NEA Convention 2000 Report and Commentary

NEA Convention 2000 Report and Commentary

I. INTRODUCTION

We think that you might be interested in our experiences and observations relating to the 2000 NEA Convention in Chicago, Illinois, July 1-6, 2000. Very often, some of the most significant developments occur outside of the Representative Assembly; therefore, our coverage includes the NEA-Retired Convention, and other events during the pre-convention period. The following commentary covers only a small part of our reactions. Please call us if you would like additional information on the convention or on matters in this commentary.

A few conclusions about the convention as a whole: with few exceptions, there was an absence of any attention to the educational problems of widespread public concern. For example, there were no programs or discussions of widespread reading deficiencies, and low mathematics and science achievement. One exception was the attention paid to the low educational achievement of minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics. Even in this context, however, the focus was on low achievement among ethnic minorities &endash; and the problem was to be solved by spending more on the remedial programs that have not been effective for thirty-five years.

The evils of vouchers were by far the preeminent topic throughout the convention. Neither of us heard as much as one sentence that portrayed vouchers as anything but a right-wing scheme to destroy public education, or a snare and a delusion for the unwary. Other than vouchers, internal affairs and national politics, the focus was on racism, discrimination, homophobia, higher federal appropriations, and more teacher benefits and protections.

Granted, the business meetings of professional organizations, such as the American Bar Association, are oriented largely to organizational governance and broad policy issues. However, in law and other professions, the professional specializations sponsor programs addressed to the research and professional practice dimensions of their work. Not so with the NEA. It is interesting that the major textbook publishers do not sponsor exhibits; there is no interest in textbooks, except how they treat ethnic minorities, gays, lesbians, and other groups allegedly subject to discrimination.

One last point: the NEA's "New Unionism" alleges that the union is devoting much more attention to "educational reform" and "quality education" than in the past. The claim raises this question: How are these shifts in emphasis related to the NEA's $233 million budget for 2000-2001? The answer is &endash; at most, only a very small amount of the total budget reflects the new emphasis. No one comparing the NEA budgets before and after the "New Unionism" would detect any significant difference in NEA priorities. To be sure, there have been changes, but they are in the public relations spin, not anything substantive.

We invite you to use this material in your newsletters, on your website, or in other appropriate ways; we ask only that you credit the Education Policy Institute as the source and send us a copy.

Sincerely,

Myron Lieberman
Charlene K. Haar

II. PRECONVENTION ACTIVITIES

1. NEA-Retired Annual Meeting, June 27-29

Over 180 retired members of the NEA's 200,000 retirees attended the NEA-Retired annual meeting, which is held just prior to the NEA convention. In addition to general business and candidate elections, the retirees celebrated NEA-Retired "as an invaluable resource for public education," and renewed their commitment to youth programs and also to NEA's Campaign 2000. At workshops, NEA staff demonstrated how to make the Internet a part of retirement planning, compared what states are doing about pension benefit enhancements, discussed membership recruitment and mentoring, and staff from NEA Member Benefits Corporation discussed financial planning.

Dennis Friel, head of NEA's Government Relations East Team engaged retirees in a particularly frank discussion of "Making Connections for Election 2000, What's at Stake: Politics to Advance Our Policy Agenda." Relying on focus groups and member surveys conducted on the likely presidential candidates, Friel was pleased to report that "two out of three of our members can move. We can move 800,000 votes for Al Gore. We can win this. Even though some polls have Bush at 119, and Gore at 108, do not despair!" Friel alerted the retiree delegates to the October issue of NEA Today which will include a pull-out comparison of Bush and Gore. Friel continued that support for Gore, while very broad, is very shallow. In fact, internal surveys reveal that NEA Educational Support Personnel (ESPs) break for Republican Governor George W. Bush, 47/43.

Over and over during the session, Friel asked: "Does this guy Bush have the smarts to do the job?" Apparently NEA leaders have decided that the Republican candidate's "smarts" will be an issue if raised often enough.

In addition to the presidential race, Friel said that the NEA will also target about 25 "competitive" Congressional races. He encouraged retirees "to make as many contacts as possible with NEA members" to ensure a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

Friel reminded the retirees that more than twice as many seniors as those under 35 consistently vote in general elections. He also indicated that the swing groups in the 2000 election are seniors, Catholics and Hispanics. He urged NEA seniors to be the critical difference in the forthcoming elections.

2. The Rainbow/Push Program

In some ways, the most depressing experience was Myron Lieberman's visit to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push meeting on Saturday, July 1. The trip was cosponsored by the NEA and took place from 10:00-12:30 p.m. Saturday, July 1. Buses carried the visitors to and from the Rainbow/Push building on East 50th Street.

Most of the meeting was a plea for funds to send Jesse Jackson to Mississippi to challenge the suspicious number of black suicides in Mississippi prisons. Having had some civil rights experience in Mississippi, Dr. Lieberman had no problem with this investigation, but one aspect of the program was cause for deep concern. Much of the discussion was devoted to the high proportion of blacks in U.S. prisons, a development discussed at some length by NEA Vice President Reg Weaver, who represented NEA on the program. Weaver raised this question: Why is the percentage of the U.S. population in jail the highest of any nation? According to Weaver, the reason is that U.S. corporations use prison labor to pay workers less, thereby increasing their profits; the corporations do not have to pay social security taxes as well as less on wages and benefits.

