There is a very strong case for the bill. Retirees were promised healthcare as part of their compensation, and many made career decisions based in part on the expectation that those benefits would be there in retirement. Copays can be a real burden for people living on fixed pensions, and there are legitimate concerns about putting retirees into a private Medicare Advantage plan whose coverage can change over time.

That is why it is understandable that so many retirees, and many in-service members, supported Intro 1096 and now support Bill 1008. There was also a broader political argument behind that support: MAP was seen by many as an ideological attack on public healthcare, and opposing the transition became a way of standing up for retirees. Indeed, I was one of the many in-service members who joined that fight.

But I think the discussion has largely skipped over a pretty important question: what happens to in-service workers if Bill 1008 passes?

The problem is that the City’s dispute with the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC) over healthcare savings makes this much more complicated than simply saying, “Retirees were promised these benefits, so we should protect them.” The City and MLC are currently fighting over whether unions should be held responsible for healthcare savings that were supposed to come, at least in part, from the implementation of MAP. The MLC’s argument, in part, is that it shouldn’t have to pay for savings that became impossible because of litigation outside of its control.

The obvious problem here is that Bill 1008 could make those savings even more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

The first issue is that Bill 1008 guarantees a particular level of retiree healthcare without providing another source of money to pay for it. The MLC’s existing obligations to the City don’t simply disappear because the City Council passes a law. If the savings that were supposed to come from MAP can’t happen, there is still going to be a financial hole somewhere. And unless that liability is eliminated through arbitration, legislation, or some other mechanism, someone ultimately has to pay for it. Especially in the context of the existing cost-saving agreement, it is not hard to imagine where pressure to find that money could fall: healthcare for in-service workers, who it should be noted have already seen massive copay increases and a complete restructuring of our own healthcare plans. There’s not much more we can do to reduce our own costs unless we implement unprecedented premiums, even bigger copay increases, care-prohibitive prior authorizations, or network reductions that keep key hospitals or specialists out of reach. All of this goes for our dependents, including our children, as well.

The second issue is the effect that formal union support for Bill 1008 could have on the ongoing legal dispute. If the UFT or MLC actively lobbies for legislation that makes the MAP savings harder—or impossible—to achieve, the City could argue that the unions themselves helped create the situation they are now claiming should relieve them of their financial obligations. In fairness, arbitration is unpredictable, and I don’t think anyone can honestly say with certainty how it would come out.

But, just logically, there is an important distinction between the City passing legislation without union buy-in and the union itself formally advocating for legislation that eliminates the mechanism it was supposed to use to achieve those savings. If the latter happens, it potentially gives the City a stronger argument that the unions accepted responsibility for the consequences.

And to call back to my last piece, that is precisely why I think the UFT should be very careful about formally aligning itself with some of NYCOPSR’s projects, Bill 1008 included, even if individuals or caucuses within the union support the underlying goal of protecting retirees. This is particularly true, as I have argued, because NYCOPSR has already accomplished everything it has without institutional support from the UFT.

There is also a third problem that we have to come to terms with: Bill 1008 isn’t a constitutional guarantee. It is a City Council bill. A future City Council can amend it or repeal it. And if healthcare costs continue to rise, there is no guarantee that a benefit level frozen by legislation today will remain financially sustainable ten or twenty years from now. Indeed, a bill like this, by limiting the City’s ability to restructure retiree healthcare in response to rising costs, could actually make the problem worse and eventually lead to a crisis that produces even more draconian restructuring.

That is particularly relevant for current in-service workers. A Tier 6 employee could retire decades from now. For a long term solution, it is not enough to ask whether Bill 1008 protects today’s retirees. We also have to ask whether the way we protect today’s retirees leaves tomorrow’s workers with an even less sustainable healthcare context.

The interests of retirees and in-service members are often aligned, but they aren’t always identical. In this case, there is a real conflict between protecting a specific form of retiree healthcare and dealing with the existing financial obligations tied to the City’s healthcare savings agreement. I don’t think that conflict should be brushed aside because the underlying cause is sympathetic. In fact, if we genuinely care about both retirees and in-service workers, we should be talking about it openly.

Retirees should receive the healthcare benefits they were promised. Still, the question, at least within the UFT itself, is whether Bill 1008, as currently written, is actually the best way to protect that healthcare without creating a potentially serious problem for the workers who are still working. Even if we answer that there is an imperative to pass Bill 1008 no matter what, we still have to ask whether the benefits of formal union support would be worth the specific consequences such support could have for in-service educators. Indeed, as unionists, these are questions we can’t afford to ignore.

To be clear, I am not arguing that Marianne’s group should cease its advocacy. Nor am I recommending a single definitive way to interpret her work. We all know people whose perspectives on Marianne oscillate or differ sharply. Some opposition unionists recommend strict loyalty to her strategies and tactics regardless of the circumstances. Others acknowledge occasional issues but still view loyalty as the best course—even when specific actions cause moral or political discomfort—because they believe the ends justify the means. Conversely, those in Unity Caucus circles often argue that her successes are pyrrhic; they contend her actions clash with the Municipal Labor Committee’s (MLC) formal plans to manage rising medical costs, placing unions in an impossible position that complicates the healthcare landscape for both retired and in-service workers. Then there are those in the middle who respect Marianne’s accomplishments and occasionally join her efforts, yet remain wary of her political strategies or reject rhetoric that can be interpreted as anti-union. I am not litigating those schools of thought here. Instead, I argue that even for those who maintain ‘strict loyalty to Marianne,’ it is not in their interest for her organization to be formally tied to or aligned with the UFT or the MLC.

Introduction: By now, most followers of the retiree healthcare fight are familiar with the sequence of events. The MLC agreed to pursue major healthcare savings for the City, including recurring annual targets. Many in the UFT opposition argue this agreement should never have occurred—or at least not without far greater transparency and member involvement. They also contend that retirees, particularly in unions where they lack membership or voting rights, were placed in a precarious position with limited recourse. I am sympathetic to that critique. Pizzitola rose to prominence by challenging these decisions, and courts have at times sided with her organization in significant ways. Supporters widely credit her with preserving retiree health plans and blocking or mitigating major changes.

Still, even for those of us who see the MLC’s agreement as completely irresponsible, it still exists and has consequences. Some who seek to replace MLC/UFT leadership have not clearly explained how they would manage those repercussions, or what a formal working relationship with Pizzitola’s organization would actually mean for the MLC or UFT as a whole.

Weakening Our Legal Position: A major concern is that the City has sought to hold the MLC responsible for promised healthcare savings that were never achieved. Yes, we can say that this savings agreement should have never been made in the first place, but that misses the point that the agreement is there and in writing. This is where, in my opinion, the UFT or MLC working with Marianne explicitly and formally would become not just problematic but dangerous for union members. That’s because the biggest argument the MLC has against being held responsible is that it should not be penalized for savings that failed to materialize after the Medicare Advantage transition was blocked by third-party litigation. If the unions were to formally collaborate with Pizzitola’s organization to prevent those savings, it would be much harder to maintain that they acted in good faith within the framework of the existing agreement. Even modest actions, like filing an amicus brief, could create avoidable risk. If Pizzitola’s group wins a case independently, the unions could potentially remain shielded; however, if the UFT/MLC formally assists in litigation that undermines the very savings they agreed to pursue, they expose themselves to a more difficult legal and contractual position. Indeed, it seems to follow that we could be held financially liable for far more than any gains won in court. For this reason alone, an ongoing relationship with Marianne’s organization, in which we do whatever is asked or finance her own projects, is irresponsible to our membership.

Aligning with Solutions That Do Not Serve In-Service Members: Pizzitola’s advocacy is understandably retiree-centric, but these solutions do not always align with the needs of in-service members or future retirees. For instance, Marianne has at times supported proposals that protect current retirees (i.e. grandfathering them into care) while offering no protection to future ones—a move that would divide the membership. Moreover, measures to safeguard retirees from agreed-upon cost savings without securing additional funding to cover those costs places in-service workers on the losing side of a zero-sum game, as it leaves in-service healthcare as the only remaining target for spending cuts.

Furthermore, Pizzitola’s political alliances have occasionally prioritized retiree healthcare over broader labor or public education concerns. The UFT must be cautious about any relationship that pressures the union to support candidates whose broader agendas conflict with the interests of educators—such as Vicky Paladino, who supported retiree healthcare but has advocated for ‘breaking the back’ of the UFT. It is unclear how the MLC/UFT could manage these contradictions through a formal partnership.

Rhetorical and Strategic Concerns: Pizzitola has built a following by sharply criticizing unions like DC-37 and the UFT and arguing that they don’t or shouldn’t represent retirees in the first place. Formalizing ties with an organization with this sort of rhetoric, which has extended to mocking union leaders and urging members to stop contributing to their political actions, would not make sense. Her explicit discouragement of COPE contributions (and to fund her organization instead) in particular represents a position that is fundamentally incompatible with the UFT’s mission and operations. Notably, the reverse is also true: partnering with the UFT/MLC would likely be confusing to many of Marianne’s supporters, given that her brand is built in many ways on fighting the unions and getting them out of the business of negotiating retiree healthcare. Any alliance would force the union to either endorse rhetoric that attacks its own leadership or force Marianne to abandon the anti-establishment brand that arguably drives her fundraising. Ultimately, maintaining formal independence preserves the necessary distance for both organizations to operate effectively.

Political Issues: Though Marianne is not a UFT member, she has actively campaigned for specific UFT caucuses in internal elections. Therefore, publicly aligning with her amounts to a de facto endorsement of the caucus(es) she supports. Such an entanglement is problematic, because, even if unintentional, it suggests a quid-pro-quo dynamic: a caucus wins an election with her help, and in turn, her organization receives formal UFT support and/or funding. This creates an untenable conflict of interest, particularly as teachers’ unions face mounting external threats/oversight from the federal government. Furthermore, such an alliance sets a dangerous precedent; today’s opposition supporters would likely regret the implications if a future establishment leadership used union resources to fund groups that campaigned for their own electoral success.

Conclusion

Ultimately, whether you view Marianne Pizzitola’s work as a necessary challenge to union leadership, a disruptive force, or somewhere in between, the conclusion remains the same: formalizing ties is strategically and operationally unwise. The legal risks are too great, and the threat to cohesion between retired and in-service members is significant. Marianne’s efficacy stems from her role as an independent outsider; her ability to challenge the MLC’s agreements is precisely because she is not bound by them. Coordinating her organization’s programs with the UFT or MLC’s operations would have consequences that far outweigh any potential positives.

The reason the RESPECT Check is necessary is to get around some issues with pattern bargaining. In New York, public sector unions all take the same financial packages, set by whichever union is due to bargain first at the table. The details of those packages can differ, but they are essentially equal in value. In theory, giving different municipal unions comparable percentage increases prevents City Hall from favoring one group over another. In practice, the same percentage raise produces very different outcomes depending on the worker’s starting salary. A 3% raise is $3,000 for someone earning $100,000, but only $1,200 for someone earning $40,000, even though rent, groceries, transit, and childcare do not become cheaper for the lower-paid worker. Over a period of years and decades, that structure can substantially widen the gap between higher-paid and lower-paid public employees, especially when overtime and retirement rules differ sharply across titles (and not in a way that favors paraprofessionals).

So the RESPECT Check was designed as a stopgap: a payment meant to help paraprofessionals, one of the city’s lowest-paid and hardest-to-staff school positions, keep up with the cost of living. It was meant to help fix the inequity created by decades of pattern bargaining that let the gap between, say, paraprofessional and principal salaries, widen substantially. It does not fix the salary schedule, it is not pensionable, and it does not substitute for a permanent contract solution. But as immediate relief, it targets the workers who most need relief without requiring other UFT titles to give up money from an already limited bargaining pattern.

That last point is important. Some critics within the UFT have spoken against the Respect Check. Mostly, they’ve argued that Michael Mulgrew could have directed more money to paraprofessionals within the ordinary collective-bargaining package. That is technically true: a union can divide its negotiated economic package among titles in different ways. In the previous contract, for example, flat bonuses meant paraprofessionals received more as a percentage of salary than higher-paid titles. But reaching $10,000 through the contract alone would likely have required teachers, social workers, OT/PTs, and other UFT-represented titles to absorb less in a contract that already delivered sub-inflation wage increases. The RESPECT Check was an attempt to get paraprofessionals meaningful immediate money without taking that money from other underpaid education workers.

To be fair to Mamdani, I do share some concerns about the RESPECT Check, though for different reasons. While I support the payment, I worry about the precedent and the Pandora’s box it might open. The problem is not the RESPECT Check itself; the problem is what future mayors or Councils might do if off-contract bonuses become a routine supplement to—or substitute for—collective bargaining. Pattern bargaining exists partly to keep City Hall from rewarding politically favored unions while isolating less powerful ones. Think about what Giuliani or Bloomberg might have done with such a device. A future administration could easily try to use bonuses in the opposite direction: rewarding better-compensated titles, such as police officers or firefighters, while excluding educators. Because those unions are much smaller, it would also be cheaper to make such a payment to almost everyone but educators. In a twist, by going outside pattern bargaining, which is meant to protect smaller unions, the UFT could be disadvantaged precisely because it is a bigger union and a more politically contentious one. Future mayors less friendly to educators could attempt to use this process to pay other unions while stalling the UFT at the bargaining table. And if one-time, non-pensionable payments became the norm, workers could receive headline-friendly checks while losing out on the pensionable salary gains that matter most over a career.

