gratitude for the CTU’s help then, he’s been to thirty LEAD dinners where he always organizes a table; how the United States is in a race for the bottom with jobs going overseas. He said that the forces that control the economy make sure that the wages are down, and that while the U.S. has grown 35% in wealth, when adjusted for inflation, wages are the same as in 1972 with no wealth devolving to working class people.

Private pensions, Dougherty said, were reduced to 20% from 40% of the workers having pensions. He said there is an effort being made to destroy the pension system, and that we are surrounded by people who do not wish us well. He ended by saying, “All must join organized labor to fight for workers rights whether they are in unions or not.”

Issues raised in the question periods

One question asked at the pre-meeting question period at 4:00 p.m. was whether there was a difference between Principal Policy and Board Policy because the principal at the school in question allowed no gum chewing or coffee drinking by the staff. Gail Koffman, Grievance Coordinator, said she knew of no such Board policy, but that a teacher could not afford to be insubordinate.

In answer to another question, McGuire stated that the Board seems to drop racial requirements for teacher staffing several days before the start of every school year because they get desperate to find teachers, but then they reinstate the requirements.

One delegate said that her school was told they would get the results from a test called “Learning First,” given to elementary students instead of the Iowa Test, and that the results would drive instruction. She complained that the results had still not arrived long after. Another delegate made a point of information to say that her school had received the results of the test that very day.

A delegate asked if a TAT (Temporary Assigned Teacher) could become a PAT (Probationary Assigned Teacher) after twenty days. McGuire said that the temporary teacher might not have the proper credentials. Koffman added that if the TAT is in an encumbered position that becomes vacant, then if the teacher’s credentials are in order they can take the position within ten days.

A delegate asked, in terms of the new attendance procedure, who sends the certified letters to parents after a student has five unexcused absences, who visits the homes since there are no truancy officers any longer, and when the parents are taken to court, who from the school goes to court.

McGuire answered that someone on the faculty is paid by the hour to do this work, and a teacher sends the paperwork to the party in charge of attendance at the school.

Diana Sheffer (listed as an ‘administrative coordinator’ earning $175,185 according to a leaflet distributed by CEEC), asked sarcastically why the Union was holding back on her salary. She denied that she earned that much. Union members won’t know for sure unless they are allowed to see the signed contracts and check all fringe benefits of the staff, but no one has ever been allowed to see these, despite assurances from the stage that all members had to do was come on down to the Union offices to learn accurately how much union staff are paid and what benefits are.

McGuire answered the rhetorical question by saying that she had been a teacher since 1969, and that she felt that no one in the system was being paid correctly, and that collar suburban areas didn’t make more than we were making.

A delegate was told by a principal to download and print the Employee Discipline Handbook in order to review it, and to sign when having done so. Her question was did she have to go online on her own time. McGuire said the principal should have conducted this review at a meeting. Koffman said she would contact the Labor Relations Office of the Board.

A retiree delegate asked when the Union newspaper was mailed to retirees and others who must receive it through the mails, as her October issue only arrived November 1st. She wanted to find out the mailing date because she wanted to complain to her post office if it was found that they were at fault. She was told the Union would inform her. [To press time date of November 28, 2005, she has not had a response from the Union, though she says that her November issue arrived in a much timelier way.]

At the official question period following the officers’ reports, only questions were asked, possibly as motions had been viciously discouraged at all the prior meetings by microphone games and parliamentary tricks and ignored even when passed overwhelmingly, as the Devon Morales motion that the House approve all future staff hirings of over $100,000.

In fact, the only business conducted at the meeting was the one Item for Action listed on the Agenda, and that was a motion which the House passed to extend by five days the deadline for contract proposals. The High School Functional Vice-President election was the only other business conducted, and that took place before the meeting and wasn’t even on the Agenda.

One question from the official question period dealt with teacher assistants asking Quest Center for scholarships so they could study to become teachers. Carlene Lutz of the Quest Center said she would get them information about different groups who could help, as the Quest Center, she said, did not offer university classes at the college level.

Another delegate asked what kind of day the November 4th Professional Development Day was for teachers. Stewart answered that teachers should be given half that day for self-directed activity. (Substance has learned since then that teachers who were directed to go to other schools that day for Professional Development seminars did not get a half day to do their own work.)

A delegate for nurses said that years ago they had to choose which union would represent them and that nurses only survived due to the CTU. Dougherty was called upon to speak to the issue, and said that the IEA/NEA had refused support staff as members, didn’t believe in collective bargaining, and were more like us (IFT/AFT) now, but were still not affiliated with the labor movement, using a different language. He said that the NEA helped take away our bargaining rights in 1995.

Another delegate did a rant saying, “I’ll never be insubordinate, but I’ll stand my ground. I’m sick and freaking tired of all of these mandates that take up my time and keep me from teaching…” Stewart told her to call Arne Duncan and to say exactly what she said because she had heard that he returned phone calls.”

A delegate inquired about non-certified teachers sitting in special education spots and asked if it was due to the No Child Left Behind law. She was told that that happened because there was a shortage of special education teachers and that the Union was fighting to have certified teachers in those classes.

