Prior to adjunct faculty voting for a union, the lawyer Katherine Lev voluntarily met with adjuncts on the three separate campuses, in what university administration said, was to information and answer questions about labor law and unionization. Jonah Hinebaugh | The Crow’s Nest
By Nancy McCann
The secret is out, but the mystery endures.
After refusing for three months to say how much a Boston labor consultant was paid for work connected with adjunct faculty’s recent union drive, the USF administration has disclosed the amount: $14,942.82.
But the administration says it did not make the payment.
That came, it says, from Constangy, Brooks, Smith and Prophete LLP, an Atlanta workplace law firm that is a USF contractor.
The labor consultant is Katherine Lev, a lawyer brought in to have voluntary meetings with adjunct faculty on all three campuses as they were about to vote on forming a union.
The administration stressed that Lev would be neutral about the election and was hired to provide information and answer questions about labor law and unionization.
But some of the adjuncts who attended Lev’s sessions accused her of trying to scare adjuncts into voting against the union. They were curious about what the administration had asked Lev to do and how much money she was being paid.
“The total cost … for Ms. Lev … was fully paid by Constangy and was not passed on or expensed to USF,” wrote university spokesman Adam Freeman in a June 6 email to The Crow’s Nest. “USF has not been invoiced for Ms. Lev’s work and USF has no engagement letter for her services.”
No explanation was given for why Lev would work and travel for USF, and appear in an informational video for adjuncts, at no cost to the university.
USF system leaders attacked the union in emails to adjuncts and submitted filings to the state opposing the election, but adjuncts decided by a 326 to 91 vote last spring to be represented by a union.
Following the election, The Crow’s Nest sought several times to obtain the letter of engagement for hiring Lev, and any contracts or written descriptions for work Lev had been hired to do.
USF’s position is that the records requested “in this case” are not subject to the state Public Records Law, according to Freeman, because they are “records of a contractor (Constangy) performing services for a fee to the University.”
When Lev was reached by phone, she told The Crow’s Nest she does not comment on her work.
In a Jan. 31 email from Dan Murphy of Constangy to Gerard Solis, USF’s general counsel, Murphy calls Lev “the persuader we will use” and says that “RWT, the persuader company,
is going to send a letter of engagement” to Lev.
(Another document shows that “RWT” is actually RoadWarrior Productions LLC or RWP Labor.)
Murphy’s email seems to indicate that the university would at some point be paying for Lev’s services.
Freeman responded on Aug. 24 to another Crow’s Nest request for information about the payment to Lev and a description of the work she was asked to do.
“USF has not made any payments to Ms. Lev and there are no updates to share on this matter since we last provided you with information in June,” he wrote.
Nancy McCann, a graduate student in the Department of Journalism and Digital Communication, is teaching a class as an adjunct instructor this semester.
