Teachers as Advocates for Public Education

Like many school districts, the one in which I work has policies on employee rights & responsibilities that includes language on how teachers can speak out:

3.14 is an interesting one and the focus of my post. It has been used as a bugbear by both employees and the employer to suggest that teachers have a gag order on public commentary and should avoid bringing concerns about the education system to the media. This sentiment was not the intention behind the policy nor should it be the basis of interpretation. This was made clear during a policy revision process in 2016-17 that included Policy 1170.3. Both sides affirmed the idea that employees are welcome to use reasonable tools to raise awareness and make improvements to public education.  The employer did not dispute the almost ubiquitous association between responsible use of social media and public commentary. The Prince George Teachers (PGDTA) lobbied to bring changes to this policy, to affirm the idea that healthy, responsible, public comment by teachers was both of benefit to the education system and also respectful of tradition and diversity, not to mention Charter rights. Alas, the feedback and proposed changes from the PGDTA were rejected by the trustees on the advice of senior management.

The wording of this policy as it stands does, however, provide a starting point for a reasonable interpretation of the extent to which teachers can use public commentary to advocate for a quality education system.

The key word here is "irresponsible" -- e.g. a public comment making a critique personal (e.g. directed toward a district employee), or using false information, inflammatory language, breech of confidentiality, slander, careless generalizations, etc. "Responsible" comment should be welcome. There is no gag order (or Charter or Rights exception) on teachers using media to improve the education system, nor does a critique of a particular policy or initiative undermine the public education system -- it is intended to bring about effective change.

We have ample precedents of practising teachers in Prince George and BC responsibly offering public comment in order to identify educational issues and suggest solutions. I have done this myself many times since 2010 on radio, newspaper, TV, public board meetings, and on social media. I have spoken out on technology plans, school closures, program implementation, district budget cuts and budgeting process, superfluous spending, management of student data, student data security, school achievement contracts, asset disposal, collaboration models, labour negotiation, bad faith bargaining, Labour Relations Rulings (one of my faves), school ground greening, school repair, response to mental health services, and many aspects of leadership and district planning process.

As a rule of thumb, the more the public comment is directed towards general trends and local or provincial phenomena that we can all own as a education system, the better. "Public commentary" should be about "public issues" and not about private concerns and personal grudges. A good example is the current revision to the curriculum in BC -- hundreds of BC teachers have chimed in via twitter, facebook, and blogs about how this process has unfolded and about the mistakes made along the way. These folks are not just complaining or hanging on to the past, they consistently offer solutions or alternatives, and speak from a position of authority and/or experience.

There are special circumstances that call for actual whistleblowing, e.g. a response to corruption, gross negligence, child protection, workplace harassment, or serious safety violations.  Sadly, our district policies do not include protection for whistleblowers, and no doubt there have been issues in the past that were allowed to fester unchecked because no one wanted to confront the problems publicly.  I believe that situations calling for whistleblowing should be dealt with separately from Policy 1170.3 -- advocacy for public education is one thing, coming forward with an allegation of harassment or a dangerous workplace hazard is another.

Of course, many teachers are comfortable leaving advocacy on serious or sensitive issues to their union leadership -- that's ok. Full-time released union officers are not bound by Policy 1170.3 or its equivalent elsewhere, and often do spend some of their time preparing briefs for the media and engaging in public comment through social media and public presentations to local school boards. We can rely on the BCTF, too, for providing public education advocacy -- they have devoted considerable resources to this end and have made it a core value of the organization.

Ordinary teachers, however, should be comfortable with the idea that part of their responsibility as a professional is to be an advocate for public education. This means that they should not shy away from responsible public comment and, where appropriate, political action and social justice projects. Our job does not end in the classroom, although that is the most important part. Our job includes diverse roles within overlapping educational communities on many scales, from the classroom all the way through to international solidarity. In between are school, district, and provincial issues that absolutely require both private and public comment from teachers. Thankfully, each of us does not have to attend to all issues at all scales -- do what you are good at, do it when you are ready, and do it responsibly.

