Recent post from David Sirota My two thoughts on this are:
1) If every Dem would talk like this, the party might be a real opposition
2) It's shameful that some Dems have been more focused on using their platforms to demonize/undermine this guy than on fighting Trump https://pic.x.com/QqhPxnaZuU Recent post from Ryan Grim
Thursday, July 3, 2025 After a June 14 Gothamist report: This news is more than shocking. After engaging in a massive attack on DSA, claiming they had a plan to infiltrate the union and tying in the heavily DSA MORE, to endorse a DSA member for mayor might make you blink in disbelief. There's more than a
little irony if the UFT endorses Mamdani, who has faced some of the same
attacks over his position on Palestine and fake charges of antisemitism
that ABC Pres Candidate Amy Arundell faced with many of these attacks coming from union officials and Unity Caucus hacks. Oooh the eggs on the faces of the main attackers. But don't expect them to be fired, as Amy was. Personally,
I'm for Mamdani - no matter what his stand on the Medicare issue, his
fundamental philosophy is pro-labor and anti-privatization - and he's one impressive political talent. I will go into some details of his campaign which is fundamentally non-ideological and more bread and butter, no matter how people try to distort - like free buses, where half the people don't pay anyway and better childcare is so radical. Even his response on intifada is interesting, as Ryan Grim explains when he compares the calls to denounce him as equivalent to cancel culture from the left: "At the very end of this rant, Gillibrand argues that it doesn’t matter what the term intifada actually means, what matters is how people receive it, and she says that black, Hispanic, and LGBTQ people have similarly offensive words that must never be said and the same standard applies here.
So if you’re on the right and spent a decade denouncing this sort of thing, how is it that you are now embracing it and on Team Gillibrand?" .... But my sense of democracy is challenged by a top-down endorsement process. If the DA was really open and not rushed we would get a snapshot of where membership stands - but I would go further. I have
reservations about a UFT endorsement without checking the pulse of the
membership. Coming from the top as it usually does actually is harmful
as proven in previous elections where the massive UFT membership does
not seem to go along - witness the constant failures if mayoral
endorsements. My sense is this is a move to jump on the bandwagon of the
leading candidate, which actually may doom Mamdani, given the UFT track
record. A UFT endorsement will automatically elevate the chances of
Adams and or Cuomo. There is a big push, naturally, coming from the left in the UFT, with a petition going around. So why am I bothered by that? It amounts to the same push from the top concept when the UFT leadership pushes its own interests over where the members might stand. I've been annoyed even when I agree with my left comrades on the way they push their agenda on members. Sure push your personal ideas - you have a right. But if you are trying to organize people, well how about seeing where they are at? That is precisely what Mamdani has done, as he went to Trump supporters. One surprising result in the election was how many Trump voters went for him -- the sort of Bernie/Trump concept we saw --- see NYT today: Shocking that he actually talked to Trump voters -- something the ARISE crowd attacked ABC for. In fact I see a lot of similarities between the two campaigns - except we didn't win, of course. He reached out to new voters and so did ABC - he was more successful. He had 40k volunteers and I saw ABC with more volunteers in this campaign than I'd seen in the past - and the vote totals indicated that. Both campaigns get credit for their social media. But more on this comparison in the future. Member driven means member driven even if the members on the whole don't agree with you. So though I would hope a clear majority of UFT members would support Mamdani, especially given the Adams/Cuomo/Sliwa alternatives, I would like to see where the actual pulse of the membership lies at this point. The problem with pushing endorsements down the throat of members is that they alienate people unless there is a clear mandate. I think there is a strong case to be made for Mamdani but only if people get a chance to debate. Let's air the claims of anti-semitism and respond. Invite him to a meeting - invite them all.
If you really want to mobilize the membership in a campaign, win the bulk over and that takes work beyond calling an emergency summer meeting of the DA where a small minority of members will decide.
But one interesting story will emerge. The so-called left of the UFT, the ARISE crowd, will be overwhelmingly in favor and with UFT leadership backing Mamdani, we could expect overwhelming support at the DA. As for the 200k UFT membership? I'm not so sure. It weakens the union of there is a wide gap. Thus, while I'm not speaking for ABC, and I think many ABCers do support Mamdani, I think there might be a sentiment to go through a more serious process in the UFT as a way to build support. At least a serious poll or a referendum -- like how about using electronic voting to do one? Oh, the Unity gang is allergic.
