Transcript from March 10, 2014 Court Conference

8/12/2019 Transcript from March 10, 2014 Court Conference

1/49

1

E3A9USAC

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2 ------------------------------x

3 UNITED STATES,

4 Petitioner,

5 v. 90 CV 5722 (RMB)

6 DISTRICT COUNCIL, ET AL.,

7 Defendants.

8 ------------------------------xNew York, N.Y.

9 March 10, 201412:06 p.m.10

Before:11

HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN12

District Judge13

APPEARANCES14

PREET BHARARA15 United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York16 TARA LaMORTE

Assistant United States Attorney17

DENNIS WALSH18 Review Officer

19 ZUCKERMAN SPAEDERAttorney for District Council

20 BY: BARBARA S. JONES

21 SPIVAK LIPTON LLPAttorney for District Council

22 BY: JAMES M. MURPHY

23 HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLPAttorney for Intervenor Building Contractors Association

24 BY: LOREN L. FORREST, JR.

25

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300


2/49

2

E3A9USAC

1 (In open court)

2 THE COURT: It seems like there are several topics on

3 the agenda. I had said we have some, and is this overall theme

4 here somehow which is puzzling to me, which I guess the way to

5 describe it would be that the parties -- or some are seeking a

6 substantial modification of the RO's role in this proceeding.

7 That's one that's -- I don't know if it's surprising is the

8 term, but I'm not quite understanding the dynamic in particular

9 between I think the district council and the RO. So, at the

10 appropriate time if you want to explore that I'd be happy to

11 hear a little bit more about that. That colors and impacts

12 several of the items on the agenda.

13 First, I thought I'd ask if we could have an update on

14 the electronic technology both in-house and outside which is

15 called for in the seven or so collective bargaining agreements

16 that I, over the last six months or however long it's been,

17 approved. So, I don't know who wants to do that. But that

18 would be useful

19 THE COURT: You don't have, Ms. Jones, an in-house

20 technology person yet who can address this?

21 MS. JONES: No, your Honor. What we have is a process

22 to hire one which was approved by the delegate body. We've got

23 70 applicants. We've done telephone interviews -- well, we

24 winnowed those down. We've done telephone interviews. We have

25 seven people at the moment we're very interested in. We hope



3/49

3

E3A9USAC

1 to begin interviews next week. And the goal is to have an IT

2 manager by the end of the month.

3 THE COURT: So, that's helpful. That's useful to

4 know.

5 You might hear -- you will hear I think from me in the

6 course of these remarks that in my opinion it's useful -- of

7 course this is a courtroom and so the lawyers always want to be

8 heard. But candidly in this context -- and in particular if

9 you're asking for the court to make some sort of change over

10 the supervisory role here, it's very valuable for me to hear

11 from people who -- from the principals. So, you don't have one

12 in place now but we've heard in the past from -- particularly

13 with respect to the benefit funds, from someone who is very

14 knowledgeable. And I have not heard from really senior

15 officers of the district council in these proceedings. Usually

16 it's counsel that speak for them. But going forward that's

17 frankly what I'm hearing, to be able to assess whether the

18 district council has to have so many lawyers speaking for them

19 and analyzing for them or whether they can do some of that

20 themselves and how much.

21 MS. JONES: Well, the consultants, Segal, just gave

22 the district council an overview of all of the work that

23 they've done so far and also told them how much they thought it

24 would cost and how long it would take to improve -- to upgrade

25 the IT at the district council.



4/49

4

E3A9USAC

1 THE COURT: This is just generally speaking? The IT

2 at the district council? This is not particularly related to

3 the compliance measures that need to be --

4 MS. JONES: Well, I mean it's all included. Every

5 department went through its entire workflow which included the

6 business rep department, starting with the out-of-work list

7 department. And so that's all just been given to us, the notes

8 and the transcriptions of that, which I think are going to be

9 very helpful, frankly, for us to get business practices and

10 protocols completed relatively quickly.

11 THE COURT: Is it a big deal? Does it present you

12 with a big tab and timeframe?

13 MS. JONES: Apparently -- and I did not attend this.

14 The district council executive staff and others attended. His

15 estimate was a million to a million-and-a-half. And I believe

16 what I'm hearing is that that's largely because this is custom.

17 It's not something you can take off the shelf. Because it's

18 not like there are unions, union businesses that need these

19 unique systems.

20 I will say this, though, your Honor. We are working

21 everyday to get the electronic reporting fees, not just to

22 Watchdog, but also we've begun to try to get them directly to

23 the funds, even before there is an upgrade, finished.

24 Obviously we can't wait for that and we're not going to. It

25 will make things easier, but it's not going to change how



5/49

5

E3A9USAC

1 quickly we can begin to comply right now when we're doing it.

2 We're expecting that -- and we've had a conversation

3 with the funds' technology people, who have been terrific,

4 Jennifer Gordon and Charlie Jackson. And Standard Data is

5 preparing a master file, which will actually permit us to

6 transmit directly to the funds realtime, just as we are into

7 Watchdog. And if that file works, then we can convert everyone

8 that we have on electronic reporting right into the funds. And

9 the issue about finding discrepancies between hours reported

10 and benefits paid will become a lot less.

11 So I just want to stress that we don't think that we

12 need to wait two years in order for us to be able to continue

13 to comply and actually excel at it. I think the electronic

14 reporting that's being done by the stewards now with respect to

15 the CBAs that are -- that we have is -- has been shown to be

16 quite excellent. And I don't think that -- and I think this is

17 all just going to continue.

18 Judge, let me, if I may, just give you an update since

19 there is more to be said about electronic reporting.

20 We have begun last month bringing on the independent

21 carpenters and others who are not within the ambit of our CBAs

22 to electronic reporting. I think, as I mentioned last time,

23 that's about a million hours. And we started with 25 existing

24 jobs and now as every one of these jobs is called in they

25 immediately go on electronic reporting.



6/49

6

E3A9USAC

1 In addition, we finally worked out with the Javits

2 Center, and that was Charlie Jackson, whom as I said works for

3 us as well, who is the funds' IT person, among others. And

4 we're going to be able to import hours, data directly from the

5 Javits Center another half million straight into Watchdog by

6 the end of this month. Or at least there's a file that will be

7 tested and everybody's pretty confident that it's going to

8 work.

9 We have also, this month, begun actually -- actually

10 last month with 20 jobs, starting to have dock builders with

11 both dock builders -- well, all dock builders basically who do

12 jobs that are under our jurisdiction telephone their hours in.

13 And those are immediately also fed into Watchdog.

14 In addition to that, in anticipation that we're going

15 to have a lot more of the remaining -- so far not reported

16 electronic jobs, that we'll be approaching to get them to

17 report electronically, we're in the process of working out the

18 details to buy 250 more tablets so that we'll be able to go

19 ahead with our next targets for electronic reporting without

20 having to worry about it.

21 With respect to the contracts you just signed, Judge,

22 the association of concrete contractors, we're going to

23 report -- well, they went fully on electronic reporting on the

24 18th of February. I believe you signed it on February 3.

