Mediaboss Marketing

Republican lawmakers are frustrated with mounting dissent from civil servants over President Trump's policies.

Amidunusually public tension between federal employees and the new administration including Trumps firing of the acting attorney general, State Department dissent and frequent leaks to the media some of Trump's allies in Congress want federal employees to either do their jobs or get out.

When someone works full time for the government, it should be no surprise to them that they serve at the pleasure of the [president], Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), chairman of the powerful Rules Committee, told The Hill.

Im not interested in politics by an agency employee.

But others in the GOP are looking to tamp down the tension and go back to business as usual.

I know this was a hotly contested election and we do not all feel the same way about the outcome. Each of us is entitled to the expression of our political beliefs, but we cannot let our personal convictions overwhelm our ability to work as one team, he said.

Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) told The Hill that things will ultimately calm down once the new administration gets settled in.

Im an optimistic person, any time you see a big change, folks are going to react to it when their livelihoods are at stake, she said.

Its going to be a long, bumpy ride, and eventually everything will shake out.

Trump came into office having made few friends among the career employees who staff government agencies in Washington.

His drain the swamp mantra and immediate freeze on federal hiring was undoubtedly a tough sell among those who count on the bureaucracy for their livelihoods. Voters in the District of Columbia responded by delivering Democrat Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump was right: Media is the 'opposition party' 'South Park' creators say they'll 'back off' Trump Republicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants MORE an 89-point victory over Trump, and she won handily in nearby Maryland and Virginia districts, too.

But the expected clash between Trump and the civil service reached a new level late last week, when Trump signed an executive order freezing the refugee program and banning citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The secrecy involved in the orders production, prompted in part by a White House staff worried about media leaks, created confusion in federal agencies trying to implement the order. And on Monday, Trump fired acting attorney general Sally Yates, an Obama administration holdover,after she refused to defend his executive order in court.

Along with the pink slip, the White House said Yates had "betrayed" the government in a statement.

That same day, White House press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed an internal State Department dissent document that pushes back against Trumps immigration executive order.Nearly 1,000 diplomats reportedly signed the memo.

They should either get with the program or they can go, Spicer said. He followed upon Wednesdayby explaining that while all Americans have a right to speak their mind, its their job to help the president enact his agenda.

Democratic Rep. Gerry ConnollyGerry ConnollyRepublicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants Lawmakers join women's marches in DC and nationwide GOP, Dems hear different things from Trump MORE, whose Northern Virginia district includes a significant number of civil servants, told The Hill that concerned federal employees are reaching out to his office.

Dozens of social media accounts purporting to belong to spurned agency staffers have popped up to muddy the administrations message.The unverified accounts appeared after Trump administration clamped down on multiple agencies social media activity in response to the National Park Service retweeting a photo comparison showing that Trumps inaugural crowd was smaller than former President Obamas.

This week, a Washington Post reportdescribeda civil servant support group in Washington, noting that 180 employees are expected to attend a workshop where experts will offer advice on workers rights and how they can express civil disobedience.

For all the talk about civil servants and their consciences, though, Rep. Bill FloresBill FloresRepublicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants Republicans who oppose, support Trump refugee order Overnight Tech: Trump meets Alibaba founder | Uber to make some data public | GOP Lawmakers tapped for key tech panels MORE (R-Texas) thinks the issue is simple.

I dont think its rocket science. All they have to do is do their job, Flores said.

If they dont want to do their jobs, they should get another job.

GOP lawmakers say that civil service dissent isntabout free speech.

We should have more debate in this country. Now thats a different thing than if you have a job to serve the president in the executive branch and advance his responsibilities, which are to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),a frequent Trump critic during the campaign, told The Hill.

We need toreinin these independent agencies and make them accountable to the president again, regardless of who the president is.

Some Republicans floated questions about whether dissenting employees could be violating the federal Hatch Actby using their official positions for political action. But while there were sporadic calls for punishment, most lawmakers wouldnt speculate as to what the best form of recourse should be.

