EMERGENCY ELECTRONIC DELEGATE VOTE

The following was emailed to EST Bilello on Tuesday July 17, Bob has requested that I post it.

Please read the attachment, with post scripted addition, titled > To: EST & Pres. 17 July 2012 as it is in regard to the Notice of Emergency Electronic Delegate Vote.

If I speak of what I know not, and I caution the Executive Body, it isn't just I that thinks this way, but for the lack of that which is unknown is singularly due to one reason, - the lack of transparency and involvement with the complete roster of Delegates and Membership of the New York City District Council of Carpenters, as has been fatally exhibited in this case by the Executive Body.

A timely response is requested.

                      EMERGENCY ELECTRONIC DELEGATE VOTE

.............Talk about a Pandora's Box!

What is Instantly Wrong With Such A Request;

What miniscule amount of information does trickle down to the delegates whereas in this particular circumstance, nevertheless it has been released at crisis stage? The decision to implement emergency measures to have the delegate body vote on the internet 1) - Without Requests For Proposals, 2) - Without debate & discussion, and 3) - (most acutely) Without suitable "Democratic Function" are just the first three items needing to be questioned.     Furthermore if we look to the administrations lack of substantive concern and effort in this case thus far, which by & large is the explicit reasoning as to why we are at this crisis juncture, that as well could have been avoided, so directly there are four stated reasons for concern. 

* If this is not the case a detailed explanation would have to be delivered, deliberated then decided upon by the Membership if it is to be determined as satisfactory.

 In translation of my opening statement re: Pandora's box, and therefore exponentially I may add, there now becomes presented to the Delegates and Membership a number of other evils to contend with. In this case there is a plethora of specified remaining questions speaking to why this has happened and clearly exposes the administrations incompetency and delinquency to act completely and concisely as to avoid this so called "emergency". 

These are ex "on the tools" men that stated they have the wherewithal to lead this District Council and undoubtedly should have either instinctively, or whereby by the powers of deduction, made themselves aware of the many concerns that have led us to the point we are today.

The Membership;

At the forefront of the minds of a great many Delegates and Members is, why is it not so that what is being faced at present was not dealt with immediately following the decision & order of both arbiters. We can first look to the "missed" inevitability that this complete circumstance of an emergency Delegate vote would have been better handled with the inclusion of, but not having been limited to, disseminating this information to either or both, the Delegate Body and the General  Membership through an open & fair communication via the NYCDCC web site and carpenter Magazine.

If not practical enough, and whereas my thoughts on that subject painfully remain unanswered, why not special call Delegate meetings. 

* There was ample opportunity and time for this to take place!

And allow me to add that any & all opportunity which was available to the District Council's administration was just that, - a single "Executive" decision away from being reality.                

                                            

The Obvious Is Worth Mentioning;

Because  others are like mindedly thinking, as experienced by interaction in speaking with active participating Members & Delegates, why did the NYCDCC's lawyer Murphy esq, wherefore prior to the May 3^rd Arbiters decision, did not argue the substantive points of reference that will assuredly (?) be argued in a second action. i.e., - D. Shiel not being authorized to pen this deal w/Gilbert.

As is known fact MJF's signature needed to be on this deal. He did have sole power, and as this was a sought after change to be included in the By Laws by the Review Officer so as to apportion a system of checks & balances where this would not occur in the future what needs to be addressed here is why the NYCDCC's counsel did not discover specific facts which unavoidably should have been or will be argued upon revisitation.

*That is not to say I agree with the hiring of another firm, but that the lawyers in place shall do as instructed by the current administration.

As this MWA scenario is further explored, or in other words, as the next layer of the onion is peeled back, it should become apparent there was a coup to have the MWA case decided in their favor with assistance from the UBC supervisory staff. Any action resulting from criminal behavior is to be looked at as null & void. As should have been the case with Thomasen's contempt findings regardless of that particular association expounding the fact they did not know there was a consent decree. This was and remains an incompetent excuse, in deed,  for an act of contempt toward the Consent Decree and the membership as well as the Federal Authorities to have not argued against the 67/33 OWL ratio. 

*It is with all resources available that the NYCDCC Executive body fully investigate and if so warranted administer proper & punitive civil and union action against those responsible, wherever this leads within the UBC.

Why is present NYCDCC counsel, Murphy, under the retainer he is receiving, either previously or at present, not being instructed to do so, thereby saving the District Council extra cost to do so. 

*If there are no qualitative answers to these questions he needs to be immediately fired!

Then we look to the inevitability that the UBC supervisors had serious lapses in judgment when specifically looking to this issue. 

* Where was the present NYCDCC leadership on this?

As the Review Officer has repeatedly stated that he himself would seek Judicial intervention provided the damage was calculable enough, well it is and where is that involvement?

Honestly the Review Officer could have, with a snap of his fingers, put this to bed a long time ago, knowing what he knows and having the authority he does.

* It seemingly was a dangerous precedent for him not to have acted in any remote scenario given the Thomasen & Shiel legacy as deeply entrenched with the racketeer felon Michael Forde, despite any act of confidence being extended to the previous executive administrations personell.

