SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:13:00 AM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769667
 
WEA is found guilty...again
effwa.org

Olympia - Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor today issued a “guilty” verdict against the Washington Education Association (WEA) for what he characterized as intentional violations in the union’s use of mandatory teacher dues and fees for politics. The combined penalties, sanctions and reimbursements ordered by the court make this the largest fine ever levied against the WEA - likely more than $500,000.

Tabor assessed a $200,000 civil penalty against the union, which he doubled to $400,000 as a punitive sanction saying he found, “that the WEA ‘intentionally’ chose not to comply with the clear language of the statute.” (RCW 42.17.760). The judge also ordered WEA to pay for the costs of the investigation, the trial and attorneys’ fees.

“WEA officials are used to breaking the law and having their way with teachers’ paychecks because they think no one is big enough to stop them,” said Lynn Harsh, executive director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF). “Judge Tabor just sent those union officials an expensive reminder that they are not above the law.”

EFF initiated the investigation that eventually made its way to Tabor’s Court. In June of 2000, EFF filed a 45-day notice with the Attorney General (AG) on behalf of affected teachers alleging that the WEA had used agency fee payer teachers’ dues money for politics - a clear violation of state law. Agency fee payers are teachers who opt out of the union, often for political or religious reasons, but who are still required to pay 100 percent of regular member dues, except for the portion spent on politics and other non-traditional union functions.

Following an initial investigation by the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), who referred the matter back to the AG for a thorough investigation, the trial was held in May of 2001.

“The citizens of this state should be very pleased with the thorough investigation conducted by our attorney general’s office and their excellent arguments in court,” Harsh said.

WEA attorneys argued that the union did not really use agency fee payers’ monies for politics because the union’s reserve funds exceeded the more than $800,000 alleged to have been illegally spent. Tabor said, “Any distinction between ‘collecting’ an agency fee and ‘expending’ monies for a particular purpose are forever obscured when the funds are ‘commingled’ into the general fund.”

Judge Tabor gave the WEA 90 days to present him with a procedure assuring that union officials will comply with the law in the future. The ruling today does not seek reimbursement for those teachers whose money was wrongfully used by the WEA instead of being reimbursed to them. A separate class action suit of the more than 4,000 affected teachers has been filed.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:14:17 AM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769667
 
$400,000 campaign fine against WEA
Wednesday, August 1, 2001
seattlepi.nwsource.com

By ANGELA GALLOWAY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

A Thurston County judge yesterday fined the state's biggest teachers union $400,000 for illegally using union fees for political purposes -- the largest court penalty ever awarded in a state Public Disclosure Commission investigation.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor ruled that the Washington Education Association had intentionally violated state law in campaign spending, and matched his $200,000 fine with another $200,000 in punitive fees.

He also ordered the WEA to reimburse the state for investigative and court expenses.

The state plans to seek more than $100,000 in such costs, said Vicki Rippie, director of the PDC. Rippie said that the closest the agency has come to such a victory was a 1998 settlement with the WEA over a similar issue.

Because it had not had time to review the opinion mailed out yesterday, the union that represents 70,000 teachers declined to comment yesterday, said Debra Carnes, a WEA spokeswoman.

The case stems from a complaint filed by the conservative group Evergreen Freedom Foundation over the union's deductions from the salaries of thousands of "agency fee payers," or teachers who opt out of union membership. The fees are meant to compensate the union for the benefits the non-members gain from contract negotiations.

The union is allowed to use that money for lobbying and other union activities, but not to campaign for candidates or initiatives without "affirmative authorization" from the teachers.

Tabor declined to order the WEA to pay the teachers back. However, five teachers filed a class-action lawsuit in March seeking to recover about $20,000.

Evergreen filed a complaint with the PDC years ago on the matter. Because the agency is limited by law to a maximum $2,500 fine, it asked the state Attorney General's Office to seek more money in a lawsuit, which it filed in October.

The 1998 settlement stemmed from the Foundation's research into the WEA's use of dues-paying members. That case cost the WEA $80,000 in fines, $20,000 in attorney fees and more than $300,000 in reimbursements to teachers.

But a court in 1999 rejected Evergreen's lawsuit that sought to have the WEA declared a political action committee -- and, thus, subjected to additional campaign finance laws.

