Thursday, May 1, 2008

Members Questions Go Unanswered

Brother Franco posted this comment in The Outlook For local 157 Very Positive

By Daniel J. Franco

O.k., I tried to be patient and courteous…

After reviewing the 2006 UBC Constitution, the NYCDCC By-Laws, the US DOL LMRDA, and contacting the US Department of Labor at the Washington D.C. and New York City offices, I needed to give D’Errico, Forde, Spencer, and McCarron an opportunity to explain the current LU157 trusteeship much better and in writing. I had wished to provide the answers to my questions to the membership before and without having to send a second letter. However, even before writing the first letter, I knew my questions were extremely unlikely to be answered. (Being ignored or “stonewalled” is the first phase of four phases.)

I tried to fax to each the first letter early Monday April 7 but didn’t get the chance to do it until about 2:00 AM Tuesday April 8. However, apparently none of these first faxes were received. I faxed the first letter to each a second time at about 1:45 AM April 11.

D’Errico responded at about 11:35 AM the following day to my April 11 fax. He was polite and courteous, but stated it would be better to send a letter to Spencer. I informed him that I already had sent to Spencer a similar letter.

I confirmed the receipt of the faxing of the second sending of the first letter and the second letter to Forde’s office and McCarron’s office. I sent Spencer’s letter to the DC as advised by D’Errico. Forde’s secretary told me that the letters addressed to Spencer would be forwarded to him.

Each letter had practically the same questions but some of the questions were adjusted to match the individual.

Below is a sample of the letters Brother Franco faxed on April 11, and 22, 2008, to EST Forde, VP Spencer, GP McCarron, regarding the Trusteeship of Local 157 which were unanswered.

Dear DVP Frank Spencer:

On April 7, 2008, and then again on April 11, 2008, I faxed to you questions pertaining to the current Local Union 157 “supervision”. I have verified by speaking with Ms. Bodha Bodhwattie on April 16, 2008, that, at the very least, the second fax was received. Since I have not received a response yet, I must ask, are the questions being ignored? If not, why have the questions not been answered? Do you have any intent to answer the questions presented?

Due to your apparent lack of presence at the Local Union 157 office, I faxed the letters to you at the NYCDCC because being Supervisor of Local Union 157 would require you to be at least in NYC to supervise competently the Local Union 157 trusteeship. If I am incorrect with your need to be at or near the Local Union 157 office, please explain.

Since having had five months to create, understand, and personally direct the trusteeship of Local Union 157 as Supervisor, you should know the answers to the questions presented. To be unable to answer the questions directly, i.e. now and without assistance, most especially lawyer assistance would imply an evasion of duty and suggest supervisory/trustee incompetence.

I have been very respectful and patient with this needless and wrongful trusteeship. However, my patience with this trusteeship and the lack of information has now been exhausted. So now, I will ask the questions one last time.

1) Specifically, what are all the reasons as to why the supervision of Local Union 157 was initiated? Were there any reasons for the supervision other than Business Representative absenteeism and its concealment? If so, what were the reasons?

2) Why is the supervision of Local Union 157 continuing? How much longer is the supervision expected or planned to last?

3) Was the supervision of Local Union 157 instituted as an "Emergency Supervision"?

4) Why were Hanley, Kennedy, and Dilacio, dismissed as Business Representatives, not formally charged with a violation and then tried [as members]?

5) Why were all the officers of Local Union 157 dismissed? Who authorized the officer dismissals? How were the officer dismissals authorized? What law authorizes such dismissals?

6) Why were the officers who are thought to have done no wrong also dismissed as officers?

7) As of yet, why have there been no officer reinstatements or nominations and elections?

8) Why have there been no regular meetings? Have any special meetings been called during the supervision? If so, why?

9) Why did GP Douglas J. McCarron appoint you as Local Union 157 Supervisor?

10) Why did you appoint NYCDCC EST Michael J. Forde as Local Union 157 Assistant Supervisor?

11) Were and/or are other Local Unions being investigated for similar circumstances?

12) Why was the freezing of Local Union 157 financial accounts necessary? Who is the person who cashes the quarterly dues payments? In to what/who’s account?

13) Is the supervision actually a trusteeship as defined by the US DOL LMRDA? If so, what are the reasons as to why the LM-15 and LM-15A forms were not filed within 30 days from the start of the supervision?

14) Specifically, what are your current efforts with respect to Local Union 157 supervision? Specifically, what are you trying to accomplish with the supervision of Local Union 157? Specifically, what are your duties as Local Union 157 Supervisor?

If personal acknowledgement of the receipt of this letter is not provided via phone, fax, or email by 5 PM today, Tuesday, April 22, 2008, I will assume you have no intent to answer the questions. If the questions are not answered in earnest via fax or email by 5 PM tomorrow, Wednesday, April 23, 2008, I will interpret this as contempt of being questioned. In addition, not answering the questions will further suspicion of your questionable intentions with respect to the Local Union 157 trusteeship.


  1. Mike is probably too busy to answer the request right now. He is busy with his event happening next week.

  2. I realize I made an error within question 14. I failed to remove the word "Assistant" when I cut and pasted the question. Sorry.


I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.