You are on page 1of 4

Office of Dennis M. Walsh The Review Officer 90 Civ.

5722, SDNY (RMB) 415 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Findings Regarding Required Approval of Candidates for EST Pursuant to Paragraph 5.k.iv of the Stipulation and Order entered in this matter on June 3, 2010, any candidate seeking to run for a position as an officer of the District Council during the Review Officers tenure must first be approved by the Review Officer, who will determine whether in light of the terms and objectives of the Consent Decree the candidate is qualified to run for office and represent the union membership. By Order entered August 15, 2013, the District Court approved implementation of modified election rules (the rules) to be applied by th is office in a special election for the term of the District Council Executive Secretary-Treasurer (EST) expiring on January 11, 2015. Five members, Gregory Kelty, Stephen McInnis, Pat Nee, James Noonan, and Salvatore Tagliaferro, submitted petitions pursuant to the rules. Each met the threshold requirement of submitting petitions with the signatures of at least 150 members in good standing. Mr. Tagliaferro confirmed the withdrawal of his candidacy via email on September 21, 2013. I (and two staff investigators, Jack Mitchell and Bill OFlaherty) formally interviewed the other four members. I found all of the members in question to be members in good standing eligible to run for office pursuant to Section 31.D of the Constitution of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. After completing the vetting and interview process contemplated by the rules, the candidacy of Gregory Kelty is approved. The candidacies of Messrs. McInnis, Nee and Noonan are not. Mindful of the Courts Decision and Order filed in this matter on October

26, 2011, which serves as the law of the case in this regard, I record the following observations to document the record in this matter. Stephen McInnis Mr. McInnis was among a group of District Council Executive Committee members who in February 2013 received a free medical procedure (a heart scan worth $300) from a vendor who sought to become approved as a service provider by the District Council Welfare Fund. Mr. McInnis stated in his candidate interview that he had done so because of repeated requests to do so from a brother member who runs a foundation that accepts contributions to pay for heart scans performed by the vendor in question. A photograph of Mr. McInnis (along with the member, the vendor, Michael Bilello and Michael Cavanaugh, who also received free scans) appeared on the vendors web site. Mr. McInniss view is that there was nothing improper about his receipt of the free procedure, and insisted in response to an email inquiry from this office and in his candidate interview that the cost of the procedure could appropriately be paid by the District Council Welfare Fund. Despite that view, he (and other recipients of free scans still on the executive committee) sent checks to the vendor to pay for the service and stated that they would not seek reimbursement. Mr. McInnis admitted in his candidate interview that he requested the District Council executive committee to reject my recommendation regarding the District Council IT system and business practices, but could not state a reason for this that related to the substance of the recommendation, only that there were, in sum and substance, too many things going on at the District Council to consider implementing any aspect of my recommendation. Mr. McInnis admitted in his candidate interview that he had a discussion with members about how to go about rescinding the delegate bodys earlier adoption of an RO recommendation to adopt improved Trial Committee rules. Such a motion was made and passed by the delegate body but vetoed by this office. Mr. McInnis admitted in his candidate interview that he had recently discussed with a certain member (who is on the District Council executive committee) the prospect of the member obtaining a business representative position with the District Council. Though Mr. McInnis stated that he made no

agreement with the member, the mans name appears on a list of persons scheduled to be interviewed this week by a hiring committee appointed by Mr. McInnis last week (after months of requests from the Director of Operations that more representatives were needed). I understand the member in question to have appreciable political influence in his large local union. Pursuant to the UBC Constitution, Mr. McInnis would have to resign as District Council President in order to run for EST. Mr. McInnis admitted in his candidate interview that he had discussed with a member -- understood by this office to be a potential candidate for EST -- that if the member were elected president that Mr. McInnis would consider giving him a delegation of authority with compensation (and based on the wording of Mr. McInniss response, I believe likely would). Pat Nee This office has developed a record of problematic conduct in multiple matters relating to Mr. Nee, beginning with his service as President of Local 157 (which was vetoed). The record of each proceeding is incorporated herein by reference (beginning from the time a Notice of Possible Action was first issued to Mr. Nee in November 2011). Further, a Notice of Possible Action was issued to Mr. Nee on July 29, 2013, relating to his improper behavior as a delegate on July 24, 2013, when he threatened to pound the presiding officer at the delegate meeting. [The NPA has been held in abeyance based on Mr. Nees in-person pledge to this office that he regretted his behavior and vowed that it would not happen again.] James Noonan During his candidate interview, Mr. Noonan was unable to cite any qualification, experience or training (other than his integrity and dedication to the brotherhood) that would aid in deeming him qualified to serve as the chief executive of the District Council (who automatically serves as a trustee and co-chair of the board of trustees of the Benefit Funds). He is a good-hearted member who is currently a delegate, but perhaps admitted too much when he stated that he had received pledges of assistance from siblings (one of whom is an

attorney) in meeting the challenge of being EST. The Election Process Going Forward In my view, the Consent Decree and the Stipulation and Order clearly require that an election be held. As only one candidate for EST has been approved, I will seek the consent of the Court to re-set the election schedule to allow time for appropriate notice to be mailed to all Union members, for additional candidate petitions to be prepared and submitted by Union members and for additional candidates to be approved. The District Council should be able to mail the notice by October 8, 2013, and the previously-approved election schedule should be adjusted accordingly. I urge all qualified members who have pondered and care deeply about the future of a corruption-free District Council, who recognize the importance of organized labor in preserving fair wages and safe working conditions in the New York construction industry and who are free of petty political motivation to consider running for the office. Dated: New York, New York September 24, 2013

Dennis M. Walsh Review Officer