Good action. After attending the 2016 international conference on mangrove trees hosted by UF IFAS and Flagler College, I started talking to local boards about the need to use mangroves as natural shorelines. Here's the news from Virginia Beach, another threatened costal community, about planting trees to prevent flooding. Let's do it here..
Virginia Beach to ponder planting trees to prevent flooding
By The Associated Press December 7, 2018 1:45 pm VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) — Virginia’s largest city will study an idea it hopes will control flooding on its southern side.
The Virginian-Pilot reports Virginia Beach Councilwoman Barbara Henley is leading an effort to examine how forests could help prevent flooding and where those trees would provide the most benefits.
The study will identify which existing forests are integral to prevent flooding and where strategic reforestation would provide the most benefits. City leaders say more foliage won’t eliminate the issue, but it could be part of the solution.
Last summer, southern Virginia Beach faced two major flooding events, which longtime residents said was the worst they’d ever seen. Prior to City Council elections, flooding was the major issue.
Virginia Tech’s Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation will conduct the analysis.
___
Information from: The Virginian-Pilot, http://pilotonline.com
Councilwoman Barbara Henley is photographed in Pungo on Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. Henley is spearheading an effort to examine how trees can help with flooding in the area.
Councilwoman Barbara Henley shows the wide variety of vegetation on her property in Pungo on Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. Henley helping with an effort to examine how trees and vegetation can help with flooding.
Specifically, their ability to act like a pump — capturing, storing and removing water from the environment.
Those traits could make them a key player in the fight against flooding.
The Princess Anne councilwoman is spearheading an effort to examine how forests could help with an issue that's plaguing the southern, rural part of the city.
The study will identify which existing forests are integral to prevent flooding and where strategic reforestation would provide the most benefits. More foliage won't eliminate the issue, but it could be part of the solution, leaders said. Virginia Tech’s Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation will conduct the analysis.
Trees on the property of councilwoman Barbara Henley in Pungo on Friday, Dec. 7, 2018.
On paper, it seems like a match made in heaven where the city could use natural solutions to fight flooding in largely rural areas, Henley said.
"Creating levies is kind of heavy. We’re used to the natural down here," she said. "The people down here — who have been here for generations — appreciate the marshes.”
The initiative is timely. Last summer, southern Virginia Beach faced two major flooding events, both of which longtime residents described as the worst they've ever seen. In the months leading up to the City Council election, flooding was the major issue, with residents repeatedly calling for quicker action.
Development has meant there is less room for the water to go, said lead scientist Daniel McLaughlin. But more forests could help offset that, he said. The city has, for years, also been seeing more frequent and heavier precipitation.
Virginia Beach is an unusual big city as it already has a fair amount of forested land, which Henley described as "a big head start." The existing urban canopy, about 3 million trees, provides more than $250 million in savings and benefits to Virginia Beach each year, according to the city's urban forest management plan.
A big chunk of that, nearly $84 million, stems from benefits pertaining to stormwater runoff reduction. Here's how forests help: They can soak up large quantities of rainfall, and trees can then remove it from the soil and release it into the atmosphere in a process called evapotranspiration, McLaughlin said.
"As far as the economic benefits of trees, the city makes a pretty convincing case," said Brian van Eerden, the director of the Nature Conservancy's Virginia Pinelands Program, which works to preserve wetlands and rare forests in southeast Virginia. "Investing in trees has numerous benefits for the public."
In addition to the city, the study is being commissioned by the Nature Conservancy, Lynnhaven River NOW and the Virginia Department of Forestry, with the Dewberry engineering consulting firm also providing some support. Virginia Beach Director of Agriculture David Trimmer is also leading the charge.
The analysis will be done in two parts and will cost about $25,000.
The first phase — which will examine how existing forests reduce flooding based on their tree density, leaf area and soils — will wrap up in June. With this information, the city will be able to say with good data the role that forests play in storing water and mitigating floods.
The second phase will identify specific woodlands for conservation and other areas that would benefit from reforesting. Because money will be limited, the leaders of the study want to use resources in strategic ways, targeting the most successful sites.
"Not all possible forest lands are equal in regards to their flood-risk-reduction potential," van Eerden said.
Henley said the city could, in the future, look for willing owners to sell back properties in key areas so the land could be reforested.
No one knows yet where that could be, but van Eerden said, let "the science lead us to where that area is."
Peter Coutu is a reporter on the Virginia Beach team, covering the southern parts of the city, sea level rise, flooding and transportation. He joined the paper in 2018 after graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Today is the 70th anniversary of the adoption of this landmark document under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt. Today we celebrate that anniversary.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages.
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Read Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Gilbert Gaul's interview of Orrin Pilkey on the folly of continued building of structures along coastlines.
Are St. Johns County, St. Augustine and St. Augustine Beach policymakers listening?
St. Augustine City Commissioners, led by Mayor Nancy Shaver, and City staff, led by City Manager John Regan and Public Works Director Michael Cullum -- appear to be engaged.
But what about their less energetic colleagues at St. Augustine Beach City Hall and St. Johns County Administration Building a/k/a "Taj Mahal?"
More later.
Next May, there will be a national Keeping History Above Water conference here to address historic preservation issues on ocean level rise.
Meanwhile, here's the Yale Environment 360 Gilbert Gaul interview with marine scientist Orrin Pilkey:
Flooded homes in Ocean County, New Jersey after Superstorm Sandy in October 2012.U.S. COAST GUARD VIA GETTY IMAGES
INTERVIEW
Coastal Warning: An Unwelcome Messenger on the Risks of Rising Seas
Marine scientist Orrin Pilkey has long been cautioning about sea level rise and the folly of building and rebuilding along coastlines. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he talks about why an eventual retreat from oceanfront property on the U.S. coast is inevitable.
For six decades, Orrin Pilkey has written, taught, and preached about the beauty of barrier islands and the extraordinary risk of building in coastal floodplains. In more than 40 books, 250 scientific papers and journal articles, and countless opinion pieces, Pilkey has fashioned a vision of coasts as dynamic, living landscapes, with their own personalities, quirks and flaws, “not unlike people,” he says.
To the extent that America has a public conscience of its coasts, it just may be the voluble marine geologist, a short, hobbit-like figure who for decades wore an unruly gray beard like the wizard Gandalf. Pilkey warned about interfering with the natural processes of shorelines and questioned developers, politicians, and engineers who helped to fill the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts with trillions of dollars of vacation houses, investment properties, and businesses, often subsidized with generous federal tax dollars.
Orrin Pilkey
Unsurprisingly, not everyone appreciated his message. Some beach town mayors viewed Pilkey as the Antichrist. “I hate him, hate him, hate him,” bellowed the mayor of one of the largest and richest beach towns in New Jersey — this after Pilkey observed that the shoreline there was rapidly eroding. In 1991, the town council of Folly Beach, South Carolina, even passed a resolution condemning Pilkey’s research as “insulting, uninformed, and radical.” Pilkey framed the resolution and hung it on his office wall.
Now 84, the former Duke University professor is still busy and has a new book on sea level rise coming out next August. With growing concerns about sea level rise and another year of catastrophic hurricanes (2018’s Florence and Michael), it seemed like a good time to talk with Pilkey about how his ideas have evolved over time, and what he sees as the biggest challenges ahead in an age of climate change, warming oceans, torrential rain storms, and more violent hurricanes.
Yale Environment 360: Recent reports by the United Nations and the National Climate Assessment highlight the risks of crowding the nation’s shorelines with risky property, and raise the possibility that millions may be forced to retreat to higher ground as the seas rise and hurricanes do more damage. You’ve been warning about these threats for decades, dating back to 1969, when Hurricane Camille wrecked your parents’ Mississippi retirement house. Was that a turning point in your career?
Orrin Pilkey: Yes, the loss of my parents’ house was the point at which I realized for the first time the immense power of the sea and the need to inform the world that building next to the shoreline is almost suicidal. The recent UN report and National Climate Assessment confirmed some of my worst fears about the future threats of flooding and storms. Yet people continue to build in risky places. In Waveland, Mississippi, where my parents retired to a house with 13 feet of elevation, I saw an example of a beachfront house that was destroyed by Hurricane Camille, a replacement house destroyed again by Hurricane Katrina (2005), and the vacant lot for sale for $80,000. A loud activist voice was needed.
“The question that needed to be answered was…Which is more important, beaches or buildings along our ocean shores?”
e360: You grew up in Washington State and were a smoke jumper for a time. How did you go from fighting fires to studying the coasts and earning a PhD in marine geology?
Pilkey: I first saw the ocean in Puget Sound as a teenager and was fascinated by the waves, the sea smells, and the infinite vistas. That love of the ocean continues to this day. But like me, I believe that many marine scientists have grown up far from the sea. The late Bruce Heezen, the father of marine geology, for example, grew up as an Iowa farm boy.
e360: You were one of the first coastal geologists to take a public stance about building in harm’s way, arguing that armoring the coasts with seawalls, rock groins, and other defenses was not sufficient. What was your thinking at the time?
Pilkey: I was primarily concerned that these devices were being sold as the way to save the beautiful beach cottage communities. When they didn’t work, which was the usual case, the excuse used by the engineers was that the storm that destroyed the devices was unusually severe and unexpected. It was clear that beaches were being destroyed in order to save oceanfront houses, with seawalls and other structures interfering with the natural flow of sand and accelerating erosion, and that a voice expressing that was severely needed. The question that needed to be answered from the standpoint of Americans everywhere was: Which is more important, beaches or buildings along our ocean shores?
e360: In some ways we appear to be going back to the future at the coasts. Charleston and Miami are building seawalls and giant pumps. New York City is planning for a huge surge gate. And Texans are trying to get the federal government to pay for a Dutch-style gate across the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel, in Galveston. In your view, will these steps work and, if so, for how long?
Pilkey: Protection of major cities is different from the protection of much smaller resort communities on barrier islands. Stabilizing the shoreline, that is, holding it still, may be a reasonable priority for portions of big cities, but not so for smaller tourist developments, which depend on a good beach. Hard structures, such as seawalls and groins, almost always eventually destroy the beach. Surge gates depend on the blind luck that no superstorms will occur and overtop or destroy them, and also depend on a low rate of sea level rise. Their lifetime is likely to be only a decade or two. It is also likely that many other coastal cities will clamor for a surge gate once one city has one. Can we afford construction and maintenance of these large structures in view of their questionable success? The Dutch have a small country, much of it below sea level, and there is no place to escape the coming sea level rise. Therefore, they must use extreme engineering. But Americans have plenty of room to retreat.
“Government support of beach development encourages more and more development, leading to more storm damage.”
e360: Hurricanes by far account for the costliest natural disasters in the U.S., with over $500 billion in damage in recent years, and the likelihood of even more catastrophic storms in the future. Yet Americans keep building in harm’s way, often with the aid of generous federal subsidies, including flood insurance, disaster aid, and Army Corps of Engineers’ beach repairs. Don’t these subsidies distort the risks, shifting them from private homeowners to public taxpayers, and make it harder to encourage people to retreat to higher ground?
Pilkey: Unquestionably, government support of beach development encourages more and more development, leading to more and more storm damage. The mentality is why retreat when the government is right there to help you put things back the way they were before the storm.
e360: I am thinking about Dauphin Island, off the coast of Alabama, which has been repeatedly battered by hurricanes and has received tens of millions in federal aid. After Katrina, in 2005, a few dozen homeowners wanted the government to buy their homes, so they could move inland, but there was no money. Why don’t buyouts work at the coast?
Pilkey: The western half of Dauphin Island is the least suitable location for development along the entire U.S. Gulf of Mexico. North Topsail Beach in North Carolina, is similarly vulnerable. Buyouts on Dauphin Island would make sense because serious damage has occurred there five times since 1973, mostly on the west end where all of the vacation homes are. The government would have saved money in the long run if they had purchased the damaged properties, but the extreme high price of beachfront buildings prevents the buyout approach. It’s a shame. Buying these vulnerable properties could be the first step in managed retreat.
Dauphin Island, off the coast of Alabama, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.NOAA/NWS
e360: Increasingly, coastal communities are seeing regular flooding, largely as a result of rising seas. Miami has its King Tides. Areas of Norfolk, the Outer Banks and New Jersey now routinely flood in ordinary thunderstorms. What does your recent research tell us about what’s happening and what residents can expect?
Pilkey: The flooding that is occurring along the fringes of many American communities is called sunny-day flooding or nuisance flooding. These high tides correspond to spring tides but have been raised higher by sea level rise, and are the first concrete evidence of a rising sea. The highest of these nuisance floods are called King Tides, which occur three or four times a year. As sea level rises, nuisance flooding will penetrate further and further inland, threatening more property and resulting in more flood claims.
e360: The general scientific consensus is that we can expect about 3.5 feet of additional water by the end of the century. But if the ice sheets melt or sea level rise accelerates, we could see 6 to 8.5 feet, which would be catastrophic. By some estimates, up to a trillion dollars worth of coastal property could literally be under water. Will we likely see a mass migration from the coast at some point?
Pilkey: Millions of people will be fleeing drowned cities this century. Low-lying cities, such as Miami, Charleston, and New Orleans, and many barrier island communities, especially in Florida – Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Daytona Beach – are likely to produce huge numbers of evacuees. Miami alone will produce 4 million climate refugees, probably well before 2100. Currently, there are no plans to accommodate these refugees in inland cities. Even places with higher elevations will be at risk. Surrounding access roads at lower elevations may flood in storms or high tides and prevent residents from reaching businesses, schools, stores, and churches.
“Ghost towns are a likely element of our coasts by the end of this century. Complete loss of some communities is not impossible.”
e360: In a few coastal resorts we are beginning to see home buyers factor sea level rise and flood risks into the price of real estate. In Miami, condos at higher elevation carry a premium. How quickly do you see real estate prices at the coast sinking, and what impact do you expect that will have on future development?
Pilkey: I believe that we are due for a crash in the price of beachfront property. No one knows exactly when this will occur, but it is likely within a decade or two. There are already small price reductions occurring in some places. Probably sinking prices will cause a dramatic reduction in new beachfront development nationwide. Ghost towns are a likely element of our coasts by the end of this century. Complete loss of some communities is not impossible. Edingsville Beach in South Carolina, a town of 60 houses on a barrier island, disappeared in a major hurricane in 1893. Along the Holderness Coast in England, 26 towns are under water on the Continental Shelf.
e360: If you owned an oceanfront home, say in New Jersey, what would you do?
