As TheTruthAboutPLAs.com readers know, Murray was the subject of a scathing Aug. 5 report by the Ohio Inspector General’s (IG) office in which the IG’s office brought to light Murray’s effort to drive lucrative school construction contracts to Big Labor.  The IG’s report outlines Murray’s advocacy for union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) and repeated displays of misfeasance in carrying out his duties.

This investigation and subsequent report were triggered by accusations from several local school officials that Murray not only used his position to pressure school districts into requiring PLAs on school projects, but also allowed union goons to berate local school officials until they agreed to Big Labor’s demands.

More information on the IG’s report and the numerous editorial boards that have called for Murray’s resignation are available in our earlier posts.

The new ad, which demands that Gov. Strickland fire Richard Murray, is available here.

ABC of Ohio also released the following statement on the recent developments at the OSFC on Labor Day (Our emphasis added):

Drive up Costs and Unemployment by Breaking the Law

This Labor Day brings sad news to the 20% unemployed construction industry Ohioans desperately in need of an economic turnaround. Governor Ted Strickland prefers to cling to 79 year-old labor policies rather than embrace the current economic realities. Other states have –and they are eating our lunch as a result.

Since Richard Murray’s appointment as executive director of the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission (OSFC) late last year, he has pushed the use of union-only Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on local school districts hoping to obtain state funding support for local school construction. PLAs are good for unions and bad for taxpayers. PLAs inflate the cost of public construction and put people out of work. Moreover, PLAs are illegal for use on OSFC school construction projects.

A recent report by the Ohio Inspector General’s office detailed how Gov. Ted Strickland fired former state senator and fellow Democrat, Michael Shoemaker at the behest of labor unions. It turns out Director Shoemaker was not aggressive enough in forcing local school districts to accept the use of PLAs.

Upon appointment as the OSFC’s new director, Richard Murray’s actions demonstrated he was a soldier anxious to impress his boss, Gov. Strickland. Mr. Murray quickly set about to get as many local school districts to use their “local authority” to adopt union only PLAs. The Inspector General detailed how Murray used intimidating tactics to obtain these contracts for his former union employers.

Last year the OSFC adopted a policy to allow local school districts choose whether or not they wanted to use union only PLAs for their construction. There is only one problem – the OSFC does not have the authority to supersede state law and grant this local choice.

In 1997 the sixty-six year-old prevailing wage statute was amended to forbid local school districts from paying prevailing wage on their construction projects. They did this because they knew it would save money. And save money, it did. A study by Ohio’s Legislative Services Commission concluded that at least $487.9 million dollars were saved in the first five years after the law was changed.

Two years later Ohio amended the prevailing wage statute again. Because repealing union scale prevailing wage saves so much money, the legislature said county and municipal hospitals will no longer be on the list of public construction projects forced to pay prevailing wage. However, the legislature specifically granted these local public hospitals the right to pay prevailing wage if they choose to do so locally.

No such right of local choice has ever been granted to local school districts by the legislature. And the OSFC, as a creature of the legislature, is not authorized to grant that legislative authority.

Paying prevailing wage as a result of a locally engaged PLA is a ruse concocted by Gov. Strickland’s OSFC so that the will of the legislature prohibiting prevailing wage on school construction could be subverted.

The PLA ruse is not legal, wastes millions of taxpayer dollars and restricts 85% of the commercial construction industry (nonunion contractors) from the chance to work on school construction projects. That is why the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) have two law suits pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. We’re asking the Ohio Supreme Court to accept review of the questions as to whether local school districts may require contractors to pay prevailing wage and whether taxpayers living in that same school district have the right to bring a lawsuit.

For sixty-one years ABC has fought for the free market principle that public construction contracts should be awarded to the lowest cost bidder qualified to do the work. The public pays too much for construction when laws, or illegal agency policies, prevent nonunion contractors from bidding on public jobs. Ohio has been slow to learn this lesson and other states stand well poised to steal our companies as a result.

Gov. Strickland, the OSFC and Director Murray are implementing a scheme designed to thwart the will of the legislature. In doing so, they deny open competition and dramatically increase the cost on school construction projects. They also put construction employees out of work.

No one should be surprised that Ted Strickland wants to steer government contracts to his labor union allies. Since Michael Shoemaker was fired by Strickland for not doing the same and Richard Murray has shown he is all too eager to push this illegal policy, it’s up to the courts to defend the separation of powers and win one for the taxpayers.

Please visit our earlier posts for more information on this scandal.

Here is the Tribune-Review’s take (“The Penn Hills PLA,” 9/8/10):

Eight Penn Hills School District board members who voted to require only union labor on a construction project ensured that taxpayers will bear needless additional costs — and set a bad example for students.

Those eight are guilty of “failing to do their homework” before voting for the project labor agreement (PLA) on Penn Hills’ $130 million high school and elementary center project, as Bob Glancy put it. He’s chairman of Associated Builders & Contractors of Western Pennsylvania, whose members employ the 85 percent of area construction workers who aren’t unionized — firms and workers who are unfairly denied opportunities by PLAs.

The group, whose lawsuit over another PLA prompted Community College of Allegheny County to halt bidding on a science center project, is considering suing the school district, too. So one way or another, Penn Hills taxpayers will pay more — either for district legal costs or for costs that the district’s PLA will add to its project, as studies prove that PLAs do.

Still, it’s a “teachable moment.” Penn Hills students get real-world lessons about the consequences of blowing off homework and disregarding basic economics — lessons their elders on the board should have learned long ago.

As usual, the Tribune-Review is right on point.

If you live in this school district, we strongly encourage you to contact your school board members at 412-793-7000 and tell them that taxpayers deserve the best construction product for the best price.  Say NO to wasteful and discriminatory PLAs.