Weaver identified several U.S. corporations that strive to increase the prison population to be utilized as cheap labor: IBM; Starbucks; AT&T; and Nike were among the corporations he mentioned. Weaver did not offer any other explanation for the large U.S. prison population. Inasmuch as he will probably be the NEA president for six years after current president Bob Chase completes his second three-year term in 2002, the implications of his comments are worth pondering.

3. The Collective Bargaining Conference

On Sunday July 2, about 150 NEA members, staff and guests attended the all-day conference on "Collective Bargaining Challenges and Opportunities in the New Millennium." Workshop sessions were conducted on "Expanding Rights in Non-Bargaining States," "Bargaining for Health Care Insurance Benefits," "Emerging Bargaining Issues for ESP," and "Collective Bargaining: When Generation X and Y Take Over Your Local." NEA General Counsel Robert Chanin gave the keynote presentation: "Collective Bargaining Challenges for the Future." Chanin is a senior partner in Bredhoff and Kaiser, a Washington law firm that also represents the AFL-CIO. Chanin has been general counsel for NEA since 1968 and has been its lead counsel in critical Supreme Court cases involving NEA-PAC as well as the NEA

In view of Chanin's influence in the NEA, his analysis and advice to the NEA and its affiliates will undoubtedly be reflected in NEA strategy and tactics for many years to come. He began his presentation by mangling the history of teacher bargaining. According to his revisionist account, the 1963 enactment of a collective bargaining law in Connecticut was the impetus for the widespread emergence of teacher bargaining in the 1960s. This is startling information; just about everyone else regards the AFT's 1961 victory over the NEA in New York City as the event that triggered it. We thought that in this era of good feeling between the NEA and the AFT, Chanin might have conceded that the AFT's persistent support for collective bargaining against NEA opposition to it was at least worthy of mention if not the role of the first cause.

Chanin admitted that in the early years, "Confrontation was part of [his] vocabulary." He then went on to say that teacher bargaining led to a period of confrontation because school boards would not accept its legitimacy. The traditional approach to bargaining could have dealt with quality issues in a collaborative way, but school boards stubbornly refused to accept the process. Chanin said that "In instances where we were dividing a shrinking pie, [funds] confrontation was always more effective; there would always be a winner and loser."

Paraphrasing slightly, Chanin suggested that "one aspect of traditional collective bargaining that relates to education reform is the scope of bargaining. Under most state bargaining laws, the scope of bargaining is limited to salaries and working conditions, and educational policy is a management prerogative. However, if teachers are to be change agents, they will have to expand the scope of bargaining in order to participate fully in education reform. In most situations, however, education reform can be addressed if the parties really want to do so."

Presumably, because it might lead to a skepticism about the "new unionism" that the teacher unions are promoting these days, Chanin did not mention the fact that both the NEA and AFT initially contended that teacher bargaining would bring about significant educational benefits for pupils. At any rate, except in the 17 states without a bargaining law, the teacher unions can afford to adopt collegial and creative approaches to educational employment relations that unions have anticipated with the emergence of teacher bargaining. In Chanin's view, these new approaches can and should be facilitated by changes in the state bargaining law, such as expansion of the scope of representation and increased flexibility in unit determination. The latter is necessary to take account of the fact that NEA affiliates now represent 310,000 education support personnel; there should be only one bargaining unit instead of the two required under conventional unionism.

Chanin reiterated that he did not believe in the 1980s and 1990s that it was necessary to change the collective bargaining state statutes and that is what he still believes. Nonetheless, he conceded "that the NEA should no longer cast itself in the statutory status quo." This is not now acceptable although it may have been 10 years ago. Years ago, there was little understanding of the realities of collective bargaining, and even less understanding of the political issues.

Chanin continued, "Today the chorus of dissenters is now louder and includes far more influential voices. Prestigious commissions involving well-respected labor experts are recommending that changes be made in public sector labor relations. A debate, not unlike that in the 60s and 70s is underway. I believe that these debates present both an opportunity and a challenge for NEA and its affiliates. We must not let the opponents win by default. We should not remain reluctant observers attempting to be beat back and diminish association rights. We must promote our own perspective on collective bargaining and education reform. In short we should do unto them before they have done unto us."

According to Chanin, it would be worthwhile for the NEA to make the effort to engage in high scale, new education-reform-friendly model statutes, even if a legislative approach based on collaboration should fail. Such an initiative would demonstrate that collective bargaining and education reform are fully compatible. Chanin concluded, "Finally, this type of effort would reaffirm, that despite its agenda, the NEA is first and foremost a union and employee representation is the lifeblood of any union!"

Unfortunately, everything that Chanin refers to as "reform" turns out to be something that is good for teacher and union welfare. In his perspective, which is the NEA's, collaboration is limited to employer concession to the union, never union concessions to the employer. If you doubt this, bear in mind that Chanin's presentation never hinted at a concession or compromise that NEA affiliates would or should make in negotiations. Nor can you find any such changes in the NEA policies adopted before and during the 2000 convention. At the same time, Chanin was suggesting that school employers make extremely important concessions, such as major expansions of the scope of bargaining, and reduced class size. Note that reducing class size makes the teachers' work easier and increases union revenues. This would not or might not be objectionable if it could be shown that the gains in educational achievement justified the increased expenditures; class size is second only to teacher salaries in its impact on school district expenditures.

In practice, class size is a showcase example of how "collaboration" works, NEA-style. The educational benefits of lower class size are vastly exaggerated. What matters, or what should matter, is not whether smaller classes (by how much?) result in higher levels of student achievement; it is what is the most effective use that can be made of district resources? In many districts, for example, air conditioning or laboratory equipment would bring about more improvement than reductions in class size. Chanin's effort to appear candid with his union audience was really pandering when he overlooks such basic considerations.

