I got an interesting e-mail from a reader this afternoon. This person had seen my column this weekend and wanted to address some of the things I said about the Alabama Education Association.
I will not identify my reader beyond saying that this person has an extensive background in local and state education and a professional relationship and personal friendship with Dr. Paul Hubbert that my reader says “has informed and biased me, as information does.“ Below is the e-mail I received; my response to it follows.
Your columns are most always relevant and direct and, as such, I enjoy and benefit from them. However (the proverbial yes, but) we cannot always hit the target on every point we try to make. Such may be the case in your recent “AEA and partisan punditry’ column ...
I don’t know a thing about AEA’s Twitter Program and thus, had to ask what the story was about. Others may address that specific topic, if they so choose. I address my comments to some generalizations you make.
Specifically, it may interest you that ... AEA members are evenly split between Ds and Rs. It may also interest you that in the last general legislative election, AEA was the singular largest contributor in the state to R candidates. One conclusion that can be reached from this is AEA is more interested in supporters of public schools than in partisan politics.
Secondly, you scold AEA for its “immeasurable influence” in Montgomery. If it is immeasurable, how does one know what it is? Is the influence used for good or bad? Such general and sweeping statements parrot some conventional wisdom but add nothing to any serious discussion about Alabama politics, public schools and AEA.
Third, you state that “they” (meaning AEA?) are “increasingly unaccountable and opaque—and unapologetic in doing so.” In my experience, AEA is one of the most accountable non-profit organizations with which I have ever worked. AEA is accountable to its membership and held accountable through an elaborate structure of elected officers at local, regional and state levels, at the annual elected Delegate Assembly, through its publications, and in a number of , commissions, committees, etc. So, where and how are they unaccountable? I know that your intent was to convey public unaccountability as you refer to “teachers paid with taxpayer dollars.” Again, it may interest you that the political activity of AEA is paid for by voluntary contributions of AEA members to A-Vote, not by taxpayer money.
You concluded your column with a note on punditry and the kind of pundit you want to be. I appreciate that but caution that conventional wisdom punditry can be as narrow as partisan punditry and can lead to the same kind of ineffective shallowness of commentary.
I applaud your stated objectives and commend you and wish you the best in your efforts to achieve those.
Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate when folks take the time to compose a thoughtful response to something they’ve read. It’s so much more useful to me than the work of flamethrowers.
I appreciate your perspective and your working relationship and friendship with Dr. Hubbert. As I read through your e-mail, I couldn’t help but notice that some of your points tend to prove mine. For example, you note that AEA is the “singular largest contributor in the state to R candidates.” Add that amount to the money that AEA pumps into the process for Democratic candidates; you are lending credence to my characterization of AEA’s influence as “immeasurable.”
And as to that point, you ask, “If (AEA’s influence) is immeasurable, how does one know what it is?” We both know that influence extends far beyond the reporting papers of financial disclosure forms. There is a reason that the first name I learned when I moved here in 2006 and began watching the Legislature was that of Dr. Hubbert, and there is a reason he is known as the No. 1 most influential non-elected person in Alabama. It is because he is. Dr. Hubbert’s personal political influence extends, as is natural, to his involvement in and leadership of AEA. His influence, and AEA’s influence, on politics and policy in Alabama is … immeasurable.
You say that “such general and sweeping statements parrot some conventional wisdom but add nothing to any serious discussion about Alabama politics, public schools and AEA.” The record shows that AEA’s immeasurable influence is not a figment of my imagination – on the other hand, perhaps the reason it is conventional wisdom is that it is so readily apparent and irrefutable to anyone who is a conscious observer of politics in Alabama for any length of time. I was simply making a statement of fact – and, indeed, something the AEA is very proud of: The AEA wields immeasurable influence on politics and policy in Alabama.
I disagree, however, with your premise that “AEA is more interested in supporters of public schools than in partisan politics.” One cannot argue that the record demonstrates that premise, regardless of how many Republicans to whom AEA has happened to contribute. I have worked in a state legislature; I know well that money buys access. All those contributions prove is that AEA wants access and is willing to spend what it takes, where it’s necessary, to get it. And we both how heavily AEA is weighted with Democratic influence; it is no coincidence that Dr. Hubbert and Joe Reed are also bigwigs in the Democratic Party structure here in Alabama.