Because there is no way to determine the amount of money wrongfully deducted from teachers' paychecks, Tabor accepted the state's request that the WEA be fined $25 per teacher for 8,000 agency fee payers.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:15:43 AM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769667
 
Court fines teachers union for using nonmembers' fees
Local News: Wednesday, August 01, 2001
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com
By Eli Sanders
Seattle Times staff reporter

The state's largest teachers union has been fined $400,000 for illegally spending nonmembers' fees on political campaigns.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor yesterday ordered the Washington Education Association (WEA) to pay the fine, which was the end result of a complaint filed last year by a conservative policy group.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation, based in Olympia, had accused the WEA of illegally using "agency fees," which are dues paid by nonmembers who still receive union representation, to fund its political spending.

State law requires unions to obtain permission from agency-fee payers before using those funds for political purposes, and the state Public Disclosure Commission in September found the WEA had violated the law, as the Freedom Foundation contended.

Because its enforcement power is limited to a $2,500 fine, the commission referred the case to state Attorney General Christine Gregoire, who took the WEA to court.

In 1996, after the Freedom Foundation filed a different complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission, the WEA was found to have illegally collected and used hundreds of thousands of dollars in dues from its members.

In a settlement with the Attorney General's Office in 1998, the WEA agreed to pay a $430,000 fine, at the time one of the largest campaign-finance penalties in state history.

The Freedom Foundation then took out advertisements in 18 Washington newspapers that showed a man in a ski mask taking money from a female teacher's purse.

The ads drew outrage from the WEA and the League of Women Voters, who called it offensive and degrading to women.

Yesterday, the foundation again sought to make hay out of the WEA's embarrassment.

"It's certainly a victory for the teachers," Lynn Harsh, the foundation's executive director, said of the fine. "This will be a first for the WEA; they've never kept clean books before."

A spokeswoman for the WEA said she would not comment until she had read the ruling.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:17:39 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
State fines WEA for political spending
Teachers union, which used nonmembers money for politics, must pay $400,000
spokesmanreview.com

Richard Roesler
Staff writer

OLYMPIA _ The state's largest teachers union was slapped Tuesday with a $400,000 fine for illegally spending nonmembers' money on politics.

Once attorney fees and investigative costs are tacked on, the judgment is likely to be the largest ever won by the state Public Disclosure Commission, PDC head Vicki Rippie said.

"I do believe that a strong message was delivered to the union community," she said from home Tuesday night. "This section of law must be complied with."

The money will not be refunded to those nonmembers, although some are trying to force that through separate pending lawsuits against the union, the Washington Education Association.

The late-afternoon ruling caught state and union officials off guard. WEA communications director Debra Carnes said she couldn't comment on the decision until the union's attorneys study it this morning.

"We believe that we always operate within the law and we always have," she said.

At issue is the Washington Education Association's longtime practice of requiring nonmember teachers to pay an "agency shop fee" nearly equal to the dues paid by members, because they reap the benefits of collective bargaining and other union work. That's about $600 a year, Carnes said.

It is illegal, under a 1992 campaign-reform initiative, to spend such fees on union political activity unless the nonmembers authorize it. State officials said the union illegally spent tens of thousands of nonmembers' dollars on politics over the past five years, and improperly mixed their money with that of members.

The money, Assistant Attorney General Tom Wendel said, was spent on things like school levy campaigns and the fight against Initiative 695, which reduced car tab fees to $30 a year and stripped millions of dollars from local governments.

The union, in court arguments in May, argued that it tried to comply with the law, but couldn't get a straight answer from the PDC about what to do.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor sided with the state. The union, he wrote, broke the law and didn't change its practices even after agreeing to "multiple violations" in a court document last September.

On the other hand, Tabor said, the Public Disclosure Commission should have moved faster to enforce a 1992 statute prohibiting political spending with such fees. The agency, he said, only took action when prodded by citizen complaints.

"The fact remains, however: a violation of statute is still a violation," Tabor wrote.

The state had sought a $200,000 fine, and asked that the amount be tripled, saying the union's actions were intentional. Tabor agreed, but ruled that doubling the fine would be enough. The attorney fees and investigative costs, which the union must pay, won't be doubled.

The union has 90 days to bring the judge a proposal for preventing similar problems in the future.

Rippie said the PDC is pleased with Tabor's ruling.

