Board of Directors Meeting Docket Physical Meeting Docket for February 5-6, 2005 AGENDA of the Board Meeting of Feb. 05, 2005 (Saturday) Continental Breakfast at 8. Meeting Starts at 9 in iris Room. 1. Self Introduction (30 minutes) Let's each take a minute to two. Be sure to mention your name, state, profession, your role at this organization, and what you hope to accomplish during your term of office. You may want to refer back to your campaign statement. 2. Report by The Treasurer (5 minutes) Kathleen To Income/ Expenditure of 2004 3. Membership Report: 2004 summary, and 2005 projection (10 minutes) Jing –Li Yu & S. B. Woo a. 2004 membership:
Jing-Li Y 4. Review of Exit Polls of the 2004 Election Larry Ho (15 m.) The worth of 80-20 in the eyes of the political establishment depends on how well we deliver the bloc vote. Know the polls! 5. Learning from Other Political Orgs Kathleen To (15 m.) AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Comm.) is one teacher. 6. Required Meeting Procedure: Robert's Rules of Order (10 m.) Fel Amistad What one MUST know to participate in or chair a democratic meeting. As we get into substantive agenda items, the rules will be applied. Hence we want a quick review of the basic rules for the benefit of all. 7. Budget for 2005 and Personnel Matters (10 minutes) S. B. 10:45 a. m. : BREAK FOR 15 MINUTES President S. B. Woo (30 minutes) 9. How the Board Can Help? (20 minutes) Kathleen To 1. Recruiting members
and raising funds. Appointing a Committee. 10. Safekeeping of 80-20’s E-mail List? (15 minutes) Larry Ho How to keep the most precious and powerful asset of 80-20 safe and free from abuse. LUNCH (Begins at 12:15 p.m. Box Lunch provided. Meeting resumes at 1:30 p.m) 11. Using Legal and Administrative Means to Win Equal Opportunity In Workplaces for AsAmericans. (1.5 hrs) S.B. 1.
Administrative means: political and/or public opinio a. Via E.O. 11246 b. Via Title VII
2:30 p.m.: BREAK FOR 15 MINUTES12. Outreaching to the Communal & Political Establishments (1.5 hrs) SB Committees will be set up to outreach to all targeted establishments, which are: a) AsAm civic orgs., b) AsAm media c) ASAm political VIPs in both parties, d) the national committees of both parties, and e) the congressional VIPs of both parties. 13. Recess at about 4:15 p.m.
DINNER (Reception at 6 p.m., Dinner at 7 in Orchid Room)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AGENDA of Feb. 06, 2005 (Sunday) Continental Breakfast at 8. Meeting starts at 9 in Iris Room 1. Reviewing past attempt at forging Unity SB (30 m.) 2. A MOST IMPORTANT MEETING with Lawyers from the Minami, Lew & Tamari Firm (Brad Yamauchi & William Kwong) S.B. (1 hour) 3. New Business 4. . Adjournment at 10:30 a.m.
Executive Comm.: S. B. Woo (President), Fel Amistad (V. P.), Kathleen To (Secretary), Jackie Quan (Treasurer), Julia Wan (Nomination Ch.), Gareth Chang (Fundraising Ch.) Other Voting Board Members: Giga Andreyev, Rajen Anand, Ken Chia, David T. Chai, Kenneth Fong, Albert Huang, Larry Yu-Chi Ho, Stewart David Ikeda, Jason Kothari, Y. K. Kim, Peter Luh, Pete Wang, James C. Wu, Jerry Yang Non-voting members (Chapter Presidents): Chi-Chen Chang of Boston, Fung Hung Gay of St. Louis, MO, Ved Chaudhary of NJ, Yuyi Lin of Mid-MO Staff: Jing-Li Yu 2. Report by the Treasurer: Kathleen To Income: Membership (including new Life Members)
$104K Total $150K Expenditure: 1. Payroll (Jing;
Paychex; translators) $45K Total: $ 110K Reserve: 2004 started with a reserve of $110K. At year’s end, it was enlarged by ($150K - $110K) = 40K. Total: $ 150K 3. Membership Projection for 2005 (10 minutes) a. Looking at the 2004 Membership Record First: Jing-Li Yu Total member: 2104 Classification number (last year’s number) % of membership 1) Student
Members: 59 (18) 2.8% Of the 2104 members, 60% are renewals, 40% are brand new members. Note that contributions from existing Life Members and dues from new Life members accounted for about 55% of our income. That is the importance of Life Members to 80-20. Hence I propose that we make very nice looking credit card sized Life Membership Cards as a token appreciation b. A Rough Projection On 2005 Membership: S. B. Woo The number of members in 2002, 2003 & 2004 is respectively 1600. 2010, & 2104. In 2004, we had hoped for 2500, we failed. In 2005, we again aim for 2500. This is one area that Board Members can help a lot, as is common in similar organization. Most Board members help set policies, help raise money and recruit members. 4. Review of Exit Polls of 2004 Larry Ho (15 m.) The worth of 80-20 in the eyes of the political establishment depends on how well we deliver the bloc vote. Know the polls! (A) Asian American Specific Exit Polls:) 1)
Asian American Legal Defense and Education
Fund (AALDEF)
2)
Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) 3) A Poll already taken
by CAVEC in N. CA but not yet published. N. CA Using NY Times Polls to Show Trends The only Asian-American-specific national exit poll
of 2004 was reported D = Democrat, R = Republican, O = Other *:
Presidential Candidate endorsed by
80-20 5. Learning from Other Political Orgs Kathleen To (15 m.) In this presentation, Kathleen illustrates the “power of lobbying” using AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Comm.) as an example. 6. Required Meeting Procedure -- Robert's Rules of Order (15 minutes): Fel Amistad For those who want a copy of a user friendly Q&A on “How to Use Robert’s Rule of Order,” please e-mail SB 7. 2005 Budget & Personnel Matters (15 minutes): S. B. Woo INCOME: 1. Membership Dues (25
