Back And Forth About The Chicago Teachers Pension Fund

The CTU has released a statement in response to a weekend Sun Times report about the CTPF: "The Sun-Times statement that the Fund has lost money, while factually correct, is clearly misleading. The article mentions investment losses without fully explaining that this is a 10 year investment.    As with all real estate investments, CTPF does not expect an immediate return on the funds it has invested."

Here's the article: Mayor's nephew cashing in Sun Times
On March 17, 2005, the teachers' pension board voted unanimously to invest $25 million, contingent on Davis and Vanecko meeting their $100 million goal. When Davis and Vanecko fell short, they convinced the teachers' pension fund to stick with the $25 million investment, offering a greater share of profits and lower management fees. 

A message to our current members and retirees:

The September 23, 2007, Chicago Sun Times ran a story concerning a $25 million CTPF investment in a real estate fund - DV Urban. The purpose of the fund is to redevelop Chicago areas through investment in the commercial, residential, and industrial sections that may have been neglected and therefore serve as a tremendous opportunity for investment return. DV Urban is 51% owned by Allison Davis and 49% owned by Robert Vanecko.

CTPF invests with a philosophy of balance and is clearly diversified in a variety of different investment vehicles. To put this particular investment into perspective, the CTPF has over $12.5 billion in investments. Of this $12.5 billion, 9% or $1.1 billion is allocated to real estate. The $25 million invested in DV Urban partners is less than .2% of CTPF fund assets and less than 2.3% of the real estate investments. For perspective, this investment is equivalent to a $2 investment for an individual with $1000 in the bank.

The proposed investment of DV Urban was researched and evaluated by Townsend Real Estate Consultants, of Cleveland, Ohio. Townsend conducted a one-year due diligence process before recommending the investment in DV Urban to CTPF's Board of Trustees in April 2005. Townsend felt that DV Urban had the potential to bring strong returns to CTPF through a long-term investment strategy based on urban renewal. At that time CTPF and its Trustees were not aware that Vanecko was Mayor Daley's nephew.

In September 2005, CTPF discovered that Vanecko was the mayor's nephew, and immediately notified the Board of Trustees. At that time CTPF revisited the investment with its board members and with its real estate consultant.   Nothing came to the attention of CTPF or the consultant that warranted terminating the investment. There was not anything unethical, illegal, or inappropriate about this investment or DV Urban as a firm.  CTPF understood that Vanecko's relationship to the mayor might cast a political shadow however, the Board of Trustees and investment consultant determined that the potential return represented in this partnership more than justified the possible investment and political risk and moved forward with the commitment.  

The Sun-Times statement that the Fund has lost money, while factually correct, is clearly misleading. The article mentions investment losses without fully explaining that this is a 10 year investment.    As with all real estate investments, CTPF does not expect an immediate return on the funds it has invested.  Buying and developing in real estate create early expenses and costs that are recovered upon the sale of the property in later years.    We fully expect to realize gains on this investment when DV sells property in the future.

Rest assured that CTPF followed proper due diligence and relied upon the investment advice of our consultant, Townsend.  There are many good things about this investment, including developing the Chicago areas where our teachers teach and live.  Most importantly, this investment fits well within our portfolio guidelines and is expected to produce a handsome return for our membership.   Our Trustees will not, would not, and have not jeopardized your pension assets for any political purposes. 

It is unfortunate that the Sun Times has chosen to use this issue to create political turmoil. The real story at CTPF is one of great success. At the end of FY2007, CTPF posted a return of 17.3% for our members, the highest return in a decade. Our 5-year rate of return is 11.5% and our current funded ratio, 78.0%, is among the state's highest for pension funds. We believe in making sound investment decisions based on facts and information. We will continue to pursue investments that fit within this philosophy of a balanced and diverse portfolio so we can provide a strong return and lifetime pensions for our members.

Kevin B. Huber, Executive Director - CTPF

Comments

[upset]

DV Urban is listed on the last report issued by the ctpf. Needless to say it is just one of numerous investments by the ctpf and most of us paid no attention to it. It is very difficult to argue as Mr. Huber does that there was no political basis for this investment. Clearly he knew and after the deal was set knowing Daley’s nephew was involved he informed the ctpf trustees of that fact as both the article and statement indicate. Both Alberto Carrero and Rufus Williams who are direct mayoral appointees are trustees.