"He makes it very clear that this is not a minor accounting violation, as the WEA portrayed," she said. "He makes it clear that this was an intentional violation."

She said she's not sure how much the attorney and investigation costs will be, but said that it could top $100,000.

The group that started the complaint, Olympia's Evergreen Freedom Foundation, also was pleased by the decision.

"We don't think any employee should have money forcibly withheld from their paychecks to pay for politics," executive director Lynn Harsh said.

"It's just really unfortunate that this system has been set up."

The vast majority of the 70,000 people the union represents support its politics, union officials say. Only about 4,000 are nonmembers, and only about 300 to 400 of those have opted out of their dues being used for politics, they say.

"We're really upfront about our advocacy for public education," WEA spokesman Rich Wood said in May. "Our members expect that."



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:18:48 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Lawsuit Settlement Rings Teachers' Union's Bell; California Teachers Association Must Repay $200 a Year to Resigning Members for Dues Spent on Politics
nationalcenter.org

The California Teachers Association (CTA), the state's largest teachers' labor union, can no longer prevent members from resigning from the union or requesting a refund of the portion of their mandatory dues spent for political purposes under the settlement terms of a class-action lawsuit.

"California's teacher union officials have feared this moment for decades: a time when teachers can free themselves from the union's grasp without obstruction," said Stefan Gleason of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the organization that filed the lawsuit.

Teacher Judith Apple of San Diego tried to resign from the union because she disagreed with its political activities, but was told she would have to continue as a full member and pay full dues until her affiliate's bargaining contract expired in July of 1998. With foundation assistance, Apple filed suit in November of 1996, charging her compulsory union membership violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The settlement eliminates compulsory membership requirements from contracts, accepts all current and past resignation requests and mandates the rebate of all dues money not spent on collective bargaining, contract negotiation and grievances to all members who request it. Refunds are expected to total approximately $200 a year. The settlement affects all 250,000 CTA members.

"[T]eacher union officials diverted over 95% of teacher's compulsory union dues spent on politics into subsidizing the partisan interests of a single, narrow ideological group," said Gleason. "But now - with this federal court settlement - California's educators can no longer be forced along for the ride."



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:21:29 AM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769667
 
Watchdog says NEA broke rules
theolympian.com

PAUL QUEARY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- The National Education Association violated state law when it poured more than $500,000 into Washington state initiative campaigns, according to an investigation by the state's campaign finance watchdog.
The case -- scheduled to come before the full Public Disclosure Commission today -- is the latest battle in an ongoing war between teachers' unions and the conservative Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

In a complaint filed in January, the foundation accused the NEA of violating Washington's law against using fees paid to the union by nonmember teachers to pay for political activity without specific permission from each member.

Although the law is designed to protect people from having unions spend their money on political causes they don't support, nearly all of the money in question was spent on campaigns to increase teacher pay and shrink class sizes.

The NEA ran afoul of the law several times, the commission's investigators say, when it made contributions from its general fund for several initiatives. That fund, investigators said, apparently mingles nonmember fees with union member dues.

"Without verification from the NEA to the contrary ... the NEA did not have written authorization from the fee payers prior to making these contributions," wrote Susan Harris, the commission's assistant director, in the staff's recommendation to the five-member panel.

The NEA gave $500,000 to support Initiative 728 and Initiative 732. Both measures passed in 2000, mandating smaller class sizes and yearly cost-of-living increases for teachers. The union gave smaller amounts in earlier initiative campaigns.

NEA spokeswoman Kathleen Lyons said the 2.6 million-member union's lawyers and accountants take care to segregate fee payers' money from the dues of politically active members.

"We're very proud of our vigilance on those issues," Lyons said.

Investigators recommended the five-member commission refer the case to Attorney General Christine Gregoire. The PDC can only levy maximum fines of $2,500 per case. The attorney general can seek civil fines of as much as $10,000 per violation.

That's what she did in a similar case against the Washington Education Association -- the NEA's state affiliate -- winning a $400,000 fine last year. The union has appealed that case, which also stemmed from an Evergreen Freedom Foundation complaint.

The investigator's recommendation to the commission calls for the attorney general to try to reach a settlement with the union for a substantial penalty and an agreement to refund fees to nonmembers.