new Life Members & 2300 Footnotes Total: $110 K EXPENDITURE**: 1. Salary and Benefits Total: $ 100K ($110K) RESERVE AT THE END OF 2005: $160K ($150K)
** This budget does not included lawyers fees, if and when 80-20 takes legal actions to win equal opportunity in workplaces for AsAms. The cost is huge. Money must be raised separately.
Staff: Jing is expected to be with 80-20 for another full year. We are fortunate to have a dedicated staff like Jing. By the President of 80-20 (30 minutes) 80-20's consistent success in the political arena was due mostly to our adhesion to the "rules of the game" in American politics. That is, "Leverage is the currency of politics." 80-20 did well in 2004 for the AsAm community but it needs to do even better. Perhaps a slight modification of strategy may be necessary. (I) Where 80-20 Did Well: (a) A major goal for 80-20 is to win equal opportunity for the 13 million AsAms. We sent the right questionnaire. Its aim was to ensure that our next president will enforce Exec. Order 11246 for all AsAms. Nine Dem. presidential candidates, including John Kerry who was the Democratic nominee answered Yes/Yes/Yes i.e. without ambiguity. Regretfully, President Bush didn't. Partially, as a result of that, 80-20 endorsed Kerry. Had Kerry been elected, the enforcement of EO 11246 will become a reality. One of 80-20’s only two major goals will have been achieved. The other goal is equal justice. An estimated 500,000 additional AsAm executives, administrators, senior partners weill emerge within our workforce in the next 10 years. (b) When Kerry's campaign headquarter failed to fulfill a minor promise, 80-20 played tit-for-tat by delaying its endorsement for two weeks, letting Kerry know that "you disappoint us at your own risk." When we finally endorsed Kerry, we "endorsed with reservation" and let it be known publicly that we'll pull back some of our resources originally reserved for helping the Kerry campaign. That is one big reason that our cash reserve which was estimated in last year's budget report to be $90,000 is now $150,000. The institutional memory of the two political parties and the mainstream media is that AsAms are timid and can be shooed away. 80-20's ability to manage the internal unity to play tit-for-tat and punish the Kerry campaign will pay off handsomely for our children. (c) When we endorsed Kerry with reservation we stated: "A recent poll showed the choice of Kerry/Bush among AsAms to be 43/36, with 20% undecided. … Having endorsed Kerry/Edwards, 80-20 predicts that by election time, we'll increase Kerry's current 7 point lead to at least 30 among AsAms." We did just that! Chances are we gave Kerry a 50 point advantage when all Asian-specific exit poll results are published, as one national poll has already shown. (d) AsAm political candidates have often suffered racist attacks from their political opponents. Two years ago, 80-20 pronounced a policy to punish such dirty politicians and their political consultants, what it might take. Since that pronouncement, such racist attacks disappeared. None surfaced even in the BIG election year of 2004. 80-20 also publicized a similar policy to protest AsAm scientists and engineering from over zealous government prosecution as happened in the case of Wen Ho Lee and Dr. Bin Han. Since then not a single such case has surfaced. HOW MAGNIFICENTLY WE PERFORMED in these aspects! (II) Where 80-20 did Moderately Well: Our membership increased slightly from 2010 to 2004. Our cash reserve increase from 100K to $150K. When Congressman Howard Coble, Chair of House Subcomm. On Homeland Security stated in a radio interview that he thought the internment of JapaneseAms were justified, 80-20 worked for removing him from that position. Together with other AsAm organizations, we managed to punish him some. When 80-20 endorsed, we made a point to state that Coble was one reason we didn't endorse Bush. 80-20 probably has passed a message to Coble and the GOP. But we didn't achieve our objective 100%. OCA National President Raymond Wong and NFIA (Nat’l Federation of Indian Ams.) Niraj Baxi attended our Board meeting last year and discussed creatively and positively about plans to work much closely, while NOT affecting their 501 C-3 tax status. Formal relations between the two are yet to be worked on. (III) Where 80-20 didn't do well: AIPAC (Am. Israel Public Affairs Comm.) has political clout. Politicians from both political parties are immensely aware of it and try hard to befriend it. 80-20 has delivered two consecutive bloc votes. This year it even led AsAms to buck the national trend in voting less for Bush than in 2000. In other words, average AsAms respond to 80-20 enthusiastically. However, even AsAm politicians of both parties are cool to 80-20. This is a failure. To change that we'll either have to be more involved in local races, and/or to establish committees to outreach to AsAm politicians of both parties and/or to defeat one who has been particularly unfriendly to 80-20. Each is a serious undertaking. A session is set aside to discuss that. We also failed to arouse the AsAm community to respond greatly to 80-20's successes. I used to believe that if 80-20's strategy in delivering bloc votes and in exercising "carrots and sticks" with politicians are proven effective, then our community will respond. That has not happened. It maybe we should be more patient. It maybe that if we do a great deal of out reaching, problems will be overcome. But it could also be that there is a defect in our strategic approach. I propose that we try intensive outreaching for a year and re-evaluate this challenge. Let's now look into the near future. This may be the most exciting year in 80-20’s history. 