I
stood proudly with the NYC retirees today alongside their incredible
leader Marianne Pizzitola to celebrate a hard-fought victory as the city
decided not to move forward with Medicare Advantage. As a retiree
myself, I know how devastating it would have been to lose traditional
Medicare. This was a reckless move that never should have been
considered. Today we celebrate, but our work isn’t done.
Let’s pass Intro 1096 and make sure no mayor ever has the power to pull
the rug out from under those who gave their lives in service to this
city.--- Retired City Council Bob Holden I attended the exciting rally in City Hall Park on Monday and was joined by a big crowd of retirees despite the heat. The theme was don't trust Adams on his declaration he is abandoning MedAdv and pass local and state legislation. Our hero politician has been City Council rep Christopher Marti who won re-election last night. He was the master of ceremonies. Marianne was the star as she so often is. It seems every local and many statewide politicians are in her phone book as they realize the power of the electoral machine she has built.
Also given recognition was the local CROC - a Cross Union group that came into existence early in the battle. Marti gave them particular recognition. Relations between CROC and Marianne's NYC Retirees have not always been smooth but Monday peace seemed to reign. Arthur wrote:
No one from Unity bothered to stand with retirees
outside in the sweltering 96 degree heat. Who showed up? There were a few people from CROC, a few of us from ABC, and a whole lot of retirees from various city unions. Over the last few months, I’ve heard a lot about the RTC Labor Solidarity Project. They do worthwhile things. They show up when other unions go on strike or have issues. I get newsletters saying they went here and there and did this and that.
Furthermore, they’ve influenced UFT at large to establish a similar org, and they’re very proud of that. Well, neither group showed up today. I’m sure there are good reasons. One person suggested that’s not
what the group is for. Okay then, but if we can support other unions, why can’t we support ourselves? That brings up a few more questions—First, weren’t we elected specifically to battle for retiree health care? Also, didn’t we overwhelmingly pass a resolution to support 1096?
It was noticeable that the Retired Teacher Chapter Labor Organizing group that has done so much good work supporting unions and rallies did not show up. Neither did Unity or any union official, who had spent so much time attacking Marianne. (Arthur's full article chronicles that below. I must point out that a prominent member of the ARISE steering committee and co-chair of one of the caucuses joined Unity in those attacks. Some say that should be water under the bridge. Not to me.
| Retired city councilman Robert Holden too:
@BobHoldenNYC |
Arthur reported at Union Matters:
I usually don't do rallies, especially when I have to leave the beach on 100 degree days to go into the city but I'm doing so today. Will the Unity/UFT gang that attacks Marianne be there? Will retirees from ARISE who also attack Marianne be there? I'll get more into these attacks when I get a chance. Hey, ya think the election has anything to do with Mayor Adams reversal? And btw- I'm ignoring the single issue push for supporting a candidate and the crit of Mandami by the Marianne crew for his not openly endorsing our battle. Fact is as a Dem Soc (as I am - sort of), medicare for as many as possible is a basic ask.
I voted 1 for Lander and 2 for Mandami - figuring when Lander drops out Mandami gets his votes. Look at who is attacking Mandami to see our enemies. Cuomo would sell us out in a minute.
My big question: should I drink water or beer? I will post some pics later. Norm
Rally Monday, June 23rd, 11 am City Hall Park. It is going to be HOT! Bring
water, your stool seat we gave you at the Occupy DC37 event and dress
COOL!!! Bring an umbrella if you need to shade yourself from the sun. THIS IS YOUR VICTORY! LETS GET TOGETHER!!! Subject: MAYOR ADAMS’ STATEMENT ON FUTURE OF MEDICARE ADVANTAGE Note - Read Arthur's last post:
We are beyond fortunate that, somewhere in Georgia, NYC retiree
Marianne Pizzitola woke up one morning and decided that demeaning our
health care was unacceptable. She organized NYC Retirees
out of thin air, and built it into a force that no one can ignore. If
Mulgrew had his way, every retiree in the city would be in an inferior
Medicare Advantage Plan right this moment, and would have been for the last four years. That is the only reason that Unity ducklings attack her so relentlessly. She showed that King Mulgrew had no clothes.
