The odd case of the Mark Kirk IEA endorsement.
The other day I wrote a post about the congressional race in the 10th District of Illinois.
Ilya Sheyman is running in the Democratic Party primary. Although this suburban Chicago north shore district has generally elected Republicans, the new reconfigured borders make it even more competitive than it already was. And it already was competitive. Sheyman is the progressive choice in the new 10th CD, and the political arm of the IEA should endorse him and teachers should vote for him.
The IEA likes to promote itself as non-partisan, meaning they endorse Republicans.
I don’t find this to be the problem since these days you can hardly tell the difference between most Democrats and most Republicans. Rahm is a Democrat and he’s trying to bust the teachers union. Madigan is the state’s Democratic Chairman and he’s out for teacher pensions. Governor Quinn’s a Democrat and he gave millions of tax credits to CME and Sears. The New York Times article on Congressional millionaires points out that most of the richest members of Congress are Democrats.
The problem I have with IPACE endorsements is that they value electability over principles. If you are an incumbent legislator and have voted with the IEA on a narrow list of education issues, you get the endorsement. It doesn’t matter what else you stand for or if your opponent is far better on a broad range of other social issues, even if those issues are supported by the IEA.
As in the case of Mark Kirk.
So when a young, progressive, pro-labor, African-American candidate named Dan Seals ran for congress against Kirk, the IEA endorsed Kirk. And Seals lost by 2% of the vote.
When IPACE endorsed Kirk I raised objections at a Region meeting with past IEA President Ken Swanson. Our Region includes parts of the 10th Congressional District. IEA members who live in the 10th were at the meeting and raised their concerns that the IEA had by-passed local members in selecting Kirk.
Swanson said that the IEA and IPACE endorsement process needed review. But Swanson left office with no review. And nothing has been heard about it from the new IEA President, Cinda Klickna.
Here’s where things get kind of hinky.
in 2010 the IEA endorsed Kirk again for Senate in the Republican primary. They also endorsed David Hoffman in the Democratic Primary. Kirk won. Hoffman lost to Alexi Giannoulias.
The IEA endorsed Giannoulias in the general election. Kirk defeated him as well.
Can the IEA-endorsed candidate stop spending IEA money after the primary. I don’t think so.
When I pointed this all out in a recent post, I got a response from someone named “Mac.”
Let me suggest that “Mac” is the IEA Director of Communications, Charlie McBarron. I may be wrong. But read the comments. You make the call.
“Mac” split some hairs with me about whether an endorsement in the primary is not really an endorsement. But when I produced an IEA press release that said that the IEA recommended Mark Kirk for senate, communications from “Mac” stopped.
What’s odd about this is this:
Should the Communications Director of the IEA, who is staff, be sending anonymous corrections about IEA policy to a member who is a blogger? I mean, we weren’t discussing issues unrelated to the IEA. And he said my facts were wrong. Which they weren’t. I produced the press release that Charlie or one of his staff wrote, declaring the IEA endorsement of Kirk for senate.
Secondly. If the IEA endorses someone, should they later deny it? What is the point of an endorsement if you’re actions suggest that you are ashamed you made it? If the point is gaining influence with the candidate, how does the denial work for you?
Of course, if “Mac” isn’t Charlie, than a lot of this is moot.
IEA says they defend teachers, yet they support using test score measures to evaluate teacher performance. They say they will defend our pensions, yet they are willing to go to the table to negotiate increasing the teacher portion paid to TRS. They say they stand for teachers, yet the executive director sits on the advisory board of a an organization that includes some of the very corporate reformers we are fighting against. IEA has turned its back on those who have been willing to fight for us (remember Rep. David Miller?), yet we continue to endorse candidates who accepted money from organizations like Stand for Children. It appears that IEA leadership believes that the only way to survive in this political environment is to be as two-faced as possible, so that when the heat is on our opponents will know that a deal can be made with us. All the while, the energy, will and passion of the rank-and-file are never called upon.
When Audrey visited our negotiations meeting last week and attempted to criticize Karen Lewis and the CTU, I saw the cowardness of our organization, I saw inside the soul of a leadership that sees no fight and no willingness to call upon the strength of its membership.
What in the hell is Audrey saying about Karen Lewis at local meetings? Seriously, if anyone ever needed to resign in shame, it’s Audrey.