Sections:

Article

Will CTU hold a new retiree delegate election? Union's financial office has made several mistakes in this important mail-ballot election...

Members of the Chicago Teachers Union's Rules and Electisn Committee received a text on the morning of December 31, 2017. It said: 'The latest retiree election process has turned into quite a mess. I believe we need an emergency meeting of R & E to address a course of action....declaring an invalid election should be on the table & how/why did this happen?' with a chance to vote on it.

Chicago Teachers Union Financial Secretary Maria Moreno (above left, with union president Karen Lewis and Vice President Jesse Sharkey) failed to follow the union's own rules and elections procedures when ordering the retiree delegate election held for 33 delegates when the retirees are now only entitled to 31 delegates. Moreno also failed to warn the voters, who must vote by mail, of how much postage to put on the envelope returning their ballots to the union's office. She also failed to tell voters when the ballots had to be returned.Two major screwups have tainted the retiree election since election materials were mailed to all eligible voters (Chicago Teachers Union retiree members) two weeks ago. A third even larger problem hasn't even been mentioned widely until now.

The first is that the mailing failed to tell voters when their ballots should be returned to the union office. Retirees live across the USA (and in some foreign countries) and need to know precisely the time lines for voting.

The second screwup came when retirees were not told how much postage was required on the unusual envelopes that had to be mailed in with the official ballots. Some retirees thought their ballots could be mailed using only one First Class (or "Forever") stamp, because the mailing weighed about one ounce. Others believe that two First Class stamps would do the job,but several who went to the Post Office were told that an odd postage was required.

There has also been no explanation to date from the Chicago Teachers Union as to why retiree members were electing 33 delegates, when they were only supposed to be electing 31. Under CTU rules, retirees elect one delegate for every 100 members. And the number of retiree members has always been determined by the number of retiree members listed on the union's official statement of membership as of December 1. But the December 1 membership report (ironically delivered by Maria Moreno, whose office has been responsible for the mistakes) stated that the union has a bit fewer than 3,100 members -- NOT the 3,300 members that would have been required to justify electing 33 delegates.

More and more retirees are demanding that a new election should happen. Others are asking whether this a power play by CORE to only get their 'anointed' members elected...



Comments:

January 1, 2018 at 8:56 PM

By: Susan Hickey, LCSW

Why is retiree voting being discussed in a CORE listserv instead of in the CTU Rules and Elections ?

Below is an email chain I was involved in which was a surprise since I am not a CORE$ member. It is the only time I have been allowed to be part of a discussion within CORE:

On Dec 31, 2017, at 3:00 PM, CRAIG CLEVE wrote:

Dear CORE members,

I offer the following in light of the Retiree Election:

1). In CORE's recently-completed Steering election, 41 of 142 eligible voters did not vote:

2). Retirees comprised the largest identifiable group among non-voters, (18 out of the 41).

CORE has used electronic ballots before. They are reliable, cost-effective, and are available to anyone with an updated email. No postage is required.

And yet, they are imperfect, as evidenced by this demographic.

It begs the question:

If neither electronic nor paper ballots are doing the trick, how do we better serve our retiree members in elections?

No snark intended. I'm open to suggestions.

In solidarity,

Craig

On December 31, 2017 at 4:14 PM Susan Hickey wrote:

Hi Craig

The CTU retiree election is NOT solely a CORE issue. The Rules and Election Committee needs to rule on this! There are a number of us who are not CORE. I didn’t appreciate Jackson telling me to not to worry about it.

Happy New Year everyone

Susan

On Dec 31, 2017, at 5:25 PM, CRAIG CLEVE wrote:

Susan,

My intent was to underscore an unsettling reality -- whether in a CORE election run electronically or a CTU mail-in ballot -- retirees are not being adequately served to a degree which would facilitate more participation.

How do we remedy that?

Craig

Hi Craig

It is still a CTU Committee discussion. The same problem goes with clinicians being citywide. I believe the electronic method should be tried out on ALL retirees and for clinicians (I can envision the rolling of the eyes when I used clinician word), using the membership portal.

Look forward to hearing from the CTU R & E Committee on what they are going to do with the disaster of the election. I put 3 forever stamps to ensure it would make it. Did the email about the cock up only go to CORE retirees as I certainly did not get it.