It was pretty goshdarn embarrassing for Unity. In fact, her
inconvenient truth-telling led to Unity losing the Retired Teacher
Chapter (RTC) for the first time ever. Unity’s still
trying to live that down. Unity treated Marianne like a pariah when she
came to an RTC meeting. One of Unity’s tactical geniuses advised
insulting her, and us, with “whatever drivel you can come up with.” Nothing has changed. Rather than defend their miserable, humiliating record of failure after failure, they attack her.
A somewhat more sophisticated Unity voice (who attacks Marianne
nonetheless) has repeatedly taken the position that we ought to stop
focusing on this and look at what Trump is doing in Washington. I’d
argue he’s half right. We certainly can’t ignore national politics. I
don’t. However, we are not going to achieve Medicare for All in the next
three years. And I’m sorry, NYHA fans, but that’s not passing any time
in the very near future either.
That "sophisticated" voice is Leo Casey, who I predict will toss his beret in the ring to lead the Unity charge to take back the RTC by running for CL -- the next Tom Murphy.
Jeff, a former lawyer, lays out a path to victory. Thursday, June 19 A Betrayal of Public Trust: Why New York's Retirees Will Ultimately Prevail
The New York Court of Appeals' decision in Bentkowski v. City of New York represents
a troubling abdication of judicial responsibility that prioritizes
municipal budget constraints over the fundamental promise of good faith
that binds employer to employee.
While the Court's narrow focus on the technicalities of "clear and
unambiguous promises" may have temporarily shielded the City from
accountability on promissory estoppel grounds, the decision leaves
intact multiple powerful causes of action that virtually
guarantee the retirees will ultimately prevail when the case returns to
the trial court.
The Court of Appeals committed a fundamental error by applying an
artificially restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a "clear and
unambiguous promise." The Court dismissed decades of consistent
representations in Summary Program Descriptions (SPDs)
as merely "descriptive and for informational purposes only," ignoring
the basic principle that contractual obligations can arise from a course
of conduct and reasonable reliance, not just from formal written
agreements.
The Court's parsing of verb tenses—focusing on present tense language
like "becomes eligible," "is provided," and "supplements"—represents a
triumph of form over substance that would make even the most pedantic
grammarian blush. When the City tells employees
year after year that Medicare "provides" first-level benefits and the
City's program "provides" second-level benefits to "fill certain gaps in
Medicare coverage," any reasonable person would understand this as a
commitment to continue that structure.
Most egregiously, the Court dismissed the phrase "and thereafter" as
referring only to Medicare eligibility timing, not future benefits. This
interpretation is not just wrong—it's absurd. The plain language
clearly indicates that City benefits would continue
"thereafter" once Medicare eligibility begins. To read it otherwise
requires willful blindness to the obvious meaning.
Despite the Court's rejection of the promissory estoppel claim, the
remand to the trial court preserves numerous causes of action that
provide clear pathways to victory. Each represents a distinct legal
theory capable of delivering complete relief to the retirees.
The Second Cause of Action under the Retiree Health Insurance Moratorium
Act provides a compelling path to victory. This statute explicitly
prohibits reducing teacher retiree benefits unless active employees face
corresponding reductions. The facts demonstrate
a clear violation: the City's contributions dropped from $191.57 per
month to $15-22.50 per month for retirees while active employees
retained their plan choices and superior coverage. The law was
specifically designed to protect retirees who lack collective
bargaining power, making this differential treatment precisely what the
legislature sought to prevent.
The Ninth Cause of Action under the NYC Administrative Procedure Act
(CAPA) addresses the City's deliberate circumvention of required
rulemaking procedures. The healthcare policy change constitutes
rulemaking that affects a quarter-million retirees and creates
binding standards of general applicability. The City's failure to
provide public notice and comment procedures violated the procedural
rights of every affected retiree and represents a fundamental breach of
administrative law that courts cannot overlook.
The Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action under both NYC and New York State
Human Rights Laws present powerful discrimination claims. The policy
creates a disparate impact on disabled retirees under 65 who are
Medicare-eligible due to disability. While non-disabled
under-65 retirees keep their existing coverage options, disabled
retirees are forced into inferior Medicare Advantage plans. This
class-based discrimination against people with disabilities—those most
needing healthcare access—violates fundamental civil rights
protections and cannot be justified by mere cost savings.
Life-Threatening Consequences Demand Judicial Intervention
The Third Cause of Action challenging the dangerous disruption of
life-saving treatment presents compelling grounds for immediate relief.
Retirees with cancer and other serious conditions face the impossible
choice between continuity of care and financial ruin.
Many cannot obtain supplemental coverage due to pre-existing
conditions, while others face underwriting barriers that make coverage
unaffordable. The policy's arbitrary implementation, without
consideration of individual medical circumstances, fails even the
most basic rational basis review given its life-threatening impact on
vulnerable populations.
The Fourth Cause of Action addresses the City's failure to provide
adequate information for such a momentous decision. Major healthcare
decisions require accurate, complete information as a matter of
procedural due process. The City made material misrepresentations,
falsely assuring retirees their doctors would accept the new plan. Many
retirees never received comprehensive information packages, while the
deliberately complex opt-out process proved especially burdensome for
elderly participants. Given the irreversible
nature of this one-time decision with permanent consequences, the lack
of full disclosure constitutes a fundamental due process violation.
The Eighth Cause of Action for unjust enrichment recognizes that
healthcare benefits represent earned deferred compensation, not
gratuitous benefits. Mayor Adams himself called this policy a "bait and
switch" before taking office, acknowledging its unconscionable
nature. The City will reap hundreds of millions in annual savings while
benefiting from federal Medicare Advantage subsidies, all while
shifting costs to vulnerable retirees after decades of faithful service.
Good conscience demands restitution of these ill-gotten
savings.
The Eleventh Cause of Action under the Donnelly Act addresses the City's
creation of an unlawful monopoly through its exclusive Aetna contract.
The City bypassed competitive bidding processes, eliminating competition
among insurers and depriving retirees of
choice and competitive pricing benefits. Ironically, Aetna previously
made similar antitrust arguments against another City plan,
demonstrating the anticompetitive nature of such arrangements.
The Tenth Cause of Action recognizes the City's special relationship
with its retirees and the fiduciary duty to provide accurate healthcare
information. The City's material misstatements about provider acceptance
and plan benefits, combined with false assurances
about the opt-out process, created reasonable reliance that continues
to cause harm. The City knew retirees would rely on these statements for
enrollment decisions, making the negligent provision of false
information particularly egregious.
Beyond the legal technicalities lies a fundamental question of fairness
and public policy. The City of New York recruited employees for decades
with the explicit promise of comprehensive health benefits in
retirement. These employees—teachers, firefighters,
police officers, and countless other public servants—accepted lower
wages than they could have earned in the private sector based on the
understanding that their retirement security was guaranteed.
Many of these retirees are now in their 70s and 80s, having planned
their retirement finances around the expectation of Medicare
supplemental coverage. Some have relocated to states where they cannot
obtain supplemental coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
Others lack the financial resources to purchase private coverage. The
City's decision to abandon these vulnerable retirees represents a
breathtaking betrayal of the social compact that binds government to its
workers.
The Court of Appeals' decision should be understood as a temporary
setback rather than a definitive defeat. While the Court's analysis of
promissory estoppel was problematic, it leaves intact multiple
independent causes of action, each capable of providing
complete relief. The trial court's previous sympathy for the retirees'
position, combined with the opportunity for more complete factual
development, creates a favorable environment for ultimate success.
The remaining causes of action span constitutional law, statutory
violations, civil rights protections, antitrust law, and fundamental due
process rights. The City cannot simultaneously violate the state
constitution, ignore statutory protections, discriminate
against disabled individuals, endanger lives, deny due process, engage
in antitrust violations, and commit unjust enrichment while expecting
judicial protection.
Perhaps most importantly, the moral force of the retirees' position
remains undiminished. They kept their part of the bargain, serving the
City faithfully for decades in exchange for promised retirement
security. The City's attempt to renege on that promise
while hiding behind legal technicalities represents exactly the kind of
conduct that courts exist to remedy.
