THE COURT: Well, who cares, to be perfectly honest with you. Necessary, appropriate, and prudent, I, without knowing more, I would disagree. It seems to me -- and I've been in business myself in the private sector for a long period of my career. This kind of thing is done all the time. It's called an audit. And it's an audit by an outside independent to see if in fact they're right. It's not uncommon for people who have a vested interest in the performance, in saying things are hunky dory and healthy, doing well, don't think it's necessary, etc., etc., it's very common to have that reaction. But from my point of view it's not very comforting.
MR. McGUIRE: I could revisit it with the trustees, your Honor, but I'm fairly confident they will again make the same decision.
THE COURT: And why? Why do they think that it's unnecessary? Yes. You tell me an audit is too expensive to do, costs a hundred thousand dollars and a waste of money. So I don't know if it's too expensive or, you know, we're doing so well, or why.
MR. McGUIRE: Well, this kind of audit, by another firm, of your investment advisor, in fact is highly uncommon in that part of the world.
THE COURT: Oh, that's nonsense. I don't mean to be rude. But all the time, financial performance is monitored, and all the time are outside persons called in to -- it's not necessarily an evaluation to see if there's wrongdoing. It's just an evaluation to see if this money could be better invested. It's not a big deal.
THE COURT: So to your knowledge, Mr. McGuire, has the Department of Labor done a recent audit of the benefit funds?
MS. O'LEARY: There was a pension fund audit, your Honor, done last year that ended with no action, and the Department of Labor has just commenced a welfare fund audit.
THE COURT: What did they say about the issues I'm raising?
MS. O'LEARY: They just asked for a number of documents and then they just said -- they don't tell you specifically what their focus is.
THE COURT: That's not really what I have in mind.
MR. McGUIRE: Your Honor, DOL ordinarily does not evaluate your performance returns.
THE COURT: That's my point. That is exactly my point.
MR. McGUIRE: But the law has entrusted that responsibility to an equal number of union trustees and management trustees. The only guidance provided in the law is that you have to ensure that you secure expert advice, which we've done, and you have to have widely diversified investments, because --
THE COURT: And they don't care what return on investment you get.
MR. McGUIRE: They don't.
THE COURT: They don't.
MR. McGUIRE: No.
THE COURT: Really. That's astonishing.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
U.S. v. D.C. Transcript of 4/18/16 Court Conference
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
The Final Report of the Review Officer
 |
| Federal Watchdog Dennis Walsh |
Let the bells ring. Though there is much good news, there are those for whom my departure is reason enough for celebration. But I hope that there are also those who reflect on what has been wrought, and on the simple question: what now?
To those who will continue to accept the imperative of working hard and meeting the challenges facing the Union with courage, energy and intellect, but most of all with honor, I will say well done.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
District Council Officer Election - Preliminary Results
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Government Response to Motion for Stay
Plaintiff-appellee the United States submits this opposition to the application by non-party appellants Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti for a stay of the entry of a consent decree agreed to by the parties (and already entered by the district court), while their appeal of a previous matter is pending. The application should be denied. First, Nee and Messinetti seek to challenge an order of the district court from which they never appealed, and accordingly this Court lacks jurisdiction. Second, their challenge rests on a misconstruction of the district court’s order, and a misreading of a passing remark by the district judge, and is accordingly meritless.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Memorandum in Support of an Injunction or Stay Pending Appeal or Review
We are objecting to the Monitor having the authority to 'approve' candidates
before they are permitted to run for elected office because this authority bars us from running for elected office without ever having been afforded the required process and alters the theory upon which the case was originally decided, (a decision which we are currently appealing).
Before one can stop any union member from running for elected
office in their union, other than for nonpayment of dues, that member has to have been provided with a fair hearing and the opportunity to defend themselves. The very minimum that can be afforded to any member is the process contained in their unions constitution.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
U.S. v. D.C. Transcript of 11.19.14 Court Conference
THE COURT: I originally thought it was a good idea to meet the staff as it were. I didn't realize at the time how big the staff was. They are certainly welcome. What I thought I would do -- I have gotten your helpful agenda in terms of talking to people -- is use your agenda. So, for example,
Mr. Geiger, we'll start with you. I have a couple of questions. I have read everybody's affidavit. If there is some gist or point that each of you wishes to make, do that first. I am happy to hear it. Just that. So how about
Mr. Geiger, who is the executive secretary treasurer of the District Council.
