education magazines

JULY 2004 Barrier to learning How the National Education Association prevents students and teachers from achieving academic and professional excellence. 1 BARRIER TO LEARNING “This battle is about freedom. Teachers simply want the freedom that all other Americans enjoy—the freedom to associate with people who share their values, and the freedom to have their hard-earned money support candidates and issues they believe in.” Jeff Leer Substitute teacher and tennis coach Sedro-Woolley, Washington 2 JULY 2004 Barrier to Learning is designed to inform teachers, parents, taxpayers, legislators, journalists, and other concerned citizens about the harmful impact the National Education Association has on teaching and learning. The project is funded by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a private, non-profit, public policy research organization in Washington state. Our funding comes from 3,300 individual members and various foundational grants. We do not accept public funds. Our mission is to advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited and accountable government. Our primary research areas are budget and taxes, education, health care, welfare, and citizenship and governance. Within those areas we publish studies, conduct seminars, and work to provide information for legislators, journalists and the general public. At the request of teachers, we have advocated in the courts and media against the union’s illegal use of their mandatory dues and fees. Nothing in this publication should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation. A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR W e are late to the war, we defenders of “public” education. It is a war declared by education unions almost four decades ago when their leaders decided they wanted complete control of the system from top to bottom, and they wanted state and federal laws to protect them in this pursuit. The money used by union leaders to wage this war was taken from the paychecks of unwilling teachers who have been treated as little more than cash cows. Union leaders got the monopoly they were seeking. As a nation, we got an education system that is now sliding into mediocrity and worse. It suffocates our best teachers and rides roughshod over top-notch principals, all the while generously compensating its own bureaucracy. We got a system that, in the true fashion of monopolies, costs too much and ignores the needs of its customers. How did this happen? Several decades ago, union leaders lobbied for the right to automatically take money from teachers’ paychecks for collective bargaining purposes. They were successful, and the amount of money they take has increased year after year to more than a billion dollars a year today. The union also received legal protection to allow its books to remain closed to its members; therefore, no one except insiders knew that most of the money taken from teachers’ paychecks was actually being used for politics, not collective bargaining. Union officials have used this money over the years to buy political influence and legal protections, making the education union the most powerful lobbying force in the country. It’s not hard to buy political power when you have direct access to the paychecks of more than 2.7 million Americans, no scruples about helping yourself to their money, and the perfect alibi: “It’s for teachers and the children.” In truth, it’s not about the teachers or the children. It’s about the union—in this case, the National Education Association (NEA) and its state affiliates. The union’s lobbying efforts have very little to do with ensuring that excellent teachers are recruited and well compensated and that students are literate and ready for the world of work and citizenship. Policies that do not promise to put the NEA and its affiliates in charge are met with strong resistance, About this publication Principal Authors Marsha Richards Lynn Harsh Principal Editors Lynn Harsh Marsha Richards Bob Williams Jami Lund Design/Layout Joel Sorrell Contact EFF Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 (360) 956-3482 F: (360) 352-1874 www.effwa.org info@effwa.org 3 BARRIER TO LEARNING lawsuits, name-calling and worse. Even policies and practices demonstrating good results educating at-risk students are trashed by union executives if the programs are not submissive to union authority. Most Americans know something is wrong. And many teachers are frustrated beyond description. Still, we are reluctant to believe that our revered public education system itself has become fatally flawed. After all, it is represented in our minds by the brick and mortar building and playground down the street from the house where we grew up. The teachers in the building spent more time with us than our parents. They were smart. They coached our sports teams, bandaged our wounds and chaperoned our school dances. So, modern-day wisdom declares, if our public school system is failing, it must be for lack of money. But pouring more money into this broken-down system run by militant union bosses is not the answer. We Americans must face the fact that the public education system we honored in years’ past has now become a government-protected monopoly run by union elites. In a system such as this, the promise of literacy for every willing American child is no longer possible. The ability to recruit and retain America’s best and brightest to be our children’s classroom teachers is impossible. What will it take for us to institute true public schools, where parents and students are once again thought of as customers; where the best and brightest can satisfy their calling as a classroom teacher; where American students are prepared once again to guide their country as leaders of the free world? It will require moving the National Education Association and its state affiliates back to the place they belong. That place is not in the driver’s seat. Our country’s future depends on the American combination of intellectual rigor, creativity and our unique free enterprise system. This requires excellence, not mediocrity. For example, new data released from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology show that a big majority of American students are only partially proficient or below proficient in math and science. Before 2010, it is projected we will trail developed nations, competing for proficiency with emerging thirdworld countries. Our country’s standard of living and our ability to remain a free nation will be severely compromised. Make no mistake, this is a war. Because we are late to recognize this, the costs will be high. It is always harder to wrest control from people who have unfairly won it than to have kept it in the first place. But wrest it back we must. In the pages of this magazine, you will read details of how the union achieved and expects to maintain its control of public education. I hope you are as shocked and saddened as we are at the tactics of the National Education Association. But I also hope you will become angry enough to join with courageous teachers, dedicated parents, and conscientious lawmakers to win the war for true public schools. If we want to continue to live in the greatest country in the world, failure to win this war is not an option. Lynn Harsh Executive Director Evergreen Freedom Foundation 4 JULY 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Out of the classroom, into the voting booth From “tea and crumpets” to hardball politics What the darkness hides How the NEA works to prevent disclosure to members 6 Does the NEA represent its members? Are teachers participants or cash cows? 17 When values collide NEA’s controversial social agenda 9 In the courts of law and public opinion Teachers are standing up for their rights 19 Student-centered, or selfcentered? Are the NEA’s policies good for students and teachers? 12 Crack the books . . . if you can What teachers encounter when they ask how their union dues are spent 21 NEA’s extreme makeover How the NEA uses teachers and children to mask its real goals 15 23 Join the battle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Religious objections to NEA activity? . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 The NEA through a teacher’s eyes “WEA /NEA is a huge, largely unregulated PAC that continually thrusts forward an education agenda that is not in keeping with the wishes of many education professionals.” Become an agency fee-payer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5 BARRIER TO LEARNING Out of the classroom, into the voting booth From “tea and crumpets” to hardball politics t took only two weeks for candidate John Kerry to be remediated by the country’s largest teacher union after he strongly endorsed the idea of performance pay for teachers. He said pay for performance should work “just the way it does in every other sector of professional employment in the U.S.” Simultaneously the Kerry campaign published a statement promising to “establish new systems that reward teachers for excellence in the classroom, including pay based on improvement in student achievement.”1 Whoops! While many were applauding Kerry’s words, officials of the National Education Association (NEA)—the nation’s largest teachers’ union and a long-time opponent of performance pay—quickly let Kerry know he had strayed too far. An internal memo from NEA President Reg Weaver (dated May 21, 2004, and obtained by the Education Intelligence Agency) described for fellow union officials “a very positive meeting” with John Kerry, in which the Senator “clarified that the campaign did not intend to use that language [in support of performance pay] and would not do so in the future.”2 Such is the influence of the National Education Association, an organization that has achieved its goal of becoming “a political power second to no other,”3 with the ability “to tap the legal, political and economic powers of the U.S. Congress” and “collect the votes to reorder the priorities of the United States of America.”4 And so it has. With 2.7 million members and an annual budget topping more than $1 billion, the union exercises immense political clout “from school boards to the White House” through its affiliates in all 50 states and more than 13,000 communities nationwide.5 I Each year, the NEA trains hundreds of regional representatives and hires highly trained political operatives and consultants to manage and coordinate political activity in various states. According to Forbes magazine, the [NEA] fields “the largest army of paid political organizers and lobbyists in the U.S., dwarfing the forces of the Republican and Democrat national committees combined” in every federal election cycle.6 Tea and Crumpets The NEA hasn’t always been the politically motivated labor union we know today. In fact, for the majority of its nearly 150-year history, it was a professional association—what one of the union’s more contemporary former executive directors scoffingly referred to as a “tea and crumpets” organization.7 Back then, the NEA was more concerned with education issues and professional development than workplace negotiations and politics. Founded in 1857 by a small group of school superintendents, NEA membership included both teachers and school administrators. During the 1920s and 1930s, some school boards even required teachers to join the organization, because membership was considered a sign of professional leadership.8 It wasn’t until the early 1960s that NEA leadership dramatically shifted the focus of the organization, ironically enough in an attempt to compete with the American Federation of Teachers— an organization founded in 1916 with every intention of being a labor union. In the 1960s and 1970s, pro-union labor leaders began to take over and wage the war for more political power. In exchange for labor support, President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order ending a long-standing prohibition on collective bargaining for public employees. 