Another major flaw in Chanin's analysis is his neglect of reform incentives. In the private sector, reforms are frequently generated by competition. Private sector workers realize that competing companies, not management, are the major threats to their jobs and, in fact, it is much easier to bargain collaboratively when this is a managerial as well as a union concern. The threat of vouchers will not cause teachers to adopt reforms, at least any that weaken or jeopardize teacher benefits or prerogatives. Only the naive believe that teachers will adopt reforms simply because pupils would benefit. The NEA, fearful of having to ask its members to give back even the most inefficient rights and privileges, are hoping that the fear of vouchers will enable the unions to gain members' acceptance of the reduction of inefficiencies. In the absence of competition, this didn't happen in the private sector, and without competition, it is very unlikely to happen in public education.

There is one implication of Chanin's argument that has escaped attention completely in the media and professional journals. If NEA affiliates are allowed to bargain on "reform" issues, which could be just about anything, the change will increase NEA revenues by a substantial amount at local, state, and national levels.

At first glance, this conclusion seems counter-intuitive; the more bargaining, the more the process costs the union. If the parties must bargain over twenty items, it will cost them more to bargain over the same twenty plus seven or eight more. This is true but more than counterbalanced by the increased amounts the NEA at all levels can take from nonmembers.

In 20 states, teacher unions are allowed to negotiate agency fees or receive such fees without having to negotiate for them. Agency fees are the amounts that nonmembers are required to pay the union for its bargaining services, whether or not the nonmembers want these services. They may be, and often are, worse off as a result of the contracts negotiated by the union, but they have to pay regardless.

The critical point is how the agency fees are determined. In legal theory, the agency fees are the pro rata share of the union's expenses for collective bargaining, grievance procedures, and contract administration (hereinafter "bargaining"). Thus, if the NEA's total expenses are $200 million, and its expenditures for bargaining are $160 million, the union can charge agency fee payers 80 percent of dues. The rationale is that agency fees are essential to prevent teachers from becoming "free riders," that is, from receiving the benefits of union representation without being required to pay for them. This rationale has been discredited for several reasons, but agency fees remain; in fact, the number of states likely to require or allow them is likely to increase in the near future.

Be that as it may, if the scope of bargaining (the matters over which the parties are required to bargain) is expanded, the unions will naturally assert that agency fees must be increased accordingly. Expanding the scope of bargaining results in more time at the bargaining table. It also results in more impasses, more grievances, more litigation, and more research related to these matters. Consequently, the unions can and will contend that agency fees must be increased to cover these additional costs, and they would have a strong case in principle, that is, if we do not know what the actual increases, if any, turn out to be.

Paradoxically, another outcome of bargaining over reform issues is an increase in union membership. As agency fees go up as a percentage of dues, more agency fee payers become union members. Agency fee payers are not authorized to participate in union discussions of bargaining goals or whether to ratify a contract. Similarly, they are excluded from other union activities that could conceivably affect their compensation or careers. For this reason, as agency fees go up, more teachers decide that the disadvantages of nonmembership are not worth the few dollars saved, hence more teachers join the union. This dynamic does not apply to teachers who have religious objections and some others, but it does apply to a significant percentage of nonmembers.

Unfortunately, education reporters are not aware of this critical but hidden union motive for "reform bargaining." Our nation is concerned over whether teachers know their subject. This is a legitimate concern, but so is whether education reporters know their subject.

III. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

4. Politics in the NEA

As it has since 1976, the NEA endorsed the Democratic candidate for president. This year, 89% of the delegates to the RA voted to endorse Al Gore for president, exceeding the 58% required for endorsement. Gore's forty-five minutes of "bellowing" (the Wall Street Journal's accurate assessment) included repetitious affirmations of his support for NEA's agenda, as well as a plea for delegate support.

Anticipating several close races, the NEA will dispatch its staff to 25 targeted campaigns from August 28 to November 7. The NEA has allocated $3.5 million from member dues to gain a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. From the member dues special assessment of $7.5 million, the NEA will contribute substantially to defeat the tuition voucher in Michigan, a voucher initiative in California, and other ballot initiatives deemed hostile to public education. To do its part, the California Teachers Association has doubled the per capita assessment of its 278,000 members. Each will now pay $38, in addition to $416 unified dues, to help fight the ballot issue which would allocate to parents $4,000 for each K-12 student to be used at the school of their choice.

Jack Pacheco, a staff member of NEA Government Relations announced at the Democratic caucus that "two of every 100 voters in this year's general election will be NEA members -- not including family members!" Pacheco stressed that NEA can make the difference!

By mid-morning Friday, July 6, the NEA Democratic Caucus was close to its goal of 1,000 members by the end of the convention. Meanwhile, the thirty NEA Republican Caucus members debated whether to write a letter to NEA President Bob Chase protesting the "grossly unfair and biased presentation of Governor George W. Bush in the Al Gore promotional video shown at the RA" the day before Gore's appearance. These feeble protests by the Republican caucus are a Republican caucus staple in presidential endorsements.

Republican-bashing from the podium was commonplace, from Vice-President Gore, Secretary of Education Richard Riley, to NEA President Bob Chase, to some delegates. But other delegates, fed up with the one-sided partisanship, refused to remain in their seats to listen to Gore and left the hall.

