Open Letter To Inspector General, Scott Danielson and Chief Compliance Officer, John Ballantyne

This is my response to Inspector General, Scott Danielson, and Chief Compliance Officer, John Ballantyne, letter and email dated January 31, posted below.

Dear Scott and John:

Putting aside for a moment the disagreement over the interpretation regarding the consideration or reconsideration of my motion, for the purpose of this discussion we will call it a motion to reconsider.

The original motion was made October 15; it was then reconsidered on November 15 and again at the January 27 meeting.

As John Ballantyne wrote, Rule 31 states: “When a question has been decided it can be reconsidered only at the same meeting or on the next regular meeting night.”

The "next regular meeting night," would be November, the motion was made in January, and so Rule 31 is not applicable.

Thus the need to refer to Rule 5 which states: “All questions of a parliamentary nature not provided for in these Rules shall be decided by Roberts’ Manual."

At the January meeting, a point of order was raised stating, "according to Roberts Rules of Order, a motion that has been previously defeated can be brought up again at the next meeting as new."

President D'Errico did not accept this ruling and denied the motion. An appeal from the decision of the chair was made and the appeal denied. Brother D'Errico also denied an appeal in November.

The motion will be made again and most likely be denied as well as an appeal, thus once again violating the UBC Constitution, this time with the blessing of the IG, because in your opinion this “does not amount to a violation of Sections 51(A)(6) and/or (12) of the UBC Constitution.”

The IG is wrong, parliamentary procedure is all about democracy. Brother D’Errico does not get to decide and impose his will on the membership. This is clear violation of Rule 17 which states:

"When an appeal is made from the decision of the Chair, the Vice-President shall then take the Chair, and shall state the appeal to the meeting in these words: “Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained as the decision of the Union?” The member will then have the right to state the grounds of appeal, and the Chair will give the reason for the decision, thereupon the Union will proceed to vote on the appeal, without further debate, and it shall require a majority vote to sustain such appeal."

Brother Bill Lebo commented on Local157.blogspot.com:

"Roberts rules states, If the presiding officer ignores a motion a member should raise a point of order and call for an appeal from the decision of the chair, if the officer ignores the point of order a member should move that the assembly censure him, and that motion, if seconded can be put to a vote by the member, standing in his place, after debate unless the presiding officer vacates the chair and the vice president puts the motion to a vote. If the chair is the regular presiding officer and a motion to censure proves inadequate remedy, the proper course is to rescind the election or to initiate investigation, charges, and trail, as explained in offenses by members. The presiding officer here is clearly in the wrong and clearly suppressing the will of the membership. Should be censured and tried. The IG is wrong in his decision. The UBC constitution clearly states that "all questions of a parliamentary nature not provided in these rules shall be decided by Roberts' Manual."

The IG also wrote that I "contend that Local 157 is required to distribute to the members a copy of the meeting minutes of Local 157."

The IG is incorrect, I made no such contention, it is up to the membership of Local 157 to democratically vote and decides by motion if they want a copy of meeting minutes distributed.

In John Ballantyne's email he cites: "the Order of Business, Number 5," "The Obligation" and "Close of the Meeting," stating they "clearly state not to divulge the private business of the union."

The motion is not asking for meeting minutes to be distributed to anybody outside the UBC. The motion for the minutes clearly stated "with the understanding that members would be obliged not to reveal the protected contents to someone outside the Brotherhood."

What is "the private business of the union?" The Review Officer's report is posted online, you can get LM2s, 990, 5500 reports just to name a few, all revealing much more "private business" than meeting minutes. The Local should voluntarily post the minutes on its website and be done with the issue.

John Ballantyne also wrote, "in order to distribute the minutes of the union meeting, an amendment to our Constitution would need to be made."

Try telling that to the membership of Local 747 in Syracuse, they have been receiving copies of monthly meeting minutes for years, call Brother James Brady who is a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians and responsible for instituting this reform.

Also Section 25 of the District Council By-Laws states: "That member can receive copies of minutes upon request." In October, I emailed Frank my request; I never received copies of minutes or an answer to my email request.

You and I both know, there is nothing in the law or UBC Constitution that prohibits a member from having a copy of the meeting minutes. All that is required is a vote by the membership of Local 157 to decide whether or not they want to have a copy of the meeting minutes. It is not the decision of Brother D'Errico to dictate to the membership, violate the constitution by not accepting a motion and an appeal, or using trickery to prevent a vote. To state that you need a constitutional amendment for a copy of meeting minutes is just plain ridicules, and you know better.

President D’Errico has breached the Obligation of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters by failing to abide by the constitution by denying motions, appeals and acting as a dictator.

The IG has done a tremendous disservice to the membership with this ruling—You have enabled a dictator to trample and infringe upon the rights of the membership and you are making sure our union does not operate in a manner that is ethical and fair to all members. Given the above I ask the Inspector General and the Chief Compliance Officer to reconsider their opinion.

Sincerely,

John Musumeci

cc: Review Officer, Dennis Walsh, (by email)
     Recording Secretary Mitch Sonntag (by fax)

_________________________________________________________

This is the Inspector Generals response to my November 19, letter.
musumeci 01312011