It was completely unethical for Williams and Carrero to have in any way participated in determining whether or not to continue investment in DV Urban given that the issue involved the Mayor’s relative. This is deeply disturbing, Carrero and Williams should have reclused themselves from this decision.

I am equally disturbed with our own appointees, but they are not faced with the conflict of interest that Carrero and Williams are.

As readers of this blog are aware we are working for a school district that does not even have a standing budget committee of the Board, nor an audit committee. I know George has ranted on about this and most of us have paid little attention to his carrying on. But it appears he unfortunately has a point, there are some very questionable things going on in relation to the Mayor’s complete control over the CPS and its funds. I hope George is just paranoid and we are not on some kind of fiscal cliff which the possible coming recession (or depression)will push the school district over.

Listen to George!!

[1.04]

HELP

This is not my usual rant about the good old days. Could someone explain what the
“ Current funded ratio of 78.3% “ means?

[1.04]

Sorry

It should be 78.0%

[George Schmidt]

"...I hope George is just paranoid and we are not on some kind of fiscal cliff which the possible coming recession (or depression) will push the school district over..."

7:03 PM, you can fantasize all you want about me, but you should be more modest and do it off line. This is a bit too serious for thousands of people to be rendered glibly in a couple of blogdacious one-liners.

Take a very close look at the present state of the pension fund -- especially in light of the debt burdens and revenue challenges approaching CPS during the next three fiscal years -- and then rest quietly on your fantasies about my concerns and state of mind.

The political pressures on the fund will be enormous.

The simple question is whether the 12 trustees of the CTPF are to be trusted not to sink into the muck of politics, Chicago-style, dragging down all of our pensions with them.

CTPF (Chicago Teachers Pension Fund) is one of the oldest and best-managed defined benefit pension plans in the United States. That's both a matter of lengthy historical record (older than most of the people here by a great deal) and present fact (the management of the fund and its investment management, despite lapses like the recent Daley rip-off).

And becuase it is a solid defined benefit plan, it is under attack from everyone on the crazed Ayn Rand Milton Friedman side of current economic theory. That has to be remembered as this question is discussed. Chicago (and CPS) are being run by these ideologues today...).

Additionally, anyone who thinks a question like these (there are several here) can be blogged up in a one- or two-liner is a fool.

Such fools are responsible for many of the economic debacles of the past decade and are likely to move into their next folly independent of what facts may come to their attention. Eight years ago, they were the people who read the Chicago Tribune about ("Chainsaw Al") Al Dunlap and invested in Sunbeam just in time for their money to be lost; or extrapolated from the "curve" at ENRON and thought the curve would go "up" forever; or bought EDSN (Edison Schools Inc.) when it was going above "30" on the NASDAQ just in time to watch it go below one, get itself delisted, and then "go private" for the benefit of Chris Whittle and the handful of people around him (at the expense of everyone else).

There are enough Chris Whittles in the world to preen your fantasies. Locally, half the 5th floor -- with the enforcers on the 7th floor -- at 125 S. Clark St. is now populated with such "visionaries."

The CTPF is, however, supposed to be more soberly run.

The following might help people understand a little of the general structure of the Fund today. The quotes are from the current CTPF "Pension News." The following is a succint statement by Kevin Huber:

"Our newest members should understand that they contribute a percentage of their salary to CTPF, and in return for this contribution, after five years of service, our members are guaranteed a pension for life. This guarantee means that retirees cannot outlive their benefits and income does not change depending upon market conditions.

"Many of our new members express surprise when they discover that the Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund is not run by their employer, the Chicago Public Schools. Our fund is a separate entity, established by State of Illinois pension statutes and governed by an independent board of 12 trustees. These trustees meet monthly to conduct the business of the fund. Six trustees are elected by active teachers, three are elected by retired teachers, one is elected by school administrators, and two are appointed by the Chicago Board of Education."

That's the structure.

An independent fund, with 12 trustees, ten of whom are elected. Governed by Illinois law (and enormous common law precedent about the obligations of ficuciaries).

In theory it insulates the Fund from too much political manipulation.

