Brooklyn College's Professor David Seidemann had previously been defeated in a pro se (representing himself without a lawyer) law suit against the CUNY faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC). Professor Seidemann just e-mailed me that he has won on appeal in federal appeals court, this time with representation from Davis, Polk and Wardwell's Phineas E. Leahey. Professor Seidemann is to be highly commended for his investment of time and effort in establishing individuals' rights to refuse to subsidize the PSC's left-wing extremist political goals.
According to the Bureau of National Affairs:
>"A union representing employees at the City University of New York violated a professor's First Amendment rights by requiring him to file annual objections for agency fees and by requiring him to specifically state what percentages of the disputed fees he found unreasonable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Aug. 1 (Seidemann v. Bowen, 2d Cir., No. 05-6773, 8/1/07). Reversing a trial court, the Second Circuit agreed with Brooklyn College geology professor David Seidemann that the Professional Staff Congress of the City University of New York's requirement that agency fee payers make annual objections was an unreasonable requirement and therefore violated his First Amendment rights.
"PSC's annual objection requirement burdens employees exercising their constitutionally protected right to object, and the union has proffered no legitimate need for disallowing continuing objections," Judge Peter W. Hall wrote for the court...
"...the Third Circuit explained that there was no suggestion in Supreme Court precedent that said "merely because an employee must initially make his objection known, a union may thereafter refuse to accept a dissenter's notice that his objection is continuing. The fact that employees have the responsibility of making an initial objection does not absolve unions of their obligation to ensure that objectors' First Amendment rights are not burdened...
"...In 2002, Seidemann filed written objections with the union seeking to reduce his agency fee for charges he alleges are not related to the collective bargaining process. He brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York accusing the union, and its president Barbara Bowen, of interfering with his First Amendment rights and the union's duty of fair representation.
Several times during pretrial litigation the union revised the procedures by which nonmembers may make such objections and refunded Seidemann's agency fees for the 2001-2004 fiscal year, with interest.
"According to the union's April 2003 procedures, prior to the annual objection period PSC must provide agency fee payers with information regarding the previous fiscal year's rebatable expenditures...
"...In reversing summary judgment granted by the trial court, the Second Circuit said that in addition to the annual notice being burdensome, the union failed to provide a legitimate interest that was narrowly tailored enough to justify the burden.
"The union argued that it wanted to "take advantage of inertia on the part of would-be dissenters who fail to object affirmatively, thus preserving more union members," the Second Circuit explained in finding the reasoning unreasonable.
"In addition to finding the annual reporting too burdensome, the Second Circuit also found the union's requirement that fee payers must identify what percentage of the activity they object to is believed to be unreasonable.
"The Supreme Court has specifically and consistently rejected the notion that dissenters must object with particularity," Hall explained, adding that "requiring particularized objections to preserve an objector's rights to dissent places an additional unnecessary burden on objectors."
"Because of confusion over evidence, the Second Circuit refused to decide whether other union procedures and notice requirements were permissible but instead sent the issue back to the trial court. The Second Circuit, however, did rule that Seidemann's claims were not moot because the union failed to demonstrate that it had made a good faith effort to correct past problems and to not violate rights in the future."
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Opposition to Private-Use Eminent Domain in North Arlington and Sunset Hills
The Castle Coalition offers two examples of municipalites that voted out cynical politicians who ignored the public's opposition to private-use eminent domain.
In North Arlington, NJ, according to Castle Coaltion, there was a plan to build 1,625 new residential units and 50,000 square feet by taking several industrial properties through government violence.
"Many people saw the deal as questionable, as the city would have been required to spend a large portion of the tax revenue generated by the development on public services associated with it."
In 2006, voters voted out Mayor Pittman in favor of Peter Massa, who opposed Pittman's questionable eminent domain plan.
In Sunset Hills, Mo, the Board of Aldermen voted to demolish a 65 acre neighborhood to make room for a blighting shopping mall. Castle Coalition continues:
"In April 2006, residents signaled their outrage over the project’s failure by voting out half of the town’s elected officials. John Hunzeker defeated Mayor Jim Hobbs, while Franklin Hardy, Thomas Hrastich, Lynn Flowers, and Frank Gregory replaced four pro-project members on the Board of Aldermen.
"Sunset Manor appears safe for now, but the future of the neighborhood is still up in the air. It will cost millions of dollars to restore Sunset Manor to the condition it was in before the redevelopment debacle. Still, residents should feel much safer rebuilding and improving their properties now that most of Sunset Hills’ pro-eminent domain politicians are gone."
As I have previously blogged it is unlikely that voters will be savvy enough to grasp the facts in private use eminent domain issues. Mancur Olson has argued that special interests generally prevail when they have incentives to lobby and study a problem. Such incentives are not present for the general public. Thus, democracy results in privileges for the wealthy and for their marionettes in the courts and state capitols. Financial asymmetries extend to the media, so the public is doubly hobbled with respect to obtaining information.
Let us hope that voters take a greater interest in the serious threat to economic progress and freedom that private-use eminent domain causes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In North Arlington, NJ, according to Castle Coaltion, there was a plan to build 1,625 new residential units and 50,000 square feet by taking several industrial properties through government violence.
