Saturday, July 20, 2013

Court Transcript from the oral argument in the Bilello veto matter

Below is an excerpt from Thursday hearing regarding the Bilello veto matter

THE COURT: So the purpose of today's proceeding is to have a brief oral argument, I believe counsel requested, with respect to this matter involving Mr. Michael Bilello. So I am happy to hear briefly from each side. You don't really need to repeat a lot of what is in your briefs. I have the briefs, or your written submissions. But if you want to touch on some high points, that is fine.

MR. WALSH: I think, without hesitation, that the notion that a member of this union and the top fiduciary of this union can willfully lie in an investigation conducted by an appointee of the district court is appalling. I assign great significance to that specification. When Mr. Petrillo says Mr. Bilello is not superman, it is revealed he is not even a careful man. One of the questions which we asked all of the candidates for EST was whether they were familiar with the bylaws that had been implemented in August of 2011 and there were people who I did not approve to run for office because they could not say that they were familiar with those bylaws.

In Section 21, the question of the allocation of those payments to the welfare fund, what Mr. Petrillo talks about in that interim report was my strong recommendation that the welfare fund needed money, that the costs were excessive and any bit of income was a good thing. The document that Mr. Bilello, Mr. Cavanaugh signed and submitted to the benefit funds in June of 2012 was never submitted to me for review. I could indeed have made the argument that they failed to follow the stipulation and order by giving me prior notice, and the entire framework of the stipulation and order is based, with respect to the District Council, on the giving of prior notice. There are too many moving parts. I was not given notice of that unilateral application of asserted authority by Mr. Bilello. If I had been given notice of it, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

But as we pointed out in the papers, I am not counsel to the District Council, I am not an advisor, and I am certainly not there to tell them to watch out for every pothole that they may be about to drive over in their daily affairs. The fact is that over $900,000 was allotted to the welfare fund, which was not money that the welfare fund had to give back should the nun pro tunc vote have gone the other way. And if the delegates had decided they wanted that money as income, the chances are they would not have gotten it back. There was no obligation for the welfare fund to return that money.

With respect to the reading of the minutes of the funds, it is easy to characterize that as a minor matter, but it is not a minor matter. The executive committee of the District Council needs to be informed about the affairs of the benefit funds because this union is in a struggle. The District Council is out front trying to organize non-union companies, trying to organize non-union workers. They need to be apprised of the urgent problems confronting the benefit funds, as this court knows and as we have discussed on many occasions the problems confronting the benefits funds. I attended many of those executive committee meetings where it was apparently much more important that correspondents from the Boy Scouts and various district councils and local unions seeking to fill tables at dinner dances be read to those trustees, to those executive committee members, and I think the priorities were all wrong in that regard. It is easy to characterize each one of these specifications in a certain way.

The reality is that the careful EST, the careful fiduciary consults with counsel. The general counsel for the District Council has an office right next to the EST. He is available basically five days a week and certainly 24 hours a day by telephone. If Mr. Bilello had been inclined to consult him, perhaps we would not be here today.


  1. re: for Dennis Walsh

    NOTE: Bilello, Lebo & Cavanuagh are the epitome of the SNL - "Not Ready for Prime Time Players"

    These clueless dolts, by & through their own inexperience, ineptitude & dimwitted actions all failed miserably in applying Section 21 of the August 5, 2011 By-Laws to all future contract (CBA) negotiations.

    Moreover, they collectively violated the spirit & intent of the Civil RICO Consent Decree by the illegal & unilateral action to extort up to $200M dollars from rank & file member wages and to illegally convert it to the exclusive benefit of a separate legal entity, the NYCDCC Welfare Fund.

    This is a qualified violation of the Federal RICO statutes. Furthermore, given collections already began and that said collections and illegal redistribution of monies were improperly converted and crossed state lines therein effecting inter-state & intra-state commerce - the ony legitimate questions remaining are:

    A) When will the R.O. veto Mike Cavanaugh's employment with the district Council; and

    B) When shall the United States Attorneys Office file criminal RICO charges against these three (2-former) District Council employees and other individuals involved at the Welfare Fund?

    C) When wil the indictments issue?

    The article above lends credence to the mandatory requirement that D.C. Officers, Agents, Fiduciaries & Trustees are competent well read & well advised individuals; and, that they know, follow & obey the laws.

    The three named here have exposed the District Council to liability and future legal actions.

    The very belated nunc pro tunc arguments of D.C. in house legal counsel James Murphy are non-persuasive & simply too little to late.

  2. Here's another Mr. Walsh.

    re: ENR

    Lawyer as Constructor

    D.C. Vice President Mike Cavanaugh, acting as an agent and authorized signatory binding the District Council to illegally transfer & convert member wages earmarked for pay raises to the distinct legal entity of the District Council Welfare Fund (a separate legal corporation) is every bit as culpable (ethitcally, morally and in legal terms) for creating the exposure to the District Council, as was former EST Michael Bilello and thus he too must be summarily vetoed or you shall continue to lose credibility and respect.

    Cavanaugh must be terminated. All three must be indicted less Judge Berman, the Federal District Court and the United States Attorneys Office lose all credibility.

    Failure of any or all of you to take proactive action & end his employment immediately puts you in the same category as you personally charged Bilello for selectively allowing one individual to end run the Civil RICO Consent Decree via the unilateral & illegal actions of the former EST.

    You did not give Bilello a free pass & therefore, your Office, the USAO & the Court should not summarily grant D.C. Vice President Michael Cavanaugh a free pass to violate the very same Civil RICO Consent Decree from which you convict former EST Bilello.

    1. agreed. this is very weird ruling handed down by walsh

  3. Bottom line seems to be that if it proves to be the case that Walsh through his inept investigations, and half assed, arbitrary decisions is found to be without proof to support any of his over caffeinated charges, then rubber stamp Berman has no issue with allowing what would be considered inconsequential in a real court of actual law, as sufficient to support whatever Walsh wishes to do. The District Council is at the whim of a $100,000 a month despot who has been given unlimited power by a judge who seems unwilling to actually to do his job and not allow the Federal Court system to be used as a tool to facilitate Walshs continuing to collect his $100,000

    1. Blaming the R.O. Dennis Walsh solves nothing.

      This is real simple - Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way or the train will run your dumb ass over.

      Walsh was not appointed by the court to be the chief hand-holder, mommy & baby sitter for inept fools incapable of original though, action, plan or follow through.

      Being a good carpenter or even a great one does not by any stretch of the imagination qualify a person to run for office to lead an Organization as large & complex as the District Council, one approaching five billion in total assets,.

      The apologists need to stop and take a hard look at how ill prepared and equipped they were to lead.

      The fact is, they, not Dennis Walsh failed miserably and they have no one to blame but themselves. The jobs require discipline, focus and hard work and lots of research and study.

      They tried to fake their way through all of it from day one so their veto's were just.



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.