UPDATE: Here is a great blog post from a Penn Hills resident that is not happy with their school boards “sop” to Big Labor: http://www.libertyreborn.com/2010/09/09/penn-hills-school-district-lays-down-with-dogs/

Here is an excerpt from Associated Builders and Contractors Western Pennsylvania Chapter’s August 31 press release:

PENN HILLS PLAYS FAVORITES AT THE EXPENSE OF STUDENTS

Pittsburgh, PA – At a special meeting last night, the Penn Hills School Board members voted 8-1 in favor of placing a project labor agreement (PLA) on their upcoming $130 million construction project, which goes to bid in a few weeks. The only member to vote against using a PLA and protecting taxpayer money and student education was Margie Krogh. The Board voted without having the final version of the agreement present, neglecting any source of fact-finding. This follows Chief Executive Dan Onorato’s statement earlier in the month that it was “probably wrong” to place PLAs on school projects.

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of Western Pennsylvania expressed their grave concern over the Board’s decision to place a PLA on this project, and also for abandoning the information process. “This is what we’re fighting for – ensuring everyone is included in the process, which means minority and woman-owned small businesses,” said Eileen Watt, President of ABC. “Penn Hills has made it clear they want to push special interests behind closed doors, and this could result in a potential lawsuit if not rectified,” continued Watt. ABC confirmed they did not know about a PLA being discussed within Penn Hills School District.

“We have to trust school districts to use due diligence before signing agreements,” said Bob Glancy, Chairman of ABC and President of R.A. Glancy & Sons. “It’s unfortunate that Penn Hills is not serving their students and taxpaying citizens as positively as other districts, for example, McKeesport,” continued Glancy. Glancy is referring to a decision in July where the McKeesport Area School District rejected a PLA, 7-2, saving the taxpayers money and offering many opportunities to their diverse group of students, many of whom enter the construction industry and participate in ABC’s school-to-work program.

Here at TheTruthAboutPLAs.com, we are starting to sound like a broken record.  At a time where local officials are struggling with declining revenue and historic budget deficits, now is the worst possible time to waste taxpayer dollars on special interest handouts – like PLAs.

One other important point is that the press release above and accounts from the meeting indicate that Penn Hill School Board members didn’t get an opportunity to review the actual PLA their policy requires contractors to sign before working on the $150 million worth of projects.  In other words, the school board approved a requirement that contractors must sign a legally binding contract with Big Labor, but didn’t specify its terms.

This essentially gives Big Labor free reign to stack the PLA with any terms they want.  The contractors – both union and nonunion – have no recourse because the school board has required them to sign a PLA as a condition of working on the project.  If they aren’t willing to acquiesce to Big Labor’s demands, then union bosses refuse to sign the PLA and the contractors involved can’t work.  Situations like this are the primary reason many union contractors oppose PLAs.

Public construction projects should be about giving taxpayers the highest quality products at the best price.  Always.  PLA requirements make this objective nearly impossible to achieve.  Numerous studies show that PLAs increase construction costs by as much as 18 percent and discriminate against the 85 percent of the construction workforce that chooses not to join a labor union.

If you live in the Penn Hill School District, contact your school board members and tell them NO to wasteful and discriminatory PLAs.

As readers of TheTruthAboutPLAs.com are aware, the Ohio Inspector General’s (IG) office released a scathing report on August 5 that brought OSFC E.D. and former Laborers official Richard Murray’s efforts to promote Big Labor’s agenda to light.  The IG’s report outlines Murray’s advocacy for union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) and repeated displays of misfeasance in carrying out his duties.

This investigation and subsequent report was triggered by accusations from several local school officials that Murray not only used his position to pressure school districts into requiring PLAs on school projects, but also allowed union goons to berate local school officials until they agreed to Big Labor’s demands.

More information on the IG’s report and the numerous editorial boards that have called for Murray’s resignation are available in our earlier posts.

Last week, there were two interesting items of note in the Columbus Dispatch.

First, the Dispatch reported that the OSFC approved a policy that expressly prohibits Executive Director Murray’s behavior in support of Big Labor and PLAs in the future.

Here is an excerpt from the Columbus Dispatch’s coverage (“Facilities Panel: Chief Can’t Coerce Schools,” 8/27/10):

The Ohio School Facilities Commission unanimously approved a policy yesterday clarifying that it would be inappropriate for its executive director “to coerce or threaten retribution” to get school districts to use union construction firms.

[snip]

Murray said after the meeting that he didn’t consider the resolution an indictment of how he has run the commission since being picked by Gov. Ted Strickland last fall. Rather, the commission was responding to the inspector general’s recommendation that it take action to ensure neutrality, Murray said.

“That’s nonsense,” said Bryan Williams, a lobbyist with the nonunion Associated Builders and Contractors of Ohio. “Today’s resolution, which was rushed and premature, was absolutely a repudiation of the way Richard Murray has conducted himself on this job.”

[snip]

The inspector general accused Murray of pressuring local school officials to use union construction firms. In one instance, Murray sat silently while a union official with whom he’d arrived at the meeting used profanity and racial slurs to describe the work force that the district was using, according to the report.

Murray’s “reputation has been stained,” said state Sen. Gary Cates, a Republican from West Chester who is a nonvoting member of the commission.

“We have had those conversations with the executive director about how his performance could improve,” said voting member Hugh Quill.

If Executive Director Murray is looking for ways to improve his job performance, we humbly recommend that he start by putting the interests of taxpayers ahead of those of his buddies back at the union hall.

The item of note from last week’s Dispatch came in the form of a letter to the editor from a local resident that is fed up with the kind of political handouts that are plaguing the construction of the Ohio Schools for the Blind and Deaf.  As a direct result of PLA requirements on these projects, bids came in over $11 million (or almost 50 percent) higher than anticipated.