5. NEA-PAC, the Fund for Children and Public Education

NEA President Bob Chase followed the frenzy whipped up by Al Gore to plead for the delegates to "dig deeper to meet the convention's $1 million goal" set by the NEA political action committee (NEA-PAC's new title is the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education). Delegates achieved the goal, raising a record $1,036,332 during the six-day convention, bringing the PAC closer to its goal of $8 million. We can expect NEA-PAC to fund several "Independent Expenditures" for NEA-endorsed candidates before the November elections. In addition, the NEA will provide other contributions and in-kind services for its candidates.

This year the NEA-PAC will help support 235 delegates to the Democratic Nominating Convention and 35 delegates to the Republican Nominating Convention. NEA-PAC will contribute $400 and the cost of airfare. Most local and state affiliates will also help to defray expenses for the delegates. Apparently, the teachers aren't quite as enthusiastic about Gore as they have been about Clinton. In 1992 the NEA sponsored 367 Democrat delegates and 25 Republican delegates; in 1996 there were 416 NEA members at the Democratic Nominating Convention, and 34 at the Republican Nominating Convention.

According to Mary Elizabeth Teasley, NEA Director of Government Relations, PAC contributions "for the first five months of 2000 totaled $1,136,229. This is an increase of $212,214 or 25.6 percent over this same month last year." For the five months ending May 31, 2000, PAC contributions from the top five states and the amounts raised through payroll deductions are:

Office space is provided to the NEA-PAC by the NEA. In addition, the salaries and benefits of the PAC staff are paid by the NEA.

IV. POLICY AND GOVERNANCE

6. New Business Items

New Business Items submitted by the NEA Board of Directors to the delegates at the Representative Assembly are identified alphabetically. This year, the delegates adopted the two NBIs that were submitted by the NEA Board of Directors. One will allow the NEA to post the hundreds of NEA resolutions (NBIs become resolutions after adoption) on its website. Resolutions can subsequently be amended. The date following each item on the website indicates when it was first adopted and/or amended. Posting on the website will save the NEA $200,000 in printing costs. The second NBI calls upon the NEA to "prepare and distribute to each of its affiliates, a petition calling for meaningful gun control to be presented to Congress on or before February 1, 2001."

New Business Items submitted by delegates are numbered numerically. In the final tally, 22 NBIs related to children or education in some way; 22 were non-education issues that served the interests of union members or employees. The 33 remaining NBIs were defeated, denied consideration, ruled out of order, disposed of by referral, or withdrawn.

7. Strategic Plan and Budget, Fiscal Years: 2000-2002

Each delegate packet includes a copy of the NEA's proposed budget. To answer questions about the proposed budget, the NEA holds an opening hearing on the budget before it is adopted at the final business session of the RA. In order to ask a question, members are required to fill out a triplicate form, including their name and local/state affiliate, identify one of the six strategic priorities, locate the page number in the budget book, and identify the subtopic and the finally the output. When the session began, there were more people on stage than in the audience; however, before the session ended, more than 100 were in the audience. Approval of the budget by the RA is the final business item, often implemented after many delegates have left or are too seat-weary to question the line items.

NEA Secretary/Treasurer Dennis Van Roekel announced that the 2000-2002 budget is the 2nd two-year budget. Van Roekel said "the budget story really began in 1983 with A Nation at Risk. In 1988, NEA began strategic budget planning. The 1994 election was a wakeup call because House and Senate leadership changed and differed from NEA's vision. In 1995, NEA commissioned the Kamber Group to learn how the rest of the world views the NEA; and then in 1998, the NEA adopted its first two-year budget, to address the Kamber Report recommendations. The NEA's goal was to restore public confidence in public education."

For fiscal year 2000-2001, Sept. 1-Aug. 31, the NEA has budgeted income of $244,204,890, including external recoveries, reimbursements from affiliates, and sources outside the association. Income projections are based on anticipation of 50,000 new members in 2000-2001.

The budget includes $2,000,000 for a contingency fund from which the nine-member NEA Executive Committee and 165-member Board of Directors approve state affiliate requests. In 1999-2000, contingency fund expenditures included $200,000 "to assist the California Teachers Association pass Proposition 26, an initiative to reduce the supermajority requirement for local bond measures," and $750,000 "to assist the Michigan Education Association with the All Kids First Campaign," an initiative intended to defeat The Kids First! Yes! voucher initiative which will be on the November ballot.

NEA's Unified Legal Services Program is budgeted for $28,972,150 in 2000-2001. Of the $82 million for state and local projects, $57.5 million is budgeted for "UniServ staff and implementation of the UniServ program." The NEA's 1,500 UniServ directors are trained political operatives who assist state and local affiliates in identifying candidates to run for school board, county, or state office, organize telephone banks and absentee ballot programs, and serve as negotiators for local associations.

The NEA added 76,000 new members to its roster in 1999-2000, thereby exceeding the revenue budgeted for 1999-2000 by approximately $4.5 million. Most of the over-budget excess will be used for NEA's political activities in Campaign 2000.

Membership, by category, is as follows:

8. Legislative Agenda

Every delegate received a packet that included a report entitled Advancing NEA's Legislative Program, July 2000. In this report, the NEA listed "making major inroads with key members of both parties," among its legislative victories through May 12, 2000. Nevertheless, the NEA emphasized that public education was threatened by "block grant programs, and proposals to divert funds from public education through private school vouchers and tax subsidies." The Legislative Program identified "opponents of public education" as anyone who supported these measures. In contrast, the NEA supports candidates for "modernizing public schools, reducing class size, and providing the necessary resources to ensure all children a quality public education."

