The Tucson Education Association has officially announced which candidates it is endorsing in this year’s Tucson Unified School District governing-board race: It has endorsed two candidates, Cam Juarez and Kristel Foster, out of 12 contenders.
The problem is that there are actually three seats up for grabs, not two. Yet the TEA leadership decided it was in the best interest of TUSD teachers, students and parents to only endorse two candidates. Why would the TEA do that?
I came up with a couple of possible explanations. Maybe the other 10 candidates are so terrible, and so against TEA goals and principles, that none were worth supporting. Or perhaps all 10 are so similar, and good enough, that it doesn’t really matter who gets that third seat.
But can either conclusion be taken seriously? Some candidates have similar platforms, but there are many high-profile, important issues on which candidate positions contrast profoundly. Some support charter schools, while others fear the loss of collective bargaining if TUSD goes in that direction. Some support Superintendent John Pedicone’s leadership; others, not so much. Some are extremely supportive of the former Mexican-American studies program, while several have worked to eliminate it. And so on.
This brings me to yet another possibility, a feasible one, given that it has become a trend of sorts with electoral politics in Tucson. Recently, party and union leadership have taken it upon themselves to decide which candidates are viable, or “electable,” enough to support, even during contested primaries. While some may see this as a pragmatic approach—as “cold, hard politics,” as one high-level politico explained it to me—others see it as a cynical and dangerous process that only helps to erode local democracy.
I agree with the latter view.
It may have been determined that with the current board makeup, electing these two candidates is all the TEA needs to “count to three,” as they say. After all, three votes are all you need to set policy favorable to TUSD employees. But do TEA members deserve leadership that works just enough to get by, or do they deserve union leadership that does all it can to support building the best board possible?
The truth is, the TEA leadership is not fully representing its members’ interests with this move.
The passing of Judy Burns reminded us that the unexpected happens. One day, the majority of the board will lean one way; the next day, an unexpected appointment may completely change the board’s direction. And sometimes, we elect candidates who we think will do right by us, only to be disappointed once they are in office. I would argue that we have built the current supermajority of less-than-capable TUSD board members through similar political neglect, or failed political maneuvers over the years. But that is another story for another time.
At the end of the day, the TEA leadership may indeed succeed in helping elect the two chosen candidates. I have no doubt that the union rank-and-file will step up and do all they can to try to make this happen. I would have supported a different combination of choices that included candidates who have actually been TUSD educators, volunteers or parents of TUSD students, like Betts Putnam-Hidalgo or Menelik Bakari. But while we can debate who the best candidates are among a handful of good prospects, I certainly can’t embrace giving up a third seat to the possibility of a bad candidate. That is a real possibility that is only made more real by not also proactively campaigning for a third candidate.
The bottom line is that the TEA leadership has decided that its membership does not deserve the very best governing-board candidates possible. The TEA, in essence, decided not to even try for the very best.
If that third seat is filled by someone less than union-friendly, the TEA membership will have every right to hold the TEA leadership accountable for giving only a two-thirds effort to fulfill their obligation. After all, you kinda get what you kinda work for.
This article appears in Sep 13-19, 2012.
Agreed, as a pro civil rights TUSD constituent, I find their selection of Foster and Juarez leaving a bad taste in my mouth. In my interaction with visible candidates I feel Betts Putnam-Hidalgo to be the only critical thinker with the ability to remove political blinders and consider the students, who ultimately will be affected by the governing board’s decisions. With TEA’s decision we will find the same ole, same ole Adelita pandering to Pedicone’s “trajectory” of TUSD going over the cliff to the private charter school toilet.
Maybe they’re under the thumb of SALC – or some other group – like The Board.
TUSD, as a whole, has a huge cancer growing in it. The stuff in the press and media is just the oozing slime that’s visible…….
Is Mr. Ortega employed by a community organization that involves itself in local politics? Also, is he affiliated with any of the current local political campaigns, TUSD or otherwise? It’s fine if he is, but things like this should be disclosed.
http://www.sallyminker.com/art/2-d/images/…
This guest opinion is right on point. Miguel Ortega speaks for many families with children in TUSD. He is a tireless advocate for quality public education and it shows in this well thought out opinion. Thanks to the Tucson Weekly for featuring a voice from our community and not just a political pundit or a jealous blogger.
The only problem with your commentary Miguel is that you are arguing both sides of the issue. On one hand you rail against TEA for “hand-picking” labor friendly candidates but then you damn them for picking only two instead of three. It’s like the old joke, “The food was terrible and the portions were so small.” You can’t have it both ways.
I am pleased that so many people are interested in devoting their time to solving the multitudinous problems of my beloved TUSD. Because the board members are volunteers it is sometimes problematic finding knowledgeable candidates who are also vested in promoting public education.
But I also thank TEA for helping winnow the crowd down to a more manageable number. Now I guess I will just have to listen carefully to the candidates to see if I agree with TEA’s choices or not, because hard as it may be for some to understand, there are people who are really more concerned with the health and welfare of the largest educational organization in our city, rather than furthering their personal vendettas or ‘Cause Celeb’. My question to each of them is: “Which of you will work most efficiently and with due diligence in the cause of supporting equitable public education for all?”
Hey Lalo, that was my post not Mr. Ortega’s.
Congratulations Cam
How can TEA endorse both Juarez and Foster when both have very different views of the MAS program and John Pedicone’s handling of his job in general? When I listened to the Steve Leal show, they seemed to disagree with each other on many key issues. Obviously, John Pedicone is not friendly to TEA, therefore his job performance should be a central issue in this debate. TEA does not explain it’s endorsement very well in terms of why Juarez and Foster are the best choices and only candidates you should vote for the TUSD School Board. Once again, Raul Grijalva is behind this manipulation of our local union leadership. What’s new?
So Grijlava is supporting Juarez and Foster? Good. That and TEA’s endorsement means I am voting for them.
Wow, talk about being a follower. No need to listen to the candidates speak or read any news articles on the TUSD School Board race; let’s just vote for whoever Grijalva tells us to vote for! How sad does it get Tucson?
Apparently a sad time for Grijalva haters but a good time for up and coming leaders like Foster and Juarez that bring a new perspective and energy to TUSD politics. TEA’s endorsement means a lot to me. The fact that pro-MAS candidate Putnam-Hidalgo didn’t get an endorsement seems to be causing Ortega and his friends a lot of grief.
I don’t think it’s causing anybody grief; it’s just highlighting and bringing a lot of attention to the rat-infested sewer that is the Grijalvas/Pima County Democratic Party, and their minions, such as TEA.
Ortega’s roles as Latino Marketing Director for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and as a member of the Mexican American Studies Community Advisory Board should be listed at the end of this article.
Mr. Ortega does not seem to really understand TEA’s sorry role in shaping TUSD’s policies and direction. The job of TEA is to represent the interests…primarily the financial interests…of its members. They do such a lousy job of representing those interests they have lost so many members they are open to being challenged by the TUSD Governing Board over their status as the exclusive bargaining agent for all the people in that bargaining unit.
They have been a knee-jerk supporter of TUSD’s superintendents. Have any of you read a single statement from TEA urging a change in TUSD’s budgetary priorities to focus on the classroom? That’s because there have not been any. They have sat on their thumbs as Pedicone has moved an ever greater percentage of the TUSD budget into central administration and away from their own members. This is a betrayal of the interests of the people they are elected to represent. Instead of representing the members of their bargaining unit they have sold out to the superintendent. Any employee of TUSD who took TEA’s endorsement as a reason to vote for or against any candidate was just not paying attention.