Here is an excerpt from the August 26 letter (“Do the Right Thing for Blind, Deaf Kids,” 8/26/10):

While reading about the Ohio School Facilities Commission, I never cease to be amazed at the politics and mudslinging involved, especially in building the schools for the blind and deaf children (“Blind, deaf schools project to be cut back,” Dispatch article, Aug. 14).

Whatever happened to doing the right thing? Are we too entrenched in Democrats vs. Republicans, unions vs. nonunion contractors and greed vs. a normal profit margin? It’s a sad day when “prime contractors probably withheld their best quotes” and “contractors did not want to tip their hand in this round,” as paraphrased from commission Executive Director Richard Murray.

Well, now the projects are being drastically scaled back while the campuses of both schools lie in ruins. The grounds have been torn up and will remain so while the powers that be take their sides. Do people not have consciences anymore?

There is no shortage of people who should be hanging their heads in shame over this fiasco. Is it still possible for decent people to step up and build school facilities that serve our blind and deaf children from throughout Ohio?

This letter’s sentiment is very important.  The writer simply wants to get the best construction product for the best price.

It is important for the citizens of Ohio to understand that the tactics described in the second paragraph of this letter are a direct result of the PLA requirements that Murray worked to put into place as a condition of winning these projects.

It is nearly impossible for prime contractors to accurately anticipate construction costs in a marketplace where the vast majority of subcontractors are essentially barred from bidding competitively.

Additionally, the number of subcontractors that actually bid on the project may be lower than those that say they would do so when the prime contractor begins to solicit bids as a result of a PLA mandate.  As any freshman economics student call tell you, a decrease in supply leads to an increase in price.  The result is higher construction costs.

All of this could be avoided if OSFC officials had allowed fair and open competition to flurish, instead of allowing Big Labor to browbeat local school officials.

Read our earlier posts for more information on this controversy.

Murray has been the subject of an investigation by the Ohio Inspector General’s office TheTruthAboutPLAs.com covered here and here.

The Columbus Dispatch editorial (“Bias is inexcusable,” 8/19):

Commission exec has duty to help schools get best possible deal on projects

Thursday, August 19, 2010 02:56 AM

Whether state law frowns on favoring union contractors or is silent on the issue, to engage in such a bias when spending public dollars is a bad policy that cheats Ohioans.

The purpose of the Ohio School Facilities Commission is to set standards for and monitor the construction and remodeling of billions of dollars worth of school buildings, paid for by a combination of state bond money and local tax dollars. The commission is charged with getting the best deal for taxpayers, not implementing any governor’s labor-relations philosophy. School-construction contracts certainly should not be used to shower unprecedented largess on the current governor’s favorite special interest.

Richard Murray, whom Gov. Ted Strickland appointed as executive director of the commission, is unabashed by the Ohio inspector general’s report that says he has made plain his preference for union labor when working with local school districts trying to build new schools.

Murray, who was employed for 12 years as Ohio director of a union-advocacy group and who remains a member of Local 423 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, says he doesn’t have to be neutral — that such a requirement “is simply nowhere in law or in rule or in policy of this agency.”

It is, however, the only ethical approach to take when holding the purse strings to about $3 million per day in public spending. Murray is supposed to help local school officials, who aren’t construction experts, make the best deals for their districts. That means soliciting bids and choosing the contractors who can do the work needed for the best price, regardless of whether their employees pay union dues.

The inspector general’s report shows, however, that Murray has pushed districts to sign project-labor agreements, which typically shut out nonunion shops and, consequently, drive up the cost of projects. Such agreements require any workers on the project to be dues-paying union members, if only for the duration of the project.

Nonunion companies often decline to bid rather than comply; fewer companies bidding mean less competition and higher costs.

What were local school-board members and superintendents supposed to think when the union delegation visiting them to lobby for union labor included Murray, the guy who controls the funds? It’s obvious how officials of Scioto County’s Clay Local School District felt, after union bully Gary Coleman, angry that the district was using a nonunion contractor on part of a project, screamed profanities at them in what was supposed to be a business meeting. All that time, Murray sat by silently.

Clay officials eventually signed a project-labor agreement, but they complained to Strickland about Coleman’s and Murray’s behavior.

Murray said later he wasn’t proud of the incident.

He should feel just as bad that his support for unions, rather than for school districts and taxpayers, drives up the cost of projects — even when nobody screams profanities.

Here are some recent articles to put this editorial into context for readers unfamiliar with this controversy:

• Columbus Dispatch: “Blind, deaf schools project to be cut back,” 8/14
  • NBC 4 Video here.
• Columbus Dispatch: “Official says his union bias is allowed,” 8/14
• Columbus Dispatch: “School facilities leader OK with labor agreements,” 8/17

Here’s an excerpt from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Reviews coverage of Onorato’s announcement (“Onorato: CCAC bid limits ‘probably wrong,” 8/15/10) :

“Union, nonunion — everybody has a right to bid,” Onorato told reporters gathered for a news conference on the roof of the County Office Building. “To put a specific percentage on it was probably wrong, and that’s why they were pulled back.”

[snip]

That means nonunion business owners, in some cases, would have to lay off employees to hire from union halls to qualify for the work.

When asked whether it was the college’s decision to require high union participation or the college was following policies of his office, Onorato speculated that CCAC officials may have looked at “old language” from county guidelines.

The Western Pennsylvania Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors has some thoughts on Mr. Onorato’s recognition that PLA requirements are outdated and “probably wrong.”

