Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

John Musumeci
Administrator
Supervisor Frank Spencer will be attending the first meeting of Local 157 on Thursday January 27, since the dissolution of Local 608.

This is the first time in 531 days Spencer will be addressing members since the "emergency supervision" was imposed.

I have been advised that Spencer will answer member questions. Undoubtedly we will have many. I thought it would be helpful to make a list of questions. Feel free to post as many questions as you like.

We can start with this:

Mr. Spencer how would you grade your performance as supervisor?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

anon
What steps have you taken since the release of Walsh’s report to ensure that the council is no longer simply working in a holding pattern?
 Why did you feel it necessary to forego our agreed upon raise?
Since a sixty day notification must be given to all effected parties prior to any renegotiations of any contract,
Were the officers of the effected locals notified? If not why not? If so, why were members not told of this by our officers?
Who initiated the changing of our contracts?
 Since the supervision ends in March, and the contract ran until July, what do you feel that you have to offer in terms of negotiating our contracts that would serve members better than persons who would be chosen by members after you leave?  
What is your position on Sheil and Thomassen now that they have resigned the union and are under investigation for fraud and corruption?
Do you still feel justified in ignoring members appeals to have these men removed from office?
What steps have you taken to ensure that you do not make this mistake again?  
Why is it that Walsh was able to find evidence against three officers of documented cases amounting to over $700,000 in inappropriate expenses when you were unable to find any?
Why is it that all of the policing of NYCDCC affairs seems to be being handled by Walsh, what are you doing?
What benefit to members do you serve?
Are members going to be notified prior to any requests by the UBC to extend the supervision?
Why is it that every time you send out a notice to members, it is always after the fact and their input is never sought?
Mr. Walsh stated in his report that the locals had out grown their usefullness.
What benefits to the members do locals serve that would not be as well served by a club such as the latino club?
Can you give a couple of examples of times where you needed to consult with any of the locals prior to conducting some business? Where this consultation was required by either the bylaws or the constitution? Where you were not doing so as a gesture?
Why was Phil Newkirks report not released to the effected members?
What steps are you taking to ensure that the delegate body will never be corrupted again?
Are members to be allowed to attend delegate meetings or are we going to be forced to rely on the same system which allowed this to occur in the first place?
What steps have you taken to bring in to place a more open and accountable council?
Are you intending to attend a meeting at other locals or is having your local dissolved and the meeting you are entitled to in the constitution a prerequisite?
Walsh said in his report that many employees at the Funds do very little and have few qualifications for the positions they hold, why did you not find this out prior to this? And what are you doing to correct the situation?
Why have corrections not already taken place?
Why are members still footing the bill for the cronies, relatives, misstresses, girlfriends and associates of the disgraced officers who hired these people?
Since you stated in your letter regarding the dissolution of local 608 that it was due to the corruption found within local 608, and since walsh has found corruption in many locals,
Does it make any sense to not dissolve all of the corrupt locals?
Thomassens local, Sheis local, Salazarnos local? All were found to be being manipulated by   corrupt officers. So why stop at one?
Why were local 608’s members transferred to a local which was so recently under supervision itself?
Do you now feel that the corruption at local 157 which caused this supervision was dealt with?
Could you outline some of the corruption from local 157 which you found during your supervision of that local and how you dealt with it?
Do you still feel that Mike Forde did not manipulate the situation to his own advantage?
Do you think that the UBC will look for someone who is not in court for bribery and corruption to act as assisstant supervisor in the future?
How do you feel the members should feel about the fact that all three assisstant supervisors chosen by you are either in jail or under investigation themselves? Forde of local 157, Thomassen and Sheil at the council?
How do you think it possible for members to select the proper candidates for officers on the limited amount of information allowed them when you have a 0 for 3 average with all available information at your disposal?
Local 157 was placed under supervision because locals are held responsible for the actions of their officers.
According to Phil Newkirk, Mike Forde was able to do what he did as a result of a system of local barons and that the council should be free of influence of locals.
So which is it?
If locals are to be held responsible for the actions of their officers at the council, how are members supposed to police them if the council is to be kept free from the locals influence?
What steps are you taking to ensure that the local members will be able to police their officers?
Are they to rely on being able to find someone who cannot be corrupted, or are they going to be allowed to know what is going on so as to be able to prevent their locals being placed under supervision and all their rights forfeited as a result?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
WHY DID YOU & YOUR COUNCIL KEEP DEVEREAUX WHEN AS STATED BY WITNESS IN A TESTIMONY DESCRIPTION OF A JORNEYMAN QUESTIONING WEEKS OF MANY JOBSITE VIOLATIONS. DEVEREAUX TOLD HIM TO SHUT THE FUCK UP AND BE LUCKY YOUR WORKING. BOOM HE'S REGIONAL MANAGER ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
FRANKLY, -JUST HOW DEEPLY ENTRENCHED IN LA COSA NOSTRA, FRANK ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
Why haven't you answered members mail since 531 Days, 13 Hours, 48 Minutes, 59 Seconds ago?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
Why are you here ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by anon
How do you feel the members should feel about the fact that all three assisstant supervisors chosen by you are either in jail or under investigation themselves? Forde of local 157, Thomassen and Sheil at the council?

