I was doing the carpool, switching back and forth between rants on the Randi Rhodes Show and KFI 640’s John and Ken, when John and Ken said something about the California Teachers Association that I absolutely could not believe.
The claim: that the California Teachers Association is using a $60 annual fee they recently levied on every teacher for the next three years (in addition to their regular dues) to pay interest on debt generated by frequent campaigns against Governor Arnie!
No way! While I’ve never been fond of the CTA, they couldn’t possibly be that recklessly self-destructive, could they? I mean, teachers are historically underpaid as it is, and their union is asking them to shell out an additional $60 a year to fund the CTA war chest?
Unfortunately, John and Ken’s site didn’t have any mention of the $60 political fee or the controller’s statement, so I did some research.
In June, the CTA issued a press release:
LOS ANGELES – The top governing body of the California Teachers Association voted overwhelmingly today for a $60 temporary dues assessment to protect minimum funding to our public schools and to ensure the concerns of teachers, students and parents are heard if the governor calls a wasteful special election.
“California teachers are upset with the governor’s broken promises to our students and schools,” CTA President Barbara E. Kerr said today after the nearly unanimous vote. “We didn’t pick this fight, but this vote clearly shows teachers have never been more united than they are today. Educators across the state are opposed to the governor’s destructive agenda that won’t help improve student learning one bit.”
Some teachers objected to this fee and six teachers went so far as to file a lawsuit:
SACRAMENTO — Aided by an anti-union legal organization, a group of teachers sued the California Teachers Assn. on Thursday, trying to force it to return a $60 dues increase that is financing its fight against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special election agenda.
[SNIP]
The teachers’ union has been the largest funder of opposition to the governor, having spent $51 million so far this year on politics and lobbying.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by the nonprofit National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is based in Virginia. The 37-year-old organization has fought a number of cases on behalf of workers who do not want to be required to join unions.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of six California teachers. Only one is a member of the union, but all are being charged a $60 annual assessment for the next three years to help underwrite the union’s campaign.
The union, which this month started deducting an extra $6 monthly, says it will refund the money to anyone who asks, but not until October or November. The plaintiffs call that a coerced loan.
The plaintiffs held their news conference in front of the union’s Sacramento headquarters. The union responded with about 50 teachers who shouted “Shame on you” throughout the news conference, with some carrying signs saying, “Don’t silence our voices.” The speakers could not be heard even by those standing a foot away.
“To be silenced like that was very intimidating,” said Judith Liegmann, a fifth-grade teacher in Sunnyvale who was near tears after the event. She and the other plaintiffs discussed the lawsuit in a subsequent meeting with reporters away from the union headquarters.
“All teachers in their training and their experience in the classroom know that one of the things they need to teach their children is to listen politely to the ideas of their fellow students and give everybody a chance to talk,” she said. “And I see teachers out there breaking every rule of civility.”
Paula Caplinger, a Sacramento band teacher and member of the union board of directors, said the counterdemonstration was justified.
“This is our building,” she said. “They chose to have a press conference in our frontyard. What did they expect?”
She added: “Proposition 75 is all about silencing workers’ voices. I guess it’s a little taste of what a silenced voice is like.”
The union said the suit was a disingenuous attack. Caplinger called the monthly $6 assessment “a hefty latte and muffin.”
“Lawsuit Targets Teachers Union: A group of teachers seeks the return of a $60 increase in annual dues to fund the CTA’s fight against the governor’s special election agenda,” by Jordan Rau, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 23, 2005.
Yikes! Too bad this post isn’t about the California Teacher’s Association’s organized impediment to the right of free speech and assembly!
And I still don’t have an answer yet for what I want to know: what will the “latte and muffin” money be used for?
The CTA controller, Carlos Moreno, filed an affidavit to answer that very question, presumably for the judge. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation very kindly sent me a copy and gave me permission to post it here.
It’s a PDF file but I transcribed it. I highlighted what I thought are extremely important passages, even though the whole thing is important:
DECLARATION OF CARLOS MORENO
Date: October 5, 2005
Time: 2:00 pm
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th FloorThe Hon. James Ware
Liegmann, et. al. v. California Teachers Ass’n, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. CV05-3828 JW
I, Carlos Moreno, hereby declare:
- The facts stated herein are personally known to me and if called to testify, I could testify competently thereto.
- I am currently employed by the California Teachers Association (“CTA”) as Controller. It is my responsibility to manage the business and financial operations of CTA. My official start date was August 8, 2005, but I was actively involved in CTA’s financial operations from the time the position was offered to me on June 21, 2005. Prior to obtaining my position at CTA, I was employed for twenty years by Education Minnesota, the National Education Association state affiliate in Minnesota, first as a staff accountant and since 1991 as Controller. I am a Certified Public Accountant.