6 JULY 2004 In 1967, NEA’s Executive Secretary Sam Lambert said: “[The] NEA will become a political power second to no other special interest group. . . . NEA will organize this profession from top to bottom into logical operational units that can move swiftly and effectively with power unmatched by any other organized group in the nation.”9 Around the same time, former Executive Director Terry Herndon declared that the NEA’s goal was “to tap the legal, political and The NEA gives money, time and endorsements principally to Democrats. Associated Press reports reveal that the NEA actually has veto power over the direction and goals of the party, as well as seats on many state and local party steering committees. The NEA’s choice of the Democrat Party is born of strategic practicality. A 1986 publication called the “NEA Series in Practical Politics” states: “A political power second to no other,” with the ability “to tap the legal, political and economic powers of the U.S. Congress” and “collect the votes to reorder the priorities of the United States of America.” economic powers of the U.S. Congress” and “collect votes to reorder the priorities of the United States of America.”10 In pursuit of this end, the NEA employed union radical Saul D. Alinsky to train its staff in the art of political and social activism. Alinsky’s philosophy, soon embraced by the NEA, can be summed up in three words: Ends justify means. His well-known book “Rules for Radicals” was required reading for union officials who hoped to drive public policy. In it Alinsky laid out clear and simple—if also disturbingly crass—guidelines and rules for activists. Hardball Politics Using money extracted from teachers’ paychecks, the NEA and its affiliates now have operations most political parties would envy. They are organized to elect or defeat candidates at nearly every level of public office. And that is exactly what union officials aim to do. Nationwide, the union’s political activities include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • get-out-the-vote drives detailed political assessments and reports voter identification logs direct mass mailings email list-building publications from local, regional, state and national union affiliates contributions to candidates contributions to ballot initiatives paid political staff funding to other political and ideological organizations funding to state affiliates coordinated campaigning with political parties NEA delegations at party conventions (state and national) phone banking, television, newspaper and radio campaigns research and development polling purchase and operation of equipment The Democratic Party does bestow a considerable amount of power to its larger financial contributors, but the Democrats depend more heavily on the organizational strength of large membership organizations, like NEA, for the ‘people power’ they bestow. The Democratic Party has traditionally been more receptive to NEA, in part because the Democrats cannot pay for the time and services provided for free by hundreds of Association members. National Elections In the 2000 election, the NEA and other labor organizations targeted and won five Senate seats (defeating five Republicans), nine of eleven targeted gubernatorial races, and 16 of 27 targeted congressional races (for a net gain of eight Democrat seats). The NEA also had substantial impact on the 2000 presidential race. When internal polls revealed that many of the union’s members supported George Bush, NEA officials developed a plan to “move” 800,000 NEA members to Al Gore’s camp. Knowing Florida was key to the race, four NEA political operatives—instead of the usual one staffer—were sent to work on Gore’s Florida campaign. Forms filed with the Federal Election Commission show the union spent more than $1 million on phone calls, email, and direct mail efforts to support Gore in Florida in the first two weeks of October alone. In 2004, the union is targeting sixteen different states in the hopes of defeating President George W. Bush. In House and Senate races, NEA’s federal policy manager Randall Moody says the union is hoping to “find some right-wing Republicans [to] take out.”11 State Elections The NEA also exercises massive political influence at the state level through its state, regional and local affiliates. For example, the NEA’s Washington state affiliate is represented by more than 80 full-time lobbyists who roam the capitol halls, making it the most powerful special-interest group legislators face each session. 7 BARRIER TO LEARNING In addition to capitol lobbyists, the NEA works directly or through its state affiliates to support or defeat state legislation. The union poured millions of dollars into campaigns in 34 different states between 2000 and 2003, working to defeat tax reduction efforts, school choice, and various education reform measures. They worked to pass increased education spending, while mounting ambitious public relations campaigns and membership expansion efforts. This kind of clout isn’t surprising considering labor unions are the only organizations in the nation—aside from the Internal Revenue Service—empowered by government to take money from millions of American workers as a condition of employment. The NEA’s ability to force millions of teachers to support its agenda may be the last institutionalized civil rights violation permitted in America. In just a few short decades, through the use of mandatory union dues and fees, the NEA has achieved its goal of becoming a “political power second to no other.” The question now is: Are the union’s goals in the best interest of teachers and students? The answer, unfortunately, is no. “NEA should represent teachers as a professional organization to further the educational needs of children and act as a collective bargaining agent. Instead, our dues are used to pay union administrators enormous salaries and support liberal politicians that I cannot condone. Over the years, I have seen no appreciable change in our working conditions nor remuneration.” Sue Spangenburg 5th Grade Teacher Sedro-Woolley, Washington Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals • One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies • The morality of means depends upon whether the means is inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. • The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. • You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments. • In war the end justifies almost any means. • Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. • Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological • If you push a negative hard enough and deep enough, it will vantage point. break through to its counterside. • Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinate of ethics. • Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.12 “This battle is about freedom. Teachers simply want the freedom that all other Americans enjoy—the freedom to associate with people who share their values, and the freedom to have their hard-earned money support candidates and issues they believe in.” Jeff Leer Substitute Teacher and Tennis Coach Sedro-Woolley, Washington 8 JULY 2004 Does the NEA represent its members? Are teachers participants or cash cows? he NEA bills itself as a democratic organization. It claims to exist, in part, to “advance the profession of education [and] expand the rights and further the interests of educational employees.”13 It seems ironic that pursuit of this mission requires forcing teachers to buy the union’s services. But a closer look at the union’s activity reveals that teachers are seen as little more than cash cows by union officials pursuing their own agenda. NEA’s general counsel Robert Chanin once argued in court: “It is well-recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction you won’t collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary. I think it has to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers. . . . [They] simply don’t come up with the money regardless of the purpose.”14 The NEA’s Washington state affiliate, the WEA, provides an illustration of the union’s disregard for teachers. Its claim to be working on behalf of teachers is almost comical in light of its many activities to the contrary. Consider just a few examples: • WEA officials have argued in court that they have “no fiduciary duty” to members15—meaning they can spend teachers’ money however they want. • The WEA has joined the NEA in suing the U.S. Department of Labor to prevent enforcement of a rule that would require them to file annual financial disclosure reports to its members. • As a disincentive to leave the union, WEA officials withhold liability insurance from non-member teachers, even if those teachers pay full fees. In 2004, teachers in Washington pay T an average of $760 in dues or fees each year to the local, regional, state and national affiliates of the WEA. (The insurance policy costs the union about $4 per teacher.16) • In spite of clear court rulings and statements from the governor and attorney general, WEA officials continue to threaten and carry out illegal strikes against parents and children in school districts that don’t give in to their demands. • Inadequate beginning teacher salaries has been the WEA’s favorite crisis for years. But when the state legislature provided a pay increase for these teachers in 2003, WEA officials threatened to sue the state to block it. Speaking of salaries, it is telling to look at the union’s own staff salaries. The NEA’s president, Reg Weaver, earned $237,967 last year, not counting benefits. Yet the union’s own data says the average teacher salary nationwide is in the neighborhood of $40,000. This disparity is present at the state level as well. Officials of the Washington Education Association (WEA) fought hard for a rigid salary structure that would guarantee all teachers in the state the same level of pay regardless of ability or cost-of-living. Meanwhile, the average WEA staffer earns $103,146 in salary and benefits each year—about $45,000 more than the average Washington teacher. A 1995 memo circulated to WEA officials noted that “WEA employees [those employed by the union itself] currently have excellent salary, benefits and employment protection in their contract which if widely known by the membership would cause significant unrest within the association.”17 9 BARRIER TO LEARNING This break with members is evident in the union’s political contributions as well. The NEA ranked the third-largest contributor to political candidates and organizations in the entire nation during the 1998 elections—and of the NEA’s $3.4 million in contributions, 95 percent went to Democrat candidates, and five percent to Republicans.18 Do these figures reflect the diversity of NEA’s membership? The NEA’s own internal polls answer that question with a resounding “No.” Here is what the union found:19 activities aligned with the values and goals of the individuals footing the bill—is something union officials would rather not bother with. In a representative democracy, political expenditures would reflect the diversity of an organization’s members. Not so with the NEA: NEA membership, by political party 48% Democrat 24% Republican 28% Independent [Source: Education Intelligence Agency] NEA expenditures, by political party 95% Democrat 5% Republican [Source: Wall Street Journal] In Washington state, when a 1992 initiative gave teachers the freedom to choose whether or not they wanted to support the union’s political action committee (PAC), the percentage of teachers willing to contribute one dollar a month dropped from 80 percent to 11 percent. In the twelve years since, voluntary political support among teachers has continued to decline in spite of the union’s aggressive recruiting efforts. Today, a mere six percent of the union’s members voluntarily contribute to the political fund. Democrat: Republican: Independent: Undecided: 49% 33% 15% 3% A similar survey of NEA members taken by the National Center for Education Information found these results:20 Democrat: Republican: Independent: Undecided: 42% 29% 25% 4% Despite the fact that the majority of NEA’s members do not identify themselves as Democrats, the union has only endorsed Democrat candidates for president since its first endorsement of Jimmy Carter in 1979. The NEA’s presence at national party conventions is also heavily slanted:21 NEA delegates to National Party