Still, the precedent concern does not excuse the lawsuit. If Mamdani wants to defend collective bargaining, he should pair that defense with an immediate, credible alternative that gets paraprofessionals comparable relief on the same timeline. So far, the public record shows a lawsuit to block the payments, not a solution that would make these workers whole. A mayor cannot claim to be a friend of labor and public education while asking a court to stop urgently needed payments to some of the lowest-paid workers in the school system. Mamdani has done the UFT and paraprofessionals wrong, and we have to admit that plainly.

Along with the TRS election, one of the biggest stories in opposition circles right now is the upcoming Retired Teachers Chapter (RTC) election. I’ve mostly stayed out of it because I’m not a retiree. But some recent messaging from individuals in the other opposition faction, A Better Contract (ABC)—aimed not just at Retiree Advocate, but also at ARISE and New Action (NAC)—has convinced me to spend today’s naptime writing something.

This is not meant as an attack on ABC. It’s meant, first, as a defense of NAC and ARISE from what I think have been some unfair attacks by members of ABC, and second, as a broader point about coalition politics.

1. Public bargaining makes sense in some contexts. This is not one of them.

If ABC were genuinely trying to negotiate a fair slate arrangement with Retiree Advocate for the RTC election, it’s hard to understand why it has continued a public campaign of criticizing retiree activists, often in ways that are, at best, misleading.

There are perfectly good reasons to bargain in public. A union might do that with an employer to create leverage, expose a bad deal, or rally members and the public. But that is not what this is. Retiree Advocate is not ABC’s employer. ABC is supposedly trying to reach an agreement with RA so they can join together and beat Unity in the next RTC election. If that is really the goal, this kind of public criticism makes the trust required for that much harder to build.

Announcing in a Substack post that “the offer is off the table,” after publicly airing a list of grievances and already presenting somewhat contentious terms, does not read like negotiation among equals. It also raises practical questions. How would ABC explain a deal to its supporters after spending months, and in some cases years, portraying Retiree Advocate as fundamentally compromised? Why would retiree activists be eager to work with people who criticize them throughout negotiations? And why should RA’s voters or undecided voters feel confident in a coalition assembled under openly hostile conditions?

At a certain point, it begins to look less like an effort to build unity and more like an effort to appear reasonable while ensuring the other side takes the blame if negotiations fail.

2. Coalitions and poison pills do not mix.

Every negotiation contains demands that one side views as unacceptable. Serious negotiators generally recognize those obstacles and either remove them or look for ways to work through them.

At least one of ABC’s demands appears to function as exactly that kind of obstacle: an established relationship between the RTC and Marianne Pizzitola’s organization. Whatever one thinks of Marianne Pizzitola, she remains a divisive figure within labor and retiree politics. She had important successes in the anti-MAP struggle, but alignment with her organization now also means alignment with political rhetoric, strategies, and alliances that many unionists find troubling. Most recently, for instance, she has called for retirees to stop donating to the UFT’s COPE fund (a fund which is necessary to support our union’s political actions) and redirect those monies to her organization, a highly problematic move which some ABC members have nevertheless visibly supported. Even outside of some of these issues, there are also questions over conflict of interest, given that Marianne has campaigned against both Unity and Retiree Advocate/ARISE in favor of ABC.

The larger issue, however, is not Marianne herself. It is the principle involved. If it is likely that Retiree Advocate views this demand as fundamentally unacceptable, insisting upon it while simultaneously claiming to seek coalition becomes difficult to understand. A coalition requires identifying areas of agreement, not centering negotiations on demands that are almost guaranteed to divide the parties involved.

What makes this particularly notable is that, from what I gather, Retiree Advocate has generally tried to maintain independence from both Mulgrew and Marianne. That may not satisfy everyone, but it does suggest that portraying the choice as one between competing patronage relationships misses the point.

3. Principles should be applied consistently.

There has been a great deal of discussion about how ARISE members on the election committee voted regarding election recommendations, including the recommendation not to adopt electronic voting at this time.

ABC supports electronic voting, at least in this instance. But it is misleading to present this as though ABC alone is concerned with voting access. ABC is also the faction that sued to eliminate in-person voting in the last UFT election, even though many members appreciated having a convenient option that did not require relying on the mail system. One can argue that expanding voting options gave Unity an advantage, since some voting sites were UFT events with a strong Unity presence, though others were more neutral UFT offices. Still, I am not Unity—I’m NAC/ARISE—and I voted in person myself at a Delegate Assembly because it was more convenient than voting by mail. So, is it really a principled defense of voting rights to restrict options for the whole membership because another caucus may benefit more? That question matters here because online voting would also expand voting access in a way that may benefit ABC.

And this is not just about in-person voting. Some of the same voices now strongly supporting online voting for UFT elections opposed it in TRS elections at a time when that likely would benefit Unity more than the opposition. Put those two things together, and a pattern starts to emerge: positions on election procedures seem to shift depending on who is expected to gain. That does not make the case for online voting frivolous. But it does make it harder to take ABC’s position on online voting in UFT officer elections as purely principled.

The controversy over email lists deepens that concern. The UFT Executive Board found ABC’s access to certain large email lists suspicious, and many unionists remain unconvinced by the explanations offered for how some of those lists were obtained. If campaign advantages come from resources that members believe were acquired improperly, many unionists will reject the legitimacy of those advantages regardless of which faction benefits. That, in turn, raises a harder question about online voting. The faction that stands to gain the most from online voting is probably the one with the largest online presence, and some unionists have raised serious concerns about how that presence was built.

I did not go into the reasons why ARISE’s delegates on the election committee voted against electronic voting, and I was not part of that decision. But I am aware of serious legal, procedural, and confidentiality concerns that should not be dismissed. With that in mind, and given ABC’s inconsistent and at times antagonistic past positions on voting rights, I think it is misleading to cast ABC as the sole champions of democracy and to use the election committee recommendation chiefly as a way to turn opposition activists against ARISE.

4. Is this opposition politics, or opposition as an identity?

For the first time in UFT history, a non-Unity slate won the RTC election. You might think opposition activists who disagree with some of the people now holding influence would still give them at least a little room to govern, if only because keeping Unity out of power is supposedly the larger objective.

Instead, what we have seen is a steady stream of blog posts, social media posts, emails, and commentary critiquing that slate and questioning its legitimacy. ABC has done a great deal to erode trust among fellow oppositionists, making the possibility of a joint slate feel increasingly remote while Unity remains the obvious beneficiary.

If the goal is to build a permanent opposition whose primary skill is criticizing everyone else, perhaps this approach makes sense. But if the goal is actually to win elections and secure achievable improvements for retirees—while hopefully avoiding harm to in-service members—it is difficult to see how this strategy helps.

Coalitions are built on trust, mutual respect, and a willingness to work through disagreements. They are not built through sustained public attacks on the very people you are supposedly courting for an alliance.

The RTC election is almost entirely an election for uncompensated delegate positions. People are entitled to ask whether spending their limited free time—time that could be devoted to family, hobbies, friends, or other activism—is worthwhile if participation means becoming the target of constant public criticism from ABC leadership. They are equally entitled to ask whether elevating a culture centered on internal conflict and public shaming would produce a healthier union.

Just a thought.

Many delegates have become increasingly wary about the insertion of geopolitical discussions into the DA. Just this week, at the May 2026 Delegate Assembly, a resolution was introduced proposing that the DA primarily concern itself with matters directly related to UFT business, singling out geopolitical resolutions for a ban. Even after impassioned opposition by my New Action co-chair, whose speech reportedly changed the minds of many in the room, the vote still split 49–51. Those opposed to bans on geopolitical speech on the union floor often have good rationales. Labor unions have historically played important roles in broader political struggles, including struggles over war, civil rights, and national policy. There is also a legitimate concern that attempts to define “real” union business too narrowly could become mechanisms for suppressing speech or limiting democratic participation within the assembly itself. Nevertheless, almost half of the DA voted to consider a geopolitical ban, even after hearing good arguments against it. That suggests growing frustration within the union. Moreover, I expect that many who voted against an outright ban are still not exactly enamored that geopolitical debates continue to divide our union.

We operate in a post-Janus environment in which members can leave the union altogether if they conclude it no longer represents them. That alone should give the union pause before transforming itself into a vehicle for contentious geopolitical positioning that many members neither joined the union to debate nor expect the union to resolve. Even members who strongly agree with a given resolution may reasonably ask why the union is devoting institutional time and political capital to symbolic declarations unlikely to affect events abroad but likely to divide the membership at home, while so many workplace concerns remain unresolved.

To make matters worse, once political resolutions become central to the life of the Delegate Assembly, they inevitably begin to reshape how delegates themselves are chosen.

At present, most members presumably vote for chapter leaders and delegates based on who they believe will best represent them on union matters: grievances, evaluations, pension issues, workload, staffing, school safety, contracts, and working conditions. In other words, delegates are elected because they are expected to represent members as workers within a labor organization. But if the DA increasingly defines itself through geopolitical and cultural resolutions, those cease to be the primary criteria by which delegates are selected. Members instead begin choosing delegates according to whether they hold the “right” positions on whatever ideological controversies dominate the moment.

Once that happens, the nature of the Delegate Assembly changes fundamentally. The DA ceases to function primarily as a representative body for union governance and instead becomes an arena for ideological sorting. Delegates are no longer workplace representatives who happen to hold political views; they become political representatives who happen to work in schools.

Ironically, Unity itself helped create the conditions for this development. For years, the leadership regularly advanced carefully curated geopolitical resolutions, usually broad enough to command consensus, while often avoiding substantive debate on internal union questions. Many in the opposition, including myself, argued that this allowed leadership to devote DA time to symbolic moral declarations while sidestepping more contentious questions directly affecting working conditions and union governance. The Delegate Assembly gradually became a place that considered nearly everything except the institutional mechanics of the UFT itself.

That dynamic was one reason I helped create the Working Conditions Challenge in the first place: an attempt to refocus the Delegate Assembly on workplace concerns. At the same time, banning geopolitical resolutions outright would not by itself solve the underlying problem. Leadership can curtail meaningful debate in many other ways: by sharply limiting motivation periods or introducing vague, narrow, or unenforceable resolutions on working conditions. Simply prohibiting geopolitical resolutions would therefore risk restricting delegate speech without necessarily making the DA more democratic or more materially focused.

For those reasons, I do not believe the answer is to prohibit geopolitical speech or categorically ban such resolutions. Doing so would create its own problems and would likely become politically weaponized over time. But neither should a narrow majority of delegates, likely selected not for their political beliefs but for their dedication to union issues, have the power to redefine the institutional voice of the union on matters far removed from collective bargaining or workplace representation.

If the UFT is going to speak institutionally on divisive geopolitical questions, the threshold should be extraordinarily high—something closer to a three-quarters supermajority than a simple majority vote at a Delegate Assembly. A union that claims to represent all its members should not casually place its institutional authority behind positions that divide its membership so profoundly, especially when doing so risks transforming the union from a workplace organization into another arena for broader ideological conflict.

In the meantime, we have no such threshold. So, regardless of your political views, I urge you to vote no on geopolitical resolutions we know to be contentious. The issue is not simply how we feel about a given international conflict; it is whether it is prudent for the UFT to place its official voice behind positions that are far removed from its core representative function.

In truth, the story is far more complicated. Unity was the only real victor, sweeping every seat on the ballot. While its share of the vote was the lowest in decades—if not in all time—the divided opposition handed it a comfortable double-digit margin over each competing slate. And because of the winner-take-all structure of UFT elections, even if ABC and ARISE had combined their totals, they would have won what every united opposition wins: the seven high school executive board seats, and nothing more.

That’s where things get interesting. While ABC outperformed ARISE across most divisions, the high schools told a different story. There, ARISE not only surpassed ABC—it came within a few hundred votes of beating Unity outright. In the one division where non-Unity forces have historically been competitive, ABC trailed everyone. For all its talk of running the largest opposition slate in UFT history, ABC didn’t even field a full high school team—just five candidates to ARISE’s and Unity’s seven.

The implications are hard to overstate. By failing to contest the one area where Unity is weakest, ABC showed that it is not positioned to win much of anything in future elections. Without ARISE’s support, ABC has no realistic path to a single seat. ARISE, on the other hand, still retains a credible route to victory in the high schools—with or without ABC. This is not to say that it is my recommendation, simply a fact.

Divergent Strategies: Ground Game vs. Social Media

The reason behind ARISE’s high-school edge reveals a deeper strategic divide. Once it became clear that ABC was dominating online spaces—often by aggressively drowning out Unity and ARISE voices—ARISE scaled back its social media presence, perhaps mistakenly, and turned inward, focusing instead on in-person campaigning within their schools and immediate networks.

That decision paid off, sort of, but only in high schools. In districts where the traditional opposition has long been concentrated—especially District 2—ARISE’s grassroots presence was formidable. Face-to-face organizing, always the left’s most reliable weapon, produced results.

ABC, meanwhile, did more on-the-ground work than many observers credited them for, but it was concentrated mostly in elementary and middle schools. Their high-school reach wasn’t negligible, but high-school voters were far more likely to have encountered Unity or ARISE canvassers than ABC ones.

