Pursuant to Paragraph 5.l.iii of the Stipulation and Order filed in this matter on April 18, 2016 (the “2016 Stipulation and Order”), I respectfully submit this Fourth Interim Report as the Independent Monitor (“IM”) of the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “District Council” or “Union”), and its affiliated Taft-Hartley fringe benefit funds (the “Benefit Funds” or the “Funds”).
Showing posts with label Benefit Funds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benefit Funds. Show all posts
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Fourth Independent Monitor Interim Report With Exhibits
Sunday, October 23, 2016
U.S. v. D.C. Transcript of 10/17/16 Court Conference
THE COURT: Don't go down that path, Mr. McGuire.
This issue has been pending since January 2016. I could more easily have gotten the president of the United States to come up with a meeting, and I don't feel that I have any particular inside track. What is it, ten months or so? We could have gotten, I don't know, you name it, Donald Trump. We could have had him here in that period of time. These are busy people.
So that's an unfortunate -- that is going to be an
unsuccessful path for you to go down.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Third Independent Monitor Interim Report With Exhibits
As the Court is well aware, there has been significant discussion over the last six months regarding the Court’s interest in the Trustees’ solicitation of outside auditors to evaluate whether its current financial advisors’ methodologies are consistent with, if not surpassing, typical market practices. After much back-and-forth between the Court and counsel for the Funds, I am genuinely confident that the Trustees will devise an outside review that will satisfy the Court, and that the Funds can engage in such an inquiry without fear that whatever recommendations are made will be binding on them. I expect in the coming weeks that the Co-Chairs of the Trustees, Funds counsel, and I will meet with the Court to further discuss this project.
Third Independent Monitor Interim Report With Exhibits
As the Court is well aware, there has been significant discussion over the last six months regarding the Court’s interest in the Trustees’ solicitation of outside auditors to evaluate whether its current financial advisors’ methodologies are consistent with, if not surpassing, typical market practices. After much back-and-forth between the Court and counsel for the Funds, I am genuinely confident that the Trustees will devise an outside review that will satisfy the Court, and that the Funds can engage in such an inquiry without fear that whatever recommendations are made will be binding on them. I expect in the coming weeks that the Co-Chairs of the Trustees, Funds counsel, and I will meet with the Court to further discuss this project.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Meet the Independent Monitor–– GLEN MCGORTY
 |
| Glen G McCorty |
It is a great honor to be appointed as your Independent Monitor. First and foremost, I am committed to approaching this position with diligence and respect. The District Council and its Benefit Funds have a tumultuous past, but the core mission runs deep. Every interaction I have had with its Brothers and Sisters has shown me that you are here to support each other, and that you will hold the District Council and its Benefit Funds accountable to that purpose. I will aid you in this endeavor, drawing on my experience of nearly fifteen years as a federal prosecutor, during which I prosecuted organized crime, fraud, and corruption of every sort.
I come to the Council at a time when the most visible forms of corruption have been abolished. However, this success required the decisive action of both the District Court and United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and its appointed Monitors. Great progress has been made in adopting policies that guard against corruption, and I firmly believe that it is now time for the District Council and the Benefit Funds to assume a greater role in holding itself up to the admirable standards set forth in the UBC Constitution.
I will work with the leadership of the Council and the Funds to ensure that all improvements to its operations going forward benefit members in a fair, effective, and compliant way. And while my approach to this job will be one of teamwork and cooperation, make no mistake that I am here for a single purpose: to ensure this union remains free of the problems which have plagued its past. As a result, I will not tolerate corruption at any level of this organization and I intend to use the powers given to me by the District Court to prioritize this goal above all others.
I do not believe my time here, however, is indefinite. On the contrary, during my tenure I hope to oversee the strengthening of the governing framework to the point where a monitor is no longer necessary. Self-governance cannot be achieved without your involvement. This Council’s democratic system of governance depends on it, and corruption can rebound all too easily amid disinterest.
I urge you to stay educated about the issues facing the District Council and its Benefit Funds and to use your voice and your vote in an informed and reasoned way. I also urge you to use both the Independent Monitor Hotline (877-712-4896) and internal lines of reporting, if you have any concerns about corrupt practices. This union has a bright future, and I look forward to assisting in any way I can to get it there.