Conventions Year 1996 1992 1988 1984 1980 Average Democrat 416 365 380 370 481 402 Republican 34 25 32 28 19 28 “I love the concept of “union.” But “union” implies unity. The WEA is far from unified. We are a dynamic group of people with different beliefs and value systems. The union should reflect this.” Mike Curry High School Teacher Lake Chelan, Washington In light of these numbers, it is hard to take seriously the claim made by NEA’s former President Keith Geiger: “As one of the most democratic organizations in the world, NEA policy reflects the different perspectives of the association’s vast and diverse membership and the students they serve.” Union officials are also aware that allowing teachers a choice about political spending and related issues will result in less revenue, or at the very least, a little more work. NEA’s general counsel, Robert Chanin, remarked at the union’s 2000 convention that getting permission from teachers for the union’s political activity each year is “a royal pain in the ass.”22 In other words, it’s much easier to craft laws that allow union officials to collect money by force. Being subject to the kind of accountability other organizations observe—the kind that keeps expenditures and 10 JULY 2004 The NEA through a teacher’s eyes by Bruce Gallagher I was a WEA/NEA member for about twenty years and have served as a building representative and strike captain while employed in the Snohomish School District in Washington state. I even took some leadership training one summer in Ellensburg, WA. My dissatisfaction with the union stems primarily from the leadership’s wrongheaded support of issues. I noticed some time ago that pronouncements were being made about many political issues that had nothing to do with education. These range from foreign policy to abortion to gay rights and many more. It is inappropriate for unions to expend time and money on issues that are not on-point with education. Focusing on these issues is not appropriate, because the views expressed do not represent the opinion and beliefs of many teachers. The WEA/NEA has hijacked the union apparatus to further the aims and interests of a small cadre of officials within the union leadership. The same can be said for education issues that the union pushes and supports. Many of them are counterproductive and selfserving to the interests of the union establishment. Through political activities and expenditures, the union is able to overtly and covertly support numerous issues that are not supported by large constituencies of professional educators. Union dues are being used to support these policies. That violates free speech rights, because dues and monies are used to realize and activate policy that many teachers do not agree with. Charter schools, vouchers and tax policy are just a few of the many issues that the unions are embroiled in. Union officials are also grossly overpaid from the Uniserv level on up to the state officers and employees. They take our money and use it to support issues we don’t agree with and pay themselves exorbitant amounts in salaries and benefits to do their “work.” These people who run the unions are exploiting teachers. They are not accountable and they make a mockery of efforts to arbitrate chargeable and non-chargeable dues payments. The WEA/NEA has been corrupt for some time. Our state PDC commission has found the WEA guilty of violations and fined the union a lot of money. But teachers’ dues are used to pay the fines levied by the PDC for practices the WEA officers should never have been involved in or directed to begin with. Since all that dues money is being collected, the union has very deep pockets and can then waste a bunch of money on indefensible court battles for the union’s “rights,” which exploit teachers. The whole charade is outrageous and corrupt. Essentially the WEA /NEA is a huge, largely unregulated PAC that continually thrusts forward an education agenda that is not in keeping with the wishes of many education professionals. As I began to learn more about what was really going on, I finally decided “enough is enough,” and I became an agency fee-payer. I am now interested in obtaining language that will enable others like myself to opt of the WEA/NEA combine completely. The behavior of union officials and the policies they support are not something I can support in good conscience. Bruce Gallagher is a junior high teacher in Monroe, Washington. 11 BARRIER TO LEARNING In the courts of law and public opinion Teachers are standing up for their rights olitical influence such as the National Education Association and its affiliates have amassed could be admirable, except for one thing: the NEA built its empire on the backs of millions of public school teachers, who have been forced to pay hundreds of dollars to the union each year for the privilege of keeping their jobs. Some of those teachers have courageously spoken out against this practice. In 1996 a group of concerned teachers visited the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) to ask for help protecting their paychecks and their free speech rights. They wanted the NEA and its affiliates to stop taking money from their paychecks, which violated state and federal law, to promote controversial political causes that had nothing to do with education. Voters in Washington state had adopted a campaign finance law in 1992 that, among other things, protected the paychecks of union members from being raided by union bosses looking for political funds. The law made it clear that political donations had to be given willingly by employees, and that money taken for collective bargaining and contract maintenance purposes could not be used for politics. The teachers who came to EFF’s office wanted this protection and felt they weren’t getting it. Analysts at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation investigated the teachers’ claims and discovered they were right. Union officials in Washington state had responded to the 1992 paycheck protection law by creating a badly disguised “political education” fund, in which they continued to deposit mandatory 12 P “contributions” from teachers’ paychecks identical in amount to the previous political action committee assessments. Many teachers were understandably upset. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a complaint with the Washington state attorney general, which resulted in a lawsuit against the NEA’s state affiliate. The union lost in court and was fined $100,000 and was required to return $330,000 to teachers. Instead of mending their ways, WEA officials continued to illegally use teachers’ money for politics. A second lawsuit filed by the state attorney general (a Democrat who had received campaign contributions from the union) resulted in a $400,000 fine and an order to return nearly $200,000 to teachers. The union appealed, and the case has since made its way to the state Supreme Court where oral arguments were presented in May 2004. At the national level, in 2000, NEA officials approved a mandatory $62.5 million five-year “special assessment” on all teachers to collect funds for “legislative and media crises.”23 (Union officials are now making plans to increase and extend the assessment to a permanent annual levy on all teachers. 24) This national assessment also clearly violated Washington state’s law, and the state attorney general filed a lawsuit against the NEA in 2002.25 So why would the teachers’ union openly thumb its nose at state and federal laws? Because, until now, it could. Going to court was just a cost of doing business for the union, which collects $55 million a year in Washington state alone. Few people dare challenge union officials because it costs more money than most JULY 2004 individuals will have in their lifetimes. The NEA has expertise at breaking its opponents’ spirits, reputations and bank accounts. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation and the teachers we represent have paid a heavy price for our strong opposition to EFF has paid a high price as well. We’ve spent countless hours reviewing more than 60,000 internal union documents. We’ve spent more than a million dollars taking the union to court and protecting ourselves against suits they have filed against us. Business owners supportive of EFF have had their names “I am the General Counsel for the Washington Education Association . . . you are hereby warned . . . we will sue you to hold you liable for tortious interference.”26 – Letter from WEA attorney to Jeff Leer, a Washington teacher who dared to speak out against illegal union spending the union’s lawbreaking. The response of union leaders has been both predictable and chilling. Two teachers, Cindy Omlin and Barb Amidon, were sued personally by the NEA’s Washington state affiliate (WEA) when they published a homemade newsletter to inform colleagues of the union’s illegal activity. They worked under the dark shadow of the lawsuit for a year-and-a-half before union officials finally dropped all charges. Fourth-grade teacher Jeff Leer was threatened with a lawsuit when he filed a complaint against the union with the state attorney general and began working with his school district to protect teachers. Union officials called his communication with colleagues “tortious interference.” Teacher Grant Pelesky still remembers the day he sat around a table with nine other teachers as they were informed it would cost $5,000 to file a lawsuit to stop the union’s forced political contributions. After a moment’s pause, every one of them wrote a personal check for their share. published with the admonition to teachers to pressure the owners to stop their support. The union has sued the attorney general, the state Public Disclosure Commission, and our Foundation. Officials went so far as to send out a directive to research our staff and their friends and families! In 2002, the WEA took out full-page, fullcolor newspaper ads attacking our Foundation. The print ads showing a man in dunce cap were accompanied by statewide radio ads calling the Foundation’s president a “failed politician” with “dumb ideas.” Ironically, these ads backfired when teachers around the state expressed outrage that the WEA would use the word “dumb” and depict someone in a dunce cap. Newspapers around the state lambasted the union’s tactics in multiple editorials. This backlash caused the union to lay low for a while. But far too much is at stake for them to be law-abiding for long. Violating teachers’ “I trust my story will inspire determination, not discouragement. It’s already led to an exciting, positive, hopeful development in our education system. Namely, the movement of courageous teachers who have established a new professional association called Northwest Professional Educators.” Cindy Omlin Former Speech-Language Pathologist Current Executive Director of Northwest Professional Educators 13 BARRIER TO LEARNING rights has allowed the NEA and its state affiliates to protect their near-monopoly status by becoming the most powerful political force in America today. Because of EFF’s unrelenting investigation of union activities, the WEA has made eliminating the influence of the Foundation one of its top three priorities since 2002, and has devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars to the effort. NEA officials currently admit to spending at least 38 percent of the dues they collect on activities that are not related to workplace representation. Since EFF began shining the light on NEA’s illicit spending, the union has been forced to admit that up to 45 percent of dues were an overcharge. At the state level, the NEA’s Washington affiliate admits a nearly 24 percent overcharge (up from an admitted 16 percent in the past). Our investigations inside the union books tell us the real percentages are much higher. Union officials already know from experience that teachers will not voluntarily pay for most of their leaders’ pet political causes. When given the choice in Washington state, 91 percent of teachers refused to voluntarily give even one dollar to their union’s political agenda. Most teachers want to be involved in politics of their own choosing. So why are we willing to pay the price to take on