According to reports published by the National Staff Organization – a group made up of NEA and state affiliate union staffers:

“Fifteen states are considered to be financially distressed because of membership loss and their very survival is in jeopardy. And because of financial hardship, 41 state executives are on NEA’s payroll instead of being paid by their state. Two states—Indiana and South Carolina—remain under an NEA trusteeship.”

Teachers union accounts are buying red pens by the box these days.

NSO President Chuck Agerstrand called it a lesson in “trickle-down economics.”

Or maybe it’s just “trickle-down karma.”

It’s ironic that the very same financial problems unions have created for government schools – through collectively bargained contracts that give annual, automatic pay raises and world class benefits – are now appearing in their own organizations.

The teacher unions’ laser-like focus on left wing politics means that state legislatures – many of which are currently controlled by Tea Party Republicans – have no incentive to help rescue them.

The unions’ chickens have come home to roost, as the saying goes.

What’s the solution?  Creating a “culture of organizing,” according to the NSO, which wants to boost the number of dues payers and thus soothe the financial problems.  So prior to the 7-day Caribbean cruise, staffers participated in a three-day retreat to learn how to better organize.

The staffers studied organizing theory charts and read quotes from Saul Alinsky. The National Education Association is now teaching an organizing method the Service Employees International Union has been using as well: “Constant Organizing Goals.”

In a 2010 PowerPoint document, SEIU described the COG method this way:

“[It] requires unions to build public relationships involving a quid pro quo interchange driven by self-interest and guaranteed by mutual accountability.”

This underscores the notion that the union’s strategy is to meet its needs first and not seek what is in the best interest of students or taxpayers.

The NEA’s bargaining strategy method has these four steps:

1. Educate
2. Agitate
3. Escalate
4. Evaluate

The further into the process, the theory goes, the more power is built.  But the power, of course, is for high salaries, better benefits, and fewer responsibilities.  That’s great for the adults, but doesn’t do much for the students.

But after all – it’s not about the students.  Somebody has to bail water out of the sinking union boat and it’s not going to be students.  Teachers, grab a bucket.

And I don’t understand that concern. It is the theory of most Democrats that giving money to people stimulates the economy. It should be of no concern to anyone whether that money is used to stimulate patrons of a strip club, liquor store owners, or casino magnates (who BTW are often HUGE political contributors).

The bill is almost completely futile. It won’t insure that welfare money is not spent at a strip club; it only means that the ATM at the gas station across the street from the strip club is going to see a lot more traffic.

This is just the kind of government bias, that gives legitimate business a bad name. Certainly those girls are working as hard as any SEIU employee; whose pensions were paid out of stimulus funds, while they protested in Wisconsin. Money spent on bikini wax, cover stick, and glittery lingerie will trickle down through the economy just like any other stimulus package.

If that money was earmarked for scientific research on the anthropological roots of exotic dancing and its impact on global warming; or if it were an NEA grant to promote the American Folk legacy of lap dancing, there would be no question whether taxpayer money should eventually find its way into a g-string. The welfare recipient should not be punished, since he is actually a victim of a public education system, that did not teach him how to write a proper grant proposal.

Meanwhile, spending money at a casino is no less risky than “investing” in green energy. At the rate subsidized industries like Solyndra and Ener1 have been flying down tubes, a crap shot seems like a much more conservative measure than putting half a billion on Solyndra to win.

And what is wrong with using an EBT card at a liquor store? What the bill effectively does, is limit the amount of ATMs in poor neighborhoods. Many ATMs are privately owned, and grocery stores in poor neighborhoods won’t want to file the paperwork (and campaign contributions) necessary to prove they’re not a “liquor store.” Even if they are a liquor store, there are plenty of legitimate State Approved® items available in liquor stores, like tomato juice, citrus, and Lotto tickets. I might add that most grocery stores not only sell cigarettes and liquor, they sell all the ingredients necessary to make meth. There are a lot of things more intoxicating than liquor, one of them being congressional power

Because, ultimately, what business is it of the government to decide which decisions are made? In this country, we’ve decided that poor people should get free money. There is no way the government can absolutely ensure it isn’t spent on stupid things. (In many cases, it is those same stupid things that caused recipients to be on welfare on the first place.) And does the government have any moral authority in the first place? They can’t even prevent themselves from spending it on stupid things. Which is why we’re 16 trillion dollars in debt.

I think we need a Congressional Budget Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2012.

We’ll continue to bring you the latest on this, including the signature verification efforts, which will begin almost immediately.

Hughes, a local union president, is pitching the idea that school board membership be limited to people who “have worked in the education field,” because the issues at hand are “so complex” and too complicated for average citizens.

In other words, all will be well if taxpayers just get out of the way and let the wise and wonderful union folks run our schools, no questions asked. All we have to do is keep paying the taxes, then mind our own business.

This is a perfect example of the snobbery and arrogance that is so pervasive in the public education establishment.

A stay-at-home mom that wants to be on the board?  Sorry.  Business owners who know how to control labor costs and balance budgets? They don’t have the right skill set, according to Hughes. Public education is too “complex” for them.

Hughes didn’t happen to mention the 80% graduation rate in her county, the 52% of 3-8 graders who aren’t proficient in reading or the 62% who aren’t proficient in math. Perhaps she thinks those statistics are acceptable, and the public schools accept them, too.

There’s another issue at play here.  Most communities throughout the nation elect school board members. Teachers unions throughout the nation provide millions of dollars in campaign contributions to get their hand-picked candidates elected, then lo and behold, they negotiate  juicy, expensive contracts with their pet board members.

