CTA Radio Ad

Aired January, 2005

Here is the text an ad sponsored by the California Teachers Association:

The text:

Barbara Kerr: I'm Barbara Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association and a classroom teacher. It's ironic. Just days after a respected report chastised California for severely underfunding our public schools, the Governor proposes a budget that will cut school funding by billions more. And this is on top of the $9.8 billion in cuts that classrooms have already suffered. Here's what teachers say:

Teacher # 1: The class sizes are so large it's hard to focus attention on every student.

Teacher #2: When kids are sharing text books and other classroom materials, it's harder for them to learn.

Teacher #3 Because of state budget cuts, schools have had to lay off librarians and even counselors and they are so important to what we do in the classroom.

Barbara Kerr: We must let the Governor and the Legislature know that they've got to stop balancing the budget on the backs of our children. It's time for lawmakers to keep their word and provide our schools the resources our kids need to succeed.

Announcer: This message was brought to you by the California Teachers Association.

Note: K-12 Education Expenditures

Education Coalition Radio Campaign -- "Guaranteed"

Air Date: February, 2005

(SFX: Phone ringing through telephone receiver.)

OPERATOR: Governor's office...

MAN: Uh, hi. I was calling because I'm worried California's public schools just aren't getting the funding they need?

OPERATOR: Uh huh.

MAN: Well, um, you know Governor Schwarzenegger?

OPERATOR: Yeah...

MAN: Yeah, well, um...didn't he borrow two billion dollars from the education budget last year?

OPERATOR: Mmm hmmm.

MAN: Well...now Governor Schwarzenegger has no intention of putting that money back.

OPERATOR: And?

MAN: Ahh, we need that money for our kids. You know...to reduce class sizes. Purchase text books. And not cut art and music...

OPERATOR (annoyed): And?

MAN: (frustrated): And...when he was campaigning for Governor, Schwarzenegger promised to protect Prop 98, a law passed by voters that guarantees minimum funding for our schools.

OPERATOR: Yeahhh...

MAN (exasperated): Well, now he wants to gut Prop 98, and stiff our kids for two billion dollars every year!

OPERATOR: Sirrr…what were you expecting?

MAN: Well, I guess I expected the Governor to keep his word to our students.

(Operator laughs.)

MAN: See…that's why you should call the Governor and tell him our children depend on us for their future. And politicians should take it as seriously as we do.

WOMAN VO: This message from the California Education Coalition is brought to you by the California Teachers Association

CTA Launches Statewide TV and Radio Advertising Campaign Exposing Governor's Broken Promises

March 14, 2005

The 335,000-member California Teachers Association today announced the launch of a television and radio ad blitz across the state that features classroom teachers taking the governor to task for an education agenda that is just more broken promises to our public schools.

California Teachers Association's Proposed Dues Increase Would Raise More Than $54 Million to Fight Governor Schwarzenegger

March 17, 2005

Delegates to the California Teachers Association (CTA) State Council will vote next month on a proposal to increase dues by $180 per member over three years to fund the union's opposition to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's education initiatives.

At current membership levels, the increase would put more than $54 million in the union's campaign war chest, in addition to the approximately $11 million already available. Full-time teachers currently pay $533 per year to CTA, of which $36 goes into the union's ballot initiative fund. CTA will also be seeking cash from the National Education Association, its parent affiliate, which has its own initiative fund for just such a purpose.

Though the money will be extracted from teachers' paychecks over the next three years, the union plans to use the dues increase from the second and third years, plus a mortgage on their Burlingame headquarters building, as collateral for a loan, so that the full $54 million will be available for this year's initiative campaign season. The dues increase from the next two years will then be used to pay down the debt.

CTA officials are visiting local affiliates throughout the state to generate support for the unprecedented measure, warning teachers that the governor's plan puts their careers and retirements are at stake.

The union also plans to postpone all projects that are not "absolutely necessary" and to cut its regular budget to free up even more staff and resources for the campaign.

The 800 members of the CTA State Council will meet in Los Angeles the weekend of April 8-10 to vote on the proposal.

Battle Escalates Over Education Spending

By Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2005

As state lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger grapple with a multibillion-dollar budget gap, dueling television ads focus on the governor's plans for school spending. One was released by the California Teachers Assn., the other by the California Republican Party. Both feature classroom teachers speaking directly to the camera about the amount of money the governor wants the state to spend.

The similarities end there. The teachers union accuses Schwarzenegger of breaking a promise not to cut school funds. The Republican Party's ad says schools will get a substantial boost in funding.

Script and images:

The California Teachers Assn. ad begins with a close-up of a teacher in a classroom:

Teacher 1: Keeping your word. It's a cherished principle we teach our students.

