External Affairs 

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM (SAWS) 50-YEAR WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

RECOMMENDATION:
The Board of Directors of the Hispanic Chamber adopts the following position statement:

The San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce supports the San Antonio Water System’s proposal for an updated Water Management Plan.  The San Antonio Water System’s proven fiscal restraint, national leadership in water conservation, and exceptional service exemplify why the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce supports the proposal.

BACKGROUND:
Water Supply
San Antonio must be prepared to meet the needs of a growing community, especially during times of drought. State and federal law limit the amount of water that SAWS is allowed to pump from the Edwards Aquifer. Therefore, SAWS is working to secure San Antonio’s water future on two fronts: First, SAWS will continue to optimize its use of the Edwards Aquifer through conservation, the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project, the use of additional Edwards supplies, and recycled water systems. SAWS must continue to supplement its Edwards supplies with projects such as Canyon Lake, the Trinity Aquifer and the Local Carrizo Aquifer. 

Given the current drought it is more important than ever that projects in development begin to move into implementation.  Current projects in development include the groundwater desalination project, the Regional Carrizo Aquifer Project, the Lower Colorado River Project and other potential supplies.

We encourage the San Antonio City Council to approve the SAWS Water Management Plan.

IMPLEMENTATION:  
The Hispanic Chamber will communicate this position statement via public testimony and letters directed to the SAWS Board of Trustees, Mayor Hardberger, and the City Council.  In addition the position statement will be shared with members through its webpage.


SAHCC in Action:

On Tuesday, April 21, SAHCC Executive Board Members Eddie Aldrete and Robbie Greenblum traveled to Austin to testify in opposition to a host of anti-immigration bills at the House of Representatives State Affairs Committee.  Eddie's testimony was covered in the Rio Grande Guardian: http://www.riograndeguardian.com/storyprint.asp?category_id=38&story_no=23

Robbie's testimony was covered in the San Antonio Express News: http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/Chamber_opposes_anti-immigrant_bills.html

Nuclear Energy for Texans and the CASEnergy Coalition

The Board of Directors of the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce adopts the following position statement:

The San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce approves the entrance into a statewide coalition, Nuclear Energy for Texans, and a nationwide grassroots organization, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition), as a member and supporter of nuclear energy for San Antonio’s growing electrical capacity, planning, and economic development needs.

BACKGROUND:

San Antonio must be prepared to meet the needs of a growing community.  We are already a nuclear city; currently receiving one-third of our energy from the South Texas Project nuclear plants, of which we are forty percent owners through our publicly-owned utility, CPS Energy.  San Antonio’s citizens have been well-served by the South Texas Project through CPS Energy’s low electricity rates and
Plentiful energy, which is used as an economic development tool to attract companies such as Microsoft, that is dependent on an affordable and abundant source of electricity.

Nuclear energy is efficient, reliable, and does not contribute to air pollution.  With a 90% generating capacity rate, the South Texas Project is more reliable than solar or wind energy farms, and does not rely on fossil fuel. 

IMPLEMENTATION:   The Hispanic Chamber will communicate this position statement via public testimony and letters directed to the CPS Energy Board of Trustees, Mayor Castro, and the City Council.  In addition the position statement will be shared with members through digital media.

HISPANIC CHAMBER'S POSITION ON TRUST COALITION:

TEXAS RESIDENTS FOR A STRONGER TEXAS (TRUST) COALITION

STATEMENT:
The San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce reaffirms its collaboration with the Texas Residents United for a Stronger Texas (TRUST) Coalition, and adopts the TRUST Coalition’s Principles for Practical Legislation.

BACKGROUND:
TRUST is a coalition of business, religious and advocacy organizations* calling on the Texas Legislatureand the Governor to support legislation consistent with the following principles:

• Encourage economic development and creation of new jobs in Texas;
• Encourage economic development and trade to flourish along the Texas-Mexico border while ensuring public safety;
• Encourage Latin American economic development, to decrease the flow of economic migrants over time;
• Recognize the economic contributions of the immigrant workforce;
• Ensure that Texas employers who are acting in good faith, consistent with federal immigration laws, will not be targeted by punitive state measures;
• Ensure that employers, landlords, businesses or private individuals do not play the role of immigration agents;
• Affirm that state agencies or municipalities do not have the obligation to enforce complex immigration laws, and avoid the creation of burdensome new bureaucracies;
• Encourage the use of reliable, verifiable forms of identification for all Texans to ensure public safety, while rejecting obstacles that prevent access to identification or driver licenses;
• Avoid reliance on unreliable technology, including the E-verify database;
• Protect equality of all U.S. citizen children under the Constitution;
• Support the removal of barriers to deter crime victims, witnesses and other residents from contracting local law enforcement, reporting crimes or assisting with investigations;
• Create measures of accountability for border security programs to ensure that tax-payer funds be used to promote long-term public safety improvements for the border region;
• Ensure that local law enforcement resources are not directed toward enforcing civil immigration laws;
• Encourage legislation that is not divisive and avoids the scapegoating of immigrants;
• Preserve access to healthcare to benefit the public health of all Texans;
• Assure access for all Texas children to education at all levels, including affordable higher education, thereby reducing drop-outs and improving workforce competitiveness;
• Support bilingual education and other means that are proven effective to teach foreign languages to increase our global competitiveness; and
• Implement policies that embrace the cultural diversity of the state of Texas.

