Apparently we weren't the only ones appalled by the Washington Post's decision to attack Montgomery County teachers and their right to be involved in local elections.
Unbeknownst to us, a contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report decided the Post's attack was so outrageous that it warranted a response. See John Farrell's blog posting at the link below:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2010/02/11/washington-post-gets-hysterical-over-teachers-union-thuggery.html
Thanks John!
Tom Israel
MCEA Executive Director.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 08, 2010
Doug Prouty Responds to Washington Post Attack
Last weekend, MCEA President Doug Prouty distributed an email to all MCEA members responding to this morning's nasty editorial in the Washington Post attacking the rights of Montgomery County teachers to be involved in local elections.
=====================.
Dear MCEA Members,
Today the editorial board of the Washington Post decided to run a broadside attack on the rights of Montgomery County teachers to be involved in politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020404421.html ).
The Post’s editors have a long history of union bashing (see the blog posting: “Is the Washington Post Credible on Labor Issues?” at http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-washington-post-credible-on-labor.html ). But we wanted to provide you with more information to understand – and explain to others – just why the Post’s editorial board is so wrong.
1. Their fundamental allegation is their belief that MCEA “…is hiring its own bosses”. The Post ignores the fact that it is the voters who elect the County Council and Board of Education, not us. If Montgomery County voters consistently elect politicians who support public education, it is because Montgomery County is a community that supports public education.
2. The Post’s position contradicts itself. On the one hand, they say that teachers “deserve good salaries and benefits for doing a tough and important job”. But then they attack a “twisted system (that) has fueled skyrocketing payroll costs”. If they submitted that kind of contradictory argument in a debating club, they’d be laughed out of the room.
3. MCEA has one of the most transparent and participatory candidate recommendation processes of any organization in the county or the state. Unlike at the Post, candidates are not endorsed by a small group that meets behind closed doors. Our recommendations are made by the Representative Assembly - a group of hundreds of educators who are elected at each school and office across the county. We are the only organization we know of that publishes a rubric of the criteria we use in making recommendations (http://www.mcea.nea.org/pdf/MCEACandidateRecommendationProcess.pdf). All candidates are interviewed by committees of volunteer rank-and-file members, and fill out questionnaires about their views on critical issues of education policy.
4. MCEA’s coordinated campaign work is not unusual, and certainly not illegal. Despite the Post’s allegations, nobody pays to be on the Apple Ballot. But once the Rep Assembly makes its recommendations, we do all we can to help elect those candidates. In 2006, most of our recommended candidates voluntarily made contributions so we could do additional direct mail and advertising on their behalf. This is no different from county political parties that collect contributions from their candidates to fund the parties’ mailings to voters; or the common ‘district slates’ where state delegates and senators make contributions to a ‘team PAC’ in order to send out joint direct mail.
5. The Post has a misguided view of political corruption. Most candidates collect cash contributions from corporations and other special interests groups. That system looks a lot more like “buying votes” than what MCEA does. If they think politicians are selling their votes, how about looking at government contractors who make campaign contributions and then win favorable government contracts or zoning changes? MCEA’s PAC makes very few cash contributions to candidates.
We challenge the Post to identify a single MCEA recommended candidate who did not earn our support by their advocacy for public education. It simply hasn’t happened.
The Post’s editorial challenges the basic right of teachers to engage in the political process. It is also a long-winded innuendo of improper conduct with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
We make no apologies for working to elect candidates who will be strong advocates for public education. That is the right thing to do not only for our members, but for our students as well. We hope even more members will join in our efforts to do so.
In Solidarity,
Doug Prouty, MCEA President
=====================.
Dear MCEA Members,
Today the editorial board of the Washington Post decided to run a broadside attack on the rights of Montgomery County teachers to be involved in politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020404421.html ).
The Post’s editors have a long history of union bashing (see the blog posting: “Is the Washington Post Credible on Labor Issues?” at http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-washington-post-credible-on-labor.html ). But we wanted to provide you with more information to understand – and explain to others – just why the Post’s editorial board is so wrong.
1. Their fundamental allegation is their belief that MCEA “…is hiring its own bosses”. The Post ignores the fact that it is the voters who elect the County Council and Board of Education, not us. If Montgomery County voters consistently elect politicians who support public education, it is because Montgomery County is a community that supports public education.
2. The Post’s position contradicts itself. On the one hand, they say that teachers “deserve good salaries and benefits for doing a tough and important job”. But then they attack a “twisted system (that) has fueled skyrocketing payroll costs”. If they submitted that kind of contradictory argument in a debating club, they’d be laughed out of the room.
3. MCEA has one of the most transparent and participatory candidate recommendation processes of any organization in the county or the state. Unlike at the Post, candidates are not endorsed by a small group that meets behind closed doors. Our recommendations are made by the Representative Assembly - a group of hundreds of educators who are elected at each school and office across the county. We are the only organization we know of that publishes a rubric of the criteria we use in making recommendations (http://www.mcea.nea.org/pdf/MCEACandidateRecommendationProcess.pdf). All candidates are interviewed by committees of volunteer rank-and-file members, and fill out questionnaires about their views on critical issues of education policy.
4. MCEA’s coordinated campaign work is not unusual, and certainly not illegal. Despite the Post’s allegations, nobody pays to be on the Apple Ballot. But once the Rep Assembly makes its recommendations, we do all we can to help elect those candidates. In 2006, most of our recommended candidates voluntarily made contributions so we could do additional direct mail and advertising on their behalf. This is no different from county political parties that collect contributions from their candidates to fund the parties’ mailings to voters; or the common ‘district slates’ where state delegates and senators make contributions to a ‘team PAC’ in order to send out joint direct mail.
5. The Post has a misguided view of political corruption. Most candidates collect cash contributions from corporations and other special interests groups. That system looks a lot more like “buying votes” than what MCEA does. If they think politicians are selling their votes, how about looking at government contractors who make campaign contributions and then win favorable government contracts or zoning changes? MCEA’s PAC makes very few cash contributions to candidates.
We challenge the Post to identify a single MCEA recommended candidate who did not earn our support by their advocacy for public education. It simply hasn’t happened.
The Post’s editorial challenges the basic right of teachers to engage in the political process. It is also a long-winded innuendo of improper conduct with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
We make no apologies for working to elect candidates who will be strong advocates for public education. That is the right thing to do not only for our members, but for our students as well. We hope even more members will join in our efforts to do so.
In Solidarity,
Doug Prouty, MCEA President
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)