CPD IN THE NEWS

The selection of a regional Federal Reserve bank president normally takes place in relative obscurity, followed only by local business leaders, financial executives and analysts who track monetary policy.

But amid concerns about a lack of diversity at the highest levels of the nation’s central banking system, great attention is being focused on who will be chosen as the next head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

The search is being watched closely by members of Congress and advocacy groups that have complained publicly in recent months that the Fed’s top leadership is nearly all white.

The Atlanta region, which has a large African American population, presents the perfect opportunity to start changing that, they said.

 “This would be historic,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who would like the Fed to make the next Atlanta chief the first African American to lead one of the 12 regional banks. “It would be very important, and it’s long overdue.”

As the Fed has taken on a larger role in the economy in the wake of the Great Recession, the lack of racial and ethnic diversity among key decision-makers has sparked concerns that monetary policy decisions haven’t taken into account the higher unemployment rates among African Americans and Latinos.

“Communities of color have not yet experienced full economic recovery,” said Shawn Sebastian, field director of Fed Up, a campaign by labor, community and liberal activist groups that wants the Fed to enact pro-worker policies.

“As a really important economic policymaker, the Fed needs to actually reflect America,” he said.

Leading African American lawmakers have called on Fed Chairwoman Janet L. Yellen, the first woman to lead the central bank, and the Atlanta Fed to conduct a broad search.

Fed officials have promised to do that. But they’ve made no commitment to a diverse appointment for a complex job that includes overseeing about 1,700 employees in the Atlanta region and participating in monetary policy deliberations in Washington.

During an October webcast on the search, Tom Fanning, chairman of the Atlanta Fed’s board of directors, was asked whether the bank had “a special opportunity” to break the regional bank “color barrier.”

“That would be a great thing. We’re all for it,” he said. “We want the best person as well.”

The U.S. labor force's guy problem: Lots of men don’t have a job and aren’t looking for one »

Fanning, chief executive of Atlanta-based energy firm Southern Co., is leading the bank’s search committee. The committee is reviewing candidates and doesn’t have a timetable for a decision, Atlanta Fed spokeswoman Jean Tate said.

The five sitting members of the Board of Governors and 11 of the 12 regional bank presidents are white. Since the central bank was created in 1913, three African Americans have served as governors, but there have been no Latinos. There never has been an African American or Latino regional Fed president.

“They just need more diversity,” Waters said.

Regional Fed presidents rotate onto the Federal Open Market Committee, where they join Fed governors in setting the level of a key interest rate that affects business and consumer loans.

The committee has started nudging up the rate as the unemployment rate has fallen below 5%. But many liberals are worried the job market isn’t fully healed, pointing to higher unemployment rates for African Americans and Latinos.

Last spring, Waters was among 116 House members and 11 senators who wrote to Yellen criticizing what they called “the disproportionately white and male” leadership at the central bank.

“Given the critical linkage between monetary policy and the experiences of hardworking Americans, the importance of ensuring that such positions are filled by persons that reflect and represent the interests of our diverse country, cannot be understated,” said the letter, organized by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

At congressional hearings, lawmakers have pushed Yellen to do more to improve diversity among the regional bank chiefs.

The president nominates Fed governors, who must be confirmed by the Senate. Yellen and her colleagues on the Board of Governors give final approval for regional bank president selections, which are made by the board of directors of each bank.

“It’s our job to make sure that every search for those jobs assembles a broad and diverse group of candidates,” Yellen told Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) last winter after he pressed her to consider “getting an African American, for the first time in history, to be a regional president of a Federal Reserve bank.”

That was before Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart announced his resignation in September, effective Feb. 28.

Shortly afterward, Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, joined Conyers, Scott and Rep. John Lewis, another Georgia Democrat, in writing to Yellen and Fanning urging the Fed to “consider candidates from diverse personal backgrounds, including African Americans, Latinos and women.”

The letter said that “grave racial disparities exist across our nation in unemployment wages and income.” It also said that the unemployment and poverty rates for African Americans in the Atlanta region — Alabama, Florida, Georgia and parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee — were about double those for whites.

For the first time, the Atlanta Fed’s search committee has asked the public to submit names of potential candidates. The Atlanta Fed also has tried to make the process more transparent by posting details on its website, including holding the October webcast in which Fanning answered the public’s questions.

Asked about the importance of diversity for addressing “the special concerns of minority communities,” Fanning said he thought the Fed already did a good job on the issue, but “increasing our cultural bandwidth” was important.

“It is incumbent upon the person that gets this job to have the broadest perspective possible,” he said. “That’s why valuing diversity is really a critical component here.”

By Jim Puzzanghera

Source

US News & World Report - November 13, 2014, by Katherine Peralta - Building on momentum from earlier this year, a group of policy advocates, economists and community organizations is calling for more transparency at the Federal Reserve, imploring that the Fed consider the plight of many who haven’t enjoyed the kind of recovery that recent positive economic data suggest.

The push for more access to the Fed is gaining momentum among the public and in Congress, though revamping a decades-old central banking system that’s helped stabilize the economy through multiple crises is not without controversy.

