We write in reply to: NYCDCC Counsel James M. Murphy's March 29, 2013 letter (Doc. 1290) and Review Officer Dennis M. Walsh Counsel Bridget M. Rohde's April 4, 2013 letter (Doc. 1293) answering Your Honor's March 21, 2013 Memo Order (Doc. 1281) and March 13,2013 Order (Doc. 1255).
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Schroeder letters to Judge Berman
1 comment:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At page 7, the Review Officer stated:
ReplyDelete“ I have always felt the great scope of authority granted to the EST as conceived by the UBC Constitution presents a risk in the New York District Council. That is one of the reasons that the office is different here, for instance, arguably fettered by the unique hiring process for business representatives required by the District Council Bylaws. The Bylaws endeavored to strike a proper balance between the authority of the EST, the Delegate Body and mandatory process – all with oversight of an Inspector General and a compliance overlay4. I would not presently recommend that any offices be eliminated or created. In my view, the governance is still a fledgling. Despite some growing pains, I think the system will not only work, but serve the District Council well. Much will depend on the commitment of all to take it seriously, master the Bylaws, study issues and engage in collegial debate.”
The obvious should not escape this honorable Court – that being, The District Councils EST usurped his proper balance and authority by facilitating Executive control of the Agenda in continuance of racketeering throughout the course of the alleged contract negotiations, presentation of the MOU and the alleged vote on what was, is and remain nothing more than notes kept relative to basic discussions during a period where the racketeering continued unabated in direct violation of Prong 1 of the Consent Decree (Elimination of Racketeering).
The D.C. & Contractor Associations now wish to insult the rank& file member and the Courts intelligence via the ‘nunc pro tunc’ diversionary argument to dissuade the Court that EST Bilello’s schoolboy type notes now constitute a formal contract which had yet been developed or voted upon; and which contract was first presented to the Court on March 12, 2013 and first received by members and Council Delegate Body members via PACER on March 13, 2013.
EST Bilello and President Lebo were engaged in “Executive control of the agenda in continuance of Racketeering” during the entire period when the MOU was operative. In direct contravention to subsequent/recent submissions of NYCDCC in house counsel Murphy false statements and the Review Officers charges against the NYCDCC EST for a;