|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laborers
for JUSTICE |
55 S. Northwest Highway |
|
|
|
||
9/21/99
Sachnoff & Weaver
Attn: Steve Miller, Court Monitor
30 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Il 60606
Dear Mr. Miller:
As a member in good standing of Laborers local 5, spokesperson/director of Laborers for JUSTICE, and as a U.S. citizen who is adamant that organized crime play no role in labor unions and that the corruption endemic to the Laborers Union be eradicated, I submit the following for your consideration. First some background:
I have 15 years experience in law office automation and believe firmly in employing modern technology to assist the public and union members in the retrieval/dissemination of information essential to their right of self governance. If an educational document involving LIUNA is public, I will put it on the internet
I volunteer my services to DOL, DOJ, the LIUNA reform team (GEB Attorney, IG Inspector General, Appellate Officer) to both obtain and disseminate information that will assist them in their assigned duties. The offer is extended to your office.
My avowed and publicly declared objective is to organize a slate of reformers to challenge the existing members of LIUNA's General Executive Board in the first rank and file election of all officers scheduled for 2001. I believe firmly in "contested elections", "union democracy", "dissent", "debate"," a loyal opposition", "an informed electorate", "rule of law" "due process" and all the other elegant concepts that make the "great experiment" in democracy possible.
As a presupposition to the foregoing is the fundamental and bedrock concept that the "people" shall judge, direct, and correct" the policies of their elected and appointed leaders. For that reason, I and others monitor the monitor, in essence answering Plato's query as to "Who guards the guards".
In connection with my objective to organize a slate of reform minded candidates to challenge electorally the members of LIUNA's General Executive Board, it is imperative that LIUNA constitutional requirements for eligibility for office be strictly adhered to and that no variances be granted by LIUNA's General President in the Chicago District Council jurisdiction.
Under LIUNA's International constitution , ( Article IX, Section 11, subsection (b) The General President may grant variances whenever he damn well pleases.. This abominable, despotic, tyrannical and unreasonable provision that contravenes all constitutional safeguards to liberty reads as follows.
(b) He may, after consideration and study of a particular matter or situation and when he believes it necessary to fully accomplish an object or purpose of the International Union or of its affiliates and members, grant variances, tolerances or exemptions from specific provisions of the Constitutions, established policies, practices, lawful orders and decisions, for a period of time and specify the conditions under which such grant is made.
In light of all the known practices of organized crime
appointing as officers union members that do not possess all the requisite
qualifications for office, this practice of allowing the General President to
grant variances has to be enjoined. LCN member and accused murder James DiForti was inserted
into my local in 1994 and made secretary-treasurer even though he was not a
member of local 5 in good standing for 2 continuous years., one of the
constitutional requirements for office under LIUNA's local Constitution,
Article V which reads as follows:
|
ARTICLE V Qualifications for Office In order to qualify as a candidate for any office in a Local Union, a member: Section 1. Shall be required to have been in good standing in
|
the International Union for a period of two years and in good standing in the Local Union for a period of two years immediately prior to nomination and to be current in the payment of his dues; these requirements shall not apply in cases when Local Unions have been chartered for a period of less than two years prior to the date of nomination. Section 2. Shall be a citizen of the United States or Canada, unless such requirement is prohibited by provisions of applicable law. Section 3. Shall be literate. Section 4. No person shall be eligible to hold any office in the Local Union if he has not been regularly working at the calling of the International Union during the entire year immediately prior to nomination. "Working at the calling" shall be defined to include: (a) Employment for which the Union serves, or is actively seeking to serve, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees; (b) Employment in a full-time official capacity for the Local Union; (c) Employment by government or the trade union movement in a capacity directly related to the calling and one which would directly benefit the Local Union and its members except that employment by the Local Union in a clerical or administrative position shall not be deemed to be "working at the calling"; (d) Periods of unemployment where the member was available for and continuously and actively sought employment at the calling which shall be understood to require full compliance with the lawful rules of the referral service or hiring hall, if any, operated by the Local Union; (e) Members who can prove they were unable to work because of temporary illness or disability of less than one year so long as
|