But if negotiations fail, Harris said, the attorney general should withdraw because going to court would be costly.

That would shift the cost of pursuing the case to the foundation, said Doug Ellis, a commission spokesman.

That drew a sarcastic response from foundation spokeswoman Marsha Richards, who noted that investigators also recommended the commission send Gregoire the case against tax rebel Tim Eyman today -- without any advice to avoid the cost of a lawsuit.

"It's too costly to protect free and fair elections in Washington state unless it's Tim Eyman that you're going up against," Richards said.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:22:53 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
New Evidence Indicates NEA Misused Members' Dues for Politics
capitalresearch.org
by Terrence Scanlon

The National Education Association (NEA) has a new TV ad campaign to boost its image. "The campaign," says NEA president Bob Chase, "reminds the public of the contributions of America's teachers and the value of public education." He'll no doubt repeat that line when IRS investigators question him about how his organization budgets its members dues. But will they buy it?

From 1994 to 2001 the NEA violated federal law by using tax-exempt members' dues to help elect Democratic candidates, and then it unlawfully failed to disclose this spending to the IRS, as required by law. That's the essence of a formal complaint that the northern Virginia-based Landmark Legal Foundation filed with the IRS last July.

Landmark is convinced it's got the goods on the NEA. In May, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) momentarily unsealed thousands of pages of subpoenaed documents it was using to investigate charges that the AFL-CIO and Democratic Party engaged in unlawful "campaign coordination" during the 1996 elections. Four days later the FEC resealed the documents after union leaders and party officials complained-but not before Landmark's staff photocopied all of them.

The FEC inquiry didn't focus on the NEA, but Landmark has found evidence in the documents that it was working hand-in-glove with the AFL-CIO to help Democrats win Congress and hold the White House in 1996. A "National Coordinated Campaign Steering Committee" handled Democratic campaign strategy at the federal, state, and local levels and, more importantly, coordinated political spending on candidates' behalf. The Committee included the NEA and the AFL-CIO, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the 1996 Clinton-Gore Campaign, and other Democratic Party organizations.

So what else is new? Why should anyone care that the National Education Association coordinates its political activities with the Democratic Party? Well, the IRS cares. The NEA is tax-exempt, and tax-exempt outfits aren't supposed to use their contributions for political purposes.

The NEA is a 501(c)(5) tax-exempt labor union under the Internal Revenue Code. Of course, union officials enjoy free speech to express their political opinions-but the law says their unions must report all political spending, and none of it may come from tax-exempt dues.
On its tax forms, the NEA virtuously lists that it spent zero dollars on politics from 1994 to 1996. The NEA also has a separate political action committee that reported spending just $6 million on politics in 1999-2000. After reviewing the subpoenaed documents, Landmark has decided these numbers can't be trusted.

The documents show that in 1996 alone the NEA budgeted $9.6 million for building "bipartisan constituencies among those running for and elected to public office to support public education." But there's nothing "bipartisan" about screening candidates for state and federal office through "voter guides" that favor Democrats and prodding union members to volunteer for their campaigns.

The most damaging evidence is a Coordinated Campaign memo that declares that the DNC and its "national partners"-the AFL-CIO and the NEA-must agree on the contents of a state campaign plan before "each national partner will give their funding commitment to the state." In other words: Agree with the union agenda and we'll show you the money. The NEA had a virtual veto power over 1996 Democratic Party campaign strategies.

Why would the NEA hide its political spending from the IRS? Two reasons. First, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1988 Beck decision that if a union spends any portion of its members' dues on politics, they can reclaim that amount. Second, union money is taxable when it's used for partisan politics. Either claim will hit the NEA where it hurts.

If the IRS acts on Landmark's complaint and finds the NEA violated tax laws, the union could be assessed hefty fines and forced to pay back taxes on all revenues used for political purposes. Then it will need far more than a TV ad campaign to save its reputation. Stay tuned.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 12:30:00 AM
From: gao seng  Respond to of 769667
 
As soon as the IRS arrests some terrorists, your fellow democraps will be condemning them too, and then you will also be chirping in saying the IRS is corrupt, and it's all Bush's fault, and we are idiots for thinking the IRS is not politicized, etc.

