COLLEGES:
Conservative trustees who rail against teachers unions get crucial help from
union-funded PACs.
October 31, 1998
KIMBERLY KINDY
The Orange County
Register
Donald Wagner is
campaigning as a fiscal conservative for a seat on the South Orange County
Community College board.
He is supported by the Education
Alliance, a group that advocates “back-to-basics” education and frequently battles
teachers unions for control over school boards. He fought for Proposition 226,
a ballot measure that would have restricted unions’ ability to use members’
dues for political campaigns.
He also has an
unusual—and largely unknown—ally: the local chapter of the California Teachers
Association.
Political action
committees funded by the union secretly paid for campaign fliers for Wagner and
fellow candidate Nancy Padberg.
The same thing
happened in 1996, when three candidates promoted in a campaign mailer paid for
by the union won seats.
Even candidates
supported by the union said they were unaware of the campaign help.
“The teachers union?
“ Wagner said. “The California Teachers Association is overwhelmingly liberal.
I would seriously doubt they would support a conservative Republican like me. I
was generally pleased to get the support ... but I think it’s strange that it’s
the union.”
Union leaders have
not given a public explanation for their decisions. They have refused to
discuss either campaign with their rank and file, even though members’ dues
financed the fliers.
Critics of the union
and the board majority say the reasons have become obvious. They point to the
following:
A five-year
contract, negotiated after the 1996 election, that boosted teachers’ salaries
at an estimated annual cost of $5 million when the district was on the state’s
fiscal watch list--and when faculty pay was already the highest of any
community college in the state.
Administrators who
had made enemies with the union say they have been removed, or forced out, by
the board majority and replaced with union loyalists. Since 1996, eight
administrators have left the district and five have returned to the classroom,
with several saying they fled a hostile work environment that began after the
election.
The union’s
political consultant for the 1996 campaign flier that helped elect three
members of the board majority [Pam Zanelli] now works as the district’s
spokeswoman at roughly $5,000 a month.
“Why is the faculty
union giving money to endorse candidates who are appealing to a segment of the
voter population who is opposed to unions? “ said Irvine Valley College
professor and union member Brenda Borron. “It’s simple. It’s the buying and
selling of board members. They will do anything to keep control of the board
majority.”
Union President
Sherry Miller White has refused comment to reporters and to her own members
about either campaign.
Board President John
Williams did not agree to an interview, but he has said at public meetings that
he and the board majority are not controlled by the union, nor is the union
controlled by the board.
The union chapter’s
bylaws give all decision-making authority for campaigning to the current
president and any past union presidents who wish to serve on the election
committee. That group doesn’t have to tell members what it’s doing.
Campaign disclosure
forms filed with the county registrar of voters show teachers union funds going
to four political action committees since 1996 to pay for two fliers.
Nowhere on either
mailer—which were sent out en masse to south Orange County homes—is the union
mentioned. Only the political action committees’ names, such as Taxpayers for
Responsible Educators, appear.
Saddleback College
English Professor Robert Kopfstein doesn’t believe the union should play any
campaign role.
“My advice has been
to get out of the election business altogether,” said Kopfstein, the treasurer
for one of the union’s political action committees, which indirectly helped
fund the latest mass mailer. “It’s too difficult to get consensus from members
on candidates. And a hit piece—even if it were truthful—it’s not the kind of
thing faculty has much stomach for.”
Since the election
of the current board majority, the district has been deeply divided.
Thursday, two
outside accrediting teams left Irvine Valley and Saddleback colleges, saying
they were “stunned” by “divisiveness and disharmony” they found. Accreditation
is necessary so that students can qualify for federal financial aid and have
their credits accepted by universities.
Members of the board
majority say a group of professors is stirring up all the trouble—teachers who’ve
lost power and money as a result of reforms the board has passed. [Note: these “professors”
began stirring up “trouble”--Brown Act lawsuits, bad press, etc.--months before
the
loss of any Chairships and reassigned time.]
None of the four
members agreed to an interview, but in a prepared statement Dorothy Fortune
said this week that 28 administrators are now doing work that was assigned to
46 in 1996.
In the process, many
faculty members who held quasi-administrative duties have returned to the
classroom. She estimates the savings at $1.8 million.
“Employees who
previously benefited from past wasteful district practices have bitterly
contested reform,” Fortune said.
But some
rank-and-file members say the discord has been caused by the board majority,
who were elected with the help of the union leadership. And this is why they
view any new union campaign efforts with suspicion—especially since it again
has been done in secret.
In 1996, the union
paid $40,000 to mail out a flier that read: “Stop Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Advocates
Who Want to TAKE CONTROL of Your Tax Dollars and Your Community Colleges” and
supported three members of the current board majority.
This campaign, the
union has financed a mass mailing supporting Padberg and Wagner that uses
another hot-button issue—the proposed El Toro airport—to try to get people to
the polls.
Both in 1996 and
this election year, professors say they are unwillingly helping people with
ties to groups that the CTA typically fights.
“I’d love to hear
union leaders’ reasoning for supporting these two candidates,” said Roni
Lebauer, a Saddleback College professor.
“They are both endorsed
by extremely conservative groups that are anti-union.”
For example, board
President John Williams was backed by the teachers union and elected in
1996. He has strong ties to members of the Education Alliance, which supports
opponents of union-backed candidates.
CTA leader David
Lebow, who was called into the south Orange County local to investigate the
1996 campaign, said union leaders may have chosen some unconventional
candidates, but they had their reasons.
“The group they didn’t
endorse was interested in reducing their salaries. They really believed it was
a threat to their very existence,” said Lebow about the 1996 campaign. “But the
(same-sex marriage) flier was bad. ... It was really bad. They did it because
they believed they had to win that election.”
This time, Lebow
said, CTA headquarters will once again not monitor the local chapter’s
candidate endorsements. Instead, Lebow said, union officials are handling a
mail vote on a proposed chapter bylaw change that would prevent any secret
endorsements in the 2000 campaign.
The new bylaws, if
passed, would require the current campaign committee to share its plans with a
large panel of teachers, which would include an elected representative from
each department at the two colleges. The panel would then vote on the campaign
committee’s recommendations, and members would be informed of the final
decisions.
But Saddleback
College Professor Cheryl Altman said that many teachers are cynical about the
effect of a bylaw change.
“I don’t have any
confidence left,” Altman said. “Many of the old bylaws were never followed. You
have to have leaders who are willing to follow the rules.”
No comments:
Post a Comment