Respectfully, Glen G. McGorty
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Retirees and New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund Reach Settlement
On May 23, 2012, a group of retirees, by and through their attorney, The Law Office of Harvey S. Mars LLC, filed a lawsuit against the New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund, which they allege among other things, that the retiree class will be required to pay substantial monthly and other co-payments for what were previously free benefits and their participation in the plan will be terminated unless such premiums are paid.
On July 17, 2014 without mention of the lawsuit, the Board of Trustees, the NYCDCC Welfare Fund
announce that a plan has been approved for the restoration of dental
coverage, as well as a fifty percent reduction in retiree premiums.
Below is a letter dated July 18, 2014, from the attorneys representing the Welfare Fund to Judge Paul Oetken stating that the parties have reached a settlement of this matter in its entirety.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Breaking News
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, the NYCDCC Welfare Fund is pleased to announce that a plan has been approved for the restoration of dental coverage, as well as a fifty percent reduction in retiree premiums. The reduction of retiree premiums will take effect September 1, 2014, while the restoration of dental coverage will be effective October 1, 2014.
While the Benefit Funds Office is currently working on the implementation of these changes, what we can now report is that the new dental coverage will be through Aetna Dental Maintenance Organization (DMO), effective October 1, 2014. The plan will have no deductible and no annual limits, and will provide one hundred percent coverage for “preventive” and “basic” dental procedures. “Major” dental procedures will be covered at eighty percent. As we work through the implementation process and get closer to the effective date, we will be sure to provide you a full update and explanation of the plan changes, as well as contact information for Aetna.
Additionally, effective September 1, 2014, retiree premiums will be reduced by fifty percent. The reduced payments for retirees will be reflected in retiree statements once the reduction is officially implemented.
Lastly, it is important to note that the Board of Trustees also approved the implementation of a “Reserve Trigger Point.” To avoid financial issues in the future, it was decided that if the assets of the Fund drop below a certain level, the benefits reinstated under this agreement will be rescinded and only restored when the assets rise back to another predetermined level. The agreement states that, if reserves drop below seven (7) months, the dental benefits and the fifty percent reduction in retiree premiums will be rescinded on the first day of the next month. However, if the reserve then rises back to nine (9) months, the benefits will be restored on the first day of the following month. The current reserve level of the NYCDCC Welfare Fund is approximately twelve (12) months. The Benefit Funds Office will report the Welfare Fund Reserve number on an annual basis, or more frequently if required, on the NYCDCCBF website and in the Benefits Toolbox newsletter.
If you have any questions about these benefit changes, please feel free to contact the Benefit Funds’ Member Services Department at (800) 529-FUND (3863) or (212) 366-7373.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Notice of Billing Changes for Working Dues Assessments
Message from the District Council: Brothers and Sisters,
Please be informed, starting with your (4th) Fourth Quarter 2013 vacation check, the New York City District Council working dues and assessment invoice will no longer be included with the mailing of your vacation check. Due to the new upgraded Benefit Funds System and the use of separate vendors, the New York City District Council will no longer have the ability to combine the working dues invoice with your vacation check. Please be aware that you will receive a separate working dues assessment invoice directly from the New York City District Council, and it is your responsibility to remit payment prior to the due date.
If you have not yet completed a working dues/assessment Deduction Authorization Form, or if you have any questions, please contact the New York City District Council Assessment Department at (212) 366-7375.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Benefit Fund Trustees Establish Welfare Benefit-Restoration Committee
The NYCDCC Benefit Funds’ Labor and Management Trustees have agreed to establish a committee that will explore the possibility of restoring some of the 2012 reductions in Welfare Fund Benefits.
“With the Welfare Fund running a surplus and an increase in our reserves, we’re in a good position to begin talking about returning vital benefits,” said Stephen McInnis, President and Executive Secretary-Treasurer Pro Tem.
McInnis added that dental, vision and lowering retirement premiums are all on the table for discussion.
A number of reasons make it the right time to begin the discussion, according to the Council. They include the settlement of master contracts; the allocations from the new contracts to the Welfare Fund; an increase in work hours coupled with the reduction of hours being reciprocated out of the Fund to out-of-towners; and the settlement of MWA litigation.
“We’d like to restore everything, but we need to do this in a fiscally responsible way to ensure the Welfare Fund stays healthy and will be there for our members and their families for decades to come. With that being said, a partial restoration is possible,” McInnis said.
