Intercepts
A listening post monitoring public education and teachers’ unions.

Apparently you can’t be a bona fide education organization without an Internet cartoon. First we had AFT’s NCLB musical comedy, now we have this by the Public Education Network (PEN).

But PEN may regret its musical choice rather than its cartoon content, because the theme music is an obvious ripoff of Mister Softee.

Now Mister Softee is one of the happiest, most easygoing souls on the planet, but he doesn’t take kindly to people infringing on his trademark. So my advice to PEN is to redo the musical score. Perhaps my favorite film composer is available.

Hat tip to Jim Stegall of North Carolina.

Michael (also spelled Micheal) Ocello is running for a seat on the Mehlville school board in Missouri. This ordinarily wouldn’t be worthy of national attention, but Ocello is no ordinary candidate.

He runs a national chain of strip clubs and is the president of the Association of Club Executives (ACE), a professional association of strip club owners and operators.

Ocello, 46, is a former dancer himself, but nowadays prefers to be known as a family man.

“I knew going into it I would receive a lot of scrutiny,” he said. “I think it’s important enough to go through with it.”

Ocello is no stranger to controversy, or the oddball political statement. He may be best known for sending a letter to some 4,000 strip club executives in 2004 opposing the reelection of President Bush. “We must do everything within our power to help ensure that Bush and his ultra-conservative administration are removed from the White House,” he wrote. “If we are to survive, we must act now.”

In conjunction with this campaign, Ocello initiated a voter registration drive at strip clubs nationwide. His goal was for each of America’s 4,000-plus strip clubs to register 100 people. Evidently the topless crowd was unable to put Kerry over the top.

The 2004 campaign was not Ocello’s worst political failure. In 1999, he offered patrons a free table dance for turning in a firearm. The campaign was called “Buns for Guns.” No guns were turned in.

In 2002, Ocello offered a “secret CD” to club owners, which he claimed contained “highlights of our legislative opponents in action.”

Ocello does invest heavily in his workers. This article describes how he shelled out $500 per bouncer (the employee, not the anatomy) for aikido lessons.

Ocello is even cited in scholarly research. In a Woodhull Foundation paper titled The Erotic Economy, Ocello provides us with this insight into his chosen profession:

“You need a minimum of $2-3 million to even open a decent club,” explains VCG holding company president Michael Ocello whose company owns almost 20 clubs worldwide. He trains ladies in current affairs, dress and wine tasting to boost his profit margins as well as the woman’s earning potential. “A lady from a rural community and limited background can come to work for me and someday leave our establishments with some sophistication and networking under her garter. It isn’t a negative exchange, that’s for sure.” Indeed. After speaking with ladies who work for Ocello, they rave. “Working for this company has helped me both personally and professionally,” claims Gina.

UPDATE: Looks like Ocello is hip deep in a Teamsters scandal as well.

In front of me is a scrolling list of hundreds of newspapers that ran a story this morning on the AFL-CIO/NEA Labor Solidarity Partnership. And I’m staring at my e-mail inbox, wondering why I’m not hearing from those NEA members who told me last week that the newspapers had “determined that there was nothing newsworthy to publish” about it.

I’m thinking about them as I read the quotes from AFT President Edward McElroy, who called the pact “a historic coupling,” and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who called it the “most important step forward for the labor movement since the AFL-CIO merger in 1955.”

But mostly I’m wondering how they feel about NEA President Reg Weaver’s explanation for why this decision will not go before the union’s Representative Assembly (RA) for ratification. “We felt this was a decision that was for the board of directors to make ,…and the board represents all affiliates.”

In 1998, the board approved the NEA-AFT merger proposal by a 2 to 1 margin. The RA defeated it 58%-42%.

Click here to read:

1) AFL-CIO/NEA Agreement: Of DANLs, DALUs and Dollars
2) AFT Howls Obligingly When Its Chain Is Yanked
3) Denver, ProComp and Feet-Voting
4) Grievous Grievances
5) Why Would SEIU Hand 2,200 Members Over to NEA?
6) Last Week’s Intercepts
7) Quote of the Week

NEA’s external and internal communications strategies are often at odds, and the way the union is handling the Labor Solidarity Partnership Agreement with the AFL-CIO illustrates the problem.

Last week, NEA and AFL-CIO distributed a media advisory to alert the press to today’s joint announcement about the agreement, to be made at the AFL-CIO convention in San Diego by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and NEA President Reg Weaver.

The New York Times reported this morning that the agreement “could increase the federation’s membership by nearly a million over the next five years.”

So, big deal, right?

Not if you read some of my e-mail. Sources in several states tell EIA that when they question their state officers about the agreement, they are being told it’s no big deal. They cite the origins of the negotiations, which were designed to allow NEA locals to participate in AFL-CIO’s central labor councils.

As late as yesterday, EIA received e-mails from NEA affiliate staff and reps, claiming that NEA locals would NOT belong to the AFL-CIO. Their reasoning is priceless: 1) it couldn’t happen without a change in NEA by-laws and/or policies (duh, guess what just happened); and 2) the Washington Times reported it last week but no one else did, therefore the other newspapers must have “determined that there was nothing newsworthy to publish.” (And, of course, the New York Times has since run two stories on the agreement, along with USA Today and Reuters.)

But what difference does all this make when you can read the bloody document for yourself? There is nothing ambiguous about the statement “AFL-CIO will issue a Certificate of Affiliation to the NEA local affiliate designating it as a Directly Affiliated NEA Local of the AFL-CIO” or “a DANL will in all respects, including representation and voting in the AFL-CIO and coverage under Articles XX and XXI of the AFL-CIO Constitution, have the same rights and obligations in the national AFL-CIO as any Directly Affiliated Local Union of the AFL-CIO” or “The AFL-CIO and the NEA will consult with each other through the Implementation Committee concerning requests from NEA state affiliates that desire to become members of AFL-CIO state federations.”

I’ll have more on this in tonight’s communique’. Tease: What until you see how much money may be involved.

The following memo was distributed today from NEA President Reg Weaver to staff and state affiliate officers and executive directors:

NEA Pubic (sic) Relations issued on Thursday a media advisory about a joint announcement AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and I are scheduled to make on Monday, February 27. The media advisory prompted a number of media calls to the Public Relations department. They declined to comment, noting that Mr. Sweeney and I will make any public statements related to the scheduled announcement on Monday.

While NEA declined to comment, a number of media outlets published their take on the announcement. The stories, unfortunately, also contained a number of serious inaccuracies. Of primary concern to me and our members is the impression that they left with regard to the future of NEA. NEA is not planning to merge with either the AFL-CIO or the AFT. We will remain a strong, independent national organization.

NEA Public Relations is finalizing a number of documents related to the scheduled announcement. They will distribute the documents to the appropriate people at the appropriate time.

If you have or receive any questions, please refer them to either of the two individuals:

Questions from the media: Miguel Gonzalez, Public Relations, at 202-822-7758

Questions from affiliates or others: Michael Edwards, Director of Labor Outreach, at 202-822-7564

If my e-mail is any indication, NEA (and maybe even AFT!) is going to be sorry it didn’t involve the rank-and-file more in negotiations over the AFL-CIO partnership. Even elected union officers at a number of levels claim this is the first they have heard about it.

It’s difficult to gauge how much the anti-AFL-CIO sentiment has mellowed since the aborted NEA-AFT merger in 1998, but EIA will be keeping a close eye on places like New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, and a few others, to measure the reaction.

A big thank you to my sources, who enabled me not only to beat the New York Times and USA Today to the story, but to provide the full text of the actual agreement, so that there will be fewer misunderstandings about what it all means. You can read it for yourself here.