that member has a reasonable expectation of returning to work in the foreseeable future. In examining the circumstances of each particular case, due regard shall be given to the good faith involved. Section 5. No person who has been debarred after trial, from holding office, shall be qualified as a candidate during the period of his debarment. Section 6. A candidate shall not be eligible to run for office if he is a member of, or a sympathizer with, any organization that has for its purpose the overthrow of this Organization or of the Government of the United States of America or of Canada, by force or violence, or who is unable to qualify under this Constitution and in accordance with the provisions of existing law. Section 7. A candidate must agree to observe, conform and comply with all of the terms and provisions of the International Union Constitution, the Uniform Local Union Constitution and the Uniform District Council Constitution and all of the rules, regulations, policies, practices and lawful orders and decisions adopted and promulgated in the furtherance and administration of the provisions of the said Constitutions. Section 8. Such candidate must agree to refrain from conduct that would interfere with the proper conduct of all of the business of the Organization. Section 9. Such candidate must agree to recognize his responsibility toward the preservation of the Union as an institution. Section 10. All of the qualifications for office must be present at the time of nomination, as well as at the time of election and during the term of office. Any person who receives a pension from a pension or a retirement fund related to the International Union or any affiliate thereof shall be presumed to be a retiree and, therefore, not to be working at the calling of the International Union and not to be qualified as a candidate for office. The burden shall be on such pension
|
recipient to demonstrate affirmatively to the satisfaction of the Judges of Election that such individual nonetheless meets the constitutional qualifications for office. |
Joseph
Lombardo, Jr. was appointed as secretary-treasurer of the Chicago District
Council to succeed convicted felon James Corporale, (Vince DiVarco's father -in
-law) without being a delegate to the
council at the time of his appointment (See Chicago District Council Trusteeship
proceedings on the internet at http://thelaborers.net/documents/transcripts/default.htmas
well as www.laborers.org
The
second constitutional provision or existing practice within the Chicago District
Council jurisdiction that needs clarification if not enjoining is the practice
of allowing transfers from one local to another within the Chicago District
Council jurisdiction only if the receiving local consent to the transfer. This
policy as enunciated in the attached June 10, 1999 letter from Chicago District
Council Trustee to the newly appointed Trustee of local 2, David Schippers, is
a policy that is
·
unconstitutional,
·
arbitrary,
·
capricious
·
violative
of due process
·
retaliatory
·
undemocratic
·
designed to
cover up corruption/incompetence/nonfeasance/misfeance
·
misguided,
·
harmful to
reform efforts,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It is
unconstitutional in that LIUNA's constitution clearly provides that a member's right
to transfers is absolute and not dependent on the whims, preferences, or
predilections of elected/appointed officials.
Article
XXI, Section 1 of LIUNA's International Constitution provides as follows:
|
ARTICLE XXI Transfers Section 1. A member of a Local Union shall have the right to transfer his membership from his Local Union into another Local Union
|
affiliated with the International Union, provided that at the time of requesting such transfer, he is in good standing with his Local Union. Transfers between Local Unions affiliated with a District Council in a metropolitan area shall not be required. Section 2. In addition to being in good standing, he shall pay his dues up to and including the month in which he seeks and obtains a transfer. Section 3. If at the time that a member requests a transfer, there are charges pending against him awaiting trial, or there are assessments or other fees or fines properly and lawfully imposed which remain unpaid, then such member shall not be entitled to a transfer. Section 4. A member shall not be entitled to the right of transfer until after six months from the date of his initiation. Section 5. A member shall, upon transferring as aforesaid, become a member of the Local Union to which he has transferred and entitled to all the rights and privileges of a member, except that he shall not have the right to vote until he has been a member thereof for three months and shall not be eligible to be a candidate for or hold any office or represent the Local Union as a delegate or in any other elective capacity, until he has been in continuous good standing therein for at least two years. Section 6. The transfer shall be deposited by the transferee with the Secretary-Treasurer or some other official of the Local Union in whose area he wishes to deposit said transfer, within one month from the date of issuance. Section 7. A transferee who does not deposit his transfer within one month from the date of issuance and who desires to maintain his membership, may return the transfer to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Local Union that issued the transfer, within the second month; his failure to do so will forfeit his membership in the organization. |
|||
|
60 |
|
|
|
Section 8. If a transferee has been a member of the International Union continuously for at least five years prior thereto, he shall not be required to pay any initiation fee or admission charge by the Local Union to which he transfers. But, if he has not been a member for the said period and the initiation fee in the accepting Local Union is more than the existing initiation fee in his own Local Union, he shall pay the accepting Local Union the difference in the initiation fees.
Section 9. When a good-standing member of a Local Union is working within the territorial jurisdiction of another Local Union outside of the same metropolitan area, for a period of more than thirty days, the Local Union in whose area the man is working may demand a transfer from that member.