25 And we will have a full report of their electronic compliance



7/49

7

E3A9USAC

1 in the next 30-day report which is due March 17.

2 This is not electronic reporting but --

3 THE COURT: So this is all helpful. It's a little

4 abstract for me to understand, though, where you are really.

5 So I read the RO's report. He's not as sanguine as you are,

6 perhaps, about the compliance with the provisions of the CBAs

7 and so I'm hearing both that there's been progress but also

8 that --

9 MS. JONES: Well --

10 THE COURT: Hold on.

11 MS. JONES: I'm sorry.

12 THE COURT: But also that there could be a year or so.

13 To me it's a little vague. I'm trying to understand, to have

14 an answer to the question where are you in connection with the

15 obligation that's contained in the CBAs today.

16 MS. JONES: With the CBAs, your Honor, we're at

17 99 percent compliant reporting by our shop stewards. And at a

18 recent meeting with the government I believe Mr. Walsh said

19 that he didn't have any problems with our numbers.

20 So that's my response to that.

21 THE COURT: Okay.

22 MS. JONES: With respect to what the other initiatives

23 I'm talking about, that's our effort, where we don't have a

24 CBA.

25 THE COURT: Right.



8/49

8

E3A9USAC

1 MS. JONES: As you know.

2 THE COURT: I understand.

3 MS. JONES: And we're not stopping there. We're also

4 going to begin to talk -- and I think some of this has already

5 started -- with employers and contractors to try to get them to

6 do the other side of the reporting with us. But in terms of

7 our obligations under the CBA, Judge, I think our record now,

8 especially for the last three months, is excellent.

9 THE COURT: Mr. Walsh, do you agree with that?

10 MR. D. WALSH: Judge, I do generally agree with the ad

11 hoc progress. As we've stated before, the district council is

12 doing what it can without a perfect system, electronic system.

13 They still have the special team of district council employees

14 who are going through data to expunge the screens that should

15 not have popped up based on the way the system was designed.

16 But they -- the council is taking that seriously. They are

17 dedicating the resources on an interim basis until there can be

18 an electronic cure that everyone can rely on. As I mentioned

19 before, I think that we're stuck with that until the electronic

20 piece is perfected.

21 I was at the executive committee meeting when Segal

22 presented its initial findings to the committee.

23 THE COURT: So this is the plan so to speak, I guess

24 the master plan.

25 MR. D. WALSH: Right. And all in, there is basically



9/49

9

E3A9USAC

1 two years' worth of work, in their view, that needs to be done.

2 They were not sanguine about the current technology being used.

3 They describe it as bad. And there was a lot of work to do.

4 So, that's the reality of the timeline we're talking

5 about for the perfection of the district council's IT system.

6 As Judge Jones said, they have made progress in

7 getting an IT person in and I'm very hopeful that he or she

8 will be qualified and will be put to work in a meaningful way

9 while we are in this period of expecting the district council

10 to do everything possible within its means until they can

11 perfect the IT program.

12 And that includes things that have not been mentioned

13 yet; but, for instance, the business reps are now all being

14 dispatched electronically. And the understanding that I had

15 that I conveyed to the council is that if they put business

16 reps into that electronic dispatch system they would not have

17 to do time sheets for my office. And I was told that they

18 would not have to attend the morning briefing sessions to get

19 their green sheets and their assignments and they would not

20 have to come back to the council and eat away their field time

21 in the afternoon. I'm encouraged by that.

22 So, the council is making progress within its current

23 means to use technology. But we are, in very material respects

24 related to the court orders, stuck with this ad hoc program of

25 having to use people to make sure that the data is correct.



10/49

10

E3A9USAC

1 But I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy,

2 although it may seem somewhat complicated to follow it at

3 times, I think it is generally accurate. And I've inquired as

4 to what the council does when it has a reasonable suspicion or

5 it can show that there's a steward who has willfully decided

6 I'm not doing this. And it continues to be my expectation that

7 stern measures be taken, that they be defrocked as stewards

8 according to the procedures that the union has -- there be a

9 hearing, an internal union hearing -- and that steward is not

10 going to be participating in the system.

11 The suggestion that the district council do everything

12 in its power to get all that data to the funds was made some

13 time ago by my office. We started off with the 20 largest jobs

14 on a disk or an e-mail attachment. That has worked out to be a

15 benefit to the funds.

16 So I'm encouraged now that the council is having these

17 conversations with the IT people at the benefit funds to get

18 this data in realtime over to the benefit funds. Because,

19 unfortunately, they're still stuck now with this program of

20 taking the paper steward reports, scanning them, using the

21 character recognition software, converting those handwritten

22 reports into numbers, and then comparing them to the hours

23 remitted by the contractors. That process takes 60 days before

24 the funds can generate the discrepancy between what the

25 district council records show and what's been remitted. And as



11/49

11

E3A9USAC

1 we've said in our reports, oftentimes the contractors' numbers

2 are more reliable than the benefit -- than the district

3 council's numbers.

4 So I think it's imperative that the council continue

5 to do everything it can to get that data, whether it's from the

6 scanners or whether they have any interim method here, the dock

7 builder stewards phoning that data in. Those are not in CBAs.

8 Those dock builders are not covered by any court order here.

9 I'm encouraged by that.

10 My view is that the district council has to move to a

11 completely electronic system, whether there's jurisdiction of

12 this court from a prior order on a CBA or not, but that's the

13 direction it has to go. And that will empower the members to

14 use this operation Watchdog; go on, see if the time has been

15 accurately entered, but also to cut down on this lag time

16 between what we have now, this 60-day cycle when a contractor

17 with bad intent can, if he or she chooses, bust out a job and

18 run up a very large debt. And there's two months available to

19 do it.

20 So that all has to continue to have -- and I'm hopeful

21 that the IT person can jump right in and maybe do some

22 brainstorming with Mr. Jackson and Ms. Gordon as to how they

23 can expedite that process. I'm encouraged that that will work

24 well. We just don't know yet.

25 THE COURT: The Segal plan is -- what stage is it at?



12/49

12

E3A9USAC

1 It's presented to you? Council hasn't accepted it or agreed to

2 it or --

3 MS. JONES: Judge, they have not -- they're expecting

4 to present this on March 28 with the specs for a vendor. This

5 plan was to give us, an idea of what they've done and their

6 approximate amounts of money and time that it would take and,

7 as I said, it was last week.

8 I would like --

9 THE COURT: Is that a public plan? Is that something

10 I could take a look at?

11 MS. JONES: I'm sure that council would be happy to

12 provide it to you.

13 THE COURT: It would be useful.

14 MS. JONES: Absolutely.

15 THE COURT: It has to be accepted by the council,

16 right? There is no contract?

17 MS. JONES: No. That's right. The specs would -- a

18 proposal would have to be made after the executive committee

19 agreed on something to the delegate body and then they would

20 have to approve it. Can't do it without it.