Equity Motions and the BCTF AGM

At the upcoming BCTF AGM, there are a series of recommendations (from the BCTF executive) and one recommendation (from a union local) that deal with equity issues among elected officials within the BCTF.  I will list the relevant motions below (copied from the BCTF Reports and Resolutions booklet) and follow-up with a summary (my interpretation), my response and voting intentions. I have also attached here a complete list of my voting intentions for all of the recommendations and resolutions that are proposed for the AGM.

Recommendation 33

That By-law 5.1.a be amended as follows:
5.1.a There shall be an Executive Committee, which shall consist of a President, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President, an Immediate Past- President (when applicable), and seven nine Members-at-Large, elected in such a manner as to ensure that at least three Member-at-Large vacancies are filled at each AGM. One Member-at-Large position shall be designated to be held by a racialized member and one shall be designated to be held by an Aboriginal member. The designated positions shall have the same term and role as the non-designated positions. They The Executive Committee positions are shall be elected by at the Annual General Meeting and shall take office on the following July 1 next following. Each member of the Executive Committee shall be a member in good standing entitled to vote, in accordance with By-law 1.1. An Executive Committee member may be removed from office under the provisions of By-law 1.7 or By-law 7. 

Recommendation 34
That By-law 5.1 be amended as follows:
d. All members of the Executive Committee shall be eligible for re-election subject to the equity criteria established in By-law 5.1.a.e. The Member-at-Large position designated to be held by an Aboriginal member is open only to the election of a member who identifies as being Aboriginal.
f. The Member-at-Large position designated to be held by a racialized member is open only to the election of a member who identifies as racialized, including those members who identify as being Aboriginal.

Summary: The executive will be expanded to include two new member-at-large positions to be held by an Aboriginal person and a racialized person*.

Recommendation 35

That By-law 5.4 be amended to add the following and be renumbered accordingly:

d. Candidates for the Executive Committee who intend to run for positions with equity criteria shall confirm that they meet the equity criteria by self- identification on the nomination form provided to the Nominating Chairperson. During the election process a candidate can drop down to run for an equity position for which they have self-identified on the nomination form, or drop down to the remaining positions without equity criteria.

Recommendation 36

That AGM Standing Rules of Order 13.3 be amended as follows:
That the election shall be conducted in the following order:
1. President
2. First Vice-President
3. Second Vice-President
4. Member-at-Large designated for an Aboriginal member
5. Member-at-Large designated for a racialized member

6. Members-at-Large.

Recommendation 37

That AGM Standing Rule of Order 13.11 be amended as follows:

Candidates defeated in an election for any office shall be deemed to have been nominated for the office next to be filled, provided they meet the equity criteria. If they do not meet the equity criteria for a specific position or they choose not to run for a designated Member-at-Large position, they will be deemed to have been nominated for the next office to be filled for which they meet the criteria. At any time in the conducting of a ballot, any candidate may, by giving notice to the meeting, withdraw from the contest election.

Summary: Persons from equity-seeking groups, if not successful in filling designated positions, can run for non-designated positions. Also establishes sequence of votes.

Recommendation 38

That By-law 5.1.a be amended as follows:
There shall be an Executive Committee, which shall consist of a President, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President, and two Vice-Presidents, elected for one-year terms, an Immediate Past-President, serving a one-year term, and seven Members-at- Large, elected for two-year terms. They The Executive Committee positions are shall be elected at by the Annual General Meeting and shall take office on the following July 1 next following. Each member of the Executive Committee shall be a member in good standing entitled to vote, in accordance with the provisions of By-law 1.1. An Executive Committee member may be removed from office under the provisions of By-law 1.7 or By-law 7. 5.

Summary: Instead of a 1st VP and 2nd VP, just have two VPs with equal status.**

Recommendation 39

That By-law 5.1 be amended to add the following: g. At least two of the three table-officer positions— President and two Vice-Presidents—must be held by members who self-identify as being from an equity- seeking group, which includes members who self- identify as women. This ratio would be achieved over a two-year election cycle with at least one of the three table-officer positions being held by a member who self-identifies as being from an equity-seeking group in 2018–19 and at least two being held by members who self-identify as being from an equity-seeking group in 2019–20, and this ratio be maintained thereafter.

Summary: Of the top three positions in the executive (President, 1st & 2nd Vice-Presidents), two will be from equity-seeking groups, e.g. women, LGBTQ, Aboriginal, or racialized.