Section 10. The form of transfer shall be as determined and prescribed by the General Secretary-Treasurer
The
second sentence of section 1 clearly indicates that transfers within a district
council area are not required. This clause is necessary because local business
agents may request that members from locals outside the district council area
working in the area for more than thirty days be transferred into their local
if the individual is working within their assigned geographical and/or work
jurisdiction. See Section 9
ARBITARY
The practice is arbitrary because
the acceptance of the transfer is solely in the discretion of the receiving
secretary-treasurer without any criteria as to its applicability. An
examination of the records of local 2 and other locals within the Chicago
District Council jurisdiction will clearly demonstrate, I contend, that
transfers have been routinely granted to members from one affiliated local to
another and that no transfer has ever been refused solely at the discretion of
the receiving local.
CAPRICIOUS
The policy is capricious because it
depends solely on the whims, prejudices, bigotries, preferences, predilections,
dispositions, and feelings of elected/appointed officials , many of whom consider
their position to be proprietary and
not subject to the accountability of the voting booth.
VIOLATIVE
OF DUE PROCESS
One is a member of a union as one is
a citizen of a country. The International Constitution supercedes local
practices as federal law over rules local law that contravenes. The policy of
the Chicago District Council is at variance with the policy declared last year
by the International when the General Executive Board issued a ruling that a
member (me) could not transfer from one affiliated local union into
another affiliated local union immediately
prior to an
election and/or nomination meeting, The preposterous , ludicrous reason given
for this policy which over ruled the policy enunciated by the LIUNA Inspector
General was that "locals controlled by organized crime would electorally
interfere with locals not controlled by organized crime.
By way
of background, with the full knowledge of the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, (AUSA
David Buvinger), LIUNA's GEB Attorney Robert Luskin, LIUNA Inspector General
Douglas Gow and agents O'Rourke and Scigalski, , and Trustee Robert Bloch, I
attempted to transfer from local 5 into local 152 in the spring of 1998.
This
transfer was for three legitimate, honorable reasons though no reasons should
be required any more than Illinois residents are required to tell California
officials the reason for their new residency or any more than citizens of the
11th ward have to tell the alderman of the 41st ward why they are
moving in.
1. Convenience: Local 152 is located in
Highland Park, Il in the northern suburbs of Chicago and I was then living in
Zion, Illinois near the Wisconsin border. Local 5 was 90 miles away and
un-accessible by public transportation, making the exercise of my rights as a
union member to "judge, direct, and correct" union
policies/procedures an empty right.
2. Prudence: It is a matter of public record
that I have been complaining to DOL-OIG since 1987 that local 5 was controlled
by organized crime and I did not want to become "trunk music" or be
buried alive in the cornfields of Northern Indiana ala Spilllotro. Local 5
officials were involved in that murder in case people didn't know. Digging the
grave was probably the only hard labor those local 5 officials ever performed.
3. Local 152, aka "The Lazzaretto State
Bank" .This local is the fiefdom of the Lazzaretto family and has not had
a contested election in memory, is undemocratic in its practices, and a reform
minded member needed someone to nominate him for office , someone who would not
be afraid of economic coercion, threats, or intimidation.. I volunteered to
serve in that capacity and this was known to all charged with reform in LIUNA.
After
Inspector General Gow spoke to me on the phone and told me my transfer was
constitutional, I was subsequently informed by trustee Robert Bloch that the
International General Executive Board had issued a new policy on transfers-
what the cynical members refer to as "Interpretation of the Moment"
ala "Alice in Wonderland" but what is common LIUNA practice. (If the
rules do not have to be promulgated and there is no written record of what the
rules are much less their changes , how can one tell what are the current
rules, policies, practices in effect?) Talk about tyranny!!!
RETALITORY
The arbitrary decision by Trustee
Schippers not to consent to my transfer without providing any reason, much a
legitimate one, is, I contend, in retaliation for my publicly complaining and
revealing that a vehicles leased to local 2, then unused, would now be used by
Mr. Schippers assistant, Mr. Tracy, for his personal convenience. I publicly
objected to Mr. Tracy's use of an exorbitantly expensive vehicle for his
personal use when that property of the local was designed for use by field
representatives and not office clerks or high priced bookkeepers. Local IG
Agent Scigalski will confirm that my publication of this development was not
appreciated by either Mr. Schippers or Mr. Tracy and that they in fact
complained about it because they incorrectly assumed I would keep secret
actions I did not approve. I learned about this while discussing local 2
affairs with Mr. Schippers and Mr. Tracy in the offices of local 2.