To express political overtones by a government employee I would think violates the Hatch Act, and I would think that anyone who has begun this process should go through a procedure consistent with a violation of the Hatch Act, Sessions,the Texas lawmaker,said.

It concerns me, and I think it should be looked at and adjudicated as necessary to the rules of the department.

Democratic lawmakers that spoke to The Hill were united around the dissenting civil servants, framing their opposition to Trumps policies as protected speechthats about less about politics and more about protecting the missions of federal agencies.

People in civil service are committed to what they believe the mission of their agency isthey have a conscience and they have the ability to speak up, said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), a longtime member of Democratic leadership.

We have free speech in this national and they are, from the depths of their own conscience, talking about what they thing is the right thing.

When asked by The Hill what she thought of Republican worries that dissent could set a dangerous precedent for employees looking to frustrate a presidents agenda, DeLauro responded, Generally, this White House worries me.

Read more:
Republicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants - The Hill

Republicans trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act have a new problem on their hands: The AARP isnt happy.

The nations most famous retiree organization, which represents 38 million older Americans, has fired off letters critical of two proposals that have figured prominently in GOP discussions about replacing the Affordable Care Act. One of those proposals would relax the laws age bands. The other would transform Medicaid into a so-called block grant.

And its not just letters the AARP is sending. A spokesperson for the organization confirmed that it is asking its members to call lawmakers who sit on the health subcommittee for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which took up these ideas in a hearing Thursday.

The AARPs objections alone arent enough to stop Republicans from including versions of these ideas in health care legislation, of course. But the organization represents a demographic that happens to be an essential part of the Republican voting coalition.

Taken together, the groups warnings constitute one more reminder of the difficult policy trade-offs, and equally difficult politics, that Republicans are sure to confront as their effort to repeal Obamacare moves forward.

The creation of age bands was among the more important changes that the Affordable Care Act introduced for insurers selling directly to individuals. Previously, insurers in most states could adjust premiums based on the expected medical needs of new customers which meant, inevitably, charging older customers a lot more than younger ones.

The Affordable Care Act put a stop to that, by stipulating that insurers could charge their oldest customers no more than three times what they charge their youngest ones. This requirement is a big reason why many younger people pay more for insurance now than they did before the health care law came along.

Republicans love to talk about how relaxing or eliminating the age bands would mean lower premiums for younger people. And thats true, even if the benefits for young consumers would beless dramatic than Republicans sometimes suggest.

What Republicans dont mention is that, as a consequence, premiums for older people would go back up again. And in Wednesdays letter, the AARP warned that such a change could hurt people just as theyre getting to the age when medical problems become more common. Such a change, the group warned, would severely limit, not expand, access to quality, affordable healthcare.

As for Medicaid, Republicans have been talking about converting it into a block grant since long before Obamacare. The idea is to give states much more control over the program and, more importantly, to reduce the programs funding perhaps by a dramatic amount. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the most recent budget from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would mean 33 percent less spending within the decade.

Republicans boast about these savings for the federal Treasury, along with the control it would give governors who bristle under Washingtons oversight. But with less money to spend, states wouldnt be able to finance as many benefits for as many people.

Theyd have to make cuts of their own some of which would almost surely fall on older people, particularly since the majority of spending in Medicaid goes to elderly and disabled people who use it to supplement Medicare. Among other things, Medicaid is the nations largest payer of nursing home care.

Predictably, the AARP has noticed this too.

Disabling conditions that affect older adults include Alzheimers disease, stroke, and chronic and disabling heart conditions, the organization said in its letter. Individuals may have low incomes, high costs, or already spent through their resources paying out-of-pocket for [long-term care], and need these critical services. For these individuals, Medicaid is a program of last resort.

The AARP has a broad policy agenda, including two other items protecting Medicare and Social Security from cuts that are generally higher institutional priorities. But changes to the health care law and Medicaid are bound to affect millions of its members negatively. The AARP isnt going to stay quiet about that. Its safe to assume the group will also be reminding Republicans that older Americans voted for President Donald Trump and GOP candidates by large margins.

