|
EIA Exclusive:
The New Labor Organization Annual Reports – What They Tell Us and What They
Don't About the Teachers' Unions
It has taken almost three years, but we
are now beginning to see the first new federal Labor Organization Annual
Reports (Form LM-2) submitted by teacher union affiliates. The reports have
long been required of labor unions that represent any private sector workers
(fully public sector unions are exempt). NEA and AFT national headquarters,
many of AFT's state federations, plus about ten of NEA's state affiliates
are required to file the report.
The U.S. Department of Labor changed the
format and requirements of the LM-2 late in 2002 (see the January 21, 2003
EIA Communiqué story "Unions
to Face Increased Federal Regulation"). The new regulations require a
detailed itemization of spending, disaggregated membership numbers and
accounting of agency fee payers, plus the percentage of time each union
officer and employee worked on various activities, including "political
activities and lobbying."
The new form went into effect for the
2004-05 school year, and some of the reports, signed by union officers as
recently as three weeks ago, are already posted on the U.S. Department of
Labor's
public disclosure web site. EIA has completed a preliminary analysis of
the reports of national AFT, seven of its state federations, plus the
Illinois Education Association, the lone NEA affiliate whose report is
currently available.
The new report is a vast improvement
over the old one, with payment amounts and recipients spelled out in
exquisite detail. Previously, such payments could be batched together as
contributions or fees, with individual recipients remaining anonymous. The
new forms make it very clear who is receiving the union's money (though it's
not always clear why).
For example, AFT gave $550,000 last year
to the Economic Policy Institute, whose reports tend to support the union's
positions on vouchers, charter schools, teacher pay and class size. Other
recipients of AFT largesse include the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the
Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Democratic Action, Fair Taxes
for All Coalition, and Give Nevadans A Raise, among many more.
The disaggregated membership numbers
also suggest AFT's "more than 1.3 million members" include an awful lot of
people who no longer work in public education, or may have some other
asterisk to merit their inclusion.
AFT reports 695,000 full-time members,
103,000 part-time members, 22,100 one-quarter, contingency or laid-off
members, and 8,400 associate members for a grand total of 828,500. The union
also has about 33,000 agency fee-payers.
It may take a few years before the
reporting is standardized. AFT Oregon put its "membership" at 19, which is
the number of Oregon locals in the state federation, and gave no figures for
individual members.
Where the reports disappoint the most is
in their itemizing of the percentage of time each union officer and employee
spends on each of the following activities: 1) representational activities;
2) political activities and lobbying; 3) contributions; 4) general overhead;
and 5) administration.
The LM-2 instructions make it very clear
what constitutes political activities and lobbying:
"In this
schedule report the labor organization's direct and indirect disbursements
to all entities and individuals during the reporting period associated with
political disbursements or contributions of money. Also report the labor
organization's direct and indirect disbursements to all entities and
individuals during the reporting period associated with dealing with the
executive and legislative branches of Federal, state, and local governments
and with independent agencies and staffs to advance the passage or defeat of
existing or potential laws or the promulgation or any other action with
respect to rules or regulations (including litigation expenses). It does not
matter whether the lobbying attempt succeeds.
"Also report
any disbursement or contribution that is intended to influence the
selection, nomination, election, or appointment of anyone to a Federal,
state, or local executive, legislative or judicial public office, or office
in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice
Presidential electors, and support for or opposition to ballot referenda. It
does not matter whether the attempt succeeds. Include disbursements for
communications with members (or agency fee paying nonmembers) and their
families for registration, get-out-the-vote and voter education campaigns,
the expenses of establishing, administering and soliciting contributions to
union segregated political funds (or PACs), disbursements to political
organizations as defined by the IRS in 26 U.S.C. 527, and other political
disbursements."
So when the
form asks for the amount of time spent on political activities and lobbying,
it is asking for time spent on any and all of the activities in the above
two paragraphs. However, the instructions also state:
"Officers and
employees have discretion in determining the allocation of their time. They
must only make good faith estimates. No particular records are required to
be created. However, if an officer does keep a calendar, for example, the
calendar must be retained and made available for examination."
Caution!
Loophole ahead!
An
examination of the AFT reports shows AFT President Ed McElroy spent 6
percent of his time last year on political activities and lobbying. (It
bears mentioning that last year was a Presidential election year.) State
federation president estimates of their time on political activities and
lobbying ranged from 30 percent (John Cole of the Texas Federation of
Teachers) to 3 percent (David Hecker of AFT Michigan) to 2 percent (Debbi
Covert of AFT Oregon).
The Illinois
Education Association report is even more suspect. IEA President Anne Davis
spent zero percent of her time on political activities and lobbying, and of
the union's 225 employees and executives, 213 reported they spent zero
percent of their time on political activities and lobbying.
The new disclosure requirements allow
union members and the public to better monitor the activities of these
organizations, but there is still some work to be done.
Postscript:
AFT's LM-2 also sheds some light on a story that occupied EIA's attention
for much of the year – the union's attempted "coup d'etat" against the
Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR). You can read "Intrigue
in Puerto Rico" in the July 15, 2004 EIA Communiqué, plus do a
search of the EIA Archives for "FMPR" to read the other 12 installments of
EIA's Puerto Rico coverage.
Though AFT still has yet to acknowledge
any events in Puerto Rico to its members, it appears EIA's efforts were
justified by the resources AFT deployed on the island. Last year, AFT spent
$2,838,195 on what it called the "AFT Puerto Rico Project," with an
additional $71,589 going to a local attorney for legal services, $108,369 to
a Rafael Benitez of San Juan, presumably for organizing work, and $8,835 to
Prensa Interactiva for publication services.
This $3 million expenditure dwarfs AFT's
organizing outlay anywhere in the United States for 2004-05. The end result,
however, was a defeat at the ballot box and in the courthouse. |
