As many know, or might not know, two members of the MORE steering committee have be suspended in an unethical and underhanded manner.
I am not going to name them, but rather give them pseudonyms. Barry Rosenberg and Tony Fusco ran afoul of the PC world some perceive at MORE.
Barry is a true leader. He was one of the co-founders of MORE. A great organizer and smart as whip. He sits on the exec board at the UFT and there is not one teacher's back he will not have.
Tony is another smart as heck teacher. He has been there of and on since the ascendancy of MORE and though he hasn't been actively involved consistently he took a dive into the deep end and decided to join the steering committee.
But the real problems started when Tony was accused of "threatening" someone off list, in private emails. The threat was that Tony won't have this person's back. No physical harm, no emotional harm. No nothing. A nothing burger.
The issue with Barry was that he speaks his mind, once typed in all caps and tends to be sarcastic and snarky at times.
But these transgressions happened before the April 14th steering meeting.
Now yes, there is bickering on the MORE listerv's. Growing up in a semi-dysfunctional Jewish family I am used to the bickering. Never really bothered me. It's part of my DNA.
There are a set of by-laws for dealing with listserv issues.....
1) Warn the person off-list (this should only be done if the violation is a minor, borderline, or grey area issue - clear and major violations need a public warning starting with the actions below so everyone is aware).
2) To notify the listserve that a post violates the norms.
3) To close a particular thread if there are rapid multiple violations. Posting on a closed thread is a separate violation of the norms.
4) To move the entire listserve to moderated mode temporarily (for no more than 24 hours), and approve messages as they come through,
5) On a second offense, remove a members posting privileges for 1 week
6) On a third offense, remove a members posting privilege for 1 month
7) Propose to Steering that a member be banned from the listserve
But, for Barry, his punishment didn't start at number 1, it started at punishment #6. There was no third offense. There was NO SCAFFOLDING!!!
Tony's so called discretion can't be found on this list. A private email between him and another MORE member was made public without Tony's permission. Why then is he on his third offense (#6)? Why is he being punished for violating listserv norms when what he is being accused of did not happen on the listserv?
Why then was the punishment of being suspended from the steering committee added? No where, no on listserv nor the MORE website does it list anything about transgressions that will result in suspension.
Not only were both Barry and Tony not allowed to face their accusers, the punishment was handed down retroactively to whatever some allege that had done.
When I brought this last point up, that Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution that no law shall be made ex post facto, I was reminded that we are not the US Government and therefore the Constitution is meaningless.
Yes, that is technically right. But, as I brought up, we are Americans, we all believe in the US Constitution and hold its ideals as sacrosanct. Are not the 20 people who voted against rescinding the suspensions the first ones in line to protest when some others rights are being violated?
All are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Tony here.
ReplyDeleteThe Contract Clause of the Constitution requires all contracts, rules, laws, bylaws like ours and any agreement between two or people conform with the rules of the Constitution. In on other words, it does matter.
Also, it wasn't a nothing sandwhich. A threat not to speak to someone again is still a threat. I should have faced some type of consequence. *it shouldn't have been a suspension, of course!!* But my behavior was poor (poor eough that I have felt the need to apologize for it on multiple occasions).
Barry, of course, had faced only one warning before when there wasn't even a moderator. His suspension is more outrageous than mine.
Neither suspension had a majority votes on steering. The decision were made with a 4-4-1 vote tally (4 for, 4 against, 1 abstention). When the suspensions are over, the first order of business will be to change these rules to make them more fair. I'll need your support in order to get a majority vote on that Peter and there will be another difficult rhetorical battle involved. I hope your up for it. I know I am.
Last; this is so ridiculous. This was supposed to be a group that worked with regular classroom teachers to improve learning and teaching conditions in New York. What happened?
Missing from your description is the bullying that went on for years. One of the suspended members used MORE meetings to verbally harass and attack MORE members who disagreed with him. This resulted in dozens of activists, mostly women, to leave MORE as it was no longer safe or worth the abuse. When key female activists give up on MORE specifically because a few male memebers hurl abuse upon abuse at them, there is a problem. You picked the wrong side to defend.
ReplyDeleteMissing from your suspension was any word of that. For either of us. I know Ibhave checked myself with almost every woman I have ever worked with and have not received the same feedback. So, either they have a credibility issue, or you have a credibility issue.
DeleteSo here are the lies and false accusations, women in More are so “bullied “that they chose to work with, be friends with and even hang out with the “bully” and his family. But what do you expect from the people that use race against their own union leadership. Charges of abuse are serious, but as you all have proven time and time again you have no scruples. One of your fearless leaders even argued with unity members of color on Facebook and made disparaging comments over email about people of color. Anytime you want to have these “dozens of women” name themselves let us know and argue this is in a public forum let us know.The “bully” has family members, colleagues and friends that will counter your lies. Purge who you want to purge so you can have your leftist group, but don’t lie.
ReplyDeleteIf these 2 members of the steering committee are so smart, why would they join MORE in the first place? One could easily see when attending a MORE meeting that they were just a bunch of well meaning leftists that were being manipulated by the sectarian ISO in and amongst their ranks. This is an old strategy of corrupt undemocratic and corrupt socialist organizations and that is why the ISO is so bitterly despised by many on the left.
ReplyDeleteTony here. I'm actually pretty stupid.
Delete
DeleteI didn’t mean it like that. Sorry. :)
Just rhetoric.
Well said David. Peter,however, is a troll and, from some of the comments and his posts about Francesco Portelos, he is in the closet.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is funny, as anyone could see Peter is bipolar
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMost of the so-called "dozens of activists" who supposedly left MORE due to the false charge of bullying left the city, or teaching or went to law school. Dozens of women activists also left NYCORE, many of them the same people who supposedly left MORE when in fact they never were even part of MORE. Just MORE lies and slander which will one day come to roost. The accused can easily garner piles of support from the many women they have worked with.
ReplyDeletehttps://victortoils.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/does-the-tail-wag-the-dog-the-iso-in-practice/
ReplyDeleteDoes the tail wag the dog? The ISO in practice.
Dees the ISO’s (strong) desire for recruitment shape its work in a detrimental way?
Has ISO reshaped MORE to make it more attractive to potential recruits for ISO which has to replenish its ranks due to so many people who leave or become inactive. Goodle ISO critics and read former ISO member comments.