Not surprisingly, the strategic priorities of the NEA for the 107th Congress include strengthening public schools, increased federal funding for education, and support for "a federal statute that would guarantee meaningful collective bargaining rights to the employees of public schools, colleges, universities, and other postsecondary institutions."

Delegates passed an addition to NEA's Internet Taxation legislative agenda explicitly intended "to protect education funding revenue streams." The NEA opposes any extension of the tax-free status of the Internet. Regardless of the merits, this action illustrates the NEA's opposition to any measures that would cap or reduce or eliminate any source of government revenue. It also helps to explain why the NEA's allies are other interest groups that are dependent upon revenues from government or litigation.

9. Constitutional Amendments

Two of the three proposed amendments to the NEA's Constitution failed. One was a proposal to add the word "public" to the Preamble, which would have read: "We, the members of the National Education Association of the United States, in order that the Association may serve as the national voice for public education..." One board member argued that "we want to be THE national voice for education. We don't want to be perceived as speaking ONLY for public education. To do otherwise tends to define us." Although 60.37% of the delegates voted for the proposal, it required a two-thirds vote to pass.

Considerable debate preceded the final vote on Constitution [sic] Amendment 2. Delegates voted 6,315 Yes to 2,089 No "To provide a method to determine allocation of NEA Representative Assembly delegate credentials for state and local dual-national affiliates and representation on the NEA Board of Directors for dual-national state affiliates." Critics, including some in the merged state affiliates in Minnesota, Montana, and Florida, felt penalized as a result of the decision, which was the final step in the process with state mergers of the two unions. After the vote, NEA President Bob Chase appeared before the merged state delegations to keep dissident levels to a minimum. Local unions that merged prior to September 1, 1999 will not be affected by the new allocation of dues/services/and representation.

10. Bylaw Amendments

Bylaw Amendments require only a majority vote to pass. Delegates voted overwhelmingly (6,291 Yes 74.15% to 2,193 No 25.85%) for Bylaw Amendment 1, which proposed that professional and support members employed for one-fourth time or less will be permitted to pay $29.50 as their portion of NEA dues for the coming year, as opposed to full NEA dues of $118.

Bylaw Amendment 2, one of the most controversial, also passed. It reads in full: "Beginning with the 2000-01 membership year and continuing through the 2004-05 membership year, the annual membership dues of Active members of the Association, as computed pursuant to Bylaw 2-7.a., shall be increased by five dollars ($5.00). This dues increase shall be allocated to the Ballot Measure/Legislative Crisis and Media Campaign Fund. Sixty percent (60%) of the money allocated to the Ballot Measure/Legislative Crisis and Media Campaign Fund during each membership year shall be available to assist state affiliates in dealing with ballot measures and legislative crises, and forty percent (40%) shall be available for national and state media campaigns to advance the cause of public education and publicize the role of the Association and its affiliates in improving the quality of public education.

"Where necessary to avoid legal problems under state law, the Association and a state affiliate may, at the request of the state affiliate, enter into a written agreement providing that the money collected from members of that state affiliate shall not be used to deal with ballot measures, but shall be used only to deal with legislative crises and/or to fund national and state media campaigns.

"The Executive Committee shall develop guidelines to implement this bylaw. These guidelines shall be submitted to the Board of Directors, and shall become effective when approved by the Board of Directors. The NEA President shall make a report regarding the operation of the Ballot Measure/Legislative Crisis and Media Campaign Fund, which shall include a financial statement, to the 2001 Representative Assembly and each of the succeeding four (4) Representative Assemblies."

The multi-year lawsuit brought by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation vs the Washington Education Association is responsible for the second paragraph of Bylaw Amendment 2. When questioned, Robert Chanin, NEA General Counsel, said that as a result of the litigation in Washington, dues could not be used for political purposes there, and if they were used for political purposes, NEA would have to get annual reauthorization, which he characterized as "a royal pain in the ass!" Consequently, NEA will still oppose the ballot initiatives in Washington, but the NEA special assessment dues paid by members of the Washington Education Association will not be spent there.

Bylaw Amendment 3, "To make retired members eligible to serve on the NEA Review Board," passed.

Bylaw Amendment 4 failed, but in the debate delegates learned some interesting things about NEA political activities. At issue was whether "To allow NEA members to designate the allocation of the political activity portion of their dues through the annual publication of a checklist of options in NEA Today."

This NEA-crafted IMPACT STATEMENT was published with the proposed bylaw and provides members with a handy list of some of the NEA's political activities:

"This amendment would allow members to decide, after reviewing a series of options published annually in NEA Today, where the political activity portion of their dues would be allocated. A definition of political activity, a formula for its calculation, and a checklist of specific options would need to be developed. The term political activity might include NEA contributions to other organizations, lobbying activities, participation in coalitions, the filing of amicus briefs, supporting or opposing ballot initiatives, participating in demonstrations and marches, and staff time spent on these activities."

On several occasions at the convention, NEA General Counsel Robert Chanin, NEA President Robert Chase, and other officers openly admitted that the NEA does indeed spend member dues for political activities. In fact, NEA's plea for the $5 per member, 5-year special dues assessment to be used primarily for political activities was just one very obvious example. Furthermore, delegates were a bit testy when they learned through the media about the complaints filed by the Landmark Legal Foundation. After an extensive review of NEA documents, including NEA's Form 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the Landmark Legal Foundation revealed that the NEA reported ZERO dollars spent for political activities since 1996. The Foundation has filed complaints with the IRS and the Federal Election Commission.

