Divorced from the mob - responses to 'An F.O.B. and the Mob,' May 1996; includes authors' responses - Letter to the Editor

Washington Monthly, July-August, 1996 by Carl E. Booker, Robert D. Luskin

On behalf of the 750,000 members of the Laborers' International Union of North America, I must express my regret that you chose to publish "An F.O.B. and the Mob" (May). Messrs. Mulligan and Starkman are hell-bent on sensationalism and have chosen to ignore the facts.

Numerous individuals over whom union leadership has no control--including former Assistant U.S. Attorney Allan Taffett, LIUNA's Inspector General Douglas Gow, General Executive Board Attorney Robert Luskin, real estate appraisers in Rhode Island, and members of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI--have reported full cooperation about the real story behind LIUNA's reform to The Journal Bulletin only to be shocked by the glaring bias, omissions, and erroneous reporting that appeared in the paper. Time and again, LIUNA has received reports of the Journal reporters' efforts with third parties to try to create stories of wrongdoing and misconduct where none exists, and to disregard the truth if it interfered in any way with their preconceived notions.

While Starkman and Mulligan suggest that certain unnamed federal law enforcement personnel outside Washington are unhappy about the Laborers' internal reform procedures, they identify only Craig Oswald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, who has indicated that he was badly misquoted in the article. In addition, these reporters ignore the fact that federal courts in Washington, Buffalo, and Chicago have not only upheld, but applauded, the union's process.

The authors' unattributed suggestion that Arthur Coia and the Justice Department somehow conspired to strengthen Coia's "grip" on the union is inexplicable. In fact, the General President and Secretary-treasurer will be required to stand for election before the rank-and-file membership later this year. This will mark the first popular election in the union's 93-year history, and it exemplifies far greater democracy than is practiced in most unions.

The article also suggests that there is more organized crime influence in the Laborers' Union today than there was a year ago, in spite of well-publicized events to the contrary. In the past 12 months, a mob-dominated local in Buffalo has been purged of Mafia influence; the Mason Tenders District Council in New York City has been reorganized to reduce the potential for corruption; dozens of cases at local affiliates have been investigated, charges have been brought, and numerous individuals have been forced to leave the union. Attempts to challenge the reorganization in federal courts have ended in summary judgments upholding its propriety.

They call that agreement "toothless," citing concessions that the government made to LIUNA. In fact, the government made no concessions. It is monitoring LIUNA's internal reform procedures, and the Department of Justice can step in and take over the union any time it decides that the union isn't getting the job done. Unlike the other unions that were under Justice Department scrutiny, LIUNA admitted it had problems that needed reform. Despite the article's assertion, Coia never denied that corruption existed.

That information, as well as detailed descriptions of the actions taken to carry out reform, has been made available to your authors in the past. They have conducted lengthy interviews with General President Coia, GEB Attorney Robert Luskin, and Inspector General Doug Gow.

But we have found that "setting the record straight" with these two individuals is not only impossible, but an exercise in frustration.

Carl E. Booker International Vice President, General Executive Board, LIUNA

Your story on LIUNA is a punishing mixture of falsehoods, half-truths, speculation, and outright fantasy. LIUNA's so-called "sweetheart" deal with the government is anything but. According to Mulligan and Starkman, the agreement "essentially asked Coia to clean up the Laborers' act--on his own terms." In fact it is this: If the government concludes that LIUNA's self-reform effort has faltered--or, as Mulligan and Starkman accuse, it was embarked upon in bad faith--the government is free at any time to pull the plug. The agreement expressly confers on the Department of Justice the absolute discretion, for a period of three years, to impose a Consent Decree on LIUNA.

Unlike other "deals" the government has negotiated with unions accused of mob corruption, the arrangement with LIUNA does not tie the government's hands in any fashion. Now, or at any time since the agreement was signed, the government--including the disgruntled but unnamed "law enforcement sources"--has remained free to indict any union member or seek court supervision of any LIUNA body. That the government has not exercised this power even once stands as rather persuasive proof of LIUNA's successes; not politics or bad faith.

Two separate federal courts have found that there is literally no evidence to support the allegation that LIUNA entered into its agreement in bad faith, to protect General President Coia, or as part of a secret political deal with the Department of Justice. All of these charges, which Mulligan and Starkman attribute to unnamed sources, were the subject of litigation commenced by deposed Vice Presidents Caivano and Serpico and a handful of locals in Chicago and Buffalo with the most to lose from reform. Not surprisingly, they were unable to prove it, even with extensive discovery, including a two-day deposition of Luskin and summary judgment to LIUNA.