How Should We Run Our Chapter?

Doing the Thing

Full disclosure—The following was written by one of the 300 delegates who ran and won with Retiree Advocate last time. This delegate has ideas on where we’ve gone wrong, and what we can do better. This delegate has further proposals, so consider this part one. I’ve lightly edited it, but it’s largely as written. Let me know what you think, please.

As Arthur has pointed out, among retirees who object to Unity union leadership’s treatment of its retirees, the current RA caucus got many fewer votes with ARISE than those of us running with ABC. If the small group that controls the chapter who decided to join ARISE still refuses to create a joint “RA/Fix Retiree Benefits” slate in the upcoming chapter election - then it is RA, not Arthur and others who want to create a fair joint slate who would be to blame if Unity wins the chapter election. So, what are their objections to Arthur’s proposal? I think we’d all like to hear what they have to say publicly.

An essential question is this—How do we want our union chapter to be governed? Those of us who object to the undemocratic way Mulgrew and the Unity leadership make decisions affecting its members should at least try to run our chapter in a different way.

While we often hear that in the UFT “three men in a room” make decisions and present them to the executive board for rubber stamping, how is our chapter run differently now?

• How did we end up with a chapter run by three or four men (maybe one woman sometimes) making important decisions for about 70,000 members, without even consulting the almost 300 representatives who were elected its delegates on its slate?

• How did we end up with that small group who arbitrarily and secretly decided, by themselves, to appropriate the slate name we ran on, and associate it with a couple of union caucuses in the union election? This caused an unnecessary fracture in solidarity of the people who ran with them, and undermined our unity on issues that matter to retirees.

• How did we end up with chapter “leaders” who refuse to announce to the chapter when the chapter executive board meets, and discourage members who could join – in person or remotely – as is required by the chapter rules?

• How did we end up with a governance in which one person decides what can be posted on the chapter Facebook page - even suppressing a popular “Stop Charging Retirees” petition that asks the UFT Welfare Fund to pay for retiree drug plan coverage - as do most other municipal unions? You’d think that such a campaign would be in the interests of the members of the chapter, but apparently not in the opinion of that one controller of information.

• How did we end up with a governance in which one person decided not to have regular open discussion meetings of the elected chapter delegates where we could decide on policies and strategies for how best to represent the issues of importance to the chapter at union delegate assemblies? This controlling approach has led not only to ineffectual representation in the DA, but also demoralization of the delegates.

• How did we end up with leaders who don’t speak up against one of their own controlling group who opposes the City Council proposed amendment 1096 to protect retiree healthcare – support for which was voted for overwhelmingly by the chapter?

• How did we end up with leaders who criticize and refuse to admit the essential and central role that Marianne Pizzitola and her organization have, and continue to play, in saving retiree healthcare - leaders who can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge her essential contribution to our slate winning control of the chapter?

• How did we end up with leaders who changed the language of the resolution passed overwhelmingly by the chapter that opposed a change in contributions by the City to pension systems TRS and BERS – that was designed to save the City money now? When one of these leaders introduced the resolution at the DA, they had agreed to change the language to read only “at this time.” Of course, now the union can claim that the DA didn’t vote to oppose the new pension proposal being floated.

• How did we end up with an executive board in which one member recently said that she did not know who the elected officers of the chapter are and what their duties are? In fact, nobody knows.

So what should we do to create the kind of chapter leadership that could be a model for the union? The first thing, of course is to create a fair, unified slate to run in the next chapter election against Unity.

Let’s agree and run on a platform that includes commitments in the interest of all members of the RTC.

• Join with the NYC Organization of Retirees to do everything we can to get the City Council to pass the current 1096 legislation and the Mayor to sign it into law.

• Join with the NYC Organization of Retirees to do everything we can to get the New York State legislature to legislation protecting retiree health care promises made to all NYS municipal retires, and the Governor to sign it into law.

• Demand a promise from the union to stop negotiating deals that in any way diminish the benefits promised to us.

• Support the “Stop Charging Retirees” petition, and demand a voice in all the decisions of the UFT Welfare fund that affect retiree health benefits and programs, and specifically, to include drug coverage for retirees and their dependents be paid for as is for in-service members.

• Demand a voice in union deals that can adversely affect retiree pension benefits.

• Demand respect for the RTC delegates to the union Delegate Assembly – a respect that retired devoted union activists and dues paying colleagues should not have to ask for.

• Demand that our chapter leadership can communicate with its members and get their feedback directly, without the heavy-handed censorship of the UFT that controls chapter member information.

Anything I missed for our platform?

With respect to people to include on the joint slate, we need a representative group of retirees – including paras, therapists, and other functional groups – and the almost 20% who are not yet Medicare eligible.

I also think we should change the structure of the exec board and get rid of all the job titles other than the Chapter Leader - to get rid of a controlling clique idea that they have adopted from the undemocratic model the UFT board. Let’s just have 24 members at large, and decisions should have to be debated and voted on by at least a majority of the board – or maybe two thirds.