UFT Election Task Force Meeting #3 - May 5, 2026
If you missed our coverage of the first UFT Election Task Force meeting held in December 2025 (meeting #1), you can CLICK HERE to read all about it.
CLICK HERE to read our coverage of the second UFT Task Force meeting held in February 2026 (meeting #2).
Our third and final meeting of the UFT Election Task Force was held earlier this month in May 2026 (meeting #3). ABC’s notes from that meeting are below.
UFT Election Task Force Meeting #3
Date: May 5, 2026
Time: 4:00-6:00pm
Location: UFT Headquarters (52 Broadway, Manhattan)
Task Force Members in Attendance:
A Better Contract (ABC)
Daniel Alicea – Special Education Teacher, UFT Delegate, MS 53
Chad Hamilton – Special Education Teacher, UFT Chapter Leader, 75K231
ARISE
Michael Shulman – Retiree, UFT RTC Vice Chapter Chair
Olivia Swisher – Art Teacher, PS/IS 30
Unity*
Nancy Aromando – UFT District 15 Rep
Ariel Arroyo – UFT District 20 Rep
Carl Cambria – UFT Negotiator
Priscilla Castro (UFT Paraprofessional Chapter Chair)
Dana Falciglia – UFT District 11 Rep
Michael Herron – UFT Grievance Dept.
Sean Rotkowitz – UFT Staten Island Borough Rep
James Vasquez – UFT Special Rep for High Schools
Not in Attendance
Katie Anskat – High School Teacher, UFT Delegate, Queens Metropolitan High School
Doreen Berrios-Castillo – Retiree
Servia Silva – UFT Manhattan Borough Rep
Nina Tribble – Retiree
*It was noted all 11 task force members representing Unity are full-time, at-will UFT employees or retired (no in-service, full-time educators).
Meeting Agenda:
OLD BUSINESS:
SBO Votes
Contract Ratification Vote
Invitation to other Unions
NEW BUSINESS:
Recommendation on Mail, In-Person, and Electronic Voting
Next Steps
MEETING NOTES:
The third meeting of the UFT Election Task Force opened with a contentious debate that immediately focused attention on procedural control. Task Force Chair Carl Cambria deviated from the previously shared agenda and started the meeting by criticizing A Better Contract (ABC) for publicly posting their personal notes from the February 2026 Task Force meeting; calling that action a “unilateral decision” that compromised the Task Force’s working process. ABC representatives pushed back that no rule or non-disclosure agreement had been established to prohibit sharing of information from Task Force meetings with fellow UFT members; and pointed out that no one had previously communicated any concerns when ABC published their notes from the December meeting. Mr. Cambria pressed on with his personal dispute and attempt to exert control, setting a combative tone and expending valuable time that otherwise could have been spent on a collegial and more in-depth discussion of actual agenda items.
OLD BUSINESS:
SBO Votes
Following the unresolved procedural dispute, Mr. Cambria summarized turnout figures for SBOs. He reported that unionwide SBO voter turnout since 2020, using the REVS platform ElectionBuddy, has generally ranged from about 55-65%, a reported overall decrease from pre-2020 SBO voter participation levels when UFT members conducted SBO voting in-person. Specific, year-by-year data were not shared with the Task Force. It was noted that the reported overall, unionwide voter turnout for electronic SBO voting is significantly higher than voter turnout for UFT officer elections conducted via mail-ballot voting and limited in-person voting.
Contract Ratification Vote
Mr. Cambria shared general voter turnout for in-school contract ratification voting, noting a lack of complete historical data but pointing to overall voter participation closer to the upper 70% range. The conversation around contract ratification voting briefly touched on operational concerns tied to chapter‑level administration of in‑person voting; including the neutrality of chapter leaders, the potential for campaign activity and electioneering at school sites, and the difficulty of guaranteeing uniform ballot protection across hundreds of worksites. Task Force members recounted experiences of caucus politics and contested chapter environments bleeding into in-school voting, sharing concerns that decentralized in‑person voting at work sites, without neutral oversight, could create compliance and fairness risks.