The Landmark strategy is very promising, mainly because it is focused on issues where the evidence appears to be overwhelming. The strategy does not challenge the NEA's right to spend member dues to support political activities. Instead, Landmark points out that if dues are spent for political purposes, the NEA has certain reporting and tax obligations that must be, but were not, followed. This appears to be a more promising strategy than the paycheck protection legislation being promoted in several states. The Landmark strategy pits the NEA against federal regulatory agencies, not political opponents. Granted, what will actually happen will depend to a large extent on the outcome of the 2000 elections, but the outcome could weaken the NEA for some time. The strategy also avoids the credibility problem inherent in arguing that paycheck protection protects worker rights, while the organizations established to protect these rights are adamantly opposed to paycheck protection.

In response to an inquiry, NEA President Robert Chase acknowledged that the NEA contributes to about 200 organizations from member dues. The following contributions have been budgeted by NEA for 2000-2001:

In addition, the NEA will pay $250,000 to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), a joint effort by public school organizations to control teacher certification at institutions of higher education with teacher education programs.

Without any further details, Chase also announced that the NEA had filed eight amicus briefs during the last year. Whether and/or how these briefs supported NEA political activities was not clear.

When a delegate questioned whether member dues paid for the Gore buttons distributed to the almost 10,000 delegates, Chase answered, "Yes." Before Vice President Gore addressed the NEA Representative Assembly, state delegations received stacks of signs bearing the same message. Like the Gore buttons, the signs for were paid for from member dues.

Previously, the NEA has denied that it spent member dues for the support of specific Democratic candidates. Such an expenditure would be a clear violation of its nonprofit status if not reported and the tax paid to the IRS. The Landmark Legal Foundation documented this violation in its complaints filed with the IRS and the FEC. Incidentally, we are pleased that our work plays a prominent role in the Landmark briefs.

Charlene Haar's notes indicate that Chase also reported that approximately 18 percent of NEA member dues are spent for political activities. Because of the implications, EPI is checking the accuracy of the foregoing statement.

11. Resolutions

Merit Pay and Pay for Performance, Resolutions F-8 and F-9, generated considerable debate among the delegates. Media treatment of the convention typically emphasized the NEA's negative attitude toward pay for performance, "merit pay" as it is usually labeled. By a substantial margin, the Representative Assembly voted to help local associations that face the imposition of merit pay; if, however, a local takes the initiative to negotiate it, the local will not receive assistance from the NEA. It may, however, get help from its state association if the latter wishes to provide it.

It is extremely important to establish stronger teacher incentives to improve their work, but the convention defeat of merit pay is unimportant. As the resolution itself implies, locals are still free to negotiate a merit pay plan if they wish to do so. Had merit pay been approved, there would not be any significant change in teacher attitudes or willingness to accept merit pay. Most teachers don't want it, and neither do most school administrators. The teacher unions have magnified the negative aspects and ignored the positive aspects of merit pay, but most school administrators as well as most teachers and teacher unions are opposed to the idea, albeit for different reasons.

The teacher unions are opposed to merit pay because it places the union in an untenable position. For every teacher awarded merit pay, ten others will want the union to file a grievance alleging that they deserved merit pay more than the teachers who received it. Thus, merit pay is extremely divisive within the union, and a union must avoid internal controversy as much as possible. However, from a PR standpoint, the union cannot say that it opposes merit pay because it would be bad for the union. Consequently, the teacher unions allege other reasons for their opposition: merit pay is too subjective, it is used to reward bootlickers and intimidate critics of the administration, and so on.

School administrators are generally opposed to merit pay for different reasons. The main one is that administrative evaluations will inevitably be scrutinized carefully by teachers who do not receive merit pay. This is not something administrators look forward to, especially since its always possible to criticize the criteria or the applications of the criteria for merit pay. However, to avoid criticism, most administrators blame the teacher unions for the absence of merit pay. Their hypocrisy is easily observed; check the last time your school administration proposed merit pay in negotiations on the union contract.

Even if teachers, teacher unions, and school management agreed that merit pay was a good idea in principle, the problems of implementing the idea would be difficult to resolve. To cite just one problem, how can we compare merit among teachers of different subjects and grade levels? With the best intentions in the world, different interests will lead to differences of opinion on this issue.

Conservatives often exaggerate the extent to which merit pay is the practice in our labor force. In dozens of industries, merit pay seldom applies to employees below the supervisory level. In fact, merit pay does not affect airline pilots and several other occupations in the public and private sectors. Superior performance often leads to promotions to positions in which merit pay is operative, but this is true in education as well.

It appears also that other countries reputed to have excellent educational systems, such as Japan, do not have merit pay. It should also be noted that the problems of scale frequently mitigate against merit pay; small school districts do not have the resources to formulate a merit pay plan that is not vulnerable to union or teacher criticism.

At any rate, it is a fallacy to assume that the near total absence of merit pay in public education is due entirely to union intransigence on the issue. In many districts, management could adopt merit pay over union opposition; the NEA's policy recognizes this fact, even if its critics do not. It is interesting to note the widespread criticisms of teacher unions for their opposition to merit pay, while school management opposition to it is completely ignored.