I also
contend that the decision of Mr. Schippers was supported by Trustee Robert Bloch
in retaliation for
1. my publicly criticizing Mr. Bloch's
reneging on his promise to assist me in publishing on the internet the
transcripts of the Chicago District Council that were made public via court filings in 98 C 0825, as exhibits., a
service I offered to perform free of charge.
2. my publicly criticizing Trustee Bloch for
appointing his law partner as counsel to the Chicago Laborers District Council
Pension/welfare Fund as a self dealing practice that was , in my opinion, a
violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility Trustee administrator James Jorgenson will testify, I contend,
that Trustee Robert Bloch, had a non union member ( Harvey Nathan ) and Bloch's
deputy trustee, Edward Sladowski, appointed to the pension fund just so he could
get his law partner, Mr. Dowd, appointed to that lucrative position that will
pay for the roof in Bloch's law office among other things.
3. my publicly criticizing Mr. Bloch for
appointing non LIUNA members as deputy trustees, (Mr. Sladowski, Mr. Romano, and
Mr. Guilfoyle.), none of whom was familiar with the Laborers Union and not one
of whom was vetted by the IG agents as required by enunciated but not enforced
policy.
4. my publicly criticizing Mr. Bloch for
reappointing as trustees to the pension fund delegates who as pension fund
trustees made no complaint about CRIME BOSS VINCENT SOLANO being a trustee to
the pension fund, namely trustee Mr. John Michael Lazzaretto.
5. my publicly revealing that star witness
and "American-LIUNA Hero" Ronald Fino had advised me many times that
John Michael Lazzaretto would be Arthur A. Coia's "point man" in
transferring control of the pension and welfare funds away from the Chicago
"Outfit" for the benefit of the Patriarca/ Genovese crime family, an
allegation I will eventually prove with credible, reliable evidence.
6. my publicly criticizing trustee Robert
Bloch for not informing the members of the reasons for the trusteeship being
imposed. In the one measly communication the District Council has had with
members since February 1998, there was one paragraph of 20 sentences that said
a trusteeship was imposed. No reasons were given.
UNDEMOCRATIC
The
policy of not allowing transfers without the permission of the receiving local
is undemocratic on its face without any further explanation needed. The members
do not exist to serve the officers. The officers exist to serve the members. It
is the members' money that pays their salaries, not the other way around. The
officers are accountable to the members, not the members to the officers.
In
Illinois, a closed shop state, one is forced to join the union or at least pay
for the costs of its collective bargaining efforts if one is an employee of an
employer who is signatory to a collective bargaining agreement. Every one who
benefits from union negotiated wage scales should be a union member, attend
union meetings, support the union cause, and help the union grow stronger is
our position.
Once
one finds employment with a union contractor, one has seven days to join the
union under the collective bargaining agreement. One can join any local one
wants if one knows of its existence. The Business agent from one local ,
understandably, is not going to explain to potential new members he is
recruiting as new members that they can join a local closer to their home than
his local. If this were to happen, the business agent's local would lose the
$450 initiation fee, monthly union dues, and hourly working dues. His local
union coffers would be diminished and another's increased. It doesn't happen. The
business agent or field representative is out to sign new members-that is part
of his job responsibilities. In an ideal world, the early bird gets the worm,
the industrious business agent's local gets bigger, those locals with lazy, do
nothing business agents get smaller.
If the
new member decides to join a local closer to his home, or the local his friends
belong to, or a local he heard was run democratically and honestly, no one can
later force that new member to become a member of another local just because
that local has a contract with his employer. One is not bound to any employer
as a slave anymore than one should be enslaved by a local or not allowed to
transfer into a local he wants to transfer into. As a member of the Laborers'
union , I can work for any union employer, in any state or county I want. If I
leave the jurisdiction of the Chicago District Council to work for more than 30
days in another jurisdiction, I can be forced, however, to transfer my book
into a local within that jurisdiction.
Our
argument is that a member is the best judge of what is best for him. If a local
is not honest, a member should not be forced to remain in that local against
his will. If a member wants to leave a well run local for one that he believes
to be corrupt, that is his choice and hopefully he will suffer whatever
consequences one suffers from living corruptly if such consequences are ever
suffered in the "here and now" as opposed to the
"hereafter"
DESIGNED
TO COVER UP CORRUPTION/ INCOMPETENCE/ NONFEASANCE/ MISFEASANCE
Both
Mr. Schippers and Mr. Bloch know that I am a chronic "whistleblower"
and that I would publicly complain about any corruption, incompetence,
nonfeasance, or misfeasance I detected. It is perfectly understandable that
they do not want me around or in a position where I could readily detect
reportable offenses.
