If you pay attention to this sort of thing, you may have noticed that the state’s largest teachers union has overhauled its online digs. Kudos for a new web design that’s both attractive and functional. (It can’t be said that I never write anything nice about CEA.) But customer service has taken a step backward.
I’ve written here before about the Colorado Education Association (CEA)’s opt-out political contribution scheme, known as the Every Member Option (EMO), so I won’t rehash the details. In fact, I once noted that CEA did a somewhat better job of notification than did their building-mates at the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA). CEA at least put up a webpage explaining the EMO and an online form for members who wanted to exercise the right to opt out.
Somewhere along CEA’s bridge to Web 2.0, however, both the page and the form vanished. Presumably, some sort of oversight occurred. The deadline for asking back the 2010-11 school year’s automatic $39 political contribution passed in December. Any teacher or other member who doesn’t want their funds collected along with dues to influence elections will have to ask all over again in 2011-12.
So maybe union officials just are waiting for August or September to roll around to put up the EMO information and refund request form. Even better if CEA were planning to implement an opt-in political system, but there’s no evidence to give that notion a second thought. Whatever the case, I’d like to think the disappearance did not occur because the EMO refund has become too popular and too convenient for union members.
Because posting the political refund info online is just one small part of needed union transparency — a topic I wrote about in depth a couple years ago. Take my advice for what it’s worth: Transparency is a cornerstone of good 21st century customer service. Especially for organizations with roughly 35,000 member employees, growing competition, and a deck that’s grown slightly less stacked in its favor.
A blog, a Facebook page and a Twitter account are nice features. Yet if CEA uses neither these tools nor its new and improved website to make known basic important information, they less resemble customer service than corporate-style PR. While that approach may be more functional for union leaders, it’s not more attractive to the broader base of potential members.
Popularity: 23% [?]
I think Mr. DeGrew could better spend his energies focusing on transparency issues at the anonymously funded, non-democratically elected (unlike the CEA) so-called “Independence” Institute. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones…
Bob, Thanks for making me past tense (I actually stopped growing, at least vertically, years ago!).
Your analogy is problematic. The Independence Institute doesn’t live off the public dime. We are accountable to our Board, as well as to our members and other funders. (The anonymity issue is a key distinction afforded a 501c3 as opposed to a group that devotes massive energies to lobbying and giving money to candidates.) I.I. members aren’t locked into an automatically-renewing annual dues payment unless they opt out by driving to our office and filling out a form only between Sept 1 and Sept 15. And we don’t collect a separate automatic fee to fund candidates & 527 groups and otherwise directly influence elections that has to be requested once a year before December 15. Just because an organization is democratically elected does not guarantee that members are well informed. Thankfully for teachers in Colorado, they have membership options.
The post is friendly advice, for what it’s worth. Since you didn’t address the topic and chose rather to attack the messenger, are you not concerned about CEA’s approach in this matter? I won’t presume it, unlike CEA officials — who presume all members support their money being used to finance candidates, as well as 527 groups that launch nasty, highly deceitful political attacks: http://www.ediswatching.org/2010/11/do-teachers-like-their-hard-earned-money-being-spent-on-political-lies/
While I get the legal differences with incorporation, I’d like to see the same requirements for opt-out opportunities for associations applied to for-profit corporations. So the next time I buy a product from Target I’d like to opt-out having my money used by the corporation in any lobbying or political ads. Target does use government resources to make a profit–roads, police and fire protection, the courts, etc. so it follows the similar logic that associations use government resources to collect dues and therefore profits do come from the “public dime.”
CEA should be transparent in its “opt-out” opportunity for members. Transparency that does not apply to for-profit corporations as per the Supreme Court’s activist decision in the United Citizens case.
Mark, I appreciate you reinforcing the corporate analogy because in many ways I think it’s apt. In many cases, unions and corporations are bound by the same laws & standards when it comes to political speech. While I don’t much care for the way many corporations spend my money politically, we at least have some measure of choice in the marketplace not to buy products or services from ones we find most offensive.
Going further, though, your analogy doesn’t work. Neither CEA, NEA nor affiliated locals offer opt-out funds for lobbying or independent political expenditures. These are funds all members pay for whether they like it or not, much like you shopping at Target.
