Inside the Vermont-NEA, Part III: The Numbers

Well, the numbers we have, anyway.  They’re from 2003.  See Part II: The Reporting Controversy.

In 2003, Vermont-NEA reported collecting over $2.3 million in dues.  They paid out $1.3 million in salaries and benefits.  Six employees were listed at salaries of over $100,000.  Three made over $90,000 and are probably making six-figures by now.  Three were making over $80,000.  Ellen David Friedman made over $50,000 for holding down the position of “generalist.”  I think that means part-time hired gun.  Office secretaries appear to have made a base of $51,000 and change.  (The average Vermont teacher that year made $43,000 and change.)

By now, I’m having an epiphany.  What the heck am I doing criticizing these people?  I should have become one of them.  Their communications director made $93,000 for putting out pro-NEA propaganda.  Vermont Tiger pays me considerably less for my anti-NEA propaganda.  (If I had to report it, it would be a lunch.)  Not complaining.  Just putting it in perspective.  And I think my writing is better than that of their communications director.  (Wait…their new communications director is the former Rutland Herald reporter, right? Come to think of it, almost anybody's writing is better than that of their communications director!)

For assets, Vermont-NEA listed a building value of almost $700,000 and office furniture/equipment worth $350,000.  (My office furniture at school is worth about 40 bucks.)  That year, they made $200,000 in building improvements and purchased $11,000 worth of new furniture and equipment.

Vermont-NEA claims that not a single penny of dues money goes to support candidates.  That’s because it goes to soft-money attack ads aimed at their candidates’ opponents, and it goes to 501c3s that support left-wing social causes that most of the members do not.  It is difficult to pinpoint, from their report, how much goes where.

A couple years ago, I petitioned to de-certify our NEA-affiliated local association as our bargaining agent.  (Which prompted a rare visit to our school by union officials.)  The argument I made was primarily based on where the dues money goes.  It goes mostly to keeping Vermont-NEA staff comfortable and prosperous, and it goes to promoting goofy political causes.  We got 30 percent of the vote.  So, obviously, the message resonated among some teachers.

My final “Inside the Vermont-NEA” post will rate the Vermont-NEA on its effectiveness in fighting for the interests of teachers.   Do the dues-paying educators get much bang for their buck?  We’ll see!

Comments

[Jon Harrison]

Scandalous.

[Mister Guy]

You guys are getting paid for putting up these posts?? Man...someone is getting ripped off...the free market should do something about that...

"A couple years ago, I petitioned to de-certify our NEA-affiliated local association as our bargaining agent."

Who did you want instead? I don't think you'd like the AFT much more.

[Curtis Hier]

You don't think a year's worth of my writing is worth a lunch?! Man, that's harsh.

I've been a membr of both AFT and NEA at different times. I find the AFT to be quite a lot less objectionable, actually. Or we could have gone unafilliated. Teachers, not being a particularly courageous lot, were hesitant to change.

[Mister Guy]

I admit it...the truth hurts sometimes.

You don't think that you'd have a harder time negotiating and enforcing a contract if you were unafilliated? The union that I used to be in dumped the AFL-CIO a while ago and wasn't worse the wear for it actually.

[Mark Cassidy]

The NEA is the biggest scam going. A bunch of fools looking after only each other while trying to figure out how to promote their liberal agenda.