There are more than CORE members in CTU.

I appreciate your bringing us into the discussion.

Happy New Year to all,

Susan

January 1, 2018 at 10:26 PM

By: Jo-Anne cairo

CTU Retiree election

This is suppose to be CTU Retiree Election, it is obvious that those who are working at the CTU do not pay attention to details. They are lax in conducting an election, by forgetting to include prominate details pertaining to the election. They disregard CTU members who are not on the Core listserv, I thought this was the CTU retiree election not he Core retiree election. But from the emails, Core has tried to take control of this election and retirees who are not in Core are irritated that their votes are being tossed to the curb. It was obvious at the retiree luncheon that some individuals who work at the CTU were placed in charge of the election.

January 2, 2018 at 3:29 PM

By: Susan Hickey, LCSW

CORE censuring their own listserv and others trying to respond

After being allowed to have a dialog with CTU/CORE members over the disaster of the retiree elction, I was not allowed to respond to a ridiculous charge that I was attacking Maria Moreno. Maria has been known to say unkind things but usually waits for the person to leave when making negative comments so the person is not allowed to respond.

CORE leadership in CTU is resembling both CPS and the previous group in CTU leadership. They are bullying those of us who are independent or have a different opinion- saying we are 'traitors to the cause'.

There is a person in CORE who wants to set up a tribunal to 'excommunicate' CORE members who are not in lock step to their campaigns. The craziness has been heightened by Karen Lewis' absence as it appears there is some jockeying to take over leadership.

Here is the last email chain which will end with my response being rejected by CORE's moderator, Drew Heiserman. The same people say much worse when they are expressing their opinions!

-----Original Message-----

From: Sarah Chambers

Sent: Sun, Dec 31, 2017 9:55 pm

Subject: Re: [core] Retiree Election

This retiree election clearly had major errors since some envelopes will probably end up being returned.

I hope rules and elections can correct this. I’m not sure if this can be fixed without redoing the election.

Sarah Chambers

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2018, at 4:47 AM, gnschmidt (via core Mailing List) wrote:

January 1, 2018

Brothers and sisters...

As Susan Hickey's analysis at the top of substancenews.net this morning (and a Happy New Year to you all) notes, there were three major problems with the way the current retiree delegate election has been organized. THREE. As big as any is that retirees are only eligible for 31 delegates -- NOT 33 as are currently being "elected" under the admittedly flawed process. The letter that came to me with my ballot did not say when the ballots had to be returned. The letter did not warn us that we needed to mail the return with more than one "First Class" stamp. And we were told we were to elect 33 delegates, when we are only eligible for 31 delegates. Each of these is a serious issue. Together, they nullify the integrity of the election if the union doesn't correct them.

Imagine is your school had "elected" two more delegates than you were officially eligible to have. Would you have noticed and corrected the problem? Now imagine if another school (say, a school with which you disagreed in the HOD) had elected two more "opposition" delegates than were warranted.

I think that the union has to schedule a new retiree delegate election to maintain the integrity of the delegate elections that begin in schools next week. I don't know the "why" of the screw ups, but the Who, What, When and Where are clear. I used to be on the Rules-Elections Committee but am not currently serving on that committee, so I am not familiar with the deliberations that resulted in these three problems.

However, I have been in discussions with dozens of retiree union members and delegates, and the majority are dissatisfied. The current voting should be suspended, and a new election held with the mistakes corrected. I am an incumbent delegate and will continue serving in the HOD as long as the voters who elect CTU retiree delegates elect me.

George N. Schmidt

-----Original Message-----

From: Sarah Chambers Sent: Mon, Jan 1, 2018 7:21 pm

Subject: Re: [core] Retiree Election

People have a right to be frustrated, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for people to be attacking Maria. People should assume best intentions and ask questions.

The entire rules and election committee sets up the procedures for election. I’m sure the committee is going to meet to figure out next steps.

Sarah

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 1, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Susan Hickey wrote:

I do not think it was an attack as much as it is a failure to ensure procedures were not done and pointing it out to people.. Having worked in the CTU office, I know how much the Financial Department has to do and they do not have enough staff to do it. The officer of Financial Secretary is actually two positions rolled into one when the Treasurer position was eliminated. But that is another issue, The fact that some retirees got an email and others didn't about the need to add more postage is an issue. I look forward to the R & E Committee to rule on this vbery soon.

