(1) GEB Attorney: sometimes called the in-house prosecutor, is responsible for investigating and removing corrupt individuals from LIUNA. Robert D. Luskin, a prominent Washington criminal defense attorney, was selected as the GEB Attorney by the GEB and Coia. The impending Consent Decree also calls for a similar, but more powerful, GEB Attorney. Further, under the Consent Decree the GEB Attorney could be removed and the office terminated for failure to make “sufficient progress.”The “internal reform effort” also selected an Election Officer, Northwestern University law professor Stephen B. Goldberg, to monitor LIUNA 1996 elections. The Election Officer is not a permanent office; but another is planned for the 2001 elections. Goldberg is likely to be rehired. The impending Consent Decree also provides an Election Officer.(2) Inspector General: similar to IGs in federal agencies, this office is a clearinghouse for allegations of wrongdoing. The IG works on investigations with the GEB Attorney, but also monitors compliance with LIUNA’s “Ethical Practice Code.” W. Douglas Gow, a former FBI official, was selected as IG by the GEB and Coia. The impending Consent Decree calls for a similar, but more powerful, Investigations Officer. Under the Consent Decree, however, the Investigations Officer would be appointed by a U.S. District Court.
(3) Hearing Officer: is an internal judge who hears cases brought by the GEB Attorney and has the power, in theory, to eject corrupt individuals from LIUNA. Peter F. Viara, a former U.S. Attorney, was selected as the Hearings Officer by the GEB and Coia. The impending Consent Decree calls for a similar, but more powerful, Independent Monitor. Under the Consent Decree, however, the Independent Monitor would be appointed by a U.S. District Court.
(4) Appellate Officer: hears any appeals of the Hearings Officer’s decisions. W. Neil Eggleston, former Clinton White House attorney and Bill Clinton’s attorney for his executive privilege cases, was selected as the Hearings Officer by the GEB and Coia. The impending Consent Decree has no provision for an Appellate Officer; instead all appeals of the Independent Monitor’s decisions would be heard by a U.S. District Judge.
According to Luskin, the “internal reform effort” has cost LIUNA about $35 million since 1995. Many advocates of the “internal reform effort,” in LIUNA and DOJ, have continually reinforced the myth that the “internal reform efforts” saves taxpayer funds because the union, and not the government, is financing the clean-up. There are two flaws in this argument. First, just because it’s cheap does not mean it’s good. If DOJ has to spend millions more to clean-up LIUNA in 2005-2010 because the “internal reform effort” fails, there is no taxpayer savings.
Second and more importantly, paragraph 52 of the
impending Consent Decree clearly states: “[t]he compensation and
expenses of the GEB Attorney, Independent Monitor, Investigations Officer
and the Election Officer, and of all person hired under their authority,
shall be paid by LIUNA.” It also requires LIUNA to maintain a $150,000
balance to keep the Consent Decree’s operation solvent. Further, it requires
full and itemized disclosure of all expenditures. Thus, the increase in
cost, if any, to taxpayers for the imposition of the consent decree would
be minimal and at the same time accountability would increase.
Return to the index of this report.
Organized Labor Accountability Project