When this case returns to the trial court, it will do so with a powerful
arsenal of legal theories that survived appellate review. The
constitutional claims alone provide sufficient grounds for complete
victory, while the statutory violations, civil rights
protections, and due process claims offer multiple alternative paths to
the same destination.
The trial court proceedings will allow for complete factual development,
revealing the full scope of the City's representations and the
devastating impact on vulnerable retirees. This expanded record will
only strengthen the retirees' position and highlight
the unconscionable nature of the City's conduct.
Justice delayed is not justice denied. When this case concludes—as it
inevitably will—with vindication for New York's retired public servants,
the Court of Appeals' decision will be remembered as a regrettable
detour rather than a final destination. The multiple
causes of action that remain provide not just hope, but virtual
certainty that these retirees will ultimately prevail.
The City of New York made a promise. The remaining legal theories ensure it will be forced to keep it.
With indications that ABC will continue to function, I'm writing this analysis as a warning sign for the future of oppo in the UFT as I can foresee the divisions not going away and a similar two slate situation emerging again. I am making the case that only an ABC-like strategy and organization - or dis-organization of individuals can beat Unity. (On Thursday, June 19th, ICEUFT will meet in person to take a deep dive into the issues raised here.)
That doesn't mean legacy caucuses go away and continue to do the work they do on social justice and other issues, but release their people to run with an ABC-like group while supporting the effort. Knowing the caucus-first mentality, don't expect this to happen on an organizational level, but I appeal to the individuals in the caucuses to think this through. ARISE spent thousands of dollars on campaign and a glossy flier (almost a work of art) and raced to hundreds of schools to stuff mail boxes, while ABC spend a minimal amount and focused on its people getting out the vote in their schools. If you are looking for the difference in outcomes, look at these numbers: ABC ran 560 candidates, 520 of them in the schools (about 40 retirees) while ARISE, despite bragging of the largest number of candidates in decades, had only 490 or so, with 140 retirees, a difference of about 150 in school people. Back in the fall when people were calling for both slates to unite, at least one ARISE steering committee member mocked ABC as being only 7 people and claiming ABC could not get a slate together and would have to come begging. That led to a mentality within ARISE that ABC would fail.
I
received a post-election call from a long-time major oppo left-leaning
activist from years ago, who did not run in the election, praising ABC
on the outcome of the election - a group of individuals came together -
people who had never worked with each other in the past - to win almost
18k and 32% of the votes - the largest oppo vote total in history
despite another slate running. He was impressed. Another
left-leaning non-candidate activist also was surprised at the 32%
outcome. We had argued throughout the campaign over my contention ABC
had a chance to win -- my odds were 10%. His were 1%. My position that ABC could win even with two slates, which was much mocked, while not proven, showed that it was possible. What I never considered was how poorly the legacy caucuses would do - and I even include Unity, given their 54%. Losing by 22
points to Unity still put ABC closer to beating Unity than any oppo I can remember.
During the campaign, Unity focused its attacks on ABC and some ARISE
leaders from NAC and RA spent more time attacking ABC than Unity, and receiving much praise from Unity people for doing so. This is not to taint
all of ARISE, most of whom, especially those in MORE, mostly
refrained from attacks. I detected a sense of growing respect, despite differences, between some ABC and MORE people. From the beginning last summer, ABC was open to individuals from MORE running with ABC and some did and played an important role. I've seen some comments from ARISE people talking about the two oppo groups lost to Unity, as if both outcomes were equivalent, thus burying the lead. ABC finished 22% points behind Unity while the ARISE legacy caucuses, despite decades of so-called organizing, finished 40% points behind Unity. A flip of 11% points between ABC and Unity would have put ABC in a tie with Unity. As people are already looking to 2028, keep this in mind. But don't expect the legacy caucuses to learn a lesson and some in NAC and RA, not willing to face the truth, attribute the difference to dirty tactics or social media or shady practices. Back in December when everyone was going nuts over two slates running against Unity I put forth reasons I thought ABC had a chance of winning: UFT Elections: The Two Slate Solution - Keep Calm. Here were a few key takeaways then (in red) and my current response: - I've
maintained the only way to win this election with the prospects of
building dynamic change into the UFT is by enlisting large numbers of
working UFTers. Do not rely on retirees to win and dominate a fossilized
union (yes I am one of these fossils.) The current configuration of the
legacy caucuses unfortunately leads us in this direction.