Nice to meet you. I think we met before.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
September 30, 2014 Status Hearing Transcript and Court Order
A Status Hearing for the District Council of Carpenters was held on September 30, 2014 at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York, 10007. Please see the below document for the transcript of the proceedings and court order.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Judge Berman OPINION & ORDER
After considering all of the relevant evidence and the arguments advanced by Nee, Messinetti,and the RO,the Court concluded that RO Walsh's decision to remove Nee and Messinetti from their positions as delegates and officers of the Local 157 was not "arbitrary or capricious," did not exceed the authority granted to him under the 2010 Stipulation and Order, and was supported by substantial evidence.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Brief Of Patrick Nee And Levy Messenetti In Response To Courts Request For Submissions
We write in response to the Court's Order dated July 25, 2014, issued following the
Second Circuit's Summary Order dated July 23,2014 in this matter. The Circuit vacated the Court's decision of October 23, 2012 upholding the Review Officer's veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157 and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Response to Judge Berman relating to Veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157
We write in response to the Court's Order dated July 25, 2014, issued following the
Second Circuit's Summary Order dated July 23,2014 in this matter. The Circuit vacated the Court's decision of October 23, 2012 upholding the Review Officer's veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157 and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
We write specifically to address the issues identified by the Court in its July 25 Order, i.e., whether the issues raised by Messrs. Nee and Messinetti in their July 2012 applications"remain ripe for consideration"and whether the RO's June 26, 2012 Notice of Veto was within his authority under the June 2010 Stipulation and Order, with citation to "appropriate background, context, and authority which may help to resolve any 'ambiguity' perceived by the Second Circuit."
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Letter to Judge Berman from the Review Officer
Dear Judge Berman:
I write as requested by the Court in its Order of June 6”‘ to comment on the proposed
Stipulation and Order and Independent Monitor.
I said in the conclusion to my Fifth Interim Report that the shared goal of all concerned
with the District Council “is an autonomous District Council, governed wisely by members who
flourish in a sound democratic system.” I cited Emerson’s guidance that “bolts and bars are not
the best of our institutions” and said “that which will serve the members best” will be the product
of their intellect and hard work, integrity and courage.” Fifth Interim Report at 42. The difficulty
in this regard is of course devising a method to determine when the leaders of the District
Council and its Benefit Funds are capable of meeting the responsibility to prudently conduct the
business of the Union and the Funds in a continually compliant manner. Though that time may
be near, I believe that some mechanism must be in place to insure that the investment of time,
money and intellect made by the parties, the Court and my office is protected.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Office of Dennis M. Walsh The Review Officer 90 Civil 5722 (SDNY) (RMB)
NOTICE OF NOMINATION AND ELECTION
OF DISTRICT COUNCIL OFFICERS
Supervision and Conduct of Elections
Pursuant to Paragraph 5.k of the Stipulation and Order entered on June 3, 2010, in the
matter of United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722 (SDNY) (RMB) and the Court’s
Order of July 7, 2014, the elections referenced herein are being supervised by the Review
Officer.
The nomination and election of officers of the District Council of New York City and
Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “District
Council”), specifically, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer, President, Vice President, Warden,
Conductor and three Trustees, will take place as follows:
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Judge Berman seeks submmision in Nee Messinetti matter
(I) Whether, as a matter ofjurisdiction, the issues raised by the applications ofMssrs. Nee and Messinetti, dated July 23, 2012 and July 24, 2012, respectively, remain ripe for consideration, given the events and passage of time between the Court's October 23,2012 Order and the Court of Appeals' July 23,2014 Summary Order; and
(2) Whether the Review Officer's June 26,2012 "Notice of Veto" was within the Review Officer's authority under the June 2010 Stipulation and Order, and citing to appropriate background, context, and authority which may help to resolve any "ambiguity" perceived by the Second Circuit.
The parties' respective submissions should be no longer than twenty pages, double- spaced and should be served and filed on or before August 25, 2014.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Nee and Messinetti Win on Appeal
VACATE the district court’s October 23, 2012 order and REMAND the matter for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.
On June 26, 2012 Review Officer, (RO) Dennis Walsh vetoed Local 157 President Patrick Nee as president and delegate; Peter Corrigan as financial secretary and delegate; Levy Messinetti as recording secretary and delegate; Gauntlett Holness as trustee.