80-20 has only two major goals: win equal opportunity in workplaces and win equal justice. Provided that this Board approves, we will seek a combination of legal and administrative remedies to win both, equal opportunity being the priority. AsAms have pointed to the glass ceiling above us and our children for decades. Finally, we act. 80-20 shall sue in the court. 80-20 shall build coalitions. 80-20 shall approach ethnic and mainstream media. 80-20 shall make political deals. We aim to enable every man, woman and child in our community to go as far and rise as high as their ambition and ability will take them. The yearning for equal justice for Asian Americans is beyond words. The cases of Wen Ho Lee and Captain James Yee illustrate so vividly that in hard times AsAms become suspects, or worse, scapegoats owing to our race. For now, 80-20 focuses on administrative relief. We publicize our qualified jurists. We look at their record of serving the AsAm community. We aim to get one of them appointed a Supreme Court Justice in the nearest future. If the possibility seems remote, just remember that every great achievement has started from a dream. Thank you. 9. How the Board Can Help? (20 m.) Kathleen To 1. Recruiting members and raising funds. Appointing a Committee. 2. Spreading 80-20's message, particularly regarding the pending law suit and our angling for an AsAm Supreme Court Justice.
10. Safekeeping 80-20’s E-mail List: (15 m.) Larry Ho How to keep the most precious and powerful asset of 80-20 safe and free from abuse. Give it to the Election Monitoring committee for a recommendation? 11. Using Legal and Administrative Means to Win Equal Opportunity In Workplaces for AsAms. (1.5 hrs) S.B. 1. Administrative means: political and/or public opinion 2. Legal means which could be quite expensive: a. Via E.O. 11246 b. Via Title VII
Below is a copy of the lawyers’ view on which legal means, and S. B.’s response in brackets and red: E.O. 11246 and Title VII can be used at the same time as methods to increase the management job opportunities for Asians who work for federal contractors, such as universities. However, in my view, Title VII is more effective in forcing such employers to provide equal employment opportunity to Asians. If your organization has a limited budget, it is still possible to pursue both claims at the same time. For the E.O., we could file suit under the Administrative Procedures Act to get a court to order the DOL to collect the data and require affirmative action plans and statistics for Asians from federal contractors. But this will not result in hires or promotions. There is no private right of action for any class or individual to get remedies (promotion or hire) under the E.O. The threat of losing federal funding can easily be avoided by the contractor by paper compliance, i.e. creating an affirmative action plan and keeping stats. The DOL cannot and will not require the hiring of Asians to correct a statistical under representation of Asians. Under the E.O. you do not need a representative employee to file a complaint. If your organization believes it can politically motivate the Secretary of the DOL to do more for Asian employment, she may do so under this pressure, but that is a long shot. [SB’s comment: According to Pam. OFCCP 7, Revised 2003: “may require …to develop a written affirmative action program that set forth specific and result-oriented procedure to which a contractor commits itself to apply every good faith effort.” Hence a contractor may fend off in the first year by simply submitting a plan, but the subsequent year it must show result. Since this procedure had been so effective in the past for AfAm, women .., why not for AsAms?] Under Title VII, you do need a person who was actually harmed, that is denied a promotion or job when he or she was clearly better qualified than the selectee. If statistics indicate that Asians as a class are denied equal opportunity for specific jobs, then we could have a Title VII (or state law) class action. We need at least 25 potential class members to have a class action. For example, in the University context, if 100 Asians are 20% of the professors who are qualified for administrative/management positions and based on the last 50 hires to those administrative jobs, only one Asian was hired and only 5% of the administrative jobs are held by Asians, using the Chi Square analysis, these statistics could support a class action lawsuit. We would hire a well known statistician we have worked with before to give an expert opinion whether these stats prove discrimination. If they do, the University must then prove that these statistics are caused by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Since