 |
| Pugliese speaking, with Forde and Sheil. |
Since at least 1994, he admitted, he had been conning his members, taking a steady stream of payoffs from contractors in exchange for letting them cheat carpenters out of their hard-won benefits.
He read his plea from a piece of paper he held in his hand. "I, along with other union officials, accepted bribes in the form of cash payments from certain contractors."
FLASH...NEWS ALERT! Someone please tell this to Local 157 Vice President/Representative, Anthony Pugliese, at last nights union meeting, Pugliese declared, "Michael Forde Innocent."
Let me explain...during the "good of the order" I made a motion that “the leadership of Local 157 on behalf of the membership submit a formal letter to supervisor Frank Spencer stating that in-addition to blocking the pension of Forde and his co-conspirators, the UBC sue Mike Forde and Martin Devereaux for the $800,000 they reimburse themselves for legal fees in 2008.”
Last week UBC spokesman Scott Widmeyer, said "we intend to make every attempt possible to block these pensions going to the people who have pleaded guilty or have been implicated in serious wrongdoing."
The motion received loud applause from the over 100 members in attendance.
In 2004, Devereaux and Forde were convicted in a bribery case involving a man linked to New Jersey's DeCavalcante crime family. The conviction was overturned and they beat the rap in a 2008 retrial. At a July 9, Delegate Meeting, a motion was made and passed (without any detail billing documents) to reimburse the two leaders for legal fees which totaled approximately $800,000.
Immediately after Local 157 President, Lawrence D’Errico, read the motion and asked for a second, Pugliese raise his hand and made a motion “to table”, stating that Forde was "found innocent of the charges and entitled to the reimbursement."In a blink of an eye, before anybody knew what happen, the motion was seconded, approved and my motion killed.
Pugliese’s motion “to table” was completely out of order and a violation of the spirit of Roberts Rules of Order and a cheap trick, because it would permit debate to be suppressed by a majority vote, and only a two-thirds vote can do that.
Members have been sitting and suffering for over 2 1/2 hours, hearing canned reports and eager to go home. Half the room was already standing heading for the door.
Earlier brother Bill Walsh also made a motion which was tabled.
Brother Mike Bilello questioned D’Errico, expressing concern that by tabling "motions," D'Errico was "avoiding having any meaningful debate."
The membership was entitled to a serious and spirited debate on the merits of the motion since it's their money that Forde stole, then lied and defrauded the membership.
If we had debate, Pugliese would have learned that Forde was not found “innocent,” he was found "not guilty" and this is not a courtroom but a union meeting and members have a right to say how their hard earn dues money is spent.
If we had debate, Pugliese would have also learned that Forde admitted, he had been conning the membership, taking a steady stream of payoffs since at least 1994.
If we had debate, Pugliese would have learned that Devereaux was fired last month for misusing union money and refusing to cooperate with federal watchdog Dennis Walsh.
But since we had no debate, we learned nothing.
In fact D'Errico and the other representatives had absolutely nothing to say about Forde, Devereaux or any of Fordes co-conspirators...Nothing, Nada, Zip, Zero.
Not a single word about...Director of Operations, Maurice Leary, suddenly retiring, representatives Maurice McGraft and Tom Costello suddenly retiring, representatives Ed Maudsley resigning and representatives Ron Rawald and Danny Demorato being suspended.
It was business as usual.
This is business as usual. The D'Errico has begun and there is no stopping him and caperso from running this union the way it always has. Corrupt!!!
ReplyDeleteD’Errico and Pugliese. Why does that sound like a Wren and Stimpy cartoon?
ReplyDeleteFile a grievance with the international for D’Errico and Pugliese, as seated Officers, conspiring to violate members rights at the meeting. Pugliese had no right to ask for a table until it was determined if there was second and until after a debate and a vote was taken on the motion if there was a second.DErrico had not right to accept the motion to table so it is pretty clear both were conspiring not only to violate the members rights but to also give CONTINUED support to a convicted criminal.
You should have challenged DErricos right to accept Pugliese motion and when he sided with Puggy.Can I call him puggy just because its easier to spell?? When he sided with puggy, which he intended to do, you could have then "appealed the decision of the Chair" DErrico then would have had to sit down and step aside and Puggy takes the chair. You and Derrico debate with a decision decided by a vote from the floor and not from the stacked podium. DErricco is defeated with a copy of Roberts Rules and you back to your Original motion seconded,debated and voted on.
