Monday, April 29, 2013

Bilello Vetoed

Bilello–You're Fired! 
BREAKING NEWS...New York City District Council of Carpenters Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello has been vetoed.

On March 26, 2013 Review Officer (RO) Dennis Walsh slapped Bilello with an eight-count notice of possible veto, Bilello had until April 9, to answer the complaint and to deliver a written submission to the RO stating any facts, law or arguments which might be relevant to consideration of the possible veto.

We reported that Bilello hired a big gun attorney, Guy Petrillo, (Petrillo Klein & Boxer) who requested an extension to April 22nd, to respond, but "due to his travel schedule" was briefly extended. The RO held a pre-action conference on Friday April 26, and today issued the veto.

The UBC will not have a role in this action, an informed source said.

According to section 32B of the UBC Constitution, "when a vacancy occurs in any elective office of a Council, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Council may appoint a qualified member to the vacancy pro tem, until such time as an election is held to fill the vacancy. If no Executive Secretary-Treasurer position exists or such position is vacant, the President of the Council may make such pro-tem appointment."

Under that scenario District Council President Steve McInnis gets to make the pro-tem appointment to fill the vacancy until such time as an election is held

The most likely scenario is the RO will order a special election to fill the vacant position (read the" Fifth Interim Report of the Review Officer," page 5 and exhibit 3).

The Notice of Veto by the Review Officer is posted below, story still developing...Stay tuned!

17 comments:

  1. Sleep well Mickey cause ya ain't gettin paid no more. Prop up those broad shoulders, there's a world of weight on them. Gee your family must be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry we had to put you through this Mr. Walsh!

    You gave him every last opportunity there was to read, review and study the bylaws, contract law 101 and get up tp speed on the basics of Labor Law and mangement of a dynamic organization.

    Irrespective of your vast patience, teachings and example of thinking, writing and leadership by example at countelss meeetings, ROMAC sessions, he refused to heed solid advice and has no one to blame but himself.

    To keep him here would have been to undo all the good you have done over the past 3-years and the members are thankful that you chose to preserve that legacy so we can keep progrssing forward.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We have had the unfortunate expereince of holding a hybrid election and the R.O.can use that process once again to seat the right individual.

    People forget that the structure is in place now at the D.C. wherein the loss of one man does not doom the entire Organization.

    The structure is solid and democracy as has been practiced will be guaranteed by what is in place right now through the Dorector of Operations, Organizing, the IG & CCO's offices, the Office of President, Vice President, the HR Policy and the Code of Ethics and others I may have missed.

    With this in place his veto is but a minor blip on the process and the long road back from the corruption of the past. Point is, the process worked and you have the Review Officer Dennis Walsh to thank for it.

    Time for some somber reflection and let's just hope the righ man or woman rises to the occasion throwing their hat into the ring for the next Election.

    File this one under lesson learned and let's all move on. In unity there is strength, so who among you shall unite the masses?

    ReplyDelete
  4. We'll probably be under trusteeship again, or have the federal government come in and break us up into little pieces so there is no more district council

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When we pressed Walsh at the last RO Forum, Mon 2013-04-17, to hold other Executive Committee Members accountable in addition to Bilello because Bilello did not act alone in the his failures to warrant the Notice of Possible Action (NPA), Walsh practically admitted that vetoing more than one high-level Council employee/Executive Committee Member simultaneously is highly likely to bring a trusteeship. The greater in number multiple simultaneous employee vetoes, the more heavily McCarron could use this to petition for Walsh's removal as RO. To a large degree, this is the reason why Mr. Walsh will not hold anyone else accountable simultaneously - to avoid a trusteeship and his removal. However, as Mr. Walsh knows, vetoing one Council employee/Executive Committee Member at a time is unlikely to bring a UBC trusteeship or his removal.

      Delete
  5. With the information below in mind, we will see how Mr. Walsh handles UBC Constitution, Section 32B. Will he allow an EST pro tem appointment? If Walsh allows an EST pro tem appointment, who would McInnis appoint? The most likely appointee would be Paul Tyznar, or do you not agree?

    On Sep 26, 2012, at 7:19 PM, "Daniel J. Franco" wrote:

    Mr. Walsh,

    Do you agree that a president pro tem appointment is not only not required but, more significantly, not permissible under your interpretation of the Consent Decree?

    Dan

    On Sep 26, 2012 8:59 PM, "Dennis Walsh" wrote:

    Yes.


    On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Daniel J. Franco wrote:
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan: At the most recent Court Conference before Judge Berman, the Review Officer reported that EST Mike Bilello's appointed Council Delegate Body meeting record keeper Paul Tyznar has been responsible for substandard minutes, including false accounts-- which the Court determined to be a significantly contributing factor to the dysfunction existing in those proceedings.

      Paul Tyznar would appear to be not a viable candidate for EST from viewpoint of Court observer and member of the gallery; Tyznar has proved to be unable to carry out functions assigned to him by an EST-- it follows that he would more likely than not be unable to carry out the responsibilities and duties of the Office of EST as well.

      Delete
    2. If given the opportunity, who else would McInnis pick? McWilliams? Anyone already employed at the council would have to give-up their current job to take-on the position of the EST. The question is, which Council employee is willing to switch positions, is the most electable, capable of surviving as EST, at least minimally, and will be approved by the RO?

      Delete
    3. I can't run, I'm still looking for the $58M left over from what we stole on the Blue Card Vacation Wage Extortion scam.

      Delete
  6. Will someone please VETO DALY again. We all need a good laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "not permissible under your interpretation of the Consent Decree?" Could anybody post me a copy of this election of the consent decree so I can see where Walsh would had made this interpretation.. Can anybody post a copy of the special elction procedures approved by the court in October 2012 labeled "Ex 3" in the 4th interim report

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where are these charges.The meat and potatoes

    (c) on March 13, 2013, you refused to answer questions about your report to the Delegates properly posed to you by a delegate at a meeting of the Delegate Body of the District Council;

    (d) on July 25, 2012, you engaged in indecorous and undemocratic behavior in a debate with a delegate at a meeting of the District Council Delegate Body; .

    (e) from on or about September 2012, to the present, you failed to continue the development of the business representative cross-training program recommended by the Review Officer and begun by the former District Council President and Assistant to the EST;

    (f) from on or about August 22, 2012, through October 2012, you failed to take reasonable and prudent measures to implement the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement between the District Council and the Association of Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc.;

    As happy as I am he was vetoed and as wrong as I was..Does anyone think Biello would have to be a moron not to appeal this.

    Does anybody feel the members listed in the exhibit should NOT be at the NLRB tomorrow to file charges over the WDA and dues.

    Does anybody not see the demands put on these members over dues and WDA are in direct violation of the UBC Constitution..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry take out e

      Delete
  9. DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !

    ReplyDelete
  10. go back on the tools you shyte

    ReplyDelete
  11. "not permissible under your interpretation of the Consent Decree?" Could anybody post a copy of this selection of the consent decree so I can see where and why Walsh would had made this interpretation.. Can anybody post a section of the consent decree with wording that makes pro tem appointments not permissible

    "Can anybody post a copy of the special election procedures approved by the court in October 2012 labeled "Ex 3" in the 4th interim report"

    Please disregard this since it was Interim Report 5 and the exhibit due to Johns hard work and diligence is already there..




    ReplyDelete
  12. my company needed Office Depot Sales Tax Exemption Application a few weeks ago and encountered a great service that has an online forms database . If people are requiring Office Depot Sales Tax Exemption Application as well , here's a http://pdf.ac/3X3xb6

    ReplyDelete

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.