Why Is Ben Morgenroth's Candidacy Important?

In the first trustee election in DECADES, it's vital that our trustee will serve US, not self-styled UFT King Michael Mulgrew

We haven’t had a trustee election in a good thirty years. The fact is, I taught full-time from 1984 until last June and I don’t recall one ever. I make it a point to vote whenever I get a chance, so this surprises me. This may be, though, because principals are in charge of these elections. Maybe whoever my principal was didn’t deem it a priority. Maybe no one bothered to notify us.

In any case, this is a rare opportunity for in-service contributing members. I’ve already written about how UFT Unity has chosen not to run its most qualified candidate. The fact is that working as a part-time pension consultant does not, by any stretch of the imagination, qualify you to do this job. And no matter how helpful you may be, no matter how much people may like you, this doesn’t mean you are savvy about investment.

That said, there’s no doubt whatsoever that Ben Morgenroth is by far the most qualified candidate right now. And yet, that’s not the main reason you should vote for him.

The main reason you need to elect Ben Morgenroth is this—he is not beholden to anyone but you, the voters and TRS members. His opponent is a member of the Unity Caucus, hand-picked by Michael Mulgrew. Now I know I repeat the upcoming point, just about always, but I cannot fathom how we could have a leader who is this bad. And here’s why:

Mulgrew is the guy who thought it would be a great idea to surrender more than half of our health stabilization fund to the city, in exchange for a terrible, terrible contract. He followed that up by agreeing to six hundred million dollars of annual health care savings for the city, forever, in exchange for a three year contract agreement.

Mulgrew is, at the very least, borderline paranoid. The only reason there needs to be a new trustee is because he’s chosen not to re-nominate David Kazansky. And that is based not on Kazansky’s performance, but rather his friendship with Amy Arundell and others. Amy Arundell, for reasons having absolutely nothing with her job performance, has been declared persona non grata by Michael Mulgrew.

Why is this? Well, according to Michael Mulgrew, that’s none of your damn business. So what if she was excellent at running Queens UFT? Who cares if it had virtually no leadership before she took over? Queens members (all members, in fact) are not a priority for Mulgrew. What’s important for Mulgrew, like why he chooses who he does, is none of our damn business.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. UFT King Michael Mulgrew has no checks or balances on his control of our union. The Delegate Assembly is supposedly the governing body of the UFT, but he’s rendered it a kabuki dance. And if he doesn’t like the way the DA votes, he ignores it, or even defies it, as he did after the DA twice affirmed support for the New York Health Act

Mulgrew reminds me of Colonel Cathcart, a character in Joseph Heller’s Catch 22. Cathcart was forever looking at all occurences, and characterizing them as “black eyes” or “feathers in my cap.” He didn’t give a damn about the actual people doing the work, and kept raising the number of missions flyers had to perform. If they got killed, if it didn’t constitute a “black eye” for him, that was fine.

You don’t want to be represented by someone like that. You also don’t want someone who’s sworn to do whatever that person says. The only trustee candidate who hasn’t promised Michael Mulgrew absolute fealty is Ben Morgenroth.

Michael Mulgrew agreed to sell out our health care. He started with the retirees, assuming they’d be too old and feeble to fight back. Somehow, retiree Marianne Pizzitola appeared out of nowhere, and began kicking his royal ass all over the place. She’s handed said ass right back to him twelve straight times, so far, in court.

Then, Mulgrew pitted in-service members against retirees. He promised in-service members a $1500 premium if they didn’t work to screw retirees. That’s a blatantly anti-union act. When this failed, he agreed to find a plan that’s 10% cheaper for Eric Adams. Who will make up this shortfall? Presumably in-service members.

Now, here’s the thing—if Mulgrew will sell out your health care, who’s to say he won’t sell out your pension as well? For example, Mulgrew might love one approach or another, whether or not it benefits us. Maybe it supports his political agenda, whatever that may be. Perhaps he will be personally enriched by it. What if he were to instruct his trustee to support it?

Any member who serves at his pleasure, any member who’s signed a loyalty oath for their own advancement, would be duty-bound to support any such push. It’s not that far-fetched. Michael Mulgrew, as stated above, has a history of indulging his personal whims at our expense. Whether or not members are hurt is neither here nor there.

And in case that’s too abstract for you, any member Mulgrew selects supports the diminishment of your health care, be you in-service or retired. Any member Mulgrew selects has actually signed an oath promising to do so. Ben Morgenstern supports maintaining our health care as is, or even (Gasp!) improving it.

That’s the very least we can expect from anyone who purports to represent us. If you want more information about Ben Morgenroth, you’ll find it right here.

RIP Chaz, and thanks for the illustration.