Public Relations/

Corporate Communications

I have over ten years’ experience in corporate communications and PR for various nonprofits, unions, a record label, and a boutique criminal defense law firm. Below is a small sample of my work in this area.

Press Releases

The following is an example of a press release I composed on behalf of the Graduate Teaching Assistants’ Coalition at KU to present our side of the ongoing contract negotiations to the local and regional press.

Contract negotiations between the University and its Graduate Teaching Assistants have resumed following the winter break, but the new year brought little change from last year's trend of glacial progress and tenuous compromise.

“While the University pays lip service to progress, or mutual concerns, our team keeps reworking our proposals to try to provide better conditions for graduate employees and still accomodate the University’s financial burdens, which we’re frequently reminded of. But without a certain willingness on their part, I feel like we’re in there rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic,” said Kyle Waugh, co-president of the Graduate Teaching Assistants' Coalition (GTAC), which represents the GTAs, and member of the negotiating team.

One of the issues being disputed in negotiations involves informing new GTAs about the terms and conditions of their employment, including the contract between the University and the GTAs.

GTAC has proposed giving a ten to fifteen minute presentation during the training held for new GTAs each semester in order to provide information about the contract, but the University objects to this idea.

Katy Martin, spokesperson for the GTA team, explained GTAC's position, saying, "We think it's very important for employees to know their rights and what is expected of them. Many GTAs we talk to aren't even aware they have a union or that they've agreed to a contract that defines their job."

GTAC first proposed this presentation in September, but the University continues to refuse. "It seems important for new employees to be informed about their jobs," Martin added. "We're not sure why the University would want to keep us in the dark."

GTAC co-president Brian Azcona added to Martin’s concerns: “At the two orientation sessions held this year, the new GTAs were not alerted that their contract was undergoing any changes, or that negotiations even existed, let alone given information concerning things like a grievance procedure or other employee rights. Unfortunately, representatives from GTAC are forbidden to enter the hall."

Other matters on the table include wages, health care, and the ten-semester time limit imposed by University administration on employment eligibility for GTAs, an unpopular policy with both students and academic departments, since it eliminates the most experienced teaching assistants and puts undue financial burdens on graduate students just as their doctoral work is at peak intensity.

“I love my job, and I don’t mind working hard,” Martin said, “but our students are not getting the best possible education if their teachers have to work two or three jobs and still try to rush to finish their degrees. That benefits no one.”

This will be the third contract between the GTAs and the University; the first agreement was ratified in 1997. The first meeting of the semester was held January 23, but due to busy University schedules, only three more meetings have been set for this semester.

Negotiations for the last contract took 22 months to complete and eventually went to impasse. “I hope it doesn’t come to that again,” said Waugh; “I’ve got a lot of reading to do.”

The teams are scheduled to meet next on February 15.

Member outreach.

The following was a letter I wrote in 2009, in my capacity as Field Representative for the Kansas Association of Public Employees, to the Graduate Teaching Assistants at the University.

The letter was intended to explain the importance of the upcoming contract negotiations and implore them to become members of the Union.

GTAs:

As you may have heard, the GTAs are about to begin contract negotiations with the University once again. I have spoken with a number of people who are eager to know what issues will be up for discussion, how they can keep informed, and even, sometimes, how they can help. Having been through the process as lead negotiator last time, I can tell you there’s one easy thing you can do to help your cause, possibly more than any other action: join the union.

GTAC has fought hard since 1995 to win better conditions for GTAs, and we’ve succeeded in a number of issues: we established a minimum salary for all GTAs that has increased each year since, secured guaranteed tuition and fee waivers for each GTA, got the University to contribute to our health care costs, and defined a grievance procedure to protect ourselves and our contract. But it’s foolish to assume that our success will inevitably continue. The gains we’ve made were hard-fought, and they happened because we made it clear to the University that we couldn’t be ignored.

Our negotiating power is only as strong as our membership numbers. If the University looks at our membership rolls and sees 5% membership or even 25%, does that communicate to them that we care about our working conditions? Have we managed to send the message that we see ourselves as a community of professionals, and we expect to be treated as such?

Any and all contract issues can be opened for negotiations each time. There are no guarantees. You could win a contract that employees at other schools aspire to, that will be used to recruit high caliber graduate students and truly offers support for those already here--or you can ignore the process and find yourself with less than we had to begin with. It’s up to you.