The committee of trustees will work in conjunction with the Funds’ actuary, Segal Co., to ensure this is done in a sustainable manner.
Source: NYCDC
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Court rules US funds are entitled to judgment against Irish woman
Fund trustees had sued Susan Reidy and her company over non-payment of sums
The US trustees had sued Susan Reidy and Perimeter Interiors , a New York company of which she was the P president and sole shareholder, in New York over non-payment of sums
The High Court has ruled the trustees of several New York benefit and pension funds are entitled to judgment for US$2.5m against an Irish woman who returned to Ireland in 2006 after many years living in the US.
Mr Justice Sean Ryan found the trustees of the New York District Council of Carpenters Pensions, and six other related funds, are entitled to have enforced in Ireland a judgment entered against Susan Reidy by a New York Court in August 2009.
The trustees had sued Ms Reidy and Perimeter Interiors , a New York company of which she was the president and sole shareholder, in New York over non-payment of sums due and owing by the firm to the pension and benefit funds. Ms Reidy had returned to Ireland in 2006 after some 20 years living in the US.
In opposing the application aimed at enforcing the judgment here, Ms Reidy, Kilbricken View, Doora, Ennis, Co Clare, claimed she had a bona fide defence to the claim on grounds including her claim she was not aware of the judgment against her until 2012.
In court documents, the trustees said Ms Reidy was the president, chief executive and sole shareholder of Perimeter and performed all payroll functions of Perimeter. Between 2002 and 2005, Perimeter maintained a secret bank account to avoid paying fringe benefit union contributions, to avoid taxes and to skim money, the trustees claimed.
Perimeter also made payments to a non-union company, Speedy Enterprises Inc, which shared the same business address as Perimeter, the trustees said. This was done to conceal financial activity of the unionised company through the non union company, they alleged.
Ms Reidy’s husband Gerard Mulligan was the president of Speedy and both companies had more than 20 employees in common, it was claimed.
The US Judge hearing the case found Ms Reidy had intentionally and knowingly caused Perimeter to submit false reports and information concerning the number of hours employees had worked to the unions’ benefit fund.
Ms Reidy said she was “not told” about the judgment until May 2012 and it was “a massive shock” when she learned there was a judgment of $US 2.5m against her.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Ryan found Ms Reidy had failed to advance any defence to the claim for enforcement here. She had not raised any issue of fact or law requiring determination at a full hearing, he said.
Source: The Irish Times
Friday, December 6, 2013
Transcript of Court Conference on December 4, 2013
THE COURT: So following our last session I was quite
concerned about some of the issues that we discussed and that
appear to be going on here, and for that reason I issued the
November 25, 2013 order and have received some helpful
submissions from all of you, including the Mr. Walsh's latest
report, the seventh interim report of the review officer, which
I think is very helpful. It also raises some issues or perhaps
they've been bubbling under the surface which I'm quite
concerned about in addition to the issue of the technology and
the technology fixes which I want to discuss today.
So I'd like to get right to it. In a subsequent memo
endorsement of mine dated November 27, I indicated an order in
which I would like to proceed today and I indicated that I'd
like to hear from the government first and then the district
council and then Mr. Walsh. And let me just tell you why I
think that's the appropriate order and mechanism.
So first, obviously, this is the government's case
historically and currently. It's U.S. v. District Council, et
al., and the origin of the case has to do with, among other
things, what were undeniably a history of bad practices and
corruption in the union.
So I thought that given that context and given that
one of the central problems I'm concerned about now is the
implementation, the very belated in my opinion implementation
of these electronic reporting systems which were, as I
indicated in my order, part and parcel of approval of the
collective bargaining agreements going back over the last
month, given the fact that those very reporting requirements
were presented to me and described by you all -- and by "you
all" I mean, for example, Mr. Murphy and others -- as
anti-corruption measures, I wanted to start and get the
government's take on this particular issue about how these
collective bargaining agreement aspects are being implemented
from the bigger perspective of what this case has been all
about.
And I don't have to remind you as I indicated in the
order dated November 25 that there was on my part, and others,
as well, there was an enormous change in these collective
bargaining agreements which was the implementation of what is
described as full mobility. And that was done with
considerable thought, but it did represent a sea change in how
hiring took place with these contractors. These contractors
got a huge benefit in that regard in my opinion. And the quid
pro quo for that full mobility was the implementation of -- one
of the quid pro quos was implementation of these anti-corruption
measures. And so clearly the full mobility was implemented but
the measures were not.