Teacher 2: So how can Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger break his promise?

Teacher 3: Borrowing $2 billion from the education budget he now says he won't give back.

Teacher 4: By breaking his pledge to respect our voter-approved minimum level of school funding.

Teacher 1: The governor is shortchanging every classroom by $25,000.

The image cuts from the teacher to a classroom full of students.

Narrator: Meaning large classrooms and fewer textbooks.

Teacher 4: When you hear the governor talking about reform, ask if that really means breaking his word to our schools and kids.

Analysis:

The advertisement focuses on a deal the governor made last year with teacher unions, school administrators, parent groups and other education organizations. He asked them to forgo $2 billion in exchange for guaranteed increases in the future. The groups agreed, but the governor did not stick to that pledge.

In the budget he proposed in January, Schwarzenegger called for continued suspension of the voter-approved formulas for school funding, depriving schools of billions of dollars. The governor is also proposing to end the state's contribution to the retirement fund for teachers.

Schwarzenegger's proposals would keep school spending in the next fiscal year, starting July 1, at roughly the same level it was after last year's cuts. The nonpartisan legislative analyst's office embraces the idea of flat school spending, arguing that other programs are in greater need.

Script and images:

The California Republican Party advertisement begins with a teacher standing before the camera.

Teacher 1: I'm disappointed when I hear the teachers union claim that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is cutting education spending. It is simply not true.

Teacher 2: The fact is that the governor has actually increased the education budget by nearly $3 billion this year.

Teacher 3: Equally important, the governor wants to reform the system, pay high-quality teachers more and base tenure on performance — instead of seniority.

Schwarzenegger: $50 billion. Almost half of our state's budget will go into education this year. I want to make sure the money goes directly to the classroom — for your kids and the teachers who care about them.

Analysis:

The advertisement is meant to rebut the campaign by the California Teachers Assn. and other education groups against the governor's plans. The governor is increasing the education budget, but just enough to cover enrollment growth and inflation adjustments. The $3-billion figure in the ad doesn't take into account the $469-million cut in the state's contribution that the governor is proposing for the teachers' retirement fund.

In the end, Schwarzenegger's plan will leave California lagging most states in per-student spending. The ad reflects the governor's attempt to shift attention away from dollars spent and toward other policy changes he is proposing, such as weakening the tenure system for teachers.

CTA and Parents Join Forces

CTA Ad airing in April, 2005

Liane Cismowski: I'm a high school teacher.

Renee Stewart: And I'm a parent with a son in the second grade. We have a message for Governor Schwarzenegger.

Liane: Keep your promises to our schools...

Renee: ...And our kids.

Liane: You said shortchanging Prop 98, which guarantees minimum funding to our schools, would happen, quote, "over my dead body".

Renee: Then you borrowed 2 billion from our schools and now you say you won't pay it back.

Liane: That's money our schools need to reduce class sizes and buy textbooks.

Renee: Governor Schwarzenegger, you ought to take your promises on education as seriously as we do.

CTA fills its battle coffers

The teachers union approves $50 million in higher dues to fight governor's measures

By Gary Delsohn, Sacaramento Bee, June 12, 2005

Leaders of the California Teachers Association voted Saturday to increase member dues $60 a year for each of the next three years, raising $50 million to campaign against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the November special election.

The 335,000-member union opposes Schwarzenegger's recently announced budget and his ballot initiatives: one on teacher tenure and one designed to curb state spending that could change the way schools are funded under voter-approved Proposition 98.

The vote, taken in Los Angeles by the CTA's 800-member governing body, comes just two days before Schwarzenegger is expected to issue his proclamation calling for the special election on Nov. 8. Although the dues will be collected over three years, Barbara Kerr, president of the teachers union, said the increase will allow the CTA to borrow against the extra revenues and spend as much as it takes to defeat Schwarzenegger's agenda.

"The governor's special election impacts public schools, it impacts our teachers, it impacts our students and it impacts nurses, firefighters, public employees and goes against everything we stand for," Kerr said in an interview after the vote.

The CTA's action is "shameful," said Todd Harris, a campaign adviser to Schwarzenegger. "If I was a teacher today, I'd be mad as hell," Harris said. "The real agenda of the CTA is to raise taxes on every Californian, but they know they can't do it as long as Gov. Schwarzenegger is standing in their way.

"Instead, they've gone and passed a massive tax increase on every single public school teacher in California, and it's shameful."

Teachers now pay $500 a year in dues to the union, but there are some, like John Kenney, a high school teacher in San Andreas, who get part of their dues refunded because they object to the CTA's political agenda.

