The Union's Position

  By Charles Loiacono     

A Veiled Threat or a Confession?

 

 

On May 12 I wrote a response to a threatening missive Mike Freeman, chairman of the Board of Trustees, wrote as his reaction to the cancellation of the AFA Spring Conference. My piece was made available on the college e-mail. However, since many readers of the VANGUARD do not have access to the college e-mail, the piece is here reprinted. I believe this response to a vindictive trustee, will give the reader insight into the current state of affairs at NCC, as well as a portrait of the kind of trustee now making policy at the college.

          

             It may be that Mike Freeman’s inability to connect thoughts or see beyond his threats has perhaps unintentionally led to a confession. In his ungainly missive of May 9th, Freeman quotes from a December 22, 2010, press release describing a $5,000 fine levied against the UUP for “knowingly and willfully” violating section 1 of the Public Employee Ethics Reform Act. As a registered lobbyist, the UUP held a legislative luncheon in the Legislative Office Building so as to “wine and dine public officials while plying them with information favorable to the client’s interests.”

             In the February 25th letter, we suggested that the Commission consider the possibility that the person filing the complaint might be trying to use a government agency to silence a union, and that if the person were in any way involved in current labor negotiations with that union, the misuse of the Commission should warrant action.

             Freeman compares the AFA Spring Conference with the UUP legislative luncheon. He follows with a not so veiled threat: “There appears to be serious and substantial questions that could be raised regarding the legality or illegality of the AFA‘s continuing to hold the Spring Conference in the manner that it has in the past.”

       Most telling about Freeman’s awkwardness is the use of the blackmail phrase “that could be raised.” Implicit in that phrase is the notion that if the AFA plays ball with Freeman he would consider not raising those questions. But it’s too late to threaten us with an accusation that has already been made, investigated, and dismissed.

              Someone, probably a shyster lawyer, read the December 22, 2010, press release. Sensing a possible way to silence the AFA, that individual wrote to the N.Y.S. Commission on Public Integrity claiming that the AFA was engaged in lobbying. The following is an excerpt from the Commission’s January 27th letter:

“The Commission on Public Integrity has received information indicating that the Adjunct Faculty Association at Nassau Community College (‘AFA’) may have engaged in activities that may constitute ‘lobbying’ and, thus, it may have violated Legislative Law.”

The Commission would not reveal the name of the complainant. We had our suspicions. We knew that the person was someone who was frustrated with his dealings with the AFA; someone who couldn’t win an argument intellectually or honestly; someone who was ashamed to have his name connected with Nixon-like dirty tricks. We knew he had to be a petty person who was dull-witted and short-sighted. But who would fit such a profile. Several persons qualified, but we couldn’t know for sure, so we stopped speculating. Instead, we were completely open and responsive to the Commission. We provided all the information they required, including when and how we engage the legislature, the times and purposes of our speaking with elected officials, and the many times we have addressed open sessions of the legislature. The Commission did an in-depth investigation from January to March, and concluded that the AFA is not a lobbying group

and that I am not a lobbyist.

               Here is the relevant excerpt from the

 March 16th letter from the Executive Director of the Commission dismissing the claimant’s false accusation:

                        “March 16, 2011

 

“On January 27, 2011, the New York State Commission on Public Integrity (‘Commission’) sent the Adjunct Faculty Association at Nassau Community College a letter indicating a potential violation of Legislative Law.

            “After an inquiry and consideration of the facts and circumstances, including your letter of February 25, 2011, the Commission has decided not to pursue this matter further.

                                                                                   

                        Very truly yours,

                                                                                                Barry Ginsberg

                        Executive Director and

                       General Counsel”

   

               At any rate, another attempt to silence the AFA has failed. So, what are we to make of Freeman’s latest attempt to intimidate the union into silence—this time flirting with extortion? Has he inadvertently confessed to being a Nixonian dirty trickster?  We’ll never know, because he would never openly confess to such a desperate act.

               To be sure, the timing of the complaint to the Commission so soon after the UUP case and the anonymity of the complainant are interesting coincidences. The belief in coincidences becomes strained, however, when those facts are coupled with the latest missive revealing an excited Freeman comparing us with the UUP. But it is in his culminating extortionary warning that “there appear to be serious and substantial questions that could be raised regarding the legality or illegality…” that Freeman, in his awkward style, exposes himself. The mere allusion to extortion does not prove that Freeman was the anonymous enemy, but it sure puts an end mark on a character portrait.

               He is certainly a desperate man who finds himself on the wrong side of an argument. Being out of his element, and unable to deal with his inability to cope, he is left with nothing but threats.

                Most sad is the fact that Freeman is the best the Board of Trustees could come up with. It’s hard to believe, but he might be a reflection of them. They endorse his style of labor relations which is composed exclusively of poorly organized and simplistically reasoned missives designed to create animosity and strife. I guess we can expect that the trustees will once again show their support for Freeman’s disdain for the adjunct faculty by passing a resolution praising his tactics.

              Allow me to close by quoting a short paragraph from a letter to John Gross from Richard Betheil, AFA attorney. It deals with different subject matter, but in this paragraph Richard describes the current imbroglio with finesse. I don’t hold much hope that the trustees will agree or even understand Richard’s insight, but it’s worth a shot:

 

“I regard your letter as an unfortunate exercise in ad hominem attack on Mr. Loiacono rather than a constructive attempt to address the issues which divide our clients. Such attacks appear to be the tactic adopted by the College in its interactions with the AFA. Needless to say, this approach accomplishes nothing and further sunders a relationship which for a short time was constructive.”

 

             Ringing words from a first-class attorney, but like the proverbial tree that falls in an isolated forest, there may be no sound if there are no ears to hear.