Here are the highlights from the chapter’s Aug. 16 press release:

ABC Points Out Additional Projects Where Onorato was “probably wrong”

Pittsburgh, PA – Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of Western Pennsylvania are challenging Chief Executive Dan Onorato on more than just the CCAC project and ABC is demanding answers on past practices. In a recent press conference, Chief Executive Dan Onorato stated, “to put a specific percentage on it [project labor agreements] was probably wrong, and that’s why they were pulled back.” Onorato has switched gears since ABC challenged Allegheny County to stop the usage of PLAs on publicly funded projects. Onorato then placed blame on the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) by saying they probably looked at “old language” when writing the bidding proposal. The “old language” used in past practices called for Stabilization Agreements, which did not contain PLAs, contrary to the Chief Executive’s words.

“It’s interesting how the Chief Executive is now against PLAs since receiving pressure from voters,” said Eileen Watt, President of ABC. “Dan Onorato has a history of using unfair bidding practices, cutting out 85% of the construction work-force, and favoring special interests on construction projects. If Onorato is willing to cut out competition, which drives up project costs in Allegheny county, he will do the same for the Commonwealth as Governor,” continued Watt. Allegheny County currently has a $30 million dollar deficit, for which the Chief Executive manages. At a time when the County is seeing a deficit in revenue streams like Three Rivers Casino, additional costs from project labor agreements are wasteful towards taxpayer money.

A sampling of projects which have cut out small businesses by using a PLA include: Kane Hospital last year, Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) two months ago, and Hartwood Acres a few weeks ago – all under Onorato’s leadership. ABC calls on Onorato to admit all projects were “probably wrong” and stop PLAs on all future construction projects.

There is no question that Mr. Onorato’s comments are an important development for those defending free enterprise and open competition on taxpayer funded construction in Pennsylvania.  It appears that these comments show that Mr. Onorato recognizes the discriminatory nature of PLAs and believes that everyone should have an opportunity to compete for public projects.

We call on Mr. Onorato to clarify his remarks.  If he legitimately believes that taxpayer funded construction should be about more than providing handouts to Big Labor and that everyone in the construction industry should have an equal opportunity to compete (not just bid) for public projects, then he should make a strong statement against PLAs and pledge to prohibit government-mandate PLAs on Commonwealth funded projects should he be elected governor.

This is a true test of leadership for Mr. Onorato.  This is an opportunity for him to show that he is not beholden to special interest groups, but truly believes that taxpayers should get the best construction for the best price.  We encourage him to stand up for Pennsylvania taxpayers and say no to PLAs.

As readers of TheTruthAboutPLAs.com have come to find out, project stabilization agreement is just another term for a project labor agreement (PLA).

In other words, new name…same old waste and discrimination.

In response to the PLA requirement in the bid documents, several contractors that would have bid this work and the Western Pennsylvania Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) filed a lawsuit against the community college to seek an immediate injunction barring the school from requiring a PLA as a condition of working on the project.

On Tuesday, August 10, in response to this lawsuit, the college cancelled the bids and put the project on hold while they assess their next move.  This development was covered by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (“CCAC Campus Project Bidding on Hold,” 8/11/10), here is an excerpt from their story:

Associated Builders & Contractors of Western Pennsylvania, the trade group that sued Monday, asked a judge to delay construction on the science center because of a so-called project labor agreement that would require 90 percent of workers to belong to labor unions.

College officials have said the requirement mirrors one Allegheny County uses, but county officials said they do not require agencies to use a specific percentage of union labor. Construction of the center relies heavily on state taxpayer funding.

[snip]

The Tribune-Review detailed the issue in a story Sunday (“CCAC Project Labor Mandate Irks Competitors,” 8/8/10).

Several Pittsburgh-area business owners who are part of the lawsuit said they felt excluded by CCAC’s requirement to include so many union workers, which they said is unfair, hurts competition and increases costs.

“The decision of CCAC to halt bidding may appear to be a success, but does not ensure that future projects will not have a (project labor agreement),” said ABC President Eileen Watt, a former Republican member of Allegheny County Council.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also picked up the story (“CCAC Cancels Bid Deadline for New Science Building,” 8/11/10).

Despite the CCAC Board of Trustees’ wise decision to take a closer look at the procurement process for this particular project, the fact remains that the threat of PLA activity on future construction on the CCAC campus is still very real.

As a result, the ABC Western Pennsylvania Chapter announced Tuesday that they plan to continue their effort to educate the public about the true nature of wasteful and discriminatory PLAs.

Here is an excerpt from the chapter’s August 10 press release:

In response to CCAC’s decision, ABC urges the CCAC board to turn their words into action, more specifically – policy.

“The decision of CCAC to halt bidding may appear to be a success, but does not ensure that future projects will not have a PLA,” said ABC President, Eileen Watt. “This is a political stunt to appease small businesses in order to save elections,” continued Watt. Originally, CCAC intended to issue blanket PLA’s which would apply to all future construction projects – not just the science building.

“ABC will not consider this a victory until we see a policy that rejects PLA-only bids for all CCAC projects in the future,” said ABC Chairman, Robert Glancy, of R.A. Glancy & Sons. In the 2009 general budget, Allegheny County funded $22 million dollars to CCAC. ABC believes that only a vote from County Council or an executive order from Chief Executive, Dan Onorato, will truly protect taxpayer and student tuition. By allowing competition and keeping markets open, prices will be kept down on projects and the taxpayers will then have a win. ABC argues that until Allegheny County Council and Chief Executive Dan Onorato establish a policy in writing that rejects PLA-only projects, there is no victory for the taxpayers of Allegheny County.

It turns out that the ABC Western Pennsylvania Chapter and its members aren’t the only ones opposed to potential PLA mandates on CCAC projects.  The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s editorial board weighed in on August 11 (“A Rotten Deal,” 8/11/10).