And for those who engaged primarily through social media, ABC’s campaign offered diminishing returns. What began as a politically neutral, “bread-and-butter” message gradually drifted rightward, alienating the activist base it most needed to mobilize. I’ll come back to that point in a bit.

The Merger Mirage

If ABC and ARISE were ever to merge, these cultural and strategic differences would matter profoundly. ARISE’s high-school strength grew from localized, relational organizing—a model that works where people know each other and collapses where they don’t.

ABC, by contrast, would likely seek to absorb ARISE under its own brand, preserving the name while tinkering superficially (if at all) with structure and message. For that very reason, a united opposition running under ABC’s current banner would risk losing the activist energy that powered ARISE’s near-win.

Teachers in left-leaning schools are not going to campaign for a slate that positions itself to the right of Unity. Even if an ABC–ARISE merger could theoretically win the high schools on paper, it would do so without the hundreds of activists who nearly won those seats for ARISE last time—and who probably did win them for UFC the election before.

The Retiree Factor

A similar story unfolded among retirees. Retiree Advocate (RA) ran with ARISE this cycle, after decisively winning the Retired Teachers Chapter election the year before. Yet this time, they came in third.

ABC’s online network worked hard to radicalize retirees not only against Unity but also against RA and ARISE. Their claim was that RA’s decision to join MORE and New Action was undemocratic, since it hadn’t been subjected to a “one-member-one-vote” process. What they neglected to mention was at the time this all happened their own formation was a closed group of roughly eight people—an astroturf operation that refused to disclose its membership.

They leaned heavily on outside figures like Marianne Pizzitola, who amplified this narrative across retiree spaces. The result was paradoxical: ABC’s attacks succeeded in undermining RA and ARISE but failed to build their own base. Even if the opposition votes had been combined, Unity still would have carried the retiree division comfortably.

And just as with the high schools, ABC ran an incomplete campaign—fielding only 20 candidates for the NYSUT Retiree Council, compared to the full slates of 36 run by both Unity and ARISE. Its decision to erode confidence in other opposition candidates without running enough of its own was a strategic disaster, strengthening Unity heading into the next RTC election and likely solidifying the bloc who had previously pushed Medicare Advantage.

If ABC and RA were ever to merge, it would almost certainly be on ABC’s terms—centralizing message control and narrowing political scope. But retiree activists, like high-school organizers, lean left. They’re not going to volunteer their time to campaign for a slate that flirts with conservative unionism or refuses to challenge right-wing politicians threatening their healthcare. Indeed, given the tenor of retiree spaces dominated by ABC supporters, a Curtis Sliwa endorsement would hardly surprise.

Origins and Aftermath

ABC’s supposed appeal lies in its posture of apoliticism—its claim to represent a “just-working-conditions” unionism. But even that story is less original than it seems.

The small group that founded ABC—then still an astroturf network—had participated in the same coalition talks that eventually produced ARISE. For nearly a year, all sides, including NAC, met to develop shared branding. The ABC name itself, and its neutral framing, originated in those sessions—much of it piloted by NAC members, who had already been experimenting with the “working-conditions challenge” at Delegate Assemblies to shift focus away from outside politics and toward everyday workplace issues.

With the caveat that the failed coalition history is complicated, far more than can be discussed in passing in this blog entry, it is fair to say that when ABC’s founders broke away, they did so quietly, declaring candidacy while still attending coalition meetings. It was, in effect, a soft coup: the seizure of shared branding and infrastructure. By pushing coalition-derived ideas as their own—before even listing candidates—ABC captured early social-media momentum and never relinquished it.

In the end, ARISE and ABC ran on platforms that were not dramatically different. ARISE’s later addition of social-justice language came largely in response to ABC’s rightward drift and its flirtation with groups that had even advocated dues cessation. But it was ABC’s early, neutral branding—ironically co-created with ARISE’s own members—that gave them their initial edge. Many who voted ABC likely thought they were voting for that early, apolitical version, not the later one courting reactionary voices.

That act of appropriation—of shared labor, language, and trust—still defines the gulf between ABC and ARISE. The continued attacks on ARISE’s internal democracy, paired with ABC’s embrace of right-wing messaging, ensure that no genuine merger is likely soon.

ABC may dominate headlines and hashtags, thanks in part to its mysteriously expansive email reach, but it has yet to win a single seat. ARISE, for its part, can learn from this cycle’s missteps—and if it does, it has a clear path not only to retake the high schools but to expand beyond them.

1. The Structure of the Information Wars

The perception of what is going on in UFT politics relies a lot more on reach than anything else. Opposition groups have dealt with this problem for a while. Unity has long held the formal communications infrastructure, with blogs and social media poking small but growing holes in their grasp. But what’s changed this cycle (which, unfortunately, has now become the never-ending cycle) is that one opposition group—through a combination of blogging, social media dominance, and the use (in some cases questionable) of member contact lists—has come to rival Unity in its ability to circulate its version of events. That’s new.

For better or worse, traditional opposition groups—NAC, RA, MORE—didn’t take the same approach. They’ve avoided tactics that feel spam-adjacent, especially in ways that are designed to take down opponents. While that may be the more principled approach, it also meant that when the narrative started to shift toward not just Unity, but anyone in a group other than ABC being part of ‘the problem,’ they had no means of countering misinformation–at least no means that would reach the countless people to which it was being spread.

2. How Certain Myths Took Hold

Several misleading claims have taken hold in the wake of this shift. Here are a couple.

a. The Myth: “ARISE is in cahoots with Unity.”

This myth—that ARISE somehow conspired with Unity to stop ABC—has been circulating since the election began, and it still hasn’t died. Sometimes the tale is that ARISE itself made the deal; sometimes that individual caucuses like MORE, NAC, or RA did; and sometimes it gets personalized, accusing specific activists of cutting a deal for money or a UFT job. In my case, that’s especially rich, since I’m not even drawing a teacher’s salary this year, let alone one from the UFT.

Let’s be clear: it is patently absurd to suggest that people who have poured years—decades—of unpaid labor into building the opposition to Unity would suddenly turn around and work to keep Unity in power. The reality is the opposite. One of the tensions that drove a wedge early between what became ARISE and ABC was precisely how much deference ABC seemed ready to grant to ex-Unity figures who were steering their slate.

Yes, it’s true that both Unity members and ARISE activists criticized ABC at different points—on their misinformation about pensions, on their increasingly rightward messaging, and in other areas. But noticing the same problems with a group is not evidence of collaboration. When ABC’s rhetoric about ARISE started veering into Unity-style red-baiting, none of us accused them of working hand in glove with Mulgrew.

The problem is structural: ABC runs on conspiracy. Its brand rests on the reification that “Unity is always out to get you.” So when ARISE declined to echo every wild charge, ABC’s logic flipped into assuming we were part of Unity’s plot. Now, I hear, they’ve taken it further, accusing NAC, RA, and ARISE of helping sell Unity’s health plan.

The alternative–that RA, NAC, and ARISE members drew independent conclusions—is off the table for them. To accept that possibility would mean rethinking their whole approach. It’s easier, and more familiar, to imagine shadowy deals and backroom plots than to face the fact that their conspiratorial worldview might be flawed.

For an analysis a few NAC members worked on that looks at the healthcare plan logically and without conspiracy colored glasses, by the way, see here.

b. The Myth: “ARISE and ABC could have worked together, but ARISE was too power hungry; they rejected an ABC proposal that gave them 75% of the power.”

This version of events has been repeated frequently by someone with a large platform, despite having not been involved in the relevant negotiations. The account misrepresents what happened—and I can say that with some authority, as I wrote the proposal in question.

At the time, NAC, RA, and MORE were engaged in early talks with a group of fewer than ten independents and Unity members who had just left or were on the cusp of betraying their party. “ARISE” had not yet formed, and “ABC” was not yet the name of a separate entity. In fact, we had all been using “ABC,” among other possible names, to refer to the full coalition effort.

I floated a written framework that gave each of the four groups 25% of the decision-making power. It was a placeholder structure, designed to give all parties a sense of parity. But it eventually became clear that it didn’t make much sense. Why should a small, unaffiliated group of under ten people, mostly with ties to Unity, hold the same weight as an established caucus like MORE, with hundreds of dues-paying members, a budget, and a long history of solid opposition work?

That proposal, to repeat, wasn’t an ABC proposal rejected by ARISE—neither existed yet. When the groups drifted in different directions, the caucuses developed a more reasonable internal model for sharing power amongst those who would continue working together as ARISE. But when we were all forming a coalition together, the resistance to my proposal, in hindsight, was understandable.

It’s also important to remember that negotiations didn’t end there. ARISE made repeated efforts to reengage once there were distinct entities between ABC and ARISE. We were rebuffed at every turn, with ABC’s representatives constantly refusing to even meet at all. That was done, in fact, often by the same people who would mischaracterize early negotiations as ways to discredit us through selective and misleading histories.

c. The Myth: “ARISE prioritized caucus-building over slate unity.”

This is inaccurate. In fact, NAC was so involved in ARISE campaigning over the last year that we weren’t able to focus at all on caucus growth. We sacrificed our own caucus interests for the good of our slate, which is the opposite of what the narrative portrays.

What was true—and perhaps this is where the myth comes from—is that the caucuses felt that there should be balanced decision-making in the sense of a representative democracy from the groups. Allowing fewer than ten people, many of whom were not just former Unity members but current ones who were only in our talks secretly at the time, to have outsized control of the opposition slate felt like the opposite of democratic.

The point of having a steering committee of representatives from MORE, NAC, and RA, as well as from an ad hoc group of ‘independents’ (that later became ABC), was to ensure that representatives would have constituencies behind them who they’d have to report back to. This, again, felt more democratic than letting a small group of self-selected individuals run the opposition.

But whenever we disagreed with the people who ended up controlling ABC, we were told we were putting “caucus first” over UFT members, as if those 8ish unelected people spoke for the entire UFT.

So, to end a myth—at least for my readers (I’m small potatoes in the UFT information wars)—the decision to split wasn’t about caucus ego. It was about the process. Negotiations with the ad hoc group that became ABC were consistently hostile. There was little sense of shared purpose, and little willingness to find compromise. Many of us asked: why continue to endure toxic dynamics in the name of bringing Unity members into power—some of whom, not long before (and frankly even during these discussions), had actively attacked the very members now being asked to back them?

D. The Myth: “ARISE Didn’t Care About Democracy”

One of the more persistent narratives pushed by ABC was that ARISE lacked a commitment to democracy—while ABC claimed to place it front and center. Many rank-and-file members in ABC likely believed this framing sincerely. But it relied on selective storytelling and widespread misunderstanding.

A prime example is the platform survey that ABC frequently cited as evidence of their member-driven approach. The truth is, that survey wasn’t created by ABC alone. It originated during a period when opposition groups were still collaborating, and members who would later align with both ARISE and ABC jointly drafted and circulated it. In fact, an ARISE steering member owned the original file, and both slates drew from its results in developing their platforms.

The divergence came afterward. ARISE supplemented the survey data with caucus consultations and internal deliberation. Platform additions—such as those concerning racial and social justice—were reviewed and approved through established democratic structures. Our approach aimed to ensure platform commitments reflected coordinated group thinking, not just individual opinions. It also reflected us wanting voters to know what they’d be getting if they voted for our slate. For us, democracy began with transparency and participation within our organizations.

ABC, by contrast, positioned itself as a direct conduit for member sentiment, promising that all major decisions would be made through membership consultation. While appealing in theory, this left vague the role of elected representatives—and, at times, even suggested that holding consistent policy positions didn’t matter, since each and every issue would be decided case-by-case by literally everyone.

There are some pros and cons to such a model, but in practice, not everything was put to a full vote anyways. For example, ABC’s decision to sue the UFT to stop in-person voting - it’s unclear who made that very controversial call, but to the best of my knowledge, it wasn't subjected to a full tent membership vote.

Contradictions and Double Standards

ABC’s model also contained unresolved contradictions. For instance, they advocated that the 2023 bonuses should have been redistributed so paraprofessionals received more—implying a fixed policy position. But it was never made clear how such a proposal would be approved democratically. At a time when we were getting an inflation-adjusted paycut, would other members (teachers, counselors, social workers, etc) really have voted to reduce or give up their own bonuses in order to fund bigger raises for paraprofessionals? Were these stances negotiable or not? ABC made strong promises in all directions, but rarely acknowledged the tension between promising specific outcomes and promising full member control.

To be clear: I’m not accusing ABC of being disingenuous. But their rhetoric masked contradictions that went unaddressed—and sometimes undermined the very democratic principles they claimed to uphold.

What ARISE Actually Did

Despite the criticisms, ARISE actively advanced democratic reforms in the union. Leaders from NAC, RA, and MORE publicly criticized the rushed 2023 contract ratification process, which left little room for member debate. Notably, this process was driven in part by Unity officials who later ran with ABC.

ARISE-affiliated leaders also opposed the MAP plan to restructure retiree healthcare. In the Retired Teachers Chapter (RTC), RA members, alongside Bennett Fisher, won a key reform: requiring a full membership vote before any major changes to our healthcare. This was a concrete democratic gain—one the opposition had fought for since before UFC was even formed. And we’re going to need that resolution given the recent news that we are putting a new in-service healthcare proposal to just such a vote at the next DA.

NAC, for its part, worked to increase transparency across the board, regularly publishing minutes of Delegate Assemblies, Executive Board meetings, and more—with commentary to help members understand what was really happening. Ironically, it was an ABC member who allowed much of that information to go offline during the election.