You retards are so transparent.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 1:01:21 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Controversy Persists, After Fla. Union Election
edweek.org
By Julie Blair

First, the president of the 10,000-member Broward Teachers Union in Florida was sent to federal prison for soliciting a teenage girl on the Internet from union headquarters. Now, allegations have emerged that both a smear campaign and election fraud took place during the race to replace him.

Union members in the 250,000-student Broward County district overwhelmingly choose interim President Patrick A. Santeramo to lead their organization in a contentious, weeklong election that ended at 2 a.m. on March 24.
But one of Mr. Santeramo's opponents, Barry A. Silver, an English teacher at Coral Springs High School near Fort Lauderdale, said he may contest the election. He charges that his opponent's victory came only after Mr. Santeramo tried to destroy the reputations of his competitors' and altered election procedures to his advantage. "This stinks of impropriety," Mr. Silver said last week. "If you want to beat me, put out a better platform."

Under union bylaws, Mr. Silver has 15 days to file a complaint with the organization, said Al Russell, the acting election chairman for the union.

Mr. Santeramo, who characterized the election as divisive, denies such allegations. "There wasn't anything unfair about this," he declared last week.

Mr. Santeramo said he did air public records that may have been embarrassing for both Mr. Silver and another presidential candidate, Michael Todd, during the race. But he said he did so because he believed members had a right to know the information.

Mr. Silver was suspended for 10 days in 1996 for what school district officials called "inappropriate contact with students" while teaching at Olsen Middle School in Dania Beach.

Mr. Todd, who teaches adult students with profound disabilities at the Wingate Oaks Center in Fort Lauderdale, was reprimanded in 1998 for not protecting his students from harm, according to school district documents. Those documents cite one student sticking a knife in his own mouth.

The election in Florida is one of three hotly contested union races scheduled this spring. Teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District will go to the polls to vote for president in mid-April; their colleagues in Baltimore will follow suit next month.

Closing a Chapter?

The Broward Teachers Union election came eight months after the arrest of former President Tony Gentile, who led the organization for 23 years. Mr. Gentile resigned in October and was later convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. Mr. Santeramo, who served as vice president for nine years, stepped into the role of interim president and led the merged National Education Association-American Federation of Teachers affiliate through a contract buyout with his old boss. Mr. Santeramo went on to help the union negotiate a new contract with the district.

Members may have remembered those efforts at the polls.

Of the nearly 6,200 votes cast, 62 percent went to Mr. Santeramo. Mr. Silver received 31 percent, while Mr. Todd garnered 7 percent of the vote.

A vice president, secretary-treasurer, and five executive board members were also chosen.

"The election has actually enabled the union to be able to finally close one chapter of our history and start a new one," Mr. Santeramo said.

That's not how Mr. Silver sees it. He contends Mr. Santeramo is continuing a policy of politics as usual, as evidenced by his use of his opponents' records during the campaign. Mr. Silver said Mr. Santeramo notified members of his past suspension three days before voting started on March 12.

The educator told The Miami Herald that he was innocent of the charges and had received poor representation from the teachers' union in the case. In an interview with Education Week, he declined, on the advice of his lawyer, to elaborate on the incident that led to his punishment.

Moving On

Mr. Silver also charges that Mr. Santeramo did not provide his campaign with access to member records, as is required by union policy. In addition, Mr. Silver alleges that his opponent made it impossible for him to meet with many voters and violated several other election procedures.

Mr. Santeramo said he circulated information about his opponents' backgrounds because he thought the matters could have caused trouble for the union should one of them have been elected. He said the other allegations were groundless. "That kind of thing could be extremely damaging to the union to have a president with those kinds of things in his file," he said of the records.

The elections committee did void ballots from five schools, which represented the votes of 100 to 200 members, said Mr. Russell, the election chairman. Election protocol had been violated at those sites, he said.

Meanwhile, some teachers in Broward County bemoan the thought of a second election should Mr. Silver proceed with an appeal and prevail.

Union steward Debbie Siegelaud said she believed the interim president's decision to disclose the records of Mr. Silver and Mr. Todd was "unprofessional," but she added that she would not welcome another election.

"There are too many issues in Broward County for us to be concerned with people being vindictive," said the teacher, who works at Margate Middle School in Margate, Fla. "I have 37 kids in my class with so many exceptionalities and so many problems. We need to concentrate on that."