Recommendation 40
That AGM Standing Rules of Order 13 be amended to add a new 13.14 and be renumbered accordingly. 13.14 In the election of the table-officer positions (President and Vice-Presidents), if a member who does not identify as being from an equity-seeking group is elected to one of the positions, only those candidates who identify as being from an equity- seeking group will be eligible for the remaining table- officer positions to be elected. Candidates who were declared ineligible or who were unsuccessful may have their name remain on the ballot for subsequent positions for which they are eligible. 

Summary: Two of the top three positions must be held by persons from equity-seeking groups, thus they can't be filled by a "non-equity" person even if there are no "equity" persons running for the positions.  See Recommendation 43 for solution to this potential problem.

Recommendation 41

That By-law 5.1 be amended to add the following: h. Up to two of the seven non-designated Member-at- Large positions may be held by members who self- identify as men with this ratio being achieved over a three-year election cycle, with up to four positions open to being held by men in 2018–19, up to three in 2019–20, and up to two in 2020–21, to be maintained thereafter. 

Recommendation 42

That AGM Standing Rules of Order 13 be amended to add a new 13.15 as follows and be renumbered accordingly:
The election for the non-designated Member-at- Large positions must be conducted in accordance with the representation established in By-law 5.1.g and take into account the numbers of members who identify as men in the Member-at-Large positions not up for election that particular year. At any stage during the balloting process, once the ratios for the years listed below are met, candidates who identify as men will no longer be eligible to continue with their name on the ballot or be declared as elected.
1. 2018–19 up to four members who identify as men 2. 2019–20 up to three members who identify as men 3. 2020–21 and thereafter up to two members who identify as men.” 

Summary: The remaining seven positions on the executive for non-designated members-at-large can only have up to two men. This will be phased in over three years.

Recommendation 43

That By-law 5.5 be amended to add:
If, in any given year, the AGM is not able to fill the positions that require specific equity representation or meet the ratios designated in the by-laws, due to there being an insufficient number of candidates meeting the criteria, the positions shall be declared vacant and shall be filled by the Representative Assembly, applying the same criteria, until June 30 of the following year. 

Summary: If the equity quotas are not met, they will not be filled by "non-equity' persons but will be filled by election at a subsequent Rep Assembly using the same rules.

Resolution 101—Greater Victoria

That By-Law 5.1.a and 5.1.b be amended as follows: 5.1.a There shall be an Executive Committee, which shall consist of a President, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President, an Immediate Past- President, a TTOC/New Teacher Representative that is currently a TTOC in their first five years of teaching, and six members-at-large and seven members-at-large. They shall be elected at the Annual General Meeting and shall take office on July 1 next following. Each member of the Executive Committee shall be a member in good standing entitled to vote. An Executive Committee member may be removed from office under the provisions of By-law 1.7 or By-law 7.
5.1.b Notwithstanding the foregoing, the TTOC/New Teacher Representative, and each member-at-large, shall be elected for a term of two years. If for any reason either position becomes vacated a member-at- large leaves the position after only one year, a successor shall be elected to fill the unexpired portion of the two-year term. 

Summary: The executive will contain a designated position for a TTOC/New Teacher Rep that is within their first five years of teaching.

------------------------- 

Response: I think the BCTF has evolved over the years, and has perhaps adopted many of its progressive views in advance of the general public (e.g. they have been leaders not followers). There are more women in leadership positions, including BCTF staff and the BCTF executive than ever before. There are frequently as many women running for executive positions as men, and with approximately the same chance of succcess given the electoral history. Some, but not all, of our recent executive committee have been composed by a majority of women. This does not yet reflect the fact that majority of BTCF members are women, but it is reflective of society in general. Aboriginal persons and persons of colour, women in particular, have also seen increased representation on committees and leadership positions, including the executive. In my mind this means that the BCTF drive for social justice and promotion of the rights of equity-seeking groups has been working. Persons from equity-seeking groups that have won elected positions and taken positions of importance in the BCTF can rightly say that they have earned it, that barriers or ceilings to their success have been reduced, and that they are there because they have earned it AND because the voting members saw their identity markers as assets and not detractors. Further evidence that existing equity measures have been successful: of our last five BCTF presidents (going back 13 years), three have been women (Sims, Lanzinger, Lambert), one racialized (Sims), and one openly gay (Hansman). Only one of the last five (Iker) was not from an equity-seeking group, but he was certainly one-of-a-kind!

