Although I understand your (and/or the public’s) shock and anger with the above story, I would caution readers not to adopt a double standard.

If you have seen Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story”, or have done any research into funding of political campaigns, you will know that large institutions of all kinds fund political campaigns.  In the case of banks like Goldman Sachs, they not only funded politicians, they were one of the chief causes of the financial collapse.  Were they reprimanded? No. They were rewarded with a generous bailout package.  Furthermore, those same failed bankers now have very cushy positions on the Federal Reserve Bank Board.  In other words, failed bankers are in charge of the US Banking System - nice.

To put it in the terms outlined above, the equivalent scenario would be to have poor teachers not only protected by the union, but running for, and being elected as trustees to police themselves.  If it is bad to have unions back political campaigns of people they find suit their needs, then it is bad for ALL large companies to do the same.  You seriously can’t expect me to believe that our chartered banks do not contribute to the campaigns of politicians like Jim Flaherty.

What I find interesting is that most Canadians feel private funding by banks acceptable (remember, we the customers of the banks are giving them the money to spend on politicians), but unions can’t.  Sorry, seems absurd.  Which is why I do try to divorce politics from classroom instruction and improving student success.

This has been to the Supreme Court. They said governments have one of 2 choices:

(a) All corporate and union money out.

or

(b) All corporate and union money in. Limits on amounts are allowed.

Actually, in Toronto large corporations AND unions are not permitted to donate to campaigns of councillors, but can contribute to trustees (go figure!)
http://www.toronto.ca/elections/contribution-info.htm#eligible

In federal elections, the last liberal government limited the amounts that individuals can contribute and corporations are no longer permitted to make contributions.  So no, banks can’t contribute to Min. Flaherty’s campaign. 

The difference is that banks don’t form ‘groups’ like Campaign for Banking Freedom and spend money on election ads.  Nor would they be permitted to anyway—there’s rules about doing that Federally too.  It’s called Third Party advertsing.  Here’s who spent what on the 2008 Federal election:  http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=fin&document=index&dir=thi/advert/tp40&lang=e  I don’t see any banks or businesses there.

Provincially the limits are different http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/Tools/FinancialStatementsandContributions/PoliticalContributions.htm

I’m not arguing for or against freedom to influence campaigns.  Just stating the facts. Some libertarians believe that anybody or group should be able to spend on election advertising.  SQE does not have a postion on this.  Just pointing out the information.

I’m sorry, Doretta, but I must respectfully disagree.  Bankers do form groups, like the Canadian Bankers Assoc.  Real Estate Agents form groups like OREA and CREA.  Part of the mission of such groups is to support political campaigns and endorse candidates ‘friendly’ to their causes.  We have trade associations of all stripes in Canada.

I do not endorse contributions from any and all groups to ‘sway’ candidates.  What I am saying is that we have a fairly free and open lobbying process.  To pick on one group and deny them their access is unfair.  Furthermore, governments have found that where large political contributions were banned, many small donations from individuals (and in some cases their minor dependents) in the same organization were given in a block to a candidate.

I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m pointing out the facts.  Lobbying is an entirely different activity than making a campaign contribution.  All special interest groups try to lobby, either governments or public opinion,  in some form or other—(that’s why they’re considered “special interests”) but not all of them make or are even allowed to write a cheque to a politician’s campaign.  I’m merely trying to clarify the facts about who can make a political contribution- that’s all.

Regardless of the facts, the teachers’ unions being able to buy candidates to run for election as trustees is wrong and makes a mockery of our democratic system.  This process is wrong, and, Mr. Ng, this should be picked on.

It would be a useful issue to raise with those running for a trustee position. 

” Why are the teacher unions funding so much of your campaign and what are you offering in return?”

On the comparison to other contributions in other jurisdictions the difference, IMO, is that teacher unions and related union fronts are funding almost all of some trustee’s campaigns.

Irene Atkinson was receiving almost all of her funding from organizations over which her role as trustee required her to make direct decisions about.

This should be front page headlines, folks , and let the public decide how legit it is.

I visualize it rather like a negotiating table where both parties are on one side of the table; who represents the public interest?