And its not like the AARP is the only group that is going to take a very active interest in what happens to the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans talk a lot about financing their schemes with changes to the tax treatment of employer health insurance. Thats bound to raise screams from both businesses and unions (just like a similar provision of the Affordable Care Act has).

Most Republican ideas for replacing the law involve some combination of fewer people insured and weaker coverage for those who have insurance. That doesnt sit well with hospitals, which end up taking losses when people who need care cant pay for it.

And then there are the proposed changes to Medicaid, which would be sure to alienate not just the AARP but a whole bunch of other constituencies, not least among them Republican governors who presided over expansion in their states.

Republicans can negotiate with these potential critics to win their consent, or at least mute their concerns. But trade-offs in health policy are inevitable, and every accommodation that Republicans offer to a group like the AARP, employers, hospitals or GOP governors will show up as a cost for somebody else.

Meanwhile, the negotiations themselves are bound to take time and effort, and create plenty of embarrassing news stories again, just as they did for Democrats in 2009 and 2010, when President Barack Obama and his allies were crafting the legislation Republicans now seek to erase.

Democrats were willing to endure that bad publicity and, more broadly, to stick with a politically difficult process, even as it dragged out for over a year because making health care available to everybody had been one of the partys most important priorities for something like three-quarters of a century.

Recent news suggests Republicans can expect a similarly difficult experience if they proceed. Already, lawmakers are getting flooded with calls and hearing from protesters worried about losing insurance. And if the polls are correct, the public suddenly feels more favorably about the ACA than it did before perhaps because the prospect of losing the program is making people think about the parts they like.

At last weeks party retreat in Philadelphia, during a private meeting recorded and leaked to the press, Republican lawmakers talked openly of their inability to deliver promises of better care at lower costs. Over the weekend, Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) practically begged his supporters to start speaking out, because town halls have gotten so difficult.

And on Tuesday, in an interview with Vox, Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) admitted that rolling back the Medicaid expansion is going to be a little harder than I thought because so many people, in so many states, have come to depend on the program.

Republicans still have the votes in Congress to pass repeal legislation, and in Trump they have a president who would sign that bill into law. Having invested so much time in the cause, having made such concrete promises to their voters and the many people unhappy with how Obamacare has worked for them, GOP leaders would find it difficult to walk away.

But seeing repeal through the legislative process would require an enormous investment of political capital and time leaving less of each for tax reform, spending bills and other priorities. And thats to say nothing of how people would feel about a world in which the Affordable Care Act were gone to be replaced, maybe, with a system in which people face even greater exposure to medical bills.

Thats a high political price to pay. Republicans will have to decide if its worth it.

This story has been updated with further details about the AARPs outreach efforts.

Want more updates on policy & politics from Jonathan Cohn? Sign up for his newsletter, Citizen Cohn, here.

Continued here:
Another Warning Sign For Republicans Trying To Repeal Obamacare - Huffington Post

On the same day Congress confirmed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, it took a step towardreversing a law hed fought against as the head of oil giant Exxon Mobil.

The Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to overturn a regulation that was part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law andrequired oil, gas and mining companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments. If the Senate follows the Houses lead, it could send a stark signal to the rest of the world that rooting out corruption is no longer a U.S. government priority, critics say.

Related: Senate confirms Rex Tillerson as Donald Trumps secretary of state

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

The oil and gas industry has long fought against the provisionyet to go into effectto increase transparency in the oil and gas sector, a proposal that had bipartisan support when it was folded into the Dodd-Frank law. The aim wasto shine a light on an industry that has long been accused of fuelingcorruption in the developing world by paying autocratic leaders and corrupt cabinet ministers for energy and mining contractswhile local citizens remain mired in poverty.

Its very clear that the transparency with regards to those receipts has simply been lacking,explains former Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican sponsor of the original provision.

