UBC Hearing Testimony

Good evening, thank you, Chairman Draper, and members of the Committee.

I would like to read this presentation into the record and ask it be marked as an exhibit
and entered into the record.

My name is John Musumeci.

I am a 22- year member of Local 157; from 1999 thru 2008 I was an elected local 157
officer and delegate to the district council. In 2008 I was a candidate for district council
vice president.

I am also the creator of local157.blogspot.com a website I manage to help keep our

members informed.

I will give testimony on the conduct of the supervision and district council, specifically:

• Supervisor Frank Spencer's failure to answer members questions

• How the rank and file has grown to distrust UBC leadership

• The naming of Pete Thomassen as assistant supervisor

• And retaining all Michael Fordes appointed trustees and department heads.

It is not my intention to disparage the reputations of UBC leaders.

However, facts are facts.

The corruption that is detailed in General President McCarron's letter to the membership
dated August 13, 2009 has been well known to the leadership of this council for years
and has been documented in numerous reports by Independent Investigator, Walter Mack

Several law enforcement officials acknowledge that Walter Mack's work led to some of
the charges in the August 5th indictment against Forde and others.

1
Many believe that Mr. James Murray, the owner of On Par Contracting Corp and a major
target of Walter Mack's investigations is “Contractor #1”, one of the six contractors —
unnamed in the indictment — and is cooperating with the government.

The corruption that is detailed in the 29-count indictment and documented by Walter
Mack took place,

To quote Judge Charles S. Haight, August 8, 2008

“Union officials played vital roles in facilitating, enabling, or abetting the employer's
frauds, by failing to supervise the job sites."

End quote

Mr. Chairman its not the past that concerns me, it is what is happening here, right now
that I am more concerned with.

Do you think any of this corruption would be happening if we had district council
officers that knew what the hell was going on in this administration?

This council was corrupted on every level.

The corruption took place right under the nose of council officers Pete Thomassen and
Dennis Sheil, among others.

It is an unconscionable failure on their part.

Where is the accountability?

Who is responsible?

This leadership has failed us!

2
The district council officers have either been facilitators, enablers, abettors, willfully
ignorant, or just totally incompetent.

Frankly, Peter Thomassen and Dennis Sheil should have been asked to tender their
resignations.

Heads should have rolled, given the level of corruption at the district council.

Instead we have some kind of parallel universe, where the same the people who failed us,
are now telling us that they are going to clean things up!

This is hardly reassuring. What an outrage! It’s adding insult to injury to every member
of this union!

If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be absolutely hilarious.

Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit A, is a reprint of a blog post

dated May 7, 2008 “BULLSHIT" Angry Local 157 Members Demand Answers”

It's an article detailing how Supervisor, Spencer abruptly ended the first local 157
meeting in six months since the November 21, 2007 imposed supervision, without taking
any members questions.

The article also details six members questions posted on this blog which were sent to
Supervisor Spencer on March 4th, 2008.

Even after being told several times that "UBC lawyer Brian Quinn, is drafting an answer
to the questions, Supervisor Spencer has refused to answer members questions.

Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit B is a letter to the membership

from Supervisor Spencer, stating that his “first and only concern is the membership."

When membership questions go unanswered by union leadership, one may conclude that
the leadership is not concerned, but rather the leadership has contempt for the
membership.

3
The fact is, the rank and file has grown to distrust UBC leadership.

That distrust is well founded given the recent indictment and the long history of
corruption in the district council.

That distrust was seen recently with a dispute arising between the rank and file and
council leadership over a plan to withhold quarterly vacation checks from members that
refuse to sign a “blue card” which many members felt gave greater power to union
officials.

Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit C is a reprint of a blog post

dated May 7, 2009 “New Fines Pit Carpenters Against Union Leaders"

Part of our wage and benefits is vacation pay; the union withholds this weekly vacation
pay placing it in a vacation fund which is then disbursed quarterly to each member by
check.

The council leadership wanted members to sign authorization cards or "Blue Cards" to
allow the union to fine any members who illegally work for “cash.”