One angle in the debate about the use of race and gender based quotas is that any attempt to mandate diversity will automatically exclude some groups. I think it is well established as to why race and gender form key aspects of privilege and therefore equity-seeking status. I get that, and my also my own status of privilege as a straight white male, but I also believe that we have a capable membership that can become democratically involved in ensuring diversity among elected officials without being forced to use race and gender as a voting criteria. If these recommendations are an attempt to create a more accurate reflection of society, they do not work. If they are an attempt to create a more inclusive set of voices around the table at the executive, they are missing some key voices. Why not create designated spots for persons with disabilities? How about a mandated cross-section of generations? How about regional representation? Is it okay for multiple executive members to come from the same region or even local? What about elementary vs secondary designations? What about subject specialties, e.g. so-called academic vs elective vs non-enrolling designations? What about designations for DL teachers, rural and remote school teachers, representation for bilingualism, etc.

I do not believe that creating hard quotas and ratios based on a selection of identity characteristics (particularly race or skin colour) is a productive approach to increasing overall equity, be that in leadership, the general membership, or society. Such a move will be divisive among teachers rather than increase member engagement. The remaining barriers to equity and diversity of representation within the BCTF do no lie in the electoral system, but in the appeal and recruitment for these positions. An example from the general membership -- there are far more women than men in the teaching force. This does not represent society as a whole, and has led to a lack of male role models for many of our students, particularly at the elementary level. There are also very few transgendered role models for students. To resolve problems like that, the system could impose gender quotas for hiring (alongside race), or it could put its effort into recruitment and retention. Another example -- the current push for an Aboriginal Employment Equity Agreement. While I support the idea, the problem in getting more Aboriginal teachers isn't in hiring quotas, it is in recruiting Aboriginal men and women to complete degrees and apply to teacher training programs. To me, hard quotas are the easy way out -- they appear to solve the problem by forcing diversity at the expense of democracy, but do not necessarily increase representation or the addition of new perspectives.

While I am open to further thought, reading, and dialogue about this issues, at this point I will not support these motions. I think they swing to the extreme in their response to last year's equity audit and will be a conundrum on the AGM floor in terms of emotions and procedure (expect many proposed amendments). It is quite possible that there will be unfilled positions, while at the same time earnest and capable candidates will be turned away from vacant spots because of their cultural background or gender identity. I was one of the 3000 randomly selected persons (out of 41,000 teachers) to take a members' survey connected with the equity audit, of which there were 327 valid responses. I found it to contain loaded and leading questions. While a survey of less than 1% of BCTF members might indicate some trends and range of views, it is not a clear call to make the kinds of changes suggested in these equity motions.  Also, many of the recommendations of the equity audit report did not become AGM recommendations -- the use of the report was selective.

Despite the survey, I certainly respect the intent of the BCTF executive and staff to take equity issues seriously and to keep diversity near the top of its agenda. If these motions pass, however, it will signal to women, persons of colour, Aboriginals, and LGBTQ members that they need an electoral advantage in order to succeed. I'd say give them a head-start by encouraging them to come forward for these positions. And guess what, they already do come forward, and we can see that by the relative diversity on current and past executives. I would find the motions easier to accept if there were simply

I'd love to see a more diverse BCTF executive, but not through mandated identity quotas. I would find these motion more agreeable if there were simply some spots opened up on the executive (e.g. 3 of 7 members-at-large) and perhaps just one among the table officers open to all equity-seeking candidates and that if none step forward then they could to anyone.  I believe the motions as they stand go too far and at a cost. Our executive has become increasingly equitable not through quotas but because the BCTF has become accepting of diversity and welcoming to all, and has taken democracy seriously.


*I am assuming that a "racialized" means a person of colour or a visible minority, or someone who identifies through ancestry to persons of colour or visible minorities as opposed to some sense of "European descent." Or is racialized about racial equity, about races that some social historians would consider to have been the Other for some part of the past? If that is the case does racialized include "white" folks that have been historically marginalized, such as Jews, certain Slavic peoples, people from the Basque region, Roma, Mennonites, etc.? The term requires further definition (perhaps the BCTF has done this somewhere but I have missed it), and raises some serious ethical and historical issues when used as criteria for holding office.