"Many people saw the deal as questionable, as the city would have been required to spend a large portion of the tax revenue generated by the development on public services associated with it."
In 2006, voters voted out Mayor Pittman in favor of Peter Massa, who opposed Pittman's questionable eminent domain plan.
In Sunset Hills, Mo, the Board of Aldermen voted to demolish a 65 acre neighborhood to make room for a blighting shopping mall. Castle Coalition continues:
"In April 2006, residents signaled their outrage over the project’s failure by voting out half of the town’s elected officials. John Hunzeker defeated Mayor Jim Hobbs, while Franklin Hardy, Thomas Hrastich, Lynn Flowers, and Frank Gregory replaced four pro-project members on the Board of Aldermen.
"Sunset Manor appears safe for now, but the future of the neighborhood is still up in the air. It will cost millions of dollars to restore Sunset Manor to the condition it was in before the redevelopment debacle. Still, residents should feel much safer rebuilding and improving their properties now that most of Sunset Hills’ pro-eminent domain politicians are gone."
As I have previously blogged it is unlikely that voters will be savvy enough to grasp the facts in private use eminent domain issues. Mancur Olson has argued that special interests generally prevail when they have incentives to lobby and study a problem. Such incentives are not present for the general public. Thus, democracy results in privileges for the wealthy and for their marionettes in the courts and state capitols. Financial asymmetries extend to the media, so the public is doubly hobbled with respect to obtaining information.
Let us hope that voters take a greater interest in the serious threat to economic progress and freedom that private-use eminent domain causes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, July 29, 2007
In New York, Even Traffic Decisions Tainted
What a Planet has blogged about a tainted decision to inconvenience tens of thousands of New Yorkers, visitors and commuters in order to benefit an alleged crony of MTA chief Peter Kalkow, namely Michael Buzzy O'Keefe who What a Planet believes owns the Water Club and the Pershing Square restaurant. The Pershing Square area is closed now because of the recent explosion (itself raising questions about the Mayor's competence).
But even when the damage from the explosion is repaired, there will continue to be major traffic problems that have gone on for years because of cronyism, according to What a Planet:
"Every Weekday: Pershing Square Plaza is open on the southbound lanes of Park Ave between East 41st St and East 42nd St on weekdays between the hours of 11 am and 10:30 pm (May) through October – weather permitting. The public seating promenade next to the Altria Building is open weekdays between 11 am and 3 pm for bag lunches, conversations, book reading, and sun worshipping. The outdoor café is open for dining and drinks on weekdays between noon and 10:30 pm."--Grand Central Partnership
"Did you know this has been going on EVERY YEAR SINCE 1997?
"Have you seen this traffic farce, from about 11am to 10pm just about every day for just about half the year? Did you know the downtown entrance to Park Avenue on
42 street is blocked off from traffic so that the Pershing Square Restaurant can make boatloads of money serving cocktails to thousands?
"Sounds like fun!
"It's like a street fair or block party that goes on for 6 months!
"This is a MASSIVE traffic hazard. I have seen ambulances and police cars stuck in traffic many times.
"Who is Michael 'Buzzy' O'Keefe? I believe he is still the owner of Pershing Square Restaurant, and the Water Club, that's who.
"Is he a BIG BUDDY of Peter Kalikow, the former head of the MTA and Chairman of The Grand Central Partnership?..."
Massive traffic jams due to poor traffic planning are coupled with a major explosion due to mayoral and administrative indifference to infrastructure. Where is the supposed competence that the media claims for Mayor Bloomberg?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Exchange with John W. Epperson, Ruth Harp Professor of Political Science, Simpson College
Professor Epperson wrote the following in response to my recent Frontpagemag article. My response follows.
Dear Mr. Langbert,
I read with interest your article on the possibility of the IRS changing the tax status of some universities because of their alleged political activities including anti-Semitism. Your evidence for anti-Semitism on the part of the various educational institutions or the educational establishment is extraordinarily thin. For example in one paragraph you cite as evidence two events: a student running for student government was spit upon and called an epithet when she ran for student government and secondly an emeritus professor wrote a letter attacking Judaism that was published in a student newspaper. In the latter instance I would point out the professor was “emeritus” which as you should know means she is retired. Secondly newspapers, even student ones, publish letters. How does either of these events indicate a consistent (or even episodic) pattern of anti-Semitism? As for the student, who attacked her--Official representatives of the university, outsiders on campus, or other students? Is this something that happens all of the time? Did it happen more than once or was this just one incident of very bad behavior? As regrettable as these incidents are neither of them comes anywhere near supporting your argument. You have erected a “straw-man” to support what is an extremely weak argument for propaganda purposes. You have to do better than this.
John W. Epperson
Ruth Harp Professor of Political Science
Simpson College
Indianola, Iowa
My e-mailed response was as follows:
>"Hi--thanks for your interest. I think I referred to Gary Tobin et al.'s Uncivil University in the article, which is a book-length treatment of anti-Semitism in universities that came out last year. My article was targeted at the tax issue, and I had just read Uncivil University, which as I had e-mailed to Gary Tobin, shocked me, so I included a few examples. There is hardly any shortage of evidence.