But this is Chicago, so bear with me for a closer look.

First politics is inevitable.

Anyone who thinks you can manage $12.7 billion in assets in Illinois and Chicago and not have pressures is too naive to have read this far.

Of course there will be politics. Hopefully, between the laws -- especially the fiduciary duty laws -- and the elections of trustees, politics can be kept from doing major damage to the Fund and the people who depend on it after they retire from public service.

Presently, it's safe to say that the majority of Trustees of the Fund are either in Mayor Daley's pocket (the two Board members) or in the pocket of people who have just jumped into Daley's pocket (the six "teacher" trustees and possibly one of the retiree trustees).

Why does that matter so much now?

Remember: It was the current regime at the Chicago Teachers Union -- the United Progressive Caucus -- that went along with the last two raids on the Chicago teachers' pension fund -- "pension holidays" (for CPS) -- when they had iron clad control over the union (and the mechanisms of communications about such things as we are discussing here).

Specifically, when Paul Vallas stated that the CTPF was "overfunded" ten years ago and asked for a one-year "holiday" for CPS from required matching contributions, Tom Reece (then President of the Chicago Teachers Union) and the UPC (Reece's caucus, now Marilyn Stewart's) went along with Vallas -- both on the "analysis" (glib one liners are not the same as fiduciary due dilligence) and the result, which cost the fund (long term) several hundred million dollars.

Right now, the majority of trustees of the CTPF are beholden to Mayor Daley directly (Board members, serving on the pension board) or indirectly (Chicago Teachers Union members elected with the support of Marilyn Stewart's United Progressive Caucus). One of the others (see below) just signed on to a letter issues on behalf of a UPC candidate in a union election, so I'll leave it up to others to judge his current claims of "independence."

Anyone who believes after the recent contract Stewart negotiated that CTU is any longer independent of the mayor's office needn't read on, because you're truly beyond the reach of hope of fact.

Simmer in your comfortable notions about my "paranoia" or some other stimulating fantasy. You're sure to find something within three mouse clicks of here to satisfy the depth of your attention span and needs.

CTPF is, as Kevin Huber stated, still solvent by any measure.

That "78 percent" thingy has to be explained in context, and I'm not about to explain it here. But remember, a few years ago, the Fund was more than "90 percent" (at the time of Vallas's one liner, seconded by the CTU and then translated into policy and law).

Th danger facing all of the big defined benefit pension funds is the same: political manipulation.

Although the Fund is independently managed (and overseen by a Board of Trustees elected or appointed from the various bodies represented in the Fund), if any one entity (in this case, Daley) gets control of a majority of those votes, the Fund could easily get into big trouble fast.

Right now I have no problem in saying that eight of the votes on the CTPF Board of Trustees are either "Daley votes" or likely to be "Daley votes." Here is how that works:

The two Chicago Board of Education members on the CTPF Board of Trustees at the present time are Alberto Carrero and Peggy Davis. Both are Daley appointees to the Chicago Board of Education with long ties to the Daley administration. Their present comfortable lifestyles would be seriously threatened if they showed any independence of the Daley program. They have long been part of those unanimous votes to approve every nutsy scheme that comes across the agenda of the Chicago Board of Education. (Example last month -- August Board meeting: the latest giveaway of school space to privatization, the Aspira Moos deal, without any demand that Aspira explain how it conducted business for years in a building that was dangerous to students and staff). Alberto Carrero and Peggy Davis are Daley clones, typical of what you get on virtually every major public board today in Chicago.

But that's only two votes out of 12 on the CTPF Board. What about the others?

The "teacher" trustees are no more independent than the Board member Daley votes.

Presently, all are members of the UPC.

Of the six "teacher" trustees of the pension fund, four are very active members of Marilyn Stewart's United Progressive Caucus (John O'Brill; Lois Nelson; Mary Hanson; and Maria Rodriguez) while two are less well known.

All were elected with the massive support from Stewart's group. One (Rodriguez) is a $100,000 per year (pay and benefits) employee of the Chicago Teachers Union (not a rank-and-file teacher).

When you are managing a $12.7 billion fund, there will be temptations galore with the investment side, and potential problems galore on the operational side. So far, CTPF has done pretty well on both sides. Consider, first, operations in light of the recent debacles overseen by Daley's appointed Board of Education and Daley's miracle management team, headed by Arne Duncan.