one of the most powerful labor unions in the world? Our answer is simple: We believe in free speech, fair elections, and quality education for our nation’s students. The NEA is at best an obstacle—at worst an antagonist—to all three ideals. Free speech, fair elections, and quality education will not be restored until NEA officials agree to collect funds the oldfashioned way: by asking for and earning the voluntary support of the teachers they claim to represent. Until then, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and thousands of brave teachers will continue to challenge the union in the courts of law and public opinion. “I felt driven to challenge the WEA by my need to know the truth and to have personal integrity in my ‘participation’ as a dues-paying member. After reading the NEA resolutions, I became concerned about the overwhelming number of non-education related, political and social causes the union supported in lieu of real classroom issues.” Barb Amidon High School Counselor Washington State “I first became involved when I noticed that all the issues and candidates for political office that the WEA/NEA supported were in direct conflict with my core beliefs and did not adequately represent my views. When I asked for an accounting of where the money goes from my dues, my request was denied. It just became clear to me that I could no longer give my hard earned money to an organization so opposed to what I believe in.” Vicki Berg Reading Teacher Monroe, Washington 14 JULY 2004 Crack the books . . . if you can What teachers encounter when they ask how their union dues are spent T eachers face an uphill battle if they want to know how their paycheck deductions are spent by the NEA and its affiliates. The union has a closed-book policy. Union as a guest of the Procurator General, I believe their administrative hearings were more fair than the [union’s] process.” The facts speak for themselves: • The union’s annual arbitration hearing is generally scheduled on a school day during school hours at the union’s state headquarters. Teachers who decide to attend must take unpaid time off work and travel to the union’s state headquarters, where they will be met by an intimidating group of the union’s officials and attorneys. • The arbitrator who decides the issue is selected and paid by the union. • Teachers are not permitted to review the union’s prepared exhibits prior to the hearing. • After arriving in the hearing room, teachers are presented with a huge stack (sometimes twelve inches thick) of documents they have never seen before. Teachers have no time to review the documents and prepare a response or challenge. • Once the union comptroller testifies on behalf of the union, teachers are given an opportunity to present their response to the union’s claims and calculations (which they have not had time to prepare). Any challenges prepared after the day of the hearing are “untimely” and will not be considered by the arbitrator. • Teachers are not permitted to take home copies of the documents and union exhibits. 15 Washington state law and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s lawsuit against the giant union allowed EFF analysts to get a rare glimpse inside the union’s financial records. Foundation analysts estimate that 75 percent of all money collected by the union goes toward politics. The NEA admits that 38 percent of its expenditures are not related to traditional union activities like collective bargaining, contract negotiation and grievances. In November 2000, NEA General Counsel Robert Chanin told members of Congress that all union activity was political: “So you tell me how I can possibly separate NEA’s collective bargaining from politics—you just can’t. . . . It’s all politics.”27 Federal law requires the union to refund the political expenditure portion of mandatory fees to “non-member” teachers, or those teachers who have opted out of the union. These “non-members” must request a refund in writing every year. Union officials will make an internal determination of how much of the money they collected from teachers was spent on politics, and this is the amount they will offer as a refund to “non-member” teachers. If teachers do not like the union’s self-determined refund amount, federal law provides a forum to challenge and verify the union’s refund calculation. But in practice, it’s little more than a kangaroo court. At the state level, the union claims to fulfill this legal requirement by holding an annual arbitration hearing for teachers who want to get a look at the union’s financial books. The union calls this process fair and impartial, but when former Washington State Attorney General Ken Eikenberry attended on behalf of Washington teachers, he stated: “Having visited the old Soviet BARRIER TO LEARNING “As a national labor organization with various state and local affiliates, NEA does not directly service its members for the most part, but works though its affiliates in order to provide those services.” – NEA representative testifying about the union’s use of teachers’ dues at an annual arbitration hearing • Teachers who decide take more time off work and review the documents at union headquarters are closely monitored by union officials, who insist on being in the room at all times. • Teachers are not permitted to have documents transferred to union offices closer to their homes and workplaces. • Teachers who wish to review transcripts of the arbitration hearing after the fact must come to union headquarters to do so. It is little wonder very few teachers have the time, resources or will to go through this onerous process. That’s why the Evergreen Freedom Foundation provided professional representatives two years in a row to attend arbitration on behalf of teachers. It was difficult even for these professional attorneys and accountants to make sense of the union’s books in the time allowed. Even so, EFF president Bob Williams, a former CPA and government auditor, was convinced after his review that the NEA should be refunding members 100 percent of their national fees. The NEA failed to identify any specific services it provides to non-member teachers, and failed to identify costs related to those services. In fact, one of the union’s representatives at a 2001 arbitration hearing testified that “as a national labor organization with various state and local affiliates, NEA does not directly service its members for the most part, but works though its affiliates in order to provide those services.”28 But teachers already pay significant dues and fees to the union’s local, regional and state affiliates to cover the cost of services provided at those levels. As the NEA explains: “The dues of each level of the Association are set to cover those services and programs that are best provided and delivered by that Association level. The local association dues are based upon the services and programs it can best provide, and likewise with the NEA. The purpose of this dues structure is to deliver non-overlapping services at the most cost-effective level.”29 Which begs the question: If the NEA does not provide workplace services, what are teachers getting for their national union dues? “These people (the local association) can be quite intimidating. Being outnumbered about a hundred-and-fifty to one, what it really comes down to is a lack of time—I don’t have the time to fight with them or keep looking over my shoulder.” Washington Teacher This teacher, representative of many others, requested anonymity due to intimidation by union officials When Sue Hoffman (Seattle high school teacher) attended the WEA’s annual arbitration hearing to find out how her union fees were being spent, officials allowed her only one hour to look through 12 inches of documentation. Professional accountants who have seen the WEA’s documentation say they would have difficulty making sense of it even if they had multiple hours for review. 16 JULY 2004 WhatNEA worksdarkness hides the to prevent disclosure to members How the hile some union officials are using money from teachers’ paychecks to promote a controversial social and political agenda, others are using it to line their own pockets. The culture of secrecy prevalent in unions coupled with lax national standards governing labor organizations has led to its logical end of scandal and financial mismanagement. Officials who are prone to such temptation have just what they need to get away with it: the power to force thousands of teachers to give them money, no limits on how much they can charge, and no laws requiring them to disclose how they spend teachers’ money. The U.S. Department of Labor reported in 2002 that its investigations of union financial fraud resulted in an average of 11 criminal convictions each month, with more than 640 criminal convictions in the five years preceding its report.30 Some of the most outrageous union scandals uncovered in the past couple of years have been associated with the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The worst of these scandals have left union officials behind bars: • An official in the NEA’s Massachusetts affiliate, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, stole more than $800,000 from union dues, which he spent gambling in Connecticut. He was sentenced in 2003 to two years in prison for larceny and falsifying of union books.31 • FBI agents in Washington, D.C. raided the home of local AFT president Barbara Bullock and “seized $500,000 worth of custom-made clothing, a 288-piece antique Tiffany sterling W silver set, a $6,800 ice bucket, furs, alligator shoes, jewelry, artwork, wine, wigs, a 50” plasma television, computer equipment and an unregistered double-barrel shotgun—all of which was evidently purchased with union dues.”32 Bullock was sentenced to nine years in prison for racketeering. All told she and other union officials stole more than $5 million. • The president of the United Teachers of Dade in Florida, a local affiliate of both the NEA and AFT, was recently sentenced to 27 months in prison for stealing roughly $3.5 million from union dues over a period of several years. He spent the money on exotic vacations and other personal luxuries.33 How widespread is this corruption? Millions of public school teachers have every reason to ask that question right now. Most are required to pay several hundred dollars each year to the NEA or AFT, in exchange for mandatory representation. The experience of teachers in Washington state shows that, at least in the case of the NEA, it is nearly impossible for teachers to find out how their dues and fees are being spent. Is the NEA addressing the need for disclosure? Well, yes. But not in the way one would imagine. Consider the union’s recent actions: • Thirty-two of the NEA’s state affiliates are currently suing the federal Department of Labor to prevent the agency from requiring them to file basic financial reports, such as those routinely filed each year by private-sector unions.34 17 BARRIER TO LEARNING • The NEA’s affiliate in Washington state (WEA) has sued the state’s campaign finance enforcement agency to defeat rules requiring verification that teachers are voluntary contributors to the union’s special political action fund. The NEA’s state affiliate permits teachers who want to question its spending practices to go through an annual arbitration process, but that process has been described by former FBI agent and former state attorney general Ken Eikenberry as less fair than some of the administrative hearings he attended in the old Soviet Union. Teachers may hire their own lawyers or accountants to help them, but only if the professional representatives sign a gag order. In attempts to avoid financial disclosure to teachers, the WEA has successfully argued in a Washington Superior Court that is has “no fiduciary duty” to its members.35 In 1996, the union sought and obtained a protective order to seal what one judge described as a “smoking gun” political plan exposed during litigation. Despite a clear involvement in politics, the NEA and many of its state affiliates report “zero” political expenditures on their IRS forms each year. the chance of being caught is remote. Even more remote is the chance of being prosecuted. And