And joining is not just about better wages for now. GTAC is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, which is fighting for all sorts of higher ed reforms: better access, better funding, less dependence on contingent labor generally. By joining, you’re helping assure that there will be jobs for you when you get done, and that the quality and availability of education gets better, not worse--a goal I’m certain all of us share.

I will soon be sending out a survey to find out which issues are most important to each of you to bargain about this time. And if you’d like to be more involved by joining the bargaining team or doing research, let me know: it’s time to assemble our group. But in the meantime, take that important first step and join. If you're already a member but your friends haven't joined, ask them why. I’ve attached the signup sheet, so there’s literally no barrier involved: just print out the form and send it in.

Next Saturday, May 2, GTAC is holding a barbeque for all GTAs and their families. From 4:00 to 7:30 in Watson Park downtown (7th and Kentucky), we’ll be cooking food and relaxing with fellow GTAs. I would love to see all of you there--with or without a side-dish to share. Come relax a little before the finals-craziness starts. And if you think you might be interested in joining but you want to talk with some members first, this will be a great opportunity for that; we’ll have plenty of membership cards on hand if you decide to take the leap and join.

Sincerely,

Katy Martin

Field Representative, American Federation of Teachers

Contract Negotiation

The following letter was written in my capacity as Spokesperson of the GTA’s union in their contract negotiations with the University, to emphasize in writing that we were eager to complete negotiations and were making ourselves available to do so.

Dear Ms. Faucher:

During our last negotiation session, on Monday, January 16, I suggested that, before closing the meeting, the members of both teams might schedule the remaining sessions for the spring semester. We were told, instead, to pass on our availability to Julie Halling, your team’s secretary, who was already informed of the availability of your team and would coordinate schedules. After two weeks and several hours of my own time, I was profoundly disappointed to find the net result was only three meet and confer sessions.

This situation is both troublesome and confusing to the members of our negotiating team. We can certainly understand a crowded schedule—the members of our team must carve time for these meetings among theses, classes, dissertation exams, teaching, parenthood, etc. But we were hoping—and believed you were, as well—to finish this process by the end of this semester.

With only three scheduled sessions, it is difficult to see how this is possible, and I am concerned that, should things extend beyond the semester, we will be presented with a whole new set of scheduling and logistical problems, since it is likely we will see a 50% turnover in the personnel of our negotiating team.

Our team has made considerable efforts to be as flexible and available as possible. During the early stages of this process, when the composition of our team was under scrutiny, we were advised by Les Hughes, one of seven members of your team, that negotiating teams were rarely larger than four, or perhaps five, people. While your team still exceeds this in size, our team has, in fact, decreased, in part to prevent precisely this sort of problem. Further, though we could not yet schedule meetings at the close of last semester, we gave your team notice of which days of the week we would need to meet, believing that, this being an employment obligation for your team members, some time might be kept aside for the necessary meetings.

I sincerely hope we can still manage to find some mutually agreeable time, so that our process is neither hindered nor halted by something as simple as scheduling. Perhaps if all concerned parties—and their calendars—were in one room together, it would be easier to see what is actually viable. Scheduling over email, through designees, makes it impossible to explore the full range of each team’s flexibility, and I am convinced we can still find a way to make progress this semester.

Sincerely,

Katy E. Martin

GTAC Negotiations Spokesperson

GTA, Department of English

Corporate Communications

The following letters were written on behalf of the teachers’ union, to formally communicate details of the contract negotiation to the Employer team, as contractually required.

Dear Ms. Faucher:

In our letter informing the Provost of our intent to open negotiations, KAPE and GTAC expressed the hope that the current Memorandum of Agreement between KAPE and the University will remain in place until a new agreement is reached. Since we have not received an official response, I am writing to confirm that this is amenable to you, and that the University intends to fulfill this request.

It is my firm desire that our teams will be able to reach an agreement before the expiration of the current Memorandum of Agreement. In case that is not possible, however, I wish to be certain that both sides have achieved an understanding. If you could provide me with a written answer to our proposal, I would be thoroughly appreciative.

I look forward to speaking with you again on August 16th. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Katy E. Martin

Spokesperson, GTA Negotiating Team

Dear Ms. Faucher and team;

We were recently informed of a policy adopted by the University this summer which affects the hiring and classification of graduate teaching assistants. Because of this new development, we would like to request that Article 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement be added to the list of articles currently under negotiation.

If you could provide a written response to this request, it would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Katy E. Martin

Spokesperson, GTA Negotiating Team

Corporate Communication

The following was a formal grievance written on behalf of a Nurses’ union (KUNA), to initiate the process of disputing the employee’s termination.