Here are the highlights.

The nonunion Associated Builders and Contractors Inc.’s legal challenge to Community College of Allegheny County’s 90-percent union labor requirement for a $21 million science center project is a textbook case of the unfairness of project labor agreements (PLAs) to taxpayers and nonunion workers.

Citing the lawsuit, CCAC has canceled the bid deadline.

The college’s labor agreement places nonunion firms and their employees at an unfair disadvantage that cries out for elimination. Nonunion contractors should be able to bid without hiring union members. And the public deserves better, too, with study after study showing PLAs needlessly raise costs borne by taxpayers.

Even PLAs that don’t require a percentage of union labor but do require that contractors pay “prevailing wages” — such as those used by Butler and Westmoreland counties’ community colleges — inflate taxpayers’ bills. Set artificially high by union-beholden politicians, prevailing wages help maintain unions’ stranglehold on taxpayer-funded construction jobs.

In challenging the CCAC deal, the contractors group (which also is appealing Commonwealth Court’s approval of a PLA for a $400 million prison to the state Supreme Court) — is fighting for fairness and equity and the best bang for the taxpayers’ buck.

There are clearly more developments to come as this situation continues to develop.

This situation is also an important reminder for why it is essential for the Pennsylvania General Assembly to take action on Rep. John Bear’s (R-Lancaster) H.B. 2010, the Open Contracting Act.  This bill would prohibit PLAs on any commonwealth funded construction projects, which would include this new science center on CCAC’s campus.

Please check out our earlier post for more information on wasteful and discriminatory PLAs on Pennsylvania.

Readers of TheTruthAboutPLAs.com know that Murray was accused of using his influence to bully local communities into using PLAs on school construction projects.  Sparked by complaints from several school districts, the Ohio Inspector General’s office started an investigation into Murray’s conduct this winter.

In a scathing report released on August 5th, the Inspector General’s office outlines efforts by Murray and his Big Labor cohorts to shakedown public officials and school boards for lucrative construction contracts.

More on the release of the report itself and early media attention is available on our earlier post.

The editorial boards from the Columbus Dispatch and Akron Beacon Journal have some thoughts on the Inspector General’s report and Murray’s conduct, but both editorial boards also correctly point out who is really to blame here: Gov. Ted Strickland (D).

First, here is an excerpt from the August 8 editorial by the Columbus Dispatch (“Misfeasance: Head of School-Building Agency Erred, but Governor to Blame,” 8/8/10), with our emphasis is added:

As executive director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission, Richard Murray was supposed to act as a good steward of the millions of dollars Ohio pours into new school buildings every day. Instead, a report by the Ohio inspector general shows, he has abused his position to push the interests of unions, including the one to which he belongs, at substantial cost to the state and local school districts.

His unprofessional behavior disqualifies him for this position.

Murray’s union advocacy comes as no surprise; his career before Gov. Ted Strickland appointed him included more than 12 years as Ohio director of the Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust, a union advocacy group. He is a member of Local 423 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America.

Strickland’s decision in September 2009 to summarily oust well-regarded former Executive Director Michael Shoemaker, a fellow Democrat, and replace him with Murray shows that the governor, too, is far more interested in doing favors for one of his primary constituencies — labor — than in working for Ohioans’ best interests. In fact, Murray says he was instructed by the Strickland administration to treat construction unions as “constituents” and to improve relations with them.

Shortly after taking office, Strickland began stacking the deck for unions by appointing union-friendly members to the Facilities Commission, which promptly lifted the policy that prohibited school districts from requiring contractors to pay the union-level “prevailing wage” on their projects.

[snip]

Under Gov. Bob Taft, school districts undertaking jointly financed school building and renovation projects with the School Facilities Commission were barred from requiring prevailing wage or using project-labor agreements, which in effect require any worker on a commission-financed project to join a union, if only temporarily. Such agreements haven’t proved to improve quality or safety but serve to fill union coffers with mandatory dues. The Taft policy ensured that more school-building money went into school buildings.

Reversing that policy was Strickland’s prerogative, and voters can render a judgment. But, according to the inspector general’s findings, instead of remaining impartial and leaving it to school districts to decide if they wanted to pay more for labor, Murray pushed and bullied some of them to do so.

He met frequently with union organizations, introducing himself as a member of Local 423 and asking the union supporters to be his “eyes and ears” on project sites to report problems with nonunion contractors — a clear indication of his bias.

That was bad enough, but Murray went much further to help twist school officials’ arms. When union representatives visited school officials to argue in favor of union labor, Murray — the keeper of the state purse for school construction — sometimes accompanied them, an implicit message to school officials that their best interest lay in acquiescing to union demands.

He bragged about having fired the commission’s legal counsel, who had tangled with organized labor. He disrupted several building projects in southern Ohio by yanking the commission-assigned project administrator because union officials had complained about her, and he did this without bothering to check out the administrator’s record or investigating the union’s complaints. In other cases, too, he interfered in building projects in response to complaints by unions without verifying the allegations.

Also, Murray stood by while union official Gary Coleman screamed profanities at officials of Clay Local School District in Scioto County during a meeting in which Coleman was pushing the reluctant school district to use a project-labor agreement. Coleman was upset because the district was using a nonunion contractor to do site preparation.

That Murray sat silently while Coleman abused the stunned school officials is shameful. Worst of all, Coleman’s tactic worked; the district eventually signed a project-labor agreement.

Not long after, when the New Boston Local School District declined to sign a project-labor agreement, Murray suddenly raised objections to the site chosen for the project; school officials say he told them that if they would accept a labor agreement, his objections could be worked out. Murray disputes the New Boston officials, but the accusation fits the pattern reported by the inspector general.