even more remote than that is the chance of being caught, prosecuted and convicted. That may finally be changing. Due to investigations and complaints filed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the NEA’s Washington state affiliate has now been prosecuted twice by the state’s Democrat attorney general for violating its members rights. Those lawsuits have thus far resulted in more than $1.3 million in fines and penalties levied against the union for what judges have called “intentional violations” of the law. The same attorney general has filed a lawsuit against the NEA’s national office as well. Unfortunately, union officials pay these fines with teachers’ dues and view them as a cost of doing business. At the national level, the NEA is now being audited by the IRS as a result of a complaint filed by the Virginia-based Landmark Legal Foundation. A similar complaint was filed by EFF against the Washington Education Association, and other state organizations have expressed interest in investigating the NEA’s affiliates in their own states for reporting violations. It will not be an easy or quick battle, but NEA members can look forward to a day when they will have truly accountable representation. • • • • These actions and policies create a fertile breeding ground for the kind of corruption and fraud we’ve seen uncovered in DC, Miami and Massachusetts. So why are NEA officials are fighting tooth-and-nail to preserve their secrecy? And why are they so willing to disrespect and ignore the law? The answer seems simple: The NEA is willing to ignore the law because “I strongly object when anyone’s free choice about joining a union is being violated. Over the last few years I have been shocked to hear how the NEA and its state affiliate spends our hard-earned money.” Elizabeth Frank 7th Grade Science Teacher Harrington, Washington “I do not support the political and financial agenda (e.g. endorsing/financing candidates for election, alternative lifestyles education, etc.) of the NEA and WEA. It is not in the best interest of children, and certainly does not represent me as an individual. I do not support any group that operates covertly and unaccountably with monies collected from members with no member vote.” John Glenn Teacher, School for Visually Impaired Bellingham, Washington 18 JULY 2004 When values collide NEA’s controversial social agenda illions of teachers around the nation pay hundreds of dollars for mandatory dues each year to the National Education Association (NEA) and its state, regional and local affiliates. While no easy way exists to calculate a national average, Washington state provides a snapshot: In 2004, its teachers will pay an average of $760 every year for union dues. What union officials are not happy to disclose is the fact that a large portion of each teacher’s money is used for ideological activities that aren’t related to workplace representation or student academic achievement. The NEA’s ideological activities include controversial support of abortion and contraceptives for children, family planning clinics in schools, affirmation of homosexuality, and open attacks on religious organizations. These have all taken the form of resolutions, programs, or expenditures by the union. Teachers may agree or disagree with the union’s social and political agenda. Regardless, many believe it is wrong for union officials to charge for workplace representation, but then use the money to promote their own, unrelated agenda. Following is a brief summary of the NEA’s position on a few controversial social issues. (More detail and full documentation is available at www.ichoosecharity.org.) Abortion The National Education Association makes no secret of its proabortion position. In April of this year, union officials cosponsored a Planned Parenthood “March for Freedom of Choice” in Washington, D.C.36 M The NEA’s Resolution I-12, passed at the union’s annual convention in 2003, explains that “the NEA supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.” The Resolution “urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.”37 NEA’s Resolution C-23 (2002) says “every child should have direct and confidential access to comprehensive health, social, and psychological programs and services,” including “access to birth control methods with instruction in their use.”38 Most teachers don’t believe it is part of the NEA’s role to have an official position on abortion. An Ohio survey revealed the following: Only 10 percent of teachers believe their professional education association should take a position in favor of reproductive freedom; 8 percent believe their union should be opposed; and 82 percent believe their association should take no position at all on the issue.39 Homosexuality The NEA readily admits that its policies and programs regarding gays, lesbians and bisexuals “are often a source of controversy— both internally with Association members, and externally with the media, political decision-makers, and the general public.”40 The NEA recently partnered with several other homosexual advocacy groups to produce a booklet called Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth. The booklet encourages schools to cultivate an environment that promotes homosexuality and discredits the testimonies of former homosexuals who have left the lifestyle. 19 BARRIER TO LEARNING Former NEA president Bob Chase left his mark by offering a strong endorsement of a pro-homosexual video for students called It’s Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School. Chase has stated: “Schools cannot be neutral when we’re dealing with [homosexual] issues. . . . I’m not talking about tolerance. I’m talking about acceptance.”41 Parental Choice and Responsibility The NEA takes many positions that would usurp parents’ authority over the personal and academic education of their children, and through various resolutions the union consistently takes aim at education policies that would give more power and choice to parents. Here are just a few examples dating from the early 1990s: • Public schools should assume a leading role in sex education by providing information on birth control, diversity of sexual orientation, sexually transmitted diseases, incest, and sexual abuse. (B-32, 1992) • Public schools should have early childhood education programs for children from birth through age eight that include “developmentally appropriate and diversity-based curricula.” (B-1, 2003) • Schools should provide counseling for kids who are struggling with sexual orientation. (C-24, 1994) • Home-schooled students should not be allowed to participate in any extracurricular activities in public schools, even if funding is provided by the state. (B69, 2003) • Teachers and librarians should be able to choose curriculum and books without censorship. (E-3, 2001) Teacher Strikes For teachers who have religious reasons for abstaining from labor strikes, union membership presents a sticky situation. Section 4(c) of the Washington Education Association Bylaws threatens that members may be “expelled or suspended from membership, censured, and/or fined” for “working as a strikebreaker” or “crossing a picket line of any WEA affiliate in the event of a work stoppage.” Under these bylaws, teachers who join the union may be forced to strike against their will or be prohibited from exercising free speech if their opinion differs with union policy.42 Attacks on Religious Organizations The NEA doesn’t hide its malice toward religious organizations in Resolution C-14 (2000), which condemns “extremist” groups. According to NEA publications,43 the extremists “include groups or parents with a conservative religious affiliation who criticize public schools for one reason or another.”44 The NEA specifically warns against well-known national groups like Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition, American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and the Traditional Values Coalition. More religious angst appears in an NEA newsletter called In Brief. Here the NEA defines the “radical right” as “a wide range of groups including free-market conservatives, anti-government and antiunion ideologues, and religious fundamentalists with a political agenda.” In an apparent attempt to neutralize this “radical right” the NEA supports a number of groups that openly attack religious organizations, including People for the American Way, the National Organization of Women, and the American Civil Liberties Union. “The purpose of a union is workplace representation to prevent abuse of employees. The union has its hand in too many non-workplace issues.” Jared Boyd Math Teacher Lacey, Washington 20 JULY 2004 Student-centered, orthe NEA’s education policies good for students and teachers? self-centered? Are hen it comes to supporting and opposing education policy, the National Education Association has a clear litmus test: Oppose policies that undermine the union’s power; support policies that enhance the union’s power. What’s best for students and teachers? That’s a secondary concern. Consider the NEA’s position on just a few of the issues currently dominating the national education reform debate: Charter schools, school vouchers, class-size reduction, teacher pay and quality, teacher strikes, and student safety. In 2004, Washington state became the 41st in the nation to approve chartered public schools. Ninety days later, after a rabid anti-charter campaign, the state affiliate (WEA) of the National Education Association filed a referendum to repeal the new law. The union’s loud opposition to charter schools was all about money. Charter schools, union officials claimed, were “expensive experiments” that would “divert $100 million from existing public schools at a time when the state has suspended initiatives for teacher pay and smaller class sizes.”45 Ironically, WEA officials also stated publicly that defeating charter schools was a “higher priority” for the association than supporting another initiative on the state ballot that would raise W the state sales tax and increase education spending by $1 billion every year—with much of the money targeted toward reduced class sizes and teacher pay raises. Ignoring for a moment the merits and demerits of both measures, the union’s priorities tell us something about its true goals. Charter schools have one characteristic that union officials fear above all others: they aren’t unionized. Allowing even one of these schools to open will break the dam union officials have built to capture teachers and their money. With that in mind, union officials are willing to ignore the fact that charter schools around the nation are giving the neediest students an opportunity to achieve the American dream. They’re willing to ignore the fact that many traditional public schools are failing the students they claim to serve. And they’re desperate to keep teachers from realizing that the reason charter public schools don’t require mandatory unionization is because, in most cases, teachers are involved in managing the schools, so there’s no need for them to hire a union to bargain with themselves. Charter schools represent a nail in the union’s coffin. They weaken the union’s monopoly power. How about school vouchers? The NEA can’t stand them. Again, union rhetoric says vouchers would “drain money from public 21 BARRIER TO LEARNING schools,” “cream the best students” and “undermine the system.” While many of the union’s claims defy facts, officials are well aware of one thing: school vouchers will weaken their power by giving students and parents more choices. How about class-size reduction? The NEA is its biggest proponent, despite the fact that hundreds of studies show it isn’t the magic elixir the union claims, and despite the NEA’s own admission that “no state-by-state actual class size information exists.”46 What does class-size reduction offer without doubt? More members for the union. When California implemented sweeping statewide class size reduction between 1996-99, the total number of teachers in the state increased by 46 percent. With mandatory unionization statewide, the NEA and its affiliates enjoyed a corresponding increase in membership and dues collection. Consider next the union’s