Since the United States first passed the law, numerous others have followed suit, including the European Union, Norway, Hong Kong and Canada, home to many of the worlds largest energy and mining companies. While the U.S. has dragged its feet in implementing the regulation, dozens of other governments now enforce these disclosure requirements.

Thats mooted one of the primary arguments the energy industry has made against the measurethat it puts American oil and gas companies at a disadvantage compared withtheir competitors in other countries. First, the U.S. law is not limited to American companies, since it applies to anyone that files an annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those that list on the New York Stock Exchange. Chinas state-controlled CNOOC Limited, for example, lists on the NYSEas well as the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, which has similar disclosure requirements.

In addition, the EUs adoption of new disclosure standardsmeans companies listing on the London Stock Exchangeincluding Russian state-run outfits like Rosneft and Lukoilare already disclosing their foreign payments, Lugar points out. If anything, says UCLA political science professor Michael Ross, companies like Exxon and Chevron will actually gain an advantage over most of their largest competitors if Congress overturns the law.

And the timing, nearly simultaneouswith Tillersons swearing-in as secretary ofstate, is sure to raise eyebrows abroad. Its well-known that Americas two most powerful oil companies have opposed the measure. So has the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas sectors main lobbying arm, which in 2012 filed a lawsuit challenging the provision. Aformer Lugar aide, who helped the senator write the measure,tells Newsweek that Tillerson personally came to the Indiana Republicans office to lobbyLugar against the provision. Among other things, he said it would harm Exxons relations with Russia, the aide writes in an email. (An Exxon spokesman did not reply to a request for comment about its position on the measure.)

Should Congress move forward with the repeal, bucking international standards in the name of American oil and gas primacy, I guarantee its going to undermine [Tillersons] credibility with our allies, says Isabel Munilla, senior policy adviser for Oxfam America, a leading supporter of the law.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, prime minister at the time of this picture, with Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson at a signing ceremony in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, August 30, 2011. Alexsey Druginyn/RIA Novosti/Pool/Reuters

At the State Department, Tillerson will now be overseeing global anti-corruption efforts, including in some of the countries where Exxon has contracts. In 2016, then-Secretary of State John Kerry launched a $70 million Integrity Initiative to support local reformers, police, prosecutors, detectives, judges and journalists overseas in the fight against corruption. Yet Ross worries that Congresss repeal of the disclosure rule will send the exact opposite message to the dictators of oil-rich countries seeking to cultivate personal ties with the new Trump administration.

It doesnt take a genius to see giving a contract to Exxon is going to buy you access tothe White House and the State Department, says Ross, who studies resource-rich countries and is on the federal advisory board of the multinational Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This has to be giving Exxon an edge, again, in countries precisely where the process of awarding concessions and awarding contracts is not done solely on merit.

Even with energy sector disclosures now required inmore than 30 countries around the globe, Republican opponents continue to repeat the claim that the law will single out American companies. This is an imposition on the oil and gas industry that their competitors in China and elsewhere dont have to do, insistsJames Inhofe, who has introduced the companion measure to the House-passed resolution.

Inhofecomplained that hundreds of millions of dollars in implementation costs would have to be borne by our companies and not by foreign companies. When it was pointed out that those same implementation costs would apply to any companies that file with the SEC, not just American companies, the Oklahoma Republican replied,No, this would be on anyone negotiating an energy plan in competition.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has reiterated similar claims, and a spokesman explained via email that he was referring to the fact that U.S. companies will have to report proportional share of government payments even if the U.S. company is not the operator of a specific project, something foreign competitors do not have to adhere to. But Ross disputes that, saying the EU requirements are actually stricter in several ways.

Inhofe is hopeful the Senate will move quickly to vote on his repeal resolution, after the House easily passed the measure with near-unanimous Republican support. Thanks to a law known as the Congressional Review Act, Congress can overturn any regulations issued under President Barack Obama since June of last year by a simplemajority vote. The Oklahoma senator tells Newsweek he gave a presentation to his colleagues on the issue at the Senate Republicans conference lunch on Tuesday, and there was no opposition.

In remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday evening,Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised to hold a vote on the repeal resolution soon.But not every Republican is sold on the ideaGeorgia Senator Johnny Isakson says hes still weighing the complex issue and has yet to make a decision. Two other GOP senators would also have to defect to blockthe repeal effort.

If that doesnt happen, the American energy industry can chalk up another political victory in the early days of theTrump administration. Already, its allies have been installed at the State and Energy departments, and one is likely to lead the Environmental Protection Agencyas well. Trump has given the green light to two controversial energy pipeline projects, andon Wednesday eveningthe Senate moved forward with a measure to repeal an Obama environmental regulationtargeting the coal industry. Clearly, energy interests have new heft in Republican-controlled Washington.

It is striking to me how important [Republicans] consider it, Ross says of the transparency requirements. There are thousands of Obama regulations that could be targeted, and this is somehow at the top of the list, along with a handful of others. Congress is trying to zoom this through.

The rest is here:
Republicans Make It Easier to Keep Big Oil Payments to Foreign Governments a Secret - Newsweek

Progressive groups and Democratic organizations are raising money at a pace more closely resembling the frenzied weeks before an election than the typically sleepy months just after one. | Getty

Fighting President Donald Trump is proving lucrative.

The American Civil Liberties Union raised $24 million in online donations last weekend. That sum, taken in while the group was waging a legal struggle against Trumps executive order banning travel by citizens of certain countries, is more than six times what the group typically raises online in an entire year.

Story Continued Below

And other progressive groups and Democratic organizations are having similar fundraising success, raising money at a pace more closely resembling the frenzied weeks before an election than the typically sleepy months just after one. Democratic congressional groups, state-level candidates and nonprofit or advocacy groups also are reaping millions from pledges to oppose Trump and stand up for progressive values in the early days of his administration.

The fundraising wave has even buoyed little-known Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat whom the liberal Daily Kos website endorsed last Thursday for a House special election. Daily Kos members have since donated nearly $400,000 to Ossoff more than the group had ever directed to any campaign other than Elizabeth Warrens 2012 Senate run.

We fully expected, under any Republican president, to see an increase in everything from donations to organic following, said Greg Berlin, a Democratic digital strategist in Washington whose clients include Ossoff. But with Trump, its like everything is multiplied.

Ossoff is running in the district held by Rep. Tom Price, Trumps nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Although the traditionally conservative district has not elected a Democrat in decades, Trump barely carried it over Hillary Clinton in November, and enthusiastic Democrats hope a special election following Price's expected confirmation will turn into a referendum against Trump.

We think [Ossoff] could be our first million-dollar candidate ever, and soon, Daily Kos political director David Nir wrote in an email. And one reason we think so is that our email list which weve been building up for many years has jumped from 2 million on Election Day to 3 million now.

Other organizations have seen their email lists balloon, too. The DCCC said Thursday that its list swelled by 675,000 (more than 20 percent) in January, as it raised more than $4.1 million online surpassing fundraising in any odd-year month ever.

Mindy Myers, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Tuesday that her group is on track to be one of the best the DSCC has seen in an off-year. And the Democratic Governors Association said its digital fundraising total this January was 11 times more than in January 2015, although a spokesman declined to give exact figures.

Its an encouraging sign for the elections starting in New Jersey and Virginia this year, DGA spokesman Jared Leopold said. Democrats are fired up and ready to participate.

The broadest signal of the financial wave comes from ActBlue, the widely used digital fundraising platform for Democratic candidates and causes (and a growing number of nonprofit groups), which raised its 1.5-billionth dollar in January. The organization took 10 years to reach the $1 billion mark last March; ActBlue took less than a year to raise the next half-billion dollars, including more than $25 million in January, compared with $6 million in January 2015.

