The sad state of the IEA.


I spent the last few days in Rosemont at the Illinois Representative Assembly as a retired delegate.

There was twenty minutes of debate surrounded by two and a half days of mostly self-deception orchestrated by IEA leadership.

One month before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1 and pension theft, members have no idea what we might expect  the inevitable next round of attacks on our pensions will look like. Nor do we know how or if we are prepared to fight the attacks.


The RA did pass a carefully worded, cautious and vetted legislative amendment on opt-out.

I posted it in full yesterday.

The IEA submitted the amendment to the legislative platform because the IEA was not in compliance with the NEA’s Toxic Testing position as adopted at last year’s convention in Denver.

Plus, they were hearing from teachers across the state that PARCC testing was taking a terrible toll on classroom instruction.

And on teachers’ sanity.

But the IEA still refuses to support specific legislation on opting out, such as HB306.

What is a legislative platform if it has no impact on current legislation?

When delegates Conrad Floeter and IEA Region Chair Marsha Griffin attempted a New Business Item calling on IEA to provide training to members for the purposes of working with parents to organize against high-stakes and redundant testing, it was quickly voted down when the leadership made clear its opposition.


For many of the delegates who I talked with there was great frustration with the lack of discussion and debate at this meeting.

Many veterans said it was the least discussion and debate at an RA in their memory.

For many it was particularly frustrating given that we are at a significant crossroads for unions, public education and pensions. The sense of concern and urgency that I hear from teachers in  classrooms was not present in the Hyatt Regency O’Hare ballroom.


ShiAnne Shively from Region 5 and Tim Allaire from Region 58 offered up an amendment to the IEA legislative platform that would have replaced:

The Association also remains opposed to any unconstitutional changes to the laws governing retirement benefits that diminish or impair current members benefits. However, the Association supports any proposal that otherwise creates practical and constitutional solutions which sustain the long term viability of the pension systems.

ShiAnne and Tim’s amendment would have substituted that language with:

The Association opposes any diminishment of the pension benefits for current and future members.

After several delegates, including fellow retired delegate Glen Brown, spoke in favor the the amendment, IEA General Councel Mitch Roth went to the podium and announced that if the substitution of the amendment language was approved, the IEA would have to withdraw from the We Are One coalition.

Even for an old veteran like me, this was a stunning statement. It was false but doomed the amendment.

I went to the mic and, still reeling from MItch’s statement, even fumbled his name (Mitch is a guy I have known and have had a cordial relationship for years). But I was still able to get my question out.

“How would this language put us at odds with the other members of the coalition when it is the exact language the coalition’s attorney, Gino DiVito, representing all of, used in his oral argument before the Supreme Court?”

Mitch began to answer when President Cinda Klickna leaned into her microphone and sternly told me to finish my question, apparently failing to notice that I already had finished my question and that the General Counsel was already well into his response.

It was one of many surreal moments of the weekend.


Why was the substitute language important?

Because the IEA leadership had used the “however,” to bargain SB2404. That senate bill was the defensive maneuver that they had hoped would derail the more draconian SB1.

That strategy was wrong on two counts: It still diminished benefits that were protected under the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution. And it failed anyway.

Many of us wrote and spoke up at the time that this was a wrong strategy. The Illinois Retired Teachers Association refused to go along with it and were blasted by IEA leadership.

A high-level staffer in the IEA confided to me this weekend that if they had known the courts were going to rule as they did in their Kanerva decision, the IEA would never have pushed for SB2404.

In Kanerva the court ruled that state retirement health care benefits were protected under the pension protection clause and turned away the very arguments that the state argued in defense of SB1.

It is clear that the IEA leadership will never admit before the delegates and their members that they were wrong about SB2404.


When the court rules SB1 unconstitutional, what will happen next?

Rauner’s proposal to move current employees to Tier 2 – meaning a reduction in benefits – will never survive a court challenge.

A bill is already before the legislature to amend the constitution to remove the pension protection clause.

If it passes the legislature the change in the language in the constitution will be placed on a statewide ballot.

There was no discussion of this at the RA, although it is the existential threat to teacher and public employee pensions.

Removing the protection clause will not erase the state’s current $100 billion plus pension liability. It will not directly affect current retirees.

I will likely receive my pension until I die if the system has any money.

The same cannot be said for most of the delegates sitting in the ballroom of the Hyatt or the thousands of public school teachers in the state.

The sad news was that we are not prepared to fight this fight.

The IEA has not won a political battle in 32 years.

That was 1983 when we won the right to collective bargaining in Illinois.


In 2007 I had long discussions with the IEA Executive Director.

He told me that our union no longer had to worry about collective bargaining. He said that the main job of our Association was to stand in the forefront of quality teaching and quality schools.

I disagreed that these were contradictory. We have to fight for our right to collective bargaining every day. We fight for it with every grievance we file. We fight for it with every contract we bargain.. We fight for it when we demand needed services  for our students without fear of being fired.

The Executive Director went on to be the senior advisor to Arne Duncan.

Yet his views were not his and his alone. They have come to dominate our Association.

If what we have is an association that is impatient with discussions and debates at its meetings, how will we be armed to fight the biggest threats we have faced since winning the right to collective bargaining?

Collective bargaining and pension rights are now under attack by the most powerful forces in the country.

We are not an army trained to fight.


Hopefully I will keep the pension we fought for.

But the members in the hall are passengers on the Titanic and the captain doesn’t even want them to know or talk about that their might be a leak.

Let alone that we are sinking.