Same Deplorable School Board Scenario in BC

We in BC had the experience in the last round of school trustee elections of having the teacher unions in many locals actually obtaining pledges from candidates to support a list of union causes.  Then these pledged candidates obtained the full services as mentioned in your article to achieve election.

We also have ex-teacher-union leaders as trustees.  We also have ex-employees from the head office of the teacher union as trustees.  We also have practicing teachers from other districts becoming trustees in another district.

Lay control of public education is a sham and a farce.  It’s also so very unfair, unfair, UNFAIR !

I’ve written about New Zealand which has 2460 school boards where each school has a board as follows:

-  between three and seven parent elected trustees
-  the principal of the school
-  one staff elected trustee
-  one student elected trustee (in schools with students above Year 9)

We are in the midst of an investigation of our College of Teachers which rules on competence, discipline, certification, and behavior of teachers in BC.  The cause of the need for an investigation is to determine if the College can actually be, or be perceived to be, independent, considering the amount of “perceived” influence of the BCTF on the BCCT.

A comment today about the delays in this investigation expresses some of the anger and frustration people here feel about the teacher union (BCTF):

“Time to de-certify the teachers’ union and have them operate like lawyers and doctors with a professional organization.  They want to be called professionals yet they act like Jimmy Hoffa.”

I find the whole process wide open to the potential of abusing their position as trustees, for personal gain, at the expense of children’s education. Many of the rules in place are not enforce, and in the rare time they are enforce, it is usually based on political maneuvers.

When a trustee accepts donations from large groups of people that are perceived as having insider’s knowledge, or are seen as being effective workers/advocates for the group causes, there is the expectation that the donation is payment for future services that is attached to the monies. This is the norm. It is only when our elected trustees, and for that matter our elected representatives chooses a course of action, that works countered to the best interests and the expectations of the donation dollars., there is political trouble for the individual. At a trustee position,  there is hell to pay, when shifting away from the expectations of the donation monies, compared to higher levels where elected representation plays a role.

The system as set up presently, is a system that limits participation to all, and plays havoc with the tenets of democracy. Playing one special interest group against another, to gain political brownie points, rather than working toward effective policy decisions, that will strike a fair balance, between the completing interests.

Is is a large part of the reason trustees get no respect from their communities any more.

Not only do the unions prop up trustees they know will tow their line, their message filters down through the board to school councils where the parent puppet organizations work in tandem with the union-selected trustees to further whitewash the system.

-semestering
- balanced school day
- ELP

ALL initiated by the unions and supported by faux parent groups.

Time for a proposal to work toward a boardless Ontario.

They are the biggest money suckers going.

What baffles me is why doesn’t our media ever talk about what is really going on in education, such as this thread about the unions buying the majority of trustees (and also provincial politicians)?  This corruption needs to be dealt with—it’s seriously compromising our freedom as citizens.  The media, by exposing this, could at least make us aware of what’s really going on.  The unions must be bullying them as well.

If you are in the Kitchener-Waterloo listening area, I’m going to be on Gary Doyle’s show at noon today: 570 AM or listen live on the web http://www.570news.com/listen

“Regardless of the facts ... Mr. Ng.”?  Surely as adults we can have a friendly difference of opinion.  As far as the facts, one thing that I have always enjoyed about the people posting here is their strict adherence to the facts.  You are not swayed by opinions and want research and data to back up opinions.

Funny, as soon as politics enters the picture, reason exits.  I did say that I am against teachers involving themselves in trustee elections - as well as every other group.  As voters, we should be asking why petroleum companies are backing the candidacy of incumbent environment ministers, for example.  Or why banks backed the nomination of certain people for the Bank of Canada.

I have worked in industry as well, and it was made clear to me which candidates were best for the ‘cause’.  As far as unions having ‘power’ to tell teachers who to vote for, they don’t.  If you want to argue that they use their ‘expertise’ to sway teachers who to vote for, they lost that expertise with Bob Rae.  For myself and many of my colleagues, if we do listen to our union to find out who they are backing, we do it to find out who NOT to vote for.

Let’s also be consistent.  On how many different threads have you argued with Dean/Doug that the union elite does not speak for the average teacher?  How many times have you said that the average teacher does not listen to union ‘thugs’?  Yet, now, you argue that we do.  Sorry, I agreed with you before, I can’t now.  You were correct before - teachers do not listen to the union, especially in politics.