People are looking for ways to have their voices heard at this moment, said Erin Hill, executive director of ActBlue. For some, its going to a march or rally, for others, its contributing online to an organization they are supporting, and for some, its all of the above.

ActBlue also signed up more than 100,000 new users in January for its Express feature. That function saves credit card information so that donors can make one-click donations in the future on any ActBlue pages, which most Democratic congressional campaigns use for online fundraising.

Similar jumps across Democratic politics cover everything from fundraising totals to email list size to fans on social media. Outspoken Democratic senators like Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, who are also among the subjects of 2020 presidential speculation, saw their Twitter followings spike in January. Booker has gained about a quarter-million followers since Jan. 1, while Gillibrands more modest account still grew nearly 50 percent, from about 214,000 followers to 307,000.

Other senators campaigns actively demonstrated how Democrats are trying to take advantage of the energy in their party. Several running for reelection in 2018, including Wisconsins Tammy Baldwin and Ohios Sherrod Brown, recently replaced the front pages of their campaign websites with landing pages, urging visitors to sign petitions opposing Trumps immigration order, adding more email addresses to their campaign lists. (Browns campaign declined to comment and Baldwins did not respond to a request for comment.)

Political enthusiasm is by no means restricted to the left at the moment Trumps campaign and affiliated committees just reported raising millions in small-dollar donations in December, as Trump and his supporters basked in the afterglow of his victory.

But the large protests Trump sparked in the first two weekends of his presidency are a sign of the huge organizing potential on the left at this moment, said Berlin, the Democratic strategist. Showing up for something in person is typically the really high bar of what a campaign will ask of supporters. Making a small donation and especially signing an online petition is much easier, and it has happened by the millions in the past two weeks.

The last time there was a Republican president in his first term, there was no such thing as online fundraising or organizing, Berlin said. So, were in a lot of uncharted water here.

Joe Rospars, who was the chief digital strategist on former President Barack Obamas campaigns, noted that new groups popping up amid the surge in activism may prompt a second wave of eye-catching results later, even if the current energy on the left fades.

There are these groups that are just starting and getting a ton of interest and people signing up, but they may not even have a bank account yet, Rospars said. ... So there will be a delayed effect of whats happening now when some of these new organizations mechanically get things going and put down their roots.

People are doing Part One now, but I think its going to continue even if the moment comes down, Rospars continued.

Read this article:
Progressives pour cash into anti-Trump resistance - Politico

Dozens of Democratic politicians and progressives are calling for investigations into Mickey Kasparian, the influential union leader who was accused late last year of sexually harassing one of his employees and retaliating against two others.

In a letter sent to the executive boards of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 135, the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, and the state and county Democratic parties, the group said Kasparian must be suspended from his position at both labor organizationsthrough the duration of the independent investigations.

Separately, the Democratic Womans Club of San Diego wrote a letter to the county Democratic Party asking that Kasparian be suspended from his role as a delegate to the partys state Central Committee.

And Lee Burdick, former legal adviser and chief off staff to former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, likewise urged inthe labor groups and county Democrats to investigate, and to suspend Kasparian in the interim.

If you do nothing and wait for some court or other agency to act, you will do significant harm to your credibility and, consequently, your ability to act on behalf of your members and the progressive Labor movement you purport to represent, Burdick wrote in a letter sent Tuesday.

Kasparian has categorically denied allegations contained in lawsuits that sayhe pressured a subordinate into a lengthy sexual relationship and fired another after he inaccurately suspected she had double-crossed him on a political matter. The letters not only question those denials, but they show a division betweenprogressives.

After the absence of any action by the leadership of these groups to address these issues, it has now become clear that if we do not insist upon it, the complaints of these women may be dismissed and diminished in a manner that does not allow them any due process in their own workplaces, says the letter signed by 46 progressives.

The message from the Democratic Womans Club contains similar sentiments.

A statement from Local 135 said thatpeople whocomplained about Kasparian in lawsuits and interviews withnews mediawere fired for cause.

