Home arrow Past Issues arrow January 2006 arrow Retiree Delegate Nominations—A Hot Issue


Retiree Delegate Nominations—A Hot Issue PDF Print E-mail

By Theresa D. Daniels

The Chicago Teachers Union Retired Members Chapter Holiday Luncheon, held at the Holiday Inn at the Chicago Mart Plaza on December 8, 2005, was a treat in every respect. It presented soul-stirring union talk, soulful views of the city, convivial company, fine food, and mellow music by Teddy Thomas and company.

 

Following the luncheon, a meeting was held for the nominations of candidates for retiree delegate. A letter to all retiree union members from Union Financial Secretary, Mark Ochoa, who is the officer liaison to the retiree chapter, stated, “The Retiree Group is entitled to one delegate for each one hundred members.” The letter continued, “If more candidates are nominated than the number of delegate positions to be elected, ballots will be mailed to the home address on file for each member of the Retired Group in the month of January 2006.”

The duties of a retiree delegate

It was announced at the luncheon that since there were over 3,600 members of the retiree group, the retirees were entitled to 36 delegates to represent them. Since a retiree is not in a school and so does not have a place of constituency, the chief form of representation a retiree delegate has is the ability to participate at the House of Delegates monthly meetings by attending, and by speaking and voting on issues. The stipend is $45 per meeting. About 800 active and retiree delegates are entitled to attend these meetings at Plumbers Hall, 1340 West Washington Boulevard. There are also monthly retiree meetings at the Union offices, but they are generally not political. They deal largely with insurance, investments, health, and senior citizen safety issues. Information on travel abounds. A few times legislative issues have been discussed. Meetings are not held during the winter months, so the six meetings that are held (at least one replaced by a luncheon) are the only formal opportunities to meet with other retirees. These meetings are well attended with over 150 participants at almost every meeting. I feel none of this has been adequately explained to the retirees, and so I report it here. In fact, it appears to many delegates that there is an attempt on the part of Union President Marilyn Stewart’s administration to marginalize the retiree chapter and its elected delegates. I like to say to those still not retired: You should start practicing respect for retirees now, because if you are lucky enough to survive the job and to live long enough, you too will be a retiree.

The Delegate Workshop Sleep-over? No retiree delegate need apply

The chief form of disrespect to the 31 elected retiree delegates (elected January, 2003, for a three-year term) was that we were not allowed to attend the March, 2004, Delegates Workshop, as if we were unworthy of being fully informed on union issues. When I asked at the House of Delegates meeting prior to the workshop why we retiree delegates had not received applications for the workshop in the mail as had all the other delegates, we were told we could use the application forms in the delegates’ packet. After a good number of us sent in the registration forms and checks (in some cases, after making complicated arrangements due to surgeries, pets, and other commitments—since we hadn’t been informed in a timely way), we received cancellation phone calls from Union Coordinator Nick Cannella. He said that retiree delegates were not allowed to attend the workshop because we were no longer in the schools and that nothing had been organized for “our” issues. He said that our checks would be remitted. I argued that many retiree delegates were in touch with active teachers (active being the term used for working teachers) and that we needed to be fully informed. Plus, I said, our years of experience should be valued and put to use for the union’s benefit. Cannella said, “Don’t shoot the messenger.”

Does the Union want retiree members?

Since the Union’s rejection of retiree delegates at the Delegates Workshop, many retirees who were delegates when they were active teachers have only now realized that during the thirty years of UPC (United Progressive Caucus) leadership—the caucus of Marilyn Stewart—retiree delegates were not invited to attend the workshops. It was only during the administration of the former President Deborah Lynch that retiree delegates attended. During the UPC tenure, there was little outreach to retiring members to continue their membership in the Union. Consequently, many believed that after their retirement the only organization for them was RTAC (Retired Teachers Association of Chicago) which has a membership more than three times as large as the CTU’s retiree membership. Retirees pay $24 yearly for CTU membership. RTAC dues are $10 yearly or $100 for lifetime membership. Some delegates have said to me that perhaps the CTU is not interested in retiree membership because of the small amount retirees pay for dues. Others have said that possibly retiree dues are a “cash cow” since no grievance services need to be provided and it is the Pension Fund that bargains for the medical insurance plans and other retiree issues. Estimates have it that the CTU collects approximately $86,400 yearly from retiree dues.