Besides screw the Officers of 157.Its obvious they were up Fordes ass and still are.Forde the convicted criminal. Complain about their actions to Walsh who will most likely not get involved but he is holding DErricos future in his hands and continued support of a convicted criminal is not good on the resume.
Send your letter not with the signatures of those who supported Forde but with as many rank and file 157 members as will sign it. DErrico and Puggys signature does not mean shit and Widmeyer is already receptive to the idea if he is telling the truth.Enough rank and file signatures overrides tired members at a meeting and overrides Fordes cronies who are still in Office. Your idea to recover the Legal fees is far from over.Remember right now both Spencer and McCarron are kissing US Attorney ass and you will get an answer to your grievance or ask Walsh why not.
After DErrico and Puggy are long gone and fired you can go back to 157 and hope to finally get your members rights.You must remember who these Forde boys owe their jobs to and ever expect them to act any different than the convicted criminal Forde.
Correct me if I am wrong but all this confusion and disagreement seems to be stemming from when John made a motion to pursue recovering the "$800,000" lawyer costs, which were paid with NYCDCC monies, for Forde and Devereaux state trials for "supposedly" accepting a bribe from "supposed" mobster Sean Richard. The state case started in 2000. In the 2004 trial the guilty verdict was overturned because of jury misconduct. The 2007 re-trail ended in acquittal. Although acquittal means "not guilty" is also doesn't mean innocent. However, having sat in the center of the second row, there being commotion amongst the members, and with Pugliese not speak loudly, what I thought Pugliese's was trying to say was that we won't pursue recovering funds to a lawsuit were the defendants were found innocent. However, John is making the point that more recently Forde has pleaded guilty to and will sentenced for conspiracy to racketeering and to racketeering going back at least 15 years. And that we should be pursuing to recover the monies they were paid from the members. However, Rich you're the second person to explain it to us/me that the execs should not have tabled the motion in manner that they did. And just as you have explained, John's motion should have been given the opportunity to receive a seconding, which I think someone did, but apparently wasn't acknowledged.
ReplyDeleteI'll state this, one of the biggest problems we have at the local union meetings is that no one, including myself and the LU157 E-board, appears to be well versed with Robert's Rules of Order. Also, I have the both the 206 page Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised in Brief and the 752 page Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Edition. For me, they're both not a very entertaining read so it is little hard to read a lot at one time. Basically, when I can find the time, I use it as a reference book an read a few pages at a time about specific topics. For example, for Nominations from the Floor, there is no rule against self-nominations, no seconds are needed for nomination, and the member need not be recognized from the Chair to make a nomination. See Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Edition, pages 416-418
Sorry for all the missed words in my last comment. Also, if you'd like to purchase the books for yourself, the ISBN-13's for Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Edition, is 978-0738203072, and for Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, in Brief, is 978-0306813542. Provide to or enter in the search box of your preferred book seller the ISBN.
ReplyDeleteAnthnoy ( Puggy) Pugliese is recieving his tools pension and DC rep salary. How much does this fat bastard want. And still claims Mike Forde is innocent. Puggy retire before you get taken out.
ReplyDeleteDan, Pat Brennan did make a second to my motion and Richard is correct on how the process should of proceeded.
ReplyDeleteLawrence as the president has a duty to remain impartial. This is how Lawrence should have proceeded when a member wishes to make a motion.
1. Ask Lawrence and get permission to speak to the members.
2. Offer your recommendation to the rest of the members using the phrase, "I move that..., or make a motion to. . ."
3. After making your motion another member must approve, or second, the motion before it can be voted on by the rest of the members.
4. Lawrence will state the motion loud enough for everyone to hear. He may change the words to bring clarity to the motion for the rest of the membership if needed.
5. Lawrence will then invite members who are both for and against the motion to discuss it.
6. After the discussion is over Lawrence will call for a vote on the motion.
7. Another member can also make a motion that your issue or recommendation be tabled until another meeting if they feel there is not enough information available to make an informed decision. This would then be voted on as well.
Pugliese acted out of order and Lawrence had no right to accept his motion.
ooooo puggy!!! you need to retire!!! we think you are losing your mind!!! lmao!!! yea he is innocent, he plead GUILTY!! what is union coming too!!! please get rid of the clowns and in the smart men that take this union forward!!!!
ReplyDeleteOoooooooo puggy! That song is playing for ya! Hit the road jack.......
ReplyDeleteRobert's Rules of Order http://www.robertsrules.org/rror--00.htm
ReplyDelete