In a huge member turn out, hundreds of union brothers and sisters left the first Local 157 meeting since the trusteeship imposed on November 21, 2007 angry and frustrated (see video).
VP Frank Spencer’s May 7th, “informational meeting outlining the path to restoration” had little if any information.
Other than a tentative meeting schedule announced and nominations from the floor for position of election committee member for the schedule July 21st, local delegate and executive office elections, members learned absolutely nothing.
EST Forde called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm and after the pledge said “we are not looking to hold local 157 hostage, we want to give this local back and this is the first night on the road to getting this local back to you.”
Forde then turned the meeting over to VP Spencer who gave no information about the so-called “improvements and the efficiencies that are apparent at your local union,” stated in his
postcard mailing to the membership informing them about the May 7th, meeting.
Members were shocked and outraged when Spencer abruptly ended the meeting after nominations for
election committee member (about 10 nominees) by quickly saying “if there is no other business the meeting is adjourned.”
Members shouted from the floor "questions, we have questions," which VP Spencer ignored as he gaveled the meeting closed with the speed of light at 5:17 pm.
Local 157 members, angry about the ongoing
trusteeship, blasted Spencer out on the street for not taking questions and for not giving any information about the trusteeship.
Members on the street yelled “Bullshit, I came all the way here for this” asked one disgruntled nail-driver.
Brother Joe Rocco said, “the meeting wasn’t run professionally, wasn’t run like a union meeting, they shut everybody up.”
“No questions means they are not interested in our opinions” said Brother Steve Milano.
“Meeting was a sham, didn’t give members a chance to say anything, didn’t answer any questions” said Brother Hercules Reid.
“Meeting was incomplete, didn’t deal with issues members are concerned about” said Brother Tom Robinson.
“No questions, no good of the order, I waited six months for this, its bull" said Brother Roldan.
“I came here with issues, it didn’t happen” said Brother Jim.
Brother Lee Williams when asked, what did you think about the meeting? said, what meeting!
The comments spotlighted grumblings that the 4,500-member local is fed up with the
International Union Trusteeship over what many members believe is politically motivated.
After 6 months, "We're still not being heard, they gave us the heave-ho by canceling our Christmas Party and they're still giving us the heave-ho with this meeting" griped a veteran union member who didn't want to give his name. “It was nice to see all the brothers and sisters— but nothing was really discussed, we’re not happy with the International’s strong-armed tactics” members said after Wednesday's meeting.
Many members in attendance believed International VP Spencer would be addressing the member’s questions and concerns, saying “they'd received emails and letters and we have not received any answers.
"You ask questions and you don't get answers, this is really adding insult to injury" said one member, who didn't want to be identified because he said he is a union steward and didn't want to be "the next to be hauled in there and suspended."
"I was so disappointed by what I saw here, no good of the order, we were rushed out the door” said long time union Brother Bruce Miranda as he prepared for the ride back home on his Harley.
Brother Daniel Franco was also angry and upset, “I sent Spencer a letter on April 8, and again on April 22, asking questions about this supervision and still have not received an answer."
Local 157 members are pretty well injured to these goings-on by now, but could not believe Spencer's actions complaining about how they're kept in the dark.
I spoke with VP Spencer several times about the questions posted by members and with his assistant Mike Capelli. On April 11, Mr. Capelli told me "UBC lawyer Brian Quinn, is drafting an answer to the questions and I should have them in a few days."
I spoke with Mr. Capelli at Wednesday’s meeting and he told me “UBC lawyer Quinn is still working on the answers.”
An outraged member that is familiar with the issue, and wishes to remain anonymous said, “In the amount of time that has past since the membership has asked Spencer questions…Extreme Makeover Home Edition has built 12 houses, and the membership of local 157 still have not received an answer to six simple questions raised regarding this trusteeship.”
Below is six questions posted on this blog and sent to VP Spencer on March 4th, on behalf of the membership of local 157, which Spencer has refused to answer...
1. General President McCarron's letter to local 157 members dated December 3 cites section 10H of the constitution that granted full supervisory authority. Specifically where in section 10H does it state that the General President has the "authority to remove elected officers" of a local? This would seem to bypass Section 52, which guaranties the right to a fair and impartial trial.
2. Where in section 10H does it give the General President the authority to appoint officers to fill the vacated positions in a local? Section 10M gives the General President the right to appoint interim officers in NEWLY, CONSOLIDATED and MERGED Locals, which does not apply to local 157.
3. Why is Section 32D being bypassed, which gives the recording Secretary of the Local the right and duty to call a meeting to order and in the absence of a President and Vice President those Present shall elect a "President Pro Tem"
4.Why is the District Council involved in the supervision by appointing business reps, business manager and involved with the locals finances and books? This right, under supervision is the Internationals not the District Council.
5. Why is the
District Council paying the bills when the only thing the LMRDA limits is the ability of the Councils or International to move money out of the Local to either one of them? It does not require the International to freeze the local’s accounts and stop them from paying their own bills.
6. What is the reason for the continued supervision?
If Hanley and Kennedy resigned on November 21 and the District Council fired Dilacio and no accusation of financial impropriety or other fraud was found isn't the problem solved?