* Coalition members include Texas Association of Businesses (TAB), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.  (ACLU), the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce…


HISPANIC CHAMBER'S POSITION ON EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT/ CARD CHECK LEGISLATION:

STATEMENT:
The San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors opposes any efforts to implement the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as “Card Check”, which would deprive employees of a secret ballot for the purposes of unionization. 

BACKGROUND: (Courtesy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), or “card check bill”, first introduced in 2007, has a potentially detrimental effect on businesses. 

Current unionization rules allow employers to request a secret ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.  Organized labor introduced the “Employee Free Choice Act” (better known as “card check”) in 2007. Under card check, a union would simply have to collect authorization cards signed by a majority of employees in a bargaining unit to be recognized as the exclusive representative of all the employees in that unit. This process would effectively eliminate the use of the secret ballot election, where employees can express their preferences in private and prevent anyone from finding out how they voted. Under card check, where choices are made without privacy, workers would be more vulnerable to coercion.

Card check would also allow a federal arbitrator to write the labor agreement that will define every detail about how employees will work for two years if the parties have not reached agreement within 120 days – an extraordinarily short time for negotiating first contracts. This provides an incentive for union negotiators to make sure the process lasts long enough to get the matter into arbitration and eliminates any incentive to negotiate in good faith. In addition, employees would lose their opportunity to ratify their first contract – it would be imposed with no ability for either employers or employees to challenge it.

The Employee Free Choice Act also dramatically increases penalties on employers for certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act without increasing any penalties on unions for violations that they might commit.

The San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce opposes the Employee Free Choice Act because:

• It would effectively eliminate the secret ballot currently used to determine if unions will represent employees in a workplace and expose employees to coercion and intimidation. Unions may or may not be good for employees, but that is their decision to make based on all the facts and circumstances. Employees should be able to make that choice privately, without union organizers or company officials looking over their shoulders – or worse. Exposing employees’ decisions to unions, employers, and their co-workers opens the door to coercion and intimidation. The secret ballot process has served us so well for so long in so many situations because it respects our values. To take it away because one side doesn’t like the results that it is producing would be a huge mistake.
• The bill would require federally-appointed arbitrators to write labor contracts that are binding for two years. If, after only 120 days of negotiations, there is no agreement for a first contract, the matter could be submitted to binding interest arbitration where a federally-appointed arbitrator would decide all of the terms and conditions of the union contract, from pay and benefits to work rules and outsourcing. Employers could be forced to radically change their business models or eliminate important competitive advantages.
• The Employee Free Choice Act would impose a completely unbalanced increase in penalties. Under the bill penalties on employers would be increased significantly without any corresponding increase in penalties on unions. Such one-sided increases conflict with any sense of fairness or balance.
  http://www.uschamber.com/chambers/efca_gr_toolkit


HISPANIC CHAMBER'S POSITION ON ROTHE vs. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

STATEMENT:
The San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors supports the fair and equitable access of Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB’s), Small Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises (MWBE’s), and Veterans to government contracting opportunities, and approves giving the Hispanic Chamber authority to act on the following recommendations regarding the Rothe Case injunction on minority contracting set-asides with the Department of Defense.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Hispanic Chamber strongly believes any erosion of minorities’ opportunities to compete for contracts in industries that have shown proven historical discrimination will have far-reaching implications in a broad spectrum of programs, systems, and institutions that are currently protecting minority opportunity rights.
On Thursday, March 26, 2009, the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce’s Government Affairs Committee endorsed the following recommendations made by Mr. John D. Gonzalez, President and CEO of JDG Associates Incorporated.  Mr. Gonzalez is an expert in federal procurement, contracting, and labor issues.

1. The court did not say there is no discrimination.  The problem is the evidence.  Congress did not do its due diligence.  It did not provide the relevant information necessary to establish a sufficient pattern of discrimination.
2. Therefore, when Government reenacts the Department of Defense Reauthorization Act at the end of the Fiscal Year, it is imperative that Congress get the necessary sufficient data on record.
3. This can be done by holding congressional hearings and obtaining testimony from small, minority owned companies who have had difficulty accessing Federal contracts, especially at the Department of Defense.
4. All new evidence, such as information obtained from recent or ongoing city/state disparity studies should be entered into the record.
5. The San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce should spearhead this initiative by coalescing with our state/national chamber affiliates as well as all major Hispanic/minority civil rights organizations.

BACKGROUND ANALYSIS OF ROTHE vs. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
1. Federal Circuit Court ruled that the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program was unconstitutional at the Department of Defense (DOD).
2. This may open challenges to other socio-economic programs, including the 8(a) Program.
3. Section 1207 of the 1987 National Defense Reauthorization Act established that a goal of 5% of all DOD contracting dollars go to the SDBs.
4. Rothe asserted that Section 1207 of the Reauthorization Act violated the right to equal protection because it authorizes the DOD to afford preferential treatment on the basis of race.
5. The Federal Circuit Court held that Section 1207 was unconstitutional because Congress did not have “a strong basis in evidence” to conclude that the DOD was a passive participant in pervasive, nationwide discrimination.  In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the evidence that was before Congress when it reenacted Section 1207 in 2006, including: studies of discrimination in various communities, letters from individual business owners describing incidents of perceived discrimination, anecdotal evidence from members of Congress, testimony from small business owners and three relevant SBA reports.  Because this evidence did not establish sufficient statistical evidence of nationwide discrimination, the court held that the government did not have a compelling need to create statutory preferences for SDBs.  The court emphasized that its ruling was based solely on the sufficiency of the evidence offered by the DOD.  Thus, the court left open the possibility that any future reenactment of Section 1207 may pass constitutional muster if it is supported by sufficient evidence of discrimination.