"They first brought this up in March, and they don't actually vote on it until now, when teachers have left for the summer," he said. "I think they did that because they were very concerned about teachers getting together in break rooms and having a rebellion over this dues increase."

Kenney said he supports Schwarzenegger's education proposals and is one of eight teachers who recently signed a letter sent to Kerr opposing the dues increase.

"The ... teachers tax is nothing more than a partisan attack designed to protect the status quo and prevent needed classroom reforms," the letter says.

Etta Martin-Lee, who teaches at Dyer-Kelly Elementary School in the San Juan Unified School District in Sacramento County, was among those voting for the dues increase.

"It comes out to $6 a month," based on a 10-month contract, she said. "I spend more than that on coffee at Starbucks. I also spend more than that on paper, pencils, glue and other materials I need for my classroom.

"The governor has broken his promises, and now he wants to make it take five years for a teacher to get tenure. I love my job and I love teaching, but if it took me five years to become a permanent employee, I don't know what I would have done."

Schwarzenegger's tenure proposal would extend from two years to five the time it takes for teachers to get tenure.

He is backing another initiative to change the way legislative and congressional boundaries are drawn.

Suit challenges union fundraising bid

Activists drown out news conference called outside Sacramento headquarters of teachers union

By Andy Furillo , Sacaramento Bee, September 23, 2005

An anti-union legal foundation filed a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status Thursday to block the California Teachers Association from assessing its 300,000-plus members $60 each over the next three years to bolster the union's political campaign account.

Attorneys, supporters and plaintiffs represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation of Springfield, Va., tried to announce the filing of the suit at a sidewalk press conference in front of the CTA's headquarters in downtown Sacramento. They were drowned out, however, by more than 100 union activists shouting, "Shame on you!"

The assessments are expected to raise upwards of $50 million to fight Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Nov. 8 special election initiatives, including a measure that would restrict public employee unions from raising campaign cash from their members. The teachers already have raised and spent more than $34 million for the fall campaign effort, according to the secretary of state's office - relying on loans, the suit said, that will be repaid with monthly assessments beginning next week.

"We looked at the facts of this situation and we believe that the First Amendment rights of these teachers have been violated," said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the Virginia group, which describes itself on its Web site as a charitable organization "dedicated to the protection of all employees from abuses of compulsory unionism."

"They should have been given notice of their right to object and an opportunity to object," Gleason added, "and to reclaim and get back any dues that were collected from them to be used for these political activities."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento on behalf of six named plaintiffs, also lists the CTA-affiliated California Faculty Association as a defendant. No hearing date has been scheduled yet on the plaintiffs' demand for a preliminary injunction.

Teachers union President Barbara Kerr issued a statement Thursday saying that the suit is baseless.

"CTA has a long record of compliance with all legal requirements in regard to the collection of dues and their use for political purposes," Kerr said in the prepared statement. "We are scrupulous in our recordkeeping and we bend over backwards to observe the rights of members and fee payers."

As for the suit's mention of a $50 million loan financing the CTA's anti-Schwarzenegger efforts to be repaid by the assessments, CTA spokesman Sandra Jackson said, "To my knowledge, there is no loan. I don't know about any loan."

About 30,000 public school teachers in California have chosen to not join the CTA and instead are listed as "agency fee payers" rather than union members. Fee payers are still charged to support the union for its contract bargaining function, but they are not assessed any charges to help finance the CTA's political goals.

Thursday's suit said that fee payers, however, initially have the political money docked from their checks and are later refunded the cash in rebates that can take up to two years to be fully reimbursed. The suit likened the process to fee-payer loans to the union over which the plaintiffs have no control.

"It is a forced loan at best," Gleason said, adding that the fee payers "should have the immediate right now to stop this money, because you cannot undo an election."

CTA spokeswoman Jackson confirmed that there is usually a delay for agency fee payers to have their assessments refunded to them. But she said that the union's board of directors voted two weeks ago to speed up the rebates and that they will be returned to the fee payers this year in October.

Jackson said that any of the 300,000-plus full-fledged teachers' union members in the state who are opposed to the $60 assessments and want the money refunded would have to drop out of the organization and become fee payers themselves - at a cost of certain benefits such as liability insurance.

At the press conference in front of the union's 10th Street headquarters, supporters of the lawsuit continued on with their statements behind a podium set up on the sidewalk even though the shouting of the demonstrators made it impossible to hear them.

"It's an example of the intimidation and thuggery that our public school teachers are working under every day of the week, and as a parent and as a Californian, I have had enough of it," state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who attended the news conference, said in an interview afterward.

Union supporters said they conducted the protest to demonstrate that the plaintiffs do not speak for the majority of school teachers in the state.