21 Judge, just a couple of things. We did approach the

22 funds a while ago with respect to trying to figure out ways for

23 the direct feed to occur.

24 THE COURT: Right.

25 MS. JONES: And quite -- in fact, we went and asked



13/49

13

E3A9USAC

1 them about the 20 top jobs, for instance. And quite reasonably

2 they told us, months ago, that they were in the business right

3 now and very busy getting their own new IT system up and

4 running. And that was the reason why nothing was done even

5 sooner than it's being done now.

6 The other thing I'd like to mention is that the

7 special team, the ad hoc approach that we're taking on

8 electronic reporting, it -- the closed box which is now

9 available electronically to stewards, appears to be working.

10 We have many fewer telephone calls that need to be made, which

11 means that the data is actually now much more accurate than it

12 was because we're now not seeing open jobs -- I mean, I'm

13 sorry, seeing closed jobs listed as open on our reports. So

14 our manpower commitment or personpower commitment on that has

15 already decreased.

16 My only point is that we are achieving excellent

17 compliance with electronic reporting. And with the non-CBA

18 contracts we're pushing ahead and I think we have made some

19 success.

20 THE COURT: I'm ready to move to another topic if you

21 are.

22 What about this latest CBA proposed for me to sign off

23 on? Who wants to address that?

24 MR. MURPHY: James M. Murphy.

25 THE COURT: Is that another me too agreement,



14/49

14

E3A9USAC

1 Mr. Murphy?

2 MR. MURPHY: Yes and no.

3 Me too --

4 THE COURT: How about the no part?

5 MR. MURPHY: No. In that it's a specialty, a trade,

6 the trade show industry, so that the type of work is different

7 than what I'll call outside construction industry; whether it's

8 a new building, or it was called build-out or retrofitting of

9 existing structures. It's a trade show where the equipment

10 displays come in. They have to be very quickly put up. They

11 have to -- if any repair has to be done with them, that's done.

12 They have to be maintained during the trade show; say it's in

13 the Javits Center, one of the major hotels, any place else.

14 And then the displays have to be taken out -- taken down, put

15 back into their transport boxes and then removed from the

16 premises. So that's the no part.

17 The yes part is that the electronic reporting, the

18 full mobility, and the anti corruption compliance procedures

19 are identical to those in the other, what I'll call the outside

20 construction collective bargaining agreements.

21 THE COURT: They didn't seem to me to be identical.

22 The electronic reporting obligation did not seem to be

23 identical to the other --

24 MR. MURPHY: No?

25 THE COURT: No. In this sense. In all the other



15/49

15

E3A9USAC

1 agreements, the full mobility was conditioned, specifically

2 conditioned, upon the implementation of this electronic

3 reporting. It doesn't seem to be the case in this agreement.

4 And that's really the big question I have. Why isn't it? You

5 might want to compare the language from one of the other

6 agreements.

7 MR. MURPHY: I'm looking, your Honor, on page eight at

8 article six, Section 8(a) and 8(b) where the same penalty for

9 noncompliance is -- their having to -- an arbitrator be able to

10 penalize them by abolishing --

11 THE COURT: I don't have it in front of me. If you

12 take a look, you can take a couple of minutes, I'm sure you can

13 find it. But it strikes me that in the other agreements that

14 the full mobility was conditioned upon the implementation.

15 That's not the way it reads to me anyway. Maybe I misread it.

16 It was a direct sort of quid pro quo, which is the way

17 I -- and the basis for which I approved the other agreements.

18 And that language -- who negotiated it? Somebody must know why

19 the language is different.

20 MR. MURPHY: It was a committee at the district

21 council, vice-president Michael Cavanaugh led --

22 THE COURT: So you don't think it's any different?

23 MR. MURPHY: I don't think in any material respects it

24 is different. It has really a Draconian penalty if there isn't

25 the electronic reporting or there's any kinding cheating that's



16/49

16

E3A9USAC

1 going on, that they would then go to a 50/50 ratio where

2 50 percent of their --


4 Are you familiar with what I'm talking about or not?

5 MR. MURPHY: I'm sorry, but I'm not.

6 THE COURT: You can take a minute, if you have another

7 one with you, and just compare those two provisions. It looked

8 to me like somebody -- not somebody. The language is

9 different. There is full mobility and there is electronic

10 monitoring. But the bridge between the two is written

11 differently, as I read it, than it was in the other agreements.

12 MR. MURPHY: As I see it, again, in the article and

13 section that I --

14 THE COURT: Let's not debate it. Take a look at it

15 and see -- Mr. Walsh, are you familiar with that?

16 MR. D. WALSH: Judge, the question that I had posed to

17 Mr. Murphy a couple of weeks ago about that contract is whether

18 the compliance addendum was different, because I think it is.

19 And it seems to me that the agreement between the parties needs

20 to be crystal clear that if there's any ambiguity, it could

21 potentially be exploited by contractors. But the principles

22 have to be in place; that the stewards are going to use the

23 electronic system; that an e-mail is going to be generated,

24 it's going to be sent to each one of these contractors, and

25 they can either accept or reject the time; and there is a



17/49

17

E3A9USAC

1 mechanism in place at the council now as to how to deal with

2 those situations where the time is rejected. And that's as

3 simple as can be, to make sure that that process is delineated

4 and followed.

5 THE COURT: We could put this -- I don't want to go

6 too much back and forth. Just take a look at the issue, both

7 raised by Mr. Walsh and the one raised by me in the basic

8 contract itself and see if you can perceive any difference.

9 Maybe I'm misreading it.

10 MR. MURPHY: Can I follow up with a response to the

11 court?

12 THE COURT: Sure.

13 So I'm going to hold off on signing off on that CBA

14 until we get these issues, a little more clarity.

15 So the other issues seem to be related. Talking about

16 modifying the procedures by which in one instance -- or several

17 instances by which the RO implements his oversight of the

18 workings of the district council. There's also a question here

19 about the RO's term and extending the term. And it's these

20 that I didn't really -- this is what caused the question I

21 raised at the beginning. What's the bigger picture here?

22 What's the issue here? And as to that, I wouldn't mind hearing

23 from the government. This is your case, after all, right? You

24 brought this case. So are you proposing that we terminate the

25 RO? Are you proposing that his term expire, that there be no



18/49


19/49

19

E3A9USAC

1 an application to the court for an extension of his term, and

2 the government would support that. But we're not there yet. I

3 think parties should be given an opportunity to negotiate and

4 see if they can come to an agreement on that.

5 So the RO's term is set to expire, I believe, sometime

6 in June, if that's correct. And what we're -- what's currently

7 on the table for discussion is an proximate six-month

8 extension, maybe a little longer, just to bring us through the

9 next election cycle.

10 The district council, as I think the court has heard

11 over the course of the past several conferences, has made

12 progress. And we believe they are genuinely committed to

13 making progress.