this is an almost impossible burden of proof, the vast majority of class actions settle after the class has been certified or approved by the court. [To prove “clearly better qualified” is NOT easy. To find 25 clearly better qualified may be even harder. Even assuming that the second step is not necessary. The first step is still hard. We already have excellent evidence of discrimination using the data published by Nat’l Center of Educational Statistics, Dept of Education. The chance for the AsAm’s [Adm/(faculty + Prof)] = 0.057 while the national average is 0.15 is outside of at least 5 standard deviations, using the formula for calculating the standard deviation obtained from unequally weighted results. Without a book in front of me, I estimate the chance of its occurring owing to statistical fluctuation is 1 in 1 million.] Under Title VII, the individual and the class are entitled to damages, including backpay, promotion, emotional distress and attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, injunctive relief to end discrimination is possible. Injunctive relief means training, affirmative action plans and its implementation, such as goals and timetables for the hiring of Asians. This liability and the publicity on the stats and race discrimination, are a strong deterrence. The EEOC has jurisdiction over these employment issues. Also, some states have separate laws that may provide for punitive damages. Punitive damages are damages assessed against employers to deter them from violating the law. However, punitive damages cannot be awarded against government entities such as state universities and colleges. [80-20’s aim is to not to getting backpay or punitive damages. Rather our concern is get all our institutions (academic, corporate, federal and statement gov.) to look at the broad data such as those published by NCES and get the message that they have discriminated against AsAms, and that if they want to get the federal contracts then they must change right away. The kind of broad sweeping data are much easier to get than initiating a class action under title VII in an institution by institution basis. The setting of goals and timetables is required whether we win a case thru title VII or thru EO 11246. Note that similar data exists in the corporation world, federal and state governments. An expert in this field is Kurtis Takamine of the Chapman University. He is a strong supporter of 80-20. He reported that in 1997 AsAms represented 0.3 percent of the senior–level Fortune 500 executives, while our population percentage is ten time that, and the % of professional in the fortunate 500 companies (from which most executive are promoted?) is 8.9%. In the federal government, of the 179 circuit court judges, one is AsAm., or 0.75%. Of the 651 District judges, 7 are AsAms. or 1.07%. We can haul out huge amount of such data to create the public sympathy.] With respect to a budget, I recommend doing the work in stages. At the end of each stage, we evaluate whether or not to enter the next stage. The stages and estimated budget at $150 per hour for attorney work and $100 for non attorney work are as follows: Stage 1: 1.A. File a DOL E.O. 11246 administrative complaint re enforcement activities benefiting Asians nationwide. Attempt negotiations to resolve this complaint before deciding to file suit under the Administrative Procedures Act. Budget: $10,000 or about 65-70 hours of legal work and costs. 2.B. Identify the 10 worst Universities with significant under representation of Asians in Administrative/Management positions. Under representation means that Asians are not being hired in proportion to their application or availability rates for these jobs. Budget: $5,000 for about 30-35 hours of legal work reviewing statistics Stage 2: 2.A. File suit under E.O. 11246 if settlement negotiations w DOL fail. Budget: A very broad estimate of $10,000 to $50,000 depending on how the case is defended by DOL and if it is resolved before trial If the case goes to a trial after extensive discovery, the costs could easily double. Note that under the E.O. even if you win, DOL is not required to pay your legal fees and costs. There is a “private attorney general” law that allows you to recover fees and costs if you prevail in the public interest, but such awards are not common in DOL cases. There are no awards of fees and costs under the Administrative Procedures Act or the E.O. 2.B.. Identify Asian professors/applicants who have been denied Admin/Mgt jobs in the past several months at Universities identified as having statistical disparity. If amenable, have them file EEOC or state agency discrimination complaints. This is required before a lawsuit can be filed. If the agency investigates, the reasons for the non selection can be known and evaluated and if there is a class action claim, statistics can be collected by the agency. Budget: $5,000 per person to evaluate his/her case and file with the EEOC or a state agency to get an investigation. Also to evaluate whether the hire at issue is appropriate for a class action complaint. Stage 3: 3.A. While in litigation with the DOL, continue efforts for a politically negotiated settlement. Budget: If this is pursued, estimated budget would be $5,000 for meetings and travel. 3.B. Litigate or settle individual and/or class Title VII lawsuits.