Many union members, however, refused to sign the blue cards giving the union power to
take unspecified and vague “fines” out of their vacation pay.

“That card was a threat,” It was like signing a blank check to let them take out whatever
they want, whenever they want,” said many carpenters.

Many union members were either reluctantly signing or refusing to sign the cards.

The council leaders upped the ante by halting vacation payments to members that
wouldn’t sign the card.

The council deployed business agents and organizers to threaten members into signing
the blue card.

4
The dispute escalated in March 2009, when the benefit fund trustees voted to stop
sending vacation-pay checks to anyone who had not signed the authorization card,
infuriating rank-and-file members.

The legal basis for withholding vacation-fund payments is unclear.

The benefit fund trustees voted to stop distributing vacation checks, without seeking legal
opinion.

This action outraged the membership even more.

Approximately 1000 members stood fast on principle and refused to sign the blue card.

The council leadership wisely decided to back down and sent out vacation checks since
there was no legal justification to withhold money that is not theirs in the first place.

These same leaders that have been indicted for cheating the membership and conducting
themselves in a manner of corrupt practices are claiming the moral standing to fine
members for working “cash jobs.”

It’s the leadership that members fear, giving the power to begin “fining” members
without defined restrictions.

I bring up this incident to demonstrate the relationship between the membership and
council leadership.

It proves without a doubt that union “leaders” are indifferent to the member’s wants and
needs.

Even worse, if shows that the members themselves are afraid of the union.

The members are afraid of “retribution” from the leadership.

One of the goals of this supervision should be to breakdown that fear of retribution.

Getting back to the supervision

5
Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit D is a letter I sent to Supervisor
Spencer, dated September 14, 2009 which to date, I received no answer.

I would like to read some excerpts from that letter.

I am quoting from the letter to supervisor Spencer:

As supervisor you could have used your authority and named an individual from outside
the district council and/or local union untouched by scandal and corruption. Maybe some
other business manager or business agent could have brought a fresh perspective and new
direction to both council and local operations. Instead by naming Mr. Thomassen who
has become embroiled in so many disgraceful scandals that he has proved himself
entirely unworthy of membership trust or authority you have signaled to the membership
you are not serious in cleaning up the District Council and its “business as usual”.

In June of 1996, the first supervision of the district council, UBC General President
Douglas McCarron appointed Vice President Douglas Banes, as supervisor.

In contrast to your predecessor, (with no arrest or indictment of any council officer)

Banes removed the entire elected administration from office, including the president, first
vice president, second vice president, secretary-treasurer, and trustees to the benefit
funds.

At the time GP McCarron stated, that the administration among other things “had
mismanaged the district council's funds, hired unnecessary employees to administer the
council, leased luxury cars and run up excessive legal bills”.

In December 1999 as the council emerged from UBC supervision, Mike Forde
campaigning for EST promised the membership that this would be “the most ethical and
corruption free administration ever”. He picked Thomassen as his right hand man for the
most important and powerful intersection between the membership and the district
council, president and chairman of the delegate body.

Contrast the actions of 1996, with your actions of only removing Forde as EST, after
being arrested and charged with a 29-count indictment on August 5, 2009 for corruption,
racketeering, bribery and perjury, in a conspiracy that stretches over a decade, involving
six contractors, business agents, business manager, benefit fund trustees, shop stewards,
mob associates, council employees and testing positive for cocaine use, is startling to say
the least.

End quote

6
For the record I would like add some new developments to what is known:

Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit E is a blog post dated October 5,
2009 "Secret den of vice at union's HQ: Raid turns up stun gun & drug stash"

On September 24, Federal agents armed with a search warrant seized drugs, said to
include large quantities of the highly addictive prescription painkiller OxyContin, and a
stun gun hidden inside a secret wall at the council.

Forde, long rumored to have thrown drug-fueled parties in the council, tested positive for
cocaine and marijuana when he was arrested. Seven of his nine co-defendants also tested
positive for drugs. Two refused to be tested.