As To V.P. D. Shiel;

Now I'd be remiss to not to be more explicit, regarding this, once again. 

When we recollect the use of the term "institutional awareness" the only thought conjured up at this point in time as quoted from Supervisory trustee frank Spencer in January 2011 is that of the need to pen a few more corrupt deals.

As to Electronic Means of a Delegate Vote;

Electronic function of such a delegate vote as per Robert Rules requires a framework be established. No that these parliamentary procedures cannot be adopted but that we must avoid the "winging it" mentality.

According to RR of order sub sect. 9, page 97 -99, what remains required, without that which is quoted as verbatim "( face to face)" physical presence of the delegate body, - "A group that hold such alternative meetings does not lose its character as a deliberative assembly, (see pages 1-2) so long as the meetings provide, - that which is not taking place - at a minimum conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those held in one room or area. Under such conditions that is properly authorized in the By Laws, - of which the NYCDCC's has no such reference to refer - is treated as though it were a meeting at which all the members who are participating are actually present."

In looking to various parameters for establishing the protocol for such electronic means there remains missing intricacies which also need to be ironed out beforehand.

It is the basic function of debate & discussion, which wll be bypassed and ignored, and is why I have highlighted the above Roberts Rules passage.

Where We Go From Here;

It should be suggested by the District Council's counsel, in the strongest possible terms, that the NYCDCC be granted an extension of time to handle this matter where yet undiscovered but determinable criminal activity, and wherefore the naivety of those newly elected have led the general membership to call for the righteous need for said extension in order to properly & fully prepare ourselves at no further monetary detriment.

In choice wording: The UBC supervisors threw us under the bus and if we are unable to prepare ourselves without further detrimental cost, and 150k surely fits that description these days, the current administration due to their failures, will essentially be throwing it onto reverse for another go around even at mitigated levels of damage.

The critical understanding is that the loss of the Man Hours/Dollars will be crippling to the NYCDCC benefit funds but that arriving at the truth as to why the MWA ruling was wrong must be an essential argument that should be known to the brotherhood here in NYC. Not that damages just be mitigated but that for that matter why should we lose a cent in settlement.

The fear is, and again I am not the only member which thinks this way, and if wrong we need to be shown the truth as to why we err in thinking, is that there are bones buried as to individuals involved in what essentially was a crooked deal by an unauthorized sidekick to the felon in charge Michael J. Forde.

Given this more likely than not is the scenario's truth and for the fact there may be confidentiality agreements with those aiding the federal authorities in prosecution of the nine indicted in 2009, we are the ones that suffer as a result and any further detriment brought upon the brotherhood within the NYCDCC, where even a partial award of the MWA cornucopia of criminal activity needs not to be enforced.

Member in Good Standing;

Robert Makowski

 Post*script

In that the Emergency Electronic Delegate vote has already started to be tabulated, if not completely decided by the end of business on Wednesday July 18, since it was first announced 48 hours prior, and whereas this letter was written on July 17 and this post script added that day, by means of communication with the Review Officer indicating that the decision as to whether or not the law firm in question seeking to mitigate the damages rendered in the MWA arbitration will be present at a hearing some 48 hrs. from the now, only via Electronic Delegate vote allow me to state that in the District Council's notice for this evolution I point to the statement made in that notice > " Due to timing set by federal laws we need you to vote by this emergency process which has been approved by the review Officer."

I as a member am taken aback when I find out that quite possibly before this letter is read the decision will have been made via woefully inadequate means as to whether or not the sought after firm will be retained to proceed with said action as representing the NYCDCC.

This makes the preceding stated negative evaluations of the requested "emergency" all the more fundamental in scope. It doesn't pass the smell test and those active enough to have greatly participated thus far demand there are no more back room deals at our expense.        

             

This includes skeletons inside this MWA ruling despite the fact some of those participants are being held in confidentiality by the US Attorney. This is a collective determination from people that aren't as dumb as some may think.

How much more collateral damage are we to endure?  Collectively we need to have someone on our behalf argue that we've suffered enough and this MWA ruling does not need to be mitigated but in fact, due to what actually did occur, the Review Officer and or someone with a basic criminal law degree can see past the smokescreens being utilized and finally apportion a fair sense of justice.

            

 Simply seeking to reduce the amount the MWA receives is not enough. It's all or nothing given what we've been through for twenty years. Or whereas encapsulated this into plain language, there is the feeling of many a member in the NYCDCC, the damages done to the NYCDCC will go on & on & on even if at a reduced amount.

A Federal authority has the power to end this here and now and all we ask is that no more "settlements" or "cover" be provided for those perpetrating these acts. Whether or not turning states evidence is the sole reason for only partial justice to be dispensed in looking to the fact the benefit funds must not irrecoverably suffer, let the racketeer facilitator, in this case D. Shiel roam free, but his freedom comes at a cost that states, - It must end here & now for us the NYCDCC Members.

If there is any clarification sought by the EST& Pres. I and many others would be glad to oblige.

 Again, 

Robert Makowski