Robert Ausch and James Lipovac UFCT 1460 Grievance Committee
Summary of Recommendations
The union should prioritize establishing a new Election committee. Given past issues related to the role of some of the members of the Delegates Assembly in compromising the committee, this should involve the participation of the entire membership.
The process of soliciting nominations for and electing an Election Committee should be explicitly laid out. This election will require rules similar to those of an officer election, including providing notice, creating eligibility standards, providing a secret ballot, and appropriate accountability.
Officer and Voter eligibility must be made explicit. The election committee should be limited to procedural decisions. Ideally, election plans are published and signed off by the membership before the election proceeds.
The Executive Committee is currently tasked with the administrative work involved in enrolling members. The Election Committee should never be involved in enrolling members.
All components of the election process that require action from candidates or members require notice. The bylaws should specify the requirements for providing notice.
Accountability requires transparency. After the election, the Election Committee should be expected to write a comprehensive report and save all meeting minutes and correspondences on the Election Committee Gmail account. We repeat our request that the Election Committee release these documents.
The bylaws must specify clear rules on using union resources (including member lists). The Election Committee should distribute all campaign material.
Detailed Election Reform Q and A
As our local prepares for an election in the Fall of 2025, we believe it is imperative to complete the reforms of our election process asked of us by the AFT (American Federation of Teachers). The following is an attempt to review the Winter 2023 Officer Elections issues in light of the AFT report issued in May 2023. In addition, we review the election rules in our current bylaws in light of LMRDA (US Department of Labor) requirements and the guidelines issued by our parent unions, NYSUT, and the AFT.
This document seeks to be “non-partisan.” It is not intended to critique past practices or tarnish reputations. Its value is its potential to support developing the governing structures of our local in line with the values we promote: transparency, democratic participation, and communication, and to ensure the voices of rank-and-file members are heard at all levels of our union’s governance. Fair, reliable, and transparent elections are the foundation of democratic systems and are essential in protecting the Union’s values. Moreover, as we enter a period of bylaw reform, it behooves us to consider past mistakes and what changes we can make to ensure the integrity and vitality of the election process.
Q: Why was the AFT involved in the 2023 elections?
A: The officer election in 2023 resulted in several complaints and counter-complaints from candidates and rank-and-file members. The complaints revolved around a similar theme: that various participants in the election (officers, election committee members, candidates) engaged in actions that violated either the Local’s bylaws or were improper and compromised the integrity of the election. We will not review the complaints in detail; only two were identified as serious problems in the final AFT report. The election was held over the course of February 2023. After an investigation, the AFT issued its decision on May 5th, 2023.
Q: According to the AFT, what were the issues with the election?
A: The two questions the AFT sought to answer were these
Was the standard of voter eligibility proposed by the sitting Executive Committee reasonable?
Did the election committee have a right to reject those standards and enroll voters using its standards?
The AFT’s answer was “no” to both questions. It concluded by advising the Local to engage in bylaw reform where (a) voter eligibility standards were made explicit and (b) the role of the Election Committee in future elections was clearly specified.
Q: What were there other charges made in the complaints and counter-complaints to the AFT?
A: The Election Committee was accused by a rank-and-file member of collaborating with the opposition candidates. They provided evidence that the Committee was forwarding emails to the opposition slate. The former President explicitly accused the Election Committee of conspiring with the opposition. Because such a belief undermines faith in our elections, we sought to investigate this. To this end, we requested access to the election committee’s Gmail account from that period. They declined. Please note that Election Committee communication with members and candidates is the union's property. They do not belong to members of the committee. In 7902 (the NYU/New School Union), the union reserves a Gmail account that can be used exclusively by the Election Committee while an election is taking place and is used to keep a formal record in case of election challenges. This should be our practice going forward.
Q: What was the issue with voter eligibility raised by the AFT?
A: The sitting Executive Committee argued that to vote in the officer election, a member must be considered a “member in good standing.” They viewed the language of Article 3.3–that a member in good standing is one whose dues are no more than two months in arrears–as requiring the one to be a union member for at least two months before one can vote in officer elections. The Executive Committee announced it required enrollment by “early January” to vote in the elections. However, that wasn’t communicated broadly to the membership until after the voting began.
The AFT recognized the right of the Local to set voter eligibility but argued that
The two-month standard was an unreasonable interpretation of the bylaws and
This standard had not been consistently enforced by the Executive Committee in the first place.
The AFT instead explained that the bylaws contain no standards of voter eligibility. Thus, if one were to be set, it must be communicated clearly in advance of an election.