Pilkey: If I owned a house in view of the sea, I would remember that along our coastal plains, if you can see the sea, the sea can see you. If I opted to stay, I would first investigate the evacuation routes. I would want to know what the biggest storm on record did to the coast there. Very likely, I would move my home well back from the shoreline. Better yet, I would probably look into the feasibility of moving it to the mainland. One other temporary useful alternative would be to raise the building to allow storm surge to flow underneath it. Most likely, however, I would sell.
Looking forward to watching unionization of local hotels and restaurants in St. Johns County. We have a lack of affordable housing in our community.
While robotic Republicans talk about affordable housing, Democrats know that only free democratic trade unions and collective bargaining will get workers paid just wages.
Proud of these Marriott workers in San Diego.
May the New Year bring strong unionization drives here in St. Johns County, where tourists spend billions but workers are paid peanuts.
I like the idea in this article about the UNITE HERE union collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Marriott requiring panic buttons for hotel maids to get help if a guest or supervisor is sexually harassing them. Marriott is introducing the technology at some 5000 properties. Sexual harassment and rape of hotel maids is a pandemic problem, which a CBA or local ordinance might help eradicate.
We look to VCB and TDC to encourage all hoteliers to install it in 2019.
From the December 4, 2018 San Diego Union Tribune:
Marriott strike yields 40 percent pay hike for Westin housekeepers
A more than month-long strike by Westin San Diego Gaslamp workers will deliver a 40 percent pay hike for hotel housekeepers, stronger protections for sexual harassment and a first-time pension.
Details of the new four-year contract were made public Tuesday following the end this week of the last of the hotel walkouts that had targeted Marriott International properties involving 7,700 workers across eight cities in the U.S.
The Unite Here labor union representing the workers had agreed to not divulge terms of the individual contracts until all strikes were settled. The last of those was in San Francisco where 2,500 workers had been on strike for more than 60 days. They are returning to work on Wednesday now that they have approved a new contract.
The San Diego strike, which marked the first hotel walkout in the county since 2000, when workers at the Hotel del Coronado struck for one day, ended in early November
The financial terms of the agreements negotiated in each of the affected cities varies based on their respective economic demographics. In San Diego, hotel housekeepers, who tend to be among the lowest paid workers and represent the largest of more than two dozen different union job classifications at the Westin, had been earning $14.25 an hour, significantly below their peers at other San Diego union hotels.
The Westin’s 162 workers represented by Unite Here had been without a new contract since April of last year
With the new agreement, their pay will jump to $18 an hour next July and will increase a few times more until 2022 when hourly wages will reach $20, said Rick Bates, research analyst for Unite Here Local 30. By comparison, housekeepers at the Hotel del Coronado, also a union property, currently earn $18 an hour, and at the San Diego Hilton Bayfront, the hourly pay is $17.35.
In San Francisco, where the cost of living is considerably higher than San Diego’s, the median hourly wage for hotel housekeepers is currently $23, which will increase by $4 an hour by the end of the four-year contracts for the affected hotels, according to Unite Here.
In addition to housekeepers, the new San Diego contract will mean significant pay raises for all categories of workers, from front office employees to banquet cooks, Bates said. Tipped banquet servers and bartenders, for example, will receive an increase in their gratuity, from 13.5 percent to 15.5 percent.
Throughout the strike, the workers’ mantra had been, “One job should be enough,” a reflection, union organizers said, of the need of many employees to work more than one job to make ends meet.
“I think we were looking for wages that would allow the workers to provide for their families in San Diego, and we weren’t going to stop fighting until we got there, and $20 was the target,” Bates said. “You’re not going to be rich by any means but you’re not going to be in poverty. This is just the starting point.”
A spokeswoman for Marriott International, now the world’s largest hotel chain, had no comment Tuesday on the substance of the new contracts, saying only that “We look forward to welcoming our (San Francisco) associates back at work.”
With its acquisition nearly two years ago of Starwood Hotels & Resorts, Marriott's portfolio has grown to 1.26 million rooms in more than 6,500 properties in 127 countries and territories, and during the last fiscal year, it recorded profits of $1.3 billion on revenue of nearly $23 billion.
In addition to the pay raises coming to the Westin Gaslamp workers, other economic benefits negotiated on their behalf include:
No increases in health insurance premiums during the four-year contract period. Monthly premiums for the union’s Kaiser health plan, for example, will remain at $50 a month, no matter the size of the household. Workers who prefer to receive their medical care in Mexico will now have access to a SIMNSA plan (Sistemas Medicos Nacionales, S.A. de C.V.). Because it is a lower cost plan, union members will pay no premium.
A first-time pension that will require the employer to contribute 40 cents an hour for each hour worked by the employees. That will rise to 60 cents an hour by the end of the contract. Westin hotel workers already have a 401k that includes an employer contribution but now they will have the choice of a guaranteed pension, Bates explained. If they choose the pension, they can still keep contributing to their 401-k but will no longer get an employer contribution.
Across all the hotels, Unite Here won agreements from Marriott to equip employees who work directly with guests, like housekeepers and room service attendants, with GSP-enabled panic buttons that will let them call for immediate help if they feel unsafe.
In addition, there is a provision that requires guests to be removed mid-visit and banned from the hotel for three years if they’re believed to have been sexually harassing an employee, Bates said.
Marriott has been working on the panic button technology for some time and plans to roll out the initiative to all its more than 5,000 managed and franchised properties in the U.S. and Canada, said spokesman Brendan McManus.
“The associate alert technology rollout is projected to continue through 2020 as we and our franchise partners fine-tune and tailor installations at individual sites ranging from highrise city properties to sprawling resorts to suburban hotels,” he said.
Responding to union concerns about increasing automation that could potentially jeopardize hotel jobs, Marriott also agreed to not make such decisions without first engaging in talks with the union, Unite Here said.
Today is not only the 70th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is also the 54th anniversary of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, the same year he helped enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, after helping giude the St. Augustine, Florida civil rights movement.
Footnote: It's also the 35th anniversary of my being served with a $1,000,000 libel lawsuit from an East Tennessee Sheriff's bail bonding business co-felons. (The SLAPP lawsuit was later dismissed, the Sheriff went to federal prison, and he and his co-felons paid me five figures in settlements for their retaliatory lawsuit against me.)
Martin Luther King Jr. – Acceptance Speech
Martin Luther King’s Acceptance Speech, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1964
Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when 22 million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award on behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice. I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeking to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation. I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.
Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace …
After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity. This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights Bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a super highway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.
I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. I believe that even amid today’s mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. “And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.” I still believe that We Shallovercome!
This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.
Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally.
Every time I take a flight, I am always mindful of the many people who make a successful journey possible – the known pilots and the unknown ground crew.
So you honor the dedicated pilots of our struggle who have sat at the controls as the freedom movement soared into orbit. You honor, once again, Chief Lutuli of South Africa, whose struggles with and for his people, are still met with the most brutal expression of man’s inhumanity to man. You honor the ground crew without whose labor and sacrifices the jet flights to freedom could never have left the earth. Most of these people will never make the headline and their names will not appear in Who’s Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvellous age in which we live – men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization – because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake.
… peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold.
I think Alfred Nobel would know what I mean when I say that I accept this award in the spirit of a curator of some precious heirloom which he holds in trust for its true owners – all those to whom beauty is truth and truth beauty – and in whose eyes the beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold.
I woke up in a rented Memphis condo 35 years ago today to find a Shelby County, Tennessee Sheriff's Deputy knocking at our front door, delivering a $1 million libel lawsuit. That was at 8:30 AM. My first law school exam was at 1 PM that afternoon. (Torts. My professor's name was Thomas Reynolds. I got a "B.")
The libel lawsuit was filed by a convicted felon East Tennessee Sheriff Deputy Dispatcher, ROBERT WAGNER, his wife, GAIL DUNCAN WAGNER, her father, ERVIN DUNCAN, and INTERSTATE BONDNG COMPANY. WAGNER solicited bail bonding business using the NCIC terminal, sometimes calling out on the radio to Tennessee Highway patrolman, stating, "Tell the SOB I'll make his bond."
The individual and corporate plaintiffs alleged that I had defamed them by reporting as Appalachian Observer editor that it appeared that they were "in cahoots" with Anderson County Sheriff DENNIS O. TROTTER, in whose jail they obtained 87% of the bail bonding business. The lawsuit hung over my head for the rest of my 1L year.
In May, 1984, Sheriff DENNIS O. TROTTER was arrested and sent to federal prison for some of his many crimes. The three bail bondsmen waived indictment and pled guilty to a USDOJ criminal information charging that they had bribed TROTTER with $10,633.50 (10% of their profits).
Sheriff DENNIS O. TROTTER and the bail bondsmen settled with me out-of-court in five figure settlements. No one else has ever sued me for libel.
Few reporters sued for libel ever filed counterclaims for abuse of civil process, malicious prosecution of a civil lawsuit, RICO or other torts.
I did.
And I did it as a first-year law student at Memphis State University, pro se, ab initio.
My successful tort case was successfully prosecuted to completion by Hayden Lait.
In 1988, when Sheriff TROTTER emerged from federal prison and got a look at our potential jurors in federal court in Memphis, he knew he would not find a sympathetic jury: three of eighteen potential jurors were employees of West Tennessee churches. TROTTER's criminal conviction was for selling drugs out of the evidence locker at Anderson County Sheriff's office, including cocaine and synthetic heroin. TROTTER was one of nine (9) of 95 Tennessee Sheriffs who went to federal prison for drug dealing in the 1980s.
When I ponder St. Johns County, Florida Sheriff DAVID SHOAR's sins, crimes and torts, I think of Sheriff TROTTER.
Republican Sheriff SHOAR has the same evil arrogance as Democratic Sheriff TROTTER. TROTTER was outrageous and so is SHOAR, as in the Michelle O'Connell coverup, his insulting a grieving family, his attempted criminal prosecution and firing of FDLE Special Agent Rusty Ray Rodgers for doing his job "too well," his stirring up Deputy JEREMY BANKS' malicious civil litigation against Agent Rodgers, dismissed March 30, 2018 (Good Friday/Passover) by United States District Court Judge Brian J. Davis.
As LBJ said to Congress after Selma, "We shall overcome!"
Why this matters (short Axios-style version, 163 words):
As a first year law student at Memphis State University in 1983, I was sued for $1,000,000 by a corrupt East Tennessee Sheriff's bail bondsmen co-felons. I immediately sued them for suing me for reporting their 87% monopoly on bail bond business, reporting it appeared that they were "in cahoots." Sheriff DENNIS O. TROTTER went to federal prison, the three bail bondsmen waived indictment and pled guilty to federal crimes, and the four all settled civil litigation I brought against them for suing me. Lessons learned: 1. Every reporter and activist threatened with a libel lawsuit needs to know their legal rights and calmly proceed to file counterclaims against those vicious varmints who would chill, coerce, restrain and intimidate our First Amendment rights. I did. 2. We, the People win when we stand up to bullies. 3. Expose and unite against corrupt Sheriffs like DENNIS O. TROTTER and DAVID SHOAR, and all their works and pomps. 4. Speak truth to power. I do.
Check out this ABA Journal article about former federal prosecutor SAL PERRICONE.
It reminds me of ROBERT KEITH MATHIS, death penalty prosecution for State's Attorney RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA. On the St. Augustine Record's website, MATHIS posted anonymously as "Old Dog" pejorative remarks directed against critics of Sheriff DAVID SHOAR, who legally changed his name from "HOAR" in 1994.
One of the Anonymice, ex-Judge ROBERT KEITH MATHIS's sibilant posts as "OLD DOG" attacked:
o Homicide victim Michelle O'Connell's grieving family (on an Easter Sunday morning).
o Ann Marie Gennusa, an attorney who sued and won after the Sheriff's office eavesdropped on her conversations with her client -- MATHIS anonymously attacking her in retaliation for filing a lawsuit against Sheriff Shoar, in which she prevailed before federal judges);
o Jeffrey Marcus Gray, activist, photojournalist and records requester, who has documented official oppression in Northeast Florida.
Ex-Judge ROBERT KEITH MATHIS is son of segregationist judge CHARLES MATHIS, who sentenced the St. Augustine Four to state juvenile prison, where they were raped because they would not promise to stop demonstrating
When the Record abolished anonymous posting, it outed one of those nattering nabobs of negativism sniping behind secrecy longtime angry Anonymice, ex-judge ROBERT KEITH MATHIS. ROBERT KEITH MATHIS' sins found him out.
Pray for him.
Which other lawyers posted nasty anonymous comments online?
Former prosecutor's disbarment for anonymous online posts is lesson for other lawyers, court says
A former federal prosecutor has been disbarred for posting anonymous online comments about cases being handled by himself or by his office.
The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Sal Perricone in a Dec. 5 decision noted by the Legal Profession Blog.
The court said Perricone had violated ethics rules regarding conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and then cited his case as a lesson for other lawyers.
Perricone’s “caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system,” the court said. “Our decision today must send a strong message to [Perricone] and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the internet.”
Perricone had posted more than 2,600 comments on nola.com, the website of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, between November 2007 and March 2012. Between 100 and 200 comments related to matters being prosecuted by Perricone’s office.
Perricone used at least five online pseudonyms: “campstblue,” “legacyusa,” “dramatis personae,” “Henry L. Mencken1951” and “fed up.” His posts did not reveal he had any connection to the cases on which he commented.
In one post, Perricone said he had read a federal indictment, and “there is no legitimate reason for this type of behavior. … GUILTY!!!” In another, Perricone commented that a defense lawyer had “screwed his client” in a case he was prosecuting.
Perricone also commented on the federal prosecution of New Orleans police officers in connection with the shooting of unarmed civilians after Hurricane Katrina. “NONE of these guys should have ever been given a badge,” he wrote during the trial, which was handled by other prosecutors.
A federal judge reversed the officers’ convictions after the discovery of the online comments by Perricone and two other government lawyers. A federal appeals court affirmed the decision in August 2015.