In recent weeks, at least seven more high level council employees have been fired,
suspended or still employed for failing drug tests ordered by Frank Spencer.

Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit F is a blog post dated September
28, 2009 "Cue-balls At The District Council"

Several council employees shaved off the hair on their heads and removed all body hair
to avoid detection of drug testing ordered by Supervisor Spencer.

Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit G

is a October 26, 2005 report by Independent Investigator, Walter Mack, who’s work led
to some of the charges in the August 5, indictment against Forde and others.

On page 46, among other things Mack wrote, the district council, (meaning Peter
Thomassen and other district council officers) "engaged in, at least, willful ignorance"
of the corrupt conduct by companies like Tri-Built and On Par, which were notoriously
known among carpenters as "cash" companies, “yet permitted to work corrupt for
years.”

Several sources believe Tri-Built and On Par, are two of the six unnamed contractors in
the indictment.

Back to the Spencer letter, I am quoting myself again:

7
Peter Thomassen along with Dennis Sheil was part of Mike Forde's “Unity Team”. Both
were and are his biggest supporters, defenders and enablers of the “culture of
corruption” that exist at the district council.

Mr. Thomassen, never once informed the delegate body about the corruption the
Independent Investigator, Walter Mack , discovered and reported in numerous reports
(Boom, Tri-Built, Special Request, among others) taking place at the district council.

From 2003 thru 2005 Mr. Mack uncovered nests of job site corruption, where shop
stewards routinely falsified reports and accepted bribes to allow certain contractors to
routinely operate large “cash jobs” on major construction sites without detection from the
district council.

Mack’s detailed reports show not only that corruption continues to infiltrate the union,
but also that District Council officers and business agents have done an “inadequate job
of weeding it out and have been either complicit in corruption or, at a minimum, not
doing their jobs”.

On June 3, 2005 Mack filed a report on Tri-Built Construction, a corrupt drywall

contractor that operated in New York City and Long Island. In the report, among other
things, Mack wrote “unfortunately, I have been stymied in my attempts to explore how
and with whose assistance a corrupt employee would be able to remove shop steward
reports from the District Council’s offices. At the current stage of the investigation, it is
impossible to know how many other contractors were able to cheat the District Council
and the Benefit Funds with this crude but effective methodology, but I am certain that
others exist”.

It is well documented that the district council knew of Tri-Built’s corruption as early as
April 2004, most likely even earlier, and did nothing to stop it. No job shut downs, no
audits, no business agents informed, no shop stewards removed, nothing.

In November of 2004 Thomassen obstructed Mack's investigation of Tri-built and hired

Kroll to take over the investigation from Mack. Thomassen never informed or reported to
the delegate body Mack's detailed reports, investigations of corruption, the blocking of
Mack's investigation and the hiring of Kroll. To date the findings of the Kroll
investigation are unknown.

Time and time again what was Thomassen response to Mack’s revelations about
corruption, ignore it and attack the messenger.

In December 2004 the District Council, led by Thomassen, gave notice to Mack by letter,
of its intent to fire him; the termination letter cites no reason or cause for terminating
Mack.

Thomassen informed the delegates of this action, after the fact on May 11, 2005 at a
regular schedule delegate body meeting. Thomassen said the council was unhappy with

8
the “run away cost and the abuse” from Mack. “You don’t know what we went through;
it’s been a rough two years of abuse to our members and business agents.”

Thomassen also chastised the frivolous anonymous callers to the Hotline Mack operated
saying, “if a member has corruption to report he should leave his name”.

In the two years that Walter Mack has been investigating Thomassen said, Mack “did
not find one business agent doing anything wrong".

Mack also reported that the Districts Councils “anti-corruption program” lacked any truly
independent investigator responsible for looking into allegations of corruption and found
that the District Council was guilty of “at the very least negligence” and has been
compromised and questioned the council’s commitment to combat corruption.

In June 2001, in violation of the UBC constitution, 1994 Consent Decree and more
importantly the trust of the membership, Thomassen along with Forde secretly bargained
away the job referral rules, without notifying or seeking the approval of the 15-member
negotiating team, the 88-member elected delegate body, the rank-and-file and the federal
government who has oversight supervision.