Everybody who is getting a teacher pension in Chicago must be cheering that the CTPF's computer operations are not in the hands of the corrupt and/or incompetent and/or both people working down the street at 125 S. Clark St.

One of the things that anyone here should note is that the Pension Fund's mailing list is almost 100 percent accurate, and the Fund has actually improved its ability to get checks (100 percent accurate) accurately out to 100 percent of retirees 100 percent of the time. (Actually, the rate is about 99.999 percent; there are errors in even the best systems).

Operationally, CTPF, as presently constituted, would never create a computerized debacle like IMPACT and People Soft, and the fund's spokesperson (usually Kevin Huber) would never have resorted to those silly comments made by Rufus Williams and Arne Duncan (basically, "shit happens") in the face of the payroll messes that their privatization policies and poor management created.

And for the Board of Education to meet (as it did yesterday) with Robert Runcie still in his $165,000 per year job says all you need to know about this contrast.

Back to the dangers to the CTPF.

One other trustee (retiree trustee James Ward) just signed a letter supporting the re-election of Mary Sharon Reilly as "functional vice president" for retiree members of the Chicago Teachers Union. Most retired Chicago teachers (more than 10,000 today, myself included) are members of the Retired Teachers Association of Chicago (RTAC), not members of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). The reason is that CTU has long tried to manipulate the pension and disrespected its retired members. Those manipulations and disrespects were on display in several ways during the past six months.

Here we are talking about CTU politics, not RTAC or CTPF politics.

On June 29, I was nominated to run for the one executive board seat in the Chicago teachers union representing retired teachers. There were four candidates for one seat. Now, seats on the CTU executive board are apportioned in proportion to membership, with one "functional vice president" for every 1,000 members. At the time of nominations, there were 3,500 retired members of CTU. (There should have been more than 4,500, given recent retirements, by the Stewart group deliberately kept the recent retirees out of the retiree group, even though they all had union dues current until October 31).

So the recent CTU retiree election was a four-way race, with one candidate (the incumbent) supported by Marilyn Stewart's UPC.

And that was the only candidate who was able to get out a mailing to all eligible voters prior to the voting (which took place by mail ballot between August 31 and September 14).

James Ward's name was on the letter that was mailed to all voters in that recent election by the UPC (excuse me, the "Committee to Elect Mary Sharon Reilly") while the other three candidates for that position (one of whom was me) were denied the right to do a mailing to all 3,500 voters in that election by CTU Financial Secretary Mark Ochoa and his staff.

The unethical activities in that election included excluding recently retired teachers (the June group) from the voting; leaving the ballot out of the mailing to several people; denying the three non-UPC candidates (myself; Monroe Morgan; and Barbara Baker) the right to communicate with the voters, and other things.

Reilly, the only candidate who was allowed to do a mailing to all eligible voters, won by 1,144 votes to my 471 to Baker's 167 to Morgan's 128. As I noted, only Reilly was allowed to do a mailing to all the voters, while the rest of the candidates were stalled and deliberately misled about procedures for contacting the voters.

So, to get back to how many "Daley votes" are currently on the CTPF Board of Trustees...

I'd say, probably nine.

The two Board of Education members.

The six "teacher" trustees (including the one who is working full-time for the union and any who by now are working part time for Marilyn Steart).

And at least one of the "retiree" trustees (who recently signed on endorsing the UPC candidate in a retiree election).

CTPF will be under great pressure in the coming years, especially if the recession is deep and CPS faces a drop in revenues as the bills for the Iraq War come due at the same time the fallout from the real estate bubble and other masses hit.

CTPF is under additional pressure because the dogma of the "choice" and "market" nut cases around Mayor Daley and Arne Duncan is against defined benefit pension plans. So there will be enormous pressure to wipe out plans such as CTPF, no matter how good they are, because they fly in the face of the stupid versions of economic reality behind most of what the market types have been preaching.

Last but not least, CTPF might even be under pressure to hire some people like the Runcie group to oversee the massive and expension privatization of essential functions so that the mess becomes go great that nobody can clean it up (as IMPACT and People Soft, both of which have to be brought back in house if they are to ever be both efficient -- 99.99 percent -- and cost effective, show).

