(Formerly posted at the LU157 Blog Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:13:00 AM EDT)(Corrected)
LU157 Trusteeship:
I knew it wasn’t correct that Forde was allowed to be appointed Assistant Supervisor of Local Union 157. Personally, I always thought it shouldn’t have been allowed because it was and is a conflict of interest by having the NYCDCC EST be immediately involved with and controlling the affairs of a Local Union directly affiliated with the NYCDCC. In addition, if the LU officers supposedly resigned or were supposedly lawfully dismissed, I thought there should have been elections for new officers as soon as was possible.
Having just reread the Consent Decree, to which the NYCDCC and Local Unions then and now must abide, signed by Federal Judge Haight March 4, 1994, presented at page 16, being NYCDCC EST and Local Union 157 Assistant Supervisor appears to have violated paragraph 10 of the Consent Decree. Was it inadvertent contempt of the Consent Decree or just plain intentional contempt?
Additionally, not having an election within 90 days for local union officer positions vacated by a DC officer appears to have also violated this paragraph. Not that Forde was allowed to do that any way. Question is who actually dismissed the LU157 officers? To my knowledge, only a LU Supervisor is allowed to circumvent the trial/guilty/vote officer dismissal procedure as stated within the 2006 UBC Constitution. However, Hanley, Dilacio, and Kennedy seemed to have been dismissed as LU157 officers well before Spencer was appointed. Yes, you can argue that Hanley and Kennedy willingly resigned their LU officer positions when they resigned their Business Manager and Business Agent positions. But Dilacio did not. Please correct me if I am wrong. Nonetheless, no election for the vacated positions occurred within 90 days. (Thanks Callahan!)
10. Prohibition on Multiple Office holding. The By-Laws of the District Council shall be amended, and are hereby amended, to provide that, effective immediately, no District Council officer shall simultaneously hold any elected, appointed or salaried position in any local union. This provision shall be effective against any District Council officer who currently holds any such positions at the earlier of: (a) the expiration of the officer's current local union term of office; or (b) July 1, 1994. Any local union office vacated by a District Council officer shall be filled by an election of the membership of that local, supervised by the Investigations and Review Officer. Such elections shall be conducted on a date determined by the Investigations and Review Officer, but not more than ninety (90) days after the vacancy is created.
(Formerly posted at the LU157 Blog Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:59:00 PM EDT)
Do you think that the LU157 trusteeship was rightfully imposed? If yes, why? If you think it wasn’t, why? Also, if you wanted to make a complaint about the LU157 trusteeship to the US DOL, what concerns would you include?
Information/commentary already presented at John Musumeci's Local 157 blogspot:
ReplyDeleteLocal 157 Nomination Meeting
Page Six
Dirty Tricks Scandal at Local 157
The Set-Up, Union Politics, Dirty Tricks Scandal at Local 157: Week One
The Sting, Callahan’s Investigation, Dirty Tricks Scandal at Local 157- Part Two
The Trusteeship, Defrauding the Membership, Dirty Tricks Scandal at Local 157 – Part Three
The Cover Up, What Did D’Errico Know and When Did He Know It, Dirty Tricks Scandal at Local 157 - Part Four
Angry Local 157 Members Demand Answers
Local 157 Wins One for The Rank and File
Members Questions Go Unanswered
Questions For Spencer
(Formerly posted at the LU157 Blog Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:13:00 AM EDT)(Corrected)
ReplyDeleteLU157 Trusteeship:
I knew it wasn’t correct that Forde was allowed to be appointed Assistant Supervisor of Local Union 157. Personally, I always thought it shouldn’t have been allowed because it was and is a conflict of interest by having the NYCDCC EST be immediately involved with and controlling the affairs of a Local Union directly affiliated with the NYCDCC. In addition, if the LU officers supposedly resigned or were supposedly lawfully dismissed, I thought there should have been elections for new officers as soon as was possible.
Having just reread the Consent Decree, to which the NYCDCC and Local Unions then and now must abide, signed by Federal Judge Haight March 4, 1994, presented at page 16, being NYCDCC EST and Local Union 157 Assistant Supervisor appears to have violated paragraph 10 of the Consent Decree. Was it inadvertent contempt of the Consent Decree or just plain intentional contempt?
Additionally, not having an election within 90 days for local union officer positions vacated by a DC officer appears to have also violated this paragraph. Not that Forde was allowed to do that any way. Question is who actually dismissed the LU157 officers? To my knowledge, only a LU Supervisor is allowed to circumvent the trial/guilty/vote officer dismissal procedure as stated within the 2006 UBC Constitution. However, Hanley, Dilacio, and Kennedy seemed to have been dismissed as LU157 officers well before Spencer was appointed. Yes, you can argue that Hanley and Kennedy willingly resigned their LU officer positions when they resigned their Business Manager and Business Agent positions. But Dilacio did not. Please correct me if I am wrong. Nonetheless, no election for the vacated positions occurred within 90 days. (Thanks Callahan!)
10. Prohibition on Multiple Office holding. The By-Laws of the District Council shall be amended, and are hereby amended, to provide that, effective immediately, no District Council officer shall simultaneously hold any elected, appointed or salaried position in any local union. This provision shall be effective against any District Council officer who currently holds any such positions at the earlier of: (a) the expiration of the officer's current local union term of office; or (b) July 1, 1994. Any local union office vacated by a District Council officer shall be filled by an election of the membership of that local, supervised by the Investigations and Review Officer. Such elections shall be conducted on a date determined by the Investigations and Review Officer, but not more than ninety (90) days after the vacancy is created.
What do you think?
(Formerly posted at the LU157 Blog Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:59:00 PM EDT)
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the LU157 trusteeship was rightfully imposed? If yes, why? If you think it wasn’t, why? Also, if you wanted to make a complaint about the LU157 trusteeship to the US DOL, what concerns would you include?
Here are the initial letters faxed to D'Errico, Forde, Spencer, and McCarron on April 7, 2008 and again April 11, 2008.
ReplyDeleteHere are the follow-up letters faxed to Forde, Spencer, and McCarron on April 22, 2008.
louis vuitton outlet
ReplyDeletetiffany outlet
pandora jewelry
michael kors outlet online
tods outlet
lebron james shoes 13
nike blazers
insanity workout
fitflops sale clearance
rolex watches outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton outlet
hollister clothing
oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
cheap jordans
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
gucci handbags
michael kors outlet
nike roshe run
nike uk
coach outlet online
polo ralph shirts
louis vuitton outlet stores
true religion
ray ban sunglasses
oakley sunglasses
jordan 4
cheap oakley sunglasses
nike air force
air jordans
oakley sunglasses
louboutin pas cher
asics shoes
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
ray ban sunglasses
20165.30wengdongdong