Union leaders have clearly thought this through. Some have actually produced How-To manuals, such as the Michigan Education Association’s “Electing Your Employer – It’s as easy as 1-2-3!” In it, the union details every step necessary to elect union-friendly school board members.

The only problem is that, with a board full of union supporters, nobody is looking out for the interests of students and taxpayers. But of course, people who aren’t dedicated to the union agenda have no business on school boards, according to Hughes. We obviously don’t understand the process. It’s all too “complex” for us.

“All teacher candidates should have one full year of teaching residency, and pass a performance-based assessment before entering the classroom,” NEA President Dennis Van Roekel said, according to Education Week.

The news site reports that the “pilot pre-licensure assessment” would take student outcomes into consideration.

While we do not support attempts to nationalize the teacher certification process, assessing prospective teachers on classroom effectiveness sounds reasonable to us. So how about using those same tests to evaluate current teachers?

Sure, says the NEA, but only if such assessments are “developmentally appropriate, scientifically valid and reliable for the purpose of measuring both student learning and a teacher’s performance.”

Here’s the kicker: “We believe that there are no tests ready to do that,” Segun Eubanks, the director of teacher quality for the union, told the New York Times last July.

The NEA’s position is this: Tests that measure student achievement are too flawed to use on union members, but they are perfectly suitable to assess college kids who want to become teachers.

We’ve all heard about “last in, first out.” Maybe this union position should be called “get out, stay out.”

Hey, union leaders may be hypocrites, but at least they’re consistent in treating young teachers as second-rate professionals.

Kind of makes “We are One” and “Solidarity Forever” seem like empty marketing slogans, no?

The ‘A’ is supposed to stand for accountability. But, in reality, not so much.

Yesterday we reported that the GAB would not comb through the petitions to disqualify duplicate signatures.

Today, we find out it is much worse than that.

[Madison, Wisc…] Duplicate signatures are not the only point of contention in the ongoing recall drives in Wisconsin. The board that oversees the state’s elections admits they will not check the validity of any of the signatures or addresses contained on the recall petitions expected to be submitted in January.

For $625,699 the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board will make sure all the blanks are properly filled out on petitions to recall Governor Scott Walker, but that’s all.

Meanwhile, news reports around the state have raised the questions about ineligible individuals signing the forms. At least one liberal group is encouraging voters to sign multiple times.

The GAB will not be checking for fraud, but will rule on challenges brought forth by the subjects of the recalls, should they find evidence of fraud.

Reid Magney, GAB spokesman, cited Section 9.10(3) of the State Statutes, under which the filing officer, ”shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient.”

Administrative Rules GAB 2.05 and 2.07 expand upon the definition “facial sufficiency,” including the presumption of validity of information contained on the petition and the challenger’s burden to establish any insufficiency.

“[C]hecking addresses, verifying ages, etc., is by law the responsibility of the incumbent,” Magney said. “If the incumbent files a challenge that says John Smith does not live at 123 Main Street, Onalaska, then the GAB must determine whether the challenge is correct and the name should be struck.”

Magney says the burden of proving the validity of signatures will fall on Governor Walker, not those filing the recall petitions. Read more>>

So, if the legislature grants the GAB’s request for additional $600,000, up to 50 temporary workers, aided by GAB staff, will have at least a month to make sure the forms were completely (though not necessarily legally) filled out. Governor Walker and any legislator facing recall will have a whopping  ten days to verify the hundreds of thousands of signatures are valid.

That’s right. Ten days.

However, the Walker campaign could go to court to contest GAB’s finding that the petitions are sufficient or for more time or to contest the validity of the signatures.

Settle in. It’s going to be a long and bumpy ride.

As the unions strike back against the governor who forced them to ask permission to collect dues from public employees, controversy over the ongoing recall process is emerging. One liberal organization is saying people have a right to sign more than one recall petition. The state regulators admit it’s true, they have that right and although only one signature per eligible voter is supposed to be counted as vaild, their temporary workers won’t be accountable for finding duplicates.

Huh?

This MacIver News’ report provides the details.

The state board overseeing the potential recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker tells the MacIver News Service that they will rely upon temporary workers to scrutinize recall petitions and those individuals will not be expected to catch any duplicate signatures submitted by recall organizers.

This revelation comes as one statewide liberal group is actively promoting the collection of duplicate signatures, paving the way for a lengthy process wherein Walker supporters will challenge the validity of the recall petitions.

One Wisconsin Now, a liberal non-profit, posted on its website “you can circulate or sign a recall petition even if you have already signed another recall petition.”

This advice, however, will complicate the signature challenge process and runs counter to the advice of nonpartisan state election regulators.

“While it is not illegal to sign more than once, we do not suggest people sign a second time unless they have good reason to believe the first petition they signed was somehow fraudulent,” Reid Magney, GAB Spokesman.

One Wisconsin Now follows their advice with this disclaimer: “[N]ote, however, that only one signature per person will be counted,”

That is not necessarily true.

Magney told MNS said that the pro-union groups obtaining recall signatures will be expected to self-police the collection of duplicate signatures.

However, neither the state Democratic Party nor the pro-labor organizations steering the recall drive have disclosed any process by which they will identify and discard the duplicate signatures they obtain.

Recall organizers announced Monday that they have collected 300,000 of the 540,000 signatures necessary to trigger a recall election of Walker. Until those signatures are actually submitted to the GAB, however, there is no way to verify that claim or determine whether that figure includes duplicate signatures. Even then, it will be up to outside groups like the Walker campaign or the state Republican Party to sort through the signatures to find any invalid and/or duplicate signatures.

Until the signatures are submitted and independently checked, there is no way to know how many people are heeding One Wisconsin Now’s advice.

Read more>>>