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

And that's not paranoia.

That's a counter narrative to the existing economic and political fairy tales that are collpasing from here to Tierra Del Fuego...

[George Schmidt]

Alexander. You said at the top of this thread:

"The CTU has released a statement in response to a weekend Sun Times report about the CTPF: 'The Sun-Times statement that the Fund has lost money, while factually correct, is clearly misleading. The article mentions investment losses without fully explaining that this is a 10 year investment. As with all real estate investments, CTPF does not expect an immediate return on the funds it has invested.'"

That statement was not from the CTU (Chicago Teachers Union).

It was from the CTPF (Chicago Teachers Pension Fund).

They are very separate and distinct entities. Clarify that, please, as soon as possible.

CTU is at

www.ctunet.com

CTPF is at

www.ctpf.org

[A longtime member of the R & E Committee]

George was never denied a mailing. He didn't get his materials in on time! I understand that he was sent two letters, an email, and talked to the CTU staff member in person about these deadlines. He did do several mailings from some list (who knows where he got these names). This committee for MSR got everything in by the Monday deadline. The other two candidates said they didn't want to spend the money on the mailing and never turned anything in.

Of course, as was predicted here in an earlier blog, George can't accept that he lost fairly and squarely. Each time he looses there is an excuse about something or other, always some inuendo about cheating. Lou Pyster was present at the counting and can corroborate that everything was open and above board.

The statement from Kevin Huber was sent to the CTU because, as is its responsibility, the CTU made inquiries to the CTPF about the investment after reading the articles in the Sun Times. The CTU had had many inquiries from members about this and posted the statement the web.

[Sick of George]

Louis Pyster attends all the CTPF meetings and has never brought anything up about this?

You're the one who's paranoid, George. There's always some conspiracy theory with you! Reminds me of the old days when everything was a "communist plot". With you, it's always some "CTU plot". This does nothing but undermine and weaken the union -all because you don't think you get the recognition and glory you deserve.

Hey George,

I'm a new retiree and I inquired about voting:

The recent retirees couldn't vote because they voted in the May officer election and are still considered active members until that membership runs out in October. Retiree membership begins after that. Once again - another conspiracy against George? Are you presuming that all those votes would be for you!

Sorry if this is too long - Crain's doesn't have free access to its content. I went looking for it because I too was alarmed at the 78% rate quoted in the release. (Alexander, feel free to selectively edit to the relevant sections.)

Bad math on school pension funding earns failing grade
By Laurence Msall
Feb. 20, 2006
Recently, Chicago educator-in-chief Arne Duncan tackled a serious math problem: how to balance the school system's $5-billion budget. He got a major part of the answer wrong when he suggested skipping all or part of the district's required $70-million payment into its substantially underfunded pension system. Even worse, he failed to show his work so the rest of us could see how the error crept into this critical equation.

The equation dates back to 1995, when the General Assembly gave Mayor Richard M. Daley control of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). As part of the deal, the Legislature gave school administrators permission to skip the required employer payments into the pension fund, so long as the balance stayed above 90% of the amount required to meet current and prospective liabilities. To help keep the fund balance healthy, the state agreed to provide roughly $65 million each year.

Those contributions kept the pension system over 90% funded for the better part of a decade. Then came an advanced tutorial in addition, subtraction and multiplication, Springfield-style: The General Assembly began passing a number of bills adding expensive new benefits to the teachers' pension plans.

One bill authorized retroactive increased benefits for teachers who had taken early retirement a decade before. Another increased the amount administrators could subtract each year to pay for retiree health insurance, from $40 million to $65 million.

Simple mathematics tells you that when you subtract, you wind up with a smaller number. Yet neither the state, the CPS, active teachers nor retirees were required to increase contributions enough to make up the difference.

For a couple of years, the booming stock market kept the fund fairly flush. The latest estimates put the pension plan funding at 79%, with nearly $2.8 billion in unfunded liabilities.

Under state law, this drop below 90% triggers required payments by CPS. That means next year, CPS is required to pay almost $70 million into the fund. That will jump to $120 million in 2008 and $227 million in 2010.

