Divorced from the mob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise, directly contrary to what Mulligan and Starkman assert, the suit brought by former Vice President Caivano was not "settled on financial terms favorable to Caivano" before Judge Sullivan's questions about President Coia could be answered. Judge Sullivan considered the questions and concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding of bad faith. He found instead that LIUNA's GEB had acted responsibly in adopting the reform process and granted summary judgment in favor of LIUNA, Coia, and the members of the GEB against Caivano. The statements in the article are simply false.

The "deal" on election reform was expressly approved by the Attorney General and a U.S. Attorney. Far from guaranteeing the power of Coia or any other incumbent, it requires direct rank and file election of the General President and General Secretary-Treasurer, provides for the election of regional vice presidents answerable to the membership, reforms the convention process and institutes secret ballots, and requires the appointment of an independent Elections Officer, approved by the government, to ensure that the election is fair, "honest, open, and democratic."

The account of Serpico's disciplinary proceedings is virtually unencumbered by the truth. It was false of Starkman and Mulligan to state that Luskin "called a recess" and offered to settle "minutes before" General President Coia was to be subjected to cross-examination. In fact, the recess --which was called by the Independent Hearing Officer, not Luskin--came after, not before, Serpico's attorneys began to cross-examine Coia. The settlement discussions that ensued were initiated by Seipico's lawyers, not Luskin. And far from seeking to muzzle Serpico or to protect Coia, the agreement expressly permitted Serpico to maintain his federal lawsuit against Coia, raising all of the accusations of bad faith that Mulligan and Starkman recite. Serpico's lawyers and others later examined Coia under oath for two full days about the charges. The result only sounds like a coverup if it is deliberately misstated.

Carl Stem, the Justice Department spokesman, aptly characterized the central theme of Mulligan and Starkman's article as "moronic." Misstating the record, concealing material facts, and dodging the truth is something more. It is dishonest.

Robert D. Luskin Comey, Boyd, and Luskin Washington, D.C.

Dean Starkman and John Mulligan reply: Mr. Luskin and Mr. Booker can call us all the names they want, but the essential point remains: There is no good reason why LIUNA's reform process is answerable only to internal union officials and not to a federal judge.

On Jan. 12, 1995, a month before the final deal was signed, Paul Coffey, chief of the Justice Department's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, wrote Mr. Luskin to summarize the "non-negotiable" elements the government deemed "essential" for true reform: judicial oversight and a court-appointed cleanup team. "We insist on a consent decree that creates court-appointed officers acting under exclusive jurisdiction of the court ... we cannot agree to delegate the investigative and disciplinary authority to officers who are accountable to sources inside of the union.... We have no confidence and certainly no guarantee that an internal investigative process that is not subject to the court's direct control and influence will result in anything close to the effective reform and corrective action needed to remove LCN control and influence from the union.

Just so. And yet, that is exactly what the final deal does: hand over disciplinary authority to the union, or, as the government once called it, the "racketeering enterprise." It is easy to understand why Mr. Luskin and Mr. Coia would want such a sweetheart deal. But will anyone explain why Justice would?

The rest of Mr. Luskin's letter seems to attack an article we didn't write. We never said any individual is protected from government civil or criminal action. And Mr. Luskin is, at best, disingenuous in citing the Sullivan and Zagel decisions. Both rulings were on narrow issues regarding the legality of moves made by the general executive board in January 1995. When, for instance, Judge Sullivan mentions, "bad faith," he was ruling only on whether the board could legally change the union's constitution, ethics code, and disciplinary procedures. The judge stresses that the "limited" scope of his ruling did "not extend to a trial on the merits." Judge Zagel specifically says that he was not ruling on any aspect of the government's decision to enter into the agreement.

As for the Serpico hearing, if the hearing officer called for the recess, we stand corrected. And Serpico's lawyers did begin a cross-examination of Mr. Coia, but the key word is "begin." It lasted a few minutes and dwelled on the union's organizational structure. Of course, everyone would know what happened if Mr. Luskin had not agreed to seal the file of this proceeding. And the larger truth remains: The proceeding was shut down before it could get to the heart of the cross-examination of Mr. Coia.

As for union elections, will Carl Stern or someone else at Justice explain to us morons why rank-and-file members are not allowed to vote in direct elections for the entire general executive boards And will Mr. Luskin explain why he and Mr. Coia fought so hard to keep it that way?

As for Mr. Booker's point about Assistant U.S. Attorney Oswald: While he disagrees with many of the article's conclusions, he acknowledges making the statement we said he made.

Mr. Booker also says union leadership has "no control" over Mr. Gow and Mr. Luskin. The fact is that Mr. Coia and the union hired them both. Mr. Coia and the union paid Mr. Gow $123,645.09 last year. As for Mr. Luskin, he says he's billed the union at least $500,000.

Overclassed

Merit pay for teachers is a bad idea ("Bill Clinton on How to Save the Public Schools," May). Developing criteria is difficult, and the issue of who makes the decisions becomes contentious. The potential for envy is strong, which often impairs cooperation among teachers. It would be better to hire more teachers in order to boost the teacher-to-student ratio. Overloaded teachers are less effective--the less conscientious become incompetent and the more conscientious bum out. If teaching is as rewarding as Charles Peters keeps reminding the young idealists bound for law school, merit pay is a weak incentive for doing a good job. Having the time to do the right thing by kids is necessary to gain the moral and spiritual rewards of teaching. A 20 to 25 percent reduction in class sizes will be necessary if the other reforms advocated by the Monthly and President Clinton are to be achieved.

Dave Corkran Portland, OR

Not a Bad IDEA

In my two decades as an avid reader of The Washington Monthly, I cannot recall an article as illiberal in tone as Dante Chinni's "A Bad IDEA" (May).

If Mr. Chinni had peered further into the trenches, he might have realized IDEA is not some half-baked boondogle. As a hearing-impaired person since early childhood and a past president and board member of the Indiana chapter of the Alexander Graham Bell Association, I can personally testify to the struggle of parents of mainstreamed hearing-impaired children, and parents of other handicapped children, to give their children a fighting chance to succeed socially and economically. I have seen those children, thanks in part to the assistive listening devices and the oral and sign interpreters made possible by IDEA, run with their educational opportunity and achieve success.

Mr. Chinni proposes all handicapped children be fed into a few broad educational programs to save money rather than offering the individualized education program for each child required by IDEA. His proposal ignores the substantial evidence that each child, each handicap, is different.

Scott Kingdon Fort Wayne, IN

Where There's Smoke...

Kudos to The New Republic reporter-researcher Michael Crowley for his brilliant expose of the slimy advertisers on the Rush Limbaugh show ("Rush's Medicine Show," May). Imagine running ads for products like Melatonex (also advertised in Newsweek) and BreathAsure (for sale at my local hospital gift shop).

Now, perhaps, Crowley will treat us to a moral justification of the full-page cigarette ad that graces the back cover of the April 8, 1996, issue of The New Republic.

Jonathan D. Muehl Pittsburgh, PA