- In my position as Controller I am familiar with the current and historical financial situation of CTA. I am informed and believe that on June 5, 2005, CTA’s approximately 800 person representative body, “State Council”, voted nearly unanimously to increase CTA member dues by $60 a year for three years to maintain fiscal solvency while CTA fought against several initiatives scheduled for the November 2005 California ballot (“the initiative campaign”). I know from my review of CTA’s financial records that CTA spent considerable sums of money on the initiative campaign before June 21, 2005. Since my personal involvement with CTA starting on June 21, 2005, CTA has continued to spend considerable sums of money on the initiative campaign. Spending this money has necessitated CTA obtaining a $14 million loan. We are currently paying interest on that loan. CTA has spent the money on the initiative campaign in reliance on its expectation of receiving a certain income stream from the three year temporary $60 annual dues increase to repay current and future debts incurred as a result of actual campaign spending while being able to continue its normal operations serving members. The increase in dues will begin to be paid, in monthly installments, by almost all members through payroll deductions from their end-of-September, 2005 paychecks.
- CTA has already spent on the initiative campaign the equivalent of what the temporary dues increase would bring in over three years.
- CTA is in the process of negotiating a necessary $40 million line of credit. The proposed terms for the new line of credit call for the income stream from the $60 dues increase, together with CTA’s other ongoing income, to pay back the principal and interest. If the temporary restraining order is granted, it will greatly harm or destroy CTA’s ability to get this line of credit. If CTA is unable to get this line of credit, there is a significant risk that an outstanding $20 million line will be called. Millions of CTA’s members dues dollars are possibly at stake. Therefore the temporary restraining order would cause great financial harm to CTA and affect CTA’s ability to continue to deliver its current level of services to members over the long term.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated 9/30/05
Carlos Moreno
Did I read that right? The CTA has already spent the money they’re trying to get from teachers? That they are paying on an interest-only loan? That unless they get this $60 fee from all their members, then the organization may become insolvent? Then all their members’ dues will be “at stake”?
Despite this frank declaration of what I call financial mismanagement, Judge Ware did not rule “to grant a temporary restraining order to immediately freeze forced union dues seizures spent for politics while the class action lawsuit is pending.” I can’t understand why after reading that affidavit. Maybe he felt the union members voted in the management they deserved… I don’t know.
And knowing exactly how poorly mismanaged the teachers union is right now just makes press releases like these particularly galling:
October 5, 2005
A U.S. District Court today threw out a petition filed by the National Right to Work Committee against the California Teachers Association, effectively exposing it as a baseless political stunt. Ruling from the bench, Judge James Ware denied a request for a temporary restraining order, stating he was not willing to extend the law as the National Right to Work Foundation requested.
The frivolous lawsuit filed by National Right to Work has no basis in fact or in law. It is simply a politically motivated attempt to promote Proposition 75 and create a false impression that Proposition 75 represents a struggle between union members and the union. In fact, Proposition 75 is supported by many of the same big corporations and wealthy individuals that bankroll National Right to Work. Their ultimate goal is to silence the voices of teachers in the public policy debate so that they can pursue their agenda of cutting school funding and promoting private school vouchers without opposition.
No mention of the revelation of enormous debt facing all teachers union members, of the lack of fiscal common sense exercised by union management as they spent every borrowed penny they had to fight an initiative campaign.
I don’t know about you, but I think the CTA is hoping none of their members will ever read Carlos Moreno’s affidavit. And considering the lack of press coverage on Mr. Moreno’s statement, I doubt they will. According to Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation, this is the only paper that’s taken up the story, and unfortunately, you must be a subscriber to read it.
If you want a copy of the affidavit, I’ve hosted it here here, or you may get a copy directly from the National Right to Work Foundation, the “nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses.”
Technorati tags: California Teachers Association, California, California Special Election
Much of the right of the blogosphere and talk radio in California seems to be enamored with the recent declaration by the controller of the California Teachers’ Association that the funds of the three-year $60.00 assessment has already been spent, and that additional monies need to be borrowed or else the CTA will cease to exist.
Is this the Propositional Straw Man? In other words, will this issue now be used by those supporting the governor’s bad ideas found in the special election to bash the CTA and “prove” that the CTA is a deceptive organization that “obviously lies about everything” that it doesn’t like? This straw man seems to have been rolled out since the governor and his supporters have provided no evidence that tenure or the current removal process is actually hampering student achievement.
On a side note, the special assessment is not a tax like many of its opponents claim. The power to tax is a governmental power. The special assessment was approved by the duly elected representatives of the CTA membership. If you are a CTA member and do not like it, then vote for new representatives or run yourself!
This is not to say that CTA does not have some explaining to do! The potential financial crisis for the CTA and its members is very real. However, it is a different issue and should not be confused with the debate about what is needed to reform public education in California for the great good of all.
Oops! That exclamation point in the paragraph about running for office should have been deleted. On my blog it is directed at other teachers (and, hence, not you).
Sorry!