HARMFUL
TO REFORM EFFORTS
As the
GEB attorney will confirm, I was advised by his office between April 28, 1999
and May 11, 1999 that I was correct in my understanding that the members of local
2 had the constitutional power to over turn the decision of the executive board
to reject supervision and to vote to accept supervision in lieu of receiving a
complaint for trusteeship.
Based
on that knowledge, I organized the members of local 2 with cell leaders John
Burke and Mark Tomasik, two reform minded, honest hard working members of local
2 that have the respect and trust of local 2 members. As IG Agents O'Rourke and
Scigalski will report, I was outside local 2 on the night of May 11, 1999 advising
members on parliamentary tactics and strategy to bring a motion to the floor on
accepting supervision. When Matassa denied there was a meeting of local 2's
executive board to decide on accepting supervision and hence no reading of any
minutes to reject, the commotion resulting from this bald faced lie to the
membership forced a suspension of the meeting to a later date, May 22, at 12
noon.
On May
22, 1999, the members of local 2 reassembled in their effort to take back
control of their local from organized crime. Laborers for JUSTICE members made
the phone calls, printed the fliers, and organized the turnout that would give
the GEB Attorney the legitimate grounds for declaring an emergency trusteeship
in the event the members of local 2 were denied a meaningful opportunity to
exercise their democratic rights.
While
the doors of the local were locked, a meeting could have been held on the
street had the members approved. A
quorum was present and the vice president was willing to conduct the meeting if
the members wanted one. As their advisor/consultant, I recommended against
holding the meeting, thereby providing the "proverbial straw that broke
the camel's back". In the process, the members of local 2 sacrificed
"union democracy" and unwittingly consented to all the undemocratic
procedures inherent in an imposed trusteeship.
Had the
policy of the district council on unilateral transfers been different in May,
1999, I would have transferred into local 2 and been a member on the floor the
night of May 11, 1999 instead of a member of local 5 outside the hall. I would
have had a vote on the issue of supervision when I had the votes lined up and
in my pocket so to say.
The
policy is harmful because it deprives members of an opportunity to leave a
local controlled by organized crime. Unless the policy is changed, I will be
forever enslaved to local 5 and have to have as my delegate to the district
council, a Mr. Thomas Pinckard, son of organized crime member/associate James
Pinckard and grand son of Al Pilotto. Prudence dictates that Thomas Pinckard
not be appointed dog catcher for the Laborers Union yet Supervisor Joseph
Romano appointed him as delegate to the district council after he was removed
as appointed business manger. Why I was not appointed a delegate to the
district Council after publicly complaining in 1987 about organized crime's
control of local 5 still rankles.
The
policy is harmful because no corrupt union leader will consent to any
acknowledged reformer becoming a member of his local. Are there more honest
members or are there more corrupt members? I say honest but woefully
uninformed. Uninformed by design because what official wants an educated
electorate demanding he be held accountable for his actions and paying
attention to those actions as they occur and are made public.
What
message does it send to honest members of the Laborers Union when those that
complain about corruption get punished and those with connections to organized
crime members get positions of power and influence?
What
message does it send to honest members when Trustees appointed to restore
democratic procedures don't inform the members, don't have union meetings but
in fact suspend meetings?
In
conclusion, I and others would appreciate your attention to these matters, especially the request
that constitutional requirements for office not be granted variances.
Should
you desire to employ a web master to publish any and all information on the
internet that would help the members and future members understand the history
and significance of your court monitorship, I can be employed at union scale
unlike others.
Very
truly yours,
s/James
McGough
James
W. McGough
Laborers for JUSTICE, Director
cc:
AUSA David Buvinger
LIUNA Inspector General Agent Scigawski
DOL-OIG Agent Manual Ramirez
FBI Ernest Luera
P.S.
Please obtain from Mr Schippers or Mr. Bloch Mr. Schipper's
June 8, 199 letter to Mr. Bloch and provide me a copy
P.S
II The wording in the International policy on transfers within a district
council has immediately prior to local elections in bold letters
implying that transfers not immediately prior are allowed. Unless the Inspector
General allows the LIUNA General Executive Board to change policy again in line
with its "Interpretation of the moment practice", I believe I can say
"Check mate." In 2001, we will
capture the king and take no prisoners..