14 THE COURT: Certainly that's been said. But I don't

15 understand what it means. So progress means you're here and

16 then you're there. So I gather that there's some progress with

17 electronic monitoring but that's the tail, not the dog. The

18 dog here, which gave rise to this whole process, was this

19 pervasive corruption with this union. And this is a very

20 unusual proceeding that we have here with an RO, with the

21 court, etc. So I don't know what it means to say there's

22 progress, you know, and whatever. That's the problem that I

23 have with the submissions that you've all made or some have

24 made recently as to where things are going.

25 It's also part of the problem I don't quite understand



20/49

20

E3A9USAC

1 what it means to losen some of the oversight to see if -- I

2 don't know, makes little sense to me to be honest with you. So

3 we either have a problem and we need the oversight or we don't

4 have a problem and we don't need the oversight. And that is a

5 fundamental issue. I can imagine there's pros and cons or

6 arguments on both sides. And that has to be done in a more

7 substantial manner. And, again, progress from what?

8 MS. LaMORTE: As the Court is aware, what prompted the

9 most recent stipulation order was endemic corruption in the

10 district council, including at the top layers.

11 THE COURT: I'm fully aware of that.

12 MS. LaMORTE: That's how we got here today. I will

13 let the RO speak to, more in depth and more detail about

14 corruption in the union. But the RO's mission, as the

15 government saw it, was to institute procedures in place at the

16 district council that would be larger than any one individual

17 person, that would be larger than the EST, larger than the

18 governing body. So that way if -- and in that way these

19 procedures were intended to serving as a bulwark against

20 corruption being able to creep in at that level.

21 When I say "progress," what I mean is that I think,

22 based on my conversations with the district council and the RO,

23 that we have made -- they have made progress in instituting

24 those procedures and that the government is -- hopefully will

25 become satisfied that these -- or defers to the RO and is



21/49

21

E3A9USAC

1 satisfied that these procedures will operate, in fact, to

2 prevent corruption from encroaching in. We certainly can't

3 guarantee that.

4 Now we don't see it as a black-and-white issue. Well

5 if they made progress, then we don't need oversight anymore.

6 In this case and in others the government has seen that there's

7 been progress made. The RO or the equivalent, in these other

8 cases, have gone away. And all of a sudden we have corruption

9 again. And that has happened in this union as well.

10 So that's why even though we have seen, we do believe

11 that there's progress that's been made. We don't believe that

12 it's appropriate to terminate the RO's tenure come June.

13 We believe that a system whereby we have -- the RO

14 sort of reduces his powers a little bit, let's allow the

15 district council to prove that it can operate without the

16 constant oversight of the RO. However, the RO retains the

17 ability to investigate, retains the ability to access district

18 council documents and witnesses, etc., to make sure that a

19 problem -- to make sure that we are, in fact, correct in our

20 assessment that progress has been made and that this progress

21 is enough to at least help ensure corruption from creeping back

22 into the union.

23 So in other cases this is the model that we have

24 followed. And that I think has been successful. And that is a

25 model whereby we continue to extend the review officer or the



22/49

22

E3A9USAC

1 equivalent position's tenure while at the same time reducing

2 his power. We've done that in other cases and that's the model

3 that the government purports to follow here.

4 THE COURT: Anybody else want to be heard?

5 MS. JONES: Judge, there hasn't been any pervasive

6 corruption in this union for some time.

7 THE COURT: Well I don't know where you're starting

8 from. I just remember that Judge Marrero sentenced all these

9 people in around September 2010. That isn't all that long ago.

10 And they were -- including the top official of the union that

11 was already under a -- call this a trusteeship or whatever it's

12 called. So it's not even a situation that the government has

13 just mentioned where people walked away and it came back in.

14 It happened while people were looking. So I don't know what

15 that means.

16 What is the progress that has been made since that

17 time?

18 MS. JONES: Well the progress that's been made is

19 that --

20 THE COURT: Nobody got indicted?

21 Frankly I don't give out a gold star for that, right?

22 You're not supposed to get indicted.

23 MS. JONES: The progress that's been made is that we

24 now have institutional controls. The IG's Office, compliance

25 officer, and our operations director, director of operations



23/49

23

E3A9USAC

1 who does the internal controls for the union.

2 If I could take us back just a bit. I think every

3 party here today believes that Mr. Walsh's suggestion that

4 prior notices that have been required for the last

5 three-and-a-half years should be relaxed and that we should do

6 away with the veto power is an indication that not only that we

7 are governing ourselves in a lawful manner right now but also

8 that there shouldn't be any fear of, going forward, that we can

9 continue this.

10 THE COURT: It's curious just on that issue there does

11 seem to be some agreement. But what is it -- what's the

12 problem? I mean I guess notice, I can understand having to --

13 MS. JONES: I'm sorry?

14 THE COURT: What's the problem?

15 MS. JONES: You mean with prior notices?

16 THE COURT: No, no, no. The substantive issue is the

17 veto, the notices or mechanism on the way to the veto. I don't

18 frankly understand the problem with the veto. I certainly

19 don't understand the suggestion that you change the burden of

20 proof. I certainly don't understand -- you would know better

21 than I. You were on the bench before I was, Ms. Jones. In

22 your whole tenure how many times have you imposed as a judge

23 civil contempt? I never do. And never have. And it's very

24 cumbersome. Very difficult. So you're just transferring all

25 of this activity and resources from maybe the RO to the court.



24/49

24

E3A9USAC

1 It's not a workable mechanism, I don't think. Maybe you have a

2 different view.

3 MS. JONES: Judge, well, number one, and I think

4 Mr. Walsh agrees, we doubt there will be any, or few if any.

5 But leaving that aside.

6 THE COURT: Yes.

7 MS. JONES: Even with the veto, the person being

8 vetoed had the opportunity to come in here. Your Honor held

9 hearings.

10 THE COURT: And should.

11 MS. JONES: Exactly. Absolutely.

12 THE COURT: Why would I change the burden of proof

13 from the -- I mean why would I do that, for example? That's

14 one mechanism that if nothing is -- if everything is done

15 properly, then you have nothing to be concerned about, about

16 the veto or the burden of proof. So I could understand that

17 the prior notice is a little bit of a hassle. Nobody likes to

18 call off necessarily and say can I do this or whatever.

19 But the veto says, in fact, and at least in one

20 person's opinion that something that's happened is improper.

21 So, the way things work now, you have to come -- if somebody is

22 vetoed or an action is vetoed that individual or that action is

23 presented to the court and explained.

24 So, I don't get it. I don't know why that's so

25 significant. Or I don't even know why that's so -- I don't



25/49

25

E3A9USAC

1 even know why it would be necessary. You're saying we're self

2 governing and we're doing a good job so don't worry about it,

3 Judge, it's not going to happen.

4 MS. JONES: Not quite, your Honor.

5 The veto power impacts people to a great extent. And

6 when you have to prove that the decision of one person, the RO,

7 is not arbitrary or capricious, that's a very different

8 standard and a very different feeling.

9 THE COURT: That's the current standard. That is the

10 standard.