Those are budget-blowing figures. Shorting next year's required contribution will make the future payment schedule even more painful.

It's time for all public officials to admit that Springfield-style math simply won't make the grade. To preserve the fiscal integrity of the CPS and avoid certain financial disaster, the full required payments must be made into the teachers' pension system — next year, the year after and all the years to come

Laurence Msall is president of the Civic Federation, a non-partisan government and tax research organization

All you have to do is compare what is going on in Myanmar with what is going on in the CPS/CTU/CTPRF (except thankfully without the guns) and you can see that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
We cannot have the control of our jobs solely in the hands of people who are obviously in bed with the mayor.
When the pension fund says someone else vetted this real estate firm, I really don't believe them...my question is who is getting the fee for that and whose friend are they.
Quit being so gullible or duplicitous. If you don't doubt, you're going to be jobless and pensionless.

12:53

I'm sure you never believe anyone - except maybe George.

[George Schmidt]

"...The recent retirees couldn't vote because they voted in the May officer election and are still considered active members until that membership runs out in October. Retiree membership begins after that..."

That's nonsense and you know it.

It's also not a "rule" anywhere within the Chicago Teachers Union -- by laws, constitution, or rule-elections procedures approved by the House of Delegates or anyone else. It was a rule made up by the CTU Financial Office (Mark Ochoa) in order to keep June 2007 retirees from voting in the August - September 2007 retiree election.

The fact that is runs counter to both common sense, the calendar, or the interests of the Chicago Teachers Union (as opposed to the Chicago Teachers UPC Union) needs to be addressed, and nonsense challenged.

First, an analogy from the House of Delegates, which helps illustrate the same double standard in action now that the union is the CTUPC...

What CTU/UPC does when a delegate is transferred to another school is immediately remove the delegate form that status at the previous school. Unless the delegate is UPC, in which case UPC/CTU continues giving that delegate a credential -- as happened August 31 - for as long as they can get away with it.

The logic is clear if the purpose of the union is to service the UPC and keep the maximum number of its cadre in patronage jobs within that $25 million annual budget. Every step towards sustaining or increasing power makes sense. Just keep most of the details from the membership. (Again, anyone who is interested should visit ctunet.com or the U.S. Dept. of Labor and ask where the LM-2 reports are...).

If the unoin wants to maintain the largest and strongest membership, then accurate records and a policy are required.

The union card each member holds specifies that the dues are paid through October 31 of the year.

What CTUPC should do when people retire in June is put the balance of their membership dues to their first year's retiree membership dues. Had that policy been followed in June 2007, the number of retiree members of the CTUPC on July 1, 2007, would have been more than 5,000, instead of the 3,500 who were allowed to vote in the retiree balloting between August 31 and September 14.

Doing it that way would then have to be combined with a reminder every September that the retiree had to pay CTU retiree dues, thereby sustaining or even increasing the CTU membership.

As many people here know, at the present time there are about 3,500 members of the Chicago Teachers Union retiree group, where the dues are $24 per year.

By contrast, there are more than 10,643 members of the Retired Teachers Association of Chicago (RTAC), where the dues are much higher. The majority of RTAC members are "Lifetime" members.

From the outside, it might look that the Chicago Teachers Union doesn't want retirees as members, no matter how much we contributed to the Chicago Teachers Union (financially and otherwise) during our decades on active duty.

Yes, and they remain full time members until October, which was said before. Their dues are carried over until then. It's always been like that. Barbara Filas, who has worked in that office for close to 30 years told me that. However, I'm sure you wouldn't believe her anyway. It's convenient for you to make these negative things up.

I paid $100 for lifetime membership to RTAC. That's a lot cheaper that $24/yr. The CTU can't increase the dues unless there's a constitution change.

[George Schmidt]

Thanks, 8:09 PM, for confirming what everyone should know. The CTUPC has a policy and practice (not, as I said, a by-law or constitutional provision, or even a rule approved by Rules-Elections and the House) that carries forward a dysfunctional reality.

