On the eve of the UFT’s endorsement vote for our union’s primary mayoral candidate of choice for New York City — rank and file members, along with union activists, leaders, chapters leaders, delegates, and allies will meet to discuss their questions about the very process we utilize for endorsing political candidates.
The forum, organized by Educators of NYC, will be held via Zoom, on Sunday, April 18th at 7 PM.
The lineup of special guest panelists includes representative voices of our diverse caucuses and membership. The forum will also include questions and comments by attendees.
Just this last week, there was a stunning rejection of 5 local candidates in a resolution presented by UFT leadership at the April 2021 Delegate Assembly. Most cannot remember the last time this has happened. The two dissenting delegate voices to the resolution spoke specifically to our endorsement process before 55% of the delegate assembly voted down the resolution.
This was on the heels of our president, Michael Mulgrew, explaining the rationale and elements of process this week in a podcast interview with Gotham Gazette — found here.
A Politico article published before Wednesday’s delegate meeting outlined various complaints members and caucuses have about the endorsement process.
Throughout the 2020-21 school year and as NYC’s local election June primaries reach a fevered pitch, there has been a lot of discussion and dissent as to the process and so we decided this forum meetup event would be able to harness, highlight and amplify our diverse voices.
One invited guest panelist, Jonathan Halabi, a chapter leader, recently described the need to have this conversation remarking:
“There could be discussion about whether or not to endorse – I don’t know, Eric Adams. But that’s really the discussion/debate that should happen at the special DA (and that has to wait until we know who’s name is in the motion).
I see this as something else.
I’m taking this as a discussion about politics, process, and goals. And there’s a lot there. Should we be endorsing based on a candidate’s values and overall positions? Or on a few key votes? That’s a huge question.
What Tom (Tom McDonough, another panelist and chapter leader) raised on Wednesday – should the candidates be put forward for endorsement individually, or as a package? I think the delegates just weighed in strongly on that. When an endorsement is put forward to delegates, should we know who is NOT being endorsed? It’s years later, but I will not forget, not ever when the officers offered an endorsement in my CD and neglected to mention they were trying to endorse AGAINST Charlie Rangel.
Should we endorse incumbents unless they’ve done something bad? That seems to be the de facto policy – even if they are mediocre
Should we endorse in every race or almost every race – or limit endorsements to where we genuinely like someone?
Are we endorsing to win races? To stand up for our beliefs? To get “a seat at the table”?
I think there are a lot more open questions here.”
The open discussion tomorrow will center around these questions:
- What is wrong with the UFT endorsement process? What is right with it?
- How can the endorsement process be improved?
- Who or what should we be endorsing in this upcoming, consequential mayoral race?