Moreover, my article was focused on the more narrow subject of tax implications. You might be interested in my blog here:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/05/revuew-if-gary-tobin-aryeh-k-weinberg.html
which is a review of Uncivil University. You might be interested in further information from Dr. Tobin at the Institute for Jewish Research. Their website:
http://www.jewishresearch.org/v2/media.html has information. I have copied Dr. Tobin of the Institute for Jewish Research on this e-mail. You might be interested in reading Uncivil University, sold at Amazon.com at
http://www.amazon.com/University-Politics-Propaganda-American-Education/dp/189367102X/ref=sr_1_1/103-3708179-5361453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185585122&sr=8-1
and raising any questions with Tobin, as he is much better qualified to discuss his book than I am.
As well, you might take a look at David Horowitz's book, < 101 Most Dangerous Professors also available at Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/Professors-Most-Dangerous-Academics-America/dp/1596985259/ref=sr_1_1/103-3708179-5361453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185585253&sr=8-1
There are so many examples of the politicization of universities that my 1,000 word article on tax issues could not have reviewed them all. This has already been done in several well-known books, to include:
Kors and Silverglate, The Shadow University
Dinesh D'Souza, Illiberal University
Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals
The idea that universities engage in political activity is not something that requires new evidence, as there has been so much available for so long that I am surprised that (you) are unfamiliar with the extensive literature. The point of my article was to discuss the tax implications of the political university, which is virgin territory.
Why don't you read the above material, and then get back to me if you are still surprised at the idea that radical activisim, (e.g., "peace studies"), propaganda, political advocacy and one-sided chanting of extremist views, to include anti-Semitism, are common in universities. Frankly, I (was) surprised that you're surprised.
Mitchell Langbert
Dear Mr. Langbert,
I read with interest your article on the possibility of the IRS changing the tax status of some universities because of their alleged political activities including anti-Semitism. Your evidence for anti-Semitism on the part of the various educational institutions or the educational establishment is extraordinarily thin. For example in one paragraph you cite as evidence two events: a student running for student government was spit upon and called an epithet when she ran for student government and secondly an emeritus professor wrote a letter attacking Judaism that was published in a student newspaper. In the latter instance I would point out the professor was “emeritus” which as you should know means she is retired. Secondly newspapers, even student ones, publish letters. How does either of these events indicate a consistent (or even episodic) pattern of anti-Semitism? As for the student, who attacked her--Official representatives of the university, outsiders on campus, or other students? Is this something that happens all of the time? Did it happen more than once or was this just one incident of very bad behavior? As regrettable as these incidents are neither of them comes anywhere near supporting your argument. You have erected a “straw-man” to support what is an extremely weak argument for propaganda purposes. You have to do better than this.
John W. Epperson
Ruth Harp Professor of Political Science
Simpson College
Indianola, Iowa
My e-mailed response was as follows:
>"Hi--thanks for your interest. I think I referred to Gary Tobin et al.'s Uncivil University in the article, which is a book-length treatment of anti-Semitism in universities that came out last year. My article was targeted at the tax issue, and I had just read Uncivil University, which as I had e-mailed to Gary Tobin, shocked me, so I included a few examples. There is hardly any shortage of evidence.
Moreover, my article was focused on the more narrow subject of tax implications. You might be interested in my blog here:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/05/revuew-if-gary-tobin-aryeh-k-weinberg.html
which is a review of Uncivil University. You might be interested in further information from Dr. Tobin at the Institute for Jewish Research. Their website:
http://www.jewishresearch.org/v2/media.html has information. I have copied Dr. Tobin of the Institute for Jewish Research on this e-mail. You might be interested in reading Uncivil University, sold at Amazon.com at
http://www.amazon.com/University-Politics-Propaganda-American-Education/dp/189367102X/ref=sr_1_1/103-3708179-5361453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185585122&sr=8-1
and raising any questions with Tobin, as he is much better qualified to discuss his book than I am.
As well, you might take a look at David Horowitz's book, < 101 Most Dangerous Professors also available at Amazon.com at:
http://www.amazon.com/Professors-Most-Dangerous-Academics-America/dp/1596985259/ref=sr_1_1/103-3708179-5361453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185585253&sr=8-1
There are so many examples of the politicization of universities that my 1,000 word article on tax issues could not have reviewed them all. This has already been done in several well-known books, to include:
Kors and Silverglate, The Shadow University
Dinesh D'Souza, Illiberal University
Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals
The idea that universities engage in political activity is not something that requires new evidence, as there has been so much available for so long that I am surprised that (you) are unfamiliar with the extensive literature. The point of my article was to discuss the tax implications of the political university, which is virgin territory.
Why don't you read the above material, and then get back to me if you are still surprised at the idea that radical activisim, (e.g., "peace studies"), propaganda, political advocacy and one-sided chanting of extremist views, to include anti-Semitism, are common in universities. Frankly, I (was) surprised that you're surprised.
Mitchell Langbert
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
