Laborers' International Union

Phone:(203) 335 7943
Fax (203) 335-1261

of North America, AFL.CI0

Monday thru Friday

Office Hours

Local 665

8:00 A. M. 12 00 P.M.

269 Federal Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06606- 5296

 

 

December 18, 1997

 

 

 

 

Mr. W. Douglas Gow, Inspector

General,

P.O. Box 27416

Washington, D.C. 20038-7416

 

Dear Sir:

 

I have received your response regarding the reluctance of your office to

interject itself as regards initiating a proactive policy regarding the

timely distribution of minutes of Connecticut Laborers' District Council

(CLDC) Meetings,

 

I am dismayed at the ruling relying on the absence of a bar to the

District Council adopting a policy of not distributing minutes in advance

and allowing retention of same. I am especially apprehensive considering

that by the same token there should exist no bar for your office to

implement such a proactive policy considering the intentions of the policies

and guidelines generated in the wake of the Draft complaint which not only

identified that "the rights of the ~members of the union to control the

affairs of the union have been systematically abused" but coincidentally

emphasized that the problem at the Council level throughout the union has

been viewed largely as systemic. It is doubtful that any similar bodies'

Constitutions provide expressly that minutes be distributed in advance yet

virtually all similar organizations sans the Lab0rers routinely distribute

minutes in advance to those cloaked with fiduciary responsibility.

Ultimately the pronounced query is why would a majority of a body cloaked

with fiduciary responsibility deprive themselves of the very document(s)

upon which their fiduciary responsibility is predicated upon unless of

course the Individuals so cloaked are intimidated to exercise their own

conscience in an organizational structure viewed as systemic, or unless they

are beneficiaries, directly or indirectly of the inaction.

 

At this point I might add that although I am making a case for the

prior distribution and retention of minutes for those cloaked with a

fiduciary responsibility predicated upon same I might add that minutes as

now read at meetings of the CLDC carry a certain slant and do not

necessarily accurately reflect the nature of the business that took place.

Also a proper decorum of parliamentary procedure as required is lacking

compounded by the fact that a biased sense of selectivity prevails with

regard to communications sent to the Council . For instance, certified

letters of a business nature that I have sent to the council were never read

as communications to the delegates assembled or for that matter acknowledged

other than the return of the certification card. Clearly the problem at the

CLDC level is systemic and this needs to be understood.

 

MARIO ROMA                                  RONALD a. NOBILI                              JOSEPH AMBROSINI

 

PreSident                                          Business Manager                                  Secretary-Treasurer

 

 

 


 

 

With regard to minutes and other documents that I have had the opportunity

to view only because of Production and subsequent Discovery in conjunction with

a Federal Lawsuit against the CLDC, you may be interested to know that it appears

that rank and file members are unknowingly supporting the North American

Laborers' Legal Defense Fund (see Heritage article) on a monthly basis with

the CLDC acting as the conduit. As a member of the CLDC I was not aware of

these contributions until Production and Discovery inasmuch as the item was

never revealed at the District Council Meetings nor does it appear on the Minutes

of Monthly Meetings of the District Council. Through Production of Receipt

and ~Disbursement Journals it was identified that every month a check was issued

by the CLDC to the North American Laborers' Legal Defense Fund (N.A.L.L.D.F.)

on the Disbursement side of the Journal. There is no corresponding amount

flowing to the Council on the receipt side of the ledger, consequently the amount

flowing monthly to the N.A.L.L.D.F. is unknowingly being paid by rank and file

members absent disclosure to CLDC delegates and clearly is not being reimbursed

to the Council curtailing the argument that the amount being paid to the

N.A.L.L.D.F. by the members is a voluntary contribution being made through

payroll deduction on the part of an officer of the Council as was the explanation

you provided Inspector Sheryl McLauglin when she apprised you of my concerns.

 

Clearly, rank and file members dues money is being utilized directly to

pay into this surreptitious Fund. This is contrary to what may be occurring

at LIUNA Headquarters where the argument had been made that monies deducted

voluntarily from officers and staff remuneration flows into this Fund.

I

 

Apparently, this practice has been going on for some time, conceivably

since the early 80's at a current rate in excess of $100.00 per month which

I suspect has unknowingly cost the rank and file members in Connecticut in excess

of $18,000.00 not including the interest compounding factor which could triple

the stated amount over the fifteen year donation period.

 

As a fiduciary of the Council I would appreciate your concern In this matter

toward using your office to investigate and assist to make the unsuspecting

members of this State whole at the expense of those who converted these funds

to this furtive Fund, as well as your reconsideration of the advance distribution

of minutes for corroboration and retention considering the fact that a primary

allegation of charges that were to be filed against the Union revolved around

actions that were termed systemic at insulated levels of the organization, i,e.

the Council level.

 

In conclusion I would appreciate your concern to my confidentiality as

regards to this matter.

 

cc. Robert D. Luskin

Cheryl McLaughlin

David Buvinger, AUSA

 

 

Very truly yours,

 

Ron Nobili,

Business Manager