Invitation to other Unions
A sharp procedural dispute centered on whether to invite representatives from PSC‑CUNY, CTU and/or other unions to share their hybrid/electronic voting experiences. Without discussion or a vote, Mr. Cambria unilaterally stated there was no consensus among Task Force members to invite other unions and declined to pursue invitations, arguing that PSC and CTU operate in different contexts and that UFT’s history of contested elections and legal challenges made their models an imperfect fit. Task Force members from ABC countered that no substantive discussion had occurred, no evidence was presented to support Mr. Cambria’s claims, and that hearing from unions who had practical experience with Remote Electronic Voting Systems was essential due diligence. ABC reps on the Task Force explicitly requested representatives from PSC, CTU, and/or other unions incorporating REVS to be invited to the Task Force’s next meeting. Without further discussion or a vote, Mr. Cambria again unilaterally stated there was not consensus to hold an additional Task Force meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
Recommendation on Mail Voting
All Task Force members were in broad agreement that mail ballots should continue as a core component of UFT elections. Task Force members emphasized that mail-ballot voting remains a critical system for many UFT members and should be preserved to maximize voter access and avoid voter disenfranchisement. Task Force members asked for comparative data on current mail‑ballot expenditures and how those costs would compare to implementing and piloting an electronic voting system. The requested information was not available for review at today’s meeting.
Recommendation on In‑Person Voting
In‑person voting was affirmed as an important part of a hybrid voting system, but Task Force members disagreed about the form it should take. Two models were briefly discussed: (1) decentralized, school‑based voting run by chapter leaders or a neutral third party at each worksite; and (2) centralized sites similar to the last officer election. Task Force members noted that school‑based voting risks non‑neutrality, campaign activity/electioneering at sites, and compliance exposure unless a neutral third party supervises each location.
With little time afforded to discuss, the Task Force did not reach agreement on logistics or next steps for in-person voting. Further work is needed to define criteria for neutrality, oversight, and site selection before endorsing a specific in‑person model.
Recommendation on Electronic Voting
Electronic voting was the most contested agenda item during today’s meeting. Several Task Force members advocated for piloting electronic voting in a smaller‑scale contest to build trust and test vendor solutions, such as a number of individual chapter elections-- with the consent of each respective chapter invited to participate.
Practical questions about electronic voting arose, including the cost of vendor services and whether the union could afford both mail and electronic systems; how to render UFT’s long, complex ballot on mobile devices without timeouts or voter frustration; and how to prevent double‑voting in hybrid models. The Task Force agreed that electronic voting merits further study but disagreed on when, how and if this work would be undertaken by the Task Force to investigate cost estimates, vendor documentation, plans for legal mitigation, etc.
Next Steps
The meeting closed with Mr. Cambria stating there was no time remaining and reiterating there would be no further meetings of the Task Force due to a lack of consensus. At the end of the meeting, there was a shared recognition that mail-ballot voting must continue, that some form of in‑person voting should remain part of a hybrid voting system, and that electronic voting requires careful exploration. At the close of today’s meeting the Task Force was not in agreement regarding procedural rules about transparency, process/timeline, minutes/notetaking, communication to UFT members, and the work that must still be completed to produce a unified recommendation to the UFT Executive Board. Nevertheless, Mr. Cambria stated he would send out a draft recommendation for Task Force members to review and provide feedback and recommended revisions. Mr. Cambria stated a recommendation would be made to the UFT Executive Board on June 1, with or without consensus of Task Force members.
Meeting adjourned.
Due Diligence
For additional context, below are questions presented by ABC representatives on the UFT Election Task Force. These questions were collaboratively developed by everyday rank and file UFT members and were presented more than once to the Task Force for consideration. The questions are intended to be asked to unions currently implementing electronic voting, electronic voting vendors, and additional electronic voting experts. The answers to these questions would be a significant step toward due diligence and fulfilment of our duty to all UFT members and would form the basis of a formal recommendation to the UFT Executive Board. Despite being presented to the Task Force twice, these questions were never discussed, answered or acknowledged.