And as I read these materials -- by the way, I haven't
read all of them in detail, but I've read most of them in the
main including the seventh interim report, including Judge
Jones' letter dated December 3, and including the additional
supplemental letter dated December 3, 2013 from Kauff McGuire &
Margolis that has to do with pension issues.
So before I just turn to all of you because I don't
want to monopolize the conversation, but there was one other
point that I would like to make. And I don't know if it's
become obvious, but from my point of view when we have these
proceedings and hearings, one of the most beneficial aspects
from my point of view is to hear actually from the people who
implement whatever it is we're talking about.
So, for example, when we're talking about the benefit
funds, you know, we have the most talented lawyers in the world
sitting right here in front of us, but sometimes it's
preferable to get beyond the lawyers and to hear from the
people who are actually doing the work and I would like to
continue to do that going forward. We had that experience
particularly with the benefit funds, and I think that has
worked quite well actually hearing from those people who are in
charge of investments and the benefit funds as employees, not
just as lawyers.
And I would like -- there's a lot of mention in both
Judge Jones' letter and in the seventh interim report of the
people who were actually implementing these technology changes.
It would be useful and beneficial for me to hear directly from
them. And I'm always happy to hear from lawyers as well, but
those are the people who really are doing the job and so I
would like to hear from them as well.
But anyway, enough said by me. I would start with
Mr. Torrance.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Transcript of Court Conference on November 18, 2013
THE COURT: We have a couple of items that I was hoping we would talk about today. One is we were going to hear a report on how the funds are doing. Mr. McGuire, we have Ryk Tierney who is here.
MR. McGUIRE: Yes. Mr. Tierney is here and ready to report.
MR. TIERNEY: Thank you. My name is Ryk Tierney. I am the Executive Director of the New York City Carpenters Benefit Funds. For the record, we handle the four major funds for the carpenter benefits, which are the pension fund; the welfare fund, which includes vacation and scholarship benefits; the annuity fund; and then the apprenticeship journeyman retraining, education and industry fund. I will start with the pension fund, an update on total assets as of September 30, 2013.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Page Six
 |
| Booted disgraced former leaders Mike Bilello and Bill Lebo. |
On Monday, April 29, 2013 Bilello, the former carpenter boss, was booted from his post by the court appointed Review Officer (RO) Dennis Walsh for violating several union rules — including directing a schedule pay raise into the Welfare Fund without proper authorization and letting a suspended union member work at the Javits Center and then lie about it.
Bilello & Lebo were elected on December 15, 2011 to head the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters after vowing several reforms to the union —including saving the out of work list and contract ratification by the membership. The two former leaders reneged on those vows and ironically Bilello was the man who presided over the destruction of the out of work list, by negotiating a contract that includes full mobility and forcing it on the membership, despite the membership rejecting it in March 2012.
Bilello's running mate and former president and assistant Bill Lebo, also got the boot and was forced to resign last September, after receiving a notice of possible veto from the RO, amid allegations of inappropriate behavior and lying about it.
Sources said, Bilello is planning to appeal his veto in an effort to get his job back. The two disgraced former leaders sat quietly as they witnessed a properly run meeting by the new Executive Secretary Treasurer (EST) Pro Tem Stephen McInnis.
Monday, May 6, 2013
New Executive Director of the Benefit Funds
We are pleased to announce the appointment of James “Ryk” Tierney as the new
Executive Director of the Benefit Funds. Ryk started as the Executive Director on April
29, 2013.
The Benefit Fund Trustees launched a comprehensive, nationwide search for a new permanent Executive
Director in August 2012 to find the candidate whose qualifications could best
fulfill the charge to lead the Funds. They were assisted in our search by Heidrick &
Struggles, a global executive search firm.
In July 2012, we reported that the Board of Trustees terminated Mr. Joesph Epstein as Executive Director of the Benefit Funds.
After a rigorous application and
interview process, Mr. Tierney accepted the offer to serve as the Funds’ next Executive
Director.