15 Replies to “The sad state of the IEA.”

  1. I am sorry but not surprised to read this report of IEA’s failed leadership, which it demonstrates on a regular basis and without apology. IEA members, both current and retired, are indeed on a sinking ship, and its name is the Illinois Education Association. The political siege that is being waged against public employees, educators, and labor unions will never be challenged by IEA. In fact, they are part of the assault. IEA locals and union members everywhere should look to the living wage campaign for inspiring examples of organized resistance, creative leadership, real coalition building, political organizing, media messaging, and worker empowerment. IEA is incapable of these union basics. Let it sink. Before it does, abandon ship, and take your membership dues with you.

  2. Dear Fred,

    Why should anyone continue to support the I.E.A. given it’s present positions on standardized testing and state pensions?

    This is why the I.R.T.A. attracts the support of so many retired teachers. They can and do fight to resist these corrosive attitudes about public education! Perhaps the I.R.T.A. could form chapters of “future retirees and supporters” so that those who wish to resist this sellout have somewhere else to go?

    Collective bargaining, sound educational practices, and contract rights are major reasons for the I.E.A.’s existence. If they are unwilling to stand up for students, parents, or their own members, why support them?

    As far as We Are One is concerned, I am skeptical of the I.E.A.’s claim. But if it is true, the I.E.A. SHOULD quit! Why volunteer to get thrown under the bus so everyone else can lose little or nothing? Is that the I.E.A.’s idea of “shared sacrifice”? That teachers should sacrifice so everyone else doesn’t have to?

  3. Ironically, I was at 2 Chicago schools distributing opt-out fliers & explaining (they were our for parent-teacher conferences, so they also received some parent-retired teacher conferences!) w/the Albany & North park, Mayfair Peace & Justice group. One of the participants had asked me why the IFT & IEA hadn’t merged (she’s IFT), & was disappointed about it. I replied that I, too, was in favor of that–one BIG union–& had also been talking it up for years.
    It would appear that the IEA-R is the faction that’s full of piss-&-vinegar. Perhaps we should secede & join w/IFT-R?
    At least we’d have one BIG unified retired union–& you wouldn’t have to go through this seemingly yearly, endless dog-&-pony-show. Just sayin’.

    1. Of course you’re right, Mike. That’s been the mantra for years (even before I retired in 2010). However, the current actives have to make this happen, & the state is doing a pretty good job of exhausting (not to mention demoralizing, which, of course, adds to the exhaustion) them to the point of collapse. The rank-&-file have to make this happen (as they did in another state–MA, I think-?) Current teachers–please know I’m not criticizing you–my hat is off to you all–these are, indeed, dark days for the teaching profession.

  4. I just read an article that predicts a big teacher shortage in a few years. It predicts teachers will “maybe even retire in mass”. As more old timer hard-liner union people retire, union representation is going to get even weaker. College students see how teachers are being treated, it is no wonder they are not considering teaching as a career. Schools will fill the ranks with TFA’s that have been indoctrinated with anti-union propaganda. Then a race to the bottom will follow, eventually the TFA’s will vote the union out, lured by false promises from school boards. The only way the unions will prevent this is to start acting like unions. The CTU, Hinsdale, and Waukegan are a few that still act like unions. They are a tiny minority, and seeing the horrible treatment they received makes many a student decide to go into “anything but teaching”.

  5. This is very well written, Fred.  You have spoken succinctly when you comment that the representative assembly refuses to take the time to listen to debate.  I fear these delegates are the result of hippie college instructors who taught their students that it’s better to just “get along with one another”.Please don’t stop blogging. Those few of us who can see beyond our noses need you.  One of these days the inert masses will remember what was said at the IEA 2015 convention. Then they will work harder than ever before to repeal the governors proposed amendment to the state constitution.Thanks for all your efforts.Mary Richie

  6. Here’s how I see it.

    Retirees are highly respected. Their experience and institutional knowledge are quite valuable.

    But time marches on. It’s someone else’s time. It’s someone else’s era.

    A younger generation is now in charge. They see the work, and the union, in a different way than do those who started teaching in the 1970s.

    When you propose amendments “out of boredom,” and when you can’t be bothered to be in the room with the other members of the delegation when business you’re not interested in is being discussed, and when you can’t be bothered to even show up for the last day’s work, you undermine your case for being taken seriously.

    That’s just not how leaders behave.

    Leaders also don’t trash their union, in a fit of pique after a successful convention, simply because they didn’t get their way. The delegates made their decisions. They weren’t controlled or dictated to by the leadership. The delegates decided.

    When you attack the outcome of the RA, you’re attacking your fellow delegates.

    I’m sure it’s painful to realize that you cannot move delegates. Taking your frustration out on IEA leadership makes you appear small and works against your desire to be noticed and considered relevant to union discussions in 2015.

    1. Bob, this is how I see it. When your side of an argument has no force you attack the person making the argument. Shame on you!

    2. When the IEA spends $4 million in campaign contributions to Kirk Dillard, chairman of A.L.E.C., in last year’s Republican primary, the leadership of the IEA deserves criticism. When the leadership of the IEA supports the unconstitutional Sb 2404, a slightly milder version of Sb 1, the leadership of the IEA deserves criticism. When the IEA leadership doesn’t support “op-out” legislation against the horrendous volume of standardized testing, it deserve criticism. When the leaders are not prepared for the Sb 1 court decision, the leaders deserve criticism. By anyone’s standard, the IEA leadership deserves some real criticism!

      1. The IEA has been adrift and taking on water for a long time. The $4 million was spent trying to avoid an iceberg, (Rauner). Too little too late, and too bad for all public employees. This is going to be a long 4 years.

  7. It’s enough you notice me, Bob. And that you obviously feel I’m relevant enough for you to comment on my lack of relevancy. I’m hearing you that time has past us retirees by and that we should just sit quietly in the back of the hall. No thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s