It’s also important to note that the Citizens United ruling did not strike down campaign contribution disclosure requirements, but removed restrictions from independent political expenditures. In the 2010 election, just like some corporations, the NEA spent millions on independent political expenditures — including here in Colorado (http://www.independentteachers.org/2010/10/nea-spends-1-9-million-in-teacher-dues-on-negative-colorado-u-s-senate-election-ads/). In the case of both corporations and the unions, this is non-refundable money. The same standards of transparency apply to both.
Under Colorado campaign finance law, both corporations and unions are forbidden from making contributions to candidates. They can set up small donor committees for this purpose — legal entities created primarily to benefit unions. Corporations can’t use the public payroll system to collect individual “contributions” of less than $50 (are these really voluntary? I mean an opt-out is better than nothing at all, but an opt-in is better than an opt-out). But if they could, I would demand the same level of transparency for them. This is one case where the standards differ to the advantage of unions but not necessarily to the advantage of individual teachers and education employees.
As for the issue of using government resources to make a profit, corporations pay taxes (the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and it’s usually redirected to consumers) for the use of public goods as you describe. But CEA doesn’t pay a special tax for the privilege to use public payroll systems. Can I or any other taxpayer claim use of public payroll systems?
CEA funds do not come from “the public dime,” unless you consider CEA’s funds taking the indirect path through the salaries of teachers who pay dues to the organization for its operation. And if you are labeling teachers as ” living off the public dime,” the insinuation being not earning their “dimes,” then count me insulted. Typically when I meet someone who learns that I taught for 33 years, they say that I should have been paid much more than I was. I guess you’re not in that camp, Ben.
While I have known teachers who don’t want to be in any way connected with the “nasty” business of politics, most recognize that what happens to kids and schools and teachers is directly related to politics. Sen. Michael Johnston, in fact, leapt out of the nitty-gritty of education to the political arena so he could have a “real” impact on education “reform” just for that reason. CEA’s opt-out policy would seem to me to be a fiscally sound business policy, since most teachers would be happy to contribute less than $40/year to support candidates and policies that support education. Having to opt-in would be a much more cumbersome and expensive process. Am I always pleased with CEA’s decisions about whom to support? Hardly. Jared Polis, mentioned in your link to Ed’s Watching, is to me a CEA mistake. And, I’m guessing he’s one of your Independence Institute favorites because he’s a big supporter of “choice” and “reform.” Actually, I’m surprised you posted the letter from the former teacher at New American School who illustrated a major justification for union rules.
Sally, Thanks for your comment. CEA “lives off the public dime” by using government resources to automatically collect dues from its members. Please don’t insinuate that I have some sort of derogatory opinion of teachers. If you were an effective teacher (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), you very likely should have been paid more. Though the PERA benefits that follow a long career cannot be ignored. But the system’s fast-growing resources over the past several decades largely have been dedicated to class size reduction policies instead. We have built a system that provides much more incentive for mediocrity than for excellence — good and heroic teachers notwithstanding.
You are right. From the perspective of leaders at the union office, the opt-out Every Member Option is “a fiscally sound business policy.” And for some, maybe even a majority of, CEA members, too. Like yourself, who decided that you agree with most but not all of the union’s political endorsements and are willing to pay the $39 Every Member Option. That’s great! Surely, though, not all your fellow members share your opinion. But it’s hard to say, since no one has asked them first.
Then we come to the issue of what you euphemistically mean by using political funds to “support education.” Does only one political party “support education”? Because that’s where 99.8% of the funds go: to one party. And it’s more than just partisan. In this last election cycle, CEA withheld support from Democrats who backed SB 191. It certainly was their right to do so. But if you recall, CEA was the ONLY opposition to the bill. Does everyone else but CEA not “support education”? Because that seems like the inference that could be made. What about the teachers — including some CEA members — who testified FOR SB 191? Do they not “support education”? We need to get beyond euphemisms and to the fact that CEA’s political spending habits reflect an effort to balance members’ financial interests, organizational power, and its alliances with other labor organizations and Left-leaning groups.
