Sign Up For Our Newsletter

In their ongoing battle to preserve the education status quo, teachers union officials often find an advantage in sophisticated public relation campaigns.

The side of union officials you don’t observe over the airwaves, however, is the arrogant belief that their narrow political agenda merits special protected status in our taxpayer-funded places of learning.

From its vast resources of member dues, the Colorado Education Association (CEA) finances radio and television ads designed to convince the general public that the organization only cares for kids and knows best how to help them learn.

But cracks in the public image veneer may soon grow larger, as election season has brought out a less seemly side of union leaders. The need to win votes for their candidates and causes must be too compelling. Political power and close alliances with other unions and advocacy groups have trumped both the sanctity of schools and respect for parents and taxpayers.

CEA has to walk a fine line. Teachers and other education employees in Colorado are free to join or not to join a membership organization. Roughly two-thirds of them belong to CEA for a variety of reasons, and some ardently back the political agenda. Many others support collective bargaining but ignore or reject the politics, or they stay aboard for the liability insurance and grievance protections.

Some Colorado teachers go their own way and join an alternative organization or none at all. Witnessing the union’s behavior in at least one school district, more might be convinced to join them. 

Last Friday, the CEA-affiliated Poudre Education Association (PEA)—representing K-12 teachers in the northern Colorado university town of Fort Collins—fired the latest salvo in an ongoing struggle to protect their assumed schoolhouse privileges.

Even after legal hearings and local media attention exposed earlier political abuses, PEA used the schools’ interoffice mail system during school hours to tell teachers to vote for gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter and to reject the education-related ballot initiative Amendment 39. A message sent through the school district’s email system alerted teachers to the flyer and included a direct link to a news story that identified CEA’s endorsement of Ritter.

The Fort Collins controversy dates back to early 2005, when school parents Wayne Rutt and Paul Marrick filed a complaint against the teachers union for alleged election law violations. Rutt and Marrick uncovered stacks of evidence showing extensive coordination between PEA/CEA and then-state senate candidate Bob Bacon. In 2004, Bacon won a decisive contest to give the Democrat party a one-seat majority in the Colorado Senate.

In June 2005 an administrative law judge dismissed the complaint. But one year later the Colorado Court of Appeals corrected the decision, citing evidence that demonstrated illegal coordination between the two parties.

CEA/PEA and Bacon communicated regularly about campaign strategy, and the candidate appeared at a union-sponsored event to thank volunteers for working on his behalf. PEA also distributed thousands of the candidate’s literature pieces to volunteers with instructions to obtain information on voters’ interests, or to leave the written message, “Sorry I missed you, Bob Bacon,” for voters who didn’t answer the door.

Dissatisfied with the ruling that they violated election law, union officials have appealed the case to the Colorado Supreme Court.

However, Rutt and Marrick did not focus their complaint solely on the issue of union-candidate coordination. Having sifted through a vast amount of records, the two men also found that PEA officials frequently and brazenly used the school district email system to advertise campaign events and advocate Bacon’s election.

In order to stop the problem, the Fort Collins parents added the Poudre School District to their complaint. The parties eventually settled with the understanding that the district would upgrade its technological capabilities and strictly enforce the policy not to use the publicly-funded communications systems for political advocacy.

Last month, district officials issued a strong directive to all employees, restating that violations of the communication policy would not be tolerated. One month to the day after the directive, PEA bosses snubbed their noses at the administration and openly mocked the policy. Exacerbating the action, the district’s collective bargaining agreement heavily subsidizes the PEA president’s salary with taxpayer dollars.

Union officials cleverly crafted the October 13 email message to pour salt into the wounds of the legal dispute. As if to pretend they were abiding by the policy, the end of the message highlighted a series of controversial keywords not mentioned in the main text, including the last names of the men who shined the light on their illicit activities from the last election.

The use of Rutt’s and Marrick’s names in the email aroused fears of possible new threats and vandalism against their families. As a result of persistently standing up against the union’s abuses, they already have endured significant financial and personal hardships.

Yet even after PEA’s latest arrogant gesture, backing down is out of the question for these two men. They still are speaking out so they can see their local schools become places where fairness prevails and where their children truly are the highest priority—not just in union advertisements.

America needs more parents as vigilant and courageous as Wayne Rutt and Paul Marrick.

Ben DeGrow is an education policy analyst for the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Golden, Colorado. He also keeps his own weblog at bendegrow.com.