|
Teachers beginning to chafe over power wielded by the NEA Charles J. Shields The corrupting effects of money in American politics is the stuff of newspaper editorials almost everyday. But it's still rather amusing to hear such denunciations from teachers unions, who have turned the use of money in politics into a fine art. Take, the National Education Association (NEA), for example. With almost 2.5 million members, the NEA is the nation's largest teachers union. "Today, too many politicians are on the side of the biggest checkbook," declared Bob Chase in his keynote address at the National Education Association (NEA) convention last summer. He and the delegates then proceeded to prove it. The first order of business was getting the delegates to concur in the union's endorsement of Al Gore for President. Of course, a positive vote was never in doubt, but since the vote is conducted by secret ballot, the percentages are a good yardstick by which to measure the enthusiasm of NEA activists. Gore came out very well, receiving 89.5 percent of the delegate vote, which was just short of the 91 percent delegates gave Bill Clinton in 1996. And that's interesting, because last spring a nationwide survey of teachers by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution revealed Texas Gov. George W. Bush as their 'first choice for the next president of the United States, with almost as many under-tided. Sen. John McCain was preferred by 14.4 percent of teachers; former Sen. Bill Bradley by 11.9 percent. And Vice President Al Gore? Just 11.1 percent of teachers were for him. On the other hand, it's not surprising that last month the NEA gave its official endorsement to Al Gore anyway. At the 1996 Democratic National Convention, 1 in 10 delegates on the floor were NEA members. The NEA also wanted the Democrats to recapture the House of Representatives this time around. And the union was willing to pay for it, too. The NEA set a $1 million goal for Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions for the delegates to reach. Though this was asking for 25 percent more than last year, and with fewer delegates on hand, the union cleared the mark relatively easily, raising $1,036,332—an average of more than $105 per delegate. Money and moral support are very useful to politicians, of course, but what separates the teachers unions from other special interest groups is their ability to turn out skilled campaign workers. Union staffers routinely take leaves of absence to work on campaigns in election years, and members are constantly called upon to man phone banks and perform other volunteer services. The conservative Landmark Legal Foundation recently filed a series of complaints against the NEA and some of its affiliates, alleging that the union failed to properly report political expenditures from dues income to the Federal Election ommission and the Internal Revenue Service. The NEA claims to adhere to all applicable federal laws. This year's Strategic Plan and Budget shows no diminishing of political activity, though the word "bipartisan" seems to be more prominent than in years past. Some line-items include: ?1,993,735 for "a coordinated-state-specific campaign developed and implemented to elect bipartisan pro-public education candidates in the 2000 general election cycle." ? $41,250 for "comprehensive coordinated state-specific campaign developed and implemented to elect bipartisan pro-public education candidates in the 2002 primary election cycles." ? $1,658,690 for "campaign activities to support state affiliates to elect bipartisan commitment to support public education." ? $165,000 for "systems and services to help state affiliates gather and analyze political data, in support of bipartisan pro-public education candidates, maintained and enhanced." It is this type of spending that prompted some delegates at last summer's convention to introduce a rather sadly quixotic amendment. It would have allowed NEA members to designate how the political activity portion of their dues was spent. Needing a secret ballot majority to pass, the measure failed by a margin of 2,113 to 6,369 (24.9 percent -- 75.1 percent). A 3-1 defeat is pretty substantial, but getting more than 2,100 delegates to lodge a protest vote against NEA's current method of political spending is nonetheless a significant achievement. In fact, this small mutiny may be part of a larger dissatisfaction teachers feel about being told by the NEA how they should vote as citizens. That's because the survey taken last spring by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution also revealed that 92 percent of survey respondents believe the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) should give their members a vote before endorsing candidates. It can be done. The Fairfax County Federation of Teachers in Virginia gives members a vote in determining that union's endorsement. A Web site organized by the group, at www.eddemocracy.org, allows teachers to sign a petition demanding a right to vote before making endorsements. However, the NEA is only interested in a Web site if it works the other way — tells the user what to do, not permits the user to tell the union what to do. Right now, the NEA is working to establish a Web portal which, the union hopes, will become the home page for hundreds of thousands of members, enabling the union to mobilize them for political action at a much lower cost than through current avenues — mailings, phone calls, and so on. NEA has assigned a number of staffers to the project, and expects to negotiate contracts this month with technology firms Leaplt and Education World, as well as with PBS for specific site content. Six state affiliates have already volunteered to act as pilots for the project — in Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Washington and Wisconsin. The official introduction of the portal will take place at the 2001 Representative Assembly in Los Angeles. NEA already has a partnership with MBNA bank (member credit cards) and is expected to approach them for underwriting of the portal. That makes sense. Like NEA President Bob Chase says, "Too many politicians are on the side of the biggest checkbook," -- and for dead certain, he doesn't want his union and its members left out of the action. |