More ways the Union “disses” its retirees

Disrespect to the retiree chapter has also come in other forms besides the discrimination regarding the Delegates Workshop. Retiree delegates have been told with a smile at the House meetings that they weren’t in possession of certain information because certain mailings weren’t mailed to the retiree delegates. One example of this was the lobbying trip to Springfield—a natural for a retirees. Who better? Other example are the CTU House meeting report delivered to the schools which could easily be mailed to at least the retiree delegates, and even more importantly, a letter which gave the wording of new items that have now been added to the Board/Union contract which was not mailed to the retirees. (The House was never given the opportunity to vote on these items as required by the Constitution and By-laws.) Retiree meetings and events have often gone unreported in the calendars of events in the Union newspaper and House meeting delegates’ packet. The Chair of the Retiree Chapter and Functional Vice-President, Jackie Mooney, was not consulted about many matters after the UPC came back into power after the election of June, 2004. Retirees have speculated that she was considered to have sided with PACT (the Pro-Active Chicago Teachers and School Employees Caucus of former President Deborah Lynch) and therefore was in disfavor. I was told on conditions of anonymity that the venues of the two retiree luncheons and the date of the Spring luncheon were changed without consulting Mooney and that a race track event in the summer of 2004 was organized without her input. I witnessed how to her great distress, her work was not acknowledged at the Holiday Luncheon of 2004. However, the treatment of Jackie Mooney has now apparently been vastly improved as I’ve seen at meetings and the recent luncheon. And being the person I feel her to be, I know she hasn’t sold her soul to the devil.

No functional group rights to fill vacancies for retirees

The last example I’ll give of discrimination toward the retiree chapter is that when there are vacancies, as retiree delegates die or move to other climes or give up their posts, we are not allowed, as other “functional” groups are, to hold a nominations meeting and an election to fill vacancies as they arise (even after there is a goodly number of them). My attempts to have retiree delegate vacancies filled were to no avail as Financial Secretary Ochoa kept saying he was making a note of it, and at long last, arbitrarily told me that retiree vacancies would not be filled mid-term. We would have to wait for the general delegate elections of January, 2006, he said. I had tried to make a motion at the House meetings to fill the vacancies as well, but I was again arbitrarily ruled out of order. As I have reported elsewhere in this issue and in previous issues, the House of Delegates meetings are no longer being run with respect to civilized parliamentary procedure.

Nominating rules and election procedures kept secret

Please read my report in this issue on the December, 2005, House of Delegates meeting, as space considerations prevent me from repeating here what I wrote regarding the events that pertained to retirees. You’ll read of the many gyrations I went through at that meeting (and others) to learn and/or to establish what the ground rules would be for the nominating meeting, as well as how the election would be conducted. You’ll also read how every piece of information I received was overlaid with contradiction after contradiction and changed with the moment. I did find out that the Union did not plan to hire an outside agency to count the ballots. Ochoa said that the Rules-Election Committee were honest people, though that committee has now been purged of any members who are in caucuses other than UPC. I’m sorry that they don’t want to conduct an election that is above reproach, one where there would not be charges of election fraud. I was not able to learn, despite my asking, if the double envelope would be used for the ballot sent to the address of record for retirees. For the ballot to be secret and confidential, the voter would place the ballot inside of an unmarked envelope. On the outer return envelope, there would be some code to verify that the voter is legitimate. After the voter is verified, the envelope with the verification code is separated from the unmarked envelope with the ballot so that the vote remains secret. The double envelope is also a safeguard against anyone voting more than once by voting on forged election materials, as happened in the retiree delegate election of January, 2003. A new election had to be held using the double envelope, and with an outside agency hired to count the ballots. Through many twists and turns, the move to have only one nomination per person was stopped, and the move to have an absent nominee’s acceptance of nomination in writing on the day of the nominations was stopped. At the House meeting, I said it was unfair to change the rules on the eve of the nominating meeting. In actuality, since the rules were not explained in the mailing to the retirees which announced the nominating meeting, nor in the hand-out about the rules at the House meeting, we were all probably meant to be surprised by these rules just before the nominations were to take place. Luckily, there were still independent voices on the Rules-Election Committee so the retirees could be given a heads-up on the shenanigans about the rules. Those independents (or “dissidents” as President Stewart calls them) have recently been dismissed from the committee by President Stewart.

The nominations

Surprisingly, the microphone was placed in the back of the luncheon hall, though people who were not informed were looking for it at the front by the speakers’ podium. This possibly gave the UPC party regulars an advantage. Many retirees lined up at the mike to make nominations. Participants who wanted to make more than one nomination did so by returning to the back of the line for a repeat performance. Some people nominated themselves. Some exchanged nominations with a friend.

