Sunday, December 2, 2012

IG refuses to answer questions on report

At Wednesday's delegate meeting, Inspector General (IG) Scott Danielson, refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in a November 19, opinion/report, incredibly saying, "the bylaws require me to issue a report not answer questions."

The report is in response to a complaint, that during a meeting (see article "Insanity") of the delegate body on July 25, 2012, both Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Mike Bilello and former District Council President Bill Lebo (who was forced to resign) during questioning, on the MWA crisis, became unhinged, harassed, intimidated, threaten and allowed members of the delegate body to disrupt the meeting.

I sent the IG and Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) Josh Leicht, several emails regarding my dissatisfaction with their opinion. 

On November 16, I posted an article calling the report a whitewash, "You have delivered a whitewash report that misrepresented EST Bilello's response to my questions by cherry-picking Bilello's comments in an effort to exonerate and portray him in the most desirable way."

Leicht responded and said, "I understand that you disagree with the opinion and it is your right to do so. Nonetheless, except to correct a typographical error in the original, the opinion will not be changed."

Below are some of the remarks I made to the IG at Wednesdays delegate meeting:

It is unfortunate your report, failed to interview other delegates or members in attendance, cherry-picked quotes, contains errors of fact, has material taken out of context, and does not accurately reflect what transpired at the delegate body meeting on July 25, 2012.

Shockingly, the only thing your report found inappropriate, was that the former president "did not retire from the Chair or follow established procedures when he injected himself into the exchange between myself and the EST."

Quoting from the report you wrote, the former president, " had the right as a union member to express his good faith opinion to what he believed, correctly or incorrectly, to be misconduct on my part."

In other words, you did not find the "good faith opinion" expressed inappropriate, you found the failure to retire from the Chair to express that "good faith opinion" inappropriate.

With all due respect, you have it all wrong!

The former president had no right to inject himself or express his opinion about my alleged misconduct whether he retires from the Chair or not.

So the one thing your report found inappropriate, is inappropriate for all the wrong reasons.

I want to read something, this is a quote from the Review Officer (RO):

"Though reasonable men might draw different conclusions from what they observed at the July 25th delegate meeting, I am of the view that the events which were the subject of the report represent an appalling failure of decorum and procedure and that the conduct of the chair could fairly be characterized as harassment."

Question, Can you explain how given the same evidence, your report fails to draw the same conclusions as the RO and explain why there is such a disparity in views between yourself and the RO?

The IG refused to answer.

Decide for yourself, do you agree or disagree with the findings of the IG and CCO, please post your comments.

iPhone users click here for audio.

5(f) Complaint


  1. Does the IG work for us or do we work for him? Who's the boss?

  2. the ig the ro the... what does it matter who the hell it is. they are not here to help they are here to help us destroy ourselves. no justice for john. another whitewash. just more bullshit in a long line of bullshit. all the while we grow weaker. our money seperated from our pockets.


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.