Instead, he said, the union just wants checks and balances on the mayor’s power. In other cities with mayoral control, he said, “Everybody else figured out you needed checks and balances.”
In fact, I'm more than a little confused by that. That's because in 2009, I distinctly recall reading his statement that mayoral control had already achieved that.
We are pleased that the New York State Senate has passed legislation on school governance. The passage of the Senate bill will ensure that the checks and balances that we applauded in the Assembly bill will now be included in the law.
Curiouser and curiouser. If we already had checks and balances, why do we now need to call for checks and balances? In other stories, Mulgrew refers to mayoral control as mayoral dictatorship. Of course that's correct. But there are those of us who were well aware of it, and saying so publicly in 2009.
So why has it taken Unity-New Action four more years and scores of additional school closures to figure that out? And why is our union leadership so intent on building brick walls to fortify themselves against working UFT teachers who take the time to think these things through?
Could it be because they live in an echo chamber and systematically shut out any and all voices that seriously question them? Do they feel paying lip service to this notion during campaign season will make us all forget the UFT supported mayoral dictatorship not once, but twice?
Posts
