UFT on School Governance: the second (and stranger) of two debates
Last Monday, at the UFT Exec Board, I rose to speak against the recommendations on school governance. They were approved by that body, seventy or so to 3. I posted about the meeting (click here for account), and promised to write up my notes (click here for the write up).
On Wednesday the recommendations, now approved by the Exec Board, were introduced to the Delegate Assembly. There any chance of debate was obscured by a tertiary question: did the MORE reps on the committee vote, and if so, did they vote against. (I discuss, below.)
Let me start back at the Exec Board on Monday. When Michael Mulgrew reported, he thought that all caucuses had participated in the Governance Committee. When he learned that New Action had not (we declined to serve) he modified what he was saying – all caucuses were welcome to participate (True).
By the way, here was New Action’s reasoning:
On Wednesday the recommendations, now approved by the Exec Board, were introduced to the Delegate Assembly. There any chance of debate was obscured by a tertiary question: did the MORE reps on the committee vote, and if so, did they vote against. (I discuss, below.)
Let me start back at the Exec Board on Monday. When Michael Mulgrew reported, he thought that all caucuses had participated in the Governance Committee. When he learned that New Action had not (we declined to serve) he modified what he was saying – all caucuses were welcome to participate (True).
By the way, here was New Action’s reasoning:
NEW ACTION HAS ALREADY CONCLUDED THERE’S BEEN ENOUGH “TINKERING” WITH