As two of the Fed’s most vocal critics of its current monetary policy near their retirement at the beginning of next year, a coalition called “Fed Up” is asking that the public have more say in the process of appointing their replacements and future Fed leaders. Members sent letters outlining their concerns to the Fed and will meet Friday with Fed Chair Janet Yellen in the District of Columbia.

As it progresses toward its dual objective of price stability and full employment, the Fed has said it will eventually raise short-term interest rates, which have been kept near zero since 2008 to stimulate growth. The coalition says since the economy isn’t yet strong enough to stand on its own, the Fed should maintain its easy-money policies, which make lending cheap for borrowers and businesses but don’t do much to boost those on fixed incomes like retirees.

“We're going to talk about our request that the Fed create more transparency in a democratic process for appointments and that it adopt more pro-jobs, pro-wages policies, more expansionary policies, so as to get us to full employment,” says Ady Barkan, staff attorney at the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy, which is part of the coalition. “They need to target higher wage growth instead of stepping on the brakes the moment that wages start to rise, which is what the hawks want to do."

The term "hawk" refers to those who see the labor market as strong enough to merit a faster interest rate hike to keep inflation in check and pertains to outgoing regional Fed bank presidents Richard Fisher of Dallas and Charles Plosser of Philadelphia. Doves, like Yellen, believe that there is still enough slack in the labor market to warrant maintaining as low interest rates as possible.

Each of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks selects its own president through a process that’s criticized as rather opaque. Those presidents rotate on five of the 12 seats on the Federal Open Market Committee, the group at the Fed that sets interest rates. The remaining seven members of the committee, including Yellen, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The 12 regional presidents report back to the rest of the Fed about economic trends from their respective districts on a regular basis – a compilation of data amalgamated in a “Beige Book” published eight times a year and used to assess the economy’s health.

A spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Fed said it has retained the services of executive search firm Korn Ferry to replace Plosser and “will consider a diverse group of candidates from inside and outside the Federal Reserve system.” A Dallas Fed representative said the bank’s board of directors is meeting today to discuss the presidential search process to replace Fisher.

Stronger economic data this year have prompted many to wonder whether the Fed should start raising interest rates sooner rather than later. The U.S. economy’s reached the lowest jobless rate in six years and has enjoyed the strongest stretch of job gains since 1999.

But the coalition argues that despite what the national numbers may say about the recovery, they don’t necessarily speak to the experience of a lot of people who still feel the recession in their communities.

Even though the Dallas metropolitan area had one of the strongest monthly job gains in the country in September and has a jobless rate of 5 percent, well below the national rate of 5.8 percent, Connie Paredes, a volunteer with the Texas Organizing Project who will meet with Yellen Friday, says the economy in Dallas still feels “not that great.”

“There are a lot of statistics out there about the unemployment rate and how things have gotten better. It doesn't really reflect the fact that there is a lot of underemployment,” Paredes says. “There are a lot of college graduates who aren't able to find jobs. There are a lot of professionals who have to take on extra jobs in order to make ends meet.”

But attempting to change the appointment system might not be the solution to get more “everyday” voices before the Fed. Guy Lebas, chief fixed income strategist at Janney Capital Markets, says it’s a “solution in search of a problem.”

“There’s very little wrong from an economic perspective with how the Fed selection process works now, and a majority of the members who have input into monetary policy are democratically selected,” Lebas says.

Yellen herself has said it’s important to maintain a diverse group of viewpoints within the Fed.

“I believe decisions by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Open Market Committee are better because of the range of views and perspectives brought to the table by my fellow policymakers, and I have encouraged this approach to decision-making at all levels and throughout the Fed System,” she said in an Oct. 30 speech in Washington.

There’s also a push in Congress for changes at the Fed. The new GOP leadership could introduce a new version of former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, which, as its name implies, calls for a full audit of the Fed – including internal discussions on monetary policy – by the Government Accountability Office. Critics worry if passed, the bill would allow Congress to interfere with the Fed’s decision-making.

And a level of independence from the public may not be such a bad thing, says Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, citing the Fed’s handling of the economic crisis – which included bailing out large financial institutions and beginning unprecedented and controversial economic stimulus programs.

“I realize many things the Fed did, although most economists think were entirely justified, are still immensely unpopular among the public, but so what?” Burtless says. “We do have this layer of insulation that I think we should protect. The events of 2007 through 2009 confirm the absolute importance of having that level of insulation so that members of the Federal Reserve Board don’t worry that their deliberations, their decisions about monetary policy, are going to be immediately undone by populist and perhaps poorly understood objections from the general public.”

Source

Legislative Gazetter - April 21, 2014, by Matthew Dondiego - A new report released last Thursday by a pro-labor, pro-immigrant rights advocacy group criticizes the construction industry for using what they call misleading figures and cherry picking data to lobby against the state's controversial "scaffold law."

The scaffold law is a century-old law in place to protect worker's rights. Under the law, contractors and property owners serving as contractors are responsible for providing a safe work environment for their employees or become liable for any on-site injuries and accidents.

