Montreal Teachers 4 Change.org

By Robert Green

In part one of this series I explained that the first reason I am once again running for MTA president is that little has changed in the last year with respect to the union’s partisan leadership style. MTA members need a union leadership that is respectful of diverse views and committed to encouraging participation.

An equally important reason that my hat is in the ring this year is that there has also been little change on the question of financial transparency and respect for the MTA’s constitution.

Once again this year a member has requested to see the union’s Visa statements. Once again the member is being denied. This should be a matter of great concern to every member of the MTA because, after all, this is our money we’re talking about. We need an MTA leadership that will run the union according to the highest standards of financial transparency. More than that we need an MTA leadership with nothing to hide!

However this is about much more than financial transparency. It is about whether or not the union’s constitution is respected. Mr Sutherland insists that his actions do not violate the constitution because he has convinced his loyal followers in the reps assembly that it is within their power to “interpret” the constitution. This argument might hold water if there was anything vague or unclear about the wording in the constitution.

I was really hoping to take a year off from MTA elections. Though I knew Mr. Sutherland was firmly entrenched in the small clique that’s been running the MTA for years, I hoped that the MTA might become different under his leadership. At least different enough to justify taking a year off. And while in some ways he is certainly an improvement over his predecessor, there is still far too much that remains of the old MTA and its undemocratic and ineffective ways. Teachers need an alternative.

The first sign that little would change with Sutherland at the helm of the MTA came at the beginning of the very first reps assembly. Here was an opportunity to set a new tone and the very first thing Mr. Sutherland did was to launch a very personal attack on an individual member known for her dissenting views within the union. The attack involved a misrepresentation of why this member’s complaint against the MTA at the labour relations commission had been rejected. As I wrote in my blogpost “Setting the Record Straight About the Complaint Against the MTA at the Labour Relations Commission“:

Although reporting such an event to the members is entirely appropriate, it should be noted that the MTA leadership has a history of reporting events involving the Labour Relations Commission only when it suites their political interests. Rulings against the MTA, or members being paid-off in out-of-court settlements are often not reported to the membership.

It should also be noted that the member in question, Cecile Doucet-Greene, was identified by Sutherland in his presentation of the matter and had been provided no prior notice whatsoever that her case would be the subject of discussion. Given that the reps assembly agenda is set several days in advance, Sutherland and the other members of the executive had all the time in the world to notify Ms Doucet-Greene of the fact that her case would be discussed. Had this simply been about informing the members in good faith, such notice would have been provided. The fact that it wasn’t illustrates that this was an ambush, made in bad faith to score cheap political points.

It’s fine for the MTA’s leadership to disagree with elected members of the reps assembly, but playing these sorts of vindictive games is just petty. It renders the tone of the MTA’s meetings so toxic that well intentioned members don’t want to even attend let alone participate in discussions. Mr Sutherland had an opportunity to change the union’s partisan institutional culture. He has instead chosen to doubled-down in perpetuating the old culture which valued loyalty and loyalty only.