Competing Models of Democracy

Ultimately, ARISE sought to build a slate accountable to organized caucuses with transparent, collective decision-making. Critics dismissed this as elitist or "putting caucus first." But for us, that structure ensured decisions reflected democratic deliberation. ABC’s model, despite language of direct member input, often reflected the choices of a few individuals purporting to divine and execute the will of hundreds of thousands of UFT members. Both groups used surveys from time to time.

Finishing up for now…

This article isn’t meant to attack ABC or its members. In fact, it’s worth communicating that most of my critique of ABC is directed at a central core group that later developed that caucus, not the group at the time of voting. If I’ve gone too far into polemic against ABC in trying to debunk some myths spread by some of their more prolific talking heads, I apologize. I’m also not trying to sugarcoat the negotiations and paint ARISE as the only good actor. That framing is not helpful. Over months of negotiations, there’s blame on many sides as to what ended up transpiring with a split opposition. No, what this piece intends to do is simply clarify some key misunderstandings—misunderstandings that have taken root because of the information environment we’re now in.

ABC is regrouping with an eye toward the Retired Teachers Chapter. But what you won’t hear from the blogs or videos is that far more retirees—I believe about triple—actually ran with ARISE. If ABC wants to build a viable slate, it won’t be enough to get votes, which will be meaningless without a full (or at least mostly full) slate. When Fix Para Pay, who are affiliated with ABC, won the last paraprofessional functional chapter election, for instance, they handed almost every single seat to Unity because they ran an extremely incomplete slate. In the RTC election too, ABC would need people—real organizers and candidates—to stand with them. Otherwise, a social-media generated victory could prove ultimately meaningless. And one of the ways ABC seems to be trying to build that group is by discrediting the one that already exists. Ultimately, I fear that this move will simply hand the RTC back to Unity in the next election, but that’s a piece for another day.

That brings us back to the information wars. One of the ugliest features of this moment is how easily misinformation—or even just decontextualized information—can be used to tear down your fellow unionists, often in the context of seeking (and often failing to achieve) political gain. Sadly, this seems to be the new normal, and that’s not good for the UFT.

Fair enough.

But let’s be real about where we are. The general election field, as it stands, includes Mamdani, Curtis Sliwa, and Eric Adams. That’s it. Anyone else would need a miracle. And even if Cuomo jumps in as an independent, he’s not exactly a credible choice for a teachers union to choose—not just because of his track record with us, but because he lost the Democratic primary.

So when people say the UFT shouldn’t endorse Mamdani, I’d love to hear what they think we should do. Endorse Sliwa, who wants to extend the school year to July and built his brand by founding a vigilante group? Endorse Adams, who’s made a career out of playing budget chicken with our schools and escaping corruption charges in exchange for working with Trump? Sit it out entirely? Fine—that's the other possibility today. But if that's the argument, argue it with facts rather than innuendo.

Instead, we’re getting a whole lot of manufactured outrage—mostly from the same anti-Unity voices (big 'U' and little 'u') who’ve been spending the year sowing distrust. Suddenly, the DA is a sham, the internal surveys are being hidden, and Mulgrew is singlehandedly picking candidates like he’s running Tammany Hall.

Let’s break that down.

First: the survey in question was from the Democratic primary. It didn’t include Adams. It didn’t include Sliwa. Most of those candidates aren’t even in the race anymore. And while the results weren’t published in full, the gist is out there: most in-service members backed Mamdani, most retirees backed Cuomo. So sure, release the data, if you think it's worth the inevitable leak to the right wing press—but let’s not pretend it’s somehow decisive now.

Second: this is not Mulgrew’s endorsement. The Delegate Assembly votes on endorsements. Unity runs the meetings, but they don’t control the votes, most of which are cast by delegates elected at the chapter level, where caucus politics have little to do with anything. Even at the functional level, where caucus politics do decide a lot, with Retiree Advocate holding the 300 RTC delegate positions, the balance of power is more open than some want to admit.

Now—there are real debates to be had about whether endorsements should go to a full membership vote. Most of us elect chapter leaders and delegates based on school-level union work, not how they'd vote in a citywide election. That’s fair. But at the same time, delegates are the ones who will be at the debates and reports and thus who will be best situated to endorse a candidate from the perspective of the union’s broader political strategy. There’s a case to be made both ways. But none of it makes the process illegitimate.

To be clear: this post isn’t me endorsing Mamdani. It’s me saying we should deal in reality. If you don’t want the UFT to endorse him, make your case. But don’t pretend there’s a dozen other viable, pro-education candidates we’re ignoring. And don’t act like this is some kind of undemocratic coup just because the vote might not go your way (ironically, most people making the noise appear as if they do want it to go that way).

We’ve already got enough people outside the union trying to tear us down. Maybe we don’t need more doing the same work from the inside.

For years, their blogs and spokespeople have painted UFT staff positions as political favors. Patronage jobs. Sinecures handed out by Unity to reward loyalty, not competence. These roles, we were told, exist not to serve members, but to buy allegiance: pull a chapter leader out of the classroom, toss them some union cash, and lock down a vote in return.

But now, after some high-profile firings—some clearly retaliatory, politically motivated, and wrong, including several targeting people loosely aligned with ABC—ABC is crying foul. They want their people reinstated. They’re even floating the idea that these positions should be unionized.

Let’s pause here.

Unionizing UFT staff roles could be noble—and I publicly pushed for due process rights back in 2023 while serving on the Executive Board. But, ABC’s loudest voices have spent years arguing these jobs shouldn’t exist in their current form. According to them, they’re overpaid, underworked, and handed out as loyalty rewards. So why, suddenly, are we being asked to defend them as sacred union turf? Why fight to enshrine, with contractual protections, positions that some of the most influential members of your own caucus have described as political fluff?

And it gets stranger. These calls for unionization aren’t coming from the staffers themselves. There’s no grassroots organizing effort. No petition. No campaign. Just ABC leaders pushing a line—one that conveniently shifts the moment it’s their own people on the chopping block.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening: ABC is asking us to take jobs they say are corrupt, filled through favoritism, and add tenure to them. Not because the structure changed, not because the jobs were suddenly reformed or reimagined—but because now, it’s their people being fired.

I want to be precise here: Unity’s decision to fire several of these staffers was clearly political. Some were long-time, hard-working reps. Others seem to have been targeted just for being friends with the wrong faction. It’s ugly, and it deserves to be condemned. But ABC’s reaction has been no more principled. It’s reactive. Opportunistic. And fundamentally incoherent.

If these jobs are truly what ABC’s bloggers always said—wasteful, illegitimate, handed out through loyalty tests—then don’t turn around and demand job protections for them. If you believe they serve the union and support members, then say so. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t attack the system as corrupt until it turns on you, and then try to salvage your spot by calling it worker exploitation.

Unless, of course, it was never really about the system. Just about who had their hands on the levers.

And while I’ve written elsewhere with no small amount of criticism toward ABC, this piece isn’t, ultimately, about ABC. This is about Unity. The caucus that holds institutional control. The one with the power to hire and fire. And the one whose recent actions, if politically motivated, should give everyone in the union—regardless of caucus affiliation—serious pause.

Because if what we’re seeing is a purge based not on performance, not on conduct, but on proximity to political opposition, then something foundational is being chipped away.

Will There Be Consequences? Almost Certainly Not.

There’s a temptation, in moments like this, to imagine that some broader reckoning is coming. That members will be outraged. That the union’s internal culture will rebel against this kind of silencing. But the truth is: probably not.

Even with what may have been the most dominant social media operation in the history of UFT elections, ABC ultimately garnered just 32% of the vote. And turnout was only 29%. Do the math, and you find that just over 9% of union members actually cast ballots for ABC. That’s the maximum number of UFT members who will be enraged by this move. During a summer pause, when many are also exhausted from close to a year of excessive election negativity, the number is likely much lower.

So when Unity acts with this level of confidence—making a move that will be read by many as naked political retribution—it’s not because they don’t understand the optics. It’s because they’re not particularly worried about them.

Were These Firings Justified? In Some Cases, Unity Might Say So. But That Doesn’t Make It Right.

There’s a devil’s advocate position that could be argued here—and perhaps will be by those on the sidelines (those on the inside will likely say they can't discuss personnel decisions, period; at the most they might suggest that our suspicions on why the 5 were fired are fully incorrect, that the political overlap is coincidence, but even that much would surprise me). In any case, some of those let go were more than quiet staffers. They were political actors. ABC’s campaign was often aggressive and conspiratorial. The visual content—some of it fabricated by AI—was vulgar, cartoonish, mean-spirited and directed against the bosses of (most of) these fired members.

In that light, one might understand, if not approve of, a defensive posture from the Unity-run UFT headquarters. After all, these were staff positions that ultimately report to the UFT president. They were not protected classroom jobs. And from that perspective, if a line had been crossed, perhaps the response was inevitable.

But here’s the problem: not everyone let go had crossed that line (a line that was most clearly crossed by people who don’t work for the UFT and thus can’t be fired by its leadership). Some of the terminated persons had no visible hand in the more disturbing campaign materials. Others were tangential at best—guilty, it would seem, of little more than proximity to the wrong people. And that’s the line Unity shouldn’t have crossed. Because once you start removing people based on affiliation, or suspicion, or social proximity, you’re no longer enforcing norms. You’re enforcing loyalty.

And that’s not what a union is supposed to do.

A (Long-term) Framing Mistake that Helps Explain What’s Going on

While one can understand their reasons for doing so, ABC helped frame this dynamic in a way that now leaves them, and potentially future opposition groups, boxed in. Indeed, one could argue they set up Unity to make the move that was just made. Specifically, much of ABC’s messaging during the UFT election centered around experience—i.e., experience in Unity. The idea was that their candidates had already served in the highest levels of the UFT and were therefore best equipped to lead it. ARISE’s candidates, mostly rank-and-file educators and retirees who largely had no experience in Unity, did not.

It was a strange argument for an opposition slate to make—and a dangerous one. Because it made invisible the vast majority of members who hadn’t worked in 52 Broadway, and implied that leadership was a skillset you could only develop from within Unity’s orbit. But once you grant that premise, and then lose the election, where does that leave you? Or the next group trying to build something better? Especially if the moment after you lose, anyone in a position to be fired (i.e. anyone who works for the UFT rather than a position represented by the UFT), is fired by UFT leadership.

Now, with Unity appearing to close ranks even further, that path is narrowing. The message seems clear: if you work for the union and align with the opposition—or even appear to—you might not work for the union much longer. If you’re thinking about walking away from Unity, think again.

The logic of the purge closes a door, not just on ABC, but on any future opposition slate built around working with insiders.

What This Means for the Future of Cross-Caucus Politics

In the weeks following the election, there was still some cautious optimism that collaboration between leadership and elements of the opposition might be possible. Some entities were scorched-earth, sure, but not everyone was. There were glimmers of possible cooperation—on issues like abusive administrators, class size, Tier 6. Places where interest overlapped, even if ideology didn’t.

That hope now feels naïve.

What the decision makers in Unity have done—whether they admit it or not—sends a chilling signal to anyone still working under their roof. You’re either on the team, or you’re a risk. If you’re too friendly with the wrong people, if you show up to the wrong meeting, if your name appears in the wrong group chat—it might be enough.

In that context, who would risk collaboration? Who would take the call from someone in ARISE or New Action, let alone ABC? Who would want to be seen building bridges when Unity has made clear it may torch them?

And so what we’re left with is a smaller, meaner political culture—one where Unity governs by control and exclusion. It’s a union where loyalty is currency, and independent political life is a liability. And if that’s what we’re building, then let’s stop pretending this is the broad, democratic, member-led institution those in power claim it to be.

Unity occasionally published summaries as well, though I haven’t seen much from them lately. With no other caucuses holding Executive Board seats next term, I genuinely hope Unity revives that practice with regularity—members deserve to know what their elected leadership decides.

Initially, I published the minutes on NewAction.org. That site is now offline. While only a few NAC members joined ABC, one of them happened to be our webmaster. After letting the site lapse, he has not been responsive or helpful in restoring it. As a result, years of documented Executive Board history may be lost—unless more technically savvy researchers manage to pull archives from backups. That’s a shame, and I still hope it can be rectified.

Serving on the Executive Board was an honor in itself, even if it wasn’t always easy to participate fully while also taking minutes. We made it work. In our first year, the seven high school Executive Board members elected on the UFC slate came in strong—asking so many pointed questions that Unity actually passed a resolution to limit the time for them. Ironically, the Unity member who introduced that gag rule would later become ABC’s presidential candidate, continuing to defend that position even after leaving Unity. But I digress.

That first year, we introduced motions nearly every meeting. The debates that followed—on abusive administrators, healthcare, union priorities—were spirited and illuminating. But they also exposed just how stacked the deck was. Despite winning roughly 42% of the in-service teacher vote, we held only 7 of 102 seats. That imbalance fostered a climate where pushing serious proposals often felt like shouting into the wind. Over time, that futility took a toll. Even questions—when answered at all—were met with vague reassurances or answer IOUs. Still, being able to ask them mattered. It served as a public check, however limited, and one which was much more reliable than the question period at the DA.

Now, for at least the next three years, there will be no opposition voices on the Executive Board. But a reminder: any UFT member may attend these meetings, and—if coordinated in advance—speak at the open mic. The next election is in 2028. We’ll have another chance then.