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 1:03:21 PM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769667
 
Teachers Unions: Are the Schools Run for Them?
Published in Ideas on Liberty - July 1996
by James Bovard
fee.org

Public education is the most expensive "gift" that most Americans will ever receive. Government school systems are increasingly coercive and abusive both of parents and students. Government schools in hundreds of cities, towns, and counties have been effectively taken over by unions, and children are increasingly exploited, thwarted, and stymied for the benefit of organized labor.

Government schools are increasingly run by the unions and for the unions. Former U.S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander observed, "After the post office, schools are the most unionized activity in America. [Teachers unions] collect a lot of money in dues, they are often the largest lobby in the state, they are very, very powerful." Teachers unions are especially powerful in inner cities, where teacher pay is often highest and teacher performance is usually the worst. Mario Fantini, in his book What's Best for Children, declared, "For many black and Puerto Rican parents, the teachers unions now represent the 'enemy.'" Reverend Jesse Jackson has questioned teachers' "right to strike for more money when the employer--a taxpaying parent-- holds tax receipts in one hand and test results in the other that prove he's paying more and more for less and less."

Teacher monopoly-bargaining laws (laws that permit unions to claim to represent and speak for all teachers, and to force school boards to deal with unions) in 34 states cover 67 percent of the nation's teachers. Teachers unions have worked to destroy local control of education, subvert standards, prevent teacher accountability, and deny parents a significant voice in their children's education. Unions have launched strikes to prevent and restrict "parental interference" in public education. Thanks to a strong union, New York school janitors are paid an average of $57,000 a year, yet are required to mop the schools' floors only three times a year. As a result, New York City public schools are sometimes filthier than New York City streets.

Teachers unions have long been the most powerful force in education at both state and local levels. Forbes magazine nicknamed the NEA "The National Extortion Association." An October 11, 1995, Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "The Unions' Schools" noted:
The next time you're visiting a state's Capitol building, scan the neighborhood for a nearby building that's as big or bigger. There, in the largest, grandest, best-situated office building you're likely to find one of the most powerful political institutions in the state: the teachers' union.
The New York Times noted last year that teachers unions have been "for decades the most conspicuous voice in American education." Teachers unions do not hesitate to use their clout blatantly. The NEA announced a boycott of Florida orange juice after the Florida citrus department advertised on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. As Barbara Phillips reported in the Wall Street Journal in January, the local teachers union in Jersey City, New Jersey, threatened a statewide boycott against Pepsi if PepsiCo did not withdraw from its support of Mayor Bret Schundler's school voucher proposal. There is no limit to the brazen demands of some unions: the West Virginia teachers union sparked controversy in February by demanding that teachers be permitted to retire at age 50 with full benefits--even though the teacher pension fund was far in hock.

Policy Dictators

Teachers unions are increasingly dictating policy to the schools. The NEA has denounced back-to-basics programs as "irrelevant and reactionary." The union is the leading advocate of "no-fault" teaching--whatever happens, don't blame the teacher. The Chicago Tribune concluded in 1988 that the Chicago Teachers Association has "as much control over operations of the public schools as the Chicago Board of Education" and "more control than is available to principals, parents, taxpayers, and voters." The Tribune noted that "even curriculum matters, such as the program for teaching children to read, are written into the [union] contract, requiring the board to bring any proposed changes to the bargaining table."

As Richard Mitchell noted in his classic The Graves of Academe, the NEA has played a crucial role in mentally debasing American public schools. In 1918 it authored a federal government report known as "Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education." Mitchell summarized the principles:
It is a thematic illusion of our educational enterprise that understanding can be had without knowledge, that the discretion can be informed without information, that judgment need not wait on evidence. . . . The self-interest of a massive educationists' trade union is evident on every page of Cardinal Principles. . . . They wanted to be not teachers but preachers, and prophets too, charging themselves with the cure of the soul of democracy and the raising up in the faith of true believers.
In 1971 the NEA issued a "Call to Action" that renewed its commitment to the Cardinal Principles. It declared, "We have overemphasized the intellectual development of students at the expense of other capacities." Thanks to the NEA's success in rewriting school curricula, student knowledge of history has nose-dived, student reading and comprehension have plummeted, and college remedial classes have thrived.