It is profoundly disappointing that individuals, by signing on to a letter, would choose to ignore the facts, or turn their backs on our members, the union said. We may be living in bizarre times, but facts still matter. Lawsuits are not truth, especially when they are filed by those who have failed to do their jobs.

In late December, Sandy Naranjo and Isabel Vasquez filed lawsuits against Kasparian and their employer, Local 135. Naranjo said she was wrongly fired after her husbands rival union took a position on a San Diego political issue that Kasparian disagreed with. Kasparian said she was fired for falsifying time cards and mileage reports.

Vasquez said she was pressured into a 15-year sexual relationship with Kasparian, her boss. Kasparian said he had no intimate contact with her.

After Kasparian was sued, another woman at Local 135, Anabel Arauz, said she was demoted after she said she would be a good character witness for Vasquez and her boyfriend made critical post about Kasparian on Facebook.Letter signers said that Kasparian needs to be suspended during any investigation because of the potential for retaliation.

Kasparian, who has led Local 135 since 2003, said he has done nothing wrong and that many of his accusers merely disgruntled.

Of the plaintiffs in the lawsuitsonly Naranjo was terminated, but in court documents she said she was not fired for cause but rather as political retaliation. On Wednesday the union that represents Naranjo and other labor organizers at Local 135dismissed agrievance she filed.

Vasquez retired in July. Kasparian said he did not have any intimate contact with her, and other employees at Local 135 said there was no indication of anything other than a friendly professional relationship between the two. Kasparian and his supporters alike all said that Vasquez ended her career on good terms and was not disgruntled when she left the union.

Some of the women who complained in interviews with the media about how Kasparian treated them were fired, but they also said it was not for cause but rather for a slight or minor disagreement with their boss.

The Democratic Party did not return requests for comment and thestate party had not seen the letters, according to a spokesperson.

Among those signing the main letter were San Diego City Councilman David Alvarez, public interest attorney Cory Briggs, former Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, four other members of city councils, elected members of school districts, clergy, and several politically-active Democrats.

The letters come after protests and requests for Kasparian to resign, including demands from former San Diego City Councilwoman Donna Frye and Irene McCormack Jackson, the former communications director for disgraced ex-San Diego Mayor Bob Filner who was the first woman to step forward and accuse him of sexual harassment.

It is our belief that the appropriate remedy is for Mr. Kasparian to resign, Frye and McCormack Jackson wrote in their Jan. 25 letter. At a minimum, we urge you to conduct an independent investigation regarding these allegations against Mr. Kasparian. We also urge you to take the actions necessary to protect the current employees, such as placing Mr. Kasparian on administrative leave until this is resolved.

Labor boss sued twice, accused of sexual harassment

Women who worked for labor boss said he created a toxic office culture

The letter signers wrote that they need to address allegations of sexual harassment in part to have a moral high ground over President Donald Trump, and the allegations against the commander-in-chief and his own admissions to actions that amount to sexual harassment.

Because of Mr. Kasparians standing in the progressive community, our ability to stand up against cultures of discrimination, bullying and harassment is compromised, unless we are able to resolutely acknowledge that we hold ourselves to the same standard that we demand from the nations President and his supporters, they wrote.

The letter with 46 signatures was organized by Sara Kent, a paralegal who said the allegations against Kasparian upset her, and reminded her of the scandal that consumedFilner. It germinated from a few conversations and social media posts between her friends, and concerns increased with time.

It really sort of became this groundswell of these people who really felt that something needs to happen rather than just let the court process run its course, she said.

Arauzs demotion was the tipping point, and it became clear that more direct action was needed, Kent said.

Hes doubling down, she said. And I think thats really whats making people react and want to act and not wait.

The letter was not widely circulated for signatures, but once it was released more people said that they wish to add their name, Kent said.

Twitter: @jptstewart

joshua.stewart@sduniontribune.com

(619) 293-1841

The rest is here:
Progressives, Democrats demand investigations, suspension of ... - The San Diego Union-Tribune