Perricone initially had maintained that he made the comments to relieve stress, and he didn’t intend or reasonably expect that his anonymous conducts would prejudice the fairness of any legal proceeding. He later admitted violating legal ethics rules regarding conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Perricone had argued that the court should consider in mitigation that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Perricone said the PTSD was the result of his experiences during his former careers as a police officer and FBI agent. During that time, Perricone said, he had witnessed the gruesome deaths of others and had been threatened with gunfire.
The Louisiana Supreme Court said it would not consider the PTSD as a mitigating factor in punishment because there was not clear and convincing evidence that it caused the misconduct. In fact, the court said, Perricone had admitted he knew he should not be making the comments.
“When asked why he engaged in commenting in a prohibited way,” the court said, Perricone “candidly admitted that he was angry over public corruption, and he vented this anger in the caustic criticism leveled against all who, in his judgment, warranted accountability, even though he knew this was improper.”
At last night's City of St. Augustine Commission meeting, there was discussion of short-term rental regulations. Promising policy development ahead. Let all the facts be known.
Commissioner, JOHN OTHA VALDES mentioned his garage apartment would be eligible for exemption from possible Orlando-style regulations limiting such rentals to properties where the owner or a full-time tenant is on-site.
It was a bit off-putting.
BILL HARRIS is gone. JOE BOLES is gone. TODD NEVILLE is gone.
Straighten up and fly right, dammit.
We the People are watching. And listening. And learning.
I'm happy to see "ODD TODD" NEVILLE is done gone with the ghosts of windbags past.
No more self-serving, self-seeking flummery, dupery and nincompoopery in his place, please.
On November 6, 2014, the good people of St. Augustine elected Mayor Nancy Shaver.
We defeated Mayor JOE BOLES.
JOSEPH LESTER BOLES, Jr.
(St. Augustine Mayor, 2006-2014)
Art by Greg Travous and Hans Holbein the Younger)
Ever since, City Commissioners' selfish, solipsistic, self-indulgent self-referential discussion of how government regulations can benefit the officeholder (or his.her clients) has been largely limited to the narrow confines of that other itty-bitty-city, St. Augustine Beach.
St. Augustine Beach is the place where Commissioners multiple mendacious mayors have been swathed, smeared, bleared and smeared in self-interest, from restaurant owners blocking food trucks to disgraced ex-Mayor ANDREA SAMUElS' sibilant SABCA subsidies to hotelier and ex-Mayor RICHARD O'BRIEN's legislative attack on short-term rentals and obtaining loopholes for two McMansions (which he violated with impunity and seeming immunity until Commissioner Margaret England noticed O'BRIEN was literally over the agreed-to setback line (O'BREIN was fined only $25,000 for it and not ordered to tear it down).
I object to SAMUELS, O'BRIEN and other dull louche local Commissioners acting like Republican Lords of All They Survey -- greedheads who see"the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs," in FDR's words. (October 31, 1936 Madison Square Garden speech.)
Commissioners are elected to represent the people, not their own deep pockets.
"Ask not," JFK said, "what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.
At the December 10, 2018 meeting, I also found it remarkable that before attending his first regular Commission meeting, new Commissioner JOHN OTHA VALDES cracked a joke with a city director at the back of the meeting room about how he could use his briefcase to collect "kickbacks."
It's not funny, Commissioner.
And I heard it.
The Temple of Democracy is not mocked.
I did tell Valdes the late legendary lobbyist Larry Tucker line about the difference between Democrats and Republicans in Tallahassee: "Democrats want the money in a paper sack and Republicans want the money in a briefcase."
After Valdes destroyed a building without a permit, I told him -- quoting what I said to St. Johns County Commission Chairman Thomas G. Manuel after his arrest for bribery -- "Don't do it again."
Lest we forget, Commissioners PRISCILLA BENNETT, WILLIAM McCLURE, JAY MORRIS, JAMES JOHNS and JEB SMITH: unanimously allowed Nocatee to shed its legal duties to provide 40 acres of affordable housing.
I told Commissioners that they will rue the day)
Dupey BENNETT, McDLURE and MORRIS are done gone with the wind, thank God!
To St. Johns County Republican Commissioners, past and presents, we will pray for you.
To misguided affordable housing advocates and County officials alike: don't do it again.
The days of developers getting their way are ending, whether here or in Washington, where developer "stable genius" DONALD JOHN TRUMP's se ch of criminality is a stench in the nostrils of our Nation.
Fortunately, our current St. Johns County Commissioners, including JAMES JOHNS, JEB SMITH, HENRY DEAN, PAUL WALDRON and JEREMIAH BLOCKER, are asking questions and demanding answers.
No more developers lapdogs, please -- we need watchdogs. Now.
Here's the Ponte Vedra Recorder's 2016 coverage of the BoCC's dubious $800,000 sellout of 40 acres of affordable housing:
County Commissioners approve Nocatee plan modifications
Posted Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:00 am Jennifer Logue Ponte Vedra Recorder
The Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a number of technical modifications to Nocatee’s comprehensive plan and PUD last week, changes the developers say will give them the flexibility to respond to changing market conditions. In addition to approving The PARC Group’s request to decrease the percentage of multi-family units and provide more flexibility with regard to the siting of schools, commissioners approved a number of other technical modifications, including those related to the development of new southern neighborhoods within the master-planned community. As was the case when the matter came before the Planning & Zoning Agency last month, however, it was the proposed modifications to affordable housing provisions on which commissioners focused most of their discussions. “This county adheres to federal guidelines for providing affordable housing,” Commissioner Jimmy Johns said. “I want to make sure we haven’t painted ourselves into a box by limiting our options.” Previously, the developers had agreed to donate 50 acres of land in Nocatee for affordable housing development, along with $800,000 over time. But while the developers have to date given $150,000 and 10 acres of land toward that commitment, the county has yet to develop any affordable housing on the property in the decade since it was donated – a fact that seemed to surprise and dismay county commissioners. “So we’ve had that affordable site for 10 years and so far nothing’s happened?” Commissioner Rachael Bennett asked. “I would really like to see us get something going on that site…Ten years is a long time to sit fallow.”
Commissioner Bill McClure agreed. “I’m not happy to hear we’ve had (the land) since 2006 and we haven’t really done anything with it,” McClure said. Under the now-approved modifications, instead of donating the remaining 40 acres of land and continuing to make cash payments over time, the developers would make immediate payment of the remaining $650,000 and donate 20 acres of more valuable land on Nocatee Parkway for development as a private post-secondary institution. If after five years the school had not been developed, the developers would pay the county $1.64 million in return for retaining the 20 acres. “We believe the proposed changes…are of mutual benefit to the county and Nocatee,” said Ray Spofford, who represented The PARC Group at the commission meeting. “Nocatee will be able to respond better to changing market conditions.” County planning officials also supported the change, saying that the immediate cash payment would allow the county to address a number of current affordable housing challenges. “This is an overall good deal for St. Johns County and the citizens of St. Johns County,” Planning Division Manager Teresa Bishop said. Three county residents spoke in opposition to the change, however, citing the need to provide affordable housing for police officers, firefighters, teachers and others who might work in Nocatee. “I don’t buy the fact that market conditions have really changed,” St. Johns resident Ellen Whitmer said. “The name of the game is to maximize profits. I’m in opposition.” Commissioners, however, noted that many of the homes built in Nocatee met the standard for affordable housing. In addition, the construction of 9B and planned commercial developments along that corridor have changed the development landscape significantly since Nocatee was first envisioned and approved.
“Take it from someone who’s had a beautiful condo sitting on the market for over a year,” Bennett said. “The multifamily market is not here. So market conditions do change. “Our world was a different place 15 years ago than it is now,” she continued. “I think it’s important that we realize that as times change, we need to make sure we’re not trying to force something to fit that no longer fits.” APPROVED MODIFICATIONS: Decrease the required percentage of multi-family units Expand the test area to meet specific use standards for retail and office from 1 mile outside Nocatee to 3 miles outside NocateeRevise development order so that schools are not required to be built in a village center in order to give the school district more flexibility in siting schools Revise affordable housing requirements in exchange for land donation for post-secondary institution Clarify design standards regarding road connection to Pine Island Rd. Allow temporary above-ground utilities in some development areas
1. I agree -- time for our two cities and St. Johns County to enact a growth moratorium on further development pending reforms. NOW. Affordable housing, infrastructure and education must be addressed. NOW. Moratorium will allow time and attention to resolving conundrums re: runaway growth and flooding, wetlands, deforestation, education, infrastructure, lobbying reform registration. disclosure of shell LLC corporate ownership. 2. SJC BoCC's unconscionable, unethical unanimous 2016 deletion of affordable housing acreage in Nocatee in exchange for a measly $800,000 appears to have violated the Fair Housing Act and Comp Plan. http://pontevedrarecorder.com/stories/county-commissioners-approve-nocatee-plan-modifications,1242 This subtle corruption of our government by greedy developers like PARC Group is indefensible and must be ended at once. Is it a pervasive practice and continuing violating that could be resolved by civil rights groups in the courts if our Commissioners don't correct their mistake? Query: How many times did BoCC do it without news media attention or investigation? 2. Enough metastatic growth allowed by County Administrtor MICHAEL DAVID WANCHICK and his unjust stewards allowing secretive investors to clearcut God's country. 3. Enough unsustainable, unaesthetic, unaffordable, ugly "developments." 4. Enough shoddy homes plopped down in our swamps, creating flooding. 5 Enough secrecy about undisclosed investors. 6. Enough blight on our community. 7. Enough exploitation of homebuyers. 8. Enough CDDs leaving homeowners with the bills for the devious developers' demolition derby and County's lack of planning. 9. Some of these boards are moribund and lack transparency. Please investigate. 10. Good editorial. Keep up the good work, Jim Sutton.
RECORD EDITORIAL: County seeks help with volunteer boards Posted Dec 11, 2018 at 7:43 PM Updated at 6:03 AM
So, you have some time on your hands and maybe want some input in goings-on in your community?
St. Johns County is looking for a few good men and women to fill vacancies on some county boards and committees. The pay’s pretty poor, as in “volunteer.” But the rewards could be significant, depending upon you — and that’s the point. You won’t make laws, but you will make recommendations on topics such as tourism, libraries, parks and recreation, arts, culture and more.
Positions include the Mid-Anastasia Design Review Board. The purpose is to protect natural resources and maintain the design and diverse character of that overlay district. There are also a South Anastasia Design Review Board and a North Coastal Design Review Board with openings.
One area we desperately need some impetus in is affordable housing, and that Advisory Committee establishes policies and procedures, land development codes, ordinances and comp plans and recommends procedures to facilitate affordable homes here.
The Recreation Advisory Board provides new ideas and assists in solving problems to help ensure leisure time facilities and programs for residents.
The Fire Code Appeals Board rules on matters relating to the code and its enforcement.
The Cultural Review Board advises County Commissioners regarding cultural, architectural, archaeological and historic resources — and to document, identify, evaluate, designate and protect these important resources.
The Architectural Review Committee is tasked with ensuring enhanced property development while maintaining quality character of design within the Ponte Vedra/Palm Valley overlay district — in line with the county comp plan.
If we could slip one in here, there’s a committee not yet established we believe would draw wide volunteer support from residents from Ponte Vedra, south to Crescent Beach and points west to the St. Johns River. We’d suggest calling it the “Tap the Breaks on Development Committee” or “Moratoriums Are Us.” As an alternate, it could be called “Residents Live Here, Too.” You’d be tasked with looking at the existing zoning and land development codes under which the land set for development was sold. In other words, what they bought. Then, compare that with the all the sundry amendments and variances they’re demanding. In other words, what they want. Then determine the impacts on infrastructure and natural resources those “what they wants” will cost us all down the road of the difference. Then divide all that data by the square root of quality of life. Do the math and stand firmly by the sum.
But for now, there are full versions of the existing committee duties, deadlines for applications, qualifications, meeting dates and places and more online at sjcfl.us/Boards. You can download the applications there as well.
In the meantime, keep that new committee in mind. And we’ll let you know when the cattle call comes.
comments
Edward Adelbert Slavin 1. I agree -- time for our two cities and St. Johns County to enact a growth moratorium on further development pending reforms. NOW. Affordable housing, infrastructure and education must be addressed. NOW. Moratorium will allow time and attention to resolving conundrums re: runaway growth and flooding, wetlands, deforestation, education, infrastructure, lobbying reform registration. disclosure of shell LLC corporate ownership. 2. SJC BoCC's unconscionable, unethical unanimous 2016 deletion of affordable housing acreage in Nocatee in exchange for a measly $800,000 appears to have violated the Fair Housing Act and Comp Plan. http://pontevedrarecorder.com/stories/county-commissioners-approve-nocatee-plan-modifications,1242 This subtle corruption of our government by greedy developers like PARC Group is indefensible and must be ended at once. Is it a pervasive practice and continuing violating that could be resolved by civil rights groups in the courts if our Commissioners don't correct their mistake? Query: How many times did BoCC do it without news media attention or investigation? 2. Enough metastatic growth allowed by County Administrtor MICHAEL DAVID WANCHICK and his unjust stewards allowing secretive investors to clearcut God's country. 3. Enough unsustainable, unaesthetic, unaffordable, ugly "developments." 4. Enough shoddy homes plopped down in our swamps, creating flooding. 5 Enough secrecy about undisclosed investors. 6. Enough blight on our community. 7. Enough exploitation of homebuyers. 8. Enough CDDs leaving homeowners with the bills for the devious developers' demolition derby and County's lack of planning. 9. Some of these boards are moribund and lack transparency. Please investigate. 10. Good editorial. Keep up the good work, Jim Sutton. « less
Mike Alyea Stop the Growth, Plan for Growth, Smart SJC Growth
SJC County Commissioners Jimmie Johns - bcc1jjohns@sjcfl.us Jeb Smith - bcc2jsmith@sjcfl.us Paul Waldron - bcc3pwaldron@sjcfl.us Jeremiah Blocker - bcc4jblocker@sjcfl.us Henry Dean - bcc5hdean@sjcfl.us
I agree with Professor Wu, who agrees with the fundamental purposes of the antitrust laws, as restated by the late U.S. Senators Estes Kefauver and Philip Hart, and Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chief Economist John M. Blair.
I've been studying these issues since the late 1970s.
Having investigated antitrust violations as a young Senate aide, journalist and paralegal, I commend Prof. Wu.
