* I told subscribers about this on Monday, but it broke bigtime over the weekend on an education-related blog published by Fred Klonsky. Here’s the Sun-Times story…

Unions and legislators who worked on Illinois’ landmark education reform legislation are upset with an advocate who bragged in Aspen last week that he snookered them into accepting drastic cuts in teacher union’s rights.

“There was a palpable sense of concern if not shock on the part of the teachers’ unions of Illinois that Speaker [of the House Mike] Madigan had changed allegiance and that we had clear political capability to potentially jam this proposal down their throats the same way that pension reform had been jammed down their throats six months earlier,” Jonah Edelman, chair of Oregon-based Stand for Children, said in Colorado last week.

“They essentially gave away every single provision related to teacher effectiveness that we had proposed — everything we had fought for in Colorado,” Edelman said in Aspen.

* The Tribune’s lede was quite good…

An education activist’s blunt tale of wooing House Speaker Michael Madigan and outfoxing teachers unions created a stir Tuesday by violating a cardinal rule of Statehouse power plays — what happens under the dome stays under the dome.

* Edelman’s speech is now transcribed online. From his remarks…

The Illinois Federation of Teachers, still inexplicably, went to war with Speaker Madigan [over the pension reform bill]…

The union could have – well, probably should have – thanked Madigan for not going further. Instead, they decided that the $2 million they had been giving him reliably for election campaigns – they would take that away … that they would refuse to endorse any Democrat who voted for that legislation, even those that had been loyal supporters for years. They went to the AFL-CIO trying to get them to do the same. So, a major breach. […]

My position was we had to be involved to show our capabilities, to build some clout. … While there were a lot of folks, I think, who thought the Republicans were going to take over in Illinois, our analysis was that Madigan would still be speaker. … That wasn’t what I think a lot of our colleagues wanted to hear.

So our analysis was he’s still going to be in power, and as such the raw politics were that we should tilt toward him, and so we interviewed 36 candidates in targeted races.

I’m being quite blunt here. The individual candidates were essentially a vehicle to execute a political objective, which was to tilt toward Madigan. The press never picked up on it. We endorsed nine individuals – and six of them were Democrats, three Republicans – and tilted our money toward Madigan, who was expecting because of Bruce Rauner’s leadership … that all our money was going to go to Republicans. That was really a show of – indication to him that we could be a new partner to take the place of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. That was the point. Luckily, it never got covered that way. That wouldn’t have worked well in Illinois – Madigan is not particularly well liked. And it did work. [Emphasis added]

* One of the other bones of contention was what Edelman said about the CTU’s inability to strike…

Chicago Teachers Union officials say they can meet the 75 percent vote required under a new education reform law should they choose to strike.

Union officials were responding to controversial comments made by Stand for Children’s national director Jonah Edelman in a youtube video that has surfaced of a talk he gave at the Aspen Ideas Festival on June 28. Edelman described his group’s strategy for getting approval of Illinois Senate Bill 7, which he said would effectively end the union’s chance of striking. […]

The bill, which also makes it more difficult to get tenure and streamlines the process for firing bad teachers, requires that 75 percent of the Chicago Teacher Union’s eligible voting membership—not just a majority of members–authorize a strike.

On Tuesday, CTU spokeswoman Liz Brown said the union can meet the 75 percent requirement. She said teachers would understand that not voting would essentially mean a “no” vote, and would “vote accordingly.”

* But the CTU’s past performance was looked at by Catalyst…

In 2003, the last time the union had a strike vote, 15,965 out of 33,000, or 48 percent of eligible members, voted. Before that, in 1991, nearly 60 percent of teachers participated in a strike vote. In both cases, teachers authorized the strike, but an agreement was reached before it took place.

In the 1980s, during which five strikes took place, the numbers of teachers who participated in the votes was low. In 1987, about 15 percent voted and, in 1985, about 14 percent. But in those years, more than 90 percent of teachers who participated voted to authorize a strike, and union leaders said they had overwhelming support, according to newspaper accounts.

Still, union leaders dispute Edelman’s basic premise that they will never be able to get a strike authorized.

CTU spokeswoman Liz Brown says she was told by someone with historical knowledge that, in different years, CPS locked the schools to prevent voting from taking place, forcing teachers to go downtown to vote. This created artificially low participation, she adds.