Budget: If it is an individual case, we can evaluate and discuss a lower hourly fee or a contingent fee if the case has direct proof of discrimination. The individual could pay the hourly or contribute to the fees and costs of his/her litigation. Individual cases can cost up to $250,000 or more to litigate, again depending on how it is defended. If there is evidence of discriminatory motive, the case will likely settle before the trial. If it is a class action, the costs will exceed $50,000 for the class certification process as that requires hundreds of hours of discovery and motions to get class certification from the court. However, if a class is certified, the overwhelming odds are that a settlement will soon follow. However, if the class action is not settled and it does go to trial, the fees and costs, could exceed $500,000. Of course, a few months prior to trial, we will evaluate cases and situations to determine the appropriate alternative to trial, such as a compromise settlement, mediation or dropping the case. Overall, these are only estimates. There are many variables that cause fees and costs to be limited or escalated. The important aspect of this situation is for the parties to discuss the status of the cases and to make informed decisions about cases and litigation. MLT will require your organization to stay current on fees and costs by replenishing its trust fund on a monthly basis as indicated by the monthly billings. I believe that William advised you that the cost is $25,000. [S. B’s Counter-Point: How does a trust fund operate? Fee Consideration: Going the Article VII route is far more expensive. In the worst-case scenario, it could cost $1,000,000 to going through just one case. It faces more uncertainty because we don't even know who that particular individual will be, and what is the particular circumstance of that person not getting a job. In comparison, we already know the statistics of the E.O. 11246. The chance of AsAm s {Administrator/(facu + prof)} = 0.055 is estimated at about 1 in a million, if AsAms were not discriminated. The worst-case estimate for the legal expense in going the EO 11246 route is 65K. We should estimate another $50K of publicity expenses, s we try to make recruit community support. Public Support Consideration: We will want to raise money for the lawsuit. Just like a political campaign, raising money not only gets money but also gets support. The later is perhaps even more important money. No one can get excited over 80-20 helping one individual to get an administrative job in one particular institution. AsAm could get very excited over 80-20 having obtained concrete evidence that we as a minority have been systematically discriminated in rising to the top. Image when we buy full-page ads in ethnic newspapers to state our cause and present the evidence, and the ad is paid by hundreds of the best-known scientists and other individuals in our community. We mention scientists because most scientists know how to calculate standard deviations of unequal weighted measurements. They can easily satisfy themselves that 80-20 is NOT playing games with the numbers, and that our estimated of its 1 in one million chance is legitimate. ] 12. Outreaching to the Communal & Political Establishments (1.5 hrs) SB Committees will be
set up to outreach to all targeted establishments, which are: a) AsAm
civic orgs., b) AsAm media c) ASAm political VIPs in both parties, d)
the national committees of both parties, and e) the congressional VIPs
of both parties. AGENDA of Feb. 06, 2005 (Sunday) Continental Breakfast at 8. Meeting starts at 9 in Iris Room 1. Reviewing past attempt at forging Unity SB (30 m.) a. How 80-20 & Other AsAm orgs can Make History Together 80-20 had proposed to work MUCH CLOSER together with OCA and NFIA according to the following guidelines. Thus far it has been well received: (A) Principles: Working together benefits our community. (B) Operating guidelines: Reciprocity & equity. The two are independent co-equals; not required to march in step in all matters but will cooperate whenever we can; never infringe upon the other's independence and tax status; never as an organization criticize the other publicly but may as a last resort, if avoiding taking a position is impossible, issue an public statement that "80-20 and OCA (or OCA & 80-20) agree to disagree on this issue;" (C) Concrete Details of Initial Cooperation: a) The
President or VP of the two orgs. will attend the other's Board meeting
once a year and be given 15 minutes to speak. 2. A MOST IMPORTANT MEETING with Lawyers from the Minami, Lew & Tamari Firm (Brad Yamauchi & William Kwong) S.B. (1 hour) Comparing Title VII versus E.O. 11246
4. Adjournment at 10:30 a.m. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