"It's our building, it's our house," said Don Hillman, a CTA political organizer. "We felt that our voice should be heard in front of our house."

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, other members of the CTA held their own news conference to say they were happy to pay the added assessment to fight Proposition 74, the Schwarzenegger initiative that seeks to extend new teachers' probationary periods from two to five years.

"It is very unfair with Proposition 74 to think that after five years of going to college, you should be a probationary teacher for five years," said Roberta Patterson, a high school art teacher in Long Beach who was Los Angeles County Teacher of the Year in 2001.

"In the private sector, you go on a job, you're on probation maybe three or six months. Whoever heard of a five-year probationary period? Since you don't make a lot of money, job security and support are critical to this profession."

She said "there wasn't a person in my lounge who wasn't willing to pay for that assessment. When you have to pay for what is right, it takes money."

CTA Already Spent Future Dues

Education Intelligence, October 11, 2005

The class action lawsuit filed against the California Teachers Association by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has already yielded ominous news for CTA members. Sacramento Bee political columnist Daniel Weintraub posted on his blog a declaration filed by Carlos Moreno, who is CTA's controller. In a successful effort to block a restraining order by Right to Work against collecting the $54 million dues increase, Moreno and CTA spelled out for the district court why such an order would have been devastating to the union's finances.

Moreno described a $14 million loan (probably the headquarters mortgage) and an outstanding $20 million line of credit. But the key statement in the declaration is this: "CTA has already spent on the initiative campaign the equivalent of what the temporary dues increase would bring in over three years. CTA is in the process of negotiating a necessary $40 million line of credit."

EIA doesn't pretend to have extensive knowledge of banking and finance, but if the dues increase has already been spent, it seems the union will need further collateral to secure an additional $40 million. Where will this money come from, I wonder?

The answer, of course, is the members. CTA currently extracts $36 per member for its initiative fund, but few remember that that permanent assessment began as a temporary dues increase to fund opposition to the 1993 voucher initiative. What easier way to close the debt than to extend the current dues increase?

NEA, which donated $2.5 million to the CTA campaign last year, approved an allocation of another $2.5 million last weekend. The national union has already authorized up to $2.5 million more to CTA, should it be needed.

Their views, their dues

Los Angeles Times Editorial, October 20, 2005

In 1998, this page opposed Proposition 226, the so-called paycheck-protection measure that sought to bar labor unions from spending a member's dues for political activities in the absence of that member's consent. We considered that initiative a disingenuous "good government" move aimed at diminishing the voice of only one side on public policy debates, and we would oppose such a proposition again if it were on this year's ballot.

But contrary to some of the arguments being mustered both for and against Proposition 75, this election's version of "paycheck protection" is significantly different than Proposition 226: It applies only to public employee unions. We support this more narrowly tailored initiative primarily as a means of lessening the power of public employee unions in Sacramento, but also as a way of reinforcing the right of union members to insist that their hard-earned income not be diverted to political causes they don't endorse.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that union members cannot be forced to finance political activity, and Proposition 75 merely requires that public employee unions get written consent from their members before their dues and fees are used for political purposes. Currently, union members must request specifically that their dues not be spent on politics, and there is some question about how realistic a choice this is in some unions. Shifting the burden to the union to gain the consent of a member — as Washington, Utah and other states now require — does not seem onerous, and may even encourage greater accountability on the part of union leadership.

Proposition 75 opponents argue that this is unfair because there is no similar move to curtail the discretion of business lobbyists to invest shareholder resources in politics. But the analogy is flawed, given that this initiative applies only to public employee unions. It's not private businesses that sit across the negotiating table from public employee unions; it's the taxpayers and their elected representatives, acting as stewards of the public interest.

If this notion sounds almost quaint, it is, because it has become so divorced from reality. At many levels of government, public employee unions, aided by their political war chests, have gained control over both sides of the negotiating process. When public employee unions wield the type of influence they now do in California, too much governing becomes an exercise in self-dealing.

To take one example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has acknowledged it will take a "holy jihad" to assume control of the local school district because teachers unions are so powerful in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Although the mayor opposes Proposition 75, his statement illustrates the need for it.

That said, this measure will hardly take public unions out of the political game. They will still be able to raise considerable sums to influence elections, and they will face no restrictions to continue spending on "issue advocacy." Nor are we under any illusion about the partisan motives of many of Proposition 75's backers, who see this as a means of making it harder for Democrats to raise campaign cash.

But the tactical political repercussions here are not so easily discerned. Democrats may become more popular among voters if they are seen as less beholden to special interests. Moreover, this page will continue to support campaign financing proposals that help cleanse the political system, including more public financing of elections.

For now, Proposition 75 constitutes an important step in the right direction.