11 MS. JONES: I realize.

12 THE COURT: It's not a very different standard. That

13 is the standard that we've been operating under.

14 MS. JONES: I recognize that, your Honor.

15 THE COURT: So, yeah, I get it. It's not easy. But

16 under a circumstance where presumably the person has some

17 expertise and familiarity and is not acting arbitrarily, says

18 no, you should have done X instead of Y, should have had

19 competitive bidding instead of giving the contract to your

20 cousin or something like that. I mean I don't see the problem

21 is what I'm saying.

22 MS. JONES: I see.

23 THE COURT: I mean I get what you're --

24 MS. JONES: I think the average carpenter, member of

25 the district council, would feel a lot better coming before the



26/49

26

E3A9USAC

1 court after there was a motion for contempt and the RO having

2 the burden of proving -- and, by clear and convincing evidence,

3 that there was a violation of the intent of the consent decree

4 here. That's vastly different than having --

5 THE COURT: I know it's different. I recognize the

6 difference. And I know why people might prefer it. But we're

7 not just any people. We're here for a particular reason.

8 MS. JONES: We are.

9 THE COURT: That counsel for the government has

10 articulated.

11 MS. JONES: We are.

12 But I guess what I'm saying, and maybe part of what

13 has to happen here, Judge, and I appreciate your mentioning it

14 earlier, is the district council members themselves should be

15 here and -- to present personally to you on some of these

16 issues. The people that are now subject to veto are not the

17 people from 2009 or 2010. And it makes a difference not to

18 have the veto power.

19 THE COURT: Anybody else?

20 MR. D. WALSH: Judge, my impression is that there are

21 employees at the district council who view the veto power as

22 the sword of Damocles.

23 THE COURT: I do appreciate that.

24 MR. D. WALSH: But I think in their view it also

25 increases the likelihood that there will be some form of action



27/49

27

E3A9USAC

1 taken if they do something that's inconsistent with the consent

2 decree in the stipulation and order.

3 I think I've been judicious in exercising the veto

4 power. There's not a dime that gets spent by the district

5 council that doesn't get, quote unquote, approved by my office.

6 There's not a person hired, fired, a contract signed. And I

7 think that, as I understand it, there's this fear of somehow

8 innocently drawing the attention of the RO. And I personally

9 don't understand that because I think that the process that

10 we've used has been well known, that's it's been fair. We've

11 promulgated procedures I think within the first 20 days of my

12 tenure that there would be notice, particularly describing the

13 conduct under review. And people always had the ability to

14 check with counsel. The first elected EST chose not to do

15 that. He, in my view, decided in his own mind what he wanted

16 to do when Mr. Murphy at that time was spending the better part

17 of five days a week or was always available to him, that there

18 was a chief compliance officer that he could consult with. And

19 I think that there are any number of methods available to the

20 to a prudent official at the district council to make sure that

21 this perception of backing into a veto is addressed.

22 Still, Judge Jones came to me and articulated her

23 understanding of the perception of the RO being a very visible

24 person; that they did not feel that they were autonomous; that

25 there was frankly too much decision making being made, someone



28/49

28

E3A9USAC

1 in my position. One can disagree with that. But she conveyed

2 that perception. Right down to asking if the space that my

3 team has on the 9th floor of the district council could be

4 vacated so that they wouldn't even see us in their daily

5 business.

6 So, I continue the dialogue with the understanding

7 conveyed to me that the district council has these fears, these

8 desires, however we call them. But they were something that

9 could be addressed to accommodate what I think has to happen,

10 which is a reaction frankly to what I observed in 1999.

11 I had, as you know, assisted Judge Conboy, Kenneth

12 Conboy when he was the investigations interview officer. His

13 tenure ended abruptly in 1999. We know from the record of the

14 crimes committed by Mr. Ford and others that the union went

15 straight to hell because there was no institutional forum,

16 there was no means of testing whether council had actually made

17 any progress. And I think that that needs to be a major

18 concern that's addressed this time; that if the reforms that

19 we've implemented are truly sustainable, if this is what the

20 council is saying, this will present an opportunity for them to

21 conduct their affairs under observation but without their

22 perception that I am running their affairs and that you run the

23 risk of drawing the ire of the RO, which I have always

24 rejected. People have tried to articulate that in certain

25 contexts. And I frankly had detailed discussions where I've



29/49

29

E3A9USAC

1 rejected that. But I am told that there is a perception on the

2 part of some people in that regard.


4 MR. D. WALSH: So that is my thinking, that if the

5 district council is in a better place, we need to find out

6 whether it's sustainable or whether the chief compliance

7 officer and the IG are simply going to be steamrolled by people

8 who feel completely unfettered now that, everything from the RO

9 team being off the 9th floor, to the perception that the veto

10 power is Draconian, that they will be released and free to

11 engage in innocuous slipping back, to begin with, perhaps by

12 trying to change the bylaws, by minimizing the role of the

13 human resources department, by altering hiring methods. I just

14 have a strong reservation about this cold turkey ending. And

15 not mitigating the risk in any way through observation and

16 testing of whether the employees at the council, and right down

17 to the delegate body, get it; whether this has been -- and I've

18 had other cases where the phrase, whether it's in their DNA. I

19 don't know that. I simply don't know it. And I think that

20 there needs to be some way of figuring out how to do that

21 rather than just saying June 3 is the end date or some time in

22 December.

23 Ms. LaMorte pointed out there are other cases, the ILA

24 case, the Mason Tenders' case, where monitors have been in

25 place for many years with virtually nothing to do. I refer to



30/49

30

E3A9USAC

1 it as being in sleep mode, like a computer. But if there is a

2 reasonable suspicion that pops up, they are there, available to

3 investigate it objectively as a third party reporting to the

4 parties, to the government, and to the court as to the activity

5 in question.

6 So I think that's a fair model for what the carpenters

7 union faces. But I do believe that if they have this stamped

8 in their DNA now, that we need to do more than just simply take

9 their word for it.

10 THE COURT: Your proposal with regard to advanced

11 notice, I take it that would be severable from your other

12 proposals, veto and burden of proof.

13 MR. D. WALSH: It really -- it is severable.

14 THE COURT: Could you explain it for us?

15 MR. D. WALSH: The reality of the notice provision is

16 not that it's more symbolic at this point, because there is

17 this perception that every expenditure, every contract gets

18 approved by the RO. And think the council wants to say we are

19 prudent people. We can do this without having Mr. Walsh opine

20 about it; so that that would shift to basically an audit

21 function, a testing function each month, going over the

22 expenditures, making sure that their representation about their

23 ability to do that is accurate.

24 It's not a tremendous inconvenience. We get copied on

25 the e-mails that get sent to the district council trustees, to



31/49

31

E3A9USAC

1 the delegate body. There are meeting notices that we get. But

2 they are invariably copied to other people. So it's not work

3 intensive.

4 So but it is severable, in a phrase.

5 THE COURT: I take it, Ms. Jones, you want that --

6 you're in agreement with that as well, right?