perpetual cries for higher teacher salaries. While a union certainly should concern itself with the salaries of its members, the NEA’s policies on the issue are not always good for teachers, but are always beneficial to the union’s bottom line. With dues often set as a percentage of teacher salaries, the NEA’s wallet grows fatter with every pay raise. Even as the union is calling for higher teacher salaries, it is a staunch opponent of higher pay for better teachers. As previously noted, NEA officials recently had “a talk” with presidential candidate John Kerry, who offended the powerful union by publicly supporting performance pay. Kerry quickly recanted. Why does the union hate the idea of excellent teachers being paid more? Because, by its very nature, a performance-pay salary structure would mean more independence for individual teachers. If excellent teachers can be involved in bargaining their own salaries, they won’t need the union to bargain for them. In a more open display of its disregard for children and their academic success, NEA affiliates have proven their willingness to disrupt education by planning strikes that start the day classes are scheduled to begin. NEA’s Washington state affiliate recently staged the longest strike in the state’s history (51 days), in a district in which teachers receive the second highest average salary in the state. Union officials began planning the strike more than a year in advance and stonewalled district negotiators in the months prior to ensure teachers would not have a contract when the school year started. The union ignores the fact that strikes by public employees are a clear violation of the law in many states (including Washington). Over the past two decades in Washington, court injunctions to end teacher strikes have been granted in 24 of 29 cases in which they were sought.47 The union never appeals these decisions to higher courts, fearing the precedent it would set, and defends its actions by claiming no higher court has ever ruled on the issue. Proving its unconcern for the safety of children, NEA’s Washington state affiliate was recently caught organizing “file parties” to allow teachers to review their personnel records and remove documents related to charges of sexual misconduct.48 Union officials have been known to threaten school districts with lawsuits and lengthy court-battles to obtain large settlements for sexual predators, and to negotiate contracts that make it difficult for schools to track dangerous predators.49 The simple fact is: Students in our nation will never enjoy the benefits of meaningful education reform until the monopoly power of the NEA is broken. “The WEA, far from its self-portrayal as a savior of education, is actually its most arrogant and dangerous enemy. The WEA is parasitic in that it often illegally and immorally confiscates income from teachers without permission to first enrich the union leadership and second to advance a belligerent political agenda through a system of political payoffs. The WEA is easily the most noxious impediment to education facing the teacher, student and taxpayer today.” Mike Goodpaster High School History Teacher Vancouver, Washington 22 JULY 2004 NEA’s Extreme Makeover How the NEA uses teachers and children to mask its real goals S ome years ago, NEA officials realized they had to do something to fix the union’s image. A brewing public awareness of the NEA’s radical agenda and long political arm, along with opinion research showing that many Americans considered the NEA “the number one obstacle to better public schools” prompted officials to seek an extreme makeover. The union hired a public consulting firm, the Kamber Group, to analyze and redefine its decaying image. In January 1997, the Kamber Group released its analysis to the NEA with the title “An Institution At Risk.”50 The NEA was facing a crisis, the report said. To “survive, much less prevail over its critics, the NEA must shift to a crisis mode of operations.” The report’s recommendation? Hide behind children and teachers. The Kamber Group stated that it was “too easy to dismiss the attacks [on the NEA] as the rantings of extremists.” The voices speaking against the union weren’t all “anti-labor zealots who jump at every opportunity to bash unions” or “religious extremists who equate public education with Satan.” Indeed not. Widely respected national leaders and journalists were critical of the union, including David Broder, “one of America’s most influential columnists,” who wrote a series of articles about the union’s unjust practices in U.S. News and World Report.51 heavyweight.” “In many political and legislative battles,” said the report, “the NEA has been well-served by this perception— and, of course, the reality behind it. But from a message standpoint, it contributes to the notion of the Association as a gargantuan special interest group—and this is not consistent with the objective of portraying the NEA as concerned first and foremost with our children.”52 Apparently it does not matter if the NEA is, in fact, putting kids and teachers first. As long as the union can make the public believe it, officials can continue to accomplish their own goals, consisting primarily of a quest for more members, more money, and more power. The Kamber report recommended NEA officials focus on accomplishing three main objectives:53 1. Establish the union as the champion of public education through a new initiative to produce “better teachers, better students, better public schools,” and call for all Americans to join the challenge. 2. Stake out a clear “risk through a crisis” strategy that seeks to win not by silencing the opposition, but by co-opting the other side’s turf so the NEA can direct reform discussions rather than having them dictated to it. Kamber reported that one of the major challenges facing the NEA was the public’s perception that it was a “political 23 BARRIER TO LEARNING 3. Use NEA’s strongest assets—put teachers front and center— and pull in allies to make the Association’s case and work to protect public education. The report’s telltale heart was its investigation into the sentiments of the NEA’s own members. There was near universal concern over the conflicting roles the NEA was trying to play. Its claims to be a labor union, professional organization, and advocate for public schools had many NEA operatives and staff appearing “stress and crisis-worn.” Members also criticized the NEA for not being reform-minded. They recognized public schools were in trouble, and recognized the union was more focused on using its political power to attack and veto any reforms proposed by critics than on taking a positive role in addressing the concerns. That hasn’t changed, but NEA officials have their extreme makeover well underway. With public relations campaigns aimed at changing attitudes about public education, front groups that claim to be solely concerned with education issues,54 slogans about “Great Schools,” etc., the union is in full swing. Union officials often market themselves as “classroom teachers.” Yet most of the NEA’s top officials have spent a large part of their careers in full-time union work. When EFF reviewed the NEA’s four highest positions in 2003, we discovered the officials who fill them had all been out of the classroom for at least a decade. The NEA’s president, Reg Weaver, is described on the union’s website as a “35-year teaching veteran and middle-school science teacher from suburban Chicago.” EFF’s research shows he has actually been a union representative for three decades, and a teacher for less than ten years. Weaver’s predecessor, Bob Chase, was a union official for at least 23 years, dating back to the 1970s. The union’s vice president, Dennis Van Roekel is described as a 25-year teaching veteran, but in reality has spent 17 years in union work, and five to seven years teaching. While the NEA’s policies are no less harmful to students and teachers now than they were in 1997, officials have obviously taken to heart the extreme makeover advice of the Kamber report. “I was shocked to learn the Washington Education Association is not what it claims to be. Rather than an association of professional educators, it is in fact nothing more than a labor union. Though I do not philosophically oppose labor unions, I do oppose being forced to be a member of one against my will.” Grant Pelesky 5th Grade Teacher Puyallup, Washington 24 JULY 2004 Join the battle for free speech, fair elections, and quality education Union accountability opportunities for elected officials and concerned citizens Holding unions accountable for their political actions and preserving free speech, fair elections and quality education will require action on multiple fronts. Here are some opportunities for elected officials and state organizations to collectively combat the NEA’s illicit use of mandatory dues and fees. Opportunities for State and Federal Elected Officials 1. Appointments • Appoint advocates of workers’ free speech and association rights to the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor, and labor and campaign finance commissions and/ or agencies. 2. Employee Notification • Issue an executive order requiring that workers’ Beck rights be posted on state minimum-wage posters, as well as equal opportunity employment publications and other labor documents. • Require notice of workers’ Beck rights be included in an employee’s first paycheck, W2 form, and/or initial contract information for new hires. 3. Reporting Requirements • Require unions to accurately report all political expenditures made with mandatory dues to the FEC, IRS, Department of Labor, or other appropriate campaign finance authorities. • Initiate appropriate rule-making or laws to 1) require all unions to report all political contributions and expenditures, and 2) require union administrative personnel and employers to keep records of employee political payroll deduction authorizations. 4. Enforcement • Require federal labor regulation agencies to work more effectively together by developing standardized and consistent definitions to speed up the enforcement of workers’ rights. • Establish a fast-track system to speed up the enforcement process within the NLRB and other agencies involved in protecting workers’ rights. • Tie federal or state funding contracts to compliance with Beck protections and campaign finance laws that protect employees’ rights. Such compliance should be part of any contractual agreement between the federal government and all grant recipients. No federal funds should be permitted to be spent on politics, and funds should not be co-mingled. • Establish internal controls to expedite the enforcement process within administrative agencies that protect workers’ rights. Reorganize state labor regulatory agencies to work more effectively together by developing standardized and consistent definitions. 5. Policy recommendations • Provide legal liability insurance for education employees so the union cannot use the benefit as a coercive membership “carrot.” • Adopt paycheck protection. Currently Idaho has the most comprehensive paycheck protection law. It requires unions to segregate the funds they use on politics. This segregated fund may only receive money from voluntary donors. • Prohibit overcharging for workplace representation. Public employers can be prevented from agreeing to withhold funds for the union in excess of the amount necessary for workplace representation (defined as “chargeable” in federal case law). • Make excessive charges an “unfair labor practice.” Amend existing employee protection to include the ability to file a complaint when a union uses dues money for elections or lobbying if the employee wants to be a union member without paying for these activities. • Prohibit public employers from withholding any funds from employees other than statutorily referenced deductions. The Colorado governor was able to do this for administrative convenience. • Require unions to submit financial reports to the state analogous to the federal Department of Labor reports. As a lesser step, unions with exclusive representation rights could be required to make financial information available to members upon request. • Prohibit any solicitation in public buildings on behalf of a political action committee contribution. • Make public employee bargaining sessions “open meetings.” • Prevent “release time” from public employment for union business. • Enhance and/or inform education employees of the legal liability protection provided by their employer. • Assure that competing organizations have equal access to communicate with public employees. 