Wayne, you made my morning!  I’m sure you are right or why else would the hated Harris have won back to back majorities.  )

Actually, Doretta, you may have something there!

It would be interesting to find out what union members did during that period.  Even if they didn’t vote for Harris, by pulling their vote and abstaining; or by splitting the vote between NDP and Liberal; did that allow two majorities?

Mr. Ng, were all of your comments toward me?  If so, I have never once argued with Dean aka Doug that the teachers don’t usually listen to their unions (but I do agree that they’re behaviour is oftentimes thuggish).
Your other points, I’ll have to discuss—in an adult way—later…

I recall a TVO spot just recently as Steve Pakin sat down to talk to Mike Harris on the anniversary of one or both of his wins (can’t recall) but Harris clearly said, and Pakin agreed that it was individual teachers not their unions who helped elect him to two majorities.

So, yes, teachers didn’t listen to their union brass or buy the rhetoric, however, when it comes to programs and manipulation of the school day, why is it that the rank & file seem to cave to the union brass?

Those three things I listed above were driven by the unions not individual schools or boards.

Union sent out key messages and talking points for board admin. and their pet parent organizations and parents dutifully show up at information meetings to add their two cents to the issue when the truth is that decisions have already been made.

Locally parents were pissed that our board went back to semesters after having been one of the only boards in the province to move to non-semestered school years.

The tail wagging the dog union/board process unfolded as describe above.

Chuck,

I don’t like to argue, butt clarify your point.  The programs you listed were initiated and driven by the Ministry of Education.  In fact, the Ministry of Education is my boss.  Clearly spelled out in the Education Act is that teachers must follow Ministry Policy.

The fact that these initiatives help unions is ancillary.  You also can’t ignore ministry initiatives (like no zeros, no lates, etc.) that the unions opposed.  The union is not always in lock step with the Ministry.  However, with our new ‘Education Premier’ vs the previous one that opposed anything union, it would appear that they are in cahoots - but that would be optics, not reality.

By all means criticize the unions for what they do wrong (I know I do ) but make sure that they are actually guilty of what you are suggesting.

in the case of moving to semesters you’re incorrect Wayne. That was a board by board choice at the time.
In our board it was decided to stay with desemestering because it was widely supported and preferred by parents and teachers liked it to.

Semestering came with a change in the philosophy of the school board administration to increase the number of teachers. Semestering employs more teachers than does desemestering - or so we were told .

Re: Balanced School Day - it was driven by the unions as per the super. of the Waterloo board who told parents as much when they fought the new program.
The BSD guaranteed teachers their increased prep. time. The impression given was that boards could move to the BSD if they wished but I believe the Waterloo super.

Chuck, I’ll agree with you on the de-semestering.  However, the BSD issue is very foggy.  It arose out of the PDT (Provincial Discussion Table - or framework if you like).  The government negotiated a bargaining framework for unions and boards to start from and complete the rest on their own.  When the government negotiated greater prep time for the elementary teachers - almost every board (including Bluewater) wanted to go to the balanced school day.

I heard from several of our union negotiators who said that they gave the board half a dozen ways of meeting the PDT without going to the balanced day.  In other words, the board adopted that policy against union objections.  From the general roll out of this policy across the province, I would suspect that boards wanted this all along and used the PDT as a convenient scapegoat.

Why?  Good question.  Here’s a theory (not tested!):  the current generation of surpervisory officers (superintendents, principals and VP’s) have had clear. logical thought bred out of them.  The boards want compliance, not creativity.  As such, they are extremely bad at mundane tasks such as scheduling.  BSD make the school much easier to timetable.

Proof?  An example from secondary school:  we used to have exam days in the gym.  Every grade 9 math student wrote their exam in the gym at the same time - every student wrote the same exam and had the same chance at success or failure.  Our VP at the time would lock himself in the office for a week to schedule all exams with as few conflicts as possible.  Now?  All students write exams in their classrooms by period - ie: Period A Thursday, Period B Friday, and so on.  Now each teacher writes exams for their class, not collaborating as in the past.  Could I make my exam harder/easier than Teacher Y in last period?  Yes.  Is that good for the students? No.  Who does it benefit? Administration.