7 MS. JONES: We're completely in agreement that all of

8 Mr. Walsh's suggestions --

9 THE COURT: I'm just talking about --

10 MS. JONES: On prior notice, yes. Should be adopted

11 by your Honor.

12 THE COURT: And the government is as well?

13 MS. LaMORTE: Yes, your Honor, absolutely.

14 THE COURT: Where are you on this surprising that --

15 is this an ongoing discussion about the term of the RO? What

16 does that mean? You have meetings?

17 MS. LaMORTE: Well, your Honor, we had an initial

18 meeting maybe a week or so ago; the government, the RO and the

19 district council. It was -- like I said, a preliminary

20 meeting. We're not down to details yet. But what we plan to

21 do is start having meetings next week where maybe we can talk

22 in more concrete detail about the extension of the RO's tenure

23 and what that's going to look like and start, at some point

24 soon thereafter, trying to put pen to paper to arrive at an

25 agreement, hopefully, that can then be presented to the



32/49

32

E3A9USAC

1 delegate body.

2 THE COURT: So you'll let me know -- when do you think

3 you're going to have that or not have an agreement?

4 MS. LaMORTE: I understand that after March 13 the

5 next delegate body is sometime the first or second week of

6 April. It would be great if we could have something before

7 that, either having reached an agreement; or if we're an at

8 impasse, at that point proceeding to motions. But we could --

9 we have talked about vaguely aiming to have something that

10 could be presented at that April 9 meeting. If we did need a

11 little bit more time, a special meeting of the delegates can

12 always be convened just for the sole purpose of looking at any

13 agreement we may reach.

14 MS. JONES: That timeframe is acceptable. I think one

15 of the issues here, and not just with you, your Honor, but also

16 with the government is that they need to hear from the people

17 at the council as well with respect to what they're doing and

18 so that's -- I've already mentioned and asked the government if

19 they'd be willing to meet with me on a much more frequent basis

20 so they could be better informed, frankly, about what we think

21 we're doing right now.

22 But with respect to this, Mr. Walsh and I and

23 Mr. Geiger have a meeting at 11:00 tomorrow. This will be the

24 first topic of discussion. After that, of course --

25 THE COURT: This being the RO's term?



33/49

33

E3A9USAC

1 MS. JONES: This being -- yes. What we're talking

2 about this morning, just now.

3 Of course, after that there has to be -- well, we

4 expect to have at least one, if not more meetings with the

5 government. And then the executive committee would have to

6 determine what it wanted to present to the delegate body.

7 That's just the process.

8 THE COURT: So, is it your opinion also, from what

9 Mr. Walsh said, and my perception as well, but you all are much

10 closer to it than I. So a lot of this discussion is really --

11 I'm trying to -- I don't know. Is it a personality -- are

12 there personality clashes here or is it just -- is it an ego

13 thing? Because I don't see -- I don't get the big deal, to be

14 honest with you, given the history. So I'm having trouble

15 grasping -- I understand it's real from your point of view and

16 from the district council's point of view. But I'm not really

17 grasping the rationale of the -- you know, when I read all

18 these things I don't get them from there either except it looks

19 like maybe something that's unstated that's at work here and I

20 can't figure it out.

21 MS. JONES: Mr. Walsh does involve himself in almost

22 every piece of the council's business. And it seems to the

23 council that it goes way beyond compliance or corruption and

24 certainly organized crime infiltration. There are lots of

25 examples. They probably are more appropriately discussed in



34/49

34

E3A9USAC

1 conversations with the government and Mr. Walsh and I think

2 they need to be discussed because --

3 THE COURT: Have they?

4 MS. JONES: It's much more intrusive than his conduct

5 of this, you know, review office, is much, much more intrusive

6 and goes way beyond, it seems to the council, what it should.

7 THE COURT: I don't know what it should or what you'd

8 like it to. That's the part where I'm having the problem.

9 It's clear it goes beyond what you'd like. But whether it

10 should, it shouldn't, implies whether it's in compliance with

11 the stipulation and order and consent decree. And if it

12 weren't, then I should have heard from people a long time ago.

13 And haven't. So I don't -- that's why I don't quite get it,

14 right.

15 I mean is it -- are you thinking he's acting in a way

16 that's inconsistent, that's contrary to the stipulation and

17 order or just that he's more -- hands-on would be a generous

18 way to say it, or you say intrusive, more involved? There's

19 big differences there.

20 MS. JONES: I understand. I think that -- I think

21 that it's well beyond what's necessary and that there is

22 example after example of both Mr. Walsh and his investigative

23 staff going into minute details to the point where it's almost

24 harassment and has not that much to do, if anything, with

25 compliance.



35/49

35

E3A9USAC

1 THE COURT: Well that should be discussed.

2 MS. JONES: And that unfortunately creates an

3 atmosphere that makes it very difficult for people to work

4 together.

5 THE COURT: So you should -- well that certainly you

6 should discuss. It -- hasn't.

7 MS. JONES: I know, Judge, you don't know about it.

8 THE COURT: No, I don't. It hasn't surfaced to me.

9 That's why I'm asking these questions. Because you read this

10 stuff and it just doesn't make sense, unless there is something

11 more like that, which is more of a subjective -- I would say it

12 sounds a little more subjective, albeit real, but perceptions

13 and people's reactions, etc. I get that.

14 MS. JONES: Right. I'm hopeful that in our future

15 meetings with the government, which as I said will be more

16 frequent, there will be objective information.

17 THE COURT: So, give me a minute I just want to look

18 over my notes and see if I missed anything.

19 MS. JONES: Could I ask one question, Judge?

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MS. JONES: I thought when we came in here -- and

22 Mr. Walsh I apologize if I misunderstood you -- that you agreed

23 that you would relinquish, if the court agreed, the veto power.

24 THE COURT: I think he was -- that's what his letter

25 says. My comments are not based on a misperception -- my



36/49

36

E3A9USAC

1 comments are my comments.

2 MS. JONES: I thought maybe Mr. Walsh changed his mind

3 just now.

4 THE COURT: Well I don't know if he did or he didn't.

5 MS. JONES: Okay.

6 THE COURT: It was pretty clear in the letter and so,

7 yeah, I don't think -- that's not where I'm coming from.

8 MS. JONES: I see.

9 THE COURT: So just give me a minute.

10 (Pause)

11 This is what I've put together responding to these

12 various issues for now. It sounds to me like more needs to be

13 done among yourselves. But anyway here's my perspective on

14 these matters.

15 The oversight over the affairs of the district

16 council, as has been eloquently stated by the government today,

17 came about as a result of the pervasive corruption historically

18 in the district council and that gave rise, as you all know, to

19 the consent decree in 1994. That decree, among other things,

20 permanently enjoined all current and future officers,

21 employees, and members of the district council and its

22 constituent locals from engaging in any act of racketeering

23 activity. And the consent decree also provided for the

24 appointment of what was then called an investigations and

25 review officer whose powers included conducting, among other



37/49

37

E3A9USAC

1 things, union elections and investigating corrupt and illegal

2 practices.

