During the last bargaining cycle, the New York City schoolteachers obtained a 16 percent raise over three years, while the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), CUNY's faculty union, obtained six percent. Despite this failure, the PSC leadership has focused on attempting to silence and attack middle of the road and conservative faculty members such as my colleagues KC Johnson, David Seidemann and even the indefatigable Sharad Karkhanis.
As I have previously blogged, College of Staten Island Professor Sandi Cooper, former chair of CUNY's University Faculty Senate, has been planning an attack on Anne Neal because Neal has been appointed to be one of 15 members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI).
Frontpagemag's Ron Capshaw wrote the following about Cooper on March 6, 2006:
"At CUNY, the traditional political spectrums had shifted so far to the left that a New Deal and Camelot defender like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was characterized...as 'conservative' simply because he wrote and taught from an Enlightenment perspective...As a TA under Dr. Sandi Cooper, I was required to sit in on her European survey lectures and witnessed, not a teacher, but a fringe element of our history come to life, which in her case was the American Communist Party line in its salad days... According to Cooper, the Soviet Union was capitalistically encircled in the ‘30s and Cold War..."
Now, Barbara McKenna and Peter Hogness seem to follow through on Cooper's e-mailed call to organize against Neal and Neal's American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) in an unfair article in the summer 2007 Clarion, the PSC's newspaper.
The headline on page 12 of the summer 2007 Clarion reads "Ideologue named to higher ed panel", suggesting that Cooper is not an ideologue, while Neal, who has spent the last decade struggling for quantification of academic standards and academic accountability is one.
The article states:
"Despite its official-sounding name, ACTA is a highly political organization that has been a sometimes shrill advocate for a conservative agenda within higher education."
In the spring of 2005 I attended a meeting of the Manhattan Institute where Roger Bowen, former head of the American Association of University Professors, Stanley Rothman and Anne Neal gave presentations. At the conclusion of the presentations, the PSC's president, Barbara Bowen (no relation to Roger), stood up and made a rambling, angry speech that included accusing Aristotle of misogyny. Her speech was so shrill and extreme that she inadvertently made the strongest possible case for Stanley Rothman's and Anne Neal's point of view. Yet, in McKenna's and Hogness's view, it is Neal, not Bowen, who is an ideologue.
McKenna and Hogness go on to call Neal's appointment "particularly brazen" and "putting the fox into the accreditation henhouse" because Neal opposes limiting federal financial support to accredited institutions, and NACIQI's job is to recognize the accreditation agencies. They also level these accusations because Ms. Neal is skeptical of universities' intolerant obsession with identity politics.
But McKenna and Hogness reveal the meat-and-potatoes issue that really irritates the PSC: Neal's advocacy of objective, quantitative measures to assess and evaluate higher education institutions. The PSC makes a truly Orwellian argument here. Neal, who advocates rational measurement of achievement and outcomes is an "ideologue", while the PSC's insistence on special interests, privileges, lack of accountability and "the academy is right and we know best" reflects rationality. If the PSC were to apply its argument to all phases of American life, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 would have to be repealed and the accounting profession abolished because measurement is "ideological". Of course, the SATs would have to be abolished as well, because as we all know they too are ideological. The federal budget would need to be abolished because it involves ideological measurement. In fact, the only thing that could be measured that would not be abolished is faculty paychecks. But given the PSC's and Barbara Bowen's incompetence at collective bargaining, they would probably want to avoid measuring those as well.
In fact, Ms. Neal is eminently qualified to serve on the NACIQI board. What seems to irritate the PSC is that Cooper, Bowen, et al. dislike conservatives and dislike accountability. On the one hand, they would like to avoid objective measurement and accountability, much as Ken Lay or Jay Gould would have. They would also like to exclude conservatives like Neal altogether. On the other hand the PSC likes to argue that academia does not exclude conservatives and that academics are tolerant of all viewpoints. Might we call the McKenna and Hogness article a smoking gun about the deceptive nature of the tolerant-of-conservatives claim?"
Sunday, August 5, 2007
CUNY Professor Wins Appeal against Faculty Union
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."
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."
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