The union will need 75 percent of all eligible members to vote for a strike. It looks pretty darned difficult to me. Then again, the CTU didn’t have to get that sort of turnout in the past. They could structure a strike vote to really anger and fire up their membership.

* Back to the transcript…

After the election we went back to Madigan, and I confirmed – reviewed the proposal that we had already discussed and I confirmed the support. He said he was supportive. The next day he created an Education Reform Commission and his political director called to ask for our suggestions who should be on it. And so in Aurora, Ill., in December, out of nowhere, there were hearings on our proposal. In addition, we hired 11 lobbyists, including four of the absolute best insiders, and seven of the best minority lobbyists – preventing the unions from hiring them. We enlisted a state public affairs firm. We had tens of thousands of supporters. … We raised $3 million for our political action committee. That’s more money than either of the unions have in their political action committees.

* Tribune…

Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said Tuesday that the speaker had an early meeting with the group and, believing that it would be likely to back GOP candidates, “urged them to look at balance” by supporting Democrats. Brown also said it was common practice for Madigan’s issues staff to “reach out to groups all the time” about legislation.

* The IEA, IFT and CTU released a joint statement yesterday on Edelman’s comments…

By falsely claiming to have manipulated people engaged in honest negotiations, Stand for Children’s leader jeopardizes the ability of education stakeholders to work collaboratively in the future. That can make it harder to improve education quality for children. That’s wrong.

What’s worse is that these false claims clearly show an organizational agenda that has nothing to do with helping kids learn.

Jonah Edelman’s mischaracterization of the SB7 negotiations will not change our commitment to do what is right for kids and to make sure the adults are treated fairly.

However, his openness about Stand for Children’s tactics and agenda will make it very difficult for any education advocate or politician to interact with the organization in the future.

* Transcript…

So in the intervening time, Rahm Emanuel was elected mayor … and he strongly supports our proposal. Jim [apparently Crown] … talked about the talking point that we made up and he [Emanuel] repeated about a thousand times, probably, on the campaign trail about the Houston kids going to school four years more than the Chicago kids. That was another shoe that dropped, and it really put a lot of pressure on the unions, particularly on the Chicago Teachers Union because they didn’t support it.

* Tribune…

Emanuel spokeswoman Chris Mather said the campaign came up with the Houston comparison on its own. She also said the mayor “worked with the CTU to pass the legislation to provide better education for children.”

* Edelman apologized over the weekend…

I deeply regret that I had an “us vs. them” tone. That tone contradicts my deeply held view that key aspects of the current education system are the problem, not teachers’ unions, and that the us vs. them far too often prevents real dialogue that results in better solutions like Senate Bill 7. […]

I’m disappointed in myself for the way I framed the Senate Bill 7 story – a framing that does not reflect the good-faith and substantive negotiations that drove this process on all sides. […]

I was wrong to state that the teachers’ unions “gave” on teacher effectiveness provisions when the reality is that, indeed, there were long, productive negotiations that led to a better outcome than would have occurred without them. […]

I was wrong to make assumptions or comments about the unions’ political strategy. […]

I know from conversations with [IEA and IFT leaders] that Illinois’ union leaders are deeply committed to teaching and learning, that they have exhibited that consistently in the past, and that they exhibited that commitment in spades throughout the negotiations on a series of Senate Bill 7 provisions that will improve teaching and learning.

I want to apologize specifically to [leaders and staff of IEA, IFT and CTU] who represented their membership and negotiated creatively and seriously to help craft a bill that addressed tough issues in a fair and thoughtful way.

* But the IEA was not impressed…

Edelman’s apology for misrepresenting the negotiations with unions did not explain other comments made in Aspen suggesting that his organization attempted to purchase political influence.

Edelman’s threats to lawmakers who didn’t go along with his anti-union proposal last year were noted by, among others, Sen. Kimberly Lightford, who presided over the SB7 negotiations.

At the IEA Lobby Day last May, Lightford called out Edelman for engaging in ”Pay to Play” politics.

* Lightford video…

* Jonah Edelman’s full remarks at the Aspen Institute are here…

* You can see most of the “juicy bits” here…