6. Additional policies unique to mandatory union states • Adopt right-to-work laws or contracts. Unlike California, most states do not statutorily require agency shop for employers, but instead merely permit contracts to include the “union security” provision. Employers and bargaining units both must agree to the provision before it is included. Employers or bargaining unions could be influenced to refuse to bind workers to pay agency shop fees. • Adopt partial right-to-work laws covering only public employees or select kinds of public employees. • Prohibit the collection of agency shop fees for “nonchargeable” activities (political, marketing and other extraneous activities). • Permit agency shop fees only for the local bargaining 25 BARRIER TO LEARNING organization. Make participation in regional, state or national union and all affiliated councils voluntary. Protect those with religious objections to the union. Permit those with religious objections in agency shop workplaces to: (1) designate funds to a charity in-lieu of paying agency shop fees (2) designate only the “chargeable” (related to workplace representation) amount of the fee (3) have sole discretion in selecting the charity Require workplace representatives to notify employees of their obligations, rights, and the protection afforded by law to employees regardless of their union affiliation before funds can be collected in an agency shop. Create remedies for fee payers who wish to challenge their fee. Allow state court, independent arbitration or administrative recourse for those who wish to challenge the accuracy of the agency shop fee so they can avoid going to federal court or the union-dominated arbitration process. Ensure the rights of fee payers include voting rights on workplace matters impacting the entire bargaining unit. 4. IRS complaint Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several complaints with the IRS against teachers’ unions (NEA and state affiliates) for failing to report political expenditures. These complaints can be readily duplicated nationwide by any state documenting the political expenditures and contributions made by the state teachers’ union and comparing that figure to the union’s IRS 990 form (which lists reported contributions). Organizations can file a complaint with the IRS if the union failed to report those expenses. 6. Teacher outreach Teachers and other unionized employees pay for newsletters and marketing designed to laude the merits of the union. But union members rarely have the means to correct union misinformation. Our experience in Washington shows that direct communication with educators can impact union activities. In addition, concerned educators can be identified and provided with opportunities to support policy change or publicity efforts. Most public employees now have public e-mail addresses which can be collected by searching websites, sending information requests, or cooperating with supportive teachers. Once a list is built, it is possible to identify unique interest groups and send timely notices regarding the union’s ideological agenda. 7. Inform teachers they can send dues to charity In a union security state, religious teachers rarely know they can redirect fees to charity and receive a refund for excessive charges. By informing teachers of their rights, unions will forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars in undue income when union activities violate the faith of its members. • • • • Opportunities for State Organizations 1. Follow the money Most states have campaign finance laws which allow a glimpse of union officials’ political expenditures. It is possible in nearly all states to prepare a report of the funds diverted from collective bargaining dues to election activities. To raise awareness, an organization could prepare such a report and market it to the election commentators, political parties, candidates, and grassroots activists who follow elections. 2. Expose union’s use of mandatory dues and fees Union officials typically have a monopoly on representation services for employees, but practically no obligation to account for the use member dues. Federal court decisions do impose an obligation for the union officials’ use of mandatory fees from nonmembers (agency fee payers). Each year agency fee payers are allowed to review union records to ascertain if the fee they have been charged does not include extraneous “non-chargeable” expenditures. Aiding these non-challengers in securing an accurate refund allows organizations to expose and document the myriad of ways that union officials take advantage of their monopoly. 3. NEA assessment scrutiny In July of 2000, NEA levied a five-year, $5 annual per member special assessment to collect $62.5 million for the NEA Contingency Fund (NEA-CF). Sixty percent of the money collected will be used for state election issues. Michigan, California, Arizona, Massachusetts, Arkansas and South Dakota had initiatives defeated with the help of NEA-CF funds. Some provisions of state campaign finance laws or “agency shop” laws may prohibit the actions taken by the NEA. State policy groups can research state laws, possibly initiate state investigations, and publicize this problem. 26 JULY 2004 What if teachers have religious objections to union policy? How to become a religious objector and redirect union dues to charity “The major advantage of religious objector status is that I know for sure not one cent of my money is being used by the union for political purposes I oppose. With agency fee-payers, even after the refund, there is no doubt in my mind that some of the remainder is still misused.” Forrest Clark Junior High Math Teacher University Place, Washington any teachers have sincere religious convictions that are violated by the union’s causes. Fortunately, they are protected by federal law, which says the union cannot force any teacher to pay for activities that violate sincerely held religious beliefs. Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act requires unions to provide “reasonable accommodation” for those beliefs. Courts have ruled that “reasonable accommodation” includes a teacher’s right to opt out of union membership. Depending on state law and specific union contracts, teachers can either keep a portion of their dues or have the entire amount redirected to a charity they’re comfortable supporting. In right-to-work states, teachers can resign union membership and pay nothing to the union. M 2. Communicate your religious objection to your union and employer in writing. 3. Agree on a solution to your objection. 1. Identify union policies The first step in the religious objection process is to identify how your sincerely-held religious beliefs are in conflict with a union practice or policy. There should be a clear conflict between your religious conviction and a work requirement (i.e., you must pay fees to a union promoting causes—such as homosexuality, abortion, etc.—that violate your religious beliefs).55 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not cover political or philosophical beliefs; it only protects sincere religious beliefs. One key question exists for determining whether a belief is religious instead of political or philosophical: Is the belief based on an obligation to a “higher power” (e.g., a supernatural being, multiple gods, a spiritual force)? Are you simply opposed to unions and their politics in general, or does a faith-based obligation require you to break ties with the union?56 If your religious beliefs are violated by supporting the union, you are qualified to become a religious objector. 2. Communicate your religious objection After identifying a conflict between your religious beliefs and mandatory financial support of the union, the law requires that you communicate the conflict to your union and employer. The best way to do this is through a religious accommodation request letter. The letter should be designed to inform, not condemn or preach against the immorality of union policy. According to National Right to Work attorney Bruce Cameron, the letter should include a few simple elements: 27 “I belong to the Northwest Professional Educators, a professional organization that focuses on education, not politics. If I were allowed to completely drop out of the teacher’s union, I would do so.” K. Kittler High School Teacher Redmond, Washington The following guidelines will be helpful for teachers who choose to exercise their religious objector rights. While the process is simple, it is wise to seek knowledgeable legal advice, which is provided free-of-charge by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW). Here is the three-step process: 1. Identify which union policies violate your sincere religious beliefs. BARRIER TO LEARNING 1. A description of the union’s objectionable practice or policy and a clear statement that this policy violates your sincere religious beliefs. 2. An explanation of your religious beliefs. If they are based on written authority (such as the Bible), cite passages. If they are based on teaching or church doctrine, include quotes. It also helps to give a brief explanation of how your beliefs have a practical impact on your life. 3. A request that your union and employer accommodate your religious beliefs by allowing you to redirect your union fees to a charity. Include a short list of charities. When selecting a charity, keep in mind that teachers are generally not permitted to designate religious or labor-oriented charities. There are some exceptions, but they are uncommon. Either way, you should ask the union to put your fees in escrow (set them aside) until the issue is resolved. Once your letter is complete, send a copy to affiliates at each level of the union that receives a portion of your fees (local, state, regional, and national). You should also send a copy to your employer and any supervisors who can help accommodate your beliefs. Be sure to date the letter, as the union will have 60 days to respond. It is best to send these letters certified, return receipt requested. You may also want to keep a copy for your records. If you would like assistance with your letter, feel free to contact: Some locals also may prevent nonmembers from voting on workplace issues like their contract. There are some options to either protect or replace these benefits. Federal law prohibits a union or employer from discriminating against nonmembers in the wages, benefits, or other employment conditions covered by a collective bargaining agreement. This means religious objectors will keep the same pay, benefits and seniority as union members. Teachers also have options for obtaining liability insurance outside the union. Most school districts provide coverage for their teachers. If this is not an option, many renter or homeowner insurance policies will allow the addition of a liability clause.58 Independent teacher organizations may also offer liability insurance. In many cases, these policies provide more comprehensive protection for teachers at a lower cost. For example, policies provided by the school district and union are often written on behalf of the organization, not the individual teacher. This gives the district and union power to decide how far they will represent each teacher based on the organization’s best interest. On the other hand, independent teacher associations often offer insurance policies that are written for individual teachers. This gives teachers the freedom to choose an independent attorney to represent them. Resources: Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 360-956-3482 info@effwa.org Staff there will put you in touch with an attorney who will review it free of charge. 