Until that time, I’m signing off. Here are the minutes.

Minutes:

We began with moments of silence for Ronald Jones, June Davis, and Alex Munoz. There was no open mic and the minutes were approved.

Karen Alford gave a report about going to Albany regarding the power of play time to unwind/have unstructured play. Said it has to be legislated in schools.

Mary Vacarro thanked those who had come to the scavenger hunt. Said this summer there would be 6 P credits for free for 30+. They can take 1200 people, 600 per session. 2 week sessions, 3 P credits each. Some in person, some remote. If in k-8 school, have clerical day/remote on Friday the 6^th.

Mike Sill: Eid day off is wrong, can use religious observance day. First time the timing has worked out this way.

Carl Cambria: Chair person of the election. 14-32-54. GES going through 3300 pages of individual pages. Once done will have certified results. 15% increase in voters.

Mulgrew: Increase in turnout great start – more to do. Always fun with UFT elections, but let’s move forward. Happy with calendar? Jan. 2 off now at 180 days exactly.

Para bill – more aggressive, have to do committee hearing. Still some blocking of speaker/staff. Have to get Lander – cannot go into September being short 3000 paras.

City/MLC – final bids from RFP got a week ago. Bid moving forward is Emblem with United Healthcare. Using process to improve healthcare, 5 year contract. Initial meeting this week. Some about hospitals. If come to contact, we’ve expanded our networks. Under 65 retirees in Florida, massive increase. Want to lock in before new mayor.

Question Period:

Ibeth Mejia: Question, skeptical about health changes given the billions in savings required. Asked about some specifics. I’m abbreviating. The full question was on the long side, and Unity members heckled her to get to the question.

LeRoy Barr: Four months ago, healthcare resolution passed at DA. All those questions will be answered.

Reports from Districts:

Pat Cristino: Thanks people who came to rally to free a DOE student who was taken by ICE.

Adam Shapiro: D21 had a tenure celebration. UFT Mets game had good turnout and was a good time.

Charles DiBenedetto: School with a lockdown well after school hours – teachers to be paid by DOE for that time.

Camile Eady said a few words about Alexa Munoz, an NYC educator for 25 years who went the extra mile.

Rashad Brown: African Heritage committee tour of Seneca Village. Happy pride. June 29 have is rise up – pride and protest.

D. Rodriguez AFT Latino caucus – thanks for coming.

Legislative Report: Various anti-Trump events upcoming. Phone banking coming for elections.

Special Orders of Business: Some endorsements were made and combined to make it easier to pass at the DA. Another endorsement was made to allow endorsements be made by the UFT Executive Board over the summer. I asked if that might include the Mayor, and LeRoy Barr replied yes. The resolution to extend the hybrid DA rules passed. Charles DiBenedetto made a motion that passed to reorder the DA to make number 1 the endorsements, number 2 extending the hybrid DA. Can’t read my handwriting for number 3.

There were 31 election complaints.

1. ABC allegedly campaigning on campaign time. One officer candidate refused to cooperate but the times show he would have been at work, so it was upheld for that person, whose name I’ve redacted.

2. Ballot for a beer was cancelled after complaint made, so upheld but no action needed. (ABC).

3. ABC’s Malone was accused of using a UFT/ABC logo in a campaign ad. Upheld.

4. A Unity member who used a CL list to distribute campaigning emails was found to be upheld.

5. ARISE complaint that had food at an event, but it wasn’t contingent on voting for ARISE, so dismissed.

6. A complaint about ARISE distributing flyers at a school was dismissed – distribution permissible.

7. Daniel Alicea complained that a video of Kyle and Olivia from ARISE had a UFT logo on clothing – should be reminded not to wear UFT logo.

8. A Unity member/ UFT staffer was distributing at 930, but dismissed because their hours are 10-6.

9. Daniel Alicea complained that the ‘a vote for Unity is a vote for me’ campaign line was misleading, but dismissed.

10. Daniel Alicea complained about Woodruff telling someone to stop campaigning during work hours, but not enough evidence given, and given that Woodruff was telling someone to stop, further dismissed. Personal part of communication outside parameters of election complaint regs.

11. Alicea’s – issues with exec board, no evidence, part of constitution referenced isn’t relevant, dismissed.

12. A DR accused of distributing Unity materials, but evidence did not confirm, so dismissed.

13. ABC/ARISE both had people mailing multiple ballots – cannot mail multiple ballots (for others).

14. Prohibited to campaign in a chapter chat.

15. Complaints about dissatisfaction with customer service dismissed as they did get ballot.

16. A dismissed complaint about campaign literature.

17. ABC distributing literature using UFT union proud logo. As ABC is already aware, indeed having made similar complaints of other slates, can’t use logos. Upheld.

18. Member who wasn’t allowed to vote was dismissed because hadn’t been member long enough (60 days before ballot is mailed).

19. A CL who sent out emails campaigning was accused of using the CL list but said the emails were gotten in other ways for other purposes – dismissed.

20. Person distributed arise materials and were gone next day, but couldn’t reach/investigate so dismissed, but everyone reminded that you cannot take materials out of someone else’s mailboxes.

21. Bring your own ballot ABC, true, but unclear if condition for attendance and ballots not even out yet, so dismissed.

22. Several people didn’t get ballots but records indicated ballots mailed out in a timely way when requested new ones. Will review mailing procedures, but dismissed.

23. Pamphlet for TRS divestment mimicked campaign literature, which allowed some people, potentially not even UFT members (perhaps PSC) to get into schools on false pretenses and distribute that literature. This is now a major investigation beyond the UFT.

24. Three ABC officer candidates complained about Ellie Engler’s blogs in support of Unity, since she is not a UFT member. But they misconstrue outside interference – it’s about outside organizations, not individuals without employees. Dismissed.

25. Complaint about NYCPA endorsing Unity. They don’t have employees, but website is funded by Megan Project. Unity reached out to organization to shut down website for duration of election and they complied and immediately corrected, no further action needed.

26. ABC material posted by M. Munter was found to have occurred before the workday and dismissed.

27. A complaint about a Unity Caucus text was dismissed.

28. Similar complaint to 20.

29. Secrecy sleave effectiveness questioned but no evidence. Dismissed.

30. ABC interrupted a CL meeting to campaign, upheld.

31. Campaigners for ABC and Unity at union GOTV event, can’t campaign there so upheld.

Recommendations accepted.

And to be fair, they had a point.

The word opposition doesn’t just suggest resistance. It suggests cohesion. It implies there’s a single, unified force standing in contrast to Unity—a bloc of activists aligned in mission and vision. That’s always been more illusion than reality. But this election shattered the illusion for good.

In 2022, we got close. A coalition of progressive caucuses—MORE, NAC, Solidarity, ICE, and Retiree Advocate—came together as United for Change. We didn’t agree on everything, but we agreed on enough to share a slate and run a serious campaign. Unlike this year, it meant we were able to at least win the high schools and have non-Unity members on the UFT Executive Board for three years. There were bumps, no doubt. But most of that coalition came back this year, reconstituted as ARISE. The campaign was leaner, more coherent, and, in many ways, stronger. But around the same time, a new group showed up—not just walking away from the coalition, but running against it.

They called themselves A Better Contract (ABC). And they weren’t just targeting Unity. They targeted the entire progressive wing of the union. The way they told it, we—MORE, RA, NAC—weren’t just flawed. We were the problem. Elitist. Corrupt. Out of touch. In their eyes, we didn’t just need to be defeated. We needed to be erased.

Toward the end of the slate negotiation season, when there was still time to fix things before petitions went out, ARISE did try to renegotiate a merger. ABC’s core group refused, conveying that among other reasons, they thought they could win without us. Then, after the ballots were counted and it became clear that a split opposition couldn’t even win back the high schools, let alone acquire the retired vote, ABC came knocking—floating the idea of partnering up again, at least with the pieces of ARISE they now realized they needed (mostly Retiree Advocate, who who currently controls the RTC, but is likely to lose it to Unity thanks to ABC’s relentless smear campaign).

Why the sudden change of heart? Maybe that’s damage control after the sobering realization that destroying the public perception of Retiree Advocate, who many ABC retirees ran with (successfully) in the last RTC election, was a myopic election strategy this time around. Maybe it’s a longer-term, more sinister attempt to dismantle ARISE from within - take RA out of ARISE, and perhaps bit by bit ARISE will fall apart enough for ABC to run against Unity unopposed next election. Either way, let’s be honest: some things, once broken, don’t need to be put back together.

In fact, maybe we’re better off if they’re not.

I. The Damage Wasn’t Just Political. It Was Personal.

Opposition organizing in the UFT is built on trust. On relationships. On the idea that even when we disagree, we’re still in this together. There’s room to debate. There’s even room for friction. But what there isn’t room for is perpetual scorched-earth politics.

ABC didn’t just run a rival campaign. They ran a campaign against us. And their strategy was clear: destroy credibility, sow division, and claim the mantle of legitimacy.

They:

• Slandered ARISE caucuses as corrupt and unaccountable, despite the years of tireless volunteer work those caucuses have put into internal democracy, school-level organizing, and progressive reform.

• Published private communications—selectively edited, ripped from context—not to inform or clarify, but to humiliate and discredit.

• Peddled conspiracies, accusing long-time opposition leaders of secretly working with Unity, even claiming they were on Unity’s payroll—with no evidence.

You expect dirty tricks from Unity. You don’t expect them from people who claim to be building a “better” union.

II. Branding That Can’t Be Reconciled

Even if we could forget the personal attacks—and let’s be honest, most of us can’t—there’s still the matter of what ABC actually stands for. Or more accurately, what it’s willing to compromise.

During the campaign, ABC:

• Red-baited ARISE, mocking our presidential candidate for being pro-strike—one of the most basic, bedrock principles of unionism.

• Walked back support for the New York Health Act, after many of its opposition-grown candidates previously backed it.

• Refused to criticize Trump’s attacks on immigrants and public services, in a transparent effort to court reactionary voters.

• Treated the left, where most (though not all) of ARISE’s base—and much of the labor movement—comes from, not as coalition partners, but as enemies to be purged.

And at the same time, they celebrated endorsements from groups that:

• Oppose vaccines.

• Encouraged members to stop paying union dues.

• Back politicians who openly campaign against the UFT or public education.
  

ARISE believes in democratic, militant unionism. ARISE believes in public schools, and public healthcare - that unions are vehicles for justice, not just better pay.

ABC either doesn’t share those values—or they’ve decided those values are expendable.

So how exactly do you build a coalition around two groups: one that seeks to strengthen our union in ways that are identifiably left, and one that seeks to pander to the right in ways that if taken to their natural conclusion would ultimately threaten the ability of our union to exist at all?

If the brands are that incompatible, such that one group falls to the left of Unity and one falls to the right, maybe you don’t.

III. Collaboration ≠ Coalition

Now, none of this means we never work with people we disagree with.

There are real fights coming. Health insurance. Pension threats. Contract enforcement. When those fights arrive, I’ll stand with any unionist willing to take them on. Solidarity doesn’t require shared caucus membership.

But solidarity also doesn’t mean pretending we’re all on the same team for everything.

When recent articles branded the potential healthcare fight as an ABC fight—as if they owned the issue—it revealed something deeply broken. Healthcare isn’t their fight. It’s everyone’s fight. So is fixing Tier 6. So is every union battle. The goal isn’t to win a union issue for a caucus. The goal is to win a better union for all of us.

We can—and must—work with people across slates on shared goals. But let’s be honest: collaboration on issues is not the same as coalition in elections. The former requires cooperation and a willingness to momentarily forget what separates us, not just from each other, but from Unity. The latter requires a very specific form of trust and alliance - a shared sense that our differences pale in comparison to what we have in common. After one of the worst election seasons in UFT history, that sort of trust is in perilously short supply.

We don’t need to pretend there’s one opposition. There isn’t. There are many. And that’s okay.

ARISE is one of them—rooted in struggle, in solidarity, and in the belief that unions should fight for the working class, not posture to it. I don’t think we should abandon those principles for a false unity, especially three years before the next officer election. Right now is not the time to consolidate an opposition to Unity, not when ARISE just barely withstood collective character assassination from many of the folks who lead ABC.

Until then, the path forward is clear. Organize. Educate. Mobilize. Build a union that fights for all of us. In three years, maybe the landscape of the opposition changes enough for a less divisive election in 2028.

But today, that shouldn’t be the focus anyways. The election is over, but the issues are not. We don’t need one Unity and one opposition; we need one union with thousands of organizers.

One of the most important takeaways, though, is this: three caucuses overcome their very real differences for the greater good. That collaboration—between organizers from MORE, Retiree Advocate, and my own caucus, New Action—was a really good thing. I genuinely look forward to continuing to organize alongside the people in MORE, as well as with RA and other allies we’ve made in this campaign.

Here are a few lessons that stand out.

Social Media Matters More Than Many of Us Thought

There was a sense in ARISE (and I’d guess, in Unity too) that we could basically concede the social media space to the ABC spammers—that real votes aren’t earned there. But while there are other reasons ABC's numbers ended up higher in most divisions (more on that below), I suspect social media was the biggest factor.

It wasn’t just that ABC did a “better” job on social media (and ethically, I’d argue they didn’t). It was that they were there first. They posted constantly. They made friends with the people in charge of major spaces and used that access to censor what other groups could say. They went after their opposition in ways that made many of us feel it wasn’t even worth engaging.