It should also be noted that the attention paid to merit pay plans in Denver and Cincinnati is unwarranted. The plans are highly convoluted and unlikely to survive except for the embarrassment associated with junking them. Actually, merit pay has always been present in a few districts. The avalanche of publicity about the merit pay plans in Denver and Cincinnati merely illustrate media gullibility on these issues.

Of course, teacher incentives are extremely important; however, a major problem with merit pay in K-12 education is that the amounts are too low in relation to all the costs of implementing the plans. This is only one of the reasons why merit pay in public education does not provide the strong incentives required to improve performance. In competitive industries, both employers and employees must take account of the fact, or the possibility, that competing companies will provide better products or services at a lower price. This consideration generates incentives to improve that are not present in public education. Furthermore, doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, and many other employees would face charges of incompetence or malpractice if they failed to stay abreast of research in their field. Public education does not and cannot provide comparable incentives.

A competitive education industry would generate adequate incentives, but it may or may not materialize in the near future. In the meantime, educational reformers would be well advised to focus on differentials by subjects and grade levels. To be sure, the teacher unions will oppose proposals to this effect, but the case for it, and the simplicity of the solutions, render such differentials much easier to adopt whether or not the teacher unions accept them. At the present time, the unions cite the shortage of mathematics and science teachers to demonstrate the need to raise all teacher salaries; obviously, no university could operate effectively, if at all, by insisting that professors of medicine, dentistry, law, physics, and computer science be paid the same as professors of English, history, and speech. Nevertheless, virtually all public school districts have adopted single salary schedules in which the absence of differentials by subject is a much more serious problem than the absence of merit pay. Under single salary schedules, school boards must raise the salaries of all teachers in order to raise the salaries of mathematics and science teachers. This outcome results in overpaying some teachers and underpaying or going without teachers in the fields of scarcity.

Controversies over merit pay also illustrate the widespread failure to take account of the differences between fee-taking employees and employees employed collectively by a single employer. In the fee-taking professions, pay for services is seldom negotiated. Your doctor has a fee schedule. If you think it is too high, you seek another doctor. Patients (that is, the employers) generally are unable to evaluate medical proficiency, and certainly not when they have been put to sleep for a medical procedure.

To conclude, school administrators should be able to award merit pay, but the effort to achieve this will almost always fail in public education. When and where it does "succeed," the outcome is a cosmetic plan that changes nothing. What is needed is a system that generates continuous incentives to improve. Paradoxically, this will be easier to achieve than meaningful merit pay in a system with disincentives to improvement.

V. SOCIAL EVENTS

12. Human and Civil Rights Dinner

The NEA's Human and Civil Rights (HCR) Awards dinner is a glitzy, dress-up affair for delegates and their guests. This year's sold-out reception and dinner, awards, and acceptance speeches lasted for nearly six hours.

The eleven recipients of various awards included:

1. For activities connecting his students to the global community, Ronald G. Adams 25-year teacher from Weymouth, Massachusetts, won the Applegate-Dorros Peace and International Understanding Award.
2. For creatively involving her students and their parents in multicultural activities, Cleorah Scruggs, an elementary teacher from Flint, Michigan was awarded the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Award.
3. For his work in the California State Assembly and cofounder of the Black-Latino Roundtable, Antonio Villaraigosa won the Cesar Chavez Accion Y Compromiso Human and Civil Rights Award.
4. For her work as founding member and co-chair of the NEA Gay and Lesbian Caucus, Carol Watchler from Roosevelt, New Jersey won the Virginia Uribe Award for Creative Leadership in Human Rights.
5. For his leadership abilities on the NEA Board of Directors through his presidency of Shaw University, Dr. John H. Lucas, from Durham, North Carolina, was awarded a Councill Trenholm Memorial Award.
6. For his volunteer work and later service as executive director of the Multicultural Center of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Qadir Aware of Kurdistan, was also awarded a Councill Trenholm Memorial Award.
7. For her stories of black heroes and heroines, Flossie Thompson-Peters, from Los Angeles, California, won the Author-Illustrator Human and Civil Rights Award.
8. For his personal crusade and service with the NAACP Youth Council, Taj A. Brown, from Downingtown, Pennsylvania, won the Carter G. Woodson Memorial Award.
9. For her work as director of the Centro de la Familia de Utah, which increases self-sufficiency among Hispanic families, Graciela Italiano-Thomas, from Salt Lake City, Utah, won the George I. Sanchez Memorial Award.
10. For her work as a classroom teacher for 22 years, combining music and dance to academics in a multicultural framework, Sharron Lewis-Campbell, from Morena Valley, California, won the Mary Hatwood Futrell Award.
11. For his work to raise the self-esteem of other gay high school students, and his crusade to end homophobia, Michael Bisogno, from Teaneck, New Jersey, won the Suanne Big Crow Memorial Award.

13. Gay/Lesbian Caucus Dinner

More than 300 delegates participated in the NEA Gay/Lesbian Caucus dinner, honoring "an outspoken gay educator and activist Robert Birle, who co-chaired the NEA Gay and Lesbian Caucus from 1989 to 1991." Every member of the NEA's nine-member Executive Committee, including the three executive officers, was present at the dinner.

In addition to special recognition of activists Sharon Miken, Jerry Newberry, and Carol Watchler, donations were collected for the Ryan White Memorial HIV Fund and the Vivian Roy Bowser Cancer Education Fund.

Guest speakers for the evening event included Judy Shepard, who had recently arrived from Saudi Arabia, where her husband Dennis works for an oil company. Mr. and Mrs. Shepard are the parents of Matthew, "a 21-year-old college student beaten to death because he was gay." Mrs. Shepard serves as the Executive Director of the Matthew Shepard Foundation. In her address, Shepard urged teachers to help educate students "on the choices that they are making in their lives relating to the issue of hate."

