UBC's MAY 16th Proposals from April 6th Transcripts

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

UBC's MAY 16th Proposals from April 6th Transcripts

Ted
Page 4, 5 & 6 follow: (LINE NO'S REMOVED FOR CLARITY, TEXT AS PRINTED IN TRANSCRIPT)

JUDGE CONBOY
Election -- indeed, beyond the election -- the broad organizational structure of the District Council in accordance with this Proposed Reconfiguration.

I also would like to say Judge that we have committed to Dennis Walsh, the Review Officer, to provide to him well in advance the beginning of the Election cycle which we are agreed with Mr. Walsh should begin on August 15th, with an eye to having elections on December 15th.
We have committed to Mr. Walsh that any “Structural Reconfiguration of Locals” or other components in the District Council will be communicated to Mr. Walsh and to the U.S. Attorney well in advance of that August 15th step-off point with respect to “Development and Promulgation of rules for the Election.”

“So on the point of Union Democracy", we are satisfied that the direct-indirect discussion about who should elect the District Council officers is, in our view, secondary”.

We had, prior to the indictment of and conviction of Mr. Divine, we had indirect Elections and we had direct Elections prior to the indictment and conviction of Mr. Forde

It is very apparent to us that the much more critical question is how do we Empower this Delegate Body to have an Effective and Executive role at Hudson Street as opposed to a Passive and ultimately Marginal role.

THE COURT: I know this could be a naive question, but just trying to understand how this works, you have elections in the past, and in each instance or in several instances it resulted in the election of people who were ultimately convicted of crimes, right?

So you're saying now that in the new bylaws and probably in election procedures, but there is a new structure that hopefully surrounds a new election on or about December 15 of this year which will lead to a different outcome? JUDGE CONBOY: Hopefully.

THE COURT: How, just so the laymen can understand, what changes are you making or proposing that would give rise to a better outcome of Union Governance and Union Democracy?

JUDGE CONBOY: Let me just suggest, Judge, because the United States Attorney and the Reserve and Review Officer have not had an opportunity to comment THE COURT: Right. JUDGE CONBOY: -- let me just  THE COURT: You say it is in draft form? JUDGE CONBOY: General concept.

THE COURT: That is what I would like to hear.   {and the UBC will tell him what he wants to hear}

JUDGE CONBOY: Let me just insert the word "perhaps" in front of each of these because we are obviously totally committed to accommodating any suggestions that the government and the review officer make and ultimately, of course, any reactions that you will have because ultimately these will be submitted to you.

{For clarity, Court Reporter Line Numbers removed} Substitute “shall” for “perhaps or should” & you about have the UBC’s Rough Draft for New Council Bylaws......

1) Perhaps delegates should have final authority, Final authority on budget, expenditures, the overall organizing plan, collective bargaining and contracts.
2) Perhaps the delegates should have the authority to review, approve, reject, hire, discipline and fire business agents, shop stewards, organizers and counsel representatives.
3) Perhaps delegates should have the sole authority to hire, evaluate and terminate the inspector general and the chief compliance officer.
4) Perhaps the delegates should have the authority to approve or reject the appointment of trustees and removal of trustees from the benefit funds.
5) Perhaps delegates should review job referral activities and records to ensure that referrals are being conducted fairly and properly.
6) Perhaps the delegates, a CPA and inspector general should constitute a new District Council audit committee and officers should not be members of that audit committee.
19 Perhaps

20 THE COURT: Excuse me for interrupting.

21 These all sound like significant suggestions, but the22 audit committee, is that perhaps, perhaps a stronger, is that a23 real enforcement mechanism in corporations? Audit committees24 play very vital and important role. Is there an audit25 committee now? I guess I should know that and I don't. And if
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300
___________________________________________________________________________

TRANSLATION – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ABOVE ISSUES IN COURT ON APRIL 6, 2011
___________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT: How, just so the laymen can understand, what changes are you making or proposing that would give rise to a better outcome of Union Governance and Union Democracy?

 - Proposed Reconfiguration of the District Council…….. = DISSOLUTION OF LOCALS

 - Structural Re-Configuration of Locals……………………… = NEW INTERIOR SYSTEMS LOCALS

 - Development & Promulgation of Election Rules……… = WHY? SEE LMRDA & OLMS FEDERAL LAW, only Congress can change these legal requirements for Union Election, not a Judge legislating from the Bench & definitely not the UBC & Doug McCarron!!!!!

 - on the point of Union Democracy….who should Elect the District Council officers is, in our view, Secondary”. ….. = IMPLEMENATATION OF HARRINGTON v. CHAO, ELIMINATION OF “DIRECT ELECTIONS & RIGHT TO VOTE”

 - Empower this Delegate Body to have an Effective and Executive role at Hudson Street  {COUNCILS}….. = SEE NEW BYLAW ROUGH DRAFT {PROPOSAL, NOT CONCRETE}

 - opposed to a Passive and ultimately Marginal role. {LOCALS}….. = DISSOLUTION & FORCED MERGERS

What I have noticed on the C-Box is the rightly had discussions on the upcoming May Nominations & the June Elections, per the normal course of business/Election cycle we have under the UBC Constitution.

What will control however is the Federal Civil RICO Consent Decree wherein the Court & Judge Berman have carte blanche to change the rules we're normally used to abiding by.

Page 4, 5 & 6 of the 57-Page April 6, 2011 Transcript fairly & unequivocally laid out the UBC Internationals base intentions & proposals before the Court. Nowhere within this one sided Old Boys Club (lawyers only) were the rank & file included in the conversation or details; and, were in fact left out and refused copies of any & all proposals thus made.

That they allowed certain members to speak in Court was for mere show on their end of the game. NYCDCC members are allowed a seat at the Table per the NLRA. That right must be demanded by RO Walsh for the Rank & File's benefit as the consent decree cannot alter, change or amend any portion of the NLRA as written. The games played in Court April 6th clearly show that the Federal Appellate Court, Judge Berman & the UBC have zero intentions of complying with the law and will in fact ignore it at will. This is an end run around Congress's perogative to write & enact the laws. It is not within the purview of the Court or the UBC to alter.

NYCDCC's rank & file members do not lose their Section 7 NLRA Rights to collectively bargain, have a seat at the table, and negotiate their wages, hours & working conditions.

So the Question is - who of those planning a run for any Office will challenge RO Walsh directly on these points of fact & law?

Failing that, the May Nomination & June Election shall be forestalled via McCarron Pro-Tem appointments until the December Elections are held, via their newly imposed Dictatorial Structure which shall be in hand & in Cour on May 16, 2011.

Without a challenge to it now, prior to May 16th, the rank & file shall be left in the dark and put into "reactive mode" and your rights will be lost.