Listen to this wise man. Prof. Wu speaks truth to power -- he speaks the truth about criminal antirust lawbreakers.
Ignore the soulless screwy scholar-squirrels like the late Milton Handler, Milton Friedman and Robert Bork. Greedy businessmen have proved that these three cartelists did not know any more about monopoly law and economics than a hog.
Economic concentration is as clear and present danger to the American way of life.
CreditCreditAlessandra Montalto/The New York Times
These are fraught times, and while you may be scared, Tim Wu suggests that you may not be scared enough. Like Michael Lewis’s “The Fifth Risk,” a recent book that shows how something most people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about — government bureaucracy — is consequential (and potentially terrifying), Wu’s “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age” is a surprisingly rousing treatment of another presumably boring subject: mergers and acquisitions.
Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School and a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, argues that the M&A arcana that lawyers and economists haggle over have effects that spill far beyond their rarefied areas of expertise. “Extreme economic concentration yields gross inequality and material suffering, feeding an appetite for nationalistic and extremist leadership,” he writes, by way of introduction and warning. “The road to fascism and dictatorship is paved with failures of economic policy to serve the needs of the general public.”
Unlike Wu’s previous books, “The Master Switch” (2010) and “The Attention Merchants” (2016), “The Curse of Bigness” is skinny, more of a dip with a snorkel than a deep dive. But the pithiness of this new volume is ideally suited to its subject. Wu doesn’t want to get into all the intricacies of antitrust law; if anything, an enormous book on the problem of enormity would only fool us into believing that the subject is more impenetrable than it really is — and stoke the confusion and apathy that have allowed decades of corporate consolidation to flourish in the first place.
Wu’s point is simple. Giant corporations, seeking to protect their advantage, try to turn their outsize economic power into political power. So to break their grip on American democracy, the government needs to break them up in turn. That this proposal might sound outrageously radical to certain ears is, Wu says, just one sign of how unprepared we are for our current moment. To show how busting up big businesses into smaller parts was once a veritable American tradition, he charts how antitrust law emerged in response to the grotesque inequality of the 19th-century Gilded Age.
ADVERTISEMENT
When the Sherman Antitrust Act was signed into law in 1890, it had unanimous support in the House, though the language it deployed was both sweeping and severe, stating bluntly that “every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize” any area of business “shall be deemed guilty of a felony.”
Enforcing the law turned out to be another matter. A decade later, J .P. Morgan — “history’s greatest monopolizer,” as Wu calls him — created the behemoth U. S. Steel by merging hundreds of smaller firms, even buying out his fellow tycoon Andrew Carnegie in 1901 for an exorbitant sum ($480 million back then) that would make Carnegie the richest man in the world.
Tim WuCreditMiranda Sita
Image
Tim WuCreditMiranda Sita
Wu is an able guide through the history — from Theodore Roosevelt’s campaign against “bad trusts” all the way to the expansive bloat of AT&T and Microsoft’s competition-crushing ambitions of more recent memory — but it’s on the level of ideas that his book comes into its own. Similar to the tech moguls of today, the monopolists of a century ago “liked to portray themselves as part of a progressive movement, striving toward a better age,” Wu writes, even if the endgame they were pursuing — essentially “pure economic autocracy” — was a direct rebuke to the foundational values of the republic.
But then competition can feel menacing — a grueling free-for-all that anyone with grand ambitions in business would prefer to do without. The venture capitalist Peter Thiel said as much in the pages of The Wall Street Journal in 2014, in an article with the piquant title “Competition Is for Losers.” “Capitalism and competition are opposites,” Thiel declared. “Only one thing can allow a business to transcend the daily brute struggle for survival: monopoly profits.”
No doubt the most die-hard Marxist would agree — as would Thiel’s fellow disrupters in Silicon Valley, though they tend to play down the allure of profit-making while talking a lot about how much value and “connection” they bring to the public.
ADVERTISEMENT
Wu, who advised the Federal Trade Commission on competition issues during the Obama administration, doesn’t buy all the piety; nor should he or anyone have to, he says. Trying to distinguish between gigantic corporations that bring value to consumers from gigantic corporations that don’t is ultimately a mug’s game. Competition is a process, and the process should be protected; to fixate too much on the other stuff is to expect the legal system to make distinctions it isn’t equipped to make — pushing up the standard of proof and allowing enforcement to go slack.
But we’ve been conditioned to think that the only goal of antitrust law is to protect consumer welfare; as long as a business like, say, Amazon delivers lower prices on doodads for your home and diapers for your kid, it isn’t supposed to pose a monopoly threat, even as it gobbles up its competitors. This idea was once “considered absurd and even insane,” Wu writes. But its fiercest advocate, the rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, knew how to make it seductive to legal minds, offering a simple theory that allowed judges to make decisions with apparent precision and rigor. Explaining the theory’s journey from heresy to orthodoxy, Wu is gently scathing: “Bork’s antitrust economics are easy.”
Against Bork’s strictly minimalist idea, Wu advances another, more complex one, which was proposed in the early 20th century by the lawyer and eventual Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Worrying about the tendency of giant corporations to “exterminate” the competition in their inexorable march toward domination, Brandeis believed that the economy, and the businesses that are part of it, needed to operate at a human scale.
“What Brandeis really cared about was the economic conditions under which life is lived,” Wu writes, “and the effects of the economy on one’s character and on the nation’s soul.” It’s a big idea for a little book, but Wu knows how to keep everything concise and contained. “The Curse of Bigness” moves nimbly through the thicket, embracing the boons of being small.
"Outgoing Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) claimed a significant victory for the LGBT community on Election Day by becoming the first openly gay person elected governor in the United States."
December 12, 2018 at 2:36 pm EST | by Chris Johnson
Governor-elect Jared Polis (D-Colo.) speaks at the 2018 International LGBTQ Leaders Conference on Dec. 6. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Outgoing Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) claimed a significant victory for the LGBT community on Election Day by becoming the first openly gay person elected governor in the United States.
Today, he remains focused on the work ahead — and decidedly modest about his LGBT milestone.
In an interview with the Washington Blade at the 2018 International LGBTQ Leaders Conference just prior to his flight back to Colorado, the governor-elect said the distinction he earned doesn’t make a difference in his job or approach to governing.
“It doesn’t make a difference in the job in that I have to now hire or recruit our 19 Cabinet members,” Polis said. “I’m in the process of interviewing great people to help run the state of Colorado and make it even better. We’re getting ready to deliver on our plans to save people money and extend kindergarten to full day and move toward more renewable energy.”
The national media, Polis said, are more interested in covering his achievement for the LGBT community than the local media in Colorado, which he said he was similar to when he was elected to the U.S. House in 2008 and was the first non-incumbent gay male elected to Congress.
Even though he said he’ll be a governor “for all Coloradans,” Polis said legislation that would advance LGBT rights is on his agenda once he becomes governor and a new legislature — this time with Democrats in control of both chambers — is seated.
“We, of course, have strong laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in Colorado, we certainly want to make the step to make sure we’re inclusive for everybody regardless of their race, or gender, or orientation and where they come from,” Polis said.
Those advancements, Polis said, are “particularly important in the age of Trump with some of the divisive language that’s used against our community and other communities by the president.”
Two initiatives Polis identified were legislation that would ban widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy for youth in Colorado and legislation that would ease the process by which transgender people can change the gender marker on their birth certificates. Other states have made progress on those initiatives and enacted them into law, often on a bipartisan basis. Polis said Colorado has already made progress on the birth certificate issue, but “yes we want to of course make that easier” and a new law would ensure “parents can’t force their children into unscientific, torturous conversion therapy.” “We have to get them through the legislature,” Polis said. “So again, our legislature starts in early January and they finish in May. All of these measures have strong support from members of the legislature. Hopefully, they’ll reach my desk soon.” One key piece of unfinished business at the federal level for Polis was the Equality Act, legislation that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to bar discrimination explicitly at the federal level on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Things have changed now that Democrats are poised to take control of the House and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) calling it a personal priority. “I think the Equality Act will have more support than ever before,” Polis said. I was honored to have been there at the inception of the Equality Act, working with [Rep.] David Cicilline to incorporate much of our worker protection act, including other forms of protection. It’s bipartisan. It is bicameral. Hopefully, it’ll be among some of the first bills that Speaker Pelosi brings to the floor of the House of Representatives.” But the House is just one chamber of Congress. The legislation would face an uphill climb in the Senate, which now has an expanded Republican majority, and likely hostility from President Trump (even though Trump said in 2000 he likes the idea of adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act.) “I would encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow an open vote on the Equality Act after it passes the House so that it can advance to the desk of the president,” Polis said. Reflecting on his time in Congress, Polis identified his role in the Every Student Succeeds Act, legislation that updated the No Child Left Behind Act, as a key achievement as well as his work more generally on the Education & the Workforce Committee. In terms of LGBT rights, Polis pointed to expansion of the LGBT Equality Caucus, the role of the Equality PAC in electing leaders and his introduction of the Student Non-Discrimination Act. But Polis also expressed disappointment that comprehensive immigration reform didn’t become law along with the Equality Act. “It would be nice to have the legal fight for equality in the rear view mirror, but we’re not there yet,” Polis said. Asked if he’d consider himself an LGBT rights champion, Polis replied, “Yeah.” “I was there at the inception of the Equality Act,” Polis added. “I authorized and introduced the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which will also be unfinished work that I believe Congress will accomplish. It’s a matter of when, not if.”
JARED POLIS Chris Johnson Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson attends the daily White House press briefings and is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association
By Jared Keever Posted Dec 12, 2018 at 5:46 PM Updated Dec 13, 2018 at 6:01 AM St. Augustine Record
A special prosecutor on Friday filed charges in circuit court against the former finance director from the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office as the agency’s financial scandal continues to unfold.
Raye A. Brutnell is now facing 11 felony charges stemming from the fraud and embezzlement investigation that culminated with her arrest in mid-November.
If convicted on all charges and sentenced consecutively, she could face up to 150 years in prison.
The investigation into Brutnell’s handling of the Sheriff’s Office’s finances began around Nov. 14 when St. Johns County Sheriff David Shoar enlisted the aid of investigators from the Polk County Sheriff’s Office after he said two employees raised concerns about a handful of vendor accounts being paid through agency’s finance department.
Within days those investigators had secured a warrant for Brutnell’s arrest on 163 charges including grand theft, organized scheme to defraud in excess of $50,000, various counts of criminal use of personal identification, and 52 counts each of forgery of bank checks, uttering a forged check, and official misconduct.
She turned herself in at the Flagler County jail on Nov. 20 and was released later that day after posting bonds totaling $265,000.
The warrant affidavit for her arrest asserted that Brutnell, over about a 5-year period, stole more than $700,000 from the Sheriff’s Office and its employee benevolence fund by creating at least four fraudulent vendor accounts and issuing checks to them.
According to information in the affidavit, the investigators found that the names and information related to those accounts were often slight variations of names or addresses of Brutnell’s close family members and that “several” of the checks written to those accounts had been deposited into Brutnell’s bank account.
Because of Brutnell’s position within the agency and because her husband is an agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who once worked in St. Johns County, 7th Judicial Circuit State Attorney R.J. Larizza requested Gov. Rick Scott to appoint a special prosecutor saying that the couple is known to him personally and professionally.
Scott appointed 10th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Brian Haas to handle the case.
Assistant State Attorney Jake Orr, the spokesman for that office, said Wednesday that the consolidation from 163 charges down to 11 is not a sign that the 47-year-old Brutnell is getting special treatment but was a judgment call made by prosecutors to pursue charges of “strong, very serious crimes given the underlying facts of the case.”
“We filed the charges that we felt were appropriate to get us where we need to be,” he said.
Orr, whose wife Nicole Orr filed the 11-count information, cited the 150 years of prison time that Brutnell is currently exposed to and pointed out that one count of criminal use of personal identification that she is facing carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. A similar charge in the information carries a five-year mandatory minimum.
In all, Brutnell is charged with one count of grand theft in excess of $100,000 for money she is said to have stolen from the Sheriff’s Office as well as a single count of grand theft in excess of $20,000 for money believed to have been taken from the benevolence fund.
Other charges include executing a scheme to defraud a financial institution, two counts of criminal use of personal identification, and single counts each of fraudulently creating or using counterfeit or fictitious personal identification information, official misconduct, forging a bank bill, uttering a forged bill, unlawful use of a two-way communication device and failure to apply solicited charitable contributions.
Brutnell is scheduled to appear in court in St. Johns County for arraignment on Jan. 7.
The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules
Marathon, the country’s largest oil refiner, has backed the Trump administration proposal to roll back car efficiency standards.CreditErin Kirkland for The New York Times
Image
Marathon, the country’s largest oil refiner, has backed the Trump administration proposal to roll back car efficiency standards.CreditCreditErin Kirkland for The New York Times
When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them.
But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nation’s oil industry.
In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country’s largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards,a New York Times investigation has found.
The campaign’s main argument for significantly easing fuel efficiency standards — that the United States is so awash in oil it no longer needs to worry about energy conservation — clashed with decades of federal energy and environmental policy
“With oil scarcity no longer a concern,” Americans should be given a “choice in vehicles that best fit their needs,” read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration’s proposed rules incorporate similar logic.
The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world’s oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.
In recent months, Marathon Petroleum also teamed up with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a secretive policy group financed by corporations as well as the Koch network, to draft legislation for states supporting the industry’s position. Its proposed resolution, dated Sept. 18, describes current fuel-efficiency rules as “a relic of a disproven narrative of resource scarcity” and says “unelected bureaucrats” shouldn’t dictate the cars Americans drive.
A separate industry campaign on Facebook, covertly run by an oil-industry lobby representing Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Phillips 66 and other oil giants, urged people to write to regulators to support the rollback.
The Facebook ads linked to a website with a picture of a grinning Mr. Obama. It asked, “Would YOU buy a used car from this man?” The site appears to have been so effective that a quarter of the 12,000 public comments received by the Department of Transportation can be traced to the petition, according to a Times analysis.
Gary R. Heminger, Marathon’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement that the company supported “sound fuel economy standards” and wanted to “help ensure they are achievable and based on existing technology.”
He added, “We appreciate the administration’s willingness to conduct a thorough review in order to ensure future standards are achievable and will actually benefit American consumers.”