3. Agree on a solution Although the law requires unions and employers to work toward an accommodation once they’re aware of your religious objection, it is advisable to work together to find a solution that is both convenient and cost-effective. Title VII guards against religious discrimination, but it also offers some legal protection for unions and employers: they do not have to offer an accommodation that causes them undue hardship. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “undue hardship” as a minimal cost.57 Count the cost Teachers should be aware that they may lose some benefits by opting out of the union. Unions typically prevent nonmembers from: 1) holding union office, 2) voting on elected officers, and 3) keeping their union-provided legal liability insurance. 28 National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 8001 Braddock Road Springfield, Virginia 22160 (703) 321-8510 | (800) 336-3600 (703) 321-9613 fax - general (703) 321-9319 fax - legal department info@nrtw.org | http://www.nrtw.org/ JULY 2004 How to become an Agency Fee-Payer Here is a sample letter for teachers who wish to opt out of union membership and become agency fee payers. Teachers who do so are considered non-members and are entitled to a refund of the portion of their dues spent for activities other than collective bargaining, contract negotiation and grievances. Executive Director n ation Associatio Washington Educ PO Box 9100 98063-9100 Federal Way, WA RE: Affirmation of ation, and agen association resign cy fee objection and challenge. Dear Sir/Madam: I wish to resign fr rgeable ciation for noncha il, and local asso ). UniServ Counc vance assistance the NEA, WEA, agement and grie my agency fees by to the use of ng, contract man I object ive bargaini ation t related to collect with a full explan activities (i.e. no ble expenditures, rgea of items e used for noncha ’ characterization rcentage of my fe and of the unions a refund of the pe d nonchargeable I wish to receive are chargeable an the amounts that of of the calculation and rgeable. geable percentage geable or noncha as char ulation of the char of the WEA’s calc al decisionmaker ew by an imparti vi I also request a re refund amount. ore challenge the theref __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Full name: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ ess: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Home addr __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ e, Zip Code: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ City, Stat __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ one: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Home ph __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ strict: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ School di __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ one: School ph __ __ __ __ __ __ __ lty, etc): acher, college facu __ __ __ __ __ _ Position (K-12 te Type of __ __ __ __ __ __ __ : ed (Part, Full, Sub) Amount Employ Local Associatio n: ______ ____________ ______________ ______________ _____ , UniServ and om the NEA, WEA the local educatio n association. ____________ ______________ ______________ ______ Signature & Date _______ 29 BARRIER TO LEARNING RESOURCES RESEARCH Education Intelligence Agency P.O. Box 580007 Elk Grove, CA 95758 Phone: 916.422.4373 Fax: 916.392.1482 Website: www.eiaonline.com E-mail: EducationIntel@aol.com Education Policy Institute Charlene K. Haar, President Dr. Myron Lieberman, Chairman PMB #294 4401-A Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20008 Phone: 202.244.7535 Website: www.educationpolicy.org Public Service Research Foundation David Y. Denholm, President 320-D Maple Avenue East Vienna, VA 22180 703.242.3575 Website: www.psrf.org E-mail: info@psrf.org PROFESSIONAL TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS Association of American Educators Gary Beckner, Exec. Director 25201 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 104 Leguna Hills, CA 92653 Phone: 949.595.7979 or 800.704.7799 Website: www.aaeteachers.org E-mail: info@aaeteachers.org Christian Educators Association Forrest Turpen, Exec. Director P.O. Box 41300 Pasadena, CA 91114 Phone: 626.798.1124 or 888.798.1124 Website: www.ceai.org E-mail: info@ceai.org TEACHER ASSISTANCE Evergreen Freedom Foundation Jami Lund, Program Manager P.O. Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360.956.3482 Website: www.defendteachers.org E-mail: teachers@defendteachers.org National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Mark Mix, President 8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22160 703.321.8510 or 800.336.3600 Website: www.nrtw.org E-mail: info@nrtw.org 30 JULY 2004 Endnotes 1. John Kerry for President. Press release: Kerry Offers a “New Bargain for America’s Children and Teachers.” May 6, 2004. 2. Fund, John. (2004, May 26). Kerry’s Obedience Training. Wall Street Journal. 3. Lambert, Sam. (1967). NEA Executive Secretary. Quoted in Moo, Gregory, G. (1999). Power Grab: How the National Education Association is betraying our children. 4. Herndon, Terry. Former NEA Executive Director. Statements at 1978 NEA annual convention. Quoted in Moo, Gregory, G. (1999). Power Grab: How the National Education Association is betraying our children. 5. National Education Association. What is the National Education Association? . 6. Levin, Mark. (2000, November). Labor Watch. Landmark Legal Foundation. 7. Brimelow, Peter. (2003). The Worm in the Apple: How the teacher unions are destroying American education (p.xiii). Harper Collins. 8. Lieberman, Myron. (1997). The Teacher Unions: How the NEA and AFT Sabotage Reform and hold students, parents, teachers and taxpayers hostage to bureaucracy (p.12). The Free Press. 9. Moo, Gregory, G. (1999). Power Grab: How the National Education Association is betraying our children (p.xi). Regnery Publishing. 10. Herndon, Terry. Former NEA Executive Director. Statements at 1978 NEA annual convention. Quoted in Moo, Gregory, G. (1999). Power Grab: How the National Education Association is betraying our children. 11. Archibald, George. Teachers union will target swing states in ‘04. The Washington Times, July 2, 2004. 12. Alinsky, Saul, D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Vintage Books. 13. National Education Association website, About NEA: What is the National Education Association? . 14. Chanin, Robert H. U.S. District Court oral arguments, 1978. As quoted by Lieberman, Myron; Haar, Charlene; and Troy, Leo. The NEA and AFT: Teacher unions in power and politics (p.57). Pro>Active Publications. 15. Davenport v. Washington Education Association, Defendent’s CR 12(c) motion to dismiss claims (p.10 line 14). Superior Court, Washington. Case No. 01-2-00519-4. August 24, 2001. 16. Horace Mann Insurance Company, Educators Employment Liability Policy, Washington, Filing Memorandum. Obtained by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, 2000. 17. Letter from Washington Education Association Bargaining Team to Board Directors and Council Presidents, October 11, 1995. 18. Center for Responsive Politics. (1999). The Big Picture: Serious Money: The Top 100 Overall Contributors. 19. Dick Carpenter, Travis Pardo & Charlene Haar, Education’s Iron Triangle: Uncovering the Values and Beliefs of the NEA, AFT, and PTA, 2002. 20. Feistritzer, Profile of Teachers in the U.S., National Center for Education Information, 1996, 49. 21. Dick Carpenter, Travis Pardo & Charlene Haar, Education’s Iron Triangle: Uncovering the Values and Beliefs of the NEA, AFT, and PTA, 2002. For comparison, the NEA had more delegates and alternates at the 1996 Democratic convention than any state except California, which had 423 delegates and 61 alternates. Data obtained from the Democratic National Committee. 22. NEA Convention 2000 Report and Commentary, July 2000. Education Policy Institute, . 23. NEA: 2000 Amendments, Bylaw Amendment 2, July 7, 2000. . 24. Washington State NEA Board Directors’ Report, February 13-14, 2004. Ballot Measure/Legislative Crises and Media Campaign Fund Bylaws Change. 25. State of Washington, ex. rel., Washington State Public Disclosure Commission v. National Education Association, Thurston County Case No. 02-2-01709-3, filed October 3, 2002. 26. O’Toole, Kathy. Attorney at Law, Washington Education Association. Letter to Jeff Leer, March 12, 1997. 27. Archer, Jeff. Unions Pull Out Stops For Election. Education Week, November 1, 2000. 28. NEA arbitration representative. Annual WEA arbitration hearing, Federal Way, WA. May 2001. 29. Ibid. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Employment Security Administration news release. (2002, December 20). Antonucci, Mike. (2003, December 22) EIA Communique. Education Intelligence Agency. Antonucci, Mike. (2003, April). The D.C. Teachers’ Union Scandal: A Commentary. School Choice Advocate. Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation. Blair, Julie. State of the Unions, Education Week, February 25, 2004. National Education Association, press release. NEA Affiliates Challenge Department of Labor on Landrum-Griffin Act Coverage. February 14, 2003. . Davenport v. Washington Education Association, Defendent’s CR 12(c) motion to dismiss claims (p.10 line 14). Superior Court, Washington. Case No. 01-2-00519-4. August 24, 2001. Archibald, George. (2004, April 19). Pro-life teachers angered by march. The Washington Times. National Education Association, NEA Resolutions, Legislative Program, and New Business, 2002-2003, Resolution I-12, p. 367. Ibid., p. 316. Glanzer, Perry, L., & Pardo, Travis, R. (2000) Grading the NEA. Focus on the Family. National Education Association. (2002). Report of the NEA task force on sexual orientation (p.41). Carpenter, Dick, Pardo, Travis, & Haar, Charlene. (2002). Education’s Iron Triangle: Uncovering the Values and Beliefs of the NEA, AFT, and PTA. WEA Bylaws, Section 4(c). (2002). . See the following publications: Janet L. Jones, Ed.D., What’s Left After the Right? A Resource Manual for Educators; Brian K. Baker, Censorship in Public Schools, NJEA Review, May 1997; Deanna R. Duby, Attacks on Public Education & the Radical Right, NJEA Review, April 1996; Bargaining Protection for Public Education: Resource Manual, Michigan Education Association, 1996; Primer on the Extremist Attacks on Public Education, California Teachers Association, Prepared by: CTA Human Rights Department and CTA Division of Government Relations; The Radical Right, Ohio Education Association Mega Conference, March 35, 1995; CAPE: Combat Attacks on Public Education, Illinois Education Association, 1996; and The Real Story Behind ‘Paycheck Protection’ The Hidden Link Between Anti-Worker and Anti-Public Education Initiatives: An Anatomy of the Far Right, NEA, Washington, DC, 1998. Glanzer, Perry, L., & Pardo, Travis, R. (2000) Grading the NEA. Focus on the Family. Washington Education Association, Next step: Repealing charter schools . . . for good, June 11, 2004. National Education Association, press release. Gathering accurate data is the first step in reducing class size, May 19, 2004. . Evergreen Freedom Foundation, news advisory. History of Washington teacher strikes, April 7, 2004. O’Hagan, Maureen and Willmsen, Christine. Coaches who prey: Union, district joined forces to block records. The Seattle Times, December 14, 2003. O’Hagan, Maureen and Willmsen, Christine. Coaches who prey: Districts often make deals or look the other way. The Seattle Times, December 15, 2003. The Kamber Group, An Institution At Risk: An External Communications Review of the National Education Association, January 1997. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Antonucci, Mike. (2004, June 1) EIA Communique. Education Intelligence Agency. Capitol Resource Institute. (2002). Dues And Don’ts. Cameron, Bruce, N. (1999) Union Dues and Religious Do Nots. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. TWA vs. Hardison. 432 U.S. 63. (1977). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Office Building, 909 First Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104-1061, (800) 669-4000. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 31 BARRIER TO LEARNING Evergreen Freedom Foundation P.O. Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 www.effwa.org info@effwa.org P: 360.956.3482 F: 360.352.1874 32