Grand Blanc Public Schools Superintendent Mike Newton says a summer school class was not shortened last week due to teacher union participation in a legislative recall campaign. He maintains that it was ill-advised talk about the recall that created a “wrong” impression that the recall was the reason a class was let out early.

Newton said that he does not blame any parents or students who might have gotten that “wrong” impression. Instead, he faults teachers for making remarks supporting the campaign to recall State Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc, that shouldn't have been made in a classroom environment.

“They were opening up their mouths when they shouldn't have,” Newton said, referring to Grand Blanc teachers spouting off in front of their students about why they thought Scott should be recalled.

A spokesman for the Scott recall campaign told Capitol Confidential earlier this week that the recall was a “volunteer” effort. However, Newton said statewide unions outside of the school district appear to be playing a major role as organizers of the supposedly locally-inspired recall campaign.

“I'm not even seeing very many Grand Blanc teachers who seem to be working it (the recall),” Newton said. “Yes, some are involved, but . . . I'm not seeing many. It really seems to have basically been organized across the state. You have people from the AFL-CIO coming in. I don't know that first hand, but that's what I've been told. That's what seems to be taking place.”

The parent of a Grand Blanc student told Capitol Confidential that his daughter was let out of class early last Thursday so that teachers could participate in the Scott recall effort. That parent, Ken Jones, was particularly upset about his daughter being subjected in the classroom to the union’s side of the political argument about the recall.

Capitol Confidential posted the article Wednesday night. It posed three questions for Newton, who was not available for comment at that time. On Thursday morning Newton responded to those questions.

Q. 1) Have summer school teachers left their classes for periods of time to participate in the recall effort?

“Absolutely not,” Newton said. “I would be appalled if that had taken place.”

Q. 2) Have any students been let out of class, or missed any instruction time, because of the recall effort?

“That would be absolutely false,” Newton said. “No one has missed instruction time because of the recall.”

Q. 3) Are teachers participating in the recall while they're supposed to be on the job earning their taxpayer-supported salaries?

“Absolutely not,” Newton asserted. “We would never permit that to happen.”

As a follow up question, Newton was asked if he was claiming that the parent, Ken Jones, was presenting a false impression about his daughter being let out of class early due to the recall.

“No; I think the parent thought that's what happened,” Newton said. “I think things were said by teachers and others that shouldn't have been said.”

“We investigated this on Tuesday,” Newton continued. “I can assure our community that we (the school) did not participate in any kind of recall activities.”

The superintendent was also asked how a student could have made the mistake about the reason for the early dismissal.

“I don't think what the student told the parent was a lie,” Newton said. “The summer classes are very long and if the students work through the breaks of the day they can get out early. I think she heard a lot of the political talk that shouldn't have been said and . . . I think she believed what she told the parent.”

“But even when the students can leave early, the teacher still has the responsibility to stay in the class afterwards,” Newton added. “They have to remain available if a student needs extra help. We spent a lot of time Tuesday investigating all of this to make sure about this. Nobody leaves when they're supposed to be doing the work they are paid by the taxpayers to do. Nobody does that. We wouldn't allow it and neither would the MEA (Michigan Education Association).”

Melinda Day is a graduate student and research assistant at the University of Michigan’s Life Sciences Institute. She spends her days in the university lab, working closely with her mentor on her dissertation research — and for this activity, she may soon be unionized as a “public employee.”

In April 2011, a union known as the Graduate Employees Organization petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission to allow the GEO to begin the process of unionizing U of M graduate research assistants. In May, the Regents of the University of Michigan voted 6-2 to support the idea, despite the disagreement of university President Mary Sue Coleman, who told them: “I do not see research assistants as our employees but as our students. … When I was a graduate student, I did not see myself as working for the university and I did not see my faculty mentor as my employer. Far from it.”

The regents certainly didn’t consult Day, who takes exception to being represented by the GEO. She has every right to object: Graduate research assistants are not public employees; they’re students meeting requirements for their degrees.

This is not just her view and Mary Sue Coleman’s; it’s the view of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission itself. In 1981, MERC came to this very conclusion in a case involving the exact same union (the GEO) at the exact same university (U of M) concerning the exact same group of students (graduate research assistants). MERC delivered its ruling after 19 days of hearings, thousands of pages of exhibits and hundreds of pages of legal briefs.

MERC cannot legally ignore this precedent. Yet for months, the commission has allowed the GEO’s petition for unionization to move forward as if its earlier ruling had never occurred.

Under Michigan law, MERC should reject the petition. The University of Michigan’s Board of Regents cannot unilaterally change the laws of this state, and the GEO has made no attempt to show the earlier MERC ruling was flawed.

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is now representing Day. On July 28, 2011, the Foundation filed a motion with MERC asking it to reject the GEO’s application.

For Day, this motion isn’t just a matter of principle; it’s a matter of personal experience. When she was a U of M teaching assistant, Day was forced to pay fees to the GEO and to allow the union to represent her in collective bargaining, even though she had refused to join the union. She is familiar with the GEO’s current contract standards — standards that would prove unworkable for research assistants.

“It would hinder our ability to do science,” Day observes. “Cells don’t know that work hours are 9 to 5. Cells don’t know when it’s the weekend. I recently completed an experiment that involved taking samples every eight hours. I wouldn’t have been able to do that under the strict work-hour regulations the GEO wants.”

Unionization of graduate research assistants could also cause the University of Michigan to lose some of its best applicants. Graduate students would know that U of M was one of the few universities where part of the research stipend would be taken for union dues. And as Day points out: “Unionization would be bad for us economically. We would be forced to pay for contract negotiations that have no bearing on our overall stipends, since those are dictated by the federal grants that finance our research.”

If MERC nevertheless approves the request by the U of M regents and the GEO to permit unionization, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation will consider further legal options. Melinda Day’s research is at stake — and so is the rule of law.

Find out more about this case and get updates here.