Marathon’s chief executive, Gary Heminger, third from right, at the New York Stock Exchange on Dec. 3 to note an acquisition that made the company the nation’s largest refiner.CreditRichard Drew/Associated Press
Image
Marathon’s chief executive, Gary Heminger, third from right, at the New York Stock Exchange on Dec. 3 to note an acquisition that made the company the nation’s largest refiner.CreditRichard Drew/Associated Press
A spokesman for Koch Industries, the energy conglomerate led by Mr. Koch, said the company had “a long, consistent track record of opposing all forms of corporate welfare, including all subsidies, mandates and other handouts that rig the system.”
The oil industry’s campaign, the details of which have not been previously reported, illuminates why the rollbacks have gone further than the more modest changes automakers originally lobbied for.
The standards that the Trump administration seeks to weaken required automakers to roughly double the fuel economy of new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2025. Instead, the Trump plan would freeze the standards at 2020 levels. Carmakers, for their part, had sought more flexibility in meeting the original 2025 standards, not a categorical rollback.
The Trump plan, if finalized, would increase greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by more than the amount many midsize countries put out in a year and reverse a major effort by the Obama administration to fight climate change.
The energy industry’s efforts also help explain the Trump administration’s confrontational stance toward California, which, under federal law, has a unique authority to write its own clean-air rules and to mandate more zero-emissions vehicles.
California has pledged to stick to the stricter standards, together with 13 other states that follow its lead. But President Trump’s plan challenges California’s rule-writing power, setting up a legal battle that threatens to split the American auto market in two.
That is a prospect automakers desperately want to avoid.
But for gasoline producers like Marathon, a shift toward more efficient vehicles poses a grave threat to the bottom line. In October, the company acquired a rival, Andeavor, making it the biggest refiner in the United States, with sales of 16 billion gallons of fuel a year.
Even while doubling down on gasoline, Marathon has projected an environmentally friendly public image. “We have invested billions of dollars to make our operations more energy efficient,” Marathon said in a recent report. The company’s Twitter account recently highlighteda gardening project and the creation of a duck pond at one of its refineries.
On a conference call with investors last week, Mr. Heminger, the Marathon chief executive, was already counting the extra barrels of fuel a Trump rollback would mean for the industry: 350,000 to 400,000 barrels of gasoline per day, he said.
“However, you have another side who doesn’t want to pivot away” from the stricter rules, Mr. Heminger said. “So we have a lot of work to do to keep this momentum going.”
Marathon’s Early Start
A Marathon Petroleum refinery in Detroit. CreditErin Kirkland for The New York Times
Image
A Marathon Petroleum refinery in Detroit. CreditErin Kirkland for The New York Times
Marathon began its outreach to the Trump administration early, asking to meet with Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency soon after he became its administrator in early 2017. Marathon had been a top donor to Mr. Pruitt in Oklahoma, a state where oil is so prominent that a well stands on the grounds of the capitol building.
“Our CEO, Gary Heminger, would be very glad for an opportunity to visit with the Administrator,” a Marathon lobbyist wrote in an email to Mr. Trump’s transition team on May 8, 2017. “I believe this would be a constructive dialogue.” The E.P.A. helps oversee fuel economy rules along with the Transportation Department.
Mr. Pruitt was scheduled to meet with the Marathon chief at least twice — once in June 2017 as part of a meeting with the board of a powerful fuel-industry group, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and again in September for a more private talk, according to emails and schedules released in a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club.
A Marathon spokesman, Chuck Rice, said Mr. Heminger did not discuss auto-efficiency rollbacks with Mr. Pruitt. An E.P.A. official did not respond to a question about whether the auto rules were discussed.
Marathon then turned its focus to Congress, hiring the firm Ogilvy Government Relations to lobby legislators in Washington on fuel-economy standards, according to Ogilvy’s disclosureforms. The firm did not respond to a request for comment.
Over the summer, Marathon representatives also approached legislators about anindustry talking-points letter, according to six people familiar with that effort. The file properties of a Microsoft Word version of one letter, provided by a Congressional delegation, show that it was last edited by a Marathon lobbyist, Michael J. Birsic, on June 11, 2018.
Mr. Rice of Marathon said the company did not write the letter, and the company declined to say who did. It did not offer an explanation for Mr. Birsic’s digital fingerprint on the document file.
Nineteen lawmakers from the delegations of Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania sent letters to the Transportation Department that included exact phrases and reasoning from the industry letter. The lawmakers’ letters, sent in June and July, all make the point that oil scarcity is no longer a concern.
A portion of a letter detailing pro-industry talking points that was later echoed in letters written by lawmakers to regulators, such as the example below.
Image
A portion of a letter detailing pro-industry talking points that was later echoed in letters written by lawmakers to regulators, such as the example below.
A letter sent by Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to regulators used language similar to the industry talking-points note, excerpted above.
Image
A letter sent by Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to regulators used language similar to the industry talking-points note, excerpted above.
The Trump administration’s proposed rollback echoes the post-conservation theme. While energy conservation is significant, the proposal says, the downside of additional petroleum consumption would be dwarfed by the rollback’s benefits.
Representatives from the three state delegations either declined to comment or did not respond to requests.
Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, criticized the industry’s campaign. “It appears as though oil interests are cynically trying to gin up support in Congress for the weakest possible standards to ensure that cars and SUVs have to rely on even more oil,” he said.
“If this attempt is successful, the outcome will be a blow to the auto industry, consumers, and our environment.”
The Facebook Campaign
The Facebook ads, featuring Mr. Trump waving alongside the message, “SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT’S CAR FREEDOM AGENDA!,” appeared the week after the administration made public its fuel economy plan in August. At least 10 times during the two-month public comment period on the plan, the ads, which did not state their oil industry origins, asked people to write to the government to back weaker emissions standards.
Public comments matter in federal rule-making. The law requires that citizens’ views be taken into account before a rule is finalized.
“File an official comment to SUPPORT our President’s plan for safer, cheaper cars that WE get to choose,” read one ad, which ran for seven days in early October. The ad leads to a page that provides basic language to submit.
Facebook ads by Energy4Us prompted more than 3,300 of the 12,000 public comments on the administration’s rollback proposal, a Times analysis showed.Credit
Image
Facebook ads by Energy4Us prompted more than 3,300 of the 12,000 public comments on the administration’s rollback proposal, a Times analysis showed.Credit
More than 3,300 of the 12,000 public comments that D.O.T. has made public contain language identical to that petition, an analysis of the files showed.
The campaign was a product of the fuel and petrochemical manufacturers trade group, widely known as AFPM. However, neither the Facebook ads nor the site identified the industry group. Instead they name a group called Energy4US, which describes itself as “a coalition of consumers, businesses and workers” promoting affordable energy.
Energy4US has close ties to the industry group. According to internet domain records, Victor Adams, listed as an AFPM web manager, registered Energy4Us.org in 2015 using his work email address. Energy4US lists the group as a coalition member, along with about 50 other groups including energy interests, labor groups, a sheriff’s association and even a recreational fishing alliance.
The AFPM board includes representatives from Exxon, Chevron, Phillips 66, Marathon and Koch Industries. The companies all referred queries to the group.
Derrick Morgan, a senior vice president at AFPM, said the group “regularly works with policymakers, coalition groups and individuals to promote shared goals,” and also will “lead and join groups like Energy4US.”
The Department of Transportation said it was “generally aware” that there were groups urging the public to make comments through online campaigns, but said it does not regulate them.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao at the White House this year.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times
Image
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao at the White House this year.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times
Taking the Fight On the Road
House bill 1593 is just eight words long: “To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards.” Koch Industries, a petroleum empire with interests as diverse as gasoline, pipelines, fertilizer and Stainmaster carpets, is the bill’s sole corporate backer.
The measure, which would eliminate fuel standards altogether, is not expected to go far. But it underscores the company’s stance on the matter. And Koch interests are fighting that battle not only in Washington but increasingly in statehouses and even local policy meetings nationwide.
Earlier Investigative Reporting
Taking the fight over climate change to local communities
In Dearborn, Mich., at a September meeting on the Trump fuel-efficiency rollbacks, Annie Patnaude of Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded group, spoke in favor. “This is a step in the right direction to protect consumers and workers against government mandates that would limit choice,” she said.
In Iowa, Americans for Prosperity joined the fight over whether to make it easier for gas stations to install chargers for electric vehicles. In Illinois, it discouraged state officials from considering subsidies for electric vehicles.
And last month an Americans for Prosperity representative trekked to a public hearing in Colorado, where regulators were thinking about becoming the 13th state to follow California’s stricter standards. The representative, Shari Shiffer-Krieger, a field director for the group, argued that people in the rugged state wanted SUVs, not tighter emissions rules. “Coloradans deserve much better,” she said.
The oil industry lost that fight. Colorado allied itself with California.
But Americans for Prosperity said fights like these get to the heart of its free-market philosophy. “We believe in a level playing field so all Americans have the equal opportunity to succeed,” said Bill Riggs, a spokesman for the group, in a statement. The organization will keep fighting “mandates that unfairly pick winners and losers in any industry,” he said.
Drafting Pro-Oil State Legislation
On August 6, a Marathon lobbyist, Stephen D. Higley, emailed a Wisconsin state representative an explainer of American fuel economy law. The memo didn’t mince words.
“It’s a relic,” the memo said, particularly at a time when the United States was “poised to become the largest oil producer in the world.”
The Wisconsin representative, Mike Kuglitsch, participates in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a Koch-funded group that helps companies write model legislation for state lawmakers to use as a basis for their own laws.
Emails obtained by the Times show that Marathon has been working with members of the legislative exchange council to build support for the Trump fuel-efficiency rollback in state legislatures and to denounce California’s power to write its own rules for cars. The emails were made public under Wisconsin’s open records law to Documented, a watchdog group that tracks corporate influence in public policy.
California’s special authority could effectively split the American auto market in two, since 13 other states — representing roughly 35 percent of nationwide car sales — have agreed to follow California’s stricter rules. That means automakers might find themselves making cars to two competing standards.
“Who should decide what cars and trucks consumers should buy, consumers themselves or unelected bureaucrats in Sacramento, California or Washington, D.C.?” the memo sent by Marathon said.
In a statement, Bill Meierling of the legislative exchange council said that mandating fuel economy was a rule that “many state legislators believe doesn’t make sense for working Americans.”
Just days after the emails between Marathon and the Wisconsin lawmaker, some 1,500 state legislators and other officials from across the country gathered in New Orleans to cheer on Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Transportation, at the legislative exchange council’s annual convention. Marathon sponsored the event.
The Transportation Department was determined to cut government regulations, said Ms. Chao, a former fellow at the Heritage Foundation, which has received Koch funding and has long opposed the fuel economy rules.
Mr. Trump’s proposed rollback, she said, “ranks as one of the most significant regulatory reforms that this administration is undertaking.” The room erupted in applause.
Rush hour traffic near Detroit, the nation’s auto capital, on a recent late afternoon.CreditErin Kirkland for The New York Times
Image
Rush hour traffic near Detroit, the nation’s auto capital, on a recent late afternoon.CreditErin Kirkland for The New York Times
Hiroko Tabuchi is a climate reporter. She joined The Times in 2008, and was part of the team awarded the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. She previously wrote about Japanese economics, business and technology from Tokyo.
Former Florida Democratic Party Chair SCOTT MADDOX, ex-Mayor of Tallahassee, INDICTED. The name of his company says it all -- GOVERNANCE, INC. As my late lobbyist friend, Larry Tucker, once explained to me, "the only difference between Democrats and Republicans in Tallahassee is that the Democrats want the money in a paper sack and the Republicans want the money in a briefcase." Corruption must be extirpated. That especially includes our Florida and local Democratic Party, which both have delusions of adequacy.
By the way, note to deluded last-minute voters for shallow, callow Flori-DUH Governor-elect RONALD DeSANTIS: nothing on Andrew Gillum in this indictment. Did DeSANTIS wade through slaughter to a throne, with lies about Andrew Gillum, based on allegations from "persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy." Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496 (1959).
But DONALD JOHN TRUMP a/k/a "INDIVIDUAL 1" is an unindicted coconspirator on felony counts for which his henchmen have pled guilty and are going to federal prisons.
Ex-Tallahassee mayor Maddox indicted in FBI investigation that hurt Gillum’s campaign
A federal probe into possible corruption in Tallahassee’s city hall has resulted in a 44-count indictment that alleges extortion, fraud and bribery — and implicates a former occupant of the mayor’s office and his longtime business partner.
But despite attacks from political rivals painting him as corrupt and an FBI target, former Mayor Andrew Gillum was not mentioned in the grand jury indictment released Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Instead it was another former Tallahassee mayor and the former head of the state’s Democratic Party, Scott Charles Maddox, whom the federal government has accused of masterminding a racketeering enterprise that extorted clients with business before the city and accepted bribes.
Maddox, 50, and his longtime business partner and former chief-of-staff Janice Paige Carter-Smith, 53, were indicted Tuesday for “conspiring to operate a racketeering enterprise that engaged in acts of bank fraud, extortion, honest services fraud and bribery,” the Department of Justice released in a statement Wednesday morning.
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
The indictment alleges that Maddox used his influence as a city commissioner to illegally benefit two corporations he operated with Carter-Smith and whose clientele included individuals with business before the city. The corporations, Governance Inc. and Governance Services LLC, provided government and lobbying services. They were operated and presented to the public as one entity under the name Governance.
“Per the indictment, Governance was part of a racketeering enterprise that extorted money and accepted bribes from Governance clients under color of Maddox’s office and through fear of the economic harm that Maddox could inflict in his position as an influential City Commissioner,” the DOJ statement says. “The indictment alleges that Maddox voted on matters and exerted influence on City employees to take actions that benefited the businesses that paid Maddox and Carter-Smith through Governance.”
FBI documents made public in February, which outlined the case against Maddox, did not identify Gillum as a target of the probe, but the political fallout of being associated with the investigation would ensnare the popular liberal and ultimately doom his run for governor. The investigation is still ongoing, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Kunz.
It also exposed Gillum’s ties to a friend-turned-lobbyist, who organized trips for Gillum and his family, and made public that Gillum had attended a showing of the Broadway play “Hamilton” on a ticket paid for by an undercover FBI agentinvestigating corruption in the capital city.