A delegate asked if the “Fresh Start” program Stewart mentioned in her report would really be a peer evaluation system or could it lead to the potential firing of fellow teachers. President Stewart said that she had been skeptical too, but that the Toledo Plan was actually about coaching and mentoring new teachers, not criticizing. She said the program was tops in the country, but that in the past Chicago didn’t do it right. Stewart said, “I’m with you. I don’t want any program or people judging you. Marc Wigler on staff for Fresh Start said at another mike that Arne Duncan admitted that the system was flawed and needed to be changed.

As retiree delegate, I asked the following question: “You promised if elected to office to re-open the contract and ‘fix the medical plan,’ but instead you did coaches, teacher leaders, athletic directors, and extra pay for professional development schools. When will the delegates see the new contract language regarding these items, and when will they be able to vote to approve them?” Vice-President Ted Dallas was called upon to answer at first saying that the contract hadn’t been re-opened. Then, after consulting, he said that a letter spelling out these items had been sent to the membership. I said I hadn’t received such a letter and was told I hadn’t received it because I was a retiree.

(As I keep saying, if we’re lucky to live so long, we’ll all be retirees. And we retirees don’t want to keep being marginalized by our Union. I urge all retirees to come to the Holiday Retiree Luncheon at the Merchandise Mart on December 8, 2005. There will be nominations for 36 retiree delegates after the luncheon that day, and we’ve long been kept from having our full complement of delegates.)

Early adjournment = less business conducted

Caryn Block of Haugan School then called for the meeting to be adjourned before the Agenda of the meeting was completed and “Committee Reports” could be heard or questioned, and before “New Business” could be heard. When I asked her for the spelling of her name, she said she would spell it for me on the condition that I don’t write in this article that she called for a quorum. Block called for an adjournment, but whether an adjournment or quorum is called for, the effect is the same: The meeting is ended before all the Union business can be conducted, and it is unfair to the many delegates who do think it is important to stay till the end and to hear it all out.

Before the beginning of this meeting, Karen Kreinik, delegate from Columbus School, confronted me saying that I had said in my articles that she had regularly called for quorums and adjournments and that she never had. She said she had always willingly spelled her name for me. I said, Yes, each time she had called for an early ending to a meeting, I had asked her to spell her name.

In a certified letter she sent to Substance since then, she says I told an outright lie when I said she called for quorum. She had apparently backed off about never calling for adjournments. I hope in the future, she and others, worthy delegates though they may be, stop calling for early endings to House of Delegate meetings, especially if it is done for partisan political advantage.

The $18 million pensionability “victory”

A letter signed by Marilyn Stewart, and dated November 16, 2005, went out to all members—again at the great expense of union dues money. In it the CTU announced that it had reached a settlement with the Board on the pensionability money and that $18 million would be divided among the Union members who were employed during the Reece administration contract years.

In a phone interview, former President Deborah Lynch responded to what she called the gross misrepresentations in this letter.

“This great victory,” Lynch said, “is exactly what the Board wanted two years ago. We could have settled for the $18 million before the election of 2004 and called it a great victory. Our position, however, was that the Board owed the members far more than the $5.4 million per year originally estimated, since the Board had created new summer and extracurricular programs. Our stand was that the Board owed us $10-12 million for each of the three remaining years—$39 million in all.”

Lynch went on to say that contrary to what the letter said, her administration filed the grievance in January, 2003 (not 2004, as the letter stated) to get the monies for the second year (the third and fourth years were never in question). Yes, she said, the Board did try to say the grievance was not filed in a timely manner, but the Union’s position was that it was a payroll matter for which time limits do not apply, and when the question went to arbitration, the arbitrator agreed.

While the arbitrator declared Lynch’s grievance to be timely, he never adjudicated on the merits of the CTU position that $39 million (as the Lynch grievance stated) was owed to the members by the Board. A date was scheduled for a hearing, but former President Tom Reece’s father suffered an illness and then died, so Reece was not available to testify, as he intended to, that the money the Board paid out to the members in pensionablility the first year in 2001 was not, as the Board insisted, money for two years. A new hearing date was sought, but Reece became unavailable.

Therefore, Lynch said, the letter’s statement that “In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years, under his successor [meaning Reece’s successor Deborah Lynch], no move was made to collect the money,” was patently untrue.

Lynch reminded me that Reece held the referendum on how the money gotten from the Board for the first year was to be spent on March 23, 2001, just before the May, 2001, election which installed Lynch as president. The referendum resulted in everyone getting a one-time 1% pensionable bonus. The referendum could have been held a year before that, but it was held off until before the Union election.

Lynch stated, “CEO Paul Vallas threw in approximately another $6.5 million on top of the $5.4 million to create that bonus and to help his friend Tom Reece get elected.” She reminded me that Reece had pushed through in October, 1998, an egregiously early Contract for July, 1999—2003 as a favor to Vallas and to Mayor Richard Daley who was up for re-election.

Former CTU President Deborah Lynch stated in regard to the $18 million settlement: “Anything less than the $39 million my grievance asked for is a sell-out of the members who deserve that money.” Lynch said that if the UPC union leadership had taken the grievance to arbitration, the worst the arbitrator would have come up with was the lowest figure of $18 million.