** In regards to recommendation 38 (just two VPs, not a 1st and 2nd VP), I am less certain of my voting intention. In principle, it makes the spot of president more competitive and less of a coronation, however it removes the tradition of preparing table officers for the top position. Does this motion imbed the "slate" politics at the AGM, or does it open it up to more movement. Perhaps only time will tell, but one thing I know now is that I want the president to be the best person possible to represent teachers at the bargaining table -- everything else is bonus. In my mind, we know if we're getting the best by allowing that person to demonstrate proficiency in roles with gradually increasing responsibility. While inclined to support this motion jus to see what happens, I also wonder if this is simply a change in order to make Recommendations 39 and 40 easier to implement.

Thoughts on the 99th BCTF AGM

Intended audience: Prince George District Teachers's Association.  Thanks to other PGDTA delegates who have already shared their observations, vote tallies, etc.

These are my own views here; not necessarily the views of the PGDTA, although I certainly tried to represent the PGDTA!

First, a glossary of terms for those unfamiliar with the internal structure of the BCTF

AGM = Annual General Meeting - c. 700 delegates from across the BCTF debating up 50-80 resolutions (from locals) that each intend to shift the organization in a large or small way. Many of these are tabled or do not reach the floor. This group also elects the EC.

RA = Rep Assembly - 3x/year meeting of c. 350 "Local Representatives" and local presidents to set budgets, receive reports, debate new motions and revisit motions not dealt with at the AGM. They typically "get more done" than the AGM does, although it is still bound by politics, agendas, and debate strategies (e.g. filibustering) employed at the larger meeting.

EC = Exec committee - Pres, 1st VP, 2nd VP, and 10 members-at-large (MAL) who, through meetings and sub-committees, set direction for the BCTF including finances, member services, philosophy, social justice campaigns and projects, PR tactics re gov't and public, and bargaining.

COALITION = a "party" or syndicate within the BCTF - somewhat organized group of district reps who have more or less controlled the EC since 1999 and have built a reputation for the BCTF as a social justice union. They are, arguably, the successors to a left/progressive group called "Teacher Viewpoint" (TV) that was active in the BTCF in the 1980s and 90s but found itself in a minority on key issues around the structure of the union after 1987. The current Coalition is made up of some large locals, mainly from lower mainland, and most of the small unamalgamated locals.

INDEPENDENTS = another syndicate within the BCTF - until recently this was a less organized group of district reps who have built strategic or pragmatic campaigns to offer alternative EC candidates and motions at AGMs and RAs. At some point in they shifted from being a loose alliance of like-minded locals to being an actual voting block like the Coalition. They are, arguably, the successors to a group called "Teachers for a Unified Federation" (TUF) that split from the TV in 1986 and formed a majority on key issues from 1987-1999 (think Kit Krieger). The Independents are often associated with cost-savings measures and placing direct member services ahead of other priorities.

NON-AFFILIATED = AGM delegates or EC candidates that do not adhere to the party system or align themselves with either one. Technically everyone is free to vote their conscience, and many did, but in reality there is a tendency for locals to vote together on key issues -- maybe based on shared values, maybe based on affiliations with a "party." Most of the time, the two "camps" play nice with each other and share many views or common goals. There are annoying individuals on both sides, though, who exaggerate the differences and seek to provoke. Ironically, these seemed to be the ones with emotional pleas for unity at the mic, and suggest that this "yes" or that "no" will tear apart our union. For this reason, many delegates, although ready to vote with their "peeps," are not keen to declare loyalty to one syndicate or the other, or insist that the syndicates do not actually exist as parties, merely fluid alliances.