We are grieving the December 10 termination of Jane Doe on the grounds that she was not in violation of Hospital policy and, therefore, the disciplinary action is clearly in conflict with several of the principles of just cause.

Jane’s corrective action form states that “Sleeping while at work is not permitted. It is not an accepted behavior at any time.” However, the form cites no specific policy which states this idea explicitly, and many employees have expressed being unaware of this “unwritten rule.” The Form claims that Jane “did not use [her] best efforts while at work,” citing the priority of patient care and professional conduct, but none of this is true: Jane was on an unpaid lunch break when she was found resting. She had arranged for another employee to cover her patients during her contractual break. She was easily available to be retrieved should she be needed for an emergency. She was not exposed to the scrutiny of patients or families. She believed, as does the Union, that an employee is free to use her break time as she chooses, and is not subject to the same standards of active responsibility or professional comportment that she would be on the patient care floor. In no way is Jane guilty of neglecting patient care or professionalism.

Furthermore, no proof exists that Jane was in fact asleep when she was found by the Nurse Supervisors. Jane has said that she was simply resting with her eyes closed, and that she was aware of someone peeking into the break room and, a few minutes later, of the Nurse Supervisors entering the room. She responded immediately when they touched her arm and spoke to her. She had been on break no more than ten or fifteen minutes at that time, and believes there was “no way” she could have been asleep in that time, a feeling she articulated during her fact-finding with HR. In the initial complaint and investigation, it was said that she only “appeared to be sleeping”; in the Corrective Action Form, however, it is being claimed that she was “found asleep,” though no additional evidence is offered to support this.

Even if Jane were sleeping during her break, an immediate termination for this behavior is inconsistent with the action taken against similar—and more serious—behaviors. We are aware of incidents where employees were found [this section has been cut to maintain confidentiality], all of which are expressly prohibited by Hospital policy. None of these cases resulted in termination or, in some cases, even suspension.

Finally, the information provided in the Corrective Action Form is faulty. In addition to the discrepancy about Jane sleeping vs. resting her head, the incident cited from July of 2007 is simply incorrect. Jane was not resting her head on the desk at that time, and was not counseled for this behavior; she was merely observed appearing drowsy.

Furthermore, according to the Memorandum of Agreement, disciplinary incidents older than one year are no longer valid and active; it is a violation of the contract to include this in a corrective action or allow it to influence a decision regarding disciplinary action.

Because Jane was in no way negligent of patient care and no policy exists to warn employees of the consequences that will result from behavior such as hers, we request that her employment be immediately reinstated, and she be paid for all time missed since her disciplinary action.

Client History

In my position as a Legal Clerk at the criminal defense firm Nolan, Armstrong & Barton, one of my regular responsibilities was to write extensive “social histories” of our clients. The purpose of these documents was to place our client and the events surrounding their charges within the broader context of their life—tragedies and hardships, successes and contributions, and complicated family and social dynamics—in order to humanize them to the prosecuting attorney and/or judge and, hopefully, receive a more favorable plea or sentence. To do this, I interviewed the client and other significant figures in their life, and then synthesized that information into a sympathetic narrative that placed the client in the best possible light. The following is an example of one of these client histories.

J__ S__ was born August 7, 1943, on an airbase in Childress, Texas; his family moved to Arizona when J was still a baby. J’s father was in the Army Air Forces. He retired from the service not long after World War II ended, but had trouble finding other work. The S’s were terribly poor, and lived in an Army tent in the Arizona desert for two and a half years while J’s father worked in a  service station and tried to make ends meet. Then, when J was four years old, they moved to  Watsonville, California. 

After the move to California, J’s father became an experimental machinist and a born-again Christian. He stopped his heavy drinking and smoking, and went to church several times a week,  often bringing the children along. The S’s were still poor and rarely took vacations, but the children would sometimes go fishing with their father or take car rides with their parents into the desert. J was the middle child of three; he had an older brother, Bert, and a younger sister, Linda.  When J was 8 years old or so, his parents took on several foster children as well—foster parenting meant a government stipend. J was always expected to let the other children ride his bike or to give up something for them to use. Instead of getting frustrated by the situation, he often went down to the docks by himself to watch the boats. 

As they grew up, J and Bert became top-quality athletes. Though Bert was a year older, he was held back in elementary school and ended up in J’s class. When they got to high school age, they were in the Buchser High district, but Santa Clara High wanted the two athletes, and made concessions for them to attend there. J competed in baseball, football, basketball, and track until the school made a policy limiting students to three sports per year, and he was forced to drop baseball. J was an average student, earning Bs and Cs in school, but it was sports he was really interested in. When they graduated, J was named athlete of the year, and his brother Bert came in second place.  