Maddox served as mayor from 1997 to 2003. During his time in office, he created Governance Inc. and later worked as a lobbyist and consultant until he was elected to the city commission in 2012. Prior to the election, Maddox told the then-city attorney that he would divest from the company. He didn’t, and continued to manage and benefit from the business during his six years in office. He was re-elected to another four-year term in 2016.
Gillum, who was not implicated in the indictment, served as mayor from 2014 until 2018. After news broke earlier this year about the investigation into the Governance corporations, his campaign said it would return a $10,000 check to his political committee from Governance Services LLC.
Carter-Smith, who served under Maddox during his time as mayor, incorporated Governance Services LLC around 2007 and after 2010, took control of Governance Inc. She operated both corporations at the direction of Maddox, the indictment alleges.
The DOJ further alleges that both Maddox and Carter-Smith made false statements to the FBI and state ethics investigators about Maddox’s involvement in Governance, and that Maddox made false statements under oath to a Florida Commission on Ethics investigator and during a sworn deposition.
Prosecutors also accuse the two of defrauding a bank of more than $250,000 through fraudulent “short sales of real property” and violated federal tax laws by “conspiring to interfere with the IRS and filing false tax returns.”
This story was updated to clarify that the corruption investigation has not concluded.
Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article222990920.html#storylink=cpy
Does DeSANTIS really reckon that Republicans can delay implementation of Amendment 4, which we in the reality-based community understand to be both self-executing and self-evident, which the ballot summary explained "restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis."
Underlining shows the full text of Amendment 4, now part of our Florida Constitution:
Article VI, Section 4. Disqualifications.—
(a) No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.
(b) No person convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil rights.
(c) No person may appear on the ballot for re-election to any of the following offices:
(1) Florida representative,
(2) Florida senator,
(3) Florida Lieutenant governor,
(4) any office of the Florida cabinet,
(5) U.S. Representative from Florida, or
(6) U.S. Senator from Florida
if, by the end of the current term of office, the person will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for eight consecutive years.[11]
Impending elections in Jacksonville and elsewhere must not be contaminated by Republican foot-dragging. DeSANTIS, who acts like a hobbledehoy in TRUMP's employ, does not speak for voters -- voters speak for voters, and Amendment 4 becomes the mandatory legal authority in the State of Florida on January 8, 2019.
From the Orlando Sentinel:
Former felons should ignore Ron DeSantis and register to vote Jan. 8, Amendment 4 advocates say
After Florida voters decided to pass Amendment 4 on Election Day, ex-felons or 'returned citizens' had their voting rights restored. Steven Lemongello Steven LemongelloContact Reporter Orlando Sentinel
Governor-elect Ron DeSantis threw a wrench Thursday into former felons’ plan to register to vote in January, leading Amendment 4 advocates to quickly jump in to insist they will regain their rights Jan. 8 whether he and the Legislature acts or not.
Supporters of the amendment, which would restore voting rights to 1.4 million former felons and passed with almost 65 percent of the vote in November, said its language clearly states it will become automatic on Jan. 8 without any approval from the Legislature or governor.
But in an interview with the Palm Beach Post, DeSantis said the amendment should not take effect until “implementing language” is approved and signed.
“They’re going to be able to do that in March,” DeSantis told the Post. “There’s no way you can go through this session without implementing it.”
By that time, early voting and even Election Day will have begun for many municipal elections across Florida, including Tampa and Orange County cities such as Winter Park and Maitland.
Florida's fight for Amendment 4 is a personal crusade for many seeking right to vote Desmond Meade of Orlando, who founded the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition and led the petition drive to get Amendment 4 on the ballot, said in a statement that “the language is clear and that this Amendment does not require enabling legislation.”
“Amendment 4 was and remains about people, not politics,” Meade said. “It is about people like the veteran in Tampa who is ready to vote this March in the mayor’s race, or the pastor in Jacksonville who has been waiting for years to do the same in her hometown.”
FRRC political director Neil Volz, a Republican, said the group looks forward to working with DeSantis and state officials.
But, Volz said, “at the same time, we will continue encouraging people from all over the state who are impacted by this Amendment to register to vote at their local supervisors of elections office on January 8th.”
Melba Pearson, the interim executive director of the ACLU of Florida, was even more blunt: “On January 8, Amendment 4 goes into effect. These are the facts.”
DeSantis’s comments came after county supervisors of elections said at an annual meeting earlier this month that they weren’t getting guidance from the Florida Department of State as to how to begin implementing the new law.
Until then, there had not seemed to have been any major opposition to the law kicking in Jan. 8.
On Nov. 29, GOP state House Speaker Jose Oliva had seemingly contradicted DeSantis, saying, “The idea that we would slow walk or attempt to change an amendment to the constitution passed by the people of the state of Florida is inconsistent with our principles. The amendment is clear and the effective date is clear.”
After Thursday’s comments by DeSantis, Democratic Senate Leader Audrey Gibson said that, “As a self-proclaimed ‘constitutionalist,’ Governor-elect DeSantis should know better.” Democratic House Leader Kionne McGhee went further, saying on Twitter that his caucus will oppose any attempt by DeSantis to delay the Amendment. “This is non-negotiable,” McGhee wrote.
A prospective voter incorrectly claiming on a registration form that their rights have been restored is a criminal offense, so confusion over the Jan. 8 date could have real consequences.
But Volz, a former felon himself, insisted, “For those of us who have earned back our eligibility to vote, January 8th is going to be a celebration – one that has the support of both the Constitution and the people.”
From Barry Richard, New Bedford, Massachusetts WBSM Radio commentator:
RICK SCOTT LITERALLY BOUGHT A U.S. SENATE SEAT [OPINION] BARRY RICHARD December 10, 2018
Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott literally bought himself a seat in the U.S. Senate. Campaign filings indicate Scott spent $83.7 million to defeat incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson. And 76 percent, or $63.5 million, of it came from his own bank account. To win a job that pays $174,000 dollars.
Why would someone spend $63.5 million of their own money for a job that pays only $174,000? Is it me or does that seem rather stupid? And he barely won!
Governor Rick Scott wins Florida Senate race Subscribe to WBSM-AM/AM 1420 on
I suppose $63.5 million can buy you a place in history, not to mention a whole lot of access and influence. He'd have to work 365 years to earn that back. That's 61 six-year terms.
Is this what the swamp is all about? A bunch of rich folks buying powerful positions in the U.S. government? What is also amazing is that USA Today says 80 percent of candidates who self-fund their campaigns end up losing. But he won!
If we don't get around to draining this swamp, we are going to be consumed by it.
It may already be too late.
Barry Richard is the host of The Barry Richard Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. Contact him at barry@wbsm.com and follow him on Twitter @BarryJRichard58. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Someone does not want to testify or provide evidence before a federal grand jury.
Check out this story from CNN.
(I just checked on pacer.gov, the federal court website states that the name of the sealed case is: "SEALED v. SEALED; Case is not available to the public."
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia case no. 18-3071
United States District Court for District of Columbia case no. 1:18-gj-00041
Mystery Mueller mayhem at a Washington court Entire courthouse floor closed more than an hour
By KATELYN POLANTZ, LAURA ROBINSON, EM STECK AND SAM FOSSUM Posted: 2:53 PM, December 14, 2018 Updated: 2:53 PM, December 14, 2018 CNN
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held a secret and mysterious argument about a grand jury subpoena challenge Friday.
(CNN) - Fridays at the DC federal courthouse are typically days of high alert for the press corps trying to discern what special counsel Robert Mueller's next legal action will be.
But this Friday, court officials went to extreme measures to ensure it was as difficult as possible to figure out what Mueller's team was doing as the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held a secret and mysterious argument about a grand jury subpoena challenge.
An entire floor of the courthouse was closed to the public and press for more than an hour. During that time, attorneys secretly entered the courthouse to argue before three federal appellate judges over a grand jury subpoena.
The mystery of the subpoena appeal appears to date back to early September, when CNN witnessed several lawyers from Mueller's office entering a courtroom to argue against an unknown defense team before a trial-level judge who oversees federal grand jury-related cases.
Clearly, a challenge related to Mueller's grand jury investigation was underway.
Shortly after, that judge, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court, ruled on a case related to a grand jury subpoena, and the losing party attempted to appeal the ruling. The appellate court batted the case back down to Howell, who held a second sealed hearing on October 5. Though CNN was locked out of the courtroom while the arguments took place, the hearing featured the same team from Mueller's office as before, which included top criminal law appellate lawyer Michael Dreeben.
Mueller's office declined to comment on the hearings.
That same day Mueller's team clashed in a sealed courtroom with an unknown opponent, Howell issued another ruling on the same grand jury subpoena challenge she had decided before, sending the losing party back to the appellate court to ask for reconsideration.
Politico a few days later overheard an attorney at the appellate court discussing sealed Mueller court filings -- and the mysterious grand jury challenge got its argument date set before a three-judge panel at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Argument day arrived Friday.
Typically, DC Circuit Court arguments run smoothly, one after another until three cases have been argued publicly, starting at 9:30 am in a large, portrait-lined courtroom on the Fifth Floor of the federal courthouse on Constitution Avenue. But after Circuit judges David Tatel, Thomas Griffith and Stephen William -- who coincidentally has written two books on Russian history -- heard an immigration-related case Friday morning, the courthouse security went into lockdown mode.
Tatel, Griffith and Williams took a brief recess, indicating they'd return to the courtroom shortly.
Then, security officers cleared the appeals courtroom, allowing only about a dozen law clerks working for federal judges to stay behind, including at least one who assists Howell with her cases.
Security guards also cleared the vestibule to the courtroom and checked the coat closet where attorneys coming to listen to arguments stash their belongings. They locked the door leading to the attorneys' lounge on that floor and shooed the more than 20 reporters prowling the hall away from the elevator bank and told them to vacate the nearby stairwells. At one point, even an elevator wouldn't open its doors on the fifth floor.
The entire level of the building on which the appeals court is housed was locked down.
For more than an hour, the press waited, staking out stairwells and exits. The gaggle of law clerks dispersed about an hour after the arguments started, and then silence. No recognizable attorneys were spotted coming in and out of the courtroom or even the building.
No sign that it was Mueller's office. No sign of defense counsel. The courthouse security had ushered the lawyers into and out of the building for their secret hearing completely under cover. The sealed hearing stayed confidential.
And then, about 10 minutes after the court activity appeared to wrap for the day, a black Justice Department car rolled into Mueller's office building, bringing attorneys including Dreeben and Zainab Ahmad back to their home base.
Indefatigable investigator of St. Johns County Sheriff DAVID SHOAR since 2013, three-time Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter Walt Bogdanich's latest story is on McKinsey's promotion of authoritarian regimes around the world, stating inter alia in pertinent part:
McKinsey’s role in Ukraine did not end with Mr. Yanukovych’s downfall. “We build leaders who can deliver lasting, meaningful impact for Ukraine’s major companies, its economy and society,” the company wrote on its website
McKinsey quickly became a favorite of Mr. Yanukovych’s successor, Petro O. Poroshenko, an oligarch known as “the chocolate king” for his confectionary business.
McKinsey quickly became a favorite of Mr. Yanukovych’s successor as president, Petro O. Poroshenko.CreditMykhailo Markiv/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Image
From The New York Times:
How McKinsey Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments
Tents linked by red carpets at a McKinsey & Company retreat this year in Kashgar, China.
Image
Tents linked by red carpets at a McKinsey & Company retreat this year in Kashgar, China.
This year’s McKinsey & Company retreat in China was one to remember.
Hundreds of the company’s consultants frolicked in the desert, riding camels over sand dunes and mingling in tents linked by red carpets. Meetings took place in a cavernous banquet hall that resembled a sultan’s ornate court, with a sign overhead to capture the mood.
“I can’t keep calm, I work at McKinsey & Company,” it said.
Especially remarkable was the location: Kashgar, the ancient Silk Road city in China’s far west that is experiencing a major humanitarian crisis.
About four miles from where the McKinsey consultants discussed their work, which includes advising some of China’s most important state-owned companies, a sprawling internment camp had sprung up to hold thousands of ethnic Uighurs — part of a vast archipelago of indoctrination camps where the Chinese government has locked up as many as one million people.
One week before the McKinsey event, a United Nations committee had denounced the mass detentions and urged China to stop.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the political backdrop did not appear to bother the McKinsey consultants, who posted pictures on Instagram chronicling their Disney-like adventures. In fact, McKinsey’s involvement with the Chinese government goes much deeper than its odd choice to showcase its presence in the country.
Participants in the retreat chronicled activities like camel rides on Instagram.
Image
Participants in the retreat chronicled activities like camel rides on Instagram.
An Instagram post of a bonfire gathering during the retreat.
Image
An Instagram post of a bonfire gathering during the retreat.
The Instagram posts from the retreat were in stark contrast to the nearby humanitarian crisis.
Image
The Instagram posts from the retreat were in stark contrast to the nearby humanitarian crisis.
For a quarter-century, the company has joined many American corporations in helping stoke China’s transition from an economic laggard to the world’s second-largest economy. But as China’s growth presents a muscular challenge to American dominance, Washington has become increasingly critical of some of Beijing’s signature policies, including the ones McKinsey has helped advance.
One of McKinsey’s state-owned clients has even helped build China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea, a major point of military tension with the United States.
It turns out that McKinsey’s role in China is just one example of its extensive — and sometimes contentious — work around the world, according to an investigation by The New York Times that included interviews with 40 current and former McKinsey employees, as well as dozens of their clients.
At a time when democracies and their basic values are increasingly under attack, the iconic American company has helped raise the stature of authoritarian and corrupt governments across the globe, sometimes in ways that counter American interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
Its clients have included Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy, Turkey under the autocratic leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and corruption-plagued governments in countries like South Africa.
In Ukraine, McKinsey and Paul Manafort — President Trump’s campaign chairman, later convicted of financial fraud — were paid by the same oligarch to help burnish the image of a disgraced presidential candidate, Viktor F. Yanukovych, recasting him as a reformer.
Once in office, Mr. Yanukovych rebuffed the West, sided with Russia and fled the country, accused of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. The events set off years of chaos in Ukraine and an international standoff with the Kremlin.