Observations on the 99th BCTF AGM

1) While there is a party system at play within the BCTF, it does not account for all of the direction taken by the EC, nor does it precisely explain the voting patterns, although it may come close. The intense vote-whipping of the past (often associated with the Coalition) was not obvious here; if anything it seemed the Independents were putting more pressure on their delegates to "think as one." There are many issues where teachers simply recognized that a progressive action was needed, and voting was near unanimous. One could say that there is a financial restraint theme and a social justice theme running through many motions, and that delegates gravitate towards one of these themes based on their own values, many of which are shared with others in their local. Personally, my vote was also influenced by the quality of the motion, including grammatical mistakes and far-fetched assumptions, regardless of the prevailing theme. I voted for most of the cost-savings measures, but I also supported many social justice advocacy positions that did not have costs attached (e.g. agree that BCTF should advocate against cuts to CBC). I spoke against a motion to oppose the "BC Skills for Jobs Blueprint," not because the Blueprint lacks serious deficits, but because the motion contained a convoluted list of problematic conditions for opposing the Blueprint. To fix the motion, amendment by amendment, would have taken all day. Wisely, this one was referred to the EC for further consideration.

2) The "Anti-126" lobby was aggressive and controversial. This was the resistance from small unamalgamated locals (and their Coalition allies) to remove their presidential grants through Resolution 126. An extreme case, Stikine, has only 22 members but has a full-time president paid for by BCTF, although their four schools face extreme isolation and travel time. Lake Cowichan provides a better example of why presidential grants are an issue. This unamalgamated local has 30-something teachers, a full-time president, and is 20 minutes from the Cowichan local with 450 teachers and official recognition by the district's board office. At the last minute Quesnel's Resolution 126 was withdrawn. The rationale given was that the anti-126 tactics were divisive and that the QTA did not want to further contribute to disunity within the BCTF. Two views on this move: a) their point was made; withdrawing the motion was a conciliatory gesture, or b) withdrawing the motion removed a controversial issue that may have stuck to Independents candidates. Another motion on reforming presidential grants, PGDTA's Resolution 130, was rejected.

3) A big part of the AGM is the election of the EC. This year the Pres (Iker - Coalition), 1st VP (Hansman - Coalition? -- some say he is now non-affiliated), 2nd VP (Mooring - Independents) were acclaimed. 3 Coalition member-at-large candidates were elected to the EC (Sanyshyn, Ball, and Chaddock-Costello) and 2 from the Independents (Johnston and Steer). I am no expert on the politics, just trying to figure it out really, but my scan of the current EC (3 table officers and 8 MAL) shows 5-6 for the Coalition and 5-6 for the Independents. I imagine this results in great debate at the EC table, but also opportunities for creative solutions and compromises. This reflects the last year on the EC as well, with the possible result being that we did not se fee increases this year and in fact saw a small cap placed on the growth of the International Solidarity Fund. For the most part the competition at this AGM was civil, unlike last year where battles and accusations took place at the mic and in the social media backchannels. One example of questionable politicking this year was a candidate using campaign flyers as draw tickets for prizes, and then announcing draw winners at the mic throughout the AGM. Each day the tables were festooned with campaign swag and pamphlets, although a resolution was passed that next year the candidates are restricted to a written statement and buttons -- no size limit on the buttons, though... I'm expecting some will be a metre across and lit by neon.

4) Aside from various motions aimed at controlling finances, there were some that invited the BCTF to focus more on member issues and member engagement and less on professional/social issues and battles with third parties. Resolution 134 asked the BCTF to only adopt public positions on matters that aligned with the actual Goals of the BCTF. This would effectively limit many of the pet projects like fighting fossil fuels, protecting health care, issuing warnings about the dangers of wifi, etc. I think the idea is that these are all great causes, but lie outside the mandate of the BCTF. Resolutions 141, 143, 147, and 150 all sought a one-member-one-vote (OMOV) system, and were all defeated. I got the sense that this was least popular among the Coalition types. Perhaps this threatens delegates that wonder if they actually represent a majority of their members. There were arguments that OMOV would favour large locals in the urban centres, or that that campaigning would now be perpetual/provincial and would favour the wealthy and the incumbents. It may have also been a non-starter with long-time BCTF activists of all stripes -- if we had OMOV, and kept up with 3 RAs per year, for what exactly would we need the AGM?