There was an increase in turnout of 15% up to 28%. ABC needed closer to 33% turnout. For an upstart non-caucus based group, we did not get deep enough but showed a path to victory even with two oppos -- and even if we had run common candidates we would have lost in every area other than the 7 high school seats. - The
63% retiree vote that the legacy caucuses are relying to deliver will
not hold up for this election. In the 2022 UFT general election retirees
won 29% -the same number they did in the 2021 RTC election. In the
latter election word was out about the medicare situation - my biggest
disappointment in that election was not seeing the retiree vote expand.
That we didn't increase the retiree vote from the year before when few
knew about the health plan changes. That led to me being pessimistic for
the past June election. I was wrong. We ran a great campaign but the
difference maker: Marianne. Where will she land in this election and if
she doesn't get her people involved the retiree vote will drop
significantly. Unity still won over 10k in the 2024 chapter
loss. Expect that to hold and grow as Unity supporters may have turned
on Tom Murphy as RTC leader but may not be willing to turn over the
entire union to what will clearly be labeled a left-wing opposition run
by legacy caucuses that they have fought for years. RA did not have a
bad rep a year ago.
This prediction came through - Unity clawed back 3k votes to get 13K this time but ABC got 9K and ARISE 3k -- not enough to win the retiree vote but close. Clearly RA failed drastically in dropping from 17K a year ago but ABC getting 3x their total proved the influence of Marianne, something my pals in RA had been downgrading, thinking it was their organizing a year ago. - ABC is the non-ideological,
non-sectarian option with people from every caucus, including Unity, so
Unity retirees who know the score may go ABC, but not with a slate
dominated with MORE candidates.
Give me a check on this one. MORE has over 500 members. RA counted on its 300 delegates, who had no say in the choice to run with ARISE to come through. NAC has shown little presence in the schools and did not have faith in the possibilities of ABC and felt an alliance with MORE would make a difference. I argued the opposite to them, to no avail. - The numbers from the
UFC full frontal coalition vote in 2022 were not much different from the
smaller MORE/NAC coalition in 2016. Why would this election be any
different from the in-service vote (Mah Nishtanah), especially since what was UFC is diminished?
Given the 2022 vote and reduced caucus coalitions, I maintain Unity
would win the election if we were limited to a coalition run similar to
UFC, which the legacy caucuses not even reaching the same levels of
organizing that UFC, had reached.
I wrote:
UFC's main success was the increased % for UFC but that was due to Unity
drops which did not go to UFC. That dropped Unity vote just might shift
into the ABC column due to the Unity presence in ABC. UFC did not bump
up the in-service vote or even the retiree vote in that election. I contend that with a weakened UFC, these numbers will remain
constant for the caucus coalition, with the only wild cards retirees.
The only way to win is to go after the 80% who don't usually vote, not
an easy task but that looks like the major initiative of ABC and to
siphon off Unity votes.
Constant? I was wrong. I actually thought ARISE might get 20-25% and ABC over 30%. And I was wrong about Unity continued drops -- they really brought out their base and increased in every area other than High schools. I used the 2022 outcome to base a lot of my theories and the numbers for ARISE were worse than they were for UFC, which I also predicted - that ARISE was a diminished UFC which had 7 or 8 components. Nick bragged that the trimmed down to 3 ARISE was so easy to work with. That's very nice and comfortable - for them. The "less is more" theory didn't work in this case. - Oh, but what about the retiree and para votes from last spring? They
are not automatic and must be worked for. Fix Para Pay is aligned at
this point with ABC. So Don't forget the 27k para potential vote. The
in-service para vote, with 27k paras, long ignored by the opposition,
may prove more crucial than the retiree vote if we get turnout. Note: A
key organizing strategy is taking direct aim at this vote with a plan to
fight for para pay instead of the Unity policy of telling them to be
happy they have a job.