Eventually, both Unity and ARISE just walked away from those spaces and left ABC to dominate. That dominance made them look like frontrunners. At a certain point, I’m sure it felt to many people who were only seeing the election on social media that they might win outright. And when people think one opposition slate has a shot, they’re more likely to vote for it—even if they align more with another. My guess is that ABC peeled away a good chunk of what would have been ARISE votes that way.

Of course, it turns out that split into two opposition slates, neither of us had a chance of winning. But I digress.

Social Media, Part Two

Compared to 2022 and earlier cycles, the landscape changed a lot this time around. If you ended up on ABC’s mysteriously acquired mailing lists, you saw it: they weren’t just campaigning on Facebook. They were sending out near-daily blasts to thousands of members.

ARISE, by contrast, mostly emailed people who had reached out to us—folks already running with us or otherwise actively involved. We reached a few hundred people. ABC reached thousands, again and again, using Substack and other mass-mailing platforms. It wasn’t a minor difference. It completely dwarfed the kind of digital outreach we’d seen in past cycles from groups like UFC.

And when one slate is showing up in inboxes and feeds constantly, and the others aren’t, that seems to matter more than a flyer dropped in a school mailbox once or twice. Especially for ARISE, which doesn’t have the institutional reach Unity does.

For us, the soft boycott of social media backfired. Badly.

Negativity Sells

It’s no secret that ARISE ran a relentlessly positive campaign. A few of us, myself included, wrote more critical pieces on our own time. But officially, we kept it all upbeat. Even the critical pieces that did come out weren’t personal attacks—they were measured, grounded, and mostly stuck to the issues.

ABC, on the other hand, branded itself as the only possible savior. They painted both Unity and ARISE as corrupt. According to them, we were all self-interested insiders, responsible for just about everything that had ever gone wrong in the UFT.

That scorched-earth strategy might have long-term consequences. But in the short term, it worked. Outside the high schools, it appealed to a big chunk of the opposition vote.

Normally, the opposition runs as a single slate and gets both the activist vote and the “Mulgrew protest vote”—the folks who have a problem with Unity but don’t otherwise agree wholeheartedly with what the ‘positive’ opposition is selling. But ABC’s relentless negativity helped them corner that protest vote. They cast themselves as the only anti-Mulgrew option, and that framing worked.

A lot of us in ARISE weren’t willing to run that kind of campaign. Not just because we’re “the positive slate,” but because of the damage it does. The lies, the personal hits, the erosion of basic decency—it’s not worth it to us. But especially in the social media-driven environment we found ourselves in, that approach attracted more votes.

It’s something future opposition campaigns are going to have to reckon with.

Unity Has Lost Ground—But the Opposition Is Fractured Beyond Belief

We’re in a strange place right now.

The long-standing opposition most likely to run in future elections is ARISE. ABC branded itself as a one-off slate, even going so far as to suggest that caucuses which exist between elections are part of the problem.

It’s not clear if they even plan to stick around. A lot of their candidates—the ones who pulled in votes—may not run again. And the digital advantage they had—especially on social media—probably won’t last if ARISE takes lessons from this cycle to heart.

Still, the reality is: divided, neither slate can win the whole union alone. ARISE could plausibly win the high schools—we only narrowly missed it this year, even with the vote split three ways—but Unity’s institutional reach still makes them nearly impossible to beat head-on unless the opposition is united.

Yet ABC’s tactics this cycle included burning every possible bridge with ARISE. They launched conspiracy theories. They falsely accused many of us of being bought off. They doxxed us. They attacked us publicly and used their social media reach to turn parts of the union against us.

And they did all this while openly saying they were just a slate with no intent of continuing after the election.

They were willing to burn the whole thing down for the sake of what might be a one-time shot. And their branding—supposedly neutral, but effectively anti-left (and dramatically so)—was designed to be incompatible with ours. That branding, along with general stubbornness and a false sense of being able to win alone, cut off merger talks—and it might head them off again in the future.

The damage ABC did to relationships within the opposition—between actual rank-and-file organizers—is going to outlast this election.

That said, I don’t think most rank-and-file ABC supporters knew how toxic things had gotten behind the scenes. And I really do hope that many of them—especially those new to organizing—find their way into a more collaborative, positive, and strategic opposition. I’m sure ARISE would welcome the chance to work together going forward.

Unionism Without Offices

This week, I wrap up three years as a UFT Executive Board member. There’s technically one more meeting (an executive session, no minutes), but for all intents and purposes, this night will be my last.

Serving on the board was an interesting experience. I think we did good work. But I honestly got just as much out of the protests, the writing of minutes and policy takes to educate or engage with fellow unionists, and the unofficial campaign gatherings as I did from the formal stuff.

The ARISE campaign reminded me of something important: that any UFT member can get involved, can speak up, can organize—regardless of who’s in office.

And that, at least, gives me hope.

But for all its narrative power, ABC’s premise hinges on something notably absent: actual results.

No ballots have been counted. No winners declared. Yet ABC’s messaging doesn’t just presume a win—it presumes sabotage. What we’re witnessing isn’t just anxiety about Unity’s intentions; it’s a preemptive claim of victory laced with accusations of impending theft. The resemblance to national “stop the steal” tactics does not go unnoticed.

It would be one thing if ABC had run a squeaky-clean campaign. They haven’t.

Let’s start with the lawsuit. No other caucus—Unity, ARISE, or any other—took the union to court this cycle. ABC did. Their goal? To eliminate in-person voting entirely. In a mail-in election plagued by reports of late-arriving or missing ballots, ABC sought to close off the one reliable avenue some members had to ensure their votes were counted. The courts rejected the move quickly, and rightly so. But the move itself is telling. The only caucus that’s actually tried to alter the electoral terrain via the courts is the one now accusing others of scheming to do just that.

Then there’s the matter of the emails. Recent election complaints that were upheld at the UFT Executive Board suggest ABC may have reached voters not just through grassroots social media organizing, but through copious unsolicited emails—emails that appear to have been obtained in, shall we say, creative ways. Those emails soliciting ABC votes, it’s important to note, were also sent from misleading addresses, addresses that the UFT Executive Board had long before ruled could not be used in this election because they resemble official UFT communications. We saw nothing like this with United for Change, which had the ethical balance of including not just ABC’s core non-Unity decision makers, but ARISE’s, on its steering committee. If it turns out those emails were acquired or used in ways that violated election norms or even laws—and if they played a decisive role—we have to ask: What does that mean for the integrity of the election? Ditto the question of the campaigning for them by Marianne Pizzitola’s multimillion dollar outside organization, help that ABC has accepted and amplified–after publicly suggesting they’d give her organization COPE money if they won. Wouldn’t ABC have a problem with all of these sorts of things if the other states were doing them? (Given how frequently they pose election complaints for much more trivial matters, how they’ve even gone to court for a few things, I have to think yes).

Now, let’s be clear, it’s been a while, but Unity is no stranger to stealing elections. Back in the 1980s, they blocked Michael Shulman from taking office as VP of High Schools, forcing a costly and demoralizing re-vote that drained New Action’s resources. It was, by all accounts, a stolen seat. But recent history is less clear-cut. When Retiree Advocate won the Retired Teachers Chapter election, Unity didn’t intervene. Maybe it was the scale of the victory. Maybe Unity saw no viable legal route (RA after all had run their campaign in a reasonable way). Maybe they’d learned from the backlash of the Shulman affair. Whatever the reason, they let the results stand. Should we assume they would let the results stand if ARISE or ABC were to win the general, though? Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe what’s different now isn’t Unity’s appetite for illegitimate control—it’s the legitimacy of the concerns. ABC’s conduct, unlike NAC’s in the 80s, or RA’s in the last RTC election, and unlike ARISE’s in this election, has provided tangible, documented grounds for challenge. If Unity chooses to act, it won’t be conjuring a controversy out of thin air. ABC may have given them a real reason to dispute results.

And that’s the tragedy. ABC has marketed itself as a caucus that would stand for transparency, accountability, and revitalization (the way ARISE actually does, but I digress)—yet that message is being undermined from within by tactics that abandon those very principles. Instead of modeling the democratic renewal they claim to champion, ABC has mimicked the authoritarian rhetoric of preemptive delegitimization. They’ve used tactics that are unquestionably unethical - that have violated election rules in far more than the usual ‘I saw someone wearing a UFT hat while holding a caucus pamphlet on social media’ kind of way. And in doing so, they’ve put the ball in Unity’s court, if indeed Unity is interested in playing.

We are not living in normal times. Public sector unions face renewed threats from anti-labor forces on the national stage, threats that ABC has intentionally taken no position on by the way. Now more than ever, we need electoral integrity—real integrity that prevents anti-union actors from weaponing our own election against us. That means subjecting all slates to fair scrutiny. It means distinguishing critique from conspiracy, and oversight from sabotage.

If ABC were to win–a big if–and the election descended into legal chaos, they would not be innocent victims of a power grab. They would be its architects.

The legislative update took a sharp turn into electoral politics. Adrienne Adams backed out of the UFT’s mayoral forum with a last-minute "scheduling conflict," and Eric Adams reportedly shut down UFT’s “teach-in” event where mayoral candidates were supposed to spend a day in schools. Members will be surveyed soon ahead of any endorsement decision.

But none of that carried the weight of what came next.

Twelve election complaints were reviewed. Most were small—logos, Facebook spats, and literature disputes. A few got the standard cease and desist. But two complaints were upheld that shook the room.

First: NYCOPSR’s Marianne Pizzitola, a non-member who runs a multimillion dollar special interest group, was found to have interfered in the election on behalf of ABC, allegedly asking for copies of the ballot, directing members when to submit their ballots, and of course campaigning for UFT members to vote for ABC.

Second: ABC is accused of mass-blasting campaign emails to a myriad of UFT members who never asked for them, suggesting suspicious ways that the emails were obtained in the first place. Many emails were apparently disguised in ways that made them look like they came from UFT itself – even after ABC was warned to stop using the domain “UFT Members.” No unsubscribe option. No member consent. This is a textbook example of both a UFT election rules violation and a possible federal law violation. The complaint was upheld. As someone subscribed to email communications from ABC myself without my consent, I remembered the icky feeling (though in my case, luckily was able to unsubscribe).

If you weren’t in the room, I’m not sure words on a blog capture the gravity of it. These weren’t minor squabbles about campaign flyers and UFT hats (some of which ABC launched at other caucuses tonight in the same breath). These are serious, coordinated actions with implications that reach far beyond this election. They call into question the integrity of the process, the protection of member data, and the ethical boundaries of campaign conduct within our union. We’ve seen shady tactics before, but this is a new level—and it should concern every UFT member who believes in a fair, democratic union.

The informal minutes begin.

No open mic or president’s report tonight. The meeting started with the approval of minutes.

Richard Miller, the former VP of Middle schools, was remembered. Mary Vacarro said a few words. A moment of silence was held.

Reports from Officers

Mary Vacarro spoke about Mel Aaronson being honored, a room was named after him at TRS. She also spoke about the spring conference, which reportedly went well. The theme was “we teach the city.” She also mentioned that on May 21 there is going to be a scavenger hunt in central park – for those not doing the 5k.

Mike Sill spoke about the class size updates. 2 weeks from now, additional money for schools. Hiring issues have been happening in the meantime because of money needed in Galaxy before hires can be made. There’s a process for when there is space limited. SCA says 70,000 seats are needed, which may be a bit high (not sure), but only 33,000 are budgeted for. Everything should be done before start granting “exceptions” to allow class sizes to be larger.

Janella Hinds: Friday, June 6, secretary soiree.

Rich Mantell: May 31 is the date for the 5k, Maimonides Park. Last Thursday was the first middle school awards ceremony.

Reports from Districts

Elizabeth Espert: Hiring fair in D4. 400 applicants, 22 schools. D6 secretary celebration.

Charles DiBenedetto: Two events at the Brooklyn office – one for secretaries, one for TRS.

Rashad Brown: UFT players busy, “everybody needs a friend.” Math workshop coming. Aids walk, had over 20 members show up, reached half of the goal - please donate.

Daniel Rodriguez: AFT Latino Caucus Treasurer. There is a spring soiree. Judy Torres is performing. At the Bronx office, Victoria Lee is giving a pension workshop in person. Donate to the scholarship fund.

Seung Lee: Tuesday, May 12, the Asian American Association of CSA and UFT Asian Heritage Committee had a scholarship event.

Legislative Report: Mayoral forum, 6/7 participants came. Received word that A. Adams was not going to be there after all due to a ‘scheduling conflict.’ Nothing to add…Monday before, E. Adams said not allowed to use schools for the UFT campaign event, so two candidates scheduled weren’t allowed to go. Will be sending a questionnaire to membership for feedback regarding mayoral forum.

Special order of business: Election complaints – have 12.

1. NYCOPSR and leader Marianne Pizzitola interfering in election. Numerous complaints of her interference on behalf of ABC, e.g. asking for ballot, to hold onto ballots until she said what to do. Interference goes beyond this. Significant, and also a lot of media decrying Unity. Review that it is a 501C5 organization, which is a critical question as to whether it is an employer, and we can publicly infer that she has received money from others. Law clear is on prohibitions. Blanket prohibition to show that interference.. Totality of circumstances, recommend that complaint about interference be upheld and that ABC stop receiving money and to refund cash contributions to ABC and candidates.