"Solidarity Forever"

Teachers unions have sometimes blatantly sought to manipulate what children are taught in order to inculcate pro-union attitudes. In the late 1970s the Miami affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers sent out a bulletin urging music teachers to "order music such as 'Solidarity Forever,'" English teachers to "incorporate short stories, novels, poems, and films depicting labor struggles and conflicts," and math teachers to "use labor and management as specific examples in problems." But, of course, the union members were objective in their class discussions.

Teachers unions blatantly exploit their power over school children. In Montgomery County, Maryland, union teachers refused to write letters of recommendations to colleges for students unless the students first wrote to the county council urging an increase in government spending for education (and, naturally, higher salaries for teachers). One high school senior told The Washington Post, "The consensus among students seems to be it may be blackmail, but students are going to go along with it anyway."

In California in 1991, teachers required students to write to state legislators demanding more money for education. The tactic backfired because numerous letters contained threats of physical violence against the legislators.

At Wilson High School in Washington, D.C., teachers gave parents a formal notice that they would not write letters of recommendation for students unless parents wrote three letters demanding higher pay for teachers: "Please submit to each teacher from whom your child is requesting a college recommendation your letters to your city council member, the superintendent and your school board member along with three addressed and stamped envelopes." Parents thus had to grovel in front of a teacher--to surrender their right to their own opinion on public education policy--in order for their children to receive consideration from the teachers.

Teachers have stronger legal rights to tax dollars than the taxpayers have to a quality education for their children. School systems face vastly more repercussions from firing an incompetent teacher than from totally neglecting school children. In 1988, the Chicago Tribune reported:

All 22 students in Grace Currin's 4th grade class must attend summer school this year because, their principal says, Currin did not teach the children enough to pass to the next grade. Dyanne Dandridge-Alexander, principal at [Chicago's] Spencer Elementary School: "Those children have suffered because they have a totally inept teacher that no one has been able to fire."

A 1992 Detroit Free Press investigation entitled "Shielding Bad Teachers" concluded that it takes a school district seven years and costs an average of $100,000 to fire a single incompetent public school teacher. Seven years is over half of the schooling time of the average pupil. The Free Press concluded, "No protections are built in for the state's 1.5 million public school students, who can suffer physical, sexual or educational abuse." The American Association of School Administrators conducted an audit of District of Columbia public schools and concluded that an "astonishingly low" number of teachers receive unsatisfactory ratings and that it is "nearly impossible" to fire bad teachers.

Potent Political Power

Many politicians have claimed that the problems of public education can be resolved by rigorous new teacher evaluation programs. But teachers unions often politically dominate state legislatures, and the legislators protect the teachers against their own incompetence. In 1991 the Louisiana legislature voted to suspend teacher evaluations for one year. That evaluation had originally been introduced as part of a joint package with large pay raises for teachers; after the legislature enacted the pay raises, the teachers unions then launched a successful attack on the evaluation program.

Homeschooling is one of the fastest growing triumphs in family rights in the country. Naturally, teachers unions have been fiercely opposed to permitting parents to teach their own children to read and write. Annette Cootes of the Texas State Teachers Association declared that "homeschooling is a form of child abuse." The NEA annually passes resolutions calling for a de facto ban on homeschooling.

One measure of the coerciveness of the government school monopoly is the percentage of parents who would remove their kids from government schools if they could. If Americans could choose--if they had not already paid for public education through taxes--there would likely be a wholesale exodus from government schools in many cities. A 1992 poll of black residents of Milwaukee revealed that 83 percent favored a voucher system that would allow parents to choose their children's school. A 1991 Gallup poll found that 71 percent of people 18 to 29 favored educational vouchers and 62 percent of people 30 to 39 favored vouchers. The Gallup survey found that "by a 10-to-1 margin, respondents said private schools do a better job of . . . giving students individual attention and maintaining discipline."

Teachers unions and school officials have repeatedly sabotaged parents' efforts to defect from the public school monopoly. In 1992 in California, a coalition sought to put on the state ballot a proposal to provide a $2,500 state scholarship to children attending private schools. (Since the state of California was then spending over $6,000 per public school student, taxpayers would save over $3,000 for each additional student transferring from public to private schools). Though organizers got almost one million signatures to put the measure on the ballot, the effort was bushwhacked by the California Teachers Association and public school officials. Teachers at El Camino Real Elementary School in Irvine gave students oversized checks stamped with the word "fraud" in their campaign to thwart the measure.