I don't know how to put this in single syllables, but here is the challenge. If, upon retirement, every dues paying member of the Chicago Teachers Union immediately was transferred into the Retiree group (RX) and then processed for dues renewal during, say, the month before October 31 (when all regular dues are up), just perhaps the CTU would have more dues paying members. If, as has been suggested, 1,600 teachers retired in June 2007, all of them (since their union dues have been paid) could have been added (as of July 1) to the retiree group.

That would have meant that by August 1, the retiree group would have had 4,100 members (1,600 + 3,500) instead of the current 3,500 members. And the union would have been bigger and theoretically stronger.

Dozens of retirees recently told me they did not know whether or not they had paid their "dues" to CTU. And CTU certainly hasn't gone out of its way to inform them -- or to make them feel welcome. If anything, the opposite is true. The UNWELCOME MAT is out. It's sort of like the sing on the treehouse: KEEP OUT.

But why not something functional, instead of the traditionally dysfunctional that you seem to think is normalcy?

Instead of immediately transferring a teacher from the current to "retiree" ranks, CTU loses membership by continuing the person as an active teacher for up to four months (July, August, September, October) after retirement. The logical thing would be to (a) get the list of all retirees (which they do get) and (b) change status immediately (CTU has the staff talent to do this, then (c) send the retired members a greeting reminding them their new retiree dues have to be paid annually after November 1.

I know Barbara Filas, and like her when she's not setting policy. But the issue isn't what's "always been done" (assuming that part is true) but what should be done to grow the union and sustaint the strength that the retirees bring with all the experience of veterans.

But that's not what the CTUPC does, or wants to do.

Once again this month (it's still September), the retirees have not gotten their Chicago Union Teacher nor have the retirees gotten the union calendar date book.

The American Federation of Teachers can get retiree members of CTU their "American Teacher" during the month it is published, but the Chicago Union Teacher finds this impossible. And, of course, when the Chicago Union Teacher singles out retirees for editorial criticism (see June), that's OK, too.

And it's a sure bet that on Wednesday (when the House of Delegates meets at Plumbers Hall at 4:30), somebody from the CTUPC leadership will again bad mouth some of the retirees (the ones who ask critical questions), while allowing others (the UPC cronies and consultants) to take the floor and rattle on and on endlessly.

George,

The CTU doesn't have the right to "transfer" members to "retiree members". There's no agency fee for retirees. You can't force them to be members. Letters and reminders are sent to them every year.

All other AFT retirees pay full dues, not $24/year, to belong to the AFT. Do you really think retirees are willing to pay that kind of money when they're getting the services they need for $24?

Actually, CTU retirees have a separate AFT charter and could be a separate unit.

[Noreen Rapp]

I've recently starting reading this blog, and while it's always interesting and informative, I am disappointed that almost everyone remains anonymous. This is not a chat room. I know there are some who fear reprisals if they complain about their own school, but so many others could sign their name, for example the "long time member of the R&E committee" (someone from the CTU election committee) probably doesn't need to worry too much -- so she/he gets a few comments and even a little flak. Be real, bloggers, and don't be afraid of your own opinion.

[Re: Noreen Rapp]

Ms. Rapp,

Re:"I've recently starting reading this blog, and while it's always interesting and informative, I am disappointed that almost everyone remains anonymous."

How is an anonymous comment different from the same comment made by someone who lists a name? In what way is the content of a message impacted by anonymity?

Sure, in rare cases a name can lend credence to or detract from a comment. But those cases are few and far between.

So, after you respond to this anonymous comment I'll post this same message again with my name and see if your response is any different. I'll still be a complete unknown to you (effectively anonymous), but at least you'll know my name.

We all have different comfort levels about sharing our identity online. 99% of the time I don't see how it makes any difference.

[Noreen Rapp]

To 4:27 pm:
That's a good point; I didn't think of it that way. I am not used to blogging yet, but I am used to signing my name to things I write, and I'd rather respond to at least a first name that to "4:27".

[George Schmidt]

Anyone who gives as much credence to an anonymous blogger as to someone who signs a name (or is well known under a pseudonym) eventually gets what he deserves. Credibility rides on the credibility of the source as well as the information. The anonymous "RE member" (from CTU) is simply lying or misinformed about a dozen things that happened during the recent retiree election. Without a live source, it's impossible to decide which.