He can answer with only to Forde, the rest retired !  Go ahead say it Frank.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
Will you take Doug McCarrons dick out of your ass?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
HOW COME YOU HAVE NO UNION CARPENTERS ON A PERINI VA HOSPITAL JOB IN ORLANDO ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

anon
In reply to this post by iamlistman@yahoo.com
4 posts without one serious question, seems to me listman that you could posted all of that as one post. of course you could also have reduced it to zero posts if you only posted questions worth asking. how was i to know you could increase that to 6 posts while i was typing, still zero on the relevant questions though.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
WHAT HAS YOUR SUPERVISION UNCOVERED RE: THE 157 SCANDAL, OR DID YOU OK THEIR RETIREMENTS TOO.

WHY DID YOU OPEN THE BACK DOOR FOR 4 PRO TEM 608 SPOTS?
WHY DID YOU LET EVERYONE SLIDE OUT THAT DOOR?
HOW WAS THE ENTERTAINMENT YOU SAY YOU DIDN';T STICK AROUND FOR WHEN SENDING D. SHEIL OFF?
DO YOU EXPECT US TO BELIEVE THE NEWKIRK CONSOLIDATION LETTER?  BULLSHIT FRANK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

tester
In reply to this post by anon
Anon,are you the next Moderator for this Forum ?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

anon
In reply to this post by iamlistman@yahoo.com
They did not "retire", Spencer was told to remove Thomassen or the feds were going to put the NYCDCC in the papers again. Sheil is no longer a member of the UBC, he left the organization to avoid answering Walsh's questions. Since Walsh is looking for $200,000 out of Thomassen and another $50,000 out of Sheil, and that is just from his report, and since Walsh made Sheil return the ATV, and pay for the watch and return $30,000 to the "friends of Dennis Sheil", I think it fair to say that these two did not "retire" so much as they ran.  Which still leaves the question of the pensions these two were collecting while in office.  
The pension that McCarron stated that they were entitled to collect. Perhaps Frank Spencer could explain to members just why it is only acceptable for the highest earning members of the NYCDCC to collect a pension from the plan of the lowest earning section of the NYCDCC.
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
Any official word is they retired.

Collected in Office, one thing. Shit they're depositing in the bank now as retirement.
another thing all together
If we only got Forde to give up 20%,- expect less from them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by anon
Of course ZERO on your topics............. There's this guy working in brooklyn and he calls a 157 rep...........PLease !

We know what you think about local reps & consolidation so go pander for McCarron and I'll continue to inform.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

anon
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
Will members of other locals be allowed to attend? This is a rare opportunity to see what your hard earned money is paying for.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

Ted
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
this is a listman question:

How can a 5th year Apprentice become a BA-BR in the UBC, while it takes 9-years to become a Steward (4 as an Apprentice & 5 in the Filed)?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

anon
Because when an apprentice finishes their apprenticeship, they have all the classes needed to become a steward except for the stewards class itself. many members were unhappy with having a steward who had no real experience in the field so the council brought in the five year rule. Business Agents only require one year in your local and two years in the UBC as per the constitution. this is not something the council can change as it is a UBC law.    
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

im watching
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
first i want to say that this site is great it keeps all of use up to date something this union is not doing and why is frank spencer or some one from the international not keeping us all up to date once again thank you for giving us all the info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Questions For Supervisor Frank Spencer

iamlistman@yahoo.com
Good question, Answer, ----- On Purpose ! Just like a politician does.
12
Loading...