MORE was not interested in an electoral bloc with New Action
New Action approached MORE in August to discuss, among other things, the upcoming UFT elections. MORE set its slate two months later, and only then agreed to meet New Action, making discussion of an electoral bloc or alliance impossible.
On July 31 of last summer, the New Action executive board met. We were discussing one item only: the 2013 UFT elections and our relations with Unity. For a number of reasons, some obvious (impending teacher evaluation which we oppose) some less obvious, there was significant doubt about maintaining our relationship with Unity.
Four proposals went in: (1) maintain our relationship with Unity, (2) do not participate in the elections, (3) run an independent slate in the election, and (4) approach MORE.
By the end of that day we had eliminated only the second option. And we had designated members to make initial, informal approaches to Unity and to MORE.
The decision to approach MORE was not easy, there was some real support, and some solid opposition. We chose to frame the approach to be about both election and non-election issues, to avoid giving the impression we were about to begin negotiations. By late August we had reached out, informally, to two leading members of MORE. And we waited. They asked for a formal request, which we were not inclined to make (in the spirit of the direction our Exec Board had given us.)
Do MORE’s members know that MORE essentially rebuffed an approach by New Action, from before last Labor Day?
And we waited. And waited. September came and went. We put off our decision, waiting for feedback. October came. MORE announced their slate. We got the message. At the next New Action meeting we reduced our choices to running with Unity or running alone. And then, at Halloween, MORE suggested we meet.
And we did meet. Late November. New Action was already making election arrangements with Unity. Which left the six of us (3 New Action, 3 MORE) with a slightly strange conversation. It seemed slightly productive at the time, and certainly cordial. For an account see New Action and MORE representatives met in November.
By delaying a meeting with New Action until after it had set its slate, MORE made clear that they had no interest in pursuing a joint slate.
JD2718 
When I was a delegate and my chapter leader teamed up with my principal to get me out, the MORE members were there for support. A nasty article was written about me in the Post and Norm Scott called the reporter immediately and started blogging about the situation.
When I was at a Delegate Assembly and the vote to increase the retiree vote was on the floor, an older gentleman stood up and stated “I am retired and I’m against giving more power to retirees.” I agreed and months later found that was Michael Schulman of New Action.
Months later a resolution was brought up by New Action to reaffirm protecting chapter leaders and delegates. I agreed with them again and was glad it was brought up.
Over the summer of 2012 I worked with mobilizing MORE. In November 2012, as the Unity leadership continued to work against me, a teacher sent to the rubber room with no charges, I spoke with Johnathan and Michael Schulman. They were shocked to hear about how my chapter leader had submitted 9 allegations against me and Michael Mulgrew had walked away and deserted me. They told me to come speak at the Executive Board. I did. As I entered 52 Broadway I called Norm Scott of MORE to tell him I was going to speak to the board. He told me to find Johnathan and Michael Schulman for help. I thought that was great. Keep in mind I did not know the history at all.
Johnathan and Michael of NA continued to question Unity leadership why they wouldn’t help me and then I hear that NA and MORE were meeting. I thought we were getting somewhere. I was almost cross endorsed by NA and MORE until I was informed New Action endorses Mulgrew. I spoke to NA and told them I can’t. I’m actually doing everything possible so he doesn’t win. I am currently running with MORE for Middle School Exec board. Being that I agree with their opposition points, I informed NA that should I win, they would have a friend at the board.
I’m disheartened to read all this back and forth arguing. I wish there was another way, but the more I sit in the Rubber Room, where the DOE sent me and the UFT kept me, the more I find Mulgrew has sold us out, given us lip service and must go…. Don’t take my word for it. Speak to the many members who contact me for consultation because they have been left to fight without union support.
or watch http://youtu.be/jJE_dy1Ca8M
Your caucus opened this Francesco, ask them why.
When the second MORE ad came out on March 19, blaming the current state of affairs on UNITY/New Action leadership, we hadn’t said a word about MORE. All positive campaigning. We were printing tens of thousands of flyers, similar to three years before, but with all negative references to ICE/TJC (MORE’s predecessors) omitted. The other flyers we distributed this election, none of them attacked MORE. Our newspaper ad in the NYT – nothing about MORE.
By the time the piece that was going out via e-mail was due (this Wednesday) we’d taken so much – and now it was coming directly from MORE, not just their bloggers – that we quickly added a few lines, and we resolved to respond on-line, at least a little bit, this week.