Most recently, renovation of the combined campuses of the state-administered Ohio State School for the Deaf and Ohio State School for the Blind gave Murray a chance to impose a project-labor agreement without having to pressure a school board into it. He did so, even though the agreement directly benefits the union he belongs to as well as his former employer, the labor trust.

As is typical, the agreement acted to discourage nonunion contractors from bidding, resulting in fewer and predictably higher bids, the lowest coming in $11 million above the state’s $28 million estimate. Now the project will be delayed because, under state law, it must be rebid.

[snip]

Murray’s actions were grossly unprofessional and unacceptable for the head of a state agency in charge of billions of dollars in public money. The governor faces a choice: Remove an administrator who has ill-served the public, or keep him and thereby choose to serve labor’s interests rather than those of Ohio students and taxpayers.

There is no comment necessary from us - the Columbus Dispatch’s editorial speaks for itself.

Let’s check to see what the Akron Beacon Journal has to say in their August 8 editorial (“Hard Labor,” 8/8/10), with our emphasis added:

Hard labor

The inspector general has found a record of poor judgment at the school facilities commission. Now Richard Murray should resign

Richard Murray is a card-carrying union man. He makes no secret of it. And he shouldn’t. But Murray is also the executive director of the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission, which supervises the biggest school construction program the state ever has undertaken. In that capacity, he has an obligation to maintain a strict separation between his personal links to labor unions and his duty to ensure the program proceeds in a manner that is scrupulously fair and transparent, the results cost-effective.

Last week, the Ohio inspector general released a report on Murray’s dealings with regard to union and non-union contractors. The independent investigation stemmed from growing complaints that Murray was steering contracts to union contractors, cutting out nonunion contractors by aggressively pushing project labor agreements.

The report found no indication the executive director violated the law. The conclusions, nonetheless, are deeply disturbing and raise questions about Murray’s capacity to be sound in his judgment on contract awards. His actions have comprised his credibility to a degree that the integrity of his decisions — and ultimately of the commission and the project as a whole — almost surely will face constant suspicion, damaging his effectiveness in the office.

To protect public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the program, Murray should step down.

The report concluded Murray ”repeatedly failed in his responsibility to remain neutral on union matters” in ways large and small, thereby abusing his authority. It found the director engaged in intimidation and created the appearance of impropriety.

For instance, Murray participated in negotiations and later signed, a labor agreement to construct the schools for the deaf and the blind in Columbus that involved the Ohio Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust. Murray previously headed the organization, which helps union workers and contractors win construction contracts. He also belongs to a union, Local 423, that was part of the agreement. According to the report, both groups could collect dues of up to $145,000 from the agreement.

Ohio newspaper editorial boards are not the only ones to call for Murray’s resignation in the last week.  Here is an excerpt from Associated Builders and Contractors of Ohio’s August 5 press release:

The Inspector General’s (IG) August 5, 2010 report on the conduct of the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) executive director Richard Murray, sheds new light on possible criminal behavior and an ongoing pattern of abuse of office. “Based on these documented findings, Richard Murray should resign or be terminated so the OSFC can return to performing its important work in a fair and legal manner,” said ABC of Ohio government affairs director Bryan C. Williams.

ABC of Ohio applauds the Inspector General’s office for recognizing where there is smoke there is fire – where there is coercion, there is corruption.

Richard Murray decided to implement a union-only project labor agreement for the construction of the Ohio School for the Deaf. The IG’s report calculated this will result in a payday of at least $145,000 for Mr. Murray’s former union employer. It must be noted the Mr. Murray sought an ethics opinion several months earlier inquiring whether or not he could accept an above the table payment from his former union employer, the Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust (LECET), as a consultant while simultaneously serving as the OSFC executive director.

Surprisingly enough, the Columbus Dispatch reports that Gov. Strickland is standing by Murray as head of the OSFC. Gov. Strickland also claims that his dismissal of Murray’s predecessor as OSFC Director, Mike Shoemaker, was not motivated by Big Labor’s demands.

Here is an excerpt from the Columbus Dispatch article on Gov. Strickland’s response (“Governor Stands by Facilities Chief,” 8/7/10), with our emphasis added:

Gov. Ted Strickland yesterday defended embattled School Facilities Commission Director Richard Murray, rejecting the finding from a state investigation that Murray abused his position in an effort to benefit labor unions.

The governor also flatly denied any suggestion that he fired Mike Shoemaker, the previous director, and installed Murray, a former union official, last year to ensure continued union support and financial backing.

“Absolutely not,” Strickland said when asked about the allegation after an event at the Ohio State Fair.

But Shoemaker, an ex-state lawmaker and son of a former lieutenant governor, insisted that his firing was a result of union pressure on the Strickland administration.

Shoemaker said he thinks the governor’s office is using him as a scapegoat to deflect the inspector general’s report.

[snip]

Still, e-mails obtained by The Dispatch show that Strickland’s prepared remarks for a speech at the Construction Trades Education Conference in Columbus on April 28 included the comment, “we have made project-labor agreements and prevailing wages a priority.”

The report from Charles also suggests that Strickland replaced Shoemaker with Murray last year “in part, to improve relations with unions and ensure that unions were regarded as ‘constituents’ or ’stakeholders’ at the (commission).”

In a transcript of Shoemaker’s March 22 interview with the inspector general’s office, Shoemaker goes a step further: He suggests that union groups wanted him replaced and threatened to withhold support for Strickland if he wasn’t.

“(M)y understanding is there was a meeting the week of July 20th (2009, a week before Shoemaker was fired) with some labor folks with the governor and they said Shoemaker has to go or we’re not going to give you the 400 grand,” the transcript says. “That was the price on my head.”