There are still schools in the province that didn’t go to the BSD Wayne. In the end that model just didn’t work for all communities.

The BSD was sold to parents in the same way you describe. Improved achievement, more focus on math and reading, healthier for kids, blah,blah,blah.

We’ll have to disagree on the impetus but I believe the former director of the Waterloo Board.

Bev, it is not corrupt if it is legal. It has been in the media many many times. The media and the voters are just not that interested.

What does this ‘legal’ way do ease our conscience?  Your union has no business taking taxpayers’ money and using it (i.e.: using board resources) for their own gains—especially when it compromises our democratic system.  What adjective would you like to hear then, ‘Dean’?  How about unethical, morally depraved?  Oh wait!  Morally depraved means corrupt.  Darn we’re right back where we started…

Careful Bev,  you used introduced the term ‘ethical’.  Ethics involves a higher standard than the law.  Remember, Dean Little has a difficult time understanding higher standards.

Here is a link, that shows the negative impacts on BSD.

http://www.illinoisloop.org/blocksched.html

Lots of Canadian research on it. Parents are sold a bill of goods, like Chuck has stated.

Again Doug, school boards should change the rules, where unions pay for the services, just like a school parent group does, when using resources that was brought and paid for by taxpayers monies.
There is no difference between the activities of the two groups - school parent groups or teachers’ unions. Both are conducting activities directed at their intended targets. One is parents and the other is teachers.

This all comes out of the negotiations. The teachers say ” I guess we could take 1/4 % less and 5 cents less on the benefits if the board continued to deliver our mail, and deduct union dues from our pay checks. Board says OK sure, that would be the democratically elected school board under the oversight of the democratically elected provincial legislature that says this is all legal that Bev thinks is undemocratic.

I know, she has a higher authority that 2 levels of democracy as her standard. I’m betting that most people want to stay with elections to figure out who makes these decisions.

The TDSB tried to stop OSSTF from delivering newsletters highly critical of the TDSB through the TDSB mail. It went to arbitration. The arbitrator told the board, “how many times do I have to tell you that the content of union communications is none of your business. Next time you will need to be fined.”

You know very well Doug, you are being cute but not at all adorable. It does not make it right, using the board’s resources for free, using contract negotiations as your reasons. Show me a contract, that states it, and I show you the same contract where it was added back on, somewhere, three times fold.

Parent councils and other parents should have the right to the same resources, but we do not have that luxury. Perhaps parents should start to demand something back in return, when paying out school fees at the beginning of the year, on top of the supplies that are demanded at the first of the year. Working at GM, the union still does not have the right to used the resources of GM to communicate to their members. Neither should the teachers’ union.

An arbitrator is not court, and the ruling can only be considered a ruling, and not a legal law in the truest sense. Rulings can be change. Contracts can be change. And yes, public service contracts can be change. Is there legal implications? Yes, but when a contract is breeched, than it is up to the union to take the board to court. It would be funny to see a teachers’ union take the board to court, over .025 % per teacher, where the costs would far exceed the gain made, if any gain.

Perhaps, the teachers’ unions are heavily involved in selecting and promoting trustees, because they are more likely to follow the union’s lead to their wishes and desires, in keeping perks of the job, that very few others have the privilege.

It could well be teachers unions that play a distorting role in school board elections, but far more influential in the Maritimes are special interest groups such as Canadian Parents for French (possibly the most invasive), Canadian Association for Community Living, and any number of groups who have organized around the potential closure of a school. During our last school board election, I had a choice among three candidates running on basic platform of “saving” a school that should have been closed years ago.

It is facinating to me that many conservatives fight FOR the right of corporations to be involved in elections, witness the major Supreme Court decision in the USA and against unions doing the same thing.

Somehow corporations are ok but not unions. The courts have said you can ban both or neither but you cannot ban just one.

BTW most unions are incorporated and are, in fact, corporations.

“BTW most unions are invorporated and are, in fact, corporations.”
No kidding Doug aka Dean!  And you call yourselves the compassionate left?  The only thing you’re compassionate about is power.  Doesn’t matter whom you tread on either.  Your corporations need the reins pulled in on you just like any other large powerfull corporation.  Unfortunately, it’s just not happening yet.