Charlene K. Haar
Education Policy Institute, President

Remarks
How NEA and AFT Political Activities Undermine Teachers

Today, I join with others in expressing my appreciation for good teachers in classrooms across America. Thanks also, to those of you, like me, are former classroom teachers and qualify as retired members of the NEA or AFT.

With all the talk these days about improving education, I've seldom heard discussions about how the NEA and AFT political activities undermine the potential for excellence of classroom teachers; therefore that's the topic I've selected to explore.

First, let's clarify that political activities encompass more than political party politics. Although who could argue that when the NEA and AFT contribute 97% of their PAC funds to Democrats that the unions have not disadvantaged two-thirds of their members who claim to be Republicans and Independents?

Let's talk about how the NEA and AFT use member dues for political purposes. On behalf of teachers, I'd like to address some questions to the NEA and AFT:

1. Why do the NEA and AFT make their donations with my money, treating me as someone incapable of making my own decisions about charitable contributions?

Unbeknownst to their members and agency fee payers, (those mandatory fees which the NEA/AFT require in lieu of membership dues in some contracts), the NEA and AFT "donate" each year to like-minded organizations which orchestrate their own political agendas and often those of the teacher unions.

For example, from the end of 1993 to 1998, the NEA donated $504,000 to People for the American Way. Some would characterize PAW as a radical left wing group that often works in conjunction with the teacher unions and National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) to fight education reforms while vigorously defending the status quo.

With donations of a few thousand here, a few thousand there, within the year, the teacher unions will donate well over a million dollars to scores of organizations such as PAW, National Organization for Women, American Association of University Women, Gay and Lesbian Alliances, and the Children's Defense Fund, where Mrs. Clinton once served on the board.

2. Why do the NEA and AFT redistribute my dues for causes I have no opportunity to approve or deny, even though some proposals would benefit me as a taxpayer?

In addition to donations, the teacher unions spend millions defeating or promoting state initiatives. Again, some examples from the past few years:

• the NEA allocated $650,000 to assist its Michigan affiliate union in fighting state ballot initiatives on tax limitations and to develop a plan for funding public education. It spent another $500,000 to combat an attempt to change the state constitution;
• $475,000 went to assist the New Jersey union affiliate in legal actions against the Whittle Corporation and others, and to forestall Governor Whitman's voucher initiatives;
• and $280,000 went to assist the Wisconsin union affiliate in fighting an initiative on property tax reduction.
• The NEA and AFT routinely send staffers into candidate campaigns, including the Clinton-Gore campaign, for months at a time, again spending millions of member dues dollars.

Union dues from around the country have also been directed to union affiliates in Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere to oppose school choice campaigns, and in Maryland to generate "support for a referendum upholding the right to reproductive freedom."

None of these expenditures of members dues and fees improved the quality of teaching, empowered teachers, rewarded teachers' resourcefulness and performance (instead of longevity), created a more professional environment, or even improved teachers' use of technology as a classroom tool. And of course, since unions exist for their members, student and parent needs are ignored, just as taxpayer interests are disregarded.

Interestingly, but not surprising, the NEA answered these questions in its May, 1999 NEA Today newspaper on page 33. Ed Weber of Ohio, who along with at least 50 other delegates qualified to attend the NEA Representative Assembly in Orlando in July, proposed the following amendment to the NEA Bylaws:

All members shall be given the opportunity to designate where the political contribution portion of their dues money is to be allocated.

This is the NEA's response:

The Committee on Constitution, Bylaws, and Rules interprets "political contribution" to mean contributions to candidates for elective office. Since no dues money is used for that purpose, the amendment is out of order. Such contributions are made to the NEA fund for Children and Public Education (formerly NEA-PAC).

Keep in mind that the NEA proclaims its Representative Assembly as the "world's largest democratic body." Quite clearly, it's difficult for democracy to function when the NEA Politburo controls the agenda.

That brings me to another discovery and a suggestion that the NEA and AFT investigate their own practices instead of engaging in Clinton-like language-parsing of what is and isn't a political contribution.

Recent research by the Center for Responsive Politics has confirmed that in the last election cycle the NEA and AFL-CIO (including the AFT), funneled $221,165 in member dues into the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee. Operating out of the Democratic National Committee on Capitol Hill, the DLCC bankrolled several state PACS to elect Democratic state legislators and other candidates.

These activities are occurring at the same time that the NEA is embroiled in lawsuits in Washington state, Alaska, and elsewhere; and both unions were defending their union officers, including AFT treasurer Ed McElroy, in an illegal grab of pension funds in Rhode Island.* Did I mention that the national offices of the NEA and AFT budget over $25,000,000 annually just for legal fees? Or that the NEA and AFT local, state, and national budgets exceeded $1.2 billion for 1998-99?

Through control and misinformation, the conclusion is clear, the NEA and AFT need members for their dues (some pay over $700 per year). However, beneficiaries of teacher union largesse - at the expense of classroom teachers - are Democratic politicians and the 6,000 staff and officers of the union bureaucracy.

Congratulations to the thousands of teachers fighting the battles for excellence in education - despite the efforts of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

* To conceal expenditures that would outrage members, such as substantial legal fees to protect union officers and staff involved in criminal activity in Rhode Island, the NEA budget no longer shows legal services as a separate line item in its budget, but $25 million is a realistic estimate for the NEA and AFT legal budget.