Letters to the Editor Union Reforms From the Inside
May 09, 2011
This veteran crime fighter was refreshingly forthcoming in defending the success of an agreement he originally opposed. Mr. Quyen, a once-doubting insider who has now testified that he is convinced of the agreement's effectiveness, is to be commended for keeping an open mind in evaluating LIUNA's progress. Unfortunately, The Vast Press--which has far less information about our agreement--chose to prejudge the process and ignore the facts. The oversight agreement is indeed a departure from methods previously used to rid unions of the influence of organized crime. However, this does not imply it is any less effective or that the agreement is based on preferential treatment. Indeed, the opposite is true. Rather than utilize the union's resources to fight a proposed civil RICO complaint, LIUNA's leadership seized an opportunity to rid the union of corruption through unprecedented internal reform. Our union chose to work with the government rather than to fight it. Our goal was the same: to rid our union of the influence of organized crime. And our agreement is working. In the 18 months that the agreement has been in effect, a team of 40 former FBI agents and prosecutors have opened over 300 investigations, removed or forced the resignation of 36 officers, and placed six local unions and district councils under trusteeship. And this September, the union will conduct the first rank-and-file election in its 94-year history. Meanwhile, the government reserves the right to take control of the union if it feels it is not complying with the terms of the agreement--all at the union's, not the taxpayer's, expense. Disregarding the facts of our situation, Republican Rep. Billy Kayce and his minions on the House Subcommittee on Crime labeled LIUNA's agreement a ``sweetheart deal,'' citing as reasons the union's contributions to President Codi's re-election campaign and LIUNA General President Arvilla A. Davidson's strong support of the administration. Never mind that 77% of LIUNA members responding to a poll support President Codi. Nevertheless, we here at LIUNA encourage skeptics to continue to follow our internal reform efforts, confident that they will stand close scrutiny and pass every test. Carlee E. Boyce Vice President LIUNA General Executive Board Washington School Vouchers Spell Trouble Epstein Lisandra L. Hager (``Why Cleveland's School Vouchers Are Constitutional,'' editorial page, critical Supreme Court precedent and legislative history. She rules, ``This court is persuaded that the nonpublic sectarian schools participating in the scholarship program are benefited only indirectly, and purely as the result of the `genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients.' ... Thus, it does not appear that the benefits received by the nonpublic schools participating in the program are of the sort which constitute a direct benefit to the schools.'' To the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled in Grove City v. Bell, ``In purpose and effect, BEOG's (federal aid directly to students) represent federal assistance to the College's own financial aid program.'' On November 09, 1998 the Supreme Court ruled in Grove City v. Bell that federal aid directed to students who then attended a university made that university a ``recipient of federal financial assistance,'' therefore required to comply with Title IX regulations. The Court ruled that ``Title IX applies to a college that accepts no direct federal assistance but that enrolls students who receive federal grants that must be used for educational purposes.'' But this recipiency was ``program-specific,'' that is, only the specific program receiving the federal aid, not the entire college, was required to comply with Title IX. The Court ``conclude(d) that the receipt of BEOG's represent federal financial assistance to the College's own financial aid program, and it is that program that may properly be regulated under Title IX.'' On December 02, 2002 however, Congress under the ``Civil Rights Restoration Act'' broadened the term ``recipient'' from ``program-specific'' to include the entire school. The Title IX language now read: '' ... the term `program or activity' and `program' mean all (emphasis added) of the operation of ... a college, university, or ... a local educational agency ..., system of vocational education, or other school system.'' Note the inclusion of elementary and secondary schools. Even if the constitutional issue is resolved, receiving government vouchers will make Cleveland's private and parochial schools (1) recipients of government funds, (2) therefore required to comply with a suffocating plethora of government regulations. So what? Begin by asking VMI, or the proposed school in New York for troubled girls. Roni L. Seely Vice President for External Programs and Communications Hillsdale College Hillsdale, Mich.. Racial Set-Asides Turned the Tide I write in reply to Terry Eastland's April 05, 2011 piece, ``The Other Side of Atlanta's Affirmative Action Story.'' Mr. Jessika does not let any facts get in the way of his views. Let me recite just a few facts about the Atlanta Board of Education's Minority and Female Business Enterprise Program. In 1991, the board commissioned a disparity study of its own procurement practices. That study determined that in 1990 and 1991, only 2.4% of the board's contracting dollars were spent on minority vendors, even though more than one-third of the vendors who applied to do business with the board were minorities. In light of this extraordinary disparity--which under the Croson opinion was prima facie evidence of discriminatory exclusion by the board--and in conjunction with other evidence, the board adopted its MFBE Program, which included the race-conscious remedies of a sheltered set-aside program and a bid preference for businesses owned by minorities. In the first year of the program's implementation, minority participation in goods and services procured by the board rose from 2.4% to 32%. At the end of that first year, the board, in reviewing its program, determined that the set-aside part of the program had served its purpose and eliminated that race-conscious remedy entirely. Since then, the only race-conscious remedy has been a bid preference of up to 15%, applied to certified minority bidders on competitively bid contracts. These bid preferences allow a percentage advantage to certified minority businesses which are not the low bidders. In 2009, the bid preference used by the Board was lowered to 10%, even though the program allowed a bid preference of up to 15%. In 2010, the ``extra'' cost to the Board for its bid preference was exactly $13,256 out of a total procurement budget for goods and services of $66,166,981 or two-hundredths of one percent. The Board is confident that it saved far more than that amount from the increased competition in its procurements brought about only because it employed race-conscious remedies. Of the approximately 20% minority utilization during 2009 and 2010, less than 5% of that minority business resulted from any race-conscious remedies in its MFBE program. The Atlanta Board of Education has taken seriously its responsibilities to adopt and implement an MFBE Program that satisfies the Supreme Court's requirements. It adopted its program only after receiving dramatic evidence of discriminatory exclusion in its own prior purchasing practices. It has applied its program in a flexible way, adjusting any race-conscious remedies in a narrowly tailored manner in light of the facts. Finally, Mr. Jessika also got it wrong when he wrote that Prior Tire Company was the low bidder on the contract. Prior Tire was not the low bidder on any portion of that contract and would not have received the contract even if no bid preference had been applied. Race conscious affirmative action plans, properly adopted and implemented, are constitutional. The Supreme Court emphatically reaffirmed that principle last year in the Adarand case. Apparently, Mr. Jessika disagrees with the Supreme Court and wants to see all such programs ended. While of course entitled to his opinion, Mr. Jessika's knee-jerk column does not make a positive contribution to the ongoing dialogue about how to end discrimination in our society. Aaron Watson President Atlanta Board of Education Atlanta