Nee, Messinetti and Holmes filed pro se letters in July 2012 to Judge Berman seeking review of the Notice of Veto.
On October 23, 2012, Judge Berman issued his decision and order: "the court finds that the RO's determinations with respect to Nee, Messinetti and Holmes was supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly the application for review are denied."
Nee and Messinetti appealed Judge Berman's decision to the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, argueing that the RO’s veto authority is limited to “actions” under 5(b)(iii).
The Second Circuit said that the language in the Stipulation and Order was "ambiguous" as to whether the authority applied to the veto of an elected official and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine the intentions of the District Council and the government in this regard.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Court Order from Judge Berman granting the Review Officers application for DC elections.
In anticipation of the 2014 District Council Ofiicer Election, pursuant to his
responsibility for supervising and conducting elections under paragraph 5.}: of the June 3, 2010
Stipulation and Order, the Review Officer has made ministerial changes to the 2011 Final
Election Rules, changing dates to reflect the timing of election procedures in 2014 (rather than
in 2011) and eliminating the unnecessary position of Election Officer (which was held by a former
member of the Review Offic'cr’s staff. The Review Officer seeks the Court's approval of these
new Election Rules (“ERs") in advance of the commencement of the 20l4 election cycle on
August 4, 2014.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Court order issued yesterday by Judge Berman
Below is a Court order issued yesterday by Judge Berman in response to the letter sent to him on June 4th by the U.S. Attorney, the District Council and the Benefit Funds.
Given the significance of the proposed changes in governance and oversight of the
District Council (i.e.,a proposed new Independent Monitor and proposed amended Stipulation and Order), a public hearing with a full opportunity for everyone to be heard on all the issues is both necessary and desirable. That hearing will take place in September.
The September hearing will be held on September 10, 2014 at 11:30a.m. Written comments regarding the proposed Stipulation and Order and Independent Monitor should be served and filed any time on or before August 11, 2014. The Court would appreciate and expect written comments from,among others, Mr.Walsh.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
The Eight Interim Report Of The Review Officer
Review Officer Dennis Walsh has issued his Eight Interim Report, (with exhibits) the report contains numerous items of interest and is a must read for all members.
This is my Eighth Interim Report as Review Officer in this matter. It endeavors to inform the Court and the parties of the scope and substance of my activities for the past six months and to convey my impressions of certain aspects of the undertaking.
As of this writing, the Court has been asked by the District Council, Benefit Funds and the government to approve a new stipulation and order designed to give the District Council and the Benefit Funds increased control over their affairs while being subject to the authority of a new official, referred to as the “Independent Monitor,” with less authority than the Review Officer (as set forth in the Stipulation and Order entered in this matter on June 3, 2010). The document was negotiated and drafted by the parties after I informed them that I would not serve as Review Officer after the conclusion of this year.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Update on Government, District Council, and Funds Joint Application for a new Stipulation & Order
On Tuesday, May 27, the District Council together with the Government and the District Council Benefits Funds submitted a joint application to Judge Berman of US District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking entry of a new Stipulation and Order to replace the one entered by the Court in 2010. The new Stipulation and Order would provide for the appointment of an Independent Monitor to succeed the District Council’s current Review Officer, Dennis Walsh.
The next day, Judge Berman entered an Interim Order allowing the current Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of a Review Officer, which is scheduled to expire on June 3, 2014, to continue until the Court is able to reach on a decision on the joint application to appoint a new Independent Monitor. In his Interim Order, Judge Berman noted that “We’ll get to it as soon as feasible.” A copy of Judge Berman’s interim order is available here: [link docket # 1521]. A copy of the proposed Stipulation Regarding Appointment of an Independent Monitor is available here: [link docket #1512-1].
Also on Tuesday, May 27, District Council members that had been vetoed by Mr. Walsh as local union officers wrote to Judge Berman explaining that they were appealing Judge’s Berman’s earlier decision upholding those vetoes to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The members’ believed that the proposed Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of an Independent Monitor may have an adverse impact on matters in their appeal. Judge Berman entered the letter on the Court’s docket and noted that: “The Court anticipates conducting a hearing (public) so that interested parties can be heard -- well before any modifications to the Stipulation & Order. The hearing is likely to be held after Labor Day but has not yet been scheduled. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/29/2014)” A copy of the letter is available here: [link docket # 1530]. Judge Berman’s original 2012 decision on the members’ vetoes is available here: [link docket # 1197].