So this point sort of worked out with 120 paras running with ABC but we had hoped to do much better despite tripling ARISE and getting 1500 more functional votes than UFC did in 2022. That was due mostly to paras but the Unity push for 10k para bonuses (a smart election ploy, still unrealized) worked and the hoped-for tap into the 27k para vote was only partially successful. ABC also aimed to tap into other functional areas like OT/PT and nurses and probably did. But the Unity campaign worked - compare 2025 to 2022. 
- ABC with a drastic new approach to
not just running in the election but open to taking the
election-building process out from behind closed doors and get more rank
and file involved - and it has been working. Sample: 100 showed for a
zoom for paras and district 75 on Tuesday, and over 50 for a High School
zoom Wednesday, including chapter leaders from large high schools,
including some key people from Unity.That followed a general meeting
with 260 people. Think each in-service having some kind of network
outreach in their schools. ABC is building the broadest coalition and
still invites all legacy caucus members and supporters to run on the ABC
independent slate with no labels. Already some have signed up to run.
Is it enough yet? No. But there's a long way to go before ballots go out
in May and petitioning starting Feb. 12. And ABC has the petition king:
ME.
Well, I was pleasantly surprised at how relatively easy the petitioning was compared to 2022, with loads of ABC retiree and active people coming out to assist. Even I underestimated the vigor of ABCers. The one snag, if you call it that, was how aggressive ABC people were in recruiting candidates in the final week which forced us to spend the final weekend processing them - every candidate needed wet signature which made things difficult. A delightful snag. If we had another week we would have run a full slate of 750. - Almost 40% of Trump supporters in NYS are in a union and
many of them in the UFT and also anti-Mulgrew. Many have been non-voters
in the past. With an ABC option that is focused on bread and butter and
without a leftist ideology reputation, they may vote. Some will say how
dare you hope Trump supporters vote for you? How dare I run to win.
ABC WAS WILLING TO TALK TO ALL UFT MEMBERS AND AVOIDS PURGES AND SHUNNING - HORRORS! ABC has been vilified for trying to keep communication open to a wide variety of UFT members and focused on what members felt were important in their schools. Some in ARISE bragged about how moral and progressive they were and branded ABC as right wing troglodytes despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of key activists had a long record of progressive politics.
When you run to win, you have to be willing to listen to everyone and not set up ideological walls -- you know, not call fellow UFT members you disagree with "deplorable." In recent discussions during the vote count when I asked some of the ARISE people why run if you know you will lose, the response was to "get our ideas and visions out". The thinking is that long-term they can win enough progressives over. I respond that you will have little influence unless you can win and then have the full resources of the UFT to try to win people over in a democratic and transparent process. But running in elections is embedded in the DNA of caucuses and don't be surprised to see it happen again in 2028. Unity bummed at how poorly ARISE did The biggest disappointment to Unity was how bad ARISE did as ABC emerged as the big oppo dog. For ABC, it should try to convince the independent minds in ARISE to work with ABC in the next election while also continuing to work with their caucuses which could still use the election process and save their resources to promote their positions. They could still put out a leaflet and flood the mail boxes while not running --- a position I advocated for MORE in my final days there in late 2018 before the 2019 election. That helped get me kicked out of MORE.
Split in MORE - Results strengthen the "don't run wing" Back in August/September when MORE was debating whether to run at all, run alone or run in coalition, a strong group of 35 out of 160 who voted (what happened to the 500 MORE members?) were against running in coalition "with people who do not share their values." That says a lot about MORE and the lack of GOTV. In the vote to accept the coalition only 70 MOREs voted. The pro-coalition group knew full well that NAC had little pull in the schools but did have a large group of retirees who would do the work. NAC believed MORE had the horses in the schools to pull out votes. RA was viewed by both as the big retiree dog and the failure on that end is clear. I will say that inside ABC, while not wanting to run in an election with a group having the MORE label, the feelings about individuals in MORE have not been negative while there is a lot more people pissed off at NAC and RA. A lot of the ABC crowd are thankful to the people in MORE for informing them of the urinal attack on Amy. I think on the person to person level we may see some cooperation on common issues. NEXT: I will breakdown the elem, ms and hs results. Future of the Dem Party And these articles:
More Recent Articles
|