2. Unsolicited emails from ABC, often without an option to unsubscribe, many coming from the “UFT members domain,” appearance of being sent by UFT, but actually UFT emails. Wide range, including non-UFT members appear to be getting emails. Appears that they must have purchased email lists of suspected teachers from third party vendors. This violates the 2025 UFT election guide, which states that election emails should not be sent to individuals who have not requested such literature. No ability to unsubscribe probably violates federal law. Upheld – cease and desist. Furthermore, UFT members had caused confusion amongst recipients. ABC had been advised about this previously, so upheld, ABC again being asked to cease and desist. UFT counsel advised to explore all possible options.

3. Amy Arundel alleged that Unity mailing was a misuse of resources, but the UFT election guide provided the option to anyone. Dismissed.

4. Alicea complained that a Unity member had a UFT branded hat, a violation of the election guide, upheld, member should remove offending post.

5. A member complained that a CL was hesitant to allow ARISE members to put literature in boxes, but was speaking on her own, so that complaint is dismissed.

6. Member complained of a UFT logo on flyer, but was not accurate. Dismissed.

7. A member complained that an ARISE retired member misrepresented himself as a UFT staff member and caused a scene, but this was inaccurate. Dismissed.

8. An unidentified UFT staff member was claimed to be distributing campaign literature, but since they couldn’t be identified, the complaint is dismissed.

9. After distributing ARISE literature, the person distributing allegedly received calls to her classroom from unidentified teachers from one of the schools at which she was distributing telling her she was ‘not welcome.’ Because proof is lacking here, must dismiss, but given severity of allegation, CLs at schools where the call might have come from to be reminded that all caucuses can distribute literature.

10. Misuse of UFT logo was alleged in a campaign material, but just the letters UFT were used, so the complaint was dismissed.

11. Another complainant saw the UFT logo on a Unity campaign flyer, and this time it was the logo, so it was upheld. Cease and desist sent to Unity.

12. A UFT member who was allegedly doxed by Marianne Pizzitola complained but it was found to be beyond the purview of the process. Dismissed and advised to report to Facebook.

Questions:

L. Highland: first complaint, how would monitor?

L. Barr: wouldn’t know, but recommendation from the body, other complaints can be investigated, recommendation on what needs to be done, they can choose how to respond.

R. Brown: Does that include donations from retirees?

Answer not heard.

Motion carries.

Meeting adjourned.

On one side stands ARISE, a coalition of longstanding progressive caucuses committed to restoring organizing as the core of union life. On the other is ABC, a new slate that has exploded across digital platforms with bold claims, conspiratorial messaging, and a strategy built less on substantive member engagement and more on digital dominance.

That both slates could gain traction speaks more to the vacuum Unity has left behind than to any one campaign’s strength. For years, Unity has governed the UFT not as a movement but as a service provider. It handled grievances, negotiated contracts, issued newsletters—while members were kept at arm’s length. Unionism was reduced to an administrative function. Chapter leaders were left unsupported. Organizing lost its teeth. And over time, the membership disengaged. People stopped seeing the union as something they were part of. Unity, preferring control over connection, did the work behind cubicle desks, never noticing how much ground was going fallow.

In that vacuum, two very different visions have emerged.

ABC’s approach is opportunistic. They saw the apathy and confusion, and moved to dominate the digital space. Their strategy is to find the unengaged—those who don’t usually vote—and give them a simple story. One villain (Unity). One promise (things will be better). It’s an easy sell in hard times. Without meaningful engagement, members are vulnerable to anyone who shows up with a narrative, even one padded with half-truths and empty populism. ABC has built massive email lists, blanketed social media, and flooded the discourse with innuendo and outrage. In doing so, they’ve shaped the online narrative—even if it’s unclear whether they’ll translate that into votes.

ARISE took a different path. Rather than offer scapegoats, they’ve tried to offer structure. Rather than channel outrage, they’ve tried to channel organizing. Their campaign is built on re-engagement, not spectacle. ARISE members have shown up—in schools, in streets, in rallies against Trumpism, in chapter meetings and contract campaigns. Their message isn’t just about what’s wrong, but about how to rebuild. They’ve worked to connect with educators who still believe a better union is possible, and are willing to build it together. ARISE tried to fill the void Unity left not with slogans, but with solidarity.

Which leads me to the point: this election is not just about slates. It’s about what kind of union we want. ABC and ARISE may be grouped together as “opposition,” but they could not be more different. One seeks to replace silence with organizing. The other seeks to replace silence with noise. One speaks in strategy, solidarity, and collective action. The other speaks in certainties, in enemies and saviors. In a moment of confusion, the latter is often louder. But in actual unionism, only the former can be successful.

In the end, the question is not just who wins the seats—but who fills the vacuum Unity left behind. ARISE offers one answer: a union rebuilt through organizing, participation, and shared power. That vision is harder, slower, and more durable. And in the long run, it’s the only one worth fighting for.

But first, the report. Mulgrew emphasized the legal and political battles at both the federal and state levels, including a federal injunction halting Trump administration efforts to restrict DEI-related funding and ongoing budget disputes in Albany over the city’s use of daycare voucher funds. He also previewed the rollout of a citywide student cell phone ban starting in September, stressing that any new policy must be enforced consistently, particularly in middle and high schools. After the Q&A—and a new resolutions period that mostly went to an attempt to extend the DA long enough to get through the endorsements (which failed by one single vote)—came the flashpoint: Unity’s resolution against outside interference in union elections. It passed—and by more than I expected.

On the surface, there’s a clear reason why some people supported it. Marianne Pizzitola, who runs a multimillion-dollar special interest group advocating for the healthcare of NYC’s public sector retirees, but who is not a UFT member, is openly campaigning for ABC. Even as someone who has appreciated Pizzitola’s advocacy work, this doesn’t feel kosher. And for me, it’s particularly egregious because one of ABC’s officer candidates publicly floated the idea of COPE money going her way if they win. Even assuming good intentions from everyone, that’s a problem. But the resolution itself was vague and overbroad. In fact it specifically didn’t name names, even if much of the messaging in Unity’s literature around it suggested not just Pizzitola campaigning for ABC, but that their other competitor, ARISE (my slate), was under outside influence from the DSA. That’s just not true. Meanwhile, Unity itself received endorsements this election cycle—though none involving the kind of direct, out-in-the-open campaigning we’re seeing with Pizzitola and ABC.

But names were not even mentioned, just vague references to outside interference. For me, the resolution didn’t seem sincere. I was sure that Unity played this one clumsily. But the votes proved me wrong. Unity had more than enough—significantly better than a few months ago (when they barely got the resolution onto the agenda in the first place).

ABC, on the other hand, had a rough night. Three of their officer candidates got up to ask procedural questions. Rather than helping the debate, they mostly held things up. Two in particular came off with a conspiratorial tone that didn’t land. Even folks around me who regularly criticize Mulgrew were surprised to be agreeing with him that these points were just clogging the gears.

ARISE, by contrast, looked sharp. Olivia Swisher used her mic time to press leadership on the logistics of organizing around Trump’s attacks, given that her resolution—on how the UFT can better fight Trump—still hasn’t made it to the floor. She pointed out what many of us already feel: members are ready to organize, and some already are, but we need the full strength of our union behind us. Her intervention was timely, serious, and forward-looking. In a meeting filled with political theater, that kind of clarity stood out.

At the end, an earnest push from Bennett Fischer to amend the UFT’s draft of City Council endorsements sparked debate over the exclusion of Shahana Hanif, who had been recommended by 75% of a UFT screening committee and backed by several other unions. A Chapter Leader who alleged that Hanif downplayed her chapter’s organizing against an abusive principal, however, successfully depleted support, and the amendment did not pass. The council endorsements passed as drafted.

To see the full minutes, see them on the NAC substack here. (Thanks to David Ginsberg).

Two of the slates have treated this election as a zero-sum game. Their strategies center on maximizing votes, siphoning support from opponents, and blocking competitors by any means necessary. ARISE, in contrast, has taken a different route—focusing on a positive, grassroots-driven campaign. Let’s take a closer look at each.

ARISE: A Ground-Up, Positive Approach

Among the three major slates, ARISE stands out for its consistently positive campaign. While individual bloggers associated with ARISE—such as Jonathan Halabi, David Ginsberg, and myself—have publicly critiqued Unity and ABC, these critiques have remained independent and were never part of an orchestrated campaign. ARISE deliberately chose not to amplify these criticisms widely, instead focusing on promoting its bottom-up, member-driven vision for the union.

ARISE largely avoided the toxicity of traditional social media spaces, focusing instead on in-person events, peer-to-peer conversations, and physical literature. Compared to previous elections, our printed materials were overwhelmingly positive, with the only mildly critical piece being a factual scorecard comparing presidential candidate Olivia Swisher’s record to her opponents’. Even then, it avoided sensationalism—no attack ads, no photos of the opposition.

Strategically, ARISE shifted much of its limited social media presence from Facebook—traditionally a contentious platform for union politics—to Instagram, where debates are less central and the tone more visual and informative. This move yielded some success, though Facebook remains a weak point due to lack of engagement.

Unity: Relying on Institutional Strength and Discreet Outreach

Unity, the long-time incumbent caucus, relies heavily on its entrenched presence in schools and official UFT infrastructure. While social media is a space where opposition groups often thrive, Unity typically dominates where it counts most: access to chapter leaders, school mailboxes, and large-scale communications. That institutional advantage can be hard to quantify, especially for those observing from opposition-aligned circles, where Unity’s campaigning may be nearly invisible.

This cycle, Unity’s online presence has been weaker than in 2022, when Facebook was an all-out battlefield. Back then, Unity and UFC clashed daily, with digital troll farms inflating engagement. Today, Unity has mostly exited those spaces, retreating to a curated zone—The UFT Member Zone—where they can control the narrative. Meanwhile, the largest Facebook group once associated with Unity now has more than one ABC administrator, undercutting Unity’s ability to referee debates and promote its line.

Unity’s messaging has also gone negative. They’ve taken aim at both ABC and ARISE, sometimes straying into conspiracy territory. Their repeated claims that ARISE is controlled by the DSA are flatly untrue (take it from me: I wouldn’t be in ARISE if that were the case). The accusation that ABC is a front for retiree activist Marianne Pizzitola is also a claim that stretches the facts (though I address some of those concerns later).

Interestingly, Unity has launched its own blogs, using them mostly to criticize ABC leadership. This is in marked contrast to previous eras where blogs were almost entirely written by members of the opposition. The blogs are a welcome addition to the space, though it's unclear if they are making a dent outside of Unity.

Where Unity has likely made more of an impact is in continued long-standing practices like citywide literature drops and large in-person events to energize their base. They also funded a high-quality postcard mailing that coincided with ballot distribution—an expensive but likely efficacious move, especially among members who aren’t regularly active in the various unofficial UFT social media spaces.

ABC: Social Media Dominance, Political Calculations

ABC’s campaign launched with a strong online presence, rapidly expanding through social media and other digital channels, often framing itself as the only true reformer and using aggressive tactics.

While ABC framed its campaign as positive, in practice it has been the most negative of the three. Their messaging strategy has centered on casting UFT President Michael Mulgrew—and caucuses in general—as the root cause of the union’s problems. This kind of populist “burn it all down” approach closely resembles Trump-era political tactics: frame the establishment as the enemy, offer yourself as the only solution.

Their saturation of social media spaces was unmatched. ABC’s messaging reached members through constant anti-Mulgrew and anti-caucus content, often via mass emailing platforms in addition to the usual Facebook arenas. Many members found themselves subscribed to ABC communications without knowing how they got there—or how to unsubscribe. This strategy, while technically an election violation since UFT members allege being signed up to receive ABC messaging without consent, effectively circumvented the traditional Unity monopoly on mass distribution and ensured constant visibility for their slate.

Moreover, with Unity and ARISE effectively abandoning Facebook, ABC was able to monopolize communications in several groups, converting zones that had been previously home to debate into one-sided Fox-News-like deluges of content that was almost entirely ABC propaganda. The few ARISE and Unity folks who dared to speak in such spaces were often publicly shamed by the better organized ABC digital warriors, with officer candidates taking the strange tactic of bullying more vocal critics in plain sight. Nevertheless, polls in many of these groups showed that ABC’s social media saturation did translate into support for members who were constantly subjected to it.

ABC’s alignment with Pizzitola’s group added another layer. While the alliance helped secure support among retirees, it also raised ethical questions. At least one officer candidate, hosting at an event where Pizzitola was a guest speaker, mentioned sending over some of UFT’s COPE funds if elected. Even assuming good intentions—Pizzitola’s group has done serious work benefitting UFT retirees—many onlookers have rightfully asked: should a multimillion-dollar organization led by a non-UFT member be so closely tied to a slate running for union leadership? This question has been exacerbated in recent weeks by increasingly active campaigning by Marianne for ABC.

Perhaps most controversially, ABC filed a lawsuit attempting to stop in-person voting in the 2025 election. Their legal argument echoed the “Stop the Steal” rhetoric that undermined public trust in the 2020 presidential election. While framed as a procedural concern, the lawsuit functioned as an effort to delegitimize part of the voting process in a way that could suppress participation—particularly among more active and informed members who are often the ones using in-person drop-off. Regardless of their stated intent, the move raised eyebrows and concerns about ABC’s commitment to democratic norms. Adding to this perplexity, since losing the lawsuit in which they tried to get rid of in-person voting, ABC has sent out communications reminding people they can vote that way.