5) It seems to me that systemic or at least persistent issues in the BCTF, e.g. the unamalgamated locals, spending priorities, voting procedures, etc. are not easily resolved at the AGM (or the RA for that matter). The process is too unwieldy and too political. Some kind of sustained dialogue, with a mandate to create proposals, and the legitimacy of leaders present, needs to occur. This could and should happen within the EC itself, but does not do so to the satisfaction of all, although they did have a number of useful and logical recommendations on the floor. One fellow I talked to (the Kootenay-Columbia president) had a good suggestion: a gathering pf presidents with the purpose of coming up with new plan for member representation, geographic and demographic allowances, and presidential grant reform. Others suggested a constitutional assembly with the mandate to propose new formulas and reforms. Regardless of the way forward, having one-off AGM motions that chip away at the BCTF's sacred cows has not been generally successful. Many of these motions, while motivated by desire for accountable spending, etc., would also hamstring the EC and limit the BCTF's ability to do some things it does well. Other motions simply overburden the BCTF with new causes, new committees, and "studies." These piecemeal efforts help make individual local's views known, but are as effective as running alongside a moving train and asking firmly that the conductors change direction.

6) One of the elephants in the room (wouldn't be a fun AGM without them!) was the financial situation of the BCTF.  It was not clear to me whether or not we were in deficit mode, nor that we were on track to refill the Collective Bargaining Defense Fund (CBDF) by 2019.  In the past, it seemed the solution to deficit was to raise the member dues, rather than to look for cost savings -- this choice seems to mark a key difference between the Coalition and Independents. The membership dues did not go up this year (although the BCTF has a higher revenue because our salaries have risen).  Currently we pay 1.79% of our salary in BCTF dues. This works out to about $1300 for the average teacher. Ten years ago we paid 1.38% of our salary, or about $1000 for the average teach (in 2015 dollars). This increase is often explained by the costs associated with our Supreme Court challenges since 2002. At some point a few years ago (2012 I think), the EC recommended an increase as a temporary measure, but our dues have only ever gone up, not down, as far as I can tell. The lack of strike pay last year came up a few times.  On the one hand, we held the line based on our convictions and did so despite the strike fund drying up in 3 days.  On the other hand, we sent the message that the BCTF was broke and did not place a high enough value on the CBDF and its members to keep it topped up in the years leading up to the inevitable show-down.  Interesting, a topic that was avoided was whether or not our bargaining strategy and strike were worth it in terms of the deal we got.  I hope that discussion does take place somewhere where it can be of value.  My personal view is that, with a reduced fee level set at the AGM (e.g. 1.5% of salary) we should leave the EC and RA to hammer out the details on how our money should be spent, but they should do so with more active consultation of all members through neutral polling. I believe our union dues are the highest in Canada and our organization has reached "labyrinthine" status -- I think we could accomplish our objectives (including international solidarity, pro-d, bargaining, etc.) with a smaller BCTF bureaucracy and a lower fee level.

7) The AGM is a great opportunity to meet colleagues and have meaningful "teacher" conversations -- not everything happens at the mic. Speaking of which, I went to the mic a number of times; admittedly the main reason was to "call the question" when the debate was going in circles. I was also busy on twitter, and found myself defending the various reasons why the presidential grants needed to change to provide more equity and consistent representation within the BCTF. Serious stink-eye on that one -- these small locals saw this as an attack on a decades-old way of doing union business, and likened it to the BC Liberals slashing services and cutting costs in the Education system. Other members of the PGDTA delegation each contributed in their own way -- taking notes, speaking at the mic, engaging others in dialogue on issues. I think that the delegations do not need to be as big as they are. The Empress-hosted AGM (and 3 RAs) are very expensive and could do with some consolidation. I figure the AGM alone must cost the BCTF $1 million.

8) The AGM also featured a number of special speakers. Besides a First Nations welcome from a Tsouke elder and few different speeches from Jim Iker and others in the EC, we heard from Paul Faoro (CUPE-BC), Teresa Resanzoff (BCSTA - trustees president), Bob Taverner (RTA, retired teacher from PG), Nicole Makohoniuk (BCCPAC - parents), Irene Lazinger (former BCTF president, new BC Fed president), John Horgan (BC NDP leader), Stewart Phillip (Grand Chief, Union of BC Indian Chiefs), Diane Woloschuk (president Canadian Teachers' Federation), some more I have forgotten (i may have nodded off a bit during the pension plan presentation), and a number of award recipients including a lifetime BCTF membership for Jim Sinclair, outgoing BC Fed president. A little something for everyone.

That's probably enough -- if you're still reading this some cap doffing is in order... moved and seconded.