It was at Santa Clara High where J met D__ F__, a pretty girl in his science class. D remembers J  as “quite a catch”: he was a star athlete, fun to be around, and friendly with everyone. Like J, D  had grown up mostly in California with a few years spent in Arizona. Like J’s, her family had very little money. The two began dating toward the end of 1960 and were married four years later.  

J was offered a football scholarship to SJSU, but his family could not afford the tuition; instead,  he enrolled in San Jose City College, and played football there for a year. At college he began working for a service station, moving before long to a luxury car repair shop. J developed such a  close relationship with the shop’s owner that the old man wanted him to take over the business someday, but J did not enjoy repair work that much. As the windows man at the repair shop, it was only a small leap into door and window installation on homes; then, when the window and door shop closed, J went to work for Golden Gate Drywall. 

Over the coming years, J worked his way up through the ranks at Golden Gate Drywall. He started in 1961 with an apprenticeship meant to last two years, but did so well that he was moved to journeyman wages after three months. He excelled at the job, and it became a running joke that  S was the man to beat if you wanted to prove the speed of a new tool or process. Foremen began to fight to have him on their crews. At the same time that he was establishing himself as a top worker, he was building relationships within the company. Being handy with motors, he was  frequently called upon to fix the owner’s houseboat, and wound up spending considerable time  with the “old man.” Before long, he was being invited on company trips and excursions, and became friends with many of the managers and clients. He was made a foreman in 1964, then a  superintendent; then, after 13 years with Golden Gate, he was made President of the company. 

The atmosphere at Golden Gate was one of friendly competition and camaraderie, and it suited J 

perfectly. It was an era when companies were founded on personal relationships: when a  handshake was the highest form of contract, and you didn’t do business with a man you couldn’t respect. Bill Thompson, the owner of Golden Gate Drywall, owned a houseboat and a private airplane which were used to entertain important clients and project managers; the company had its own duck club for frequent hunting excursions. As J ascended within the company, he was provided some of these luxuries as well, and expected to take good care of important contacts. As both an eager sportsman and a man of personal integrity, J thrived under these expectations. He became an avid hunter and earned his pilot’s license. He took clients to Mexico every year and even took a group of men to British Columbia to hunt big game. He was in his element, making friends, being outdoors—hunting, skiing, boating. He was always on call, in a sense, but J was not cut out for a nine-to-five desk job. Instead, he was able to turn his hobbies into a supremely successful career. J recalls that he built five multimillion-dollar high rises without so much as a  written contract. Many of his clients and colleagues from that time are still among his closest friends to this day. 

J and D had their son, C, in August of 64; their daughter, S, was born in 67. J adored his children and took them along on his trips at every opportunity. S remembers that her friends called her father “Santa Claus,” because of both his jolly demeanor and his generosity: if friends were along, nothing was ever bought for the S children unless their companions received one too. And friends were often along, joining the family on trips to Lake Shasta or elsewhere. D describes J as having been “generous to a fault”—something she admires, but which would ultimately cause problems for the marriage. People were constantly calling for favors or dropping by for a meal and bed, and J would drop everything in order to oblige. Having grown up with very little, J felt blessed by his luck and success, and he preferred to share his good fortune with others. He made no distinction between friends and colleagues; he genuinely liked the people he worked with and for, and he treated them accordingly. J would do anything for someone in need. He gave money to every charity that sent a letter: Make a Wish Foundation, Boy Scouts, Special Olympics. S  remembers a crippled man who would come door-to-door selling brooms, who impressed J with his persistence despite his disability. J would buy a broom from the man every time he came by the house; they had ten or fifteen brooms in the closet. 

J accumulated stock in Golden Gate over the years until he owned about fifteen percent of the company; he was exceptionally close with Thompson, the owner, who trusted him completely.  Thompson intended to keep J in charge of the company, though he had set it up in a living trust to take care of his own children financially. In 1987, Thompson invited J to lunch, and told him they  had “a problem.” Thompson’s children had discovered that they owned a majority of the company, and decided they wanted a chance at running it themselves. They wanted to keep J on as President with themselves having ultimate authority. But J was a man of his word, and he was not comfortable with the idea that he might make a promise just to be vetoed or overridden.  Thompson agreed that he would buy out J’s share and free him to leave the company and do something on his own. J took the money and, with Donny Bowen, a Superintendent at Golden  Gate whom he had known since his days at the service station, he started Aero Drywall. Within a  year, all the foremen at Golden Gate had left to work for Aero, and J was referring overflow business back to his old company. Still, J had the blessing of Thompson, and the two remained friends until the older man’s death. 

