Quiz. Need serious answer

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Quiz. Need serious answer

RichardDorrough
Scenario: The NYC District Council Training gets nailed in the training fund audits that the DOL is conducting because of lavish parties and lavish graduation ceremonies illegal under ERISA being thrown by the UBC funds and had to repay the Training fund say $291,000 by order of the EBSA. Who would have to come up with the money?? The UBC Training fund Admin, Board and all its trustees was found guilty under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty and ordered by the EBSA to recover the $291,000. The Council involved paid the money from the council bank accounts to the Training fund accounts. Why. How????? Any ideas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quiz. Need serious answer

TRUTH
Get you a tin cup, pace back and forth   in front of 395 Hudson st. and beg for donations. That way you will get all the attention your little heart desires, and the council trustees are off the hook.
RDK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quiz. Need serious answer

RDK
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
they probably wrote a promissory note saying they will pay back with interest as of July 1st when the disabled carpenters and their families have been exterminated !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quiz. Need serious answer

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by TRUTH
the council trustees are off the hook.. Actually its to late for them to be off the hook because others are asking the same question under Sec 501 of the LMRDA.. Now a better idea is why dont you get your UBC rubber rat . Attached your lips to its ass. Put on your god bless the UBC and your all scabs sign and explain to everybody that walks by at 395 Hudson why your Boy Doug McCarron and YOU financed,lobbied for and passed legislation stealing from retirees pension checks while spending $6.5 million on a party in Vegas for a room full of morons and UBC suck ass. I am sure you will be able to explain it since your so knowledgeable about "the battle for Pensioners" It would be funny to watch some 90 year old retireee stick your "god bless the UBC sign" down your throat
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quiz. Need serious answer

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Actually the $291,000 involved the SWRCC and was a real event . I used the NYCDCC scenario in an attempt to get an unbiased answer.The DOL has been auditing training funds and trying to clean up 200 training and apprentice fund cases of abuse of Training fund monies.Sec Borzi of the EBSA at an NCCMP annual conference 2012-2013 warned her Union International buddies of the upcoming audits.So they knew what the audits were for and knew they were coming....The most contentious topic of the conference was the Department of Labor’s “DOL’s” continued enforcement crackdown on expenses for graduation ceremonies for apprenticeship and training funds. Phyllis Borzi, Assistant Secretary of Labor and head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, said the DOL is trying to settle the 120-plus(now 200) pending investigations of apprenticeship funds. To her, the question is what is reasonable and necessary in running an apprenticeship fund. Specifically, any expense must be related to the training purposes of the fund. In answering frustrated trustees at both her convention speech and the break-out session, she repeated twice that “you can’t have a graduation ceremony that looks like a wedding or a Bar Mitzvah.”She said it was a “fact and circumstances test” in which “modest” ceremonies and gifts are “OK.” Borzi indicated that the DOL would be issuing further guidance for apprenticeship funds
                Despite them all knowing it was an audit and what it was for at the McCarron 14D in September 2013 Draper tried to claim "September 2013 -14D Trial -Peter Aylward" Q So at the time you were hired, the Department had begun their investigation; is that correct? A They hadn't begun their investigation, but they had notified their counsel that they were going to be targeted for the audit. Q To your knowledge, has the Department investigation concluded? A To my knowledge, it still has not yet commenced.Draper calls for a short break and they come back...and like magic This was fact.. Yet later at the 14d Trial even after testifying "it still has not yet commenced". Draper lies and Aylward lied with him.. Daper:Q I want to talk about the Labor Department's investigation, Peter. The Labor Department is conducting an investigation of the Training Fund; is that correct? A Yes. Q The Labor Department's investigation is still ongoing; is that correct? A Yes. even after testifying "it still has not yet commenced". Draper lies and Aylward lied with him.. Peter and his company the next year received QPAM Work for the International Pension Fund on multiple accounts.Under cross examination Aylward lied again..Page 74 Griffin cross of Peter Aylward
Q BY MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you.
 You've stated the Fund was going to be targeted
 for a Department of Labor investigation; correct?

 A No. I said that it had received notice from
the Department of Labor that an examination was
 forthcoming.

 Q Do you know why it was being targeted by the
Department of Labor?
 A The Training Fund received notice that it would
 be subject to an audit by the Department of Labor

    But Peter you just said Peter. The Labor Department is conducting an investigation of the Training Fund; is that correct? A Yes. Q The Labor Department's investigation is still ongoing; is that correct? A Yes.
 
     So back to the audit.The EBSA comes in after September 2013 and conducts an audit on the SWRCC training fund and sure as .. they are found to spent $291,000 on lavish parties and ceremonies and had to replace it. The audit was competed by March 2015..Now the law says "With these fiduciary responsibilities, there is also potential liability. Fiduciaries who do not follow the basic standards of conduct may be personally liable to restore any losses to the plan" The Board and Trustees included Doug McCarron,Lawyer Gordy Hubel, Mike Mccarron and Mike Draper to name a few

    11 Times the EBSA auditors declared the Board and Trustees violated their fiduciary duty and have violated several Provisions of ERISA... But odd none the Board or Trustees were held liable..although all were equally guilty. And odd in September 2014 a full 8 months before the audit concluded the SWRCC replaced the $291,000..

     Of course the audit also determined that Mike McCarron forced fund administrator Ed Ripley, under threat of death,to buy a $58,000 Denali..and for those interested the EBSA did an in depth mileage comparison between a Denali and a Yukon

      Sorry... So can anyone answer. Why did the Council use council funds pay the training fund instead of pursuing the bonds and the liability of the fund board and officers. Its it a law or bylaw that the Council must pay ??Oh and lets not forget. The council was in trusteeship at the time and I am not sure but gosh one of those Liable Mike Draper was in control of the SWRCC accounts