To ABC’s credit, they successfully translated online support into frequent and sizable Zoom events—reportedly four times the size of UFC's online events in previous years. And their polling is higher than UFC’s was in the groups that have had such polls. But their social media campaign has been instrumental to both how they enlisted candidates and supporters, suggesting that the social media success may be representative only of how ABC is doing with the (albeit sizeable) minority of UFT members active in unofficial UFT social media spaces. Whether their ground game can match this virtual momentum remains to be seen. Both Unity and ARISE have outperformed them in face-to-face organizing, but ABC has unquestionably reshaped the digital campaign landscape.

Final Thoughts: What’s at Stake

Each slate has made a strategic choice in how to reach members—and what kind of union future they’re promoting. ARISE is betting on long-term trust and organizing. Unity is leveraging its institutional reach. ABC is using populist messaging and digital dominance to drive a rapid shift.

But we should ask ourselves: at what cost?

ABC’s aggressive tactics have likely done real damage to the union’s cohesion. Painting every leader, every caucus, and every structure as corrupt leaves little room for constructive governance—especially if they win. Unity’s defensive posture and top-down style, meanwhile, risks alienating the very members they hope to retain. And for ARISE, the challenge is how to scale a positive, organizing-focused model in a political environment increasingly hostile to nuance.

Why? Because I believe our union should be led by working educators — not by people who've spent most of their careers outside of the classroom. ARISE is an educator-led, educator-centered movement, built by people who show up not for titles or six-figure paychecks, but because we live and breathe this work. Unlike the candidates from Unity and ABC, our slate isn’t padded with career insiders. Our presidential candidate makes the same salary as most of us — about a third of what the other two presidential candidates take home — and she still shows up every day to fight for educators like you and me. The same goes for the rest of our slate.

ARISE has been organizing and advocating for years. We’ve been sounding the alarm on Tier 6. We’ve pushed back against bad contracts when no one else would. We've stood up for members whose chapters were under attack, and fought Trump-era assaults on labor and public services. And we’ve done it all as rank-and-file educators — no office, no salary, no special perks. Just a shared belief that real union power comes from the bottom up.

But this election isn’t just about building something better — it’s also about being honest about what’s been holding us back. And what won’t fix it.

It’s not enough to just vote out Mulgrew.

A lot of attention — rightfully — has been placed on removing Michael Mulgrew and ending Unity’s decades-long grip on our union. I agree: it’s time. Unity has run the UFT like a corporation, not a union. That approach has left our members under-organized, our negotiating position weak, and our internal democracy flatlined. We’ve been handed concession after concession, and told to call it progress.

But let’s not be shortsighted. Simply voting out Mulgrew doesn’t fix the system — especially if the alternative is ABC, a group led by former Unity insiders, some of whom were still in Unity just months ago. Their top officers stood alongside Mulgrew for decades. Some even predate him in leadership. They helped pass the very contract they now claim to oppose. (One of their officer candidates heckled me when I asked to let the 500-member negotiating committee see the tentative agreement before voting on it — they wanted us to trust Mulgrew and rubber-stamp it.)

Now they’re running on a platform built around criticizing the system they spent years helping create.

ABC wants you to believe Unity is the root of all our problems — and that replacing them is the whole solution. But political rebranding is not the same as real change. It’s not enough to oppose bad leadership if you’re unwilling to lead differently yourself.

When it comes to organizing, ABC has been missing in action. They’ve skipped rallies, stayed silent on key issues, and failed to show up when it mattered — including during recent attacks on public school funding. Worse, they’ve crossed ethical lines: stoking right-wing conspiracy theories about our pension; launching baseless, ‘stop-the-steal’-style lawsuits that risked derailing the entire election; cozying up to an anti-vax organization that encouraged members to stop paying union dues. They’ve even promised to redirect our COPE funds — money members voluntarily contribute to help the union advocate politically — to an outside group with a multimillion-dollar war chest that is now actively campaigning to put them in charge.

Even Unity — for all its flaws — wouldn’t do that. ARISE never would.

Because how we organize matters. Integrity matters. And who we trust with the future of our union matters.

ARISE isn’t perfect. No slate is. But we’re principled. We’re transparent. We’re grounded in the day-to-day reality of classroom life. And we’ve shown — over years, not just election cycles — that we’re willing to fight for a better union, not just win a seat at the table.

This election, I’m voting for ARISE.

Because I want a union that works for us — not just speaks for us.

Unofficial Minutes

Karen Alford spoke about “unlock wonders” (NY Hall of Science), 5/8, 3:30-6:00. She also spoke about staggered days for early childhood. The new deputy chancellor was alerted to restore them.

Mike Sill spoke about open market opening up. There are 1,000 vacancies already; encourage your principals to post vacancies if you got class size money.

Janella Hinds spoke about the HS awards.

Michael Mulgrew:

· thanked the NYSUT attendees and also spoke about the Tier 6 rallies.

· On Albany, he spoke of substantial equivalency – how we won’t let that happen (outside agents can’t graduate students).

· He spoke of the budget not being done yet; how career and tech education is still up in the air, how the state doesn’t/won’t fund 9^th graders.

· He spoke of the SESIS survey, through which the UFT is building a case that people are doing IEPs on personal time.

· The DOE got the check out on 5/1.

· He spoke of lawsuit against the U.S. DOE

o Dear colleague letter on DEI.

§ Official letter must file attestation.

o National injunction against administration’s efforts to tie funds to DEI.

o Budget block grants etc

o When they attack Medicaid, they will lose midterms.

· Citywide endorsements: mayoral candidates not running real campaigns yet. City council very important, especially when we don’t know who the mayor will be.

· We passed a resolution GOTV – every EB member expected to mobilize.

Leroy Barr à Rich Mantell: Annual 5k 5/31 Coney Island raise $ for disaster relief.

Question period

Cola resolution? No answer (Barr will get back).

Reports from Districts:

Adam Shapiro: 4/25, D21 – 21 shades of blue happy hour.

Lamar Hughes: COPE night queens office raised 30 cope cards. Recruitment fair, D25 talk of 2^nd one for HS/D75 sites.

Moment of silence for Thomas Wright, chair of Gospel Choir/Jazz Band Edward R Murrow.

Charles Di Benedetto did a eulogy, “a song in his heart” UFT article. Morehouse graduate, always wanted his kids to showcase at UFT events. Humble, wonderful man we’ve lost at a time when we most need men like him. A true educator, I’ll never see him again, see his voice again. But he would want us to keep joy alive in our hearts.

BK meet Mulgrew event.

DaShana Barker – D75 report a D75 school members concerned about member with addiction went out on a wellness check, combined resources, they’re in rehab now.

Mavis Yawn – professional committees.

· UFT players, 5/8-9 6-8 pm, 50 Broadway

· 5/18 central park 10 am AIDS walk – set up team from your school as HIV still an issue.

Thomas – D9 school competed for MS debate competition with the topic being congestion pricing.

Priscilla Castro – D4 paraprofessional event superintendent, DR, principals there. Thanks Debbie Poulos.

Seung Lee: May is Jewish/Asian heritage. 5/13 Jewish Heritage meeting. Asian heritage banquet.

Theresa Bellow: 2^nd screening for preschool to prison pipeline. 4/29 4pm via zoom, 241 participants.

Cynthia Bennett: school nurses 4/25 boat ride, 50 nurses.

Legislative report: Thanks May 1^st participants, thanks Rochester participants. Tomorrow rain or shine, Fix tier 6. Virtual rally in SI. BX at train. Q/BK borough Hall. Harlem adam Clayton Powell. First of many until we get what we deserve. Waiting on last 2 mayoral candidates to teach. Endorsements – these candidates have been through the process, vetted by members in districts. We endorse those who champion education.

Nancy Armando motioned to endorse several city council members, but Debbie Poulos asked to pull Paladino and discuss separately. It was endorsed with Paladino tabled. Then came the borough president/public advocate endorsement, which Highland asked why not Reynoso, but Hinds responded her track record was hostile to labor and not aligned with our values/needs.

Election complaints:

· Dibenedetto/Kaplan – Garrett Fosse? Wearing UFT logo In ARISE

· Levesque: CL sent emails on school time using CL list – don’t use the CL list to campaign.

· Gory – Secretary told her she couldn’t put literature in boxes – no harm.

· Alicea 2: substack used UFT logo, AI images – she removed it/no prohibition on AI

· Alicea 3 – Unity promised exclusive info on substack to get emails – dismissed.

· Arundell – flyer in support of Unity plagiarized from ABC – no violation, dismissed.

· Arundell 2 – observation rules to prohibit candidates violate LMRDA – locals make own rules.

· Arundell 3 – Utrecht HS electioneering – purpose was info, no discussion of candidates.

· Balkin – arrived at school flyers in boxes accompanied by CL – dismissed

· Wasnak – Engler disparaged on social media – was on personal account on personal time

· Lynn – anonymous CL in D7 given Unity fliers created ABC fliers – anonymous hard to investigate Q. borough rep reminded people to do the right thing.

Appendix

Here are the original endorsement resolutions. Keep in mind that Paldino was taken out.

Motion: To recommend to the Executive Board and Delegate Assembly the following NYC Council endorsements:

WHEREAS, the UFT will endorse City Council candidates in the June 24, 2025 Primary Election in New York City; and

WHEREAS, the Primary Election will feature seven candidates seeking to fill City Council seats 2, 4, 8, 17, 21, 28, and 47 that are now open due to term limits;

WHEREAS, the following candidates submitted UFT candidate questionnaires and participated in interviews held by committees of UFT members who work and live in the districts that the candidates seek to represent;

WHEREAS, Harvey Epstein, Virgina Maloney, Elsie Encarnacion, Justin Sanchez, Yanna Henriquez, Tyrell Hankerson, and Kayla Santosusso demonstrated to their respective interview committees that they will be the best representatives for their districts, and pledge to support their local school communities and prioritize the needs of our union;

WHEREAS, Elizabeth Lewinshoun seeking to represent Council District 1 has also submitted a questionnaire and demonstrated to her interview committee her commitment to supporting schools and our union;

WHEREAS, the UFT endorses the following incumbent City Councilmembers: CD 3 Erik Bottcher, CD 6 Gale Brewer, CD 7 Shaun Abreau, CD 9 Yusef Salaam, CD 11 Eric Dinowitz, CD 12 Kevin Riley, CD 13 Kristie Marmorato, CD 14 Pierina Sanchez, CD 15 Oswald Feliz, CD 16 Althea Stevens, CD 18 Amanda Farias, CD 19 Vickie Paladino, CD 20 Sandra Ung, CD 22 Tiffany Caban, CD 23 Linda Lee, CD 24 James Genarro, CD 25 Shekar Krishnan, CD 26 Julie Won, CD 27 Nantasha Williams, CD 29 Lynne Schulman, CD 31 Selvena Brooks Powers, CD 32 Joann Ariola, CD 33 Lincoln Restler, CD 34 Jennifer Guiterrez, CD 36 Chi Osse, CD 37 Sandy Nurse, CD 38 Alexa Aviles, CD 41 Darlene Mealy, CD 42 Chris Banks, CD 43 Susan Zhuang, CD 45 Farah Louis, CD 46 Mercedes Narcisse, CD 49 Kamila Hanks. The members of this esteemed group have been supportive of our schools and our members and be it

RESOLVED, that the UFT will endorse and support these primary candidates.

Carried

Motion: To recommend to the Executive Board and Delegate Assembly the following Borough Presidents and Public Advocate endorsements:

WHEREAS, the New York City Primary Election will be held on June 24, 2025 and

WHEREAS, this Primary Election will feature candidates for Borough President;

WHEREAS, Keith Powers has been a staunch advocate for addressing overcrowding, underfunding, and understaffing in city public schools while on the City Council;

WHEREAS, Khari Edwards has years of experience as a humanitarian and healthcare advocate;

WHEREAS, incumbents Vanessa Gibson and Donovan Richards have demonstrated their commitment to supporting our schools, educators and our union;

WHEREAS, the borough offices screened and recommended each of the following candidates for their respective offices: Keith Powers for Manhattan Borough President, Khari Edwards for Brooklyn Borough President; Vanessa Gibson for Bronx Borough President, Donovan Richards for Queens Borough President,

WHEREAS, the Primary Election will also feature candidates for Public Advocate;

WHERAS, the UFT endorses Jumaane Williams, who has long been a vocal supporter of public education and was the lead sponsor of the Paid Vacations Act during his time in the City Council, which required all New York City employees to receive paid vacations; and

WHEREAS, Jumaane Williams promises to continue to support our teachers and ameliorate inequality in education by ending the chronic underfunding of schools that service minority and immigrant communities.

WHEREAS, it is important that the UFT unifies and stands behind candidates that it believes will act in the best interest of its members over the next four years; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that at the recommendation of the borough political action coordinators and their respective political teams, the UFT endorses Keith Powers for the Manhattan Borough President and Khari Edwards for Brooklyn Borough President; and

RESOLVED, we continue to support Donovan Richards for Queens Borough President and Vanessa Gibson for Bronx Borough President; and

RESOLVED, that we endorse Jumaane Williams for New York City Public Advocate.