Brent Scarpo, Executive Director of New Light Media, has collaborated with the Shepard Foundation to produce Journey to a Hate Free Millennium, an educational film in which "students and teachers illustrate a method of dialoguing about the subject of hate." The film tells the stories of Shepard, James Byrd, Jr., a man dragged to death because he was black, and Rachel Scott, one of the students killed at Columbine High School. A substantial grant from the Janus Foundation will enable middle and high schools to utilize the film and sponsor training seminars for teachers, counselors and administrators.

Mrs. Shepard concluded her remarks with a plea for teachers to be politically active in order to replace many current members of Congress with others who share her concerns.

14. Friendship Night Dance

An immediate sell-out for the July 3rd Friendship Night Dance for delegates and guests caused a panic. Unexpectedly, the legendary music group, Chicago, agreed to a second concert at 6:30 to accommodate the demand. Before and after the concerts, which featured a blend of rock, jazz, and rhythm and blues featuring its band's dynamic horn section, thousands of delegates enjoyed their own mini taste of Chicago at McCormick Place. On a clear night, it would have been a perfect place for the best view of the pre-Fourth of July fireworks. As it turned out, the misty evening and low-lying clouds over Lake Michigan obscured all but the highest glittering fireworks.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

15. Exhibits

Of the 160 Exhibitors at the convention, 40 sites were sponsored by NEA Member Benefits, a wholly owned, for-profit subsidiary of the NEA.

At least on the first day, the most traffic in the exhibit hall was undoubtedly in the five-booth space of the NEA's Health Information Network (HIN), another subsidiary of the NEA mother-ship. An HIN staffer cheerily commented that delegates had walked away with all 5,000 free condoms. "This year's response is so much better than two years ago when we began the program," she chirped.

The Creation Science Educators Caucus capitalized by exhibiting three eye-catching dinosaurs, including one with a saddle for a great photograph. The display fit right in with the highly publicized exhibit of "Sue," the world's largest Tyrannosaurus Rex, on display in the Field Museum, a few blocks from the McCormick Convention Center. Meanwhile, the dot-coms and education sites took a back seat to the booths selling gold chains by the inch, collector pins, and kinte cloth mumus.

16. Federal Slush Funds

The convention exhibits were required to shut down at 11:00 a.m. on Monday, July 2, when the NEA Representative Assembly, its governing body, convenes. In the limited time available Monday morning, we noticed three exhibits that featured AIDS prevention and remediation. The exhibit sponsors were:

• American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). AACTE is the national organization of schools of education.
• Health Information Network (HIN). HIN is a nonprofit organization wholly controlled by the NEA. HIN is based in the NEA building in Washington, D.C. Its orientation is evident from the fact that for several years HIN has distributed condoms at NEA conventions. HIN receives a substantial amount of its funding from CDC.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a federal agency.

Although other exhibits emphasized other health problems, AIDS received more attention than any other affliction at the NEA convention. This emphasis undoubtedly reflects the growing influence of the NEA's gay/lesbian caucus in NEA affairs.

Paying for exhibit space is only one of the ways that the Clinton administration channels federal funds to the NEA/AFT. In addition to the exhibits funded by CDC, exhibitors at the convention included, but were not necessarily limited to, the following federal or federally funded agencies:

• ERIC Clearinghouse
• Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program
• NEA Health Information Network Wellness
• Social Security Administration
• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Education
• U.S. EPA Office of Indoor Air
• U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste
• U.S. EPA Stratospheric Protection Division

Funding for these exhibits is not the only tie between the NEA and the federal agencies. Local NEA affiliates frequently try to include some EPA standards in teacher contracts. In most states, "safety" is a mandatory subject of bargaining, hence federal regulations may be coming to your school district through the back door, so to speak.

17. Friend of Education Award

NEA bestowed this honor this year on Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). Kennedy, a candidate for reelection this year, was a no-show at the convention. The chairman of the NEA's Friend of Education Committee noted that Kennedy has "always and consistently voted for NEA positions in his 30 years in Congress." Although Governor George W. Bush was among the 30 nominees, he was not seriously considered. President Bill Clinton received the award in 1996 and Hillary Clinton received it in 1999.

18. NEA and NCATE

For 1998-2000, the NEA budgeted $232,340 each year for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. NCATE is a sort of holding company of public school organizations with a stake in teacher certification. The NEA's interest is clear enough &endash; like any union, it wants to control entry to the job market. For public relations purposes, the organizations want to raise standards and to protect parents and children from incompetent teachers. However, as is the case with all NEA proposed reforms, the union and its members are the real beneficiaries.

Not surprisingly, last year's RA passed a resolution to strengthen teacher preparation programs by including an understanding of the history of education employee unions, incorporating the principles of collective bargaining organizations, and pointing out the importance of union activism. Although NCATE accredits teacher preparation programs, it does not prescribe specific courses, hence the resolution could not be implemented. Nevertheless, we expect some teacher education programs to include a course consisting of union propaganda in response to the resolution and NEA's support for NCATE. It is astonishing how little professors of education know about teacher bargaining, but they know that the NEA is a powerful organization. Incidentally, the United Federation of Teachers has prepared a unit on unions for the social studies curriculum. It is at least as biased as any of the commercial publications the unions decry as special interest propaganda.