Inside Russia itself, McKinsey has worked with Kremlin-linked companies that have been placed under sanctions by Western governments — companies that the firm helped build up over the years and, in some cases, continues to advise.
It has consulted in many sectors of the Russian economy, including mining, manufacturing, oil and gas, banking, transportation and agriculture. A McKinsey official sat on the Russian government’s energy board. Former McKinsey consultants have gone to work in the Russian companies they once advised.
In August, VEB Bank — which is wholly owned by the Russian state, intertwined with Russian intelligence and under United States sanctions — hired McKinsey to develop its business strategy.
There is no indication that McKinsey has violated American sanctions, which prohibit only certain transactions with targeted companies and individuals. But the larger question is whether the company, in pursuing legitimate business opportunities abroad, is helping to shore up President Vladimir V. Putin’s autocratic leadership.
ADVERTISEMENT
Other consulting companies serve similar clients, but none have the stature to confer credibility quite like McKinsey, a confidant for 92 years to many of the world’s most admired companies.
In China, it has advised at least 22 of the 100 biggest state-owned companies — the ones carrying out some of the government’s most strategic and divisive initiatives, according to a review of Chinese-language material by The Times.
While it is not unusual for American corporations to work with China’s state-owned companies, McKinsey’s role has sometimes put it in the middle of deeply troubled deals. In Malaysia, the company laid out the case for one of Asia’s most corrupt leaders to pursue billions of dollars from China at a time when he was suspected of funneling vast sums of public money into his own pocket, drawing tens of thousands into the streets to protest against him.
McKinsey defends its work around the world, saying that it will not accept jobs at odds with the company’s values. It also gives the same reason that other companies cite for working in corrupt or authoritarian nations — that change is best achieved from the inside.
“Since 1926, McKinsey has sought to make a positive difference to the businesses and communities in which our people live and work,” the company said in a statement.
“Tens of thousands of jobs have been created, lives improved and education provided thanks to the work we have done with our clients,” it added.
“Like many other major corporations including our competitors, we seek to navigate a changing geopolitical environment,” the company said, “but we do not support or engage in political activities.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Still, some analysts, veteran diplomats and experts on global governance see McKinsey’s role in a different light.
While the United States pulls back from international cooperation and adopts a more nationalist stance, major companies like McKinsey are pursuing business in countries with little regard for human rights — sometimes advancing, rather than curbing, the contentious tactics of America’s biggest rivals.
“It is more likely they enable these regimes and likely become complicit,” said David J. Kramer, a former assistant secretary of state. “They don’t want to alienate regimes, or they would lose business.”
Monuments to Kiev’s founders burned during anti-government demonstrations in 2014. The protests led to the ouster of President Viktor F. Yanukovych, a McKinsey client.CreditEfrem Lukatsky/Associated Press
Image
Monuments to Kiev’s founders burned during anti-government demonstrations in 2014. The protests led to the ouster of President Viktor F. Yanukovych, a McKinsey client.CreditEfrem Lukatsky/Associated Press
Oligarchs and Autocrats
His bona fides included two criminal convictions and a rigged election that, many assumed, had finally doomed his presidential ambitions.
So it was a bit surprising when McKinsey helped polish the battered image of Mr. Yanukovych and pitch him as something else: a forward-thinking leader with an economic vision of a better future for all Ukrainians.
McKinsey’s role in resurrecting Mr. Yanukovych’s political career has been lost in the clamor surrounding the conviction of Mr. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman, for secretly taking millions of dollars to help the Ukranian leader win the presidency in 2010.
But McKinsey was financed by the same oligarch who backed Mr. Manafort, and it wrote an economic plan that Mr. Yanukovych wielded to disarm his critics — before discarding much of it after becoming president.
ADVERTISEMENT
On his 100th day in office, in a Soviet-era palace adorned with Cossack art, Mr. Yanukovych stiffly briefed the nation, laying out his economic plan. After sipping Cognac and Scotch, legislators and guests packed the hall, where the cameras conspicuously stopped on a man with a bright blue suit and a résumé that touched the lives of virtually everyone in Ukraine.
His name: Rinat Akhmetov, the country’s richest oligarch. As much as anyone, he was the reason for the gathering, and he had reason to feel good.
He had rescued Mr. Yanukovych through a strategy that included hiring two very different consulting groups: Mr. Manafort, whose Russian-linked team had worked for dictators with little regard for human rights, and McKinsey, the purveyor of best practices for the world’s most important corporations.
McKinsey presented Mr. Yanukovych, center, as a leader with a vision of a better future for all Ukrainians.CreditMyshko Markiv/Agence-France-Presse—Getty Images
Image
McKinsey presented Mr. Yanukovych, center, as a leader with a vision of a better future for all Ukrainians.CreditMyshko Markiv/Agence-France-Presse—Getty Images
That these two disparate groups found common ground is a testament to Mr. Akhmetov’s vast business empire and political skill. But for McKinsey, it underscored the risk of consulting in an unstable part of the world, where the company might be perceived as enabling autocratic or corrupt governments.
Mr. Manafort’s job was twofold: to soften Mr. Yanukovych’s reputation and strengthen his Russian-leaning Party of Regions, facilitating his rise to the presidency. McKinsey provided something different — an economic plan that Mr. Yanukovych could use to portray himself as a market-based reformer, tilting to the West.
To ensure that the message got through, Mr. Yanukovych and Mr. Akhmetov pointedly mentioned McKinsey in talks with American officials, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. Mr. Akhmetov assured the Americans that his candidate was “a strong McKinsey supporter,” while Mr. Yanukovych emphasized that he had instructed his aides “to work directly with McKinsey experts.”
Diplomats remained wary. A respected Ukrainian journalist warned American officials that Mr. Yanukovych might “sing a song one moment and knife someone the next.”
ADVERTISEMENT
There were also questions about Mr. Akhmetov, who had long been suspected of links to organized crime, which he denied. One diplomat called his Party of Regions a haven for “mobsters and oligarchs,” noting that it might be trying to shed that image.
Mr. Akhmetov’s financial ties to Mr. Manafort and McKinsey went beyond politics. He hired both to advise parts of his corporate empire, which included steel, mining, energy, finance, telecommunications, real estate, media, transportation, agriculture and soccer. He also hired former McKinsey consultants to help run his businesses, placing them in senior positions.
Mr. Akhmetov paid Mr. Manafort by wire transfers funneled through a Cypriot shell company, court records show. Other Party of Regions operatives paid Mr. Manafort through shell companies, eventually resulting in his conviction in the United States for failing to declare the money on his tax returns.
Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest oligarch, hired both McKinsey and Paul Manafort as consultants for Mr. Yanukovych.CreditSergei Supinsky/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Image
Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest oligarch, hired both McKinsey and Paul Manafort as consultants for Mr. Yanukovych.CreditSergei Supinsky/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
McKinsey, by contrast, was paid through a Ukrainian foundation financed by Mr. Akhmetov and run by a former McKinsey consultant now living in Moscow. Set up to promote economic reform, the foundation also sought to publicize McKinsey — and by extension, Mr. Yanukovych.
To reach its prime audience in the United States, the foundation held two forums on the Ukrainian economy — one at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York and the other in Washington. On the whole, McKinsey’s work was well received.
But the promise of a better future didn’t last long.
Within a few years, Ukraine careened toward economic collapse while Mr. Yanukovych looted the nation, living in a palatial residencesurrounded by a private zoo, a golf course, a garage filled with classic cars and a private restaurant in the form of a pirate ship.
If that were not enough, he was also quietly building an enormous seaside retreat, complete with 40-foot ceilings and an indoor swimming pool, that eclipsed his presidential residence.
ADVERTISEMENT
The capital soon turned against him. Mr. Yanukovych had long promised to tie Ukraine to the West by signing sweeping political and trade agreements with the European Union. Then he abruptly reneged, siding with Russia instead.
Protesters flooded the streets for months, chanting pro-Europe slogans. Mr. Yanukovych’s government responded with a heavy hand, culminating in what the European Parliament’s envoy called a “Ukrainian Tiananmen,” referring to China’s deadly crackdown on demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. More than 80 protesters were killed before Mr. Yanukovych fled the country in 2014.
The chaos didn’t end there. Outraged, Mr. Putin pushed into Ukraine, annexed Crimea and stirred up a war that has claimed more than 10,000 lives. The West responded by kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized democracies and imposing sanctions. The standoff between Mr. Putin and the West had begun.
McKinsey defended its role in Mr. Yanukovych’s rise by saying that the foundation was serious about promoting economic development in Ukraine and featured prominent Westerners on its board. The foundation quietly folded — without achieving its goals — just before Mr. Yanukovych fled to Russia. Neither Mr. Akhmetov nor McKinsey would say how much money McKinsey earned.
“When we concluded that the government was not following through on its stated reform agenda, we ended our work,” McKinsey said in a statement.
Mr. Akhmetov, who publicly broke with Mr. Yanukovych during the protests, declined to speak to The Times. Inside his gold and chrome headquarters, a spokesman said the foundation had been unsuccessful because politicians lacked the will “to embrace the reform agenda.”
But critics like Anders Aslund, a Swedish-born economist who advised the Russian government in the 1990s and later the government of Ukraine, lamented how Mr. Yanokovych’s image had been sold in Western capitals. It was clear, he said, that Mr. Yanokovych “was about power and robbery.”
ADVERTISEMENT
McKinsey’s role in Ukraine did not end with Mr. Yanukovych’s downfall. “We build leaders who can deliver lasting, meaningful impact for Ukraine’s major companies, its economy and society,” the company wrote on its website
McKinsey quickly became a favorite of Mr. Yanukovych’s successor, Petro O. Poroshenko, an oligarch known as “the chocolate king” for his confectionary business.
McKinsey quickly became a favorite of Mr. Yanukovych’s successor as president, Petro O. Poroshenko.CreditMykhailo Markiv/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Image
McKinsey quickly became a favorite of Mr. Yanukovych’s successor as president, Petro O. Poroshenko.CreditMykhailo Markiv/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
In a speech last November, Mr. Poroshenko praised McKinsey for its 15 years of work in Ukraine. His daughter-in-law also worked for the company during most of his presidency.
Meanwhile, McKinsey has continued to consult for Mr. Akhmetov, sharing the top floor of a Kiev office building with an Akhmetov company. Another Akhmetov company sits a floor below. In fact, Mr. Akhmetov owns the entire building, which includes a business in the lobby fit for an oligarch: an Aston Martin-Rolls Royce dealership.
Building China’s Dream
Workers last month at the site of the East Coast Rail Link in Malaysia. Part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the project was suspended in July.CreditLauren DeCicca for The New York Times
Image
Workers last month at the site of the East Coast Rail Link in Malaysia. Part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the project was suspended in July.CreditLauren DeCicca for The New York Times
Deep in the Malaysian jungle, a sprawling construction site sits abandoned, the relentless monsoon rain taking its toll on the rusting fields of steel girders.
It is supposed to be a railway — part of China’s signature Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion global undertaking financed by big Chinese loans, and usually built by Chinese companies.
Chief among them is the China Communications Construction Company, a state-owned behemoth whose initials are stenciled in black on the cement plant at the abandoned site.
ADVERTISEMENT
China Communications, which was barred for eight years from doing business on some World Bank projects because of a corruption scandal, played a leading role in building artificial islands in the South China Sea that have raised tensions with the United States.
The company’s subsidiary also built a new port for Sri Lanka. But the debt turned out to be such a burden that the Sri Lankan government had to give up the port and hand it over for 99 years — to China.
“That is not good for us,” Mr. Mahathir said in September. “Malaysian workers have no jobs that they can do. All the work is hired from China. You can see how one-sided it is.”
An abandoned China Communications site for the East Coast Rail Link project in Malaysia.CreditLauren DeCicca for The New York Times
Image
An abandoned China Communications site for the East Coast Rail Link project in Malaysia.CreditLauren DeCicca for The New York Times
But for McKinsey, it was anything but one-sided. The company represented both parties involved in the deal.
In 2015, as China Communications was building the artificial islands and still under World Bank sanctions, McKinsey signed it on as a client, advising it on strategy.
Months later, McKinsey won another contract: this one with the Malaysian government, to review the feasibility of the rail line.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a confidential PowerPoint report, McKinsey told Malaysian officials that the rail line could increase economic growth in parts of the country by as much at 1.5 percent. It was a figure that the prime minister at the time, Najib Razak, who now has been charged with corruption, liked to cite.
In bullet points, McKinsey also said the project would help improve ties with China — “build the nation-to-nation relationship” — because of its importance in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
And McKinsey endorsed the idea of heavy borrowing from China, referring to it as a “game changer” elsewhere in the region.
A confidential McKinsey & Company PowerPoint report showing that the company told Malaysian officials that the East Coat Rail Link could increase economic growth in parts of the country by as much at 1.5 percent.
Image
A confidential McKinsey & Company PowerPoint report showing that the company told Malaysian officials that the East Coat Rail Link could increase economic growth in parts of the country by as much at 1.5 percent.
It isn’t hard to see where McKinsey’s enthusiasm for the Belt and Road Initiative came from: The firm had promoted the Chinese policy at the highest levels of the company.
Dominic Barton, McKinsey’s managing partner at the time, made Belt and Road the theme of a keynote address in Beijing in 2015, recounting the Silk Road trade from the second century B.C. onward.
McKinsey’s in-house research group, the McKinsey Global Institute, sprang into action, producing reports — widely cited in the Chinese state news media — extolling the benefits of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Mr. Barton — who has served on the advisory board of China Development Bank, one of the two biggest Chinese lenders to the Belt and Road Initiative — also batted down concerns in a 2015 interview with Chinese state media that the undertaking might be used as a tool to expand China’s global influence.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The world is waiting for the ‘One Belt, One Road’ grand blueprint to move from dream to reality,” Mr. Barton and his colleagues wrote in a report published on the company’s Chinese website in May 2015, expressing McKinsey’s enthusiasm to work on it.
The feeling was mutual. Nine of the top 20 Belt-and-Road contractors are or have been McKinsey clients, according to research by The Times and figures from RWR Advisory Group, which tracks such projects.
In 2016, McKinsey’s client, China Communications, won the $13 billion contract to build the Malaysian railroad. McKinsey justified the project at a time when Mr. Najib was widely accused of corruption, buffeted by street protests over the disappearance of hundreds of millions of dollars from a state investment fund, and badly in need of cash from an outside lender like China.