Q: What were the issues with the actions of the Election Committee raised by the AFT?
A: Rejecting the Executive Committee's standard of voter eligibility, the Election Committee created one of its own. Instead, it announced on February 18th, 2023, that it would provide ballots to everyone who submitted membership applications before the close of the election. The AFT found that the Election Committee had exceeded its authority–its mandate was a procedural one, managing an election, and that it had no right to set voter eligibility standards nor process membership applications. In addition, the AFT found that the standards of eligibility announced by the Elections Committee were not supported by any governing documents and, thus, were arbitrary and capricious. Once the votes added by the Election Committee were removed, the outcome of the election did not change, so the AFT did not require a rerunning of the election (except for the office of Vice President, which was close enough that the outcome could have changed) In our view, it is not clear whether the vote would have changed as the AFT only reviewed votes contested by the former President. This did not fully account for all the new members that the Election Committee enrolled.
Q: Why was voter eligibility such a contentious issue?
A: Signing up new members had the potential to benefit the opposition candidates more than the incumbents, so the competing standards of voter eligibility resulted in differential numbers of votes for specific candidates. By signing up new members, the Election Committee altered the course of the election.
Q: How should we determine standards of voter eligibility?
A: There is some disagreement in our local. We believe this issue must be resolved democratically by the membership. At base, there are a few considerations and questions to answer:
Should all members of the bargaining unit who choose to become members have a say in leadership?
The proposal that new members wait a year or even a semester before voting is unlikely to survive a legal challenge.
While Visiting (and hence, generally, newer) faculty make up most of the bargaining unit, more senior faculty (a minority) spend more of their work life at Pratt. They are thus more invested in specific nuances of the contract. How can we ensure that issues affecting different groups of members differently are fully addressed in bargaining?
How do we balance the importance of democratic participation while protecting the rights of the minority?
It is also worth considering whether some of these issues can be mitigated by setting eligibility requirements for certain officer positions connected to the qualifications required for that office rather than voters. The LMRDA section 401 (e) permits Locals to develop standards for reasonable qualifications for candidates, provided they are uniformly applied and do not limit a segment of the membership from holding office.
We believe whatever the right answer for the union is; the key is to come up with answers democratically while also recognizing our unit's diverse needs, which frankly can sometimes conflict with each other. Good leadership will not seek to play the interests of some members against others but will always return to the principle of solidarity: we win when we all win, but compromise is essential to make that happen.
Q: What is the role of the Election Committee in an election?
A: For voters to have faith in the electoral process, the electorate must view the Election Committee as non-partisan. Since it was clear that voter eligibility standards affected different candidates differently, that was not the case in the election of 2023. Any proposed bylaw reforms must focus on restoring that faith by imposing specific standards and limitations on the Elections Committee. As the AFT noted in its ruling, the role of the Election Committee, as stated in our bylaws, is to “conduct” elections, a purely procedural role. How can we ensure that this is the case? Several components need to be addressed
The rules for the establishment of the committee
The rules that govern the election itself and
Issues of accountability and transparency
Q: How should the Election Committee be established?
A: Our bylaws do offer some guidance on this. However, the guidance has rarely been properly followed and was not followed in 2022.
3.3 Elections Committee: The Elections Committee shall be comprised of no less than three (3) and no more than five (5) members in good standing. No standing members of the Executive Committee, or anyone appointed to committees thereby, may serve on the Elections Committee. No nominees for a position on the Executive Committee, nor a family member or partner of a nominee, may serve on the Elections Committee. The Delegates Assembly shall solicit participation for the Elections Committee from membership at large no later than March 1; the membership of the Elections Committee shall be set by the Delegates Assembly no later than April 1. The Elections Committee shall serve a three year term starting September 1 and ending August 31. The Elections Committee shall conduct all general and special elections and referenda of the organization.
The bylaws give the Delegates Assembly the authority to “set” the Election Committee-- This means the DA determines who occupies the available seats on the committee. However, it does not establish any procedure for doing this. According to the AFT report, at the start of December 2022, there were two members of the standing Election Committee, to which three new member volunteers were added to “assist with their work.” By the end of the election, the original two members had resigned in protest.
The bylaws require that the DA “solicit participation” from the “membership at large.” To solicit is to engage in an action. There is no evidence that the DA sought to solicit participation from the membership. Moreover, the term “membership at large” suggests that the committee should be composed of at least some people not on the Delegates Assembly. There is a logic behind that. Rank-and-file members less involved in union leadership tend to be less partisan and thus tend to inspire more trust in elections.