Susan

From: core-request@lists.riseup.net

Date: January 1, 2018 at 10:22:05 PM CST

To: zuzka48@aol.com

Subject: Your message has been rejected.

Your message for list core@lists.riseup.net

has been rejected chamber by the moderator (drewheiserman@hotmail.com).

(Subject of your mail: Re: [core] Retiree Election)

January 2, 2018 at 8:21 PM

By: Craig Cleve

CTU Retiree Election

Susan Hickey,

I was a CORE member for about three years before I was added to the LISTSERV. The former custodian of the LIST was a busy guy, and it took me several reminders before I was added.

Which is why I find it dubious that you were added without your asking and for the purpose of the discussion on that thread.

It begs the question: If you are not a CORE member, a fact you have already made known, why should you be upset about being removed from a "members only" forum? Clearly you were added in error, and your removal would seem to be in keeping with your wishes -- not an act of censorship, as you imply.

Craig

January 2, 2018 at 9:41 PM

By: Marybeth Foley

Postage on Retiree Ballot

I went to the River Forest post office this evening, where a friend had mailed her ballot back by having it weighed. She paid $1.19 in postage.

The postal clerk weighed my brown envelope and said there were three categories it could go for:

49 cents in a regular envelope (#9 or 10 size), weighing no more than an ounce, but not an envelope the size of the brown one

98 cents (two stamps) for the brown envelope size, weighing no more than an ounce and

$1.19 if it was in the brown envelope AND weighed more than an ounce (even 1.1 ounce).

I asked the postal clerk if the brown envelope could have been mailed for two regular stamps ($.98). She said yes

.

She didn't know why my friend's weighed brown envelope went for $1.19 when mine went for $.98.

She also said it would not cost more if sent from a suburb to Chicago.

January 2, 2018 at 9:43 PM

By: Marybeth Foley

Postage on Retiree Ballot

I went to the River Forest post office this evening, where a friend had mailed her ballot back by having it weighed. She paid $1.19 in postage.

The postal clerk weighed my brown envelope and said there were three categories it could go for:

49 cents in a regular envelope (#9 or 10 size), weighing no more than an ounce, but not an envelope the size of the brown one

98 cents (two stamps) for the brown envelope size, weighing no more than an ounce and

$1.19 if it was in the brown envelope AND weighed more than an ounce (even 1.1 ounce).

I asked the postal clerk if the brown envelope could have been mailed for two regular stamps ($.98). She said yes

.

She didn't know why my friend's weighed brown envelope went for $1.19 when mine went for $.98.

She also said it would not cost more if sent from a suburb to Chicago.

January 2, 2018 at 11:54 PM

By: Susan Hickey, LCSW

CTU retiree elections

Craig,

You are very mistaken that I was upset about not having my post rejected. My main and to be honest only concern is that the retiree election should be made null and void. Why are you concern about only CORE retirees? There are many more non-CORE folk and I feel it necessary to take the conversation to ALL. I thought (wrongly, I realize) that my involvement was to get an independent voice not one tied to any group. Anyone who knows me, know I speak my mind and never joined any caucus. When asked what is my caucus, I would say clinician. Our Steering Committee would have at least 10-15 members there and we did not ask what caucus they belonged to.

Clinicians would get regular emails from me that covered all the issues. I have heard that teachers and staff would ask clinicians in their building: What news from Susan?

I hope that there will be resolution concerning the retirees election and it will not be swept under the rug.

Stay strong and stay together,

Susan

Add your own comment (all fields are necessary)

Substance readers:

You must give your first name and last name under "Name" when you post a comment at substancenews.net. We are not operating a blog and do not allow anonymous or pseudonymous comments. Our readers deserve to know who is commenting, just as they deserve to know the source of our news reports and analysis.

Please respect this, and also provide us with an accurate e-mail address.

Thank you,

The Editors of Substance

Your Name

Your Email

What's your comment about?

Your Comment

Please answer this to prove you're not a robot:

2 + 5 =