The scandal over the deal has enveloped both of McKinsey’s clients. Mr. Mahatir told local reporters that China Communications, which won a no-bid contract for the railroad, may have deliberately overstated the costs in order to help Mr. Najib and his allies shovel extra money into the investment fund to replenish the missing amounts.
Tony Pua, a Malaysian lawmaker and an aide to the finance minister, said the deal was brokered by a hard-partying Malaysian businessman named Jho Low, who is accused of siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars from the fund and is now believed to be in China, avoiding a Malaysian arrest warrant.
McKinsey says it has no knowledge of any collusion between China and Mr. Najib. It said that of course it would discuss China’s sweeping Belt and Road plans but rejected the notion that, by representing both sides involved in the project, the company had a conflict of interest in any way. By the time China Communications won the bid, its work for Malaysia had already finished, the firm said.
“Our firm’s rigorous internal policies and procedures” ensure that “we bring an independent perspective” to help each client “pursue its own strategic goals,” McKinsey said.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the political backdrop — a government facing crippling corruption accusations and the prospect that Mr. Najib might turn to China for funds to cover his tracks — should have been obvious to McKinsey at the time, argued Bridget Welsh, a professor at John Cabot University in Rome who focuses on Malaysian politics.
“They were choosing to engage with actors that were deeply tainted,” Ms. Welsh said of McKinsey.
A Special Relationship
Installing solar panels on a high-rise in Wuhan, China. McKinsey opened its first office in the country in 1995.CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times
Image
Installing solar panels on a high-rise in Wuhan, China. McKinsey opened its first office in the country in 1995.CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times
It was not the first time McKinsey had been drawn into questionable arrangements through its work in China.
The company opened its first office there in 1995, using consultants from the United States and Britain. By the end the decade, McKinsey was on hand to help as Beijing began pushing its moribund state-owned companies to adopt Western-style management, a McKinsey specialty.
The firm landed some big clients. Its star pupil was Ping An, an insurance company set up as part of a state-owned shipping company. Beginning in 1997, McKinsey began a two-decade relationship with the company as it rose from a footnote to one of the world’s biggest insurers.
McKinsey’s success soon reached into the pinnacle of Chinese politics, dragging it — unwittingly and unknowingly, the company contends — into a potential conflict of interest in the most glaring example of official enrichment in the history of the People’s Republic of China.
Always in search of top talent, McKinsey brought on a 27-year-old named Liu Chunhang as a full-time associate in 2002. He had just graduated near the top of his class at Harvard Business School, according to school records, and stayed at McKinsey for less than a year. But in that time, his in-laws took steps that would turn them into billionaires.
Mr. Liu was the son-in-law of Wen Jiabao, the country’s vice premier in charge of finance. Several months later, Mr. Wen became China’s premier, putting him in charge of running the government.
ADVERTISEMENT
At the time, McKinsey’s client, Ping An, was preparing for an initial public offering in Hong Kong. The Wen family and its business associates became secret shareholders of Ping An, having acquired their stakes at low cost in late 2002. And as premier, Mr. Wen presided over China’s cabinet, which oversaw the insurance industry and signed off on big I.P.O.s.
According to McKinsey, Mr. Liu left the company in July 2003. It’s not clear whether he played any role in his extended family’s business activities. But when Ping An went public the next year, the Wen family amassed a staggering fortune, largely in company stock. By 2007, the family was worth at least $2.7 billion.
The family of Wen Jiabao, China’s premier from 2003 to 2013, amassed a large fortune when the insurer Ping An, a McKinsey client, went public.CreditPetar Kujundzic/Reuters
Image
The family of Wen Jiabao, China’s premier from 2003 to 2013, amassed a large fortune when the insurer Ping An, a McKinsey client, went public.CreditPetar Kujundzic/Reuters
Mr. Liu, who is now a senior official at China’s banking regulator, said through a spokesman that he “never worked on any projects for the firm’s Chinese clients,” and that it would be “misleading” to connect him with McKinsey’s work for Ping An.
McKinsey said that Mr. Liu had been hired because he was qualified, not because of his family connections.
“Any suggestion that Mr. Liu was hired or employed for improper purpose is false and extremely misleading,” the company said.
Today, China’s best and brightest clamor to work at McKinsey. Partners in the firm have sat in on Communist Party meetings at companies. More than 90 percent of the company’s 350 consultants in China are of Chinese descent, according to its website.
And the importance of China to McKinsey over all is evident: The firm’s last two managing partners, Mr. Barton and Kevin Sneader, were promoted from the region. Mr. Sneader now runs the entire company from Hong Kong.
ADVERTISEMENT
McKinsey’s name has become so prestigious in the country that a Chinese copycat sprang up, adopting the company’s Chinese name.
The copycat firm — Chengdu McKinsey Management Consulting Company — even won a contract to advise Sichuan Province on its economic planning. Its ruse was so successful that the China Economic Weekly, a magazine under the Communist Party’s mouthpiece People’s Daily, wrote a cover article about the spreading influence of the real McKinsey, likening it to an octopus, and marveling at the success of the fake one.
McKinsey said it had not worked on the economic planning in Sichuan Province.
The company, however, has not shied away from contentious programs like “Smart Cities,” worrying scholars and human rights advocates who say the approach will strengthen China’s surveillance state.
Video of traffic in Hangzhou, China. McKinsey has participated in a “Smart Cities” program that collects data from sources like cameras — a concern in an authoritarian state like China.Creditvia Reuters
Image
Video of traffic in Hangzhou, China. McKinsey has participated in a “Smart Cities” program that collects data from sources like cameras — a concern in an authoritarian state like China.Creditvia Reuters
The idea of smart cities is to make them more manageable by collecting data from sources like cameras. In an authoritarian state like China, that raises broad concerns.
“Police patrols cannot be everywhere, for instance, but predictive analytics can deploy them in the right place at the right time,” McKinsey wrote in a report in June.
“It is about political control,” said Samantha Hoffman, a fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
McKinsey is now working with Ping An to put smart cities into practice in the Chinese city of Nanning to monitor financial fraud.
ADVERTISEMENT
The company has also championed — even parroted, critics say — the Chinese government’s “Made in China 2025” initiative to become a global leader in sensitive fields like artificial intelligence and aerospace, a policy rattling European and American leaders who fear the plans will undermine their economies and set the stage for Chinese dominance.
In October, Vice President Mike Pence warned that “through the ‘Made in China 2025’ plan, the Communist Party has set its sights on controlling 90 percent of the world’s most advanced industries.”
McKinsey has produced at least 10 reports in Chinese focusing on “Made in China 2025.” But earlier this year, China’s government ordered the news media to stop writing about it, given the intense criticism from the United States and Europe. McKinsey’s reports also stopped mentioning the policy.
“They sometimes seem to be almost like an arm of the People’s Daily,” George Magnus, a former chief economist at UBS, said of McKinsey. “Obviously they do it in a slightly more subtle way — sometimes not so subtle.”
Clients Under Sanctions
The head office of VEB, a Russian government-owned bank that is under United States sanctions. Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, met in 2016 with the bank’s former chief.CreditJames Hill for The New York Times
Image
The head office of VEB, a Russian government-owned bank that is under United States sanctions. Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, met in 2016 with the bank’s former chief.CreditJames Hill for The New York Times
When Senate investigators wanted to know why Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, met with the head of a Russian bank under sanctions shortly after the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Kushner explained that, as far as he had been told, the bank chief had “a direct line to the Russian president.”
It is easy to see how. The bank — Vnesheconombank, or VEB — is owned by the Russian government and overseen directly by Mr. Putin’s inner circle. The bank’s former chief — the one Mr. Kushner met — graduated from the training school of the F.S.B., the successor agency of the K.G.B. The bank has also come under scrutiny in Congress and by the special counsel investigating possible collusion in the 2016 election.
And the bank is a McKinsey client.
In August, VEB hired the consulting firm to develop its business strategy — one of several companies that are under sanctions and that McKinsey advises.
ADVERTISEMENT
Sberbank — a state-controlled bank that is on the sanctions list and that sponsored Mr. Trump’s Miss Universe contest in Moscow in 2013 — is also a McKinsey client. In 2016, it agreed to pay the firm up to $5.2 million for advice on restructuring.
Yet another state-owned bank under sanctions, VTB, agreed to pay McKinsey about $4.4 million in 2017 to develop information technology.
McKinsey’s work in Russia is extensive. Its Moscow office, the largest of the Western consulting firms working there, has handled about 2,000 projects, working with market leaders in oil, gas, banking and retail, as well as the mining of diamonds, gold and coal. One of its senior partners is the son of the Nobel Prize-winning novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
VEB’s deputy chairman, Andrei Klepach, left, with Yermolai Solzhenitsyn, a senior McKinsey consultant, at a 2016 business conference in the eastern Russian city of Krasnoyarsk.CreditArtyom Korotayev\TASS, via Getty Images
Image
VEB’s deputy chairman, Andrei Klepach, left, with Yermolai Solzhenitsyn, a senior McKinsey consultant, at a 2016 business conference in the eastern Russian city of Krasnoyarsk.CreditArtyom Korotayev\TASS, via Getty Images
McKinsey is so valued in Russia that even as Mr. Putin and Western nations clashed over Ukraine, a partner in the firm served on a Russian energy commission until 2015, along with several business executives who were either the target of individual sanctions or had ties to companies under sanction.
McKinsey clients help expand Russia’s reach abroad. One of them — PhosAgro, a fertilizer giant with ties to the Kremlin — is pushing hard for new regulations that would give it greater control over Europe’s food supply. The European Union already had concerns about Russian influence over its natural gas supply, much of which came from Gazprom, another Russian company under sanctions that McKinsey has advised on strategy and pricing.
McKinsey says it takes jobs in Russia — or anywhere in the world — only when it believes it can make a positive contribution. McKinsey also says its consulting is not political in nature, but focused on helping people lead better lives.
The firm has plenty of accomplishments to point to. In Russia alone, it upgraded Aeroflot, the national airline, improved traffic flow in Moscow and improved worker safety.
ADVERTISEMENT
And McKinsey is far from the only American company working in legal ways with companies under sanctions. Some American officials have long argued that getting involved in the Russian economy not only benefits the American companies working there, but can also help foster better business practices and a greater appreciation for democratic principles overseas.
Others see little evidence of that. Robert G. Berschinski, a State Department official in the Obama administration, said business leaders and policymakers often believed that actively engaging with authoritarian governments would lead to economic reform, which in turn would drive political reform.
“But what is becoming increasingly clear, in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia — in all three of those instances — that belief has not proven to be true,” he said.
China is a prime example, argued Mr. Kramer, the former assistant secretary of state. He said the country had lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, yet companies that do business there “have nothing to point to” showing that Chinese people have been granted more civil or political rights.
In some cases, McKinsey’s work may have made things worse.
The firm produced a report tracking how some of Saudi Arabia’s most important policies were viewed by the public, singling out three individuals who drove often negative conversations on Twitter.
One was later arrested, according to a human rights group. Another said that Saudi government officials had imprisoned two of his brothers and hacked his cellphone. The third — an anonymous account — was shut down.
ADVERTISEMENT
McKinsey said it was “horrified by the possibility, however remote,” that the report could have been misused. But the kingdom is a such a vital client for the firm — the source of nearly 600 projects from 2011 to 2016 alone — that McKinsey chose to participate in a major Saudi investment conference in October even after the killing and dismemberment of a Washington Post columnist by Saudi agents.
McKinsey participated in a Saudi investment conference in October that included Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, onstage right, despite the recent killing and dismemberment of a dissident columnist by Saudi agents.CreditTasneem Alsultan for The New York Times
Image
McKinsey participated in a Saudi investment conference in October that included Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, onstage right, despite the recent killing and dismemberment of a dissident columnist by Saudi agents.CreditTasneem Alsultan for The New York Times
“The world is divided into people who are for beheadings and against beheadings,” said Anand Giridharadas, a former McKinsey consultant and former Times writer. He added that the firm and other companies were lending “their reputation and credibility to a regime that deserves none of that.”
For 19 months, Calvert W. Jones, a University of Maryland professor, crisscrossed the Gulf monarchies in the Middle East as part of her research evaluating the work of management consultants in what she calls “the black box of authoritarian governance.”
“Even if democracy itself remains a distant hope, so the thinking goes, experts might improve the daily lives of citizens in fundamental ways,” Ms. Jones wrote.
Her conclusions are not likely to make it into recruiting videos for consulting companies seeking idealistic college graduates.
“In the beginning, the best of them want to help, want to do real research, provide data and expert opinions,” she said. But after initially speaking their minds, she said, they gradually stop.
“They engage in the art of not speaking truth to power,” she said. “They self-censor, exaggerate successes and downplay their own misgivings due to the incentive structures they face.”
Outside experts might even reduce, rather than encourage, domestic reform, Ms. Jones said, partly because consultants are often unwilling to level with the ruling elite. The issue is becoming increasingly relevant, she said, as “the number of experts circulating around the world continues to grow.”
The expansion is clear enough in the lobby of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Riyadh on a weekday morning. There, a former Western diplomat quipped, you can watch the consultants departing for their jobs “like bats leaving a cave.”
Reporting was contributed by Mark Rachkevych from Kiev, Ukraine; Chris Buckley from Kashgar, China; Krishnamoorthy Muthaly from Bentong, Malaysia; Hannah Beech from Bangkok; Matt Apuzzo from Brussels; David Barboza from Boston; and Andrew Kramer from Moscow. Research was contributed by Audrey Jiajia Li, Jennifer Jett, Bridget Hickey, Ivan Nechepurenko and Susan Beachy.
A version of this article appears in print on of the New York edition with the headline: Turning Tyranny Into a Client. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Florida State House of Representatives Speaker Jose Oliva is not finished yet with committee appointments, but he's already appointed St. Johns County State Rep. Cyndi Stevenson two (2) leadership positions. Chair of the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee and Vice Chair of the Children, Families and Seniors Subcommittee.
Congratulations!
Rep. Stevenson's partial list of 2019 committee assignments as of December 15, 2018:
Record yourself reading an article of the Declaration in your language and share the video.
Read the Illustrated edition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