Opponents of the law point out that contractors are fully liable for workers' injuries even if it is determined the worker is at fault. Opponents say it is outdated and causes construction costs to rise due to the increased costs of insurance premiums. Supporters of the law say it provides common sense protection for workers performing a dangerous job and maintain that contractors are not held liable in court if proper safety precautions are in place.

The new report, titled Fatally Flawed and released by the Center for Popular Democracy, which is supported financially by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association and labor unions, is a scathing criticism of a Rockefeller Institute study — which is frequently referenced by the construction industry — that concluded the scaffold law resulted in an additional 667 work site injuries and adds about $3 billion in additional costs to construction projects in New York state each year.

According to last week's report, the oft-cited Rockefeller Institute study is "fundamentally biased" and calls the New York Civil Justice Institute, which paid $82,800 to commission the Rockefeller study, "a poorly-disguised front group" for the construction industry aligned Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. According to the report, the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York and the New York Civil Justice Institute share the same address, 19 Dove St, Suite 201, Albany, N.Y., and the same telephone and fax numbers.

"This [Rockefeller Institute] study was bought and paid for by the construction industry," Josie Duffy, a staff attorney for the Center for Popular Democracy. "This is a direct result of people who do not like the scaffold law for business reasons, paying for this report to be released."

On the claim that the scaffold law contributed an additional 667 injuries, the report says the Rockefeller Institute "confuses correlation with causation."

This claim, according the Center for Popular Democracy, is based on worker injury rates in "sub-sectors and non-construction industries," such as warehouse work, transportation, roofing, residential building construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade and utilities industries, and are compared to the rest of the nation.

"The authors assert that these differences are greater in New York and attribute these greater differences entirely to the scaffold law," the new report reads. "There is simply no basis to conclude that the scaffold law is the cause of these differences. Indeed, the authors provide no justification for comparing injury rates in construction with injury rates in less hazardous industries, or using those differences as a proxy for the impact of the scaffold law."

Duffy bluntly says that the scaffold law does not cause an increase in workplace accidents. She says the Rockefeller Institute's study, which was released in February, lacks factual evidence that the law makes work sites more dangerous and "that number is coming from nowhere."

"To me, that is the most egregious part of this whole report," Duffy said.

Despite the strong words used in the report and by Duffy, Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, says that the Rockefeller report "conclusively" found the law made construction sites more dangerous for workers.

He said that absolute liability for contractors creates "perverse incentives" for workers.

"Workers are not incentivized because they are never held responsible and contractors are not incentivized because they are guilty in nearly every circumstance," Stebbins said. "Only by apportioning liability to fault, as is done in every other state and every other part of our civil justice system, can we maintain balance and improve safety."

According to Stebbins, the report released by the Center for Popular Democracy last week is a "political hit piece, with no statistical merit or actual research of any kind. They cannot get researchers to back up their opinions, because the facts do not support the scaffold law."

Stebbins argues that absolute liability causes the insurance markets to treat sites with sterling safety records the same as companies with less stringent safety precautions. Opponents of the scaffold law say that absolute liability holds the company liable for the worker injuries regardless of who is actually found to be at fault.

Duffy however, said that companies are not automatically found to be liable for injuries sustained by workers on construction sites and are typically safe from injury-related costs so long as they had the proper safety precautions in place.

"What absolute liability means is that you have to pay for the costs of the injuries … and that's only going to happen if you're breaking the law," she explained. "What this law says is there has to be some level of protection for workers."

According to Duffy, under the law companies still hold the right to argue their case in court and they are not automatically found responsible for every injury.

"It's important that employers get to have their voices heard in law, I support that this law allows people to get their voices heard on both sides and that's a very, very real protection," she said "Nothing happens automatically in this law and you can't even be taken to court unless your breaking the law in the first place."

The report also criticizes the Rockefeller Institute for failing to take into consideration certain conditions in New York that may affect the injury rates in the state. Such measures include New York generally has more high-level construction works which may drive up injury rates and New York construction workers are more likely to be union workers and therefore are more likely to report injuries. According to the report, Texas has one of the lowest construction injury rates yet is among the highest in construction fatality rates.

According to the report, "Such low-injury-rate states have artificially suppressed the US injury rate, which the paper nonetheless compares to the New York rate."

"This is a law that protects construction workers. Construction workers are doing a really difficult job and they're doing it every day and they are growing our economy," Duffy said. "Construction workers are literally the bread and butter of what makes New York City, New York City … and this is a state of construction."

Assemblyman Francisco Moya, a Democrat from Queens, said the Center for Popular Democracy's report "injected some truth into the politically-charged debate surrounding the scaffold law."

"Many untruths have been lobbed at the scaffold law in an attempt to dismantle it. This report makes clear that those untruths have unfortunately been crafted by parties who have a financial interest in watering down workplace protections," Moya, a staunch supporter of the law, said in an e-mail. "When it comes to life and death decisions about workplace safety, there's no room for politics. It has to be about facts. And the fact is that the Scaffold Law protects workers. That's the real bottom line."

Source

The protesters’ action at the Republican retreat was organized by the Center for Popular Democracy Action, in coordination with local affiliates.

Read the full article here.