A Defining Moment

President Pro Tem Continues To Violate Member Rights

At Mondays Local 157 meeting, newly nominated President pro tem Mike Bilello, refused to accept a motion for a copy of the meeting minutes saying, “I am done with this issue, it's been beaten to death.”

In the seconds it took him to make that statement, brother Bilello defined who he really is.

March 21, a day which will live in UBC history--- Local 157 was thrown into the unprecedented position of having no President and Vice President because of Review Officer ("RO") Dennis Walsh zealous investigation of organized crime influence over the District Council.

Netted so far in the investigation were eight council employees, among them were, President Lawrence D'Errico, who's employment the RO is considering vetoing, Vice President Anthony Pugliese, who was pushed into retirement because he refused to cooperate, and Financial Secretary Paul Capurso, who is consulting with an attorney.

Capurso, who played a prominent role in the meeting, did not inform the members about the RO’s investigation, stating only that D’Errico was "unavailable" and Pugliese has retired.

Bilello was elected President pro tem, and according to Capurso, in accordance with Section 32 D of the UBC Constitution. Capurso also stated that Bilello will act as president pro tem for the March meeting "only."

As stated in the reading of the minutes from the previous month, Brother Dan Franco made a motion for a copy of the meeting minutes and President D'Errico once again refused to accept the motion, stating “the issue is resolved and suggested he file an amendment to the constitution for the meeting minutes.”

After the reading, I informed president pro tem Bilello that D'Errico once again violated the UBC constitution and Roberts Rules of Order by not accepting the motion and it was utter nonsense to suggest you need an amendment to the constitution.

I made a motion for a copy of the minutes and low and behold the newly nominated President pro tem, followed in the footsteps of D'Errico, and denied the motion saying "I am done with this issue, it's been beaten to death, and I am not accepting the motion.”

Background

In October 2010, the executive board voted no to a request for a copy of the meeting minutes and an open microphone. Disagreeing with the e-board's decision, I made a motion for a copy of the meeting minutes. Capurso, left his seat on the dais, joined the assembly (along with other e-board members) and falsely implied that the UBC Constitution prohibits a member from having a copy of the minutes, in essence intimidating the membership into submission with misinformation, scare tactics and the motion was defeated.

Since that time, the motion has been made at every consecutive meeting and D'Errico has continued to violate the constitution, Roberts Rules and used trickery and misinformation all in an effort to prevent and suppress the membership from having a proper debate, and vote on the motion. (See letters written to Spencer and the IG)

FACT: Many UBC Locals distribute a copy of the minutes to members before the start of the meeting in-order to facilitate the meeting; our District Council does the same at the council delegate meetings.

FACT: Roberts Rules of Order clearly states: “A motion that has been defeated, can be brought up again at the next meeting.”

Facilitator Not Dictator

The duties of the president are clearly spelled out, among other things, he is to be the presiding officer at all meetings, enforce and be knowledgeable in the constitution and laws of the Brotherhood, Robert Rules, decide all questions of order, subject to appeal, facilitate (make easier) the meeting, not to dictate what happens in the meeting, be honest, fair and remain neutral from partisan politics.

The membership did not nominate/elect Bilello Dictator or King. Bilello does not get to decide what issue should be discussed and what issue should not be discussed.

Did former 608 members (who had their local dissolved for corruption only to be forced into a more corrupt local) get to participate in the debate in October? Do you think they might have something to add to the debate? Does Bilello incorrectly believe that a decision of members at one meeting binds the decision of the members at a future meeting? The membership of this union has been egregiously abused by Forde, then D'Errico, and now sadly Bilello seems to be continuing where D'Errico left off.

The Issue is Members Rights and Violating the Rules

In case Bilello has not figured it out, I am going to say this once again, and I want to be very clear... The issue is not the meeting minutes, the issue is member’s rights being violated, the issue is the UBC Constitution being violated, the issue is Roberts Rules of Order being violated, and all of which Bilello has now contributed to. It's our rights that have been “beaten to death,” by D'Errico and now Bilello. This is what the issue is.

If you do not stand up and defend your rights and challenge decisions made by the presiding officer, those decisions and violations will be used against you in the future with other issues. Substitute "meeting minutes" with free mobility, contract, collective bargaining agreements or any other issue you like.

Bilello purports to be for democracy and members rights, unless of course he does not agree with what you are saying. He is certainly entitle to his own opinions, but not when presiding over meetings. If he wants to have an opinion; get off the dais and join the debate, don't stop others from having a debate because you are "done with this issue!" 

I invite Bilello to enlighten us and show where in the rules it allows the presiding officer to not accept a motion because "he's done with the issue."

Parliamentary procedure is about helping members come to a decision; it is not about helping any one individual get his way, and it is certainly not intended to prevent members from participating in the process. Parliamentary procedure is about democracy and protecting the rights of the minority because often the minority point of view, over time with the proper discussion, becomes the majority point of view. There is no place in the meeting for the presiding officer to display arrogance towards the membership.

Informed Members Prevail

Later in the meeting a brother a made a motion to have a meeting agenda either mailed out, posted on the locals website or presented on a power-point display, and have the meeting minutes posted on the website. Bilello brushed off the member, said the meeting agenda is in the constitution, as he pointed to the "Order of Business," (which is not a meeting agenda) and incorrectly said, the meeting minutes issue has been dealt with, he than cited Rule 30, “When a question has been decided it can be reconsidered only at the same meeting or on the next regular meeting night.”

Another brother made a "point of order" and challenged Bilello's interpretation of Rule 30, explaining that Roberts Rules allows for a defeated motion to be brought up again, Bilello incorrectly ruled him "out of order."

And even later in the meeting, brother Dan Franco armed with his copy of Roberts Rules again challenged Bilello's incorrect interpretation of rules and Bilello's incorrect insistence sticking to Rule 30 which does not apply, Franco referred him to Roberts Rules, Bilello would not budge.

Having enough of Bilello's apparent arrogance and incorrect rulings, I made a "point of information," informed Bilello that he incorrectly denied a brother's motion to have the minutes posted on the website, which has nothing to do with his incorrect interpretation of the rules. The brother made a completely different motion, posting of minutes vs. copy of minutes. I restated the motion to have the minutes posted on the locals website, received a second, Bilello stated the motion, the members debated and voted, the motion carried.

Finally...The end of the story.