Field reps nominate each other

What was surprising was that Union staff members were nominating each other. They were already able to have a voice in the House of Delegates, and it was amazing to me that they would want to usurp the places of retiree delegates as well. Already, many of them, if not most of them, are drawing a robust Union pension, as well as the lavish salaries of Union staffers. With perks, this brings the moneys they take in close to $200,000. Do they really need the $45 stipend per meeting? Apparently, they want to completely dominate the House of Delegates, retirees were saying. Among the staff nominees, some of whom also nominated each other, were Gail Koffman, John Starnicki, Marge LeBrecht, Larry Laughlin, David Friedman, and Bridget Gerace.

Political closing of nominations

I was able to write down over sixty names of nominees, with Lou Pyster, former Director of Research under Lynch, managing about the same number. We knew we had missed about ten names because at times we were involved in conversations with those around us or we could not hear the names spoken. There were four persons remaining in line when Gail Koffman, Union grievance coordinator, moved to close the nominations. The Chair was about to take a vote, but I said there must be a speaker for and a speaker against the motion to close nominations, as Roberts Rules of Order dictate. Koffman said she would speak for her motion to close the nominations. She said that we had already nominated 87 people and that that was more than enough. I was surprised at the number she cited, but I assumed she knew something, as they say, being a functionary herself and at a table with officers and other functionaries. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, I won’t say that she was using the brazen lie that shuts everybody up. [The number later turned out to be at most 73.] Because I believed Koffman, when I argued against her motion to close nominations, I used her number of 87, and said that since 36 were being elected, 87 was not too great a number to be nominated, as that was not even three candidates for each one that would be elected. I also said that since people had come out in this [bad] weather, they should have the right to nominate and be nominated. The audience cheered, but then voted the weather. Through the windows, we could already see the snow that would snarl us in a crawling traffic for hours that night. Even though the Ayes seemed louder, I nonetheless asked for a standing vote count. At this point Jackie Mooney, who seemed to co-chair this meeting with Mark Ochoa, said, “Terry [my nickname], we don’t follow Roberts Rules of Order at these meetings.” You could have knocked me over with the proverbial feather. Here it’s a meeting and we’re following parliamentary procedure, and now suddenly we’re not. At this point, Jerry Adler, long-time activist, was softly calling, “Madame Chair, Madame Chair.” Thinking that he would know better than I would how to cite chapter and verse on Roberts Rules, I told him that the mike was available for him to make his point. I never dreamt he would say what he said. Adler said, “Jackie, I’ve put up with your nonsense for thirty years.” That ended all discussion, and the nominations were closed.

No candidate list or election timeline info available

My phone calls to four of the Union officers with the exception of Treasurer Linda Porter (I thought four calls should be enough) asking for information about the election have gone unreturned. I asked about the election procedures and the election timeline. I wanted especially to know when the ballots would be mailed, and when the list of candidates would be available. I also left a message for Samantha Brick Schulz, Chair of the Rules-Election Committee, asking for this information, but have not heard back at deadline for the printing of this issue. Lou Pyster has been making inquiries and leaving messages as well. According to Pyster, he was told by Barbara Filas, Union office coordinator, that all of the nominated candidates qualified and were verified except for one. If this one person paid her dues by December 30th, Filas told Pyster, there would be 73 candidates, he said. If not, there would be 72, he said Barbara Filas told him. Pyster is to meet with Filas on a day past the printing deadline.

We ask for your vote

Please vote for me, Theresa D. Daniels, as well as the others here endorsed by PACT and Substance. The following names are those of union activists who believe that democracy in our union means an open exchange of ideas, views, and information. We also believe that the rules of order need to be followed if there is to be democracy. We will never be tunnel-visioned mouthpieces for a party line, or sell our votes for jobs with the machine that grinds out jobs to friends for votes.

Frederick Ackerman
James Alexander
Barbara Baker
Allen Bearden
Marilyn Clark
Lance Cohn
Karen Crotty
Theresa Daniels
Mary E. Foley (Marybeth)
Timothy Galloway
John Gloor
Elizabeth Hernandez
Albert Korach
John Lewis
Rose Meyer
George Milkowski
Monroe Morgan
Dorothy Pearson
Rosagitta Podrovsky
Louis Pyster
Marianne Pyster
Willie Scott
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]