It’s within union leaders’ prerogative, of course, to devalue the rights of individual members and to spend their money freely in pursuit of other interests, but what does it gain them? A system that protects CEA’s entrenched status in many places largely has shielded them from this concern. But how long will that last? I know plenty of CEA members in the minority who in the past few years finally had enough and opted out of the union altogether — even if it meant driving a distance to the union office during a brief, two-week window of time to stop the automatic dues deduction. It’s hard to say how much CEA is bothered by these losses overall, but doing things like never getting around to put the opt-out information and form on their website doesn’t help them. In the bigger picture, do you think CEA is really working for what’s best in the teaching profession?
Re the Ed Is Watching site, while I moderate comments on the blog to avoid spam and obscenity, I do not censor comments based on peoples’ opinions or views. I am glad for the free exchange of ideas. Presuming the info is accurate, I would say it’s not a call for union work rules but a call to hold principals more accountable for teacher effectiveness (one of the strongest points of SB 191). It sounds like you and I may have a fundamental philosophical disagreement, one I’m glad to address in a civil exchange as time allows: more protectionism vs. more freedom in the K-12 system.
Ben, first I want you to know that I ever so much appreciate my retirement benefits (the major portion of the funds invested being mine, by the way, not the public’s). It is definitely a pay-back for 33 years of less than glorious pay. And, by the way, I have never complained about my pay other than to lament that our culture’s focus on a person’s income often reflects how it values that individual’s contribution to society. I loved my work (and I taught mostly junior high/middle school, so come folks think I deserve sainthood) and I think I did a good job, sometimes even a great job, depending on how the stars aligned. Teaching is really hard work and you really have to love kids and the work to deal with the issues that make it not as fun. Because of that, most of the poorest leave the profession. Certainly, we all want the very best of teachers dealing with our children. The reality is some are great, most are good, some are mediocre, and a few should not be working with kids. Every one of teachers I knew in the last category left the job–on their own or with some nudging. And, administrators have not always been the best judge of who qualifies as the best in my experience. As long as kids weren’t flying out of the room on a regular basis, or teachers weren’t sending many kids to the office for disciplinary action, principals assumed the teachers were doing a fabulous job. If you happen to be tall and male and have a deep scarey voice and/or be funny, it’s easy to keep middle school kids in line. If you’re short and female and don’t have a deep voice like I, you have to be organized, know your subject matter, and work diligently at understanding how each child learns to keep your classroom functioning well.
I would love to have a civil (so, are you assuming our conversation might be otherwise because we disagree?) exchange with you, but I must cut this conversation short as we are expecting guests momentarily. I do have one additional comment, however. You stated that CEA was the ONLY opposition to SB 191. That is not true. I missed the senate education hearing on the bill as we were out of town, but I sat through nine hours of the testimony in the house hearing. CEA was not the only opposition. While four superintendents voiced support, I can guarantee you some rural superintendants who teach part time and couldn’t travel to Denver were probably not jumping up and down about writing evaluations every year with no more resources.
Must go. Company is here.
Sally, thank you for your years of quality classroom teaching. Individual teachers are far from the top of the list of whom to blame for the deep problems in our K-12 education system. It is sad that some people equate income with a person’s level of contribution to society. What it reflects, or should reflect, is the relative value of a person’s time, skills and experience to the employer who is bidding for their services — factoring supply vs. demand. I don’t know how anyone could say an average pro athlete making $1M / year is more valuable to society than a teacher, fireman or police officer. But there’s no way we can pay those people at the same level. But I digress.
You have given me no reason to expect an uncivil conversation. I just post that up front in this type of exchange due to past experiences. I have been called many kinds of names before — which doesn’t hurt me personally nearly as much as I find it discouragingly difficult to have a productive conversation with some. I’m glad that’s not the case with you.
You well may be right about others who were against SB 191. But no one outside of CEA publicly spoke out against it. By the same token, there may have been others who were for SB 191 who didn’t speak up. The public opinion polls I saw were largely very favorable to the concepts in the legislation. However, my main point is that CEA’s decision to reward candidates with this issue as a litmus test and then claim that they only back candidates who “support education” is logically absurd given all the groups and individuals who spoke out for SB 191.