So when the OEA (through majority vote) steps well beyond “promoting quality public education” and into political issues that have nothing to do with it’s own Bylaws, what higher authority is there to hold them accountable?

Actual authority, beyond the court of Public Opinion? (which the OEA probably wouldn’t acknowledge anyway).

You make a good point that dealing with topics not central to the purpose of the OEA in promoting better wages and working conditions for teachers is problematic and ultimately might undermine that purpose.

So from the OEA Bylaws here is Article II Purposes, Section 1: The purposes of this Association are to represent its members in their relations with their employer, and to seek to be the exclusive representative of appropriate units of school employees, in all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations including, but not limited to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Section 2: The purpose of this Association shall also be to participate in activities and endeavors which promote quality public education.

Uniting with other community groups for protests at banks over bailouts for banks and not schools and endorsing opposition to gang injunctions is OEA policy because the majority at Rep Council see the policy falling under Section 2 as “promoting quality public education”.

My point again is under a democratic process it is up to the majority in an organization to define what activities it endorses and where it draws the line as to what is a purpose of the organization and what is not a purpose of the organization.

I certainly will let you know when OEA Rep Council majority votes position on open spaces, green jobs, and the OPD Beats.

I’ve tried to make fun of your point, but is a serious issue for OEA/CTA/NEA as to where to the draw the line and exclude issues.

Jim Mordecai

The explanation that it’s a democratic process explains process. It does not explain policy.

BTW, when will the OEA be releasing it’s opinions on open spaces (especially regarding the Oakland zoo), green jobs, and the consolidation of OPD Beats?

In related news the OPOA will soon announce it’s opinion on Charter Schools…

If you go to the “Join Our Staff” page of the New Teachers’ Project website and search for all California jobs, you’ll find that they have four current openings, all with the Oakland Teaching Fellows.

http://tbe.taleo.net/NA5/ats/careers/jobSearch.jsp?org=THENEWTEACHERPROJECT&cws=1

Some interesting excerpts:

The Program
TNTP works in partnership with the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) to run the Oakland Teaching Fellows program.

We are currently seeking a Site Manager for our Oakland Teaching Fellows program in Oakland, California. The Site Manager will be a TNTP employee based at the Oakland Teaching Fellows office located at the Oakland Unified School District. This position is available immediately.

The Site Manager will work on site in the Oakland Unified School District building and is responsible for ensuring the successful execution of the program. Specifically, the Site Manager will be responsible for the following:

• Designing and implementing recruitment strategies that attract high-quality alternate-route teachers from diverse backgrounds to apply to teach in district schools
• Managing a rigorous selection process to ensure that individuals accepted into the program meet our high standards
• Designing and implementing effective strategies to match these individuals with schools in the district where they will fill high-need vacancies

The Oakland Teaching Fellows Program (OTF) is currently seeking a strong instructional leader to serve as the Deputy Institute Director on the 2011 OTF Training Institute team.

The Deputy Institute Director (DID) works in direct partnership with the Institute Director (ID) to prepare for and run the six-week summer Training Institute for approximately 60-80 Oakland Teaching Fellows. The DID is responsible for ensuring the overall success of Institute and works to establish the highest quality training possible, in order to maximize Fellows’ ability to be effective first-year teachers.

Does the OEA even know that the gang injunction is not a blanket gang injunction. It is a restraining order against a handful of named individual, all of whom have reached the age of majority and unfortunately have a long and storied criminal past as adults. Does the OEA really want this individuals on the streets glorifying gang life to young boys? This restraining order is no different than that issued to an abusive spouse. So unless, the OEA wants to defend spouse abusers it seems like it is OEA that is on the slippery slope.

On the plus side, OEA’s stances make it clear to this voting taxpayer that they do not have the best interest of Oakland students. Thus, absent reform, I will be voting no on any ballot initiative to increase teacher pay and will urge others to do the same.

I thought I made clear that the OEA was involved in a democratic process wherein its Representative Council makes policy and it is the responsibility of its leadership to advocate what the majority decides is policy.

I am not President of OEA and not therefore not obligated to provide my view of a range of issues. My personal views are moot.

But, if OEA Representative Council comes up with a position on, say the Mafia, whomever is OEA President is suppose to articulate that position to the public and may draw on personal experiences and viewpoints if that aligns with the policy that was arrived at in our union democratic process. Even if a President does not agree with a policy, they are obligated to articulate the policy the majority of Representative Council passes.

A case in point was a previous President of OEA that endorsed a measure as a person and not as President of OEA. She was hit with a lot of criticism because the public has a hard time separating an organization’s identified leader from the spoke person’s personal views.

Jim Mordecai

The OEA is like any democrat/representative organization is constantly making policy and such work is a work in progress and a work never finished.

If the leadership is too radical for its membership, then its membership will replace that leadership no matter if that radicalism is a left, right or center radicalism. The problem of a democratic leadership is to lead without getting too far away from its base or that leadership will soon be a part of the membership and not the leadership.

Therefore, if the union’s democratic institution is working properly the union membership will do what it wants.

There are many in OEA that agree with your view that the OEA is self-destructive by endorsing policies that are radical and not main stream. They would prefer that politics be kept away from union business. This issue surfaces constantly at local, state, and national union organizations. The counter argument is that when politics stays out the classroom and teachers’ working conditions, the union will get out of politics.

I agree with the latter view up to a point. However, I think it is unwise for national teachers’ unions to endorse a presidential candidate as it means Republicans have to attack teacher unions to try and weaken Democratic Party support.

Another problem with self-governance by representation is that the membership may not make asserting themselves a priority and allow leadership to make policy in their name.

But, by not asserting themselves membership provides a passive endorsement of whatever representative memberships does in its name.