As economist Thomas Sowell noted, "The Los Angeles Unified School District has used its taxpayer provided cable television channel to propagandize against allowing the public to vote in November on an initiative to permit school choice. Los Angeles school board member Julie Korenstein warned that allowing parents to choose between public and private schools would 'end up with bigotry and ultimately with a fascist type of society.'" Del Weber of the California Teachers Association declared, "There are some proposals that are so evil that they should never even be presented to the voters."

Squads of teachers traveled around the state to surround the petitioners and prevent people from signing the petition. Many teachers signed the petitions numerous times knowing that the state government would nullify hundreds of thousands of valid signatures as a penalty against duplicate signatures. Conny McCormack, San Diego's registrar of voters, concluded: "This is an unprecedented case of intentional fraud."

The power of the teachers unions is one of the best reasons to pursue the separation of school and state. There is no simple reform, no fancy political trick that will break the power of the teachers unions over the day-to-day activities of public schools. Given the realities of campaign contributions and organized greed, it will always be easier for teachers unions to exploit the education system for their own benefit than for parents to fight the eternal bureaucratic and political wars necessary to protect their children.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 1:07:56 PM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769667
 
Education chief forms team to uncover lost funds
ohioroundtable.org

By GREG TOPPO
WASHINGTON - Education Secretary Rod Paige said he will appoint an eight-person "strike team" to address waste, fraud and errors in the Education Department, promising to deliver "a clean audit" in 18 months.

In the final three years of the Clinton administration, the Education Department lost track of $450 million, the department's chief inspector said earlier this month, prompting one Republican lawmaker to liken the agency's financial practices to those of "a Third World republic."

The department, which has a $44.5 billion budget and manages billions more in student loans, said poor oversight resulted in several instances in which money was stolen or improperly spent, and others in which checks for grants were duplicated or money was never distributed.

Paige yesterday announced the formation of a team made up of senior staff that will spend the next three months looking into the agency's financial practices. Paige said he will report the results in three months, with a prediction that the auditing firm of Ernst and Young will give the department "the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" by the fall of 2002.

Paige said he would urge President Bush to appoint a chief financial officer for the department, a position that he said has been vacant for two years, and choose an assistant secretary for management.

In an April 3 report to the House Education and Workforce investigations subcommittee, auditors said a review showed that 21 employees could write checks of up to $10,000 without supervision. A review of department finances from May 1998 to September 2000 found that 19,000 of these checks were written, totaling $23 million.

The audit also found that as of October, about 230 employees had government credit cards in their names, including 36 workers who could charge up to $25,000 per month and two who could charge up to $300,000 per month.



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (266616)6/25/2002 1:10:28 PM
From: greenspirit  Respond to of 769667
 
Ohio teacher overcomes union's intolerance
Anti-Christian discrimination. Forced unionism. Religious inquisitions.
ohioroundtable.org

Do these sound like the tactics of a tolerant, diversity-loving group? They certainly didn't to Dennis Robey, an Ohio public school teacher, when he attempted to refuse paying a compulsory "fair share" fee to the state teachers union.

Robey, like thousands of teachers in Ohio and 20 other states, is required to pay fees to the National Education Association's state affiliate under collective-bargaining laws. These state laws require all teachers who "benefit" from collective bargaining to pay a fee to the union.

However, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, teachers and other public employees required to pay union fees may claim a religious exemption and direct the fees to a charity of their choice.

But as Robey discovered, doing so in Ohio is not nearly that simple. When he realized the radical left-wing social policies advocated by the Ohio Education Association, such as abortion and homosexuality education of schoolchildren, Robey claimed a religious exemption and tried to divert his fees, annually totaling $400, to Habitat for Humanity.

The union demanded Robey complete a lengthy and intrusive form each year detailing his relationship with God and his religious affiliation. The union also required a signature from a religious official to validate his responses. Robey characterized the procedure as harassment, and so has the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

As a result of a lawsuit brought against the union by the National Right to Work Foundation (NRWF) on Robey's behalf, the EEOC ruled that the union violated Robey's civil rights. According to Bruce Cameron of the NRWF, literally hundreds of Ohio teachers face the same harassment as Robey stemming from the Ohio Education Association's "policy to discourage religious objectors."