Again, in this case, there is no record of solicitation among the membership-at-large on the part of the DA. Nor is there any published record of a DA vote on any of these candidates until February. Because the current Delegates Assembly does not share its minutes with the membership, it is difficult to reconstruct the process with any certainty. It should go with out saying, that any minutes related to the constitution of an election committee should be shared with the membership.
The bylaws also prohibit appointed committee members from serving on the Election Committee. The current members of the Election Committee were all appointed by the president to the Bylaw Committee. This is why establishing a new committee immediately is vital.
The bylaws charge the DA with setting the membership of the committee without specifying what that involves:
What are the notification requirements for potential committee members nominees?
Should the process involve nominations? From the floor or via a ballot? What type of vote? Should the ballot be secret? Should the results of the vote be available to the membership at large?
Should the vote be open to non-DA members?
What kind of notice is the DA required to provide for the vote itself?
We should consider whether a volunteer body is really the appropriate venue for constituting an Election committee. Ideally, given the importance of trust, we might decide that members of an Election Committee should be elected by the membership at large. Members should also be able to contest the results of these elections.
Q: What are the rules that govern the election itself?
A: While our bylaws do lay out a calendar of actions for the process, beginning with nominations and including ballot distribution and certification, they don’t address certain key elements, including some LMRDA requirements:
Notice: Section 401(E) of the LMRDA requires that a notice of election be mailed to each member at their last known address at least 15 days before the election. In recent years, in faculty unions with high turnover where email addresses are more up-to-date than mailing addresses, many Locals have decided that notice of election is better fulfilled via email. Our bylaws (4.1.a) mention the distribution of nomination ballots and election ballots, but they do not require that members be provided with notice. Notice should be provided before all potential votes: notice of nominations for an election committee, notice for an election committee vote, notice of nomination ballots, and notice for election ballots. Notice prepares voters for the upcoming decisions they must make and ensures that any errors in lists of eligible voters can be corrected.
Eligibility to vote: The last officer election highlighted one question: when should a new member be eligible to vote? However, a second equally important question in a local with part-time faculty is at what point is a former member no longer be eligible to vote. Especially in the case of part-time faculty, where people don't always teach every semester or even every year, what should the look-back period be when determining voter eligibility? After how many semesters of not teaching at Pratt do we decide that someone is no longer eligible to vote?
Use of union resources: Federal law prohibits using union or employer funds to promote the candidacy of any person in a local officer election. This often becomes an issue with the incumbent candidates. Violations can include campaigning using a union Gmail account, using union membership lists, campaigning on union time, using union letterhead, and exclusive use of union paid-for services like Constant Contact and Zoom. A quick remedy to this is to require that all campaign materials be distributed by the Election Committee.
Choice of Election Platform: Our bylaws do not specify this as they were written before electronic voting. In the last officer election and subsequent contract vote, this became an issue of contention. Other unions have better luck with platforms like Election Runner, where the vote is directly set up and managed by the Election Committee, rather than companies like Simply Voting that manage elections where officers must sign a contract and set up the finances, potentially creating a path for inappropriate officer influence. Election Runner also allows the committee to fix ballot issues immediately and provides a better record of who received a ballot and when.
Publication of an Election Plan: Given that our bylaws specify a timeline, the Local has not required that election-specific plans be published, but this is not ideal. The Election Committee should be required to submit a plan to a body like the Delegates Assembly or membership for approval. Such a plan should list the timing of essential milestones not laid out in the bylaws, including updating of membership lists and final voter lists, deadlines for notification and accepting nominations, deadlines to inspect membership lists, dates to submit election material for distribution, dates when election material will be distributed, deadlines for the submission and distribution of campaign materials, dates to meet with candidates to discuss election rules, time ballots remain open, and date when vote count will be released. We should also reconsider having electronic ballots open for more than 48 hours, as this offers a window for the election to be compromised.
Q: What are appropriate standards of transparency and accountability?
A: The more transparent election committee decisions are, the more faith voters have in the election itself. Election Committee decisions should always be procedural, and its' actions defensible within existing bylaws. The committee should never set standards for candidate or voter eligibility. Following an election, the committee should be required to produce a timely report that reviews the election, identifies problems, explains decisions made, and makes recommendations for future votes.
Next Steps
Until new bylaws are approved, the rank-and-file membership should establish standards for creating a new committee. We believe that the election of a new committee, with broad membership involvement, will go a long way to restoring faith in our election process.
Kommentit