As for the partisan breakdown of AEA’s membership, it doesn’t surprise me. It might interest you to know that I taught high school for a couple of years in Florida before moving here. As part of my orientation, I sat in on a meeting wherein teachers were invited to join the union. I won’t bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that 98 percent of new teachers joined the union without hesitation – regardless of their personal political affiliation – because they were told in no uncertain terms the dire straits in which they would find themselves if they were unlucky enough to be sued and found themselves without access to an experienced attorney … which the union would provide as part of a membership package, of course.
(On a side note, I have to wonder why, if AEA and other education unions have an evenly split membership, a voluntary political contribution process and supposedly no primary focus on partisan politics, they do not support paycheck protection provisions for their members’ dues. Interesting, no?)
And I must ask: Do you know of anyone who would seriously describe the Alabama Education Association as a bipartisan institution? If so, I’d love to hear from him or her.
I must address your statements here: “Third, you state that “they” (meaning AEA?) are “increasingly unaccountable and opaque—and unapologetic in doing so.” In my experience, AEA is one of the most accountable non-profit organizations with which I have ever worked. AEA is accountable to its membership and held accountable through an elaborate structure of elected officers at local, regional and state levels, at the annual elected Delegate Assembly, through its publications, and in a number of , commissions, committees, etc. So, where and how are they unaccountable? I know that your intent was to convey public unaccountability as you refer to “teachers paid with taxpayer dollars.” Again, it may interest you that the political activity of AEA is paid for by voluntary contributions of AEA members to A-Vote, not by taxpayer money.”
You noted right off the bat in your e-mail the amount of money that AEA contributes to the political process, both to Republicans and Democrats. Knowing what PAC-to-PAC transfer laws are in this state – and they can only be described as a joke – surely you are not arguing that AEA’s internal structure can in any acceptable or serious way substitute for the kind of independent, transparent, public accountability for political activity that AEA could be providing, but doesn’t. Sure, AEA is accountable – to its own people, in its own way and by the rules that it chooses. Selective accountability is not accountability.
You ask how AEA is unaccountable: The answer is in PAC-to-PAC campaign finance activity. The money trail could be made clear. If AEA wants to be truly accountable and transparent, Dr. Hubbert would be leading the charge for PAC-to-PAC reform – real reform, not some shell process that fits the bill in name only.
We know the record on that.
I wonder if you happened to see my column last week, when I noted the stance that Artur Davis took in defense of AEA when Bradley Byrne attacked the organization and its influence. My problem with AEA lies not in the fact that it has a seat at the table; as I said in that column, as the representative and voice of public school teachers across the state, AEA cannot, and should not, be excluded from the discussion. My problem with AEA is that its focus is too much on politics, and not enough on policy. Yes, it’s impossible to have influence on one without having influence on the other. But I contend that when an organization is famed more for its influence on the process instead of the product, something is badly out of balance.
That is the case with the AEA, and that is not just the random voice of one woman crying in the wilderness.
Finally, I must point out that although you mention you had to ask what the Twitter program was about, you didn’t answer my main question in the article: If AEA is so bipartisan and cooperative and open and accountable, then why is it not available to anyone who would like to follow? I have two children in public schools. I’d like to know what their teachers’ organization is working on.
And as you say, I work hard at avoiding partisan vitriol. I have no use for it. My years in politics and government (and education, by the way) taught and trained me to follow the evidence, not the shouting. I am a journalist, a taxpayer who has a stake – as do all Alabamians – in the policies that AEA is influencing in Montgomery. Ask yourself: Why doesn’t AEA want me tagging along?
So far, all I hear from AEA in response to that inquiry is … silence. You might even call it, as I did, unapologetic silence.
Again, I understand and appreciate your perspective on this ... I do want to see AEA for myself and not rely on, as you called it, “conventional wisdom punditry.” I don’t want to produce “the same kind of ineffective shallowness of commentary.”
You’d think – and I would certainly prefer – that AEA would do whatever it could to help with that effort. But Twitter is just the most recent example of a way in which AEA is actually doing the opposite.
What do you think? Should AEA makes its Twitter feed available to anyone who would like to follow? Does it matter? Vote in the new poll on this issue, and leave your comments there or below.
Twitter updates from Jennifer at 