Ryk Tierney is currently a Vice President and Director of Accounts at Associated Administrators, LLP, a benefits administration firm, and he is responsible for the
administration of numerous benefit funds in a variety of unionized industries. He
brings to the Funds an impressive combination of Talt-Hartley fund leadership and
an in-depth knowledge of issues ofconcern to all ofthe Funds’ constituents,
including the Funds’ participants, Fund Office employees, the District Council, and
Contributing Employers. Ryk has been designated as a Certified Employee
Benefits Specialist ("CEBS”) by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit
Plans, and he teaches CEBS courses. From 1983 to 1990, Ryk served in the
United States Army. Ryk will be relocating from Maryland, and, as a native of
New Jersey, he is delighted to be moving to New York.
Please join us in assisting Ryk with the new challenges and opportunities ahead.
There will be numerous opportunities in the next several weeks to meet Ryk and
welcome him aboard.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
NYCDCC Benefit Funds v. O'Dwyer & Bernstien
This is a legal malpractice action against a law firm and certain of its individual attorneys whose egregious neglect of numerous collection matters caused their clients – a group of employee benefit plans that provide pension, health, and other benefits to working carpenters and their families – to lose the ability to collect millions of dollars in unpaid contributions from the workers’ employers.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Bilello Hires Big Gun to deal with Scandal
 |
| Hypocrite Bilello hires Big Gun. |
On Wednesday March 27, Walsh slapped Bilello with an eight-count notice of possible veto.
Bilello had until April 9, 2013 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 this matter.
Bilello's big gun attorney requested an extension to April 22nd, to respond to the complaint the source said.
At last month's delegate body meeting Bilello told the delegates, "I'm not stepping down," when I asked if he would follow past practice and lead by example and voluntarily take a leave of absence until the matter of this veto is cleared up.
During the two-and-a-half year emergency supervision imposed on the District Council by the UBC procedures were put in place for dealing with actions taken by the RO. Past practice by Supervisor Frank Spencer was to temporary suspend any council employee after receiving a notice of possible action from the RO.
Last week I asked Bilello to give the delegates an update on his veto notice and asked what are the current procedures for handling notices of action by the RO. Bilello stated, there is no update "it's status quo" and "there are no procedures" in place for handling notices by the RO.
Despite transparency claims Bilello continues to act hypocritically, he has failed to informed the delegates or membership about receiving the notice of possible of action.
Last month, I brought the subject up and asked if he would read the veto letter to the delegates and he refused. "I am not required to read it," Bilello said.
I then moved to have the veto letter read to the delegate body and incredibly the delegates voted 53 to 22, to not hear the contents of the veto letter.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Schroeder letter to Judge Berman
Dear Judge Berman: I am writing to: (1) ask for a seven-day time period to file reply papers after the April 4, response deadline; (2) request that District Council counsel James M. Murphy provide me with copies of the cited cases as enclosed in his March 29, 2013 letter [Doc.1290] addressed Your Honor; and, (3) include for this Court the status of union approval/ratification of the District Council/Wall-Ceiling collective bargaining Agreement, dated March 12, 2013.
John's Note: Judge Berman granted a "Final extension to 4/11/13 @noon (from any parties).
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Rohde letter to Judge Berman
Dear Judge Berman: We write on behalf of the Review Officer with respect to the Court’s endorsement dated March 21, 2013, requesting that Mr. Murphy and the Review Officer provide authorities for the proposition that the Court can approve a CBA where only an “MOU” has been approved by the delegates.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Presumption of Ignorance
Last week Review Office (RO) Dennis Walsh, issued a eight count notice of possible veto to New York City District Council of Carpenters Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello, for among other things, failing to "abide by Section 21 of the District Council Bylaws"
and caused or attempted to cause the contract raise for members covered by the Hoist Agreement, the Millwrights Agreement and the WC&C Agreement, to
be allocated into the welfare
fund.
Bilello claimed ignorance, telling the delegate body, "It was a Mistake."
He also blamed members of his administration for
the failure saying, "no one was aware" of the bylaw provision.
Several members I have spoken with have asked, why was there no "reasonable, prudent and due diligent" measures taken by Bilello or his administration before implementing the employer contract raises into the welfare fund?
You would think Bilello or someone in his administration, who at a minimum, should be well versed in the Bylaws, and cognizant of significant matters at the council, such as million dollar allocations.
By claiming ignorance, is Bilello suggesting that mediocrity, ignorance, and incompetence are
sufficient qualities for holding office in the District Council?
Ignorantia juris non excusat, is Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one."
Bilello cannot claim ignorance and escape liability for violating the Bylaws merely because he or his administration was unaware of its content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
