I'm wondering what unionized teachers and others think of the following arrangement:

>>>>>>>>The sister of teachers-union President Michael Mulgrew was wrist-slapped Monday for operating a booming tutoring company that was awarded $40 million in work from the city while she was employed as a public-school teacher.

The overlapping gigs got Kathleen Mulgrew-Daretany a warning letter from the city Conflicts of Interest Board, after it determined that her work for Brienza’s Academic Advantage violated city conflict-of-interest rules.

While Mulgrew-Daretany was technically on an extended unpaid maternity leave from 2001 through 2012, she was still barred as a city employee from working at a firm that conducts business with the city.

Mulgrew-Daretany served as COO of the firm from 2008 to 2012, at which point she resigned from her teaching gig.

She then left Brienza’s in 2012, but the city Department of Education rehired her. She is currently an “associate education officer” with a $75,825 salary, officials said.
Officials launched a probe following inquiries by The Post about Mulgrew-Daretany’s employment.>>>>>>

the rest: http://nypost.com/2013/12/24/ethics-no-no-for-teacher-union-chiefs-sister/

So, essentially, the employer ( NYC Dept of Ed.) steers 40 million dollars of contracted work to a private firm run by the sister of the president of the union.

Wouldn't the union president be at least *potentially* compromised by such an arrangement? Wouldn't there be a temptation to be less aggressive in advocating for his members.... for fear of risking a relationship that SEEMS to bring a lot of material benefits to the union leader's family?

Is it appropriate that the union "declines comment"?

Should unionized teachers demand clearer boundaries between their employer and their union?