Point/Counterpoint:

(Proposed constitutional amendment: In accordance with Article XIII of the UUP Constitution, UUP bargaining unit members are hereby notified that the following constitutional amendment will be on the agenda of the 2001 Fall Delegate Assembly, scheduled to be held Oct. 12-13 at the Huntington Hilton on Long Island.

A proposed constitutional amendment to remove term limits (submitted by the Albany, Binghamton, Brooklyn HSC, Farmingdale, New Paltz, Old Westbury, Oneonta, Plattsburgh and Upstate Medical University chapters):

To amend Article IV, Officers, Section 7. Terms of Office and Election Procedures, subsection a., lines 208-210 of the UUP Constitution (revised October 1998). Deletions are [bracketed and lined through]. Additions are underlined.

a. Officers shall be elected to terms of two years [;no person shall be eligible for more than five consecutive terms in any one office].)

Should term limits for UUP officers be eliminated?

Yes

Opponents to removing term limits for statewide officers claim that UUPers won’t vote incumbents out of office. Reality proves them wrong. At UUP, voting is the best term limit. UUP delegates replaced four of the last six academic vice presidents. Four of six statewide officers are also in their first or second terms. The statewide Executive Board — the training ground for future statewide officers — has no term limits, yet 10 of 11 members have served less than three terms. At other unions without term limits, incumbents do lose elections. At Professional Staff Congress/CUNY and the Chicago Teachers Union/AFT Local 1, entire slates of incumbent officers were recently voted out.

People who can’t win elections try to avoid them. They often rely on fear and misrepresentation to promote themselves. And they would rather rely on the bureaucratic device of term limits than on democratic processes to give them an opportunity to gain power. That is the underlying agenda of those who most vocally oppose removing term limits. Let’s put aside individual agendas and take a path that promotes the interests of our members.

Past UUP presidents sought to remove term limits because lame-duck leaders lose influence with the organizations they have to deal with. Term limits also restrict the ability of UUP officers to build long-term relationships with legislative and executive leaders, as well as our affiliates — relationships essential to enhancing our members’ interests. More than two-thirds of the delegates to UUP’s highest governing body twice voted to start strengthening UUP by extending term limits to four terms and then to five. These extensions put UUP in position to secure contract enrichments that brought more money to our members — and sooner than originally negotiated.

UUP’s many leadership development workshops have trained hundreds of new activists and leaders in recent years. Our elections are democratic and conducted through a representative body so that money doesn’t play a role. These factors will not change. The removal of term limits isn’t about individuals; it’s about UUP serving its members effectively and democratically, and term limits are neither effective nor democratic.

Patricia Bentley, Plattsburgh, statewide Executive Board

Robert Pompi, Binghamton

No

Our union’s democracy is being seriously challenged by a proposed constitutional amendment abolishing term limits for state officers. UUP’s founders restricted officers’ terms to secure robust democracy, accountability and campus-based unionism.

As a result, UUP never developed a caste of career officer-politicians and has been more democratic than most unions. For 25 years, we’ve had leaders returning to campus after office. We’ve had checks and balances on power through term limits which have also provided continuity and renewal.

Term limits have been extended twice since 1996 — first from six years in office to eight years and then to 10 years — ample time to learn the job, make a mark and develop new leaders. Talented new leaders are among us now.

Each of UUP’s five presidents rose through the ranks, built on their predecessors’ successes, learned from mistakes and made unique contributions. We’ve had contracts in the 1980s with pay raises of 25 percent over three years and we’ve had years with no new contract. Governors, negotiators and UUP presidents have come and gone.

One constant remained: The strength derived from our organization and our members, not an individual leader.

Term limits keep it that way.

Term limits mean an open seat — a guaranteed opportunity every 10 years for new leaders to run for state office on equal footing, on a level playing field. No incumbent advantages.

Advantages that include using all the resources of the union to promote a candidacy: to fly across the state; to lobby members at select union functions; and to speak through union publications.

Advantages that are so strong, no UUP president has ever been voted out of office. The amendment’s supporters’ political slogan, “change by choice,” ignores the reality of power. Any delegate can run for president. But only incumbents can win.

We urge our brother and sister delegates — vote “no” on this amendment, a vote that may be the most important you ever cast.

It is not a referendum on specific leadership, signifying loyalty or disloyalty. A “no” vote is affirming your determination to keep UUP one of America’s most democratic unions.

Barbara Silverstone, Upstate Medical

Henry Steck, Cortland

Michael Zweig, Stony Brook