3 The current iteration of the review officer,

4 Mr. Walsh's position, was created and authorized in the June 3,

5 2010 stipulation and order signed by Judge Haight. That was

6 created in response to the revelation of the serious corrupt

7 practices continued -- which continued to exist and involving

8 certain contractors and union officers and representatives.

9 And more specifically, the June 3, 2010 stipulation and order

10 came about in direct response to a 2009 indictment charging

11 various acts of racketeering against Michael Ford, then the

12 executive secretary treasurer of the council and various other

13 union officers and employees. Mr. Ford, as you all know,

14 ultimately pled guilty to violation of the Racketeering

15 Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act and was sent to 132 months

16 of imprisonment.

17 So the bottomline from this history is that this is

18 serious business and the court has, this court has certainly,

19 and I know Judge Haight before me, approached its oversight

20 role with the utmost care.

21 So, we're now at a time where the parties are

22 suggesting several things; that the RO oversteps, is too

23 intrusive, and that oversight may have run its course.

24 As Judge Jones mentioned a minute or so ago, this has

25 not percolated up directly to the court. So I haven't had a



38/49

38

E3A9USAC

1 chance to review or examine it. But it has been clear that

2 something like that was going on by virtue of the submissions

3 that have been made.

4 My feeling is that at such time as it becomes

5 appropriate to terminate the oversight regime over the district

6 council, I will certainly do so. But I am reluctant to do so

7 on a piecemeal basis with one exception that we've discussed

8 before, this notice exception. I don't want to undertake the

9 various suggestions that are contained in recent submissions

10 from Ms. Jones dated March 6, the RO dated March 3, and the

11 government dated March 5 at this time. This is all, as we say

12 in court, without prejudice.

13 I'll also, as I said to you earlier today, want to

14 hear directly from principals involved and, with all due

15 respect, not just their attorneys.

16 It's been a little bit unclear, as I say, what issues

17 are being disputed or discussed among the parties. Today's

18 conversation was very helpful in adding some clarity to those

19 discussions and to my understanding of what's going on,

20 particularly with respect to this issue of the relationship

21 between the district council and the RO. It does seem to be

22 strained. There is no doubt about that. And these issues do

23 need to be addressed certainly by you all among yourselves in

24 the very first instance.

25 I understand now in hindsight what Ms. Jones, who said



39/49

39

E3A9USAC

1 it December 4 at our conference, she said that she was hired to

2 come in to counsel the district council with respect to their

3 obligation under the consent decree, and particularly with

4 respect to dealing with the RO. And at the time I found that

5 surprising. I didn't exactly know what it meant. It surprised

6 me that a lawyer had to be added to the case for the purpose of

7 allowing or facilitating conversations between the district

8 council and the RO. But now I get it.

9 In any event, the approach otherwise suggested by the

10 parties in these recent submissions for altering and/or

11 reducing the RO's role, for introducing civil contempt, for

12 eliminating the veto power, and for altering the burden of

13 proof applicable to alleged district council violations, those

14 are issues that I'm not ready to resolve at this time. And,

15 again, those are without prejudice.

16 I think that at such time as there is a pressing need

17 for these or even more far-reaching changes, I would expect to

18 receive a petition or an application from the government who,

19 as I've said before, is the party that commenced this entire

20 process. That submission would be fully supported by reasoning

21 authorities, data, and information. So I'm not interested

22 really in hearing that there's been progress. I'd like to know

23 how you measure the progress and what the benchmarks are in

24 terms of positions filled, perhaps; in terms of violations

25 noticed, perhaps; but it's got to be a far more concrete and



40/49

40

E3A9USAC

1 sophisticated -- not sophisticated, that's pejorative, but more

2 in-depth and supported than just our discussions here. And

3 then there will have to be comment from all interested parties,

4 of course.

5 When I receive such a submission, I'll be amenable to

6 reviewing the matter thoroughly and rendering an appropriate

7 ruling at that time, but not before.

8 So, there are some to do things as follows.

9 First, with respect to the notice, which I said was an

10 exception, if you give me a joint proposed order, I'd be happy

11 to resolve that issue. I don't think that is a pressing or a

12 fundamental change in the nature of the operation. But I will

13 sign off on that if the district council and the RO submit

14 joint proposed language just on that issue alone.

15 Mr. Murphy, you're going to look over this new

16 collective bargaining agreement. And if you have any question

17 about the language we're talking about, if you call chambers

18 and speak to Mr. Sebrow, he'll point you to the section that I

19 have concerns about in the agreement.

20 And further, I would appreciate if someone wrote to me

21 and said what was the outcome of the proposals, at least when

22 there's an agreement in principle with respect to the extension

23 of the RO's term.

24 That's it for me unless anybody else has any further

25 comment.



41/49

41

E3A9USAC

1 MR. D. WALSH: Judge, I want the record to state

2 clearly that I have been unfailingly courteous throughout my

3 tenure. I believe I've been unfailingly fair, that my direct

4 dealings with everyone at the district council have in my view

5 been collegial; that if there are individuals who feel

6 aggrieved by my conduct or anyone on my staff's, I would ask

7 them to submit an affidavit and take that position.

8 THE COURT: So my guess is -- well I don't know.

9 There is some issue. My older sister, may she rest in peace,

10 she was a very -- a brilliant administrator and teacher. She

11 did have a tendency to sometimes get a little too far down, I

12 thought, in the weeds. And people were sometimes chafed by,

13 you know, her oversight and involvement. And that may be what

14 the issue is here. But perception, right or wrong, there's

15 probably room for some discussion among you, the government,

16 and Ms. Jones and maybe even that could be ameliorated.

17 MR. D. WALSH: We have had those discussions.

18 THE COURT: I don't think we need affidavits is what

19 I'm saying. If there is a particular problem, and that has --

20 a decision of the RO to which somebody has complained, they

21 have percolated up to the court, and even beyond. Few and far

22 between. But if there's more than that, and Ms. Jones you want

23 to address something that you all can't resolve yourselves,

24 I'll be happy to take a look at it.

25 MR. D. WALSH: I'll certainly be asking Judge Jones



42/49

42

E3A9USAC

1 for particulars then.

2 The other thing that I want to bring to the Court's

3 attention is that I have also had discussions with Mr. McGuire

4 regarding the benefit funds, which is also a party to the

5 stipulation and order. And I've had talks with Mr. McGuire and

6 Mr. Neeburg who is the employer side cochair of the board. And

7 I've sent a sum and substance confirmation to Mr. McGuire about

8 what I envisioned with regard to the funds. And I can

9 certainly let him speak for himself, if the Court is

10 interested. But there appears to be some general agreement, at

11 least on the employer's side, with the propositions that I've

12 conveyed to Mr. McGuire.

13 MR. McGUIRE: Yes, your Honor. We had a productive

14 discussion with the review officer last week. We have

15 circulated his proposals to the employer's side trustees. I

16 think we're close to an agreement in principle as to a somewhat

17 reduced role for Mr. Walsh at the funds' level.