J ran his new business the way he had learned at Golden Gate: on the strength of personal relationships and personal integrity. He made it his goal to do not just his own job, but the client’s as well. He knew that if you do your work well enough, the work will keep finding you. He still made the annual trip to Mexico in his plane, and he began taking six to eight men to Wyoming on regular big game hunting trips. It was through this that he met Paul Gilroy, an “outfitter” who  arranged and acted as guide on many of the hunting trips, and became J’s friend for the next thirty 

years. J seemed to be able to make a connection with every person he worked with. The clients and managers often brought their children and wives along on trips; J strived to keep a family atmosphere within the company. Things blossomed within this environment, and Aero Drywall,  as well as J personally, became quite successful.  

Business suffered somewhat during the recession of the early 90s, and J was forced to shrink his company. He bought out Donny Bowen, who had injured his back, and cut back on other employees and projects. Even in hard times, though, J was careful to treat everyone fairly. He gave a loan to one bookkeeper he laid off, so that she could get started in business for herself.  Though Aero Drywall never returned to the level of success it enjoyed at its peak, the business continued on in its new leaner mode. J’s children began having children of their own, and J doted on them. He continued to ski and hunt and race boats, often with his children and grandchildren in tow. He taught his grandchildren how to hunt and waterski, just as he had his own children when they were small. 

By 2000, though, D had grown tired of being married to a man who never stopped working, and who would put everything on hold to help someone out. She wanted to live her own life, and she asked J for a divorce. At the same time, many of J’s old contacts had begun to retire or die out,  along with the old way of doing things. Business had lost much of its sense of personal connection and fun. J had been in the construction business for thirty years at this point; he was ready to give the younger generation a chance at it. He put his son, C, in charge of the company and moved to Oregon to give retirement a try.  

In Oregon, J found ways to spend his time—he built his own high-performance plane, and volunteered his time to fix and remodel the local high school. He would come back to California every month or so to see his grandchildren and check on the business. Even after the divorce, J  continued to help D with anything she needed; she recalls him crawling around under her deck to search for a rat that had started to smell, and fixing many things around the house for her elderly mother. After a couple of years in Oregon, J grew bored with retirement. C had run into some difficulties with Aero, and it was all the excuse J needed to go back to work. 

It was around this time—2003 or so—that J began to do work for the Palo Alto VA Hospital. A  general contractor J knew asked him to bid a job they would be doing there. After his first job,  several people suggested J bid again; after two or three jobs, he had earned a reputation as a man who does the job right and well the first time. Several doctors and other staff liked his exam rooms so much that they began requesting that he be asked back on future projects. Aero drywall was a subcontractor—they were not generally the ones directly contracted with the VA—but lots of companies hired Aero for their jobs, because of their excellent track record and the trust they had earned at the VA. J liked working there, and started to do it regularly; unlike some of Aero’s other recent clients, the VA paid their bills and presented minimal frustrations. He also felt strongly about the respect due to veterans, and was glad to be working for them. 

As J had done on all his jobs before, he tried to take care of the people at the VA. He would do little favors—hanging a picture, fixing a poorly hung door—whenever he could. He had his crew do little jobs for free, like painting a stripe in the parking lot when it was needed. J knew it smoothed things along if the employees and his crew respected each other and got along well; he was also especially glad to go the extra mile for the injured veterans, who he felt had given so much. On several occasions, J donated larger projects as well, like a gazebo in the memorial rose garden, and a paved pathway for it, later on. And as with every job J had held, he developed close relationships with the people he worked for and with. He would buy lunch for some of the vets,  and he became friendly with several of the employees at the VA. He would host Christmas parties to recognize them for what they do. Sometimes, those people would come to J for help; he never thought of what he might get in return, he just felt it was important to help out those who had less than he. Though J did many jobs for the VA, it was more a hobby than a moneymaker: his profit was generally fairly small, and when he could, he gave much of it back in donated labor.  

J feels the accusations are a sad misunderstanding. His generosity has been mischaracterized. J never expected anything in return for his kindness, from his first jobs to his last. He simply made it his philosophy to do right by others, and in his experience, things had always worked out when he did. 

KM, 6/15/11

All photographs copyright Katy Martin.