I was very interested covering "Yearly kos" (the huge netroots bloggers' convention in Chicago first weekend of August) that every one of the major bloggers there was ID'd. The pseudonym was like the old tags or handles for CB radio users. Seven of the eight major candidates for President of the USA (Democratic Party; the only one missing was Joe Biden) spent the better part of the day at that convention. First, they appeared in a general session (photograph on page one of the September 2007 Substance) and later in break outs that were never more than a few hundred people.

I can't think of a major blogger from that event and that particular blogging sector who plays the "anonymous" game. While blogging is a relatively new form of communications, the old rules of verification and sourcing eventually apply.

[anonymous blogger]

Given that George was up at 4:13 AM (central time) this morning bogging and signed his name does create confidence in the crediability of his posting.

Noreen, many people here work for the district and are exchanging and posting information either being suppressed or that we aren't being freely allowed to discuss in the workplace.

I don't know how long it would have taken for the press to take seriously the problems being caused by IMPACT if school users hadn't been exchanging notes in this forum. Shame on the press for not covering the story and saving the techs who went down warning Runcie and gang of the big gaps not getting covered. They spent 75 percent of their time denying and assasinating the characters of good people, and about 25 percent in hurriedly slapping together quick 'fixes' they thought wouldn't be noticed.

Even the things that work, work predicated on the assumption that teachers spend eighty to ninety five percent of the work day in front of a computer screen, not in front of students.

When these are the reactions to observing the Board's practices in hiring, purchasing, technology, special education, etc., its pretty hard to consider posting your name.

Myself, I'm just glad to feel vindicated when I see others seeing what I'm seeing.

Not crazy yet - hooray.

[George Schmidt]

When the students at Wells High School finally get their "real" programs this Friday -- because IMPACT messed up everything the school hadn't with its creative version of programming -- will any reporter be there to dig a little and tell the story in real time. And then will anybody go back in six months, tell the complete narrative, and challenge Arne Duncan to stop bashing the teachers (and some of the principals, i.e., the ones who don't kiss his ass) in the general high schools when PSAE test scores are "challenged"?

There are between 30 and 40 high schools in Chicago where the majority of the kids just lost a month of instruction because of Arne's crazy policies. That has not happened anywhere else in the United States except New Orleans. And it isn't allowed in most major cities, even ones as seemingly "corrupt" as Chicago.

Were Arne Duncan and Robert Runcie on Fullerton Ave. last Tuesday (a week ago) when the IMPACT implosion helped feed that major gang fight after school let out at Kelvyn Park?

When teenagers don't know where to go to class and a school doesn't have enough staff and organization -- thanks for Duncanian sabotage -- to handle the large crowds, things can get out of hand quickly.

The saddest thing of all is that the "good" kids (the majority) who arrived a month ago with their new supplies and ready to study and learn have been driven to cynicism by now. But since most of their parents are working two or three jobs to keep the families together, they haven't told Mom and Dad about the problems back at school.

IMPACT has sabotaged Chicago's general high schools. Some of them managed an almost stable opening because the staffs knew that something bad was coming and didn't rely on the promises of central office to hold the lid on. Central to every high school is having stable programs as soon as possible after opening day. In the past, Duncan's policies forced principals to beg for staff, so there was always some disruption. This year, IMPACT put the problems into another dimension.

Yet except for a couple of paragraphs (with no front line visuals or in depth look) there has been no real coverage. And if, as everyone knows, the Daley administration is most concerned about avoiding negative TV images, then the white out has been complete. The IMPACT problem didn't really exist. Nor did it cost mullions of dollars.

IMPACT sabotaged most of the general high schhools. Even more than, say, Duncan putting the Engelwood "Achievement Academy" inside Phillips last month -- so that the preened kids from "Team Englewood" and "Urban Prep" can do a couple of more media events this year (while Phillips festers, especially during the lunch periods). Why did Duncan evict the most needy kids from Englewood just when the latest Potemkin Village was opening up?

Of course, the rendering of that story would headline that Phillips had gone "Out of control" and had to be saved by privatization and charterization. Which may well become the story in a few months. Without, of course, the fine print and all the details.

Not that Arne Duncan and the Board of Education had screwed Phillips (Wells, etc.) so that they could push their crazy agendas witht the help of the Sun-Times and others...