18 As we discussed with Mr. Neeburg last week, the funds

19 have made enormous progress, particularly in the last year when

20 we brought in the new executive director and have in place

21 fully formed and effective systems for making sure nothing

22 untoward happens at the funds' office. So we now have to move

23 on to the union trustees to discuss this proposal.

24 THE COURT: Just so you -- I should have mentioned it

25 before. But we talked about progress and substantial progress.



43/49

43

E3A9USAC

1 One of the key issues that I would be interested in, in that

2 context, is one that Mr. McGuire has just identified, the

3 health of the funds, the size of the funds, their ability to

4 meet current and future obligations. All of that -- that is a

5 real verifiable marker on the road to progress. So that's

6 certainly helpful. And that would be included and necessary in

7 any decision you might ask of me.

8 Somebody else. Mr. Murphy.

9 MR. MURPHY: Yes. Different topic, your Honor. Just

10 very briefly.

11 You recall from the last conference there was some

12 discussion of a dispute between the district council and

13 New York Wall-Ceiling Association over the use of an

14 international agreement, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters

15 so-called international agreement on two-person jobs. I just

16 wanted to let the court know that we are arbitrating that

17 dispute under the district council New York Wall-Ceiling

18 collective bargaining agreement, using one of the contract

19 arbitrators. Right now the first day of hearing is scheduled

20 for April 17.

21 THE COURT: That's binding arbitration?

22 MR. MURPHY: Yes, it is.

23 THE COURT: Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.

24 I think that's it then for today -- yes, sir.

25 MR. W. WALSH: May I speak, Judge?



44/49

44

E3A9USAC

1 THE COURT: If it's an issue that we've discussed

2 candy.

3 MR. W. WALSH: It's two topics that I'll address.

4 My name is William Walsh, 28-year member.

5 As far as the devices, taking them hours and stuff. I

6 know that was a big issue that Mr. Walsh would like to see that

7 be successful, as well as the council. As being the chair for

8 the job steward alliance and listening to the members in the

9 field, I get nothing but complaints from them. One of the main

10 reasons is that a lot of guys aren't tech savvy. Number two,

11 the machines don't work all the time. They cost over a

12 thousand dollars apiece. And we're very concerned about it.

13 THE COURT: So what is the -- what's the upshot of

14 your concern?

15 MR. W. WALSH: Well the upshot --

16 THE COURT: They're not going away.

17 MR. W. WALSH: My concern is that -- the old reports

18 that we used to do. Mr. Walsh mentioned it today, about how

19 those -- how the reports were obsolete and they don't work,

20 takes 60 days. I believe that those can be updated and if we

21 had stiffer penalties those reports would work.

22 THE COURT: Mr. Walsh, I think that horse has left the

23 barn.

24 MR. W. WALSH: At least wanted your Honor to know

25 that.



45/49

45

E3A9USAC

1 THE COURT: I got it.

2 MR. W. WALSH: Here's the main crux of that. A lot of

3 stewards when you made the decision in the linchpin with the

4 full mobility back in the day. There were a lot of stewards

5 that were out of work. Were becoming stewards. I think we had

6 like 1400 stewards when had you looked at this picture. And I

7 was curious if you know the statistics, or someone knows how

8 many stewards are actually getting regular certified to be out

9 in the field, to get the statistics into these machines?

10 Because, your Honor --

11 THE COURT: You mean are they getting trained?

12 MR. W. WALSH: Besides that, a lot are stepping up to

13 be stewards. A lot of stewards that -- that number that you

14 made the decision on, were stewards because they were trying

15 to -- they jump ahead on the out-of-work list. That was a big

16 concern. So now it's getting busy out there. It's going to be

17 busy for the next five years. And the stewards are doing a lot

18 of heavy lifting right now. And they're asked to do more and

19 more as time goes on. So, it's something to think about that,

20 you know, who is going to be there to do this? All these

21 stewards that have to pay $150 for licenses and different kinds

22 of things are not going to be stewards out there. We have to

23 have enough people out there to make the compliance work.

24 THE COURT: Got it.

25 MR. W. WALSH: One other topic, if I may. I did send



46/49

46

E3A9USAC

1 you correspondence you asked for me from the court last month.

2 THE COURT: I got it.

3 MR. W. WALSH: I'm hereby -- I'm here today to let you

4 know that I am disappointed on the ruling of this court in my

5 delegate eligibility situation.

6 I understand the position that your Honor has taken

7 but feel that the UBC has strong -- strong-armed and violated

8 my rights as a union member.

9 Although the review officer has said he's sympathetic

10 with my plight, I feel he stopped short of and could have

11 defaulted to the member-working-in-the-trade criteria that the

12 OLMS and the Department of Labor have on file. If the Court

13 doesn't help create a reasonable criteria for this status on

14 record, we will only be kicking the can down the road to the

15 next election that comes in June.

16 I'm not asking for sympathy from the review officer,

17 and I do appreciate the letter that you sent the general

18 president on my behalf. However, it appears that whenever

19 Mr. McCarron is involved in our business in New York, the

20 review officer's soft on UBC rulings.

21 There have been thresholds put in place in the past

22 for elections as mentioned in the stipulation and order.

23 Members have been vetoed, guidelines set, and circumstances

24 that have taken priority over others.

25 Back in February 2013 the Local 157 election, there



47/49

47

E3A9USAC

1 were statements made by review officer saying that, amongst

2 other things, Gausman's decisions regarding the eligibility of

3 Walsh and Kelty is incorrect and made upon a deficient record.

4 It is not sufficiently documented or accompanied by

5 sufficient process to erase the suspicion that it is

6 politically motivated.

7 THE COURT: Yes.

8 So, Mr. Walsh, I've ruled in this matter. I did my

9 best. I've read everything that was submitted. Maybe I got it

10 right. Maybe I got it wrong. I'm comfortable with the ruling.

11 I have one suggestion. You consult with counsel and

12 see what other options you have now. But as far as my

13 involvement, I think it's an issue of jurisdiction, as you

14 know.

15 MR. W. WALSH: Right.

16 THE COURT: And it's stated in the order and I'm

17 comfortable with that. You may not be, but that's the end of

18 it.

19 MR. W. WALSH: I'm not. Your Honor, where does one

20 turn for fairness and accountability?

21 THE COURT: Talk to your lawyer. He'll tell you.

22 MR. W. WALSH: I went to the Department of Labor and

23 it's an active case right now and they will deal with

24 Mr. McCarron and the elections but I felt that one could have

25 went, just for the record, one could have went a little



48/49

48

E3A9USAC

1 further.

2 THE COURT: I get it. You've said that many times. I

3 get it. Like I said, I'm comfortable with my decision. Thanks

4 very much.

5 MR. W. WALSH: Thank you, your Honor.

6 (Adjourned)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



49/49

Transcript from March 10, 2014 Court Conference

Documents