Shoemaker said yesterday that his information was “second-hand but from a good source.” He could provide no additional details.

One of the most under-reported but apparent trends of the 2010 gubernatorial races is embattled incumbent Democrats aggressively promoting PLAs in a transparent attempt to garner favor with Big Labor (See: Iowa and Illinois).  While the Inspector General’s report outlines the history of the OSFC promoting PLAs throughout the Strickland administration, it is clear that the intensity of this effort increased as the 2010 election approached.

The people of Ohio will have to choose whether they want four more years of Big Labor handouts on November 2.  In the meantime, it is clear that Richard Murray has lost all credibility and needs to step aside.

UPDATE: The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-Register in the Ohio Valley has also weighed in via a 8/10 editorial, “Stop Catering To Ohio Unions” available here:

For several years the Ohio School Facilities Commission’s philosophy was that taxpayers’ dollars should be stretched as far as possible. That changed not long after Gov. Ted Strickland took office. It became clear the governor intended to strengthen his friendship with labor unions that helped get him elected. [snip]

Obviously, Murray needs to be sent packing. The school facilities commission should have a new executive director – one more concerned with making tax dollars go as far as possible than with currying favor with labor unions.

The commission’s policy on prevailing wage contracts needs to change, too. Strickland is using taxpayers’ money to gain support from unions – and Ohio voters should not tolerate it.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s editorial, “Ohio school facilities director must go,” 8/10, gave this wise advice:

Murray, whether he believes it or not, has compromised the credibility of his office. Should he fail to resign, Strickland should give him a push. That might be politically expedient, but it’s also the right thing to do.

The Chillicothe Gazette editorial, “Richard Murray should quit or be shown door,” 8/12, said this:

Do the right thing, Governor.

If Murray doesn’t hand you a resignation letter, do him — and yourself — a favor and show him the door. And this time, find a school facilities head who really has students, teachers and Ohio’s families in mind.

The Toledo Blade editorial, “Union ties too tight,” 8/16, warns the charges in the Ohio IG’s report are too serious to ignore and calls Richard Murray a “union hack”:

…But these are serious charges that should not be dismissed cavalierly. As director of the commission, Mr. Murray oversees $2.8 million a day in school construction spending. He has great authority over every stage of school construction projects throughout the state. What he says, what he doesn’t say, whom he associates with – all these things matter and can influence decisions made by local school officials.

And the charges should matter as well to Mr. Strickland, whose strong ties to labor leave him open to accusations of pandering to big donors. If the report by the independent, nonpartisan inspector general’s office is accurate – and there is no reason to assume otherwise – Mr. Murray is a union hack who doesn’t deserve the governor’s support.

In this instance, TheTruthAboutPLAs.com has covered how former Big Labor boss Richard Murray, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland’s (D) appointed director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC), is under investigation for forcing school districts to utilize anti-competitive project labor agreement (PLA) schemes that funnel lucrative school construction contracts to unionized contractors and union labor after these special interest groups have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Strickland’s campaign.

Besides the obvious corruption inherent in such crony contracting, the real outrage is that taxpayers are forced to shoulder exorbitant premiums - sometimes a 20 percent markup – resulting from inefficient union work rules and a lack of competition from qualified merit shop contractors and their skilled and local nonunion employees who are effectively prevented from competing for contracts because of union-favoring PLAs.

Unfortunately, the PLA crony contracting isn’t limited to Ohio. In one of his first acts after taking office, President Obama signed Executive Order 13502, which encourages federal agencies to require PLAs on federal construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost. It was widely viewed as a favor to Big Labor after they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Democrats running for office in Congress and around the country during the last election cycle. 

Released this morning, the Ohio Inspector General’s report (and supporting evidence, see exhibit 1-12 and 13-26) is remarkable because the investigation is thorough, the evidence is overwhelming and the findings echo the hundreds of stories and emails sent to TheTruthAboutPLAs.com since we launched this blog in April of 2009 from concerned citizens, elected officials, contractors and construction employees and their families victimized by Big Labor’s special interest PLA racket.

The public and honest elected officials need to understand that this is the unfortunate and frequent reality when building trades union officials with a bias towards union members and union contractors are elected or appointed to positions of public trust.

Check out some key excerpts from Ohio Inspector General’s report after the jump:

• Our investigation found that the administration removed its previous OSFC director and appointed Murray in September 2009, in part, to improve relations with unions and ensure that unions were regarded as “constituents” or “stakeholders” at the OSFC. Murray had been a longtime union leader when he was appointed OSFC director. Rather than put unions on equal footing, we found that Murray provided them with undue access and accommodations. In ways large and small, Murray repeatedly failed in his responsibility to remain neutral on union matters.
• On April 22, 2010, Murray announced to the Commission that he would engage in a PLA for a $37 million project at the combined Columbus campuses of the Ohio School for the Deaf, and the Ohio State School for the Blind. In the absence of a local school district partner, the General Assembly granted the OSFC sole management authority. For Murray, adopting a PLA was more than a controversial policy decision; it posed what we believe to be an appearance of impropriety. Typical of PLAs, the agreement dictates a certain amount of each union employee’s hourly wages will be deducted for the local union hall, as well as for regional and state union umbrella groups. However, in this case, Murray belongs to Local 423, one of the unions engaged in the PLA. Local 423 will receive union dues from employees on the project; and, under the terms of the PLA Murray signed, Murray’s former employer, LECET, also will be paid for each hour of employee work. Separately, LECET’s partner organization, the Ohio Laborers’ District Council, also will receive a portion of each union employee’s wages. While the precise value of the PLA for these three union groups will not be known until the project is completed, we conservatively estimate the payouts could total $145,000. Given his ties to these groups, Murray should not have been involved in negotiating this PLA, nor should he have signed it.
• Encouraging union workers, regardless of whether they worked on a job site, to snoop on non-union contractors was an abuse of Murray’s authority on several levels. Not only was Murray inappropriately making plain his preference for union construction, he literally mobilized union labor against non-union contractors. These two factions compete for OSFC work and sometimes work side-by-side on projects. Promoting discord and taking sides demonstrated exceedingly poor judgment on Murray’s part.
• On numerous occasions Murray also accompanied union officials when they attempted to persuade local school officials to adopt a PLA. During one such meeting, the union representative berated school officials with profanities and racial slurs for 15 minutes while Murray sat silently by his side.
• Murray also made significant personnel and building-design decisions, based solely on complaints from union or trade representatives, without making any effort to substantiate the complaints. Murray immediately fired the OSFC chief legal counsel, who was unpopular with organized labor, and boasted about it at union meetings. When a union official complained about personality clashes with an OSFC project administrator in southern Ohio, Murray pulled her off several projects without verifying the complaint or even reviewing her work history or personnel file.
• Similarly, the Ohio Masonry Association, which represents union and non-union masons, complained about some school districts opting for OSFC-approved poured concrete walls, which eliminate the need for masons and bricklayers. Murray promptly suspended their use. Murray made the decision without checking the association’s claims about poured walls being inferior or soliciting opposing viewpoints.
• On January 8, 2010, Murray sought an Ohio Ethics Commission advisory opinion about whether he could work as a paid consultant for LECET [Murray was previously employed by a construction union advocacy group, the Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust]. Murray withdrew the request before the Ohio Ethics Commission could issue a determination, but for Murray to even consider such an arrangement was an astonishing indication of his divided loyalties.
• In the course of our investigation, we determined that the OSFC, which spends more than $1 billion a year, relies on a system prone to oversights and inconsistencies in the bidding process. The system, while predating Murray’s tenure, enabled Murray to impose his pro-union biases where there should have been better-defined policies and procedures. In particular, the OSFC lacks a uniform process for evaluating bids and disqualifying bidders that performed poorly on past OSFC projects. These shortcomings made the OSFC and Murray vulnerable to allegations of wrongful acts and omissions, and left them poorly positioned to defend themselves. As part of this report, we are making several recommendations, including standardization of the OSFC’s bid evaluation process, the documentation of contractors’ past performance, and clarification of the process for disqualifying “non-responsible” bidders. We also are recommending that the Commission take action to ensure the executive director demonstrates neutrality regarding school districts’ selection of contractors, regardless of prevailing wage or PLA matters.

Here is an excerpt from Ms. Alford’s letter (“Writer Won’t be Intimidated by Pro-Union Threat,” 7/27/10), with our emphasis added:

The presentations [for and against PLAs} given by the trade unions and the Connecticut chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors were informative and well done except for one thing. The trade union presentation never actually explained what a PLA is. We saw pictures of and heard about successful PLA projects and we heard a lot about what unions do but never got the details about PLAs. Thankfully, Lelah Campo from the Connecticut chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors supplied that pertinent information.

At the end of the day, both committees voted overwhelmingly against approving a PLA.

My congratulations to these hardworking volunteers for voting to keep the projects as open as a prevailing-wage project can be and making it possible for both union and merit tradesmen and women to have a chance to work in Bristol for Bristol; for being committed to getting the best possible price when spending the taxpayers’ money; and for saying to everyone that they believe in fairness to all.

But I must relay a not-so-nice incident from last night. As I was walking out of the Forestville School Committee meeting after the vote, and making my way through the crowd of union workers and union leaders near the door, someone — I don’t know who because he made sure I couldn’t turn my head to see him — whispered these words to me: “Just think about how hard the unions are going to work against you in your next campaign.”

To put that comment in perspective so that it makes some sense, some may remember that I ran for mayor last year and, at last night’s meeting, spoke against the PLA before the West Side School Committee.

So, was it a union member? A union leader? Does it matter? I don’t know, but comments like that — some might even say threats — are intended to intimidate, frighten and otherwise make someone think twice about disagreeing with the unions out loud. Whoever it was demonstrated the reputation of unions as a bunch of bullies and thugs, only interested in themselves — and you had better not cross them, by God, or else.

Whether or not I ever choose to run for office again is not the point, and not important. What is important is that somebody is comfortable with using threats and intimidation to silence any and all opposition or as a payback tactic for those who do oppose them.

Funny how much this kind of thing resembles the practices of the bosses of the past who unions are so proud to tell you they fought until workplaces were safe and wages were “fair.”

Not so funny is the fact that this kind of thing reflects back on the entire rank and file, making them “guilty by association.” Call me naïve, but I do not believe, nor will you ever convince me, that the majority of hard-working union members approve of such tactics. They don’t.

To the man who decided it was okay to attempt to intimidate me, politically or otherwise, nice try, buddy. But I don’t scare that easily and I am completely unimpressed by cowards.

Mary Alford

Bristol

Ms. Alford makes two very important points in her letter.  The first is obvious.  Threatening behavior with the intent to intimidate others is unacceptable.  If Ms. Alford’s account is true, and there is no reason to believe it is not, then this is a clear case of union cronies threatening a concerned citizen and past candidate for public office.  There is no place for this type of behavior in public debates.

The other important point is that in this case – as with many others – Big Labor is short on details when it comes to the actual provisions of PLAs.  Labor bosses show up at public meetings like this, say that PLAs will do everything short of guarantee world peace and then expect public officials to accept these claims as fact.

The true intent of these agreements starts to become clear when public officials take the time to examine a typical PLA.  Please visit our earlier post, “Project Labor Agreement Basics: What is a PLA,” to see what we mean.