On November 5, 2004 Mack filed a report on the 50/50 Rule and Request System. Mack
concluded that bargaining away the job referral rules and the “current request system
reduces the out-of-work-list into a paperwork dance with little value to anyone but the
contractors who can select the Carpenters they want to work for them.” All the while, the
district council encouraged out-of-work carpenters to use the out-of-work list as their
source of employment.

Once again Thomassen never informed the delegates about Mack’s report or the
devastating effects of the “request system”.

According to Thomassen's sworn testimony on April 12, 2005, the council negotiated the
2001 contract change with Joe Olivieri, (also indicted with Forde) a benefit fund trustee
and director of the Association of Wall and Ceiling and Carpentry. According to
Thomassen in exchange for “the best contract we have ever negotiated”, he “sold” the job
referral rules to the association, and gave them what they wanted, the ability to request
and hire 100% of the carpenter work force.

That contract change which Forde and/or Thomassen never reported to the delegates or
membership, eviscerated the job referral rules, effectively rendered the 50/50 rule a
nullity, left carpenters vulnerable to corruption, reduce the out-of-work list into a
meaningless “paperwork dance”, violated the 1994 Consent Decree, led to a guilty of
contempt charge on February 20, 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals , cost
millions of dollars in litigation, left carpenters to languish on a phony out-of-work list
without knowledge that their was little hope of getting a job, deprived the union of having
at the job site carpenters whose primary loyalty is to the union rather than the contractor
and led us to where we are today!

9
End quote, I would like to add:

Recently supervisor Spencer told council employees and shop stewards that anyone
found violating the job referral rules will be fired or have their steward credentials
removed.

Mr. Spencer seems to be approving a double standard,

One for the powerful council insiders and another for regular council employees and the
rank and file.

The biggest violator of the job referral rules was Pete Thomassen, and the council
leadership. Thomassen not only violated the rules, he ripe them up.

Thomassen was single out and found guilty of contempt by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit for violating the "Job Referral Rules," yet he is promoted
to assistant supervisor, what message does that send to the membership?

Back to the letter to Spencer, Mr. Chairman

I am quoting from the letter:

Thomassen deceived everyone, from the delegate body, to the membership to the federal
government. For that act alone Pete Thomassen should be brought up on charges for
defrauding the union and egregious breach of fiduciary responsibility.

As president, Thomassen not only has demonstrated his moral failings, but his
unwillingness to detect corruption and/or drug use taking place foot steps from his office.
Instead he has enabled it, protected it, covered it up and watched it flourish on his watch.

Your letter also states, “We will conduct a thorough internal investigation of all council
operations and conduct a financial audit of council and trust funds”.

Who is “we”? The same individuals who have betrayed the carpenters and who have been
running this criminal enterprise known as the district council? Anything less than a fully
independent review and audit of the council and trust funds will show that your actions
are phony, an attempt to cover-up and defender of the “status quo.”

If this were a real supervision you would have brought in a fully independent team from
the outside to assist you in your efforts of rooting out corruption.

1
If this were a real supervision you would have used your granted authority and remove all
Forde appointed trustees to our benefit funds and all individuals in council leadership
position.

If this were a real supervision you would have immediately began drug testing all district
council employees.

If this were a real supervision you would have visited each local and answered member’s
questions directly and keep the membership updated on your progress, if this were a real
supervision...

A copy of this letter is posted on local157.blogspot with hyperlinks to all related

documents.

End quote

In Conclusion…Chairman Draper, and members of the Committee,

Attached to this presentation and marked as Exhibit H is a page of 21 quotes; the

committee might find of interest, I would like to read two for the record.

"We have the greatest anti-corruption program there ever was.”--District Council EST
Mike Forde August, 2003

"The union’s anti-corruption program is nearly worthless.” --Independent Investigator

Walter Mack June 3, 2004

That concludes my testimony before this hearing committee.

I am available to answer questions that the committee may have.