Questions from ABC:
Governance & Legal Compliance
1. How did your union ensure that your constitution or bylaws explicitly authorized electronic voting before implementation?
2. What specific steps did you take to demonstrate compliance with LMRDA Title IV requirements for secret ballots, observer rights, and adequate safeguards?
3. Did you consult with the Department of Labor before implementing electronic voting, and if so, what guidance did they provide? If not, with whom did you consult to ensure compliance?
4. How do you document compliance in a way that would withstand a DOL investigation or subpoena?
5. Have you ever had a union member make a formal election complaint regarding electronic voting? Have you ever had a DOL challenge related to electronic voting? If yes, what were the findings and what changes did you make afterward?
Vendor Selection, Security, and Technical Controls
1. What criteria did you use to evaluate and select an electronic voting vendor, especially regarding client‑side encryption, distributed decryption keys, and prevention of vendor access to ballot content?
2. How did you verify that the vendor could not link a voter to their vote; or, if a theoretical link exists, that no one could access or use it?
3. What audit logs, cryptographic proofs, or independent verification tools does your vendor provide to satisfy observer rights under Title IV?
4. Did you require your vendor to allow observers to meaningfully monitor the electronic voting process? What does “meaningful” look like in practice?
5. How do you ensure that the vendor cannot alter, view, or decrypt ballots, even in theory?
Observer Rights in a Digital Environment
1. How do you operationalize observer rights for electronic voting, given that observers traditionally watch physical processes involving mail-in ballots and/or in-person voting?
2. Do observers receive access to:
Credential distribution logs
Voter authentication logs
Encryption/decryption procedures
Tallying processes
System integrity checks
3. How do you balance transparency for observers with the need to protect ballot secrecy?
Hybrid Voting & Double‑Voting Controls
1. If you use a combination of electronic, mail‑in and in-person ballots, what rule do you apply when a member votes twice, and how do you enforce it uniformly?
2. What systems do you use to prevent or detect double‑voting across modalities?
3. How do you communicate hybrid voting rules to members so that they understand which ballot is ultimately counted?
Turnout, Accessibility, and Member Trust
1. What changes in turnout did you observe after implementing electronic voting, broken down by the following examples:
Retirees
In-service members 34 and under
In-service members 35-45
In-service members 46 and up
Newer members (5 or less years of DOE service/UFT membership)
Established members (6 or more years of DOE service/UFT membership)
Members with mobility or logistical barriers
Members living out of state
2. Did you run mock elections before implementation? If so, how did you structure that and what did you learn about member trust and election system usability?
3. How did you address skepticism or distrust among members who were unfamiliar with electronic voting?
4. What accessibility features in electronic voting (e.g., mobile optimization, search functions, screen readers, multilingual support) were essential for your membership?
Ballot Design & Usability
1. How did you design your electronic ballot to handle long, complex slates or hundreds of candidates?
2. Did you implement features such as:
Alphabetical sorting
Search bars
Auto‑save
Resume‑later functionality
Slate voting buttons
3. What usability issues did you encounter, especially on mobile devices?
Cost, Administration, and Scalability
1. What were your upfront and ongoing costs for electronic voting, and how do they compare to mail‑in or in‑person voting?
2. How did you scale your system to accommodate large membership numbers?
3. What administrative burdens increased or decreased after adopting electronic voting?
Handling Challenges, Complaints, and DOL Investigations
1. Have you received election challenges related to electronic voting? How were they resolved?
2. How long did any DOL investigations take, and what records were requested?
3. Did you ever encounter concerns about member privacy, including immigration status of union members, during DOL inquiries?
Lessons Learned & Recommendations
1. What were the biggest mistakes or pitfalls (if any) during your first electronic or hybrid election?
2. What would you do differently (if anything) for your next union election in which electronic voting will be implemented?
3. What advice would you give to a large dual‑sector union (like UFT) considering the adoption of electronic voting as part of a hybrid voting system along with mail-in and in-person voting?