1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 24 25 E169USAC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v.

DISTRICT COUNCIL, ET AL., Defendants. ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. January 6, 2014 9:40 a.m. Before: HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN District Judge APPEARANCES PREET BHARARA United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York TARA LaMORTE Assistant United States Attorney DENNIS WALSH Review Officer SPIVAK LIPTON LLP Attorney for District Council BY: ADRIAN HEALY HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP Attorney for Intervenor Building Contractors Association BY: FREDERICK D. BRAID 90 CV 5722 (RMB)

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

2 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (In open court) THE COURT: So on my agenda I have a couple of election-related issues that people wanted to be heard on, Mr. Tagliaferro, Mr. Nee, Mr. Kelty, and then of course I would hear from the review officer and also from the government on these issues. Is counsel from the district council here as well? MR. HEALY: Yes, I am. Adrian Healy. I'm from -THE COURT: From what? MR. HEALY: Pardon me? THE COURT: I can't hear you. MR. HEALY: Adrian Healy of the Spivak Lipton law firm. I plan to remain seated in the gallery unless your Honor has something you'd like to hear from district council on. THE COURT: I would want to hear your opinion as well. So why don't we start with Mr. Tagliaferro. Podium, if you'd like. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: Good morning, your Honor. Thank you for letting me be heard. THE COURT: You bet. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: I have something that I've been writing for the last couple of weeks, I would like to submit to the Court, and I have a copy for Mr. Walsh also. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

3 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: Your Honor, please forgive me. I'm a carpenter. I'm not an attorney. THE COURT: I get it. Some of our -- nevermind. Go ahead. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: I write to you as a member of the carpenters union and I respectfully request for your permission to let me run for the EST for the New York City district council. On December 11 Mr. Dennis Walsh, the review officer, decided I wasn't qualified for this position. In my humble opinion, he is wrong. Mr. Walsh has not revealed any written rules or standings to determine who is qualified to run for EST. He makes them up as he goes along and then says whatever he decides cannot be reviewed by the Court of law. It is my opinion that this is unconstitutional and his procedures circumvent due process. THE COURT: What did he tell you was the reason why he was rejecting your candidacy? MR. TAGLIAFERRO: About 21 years ago I committed a crime of -- I was convicted of possession of stolen property. THE COURT: I see. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: It's my opinion under 29 U.S.C. that if that applied, I would have been barred for 13 years. But that's not one of the crimes even listed on 29 U.S.C. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4 E169USAC Therefore, I don't understand why I would be barred because my conviction was 17 years ago for a crime that happened 21 years ago. So he just like made up a different rule. And that's rather troublesome. I don't understand. If he would have told me that in advance, he knew -- he knew even -THE COURT: If he told you what in advance? MR. TAGLIAFERRO: That I wouldn't be qualified because I was arrested twenty -- almost 20 years ago. THE COURT: He didn't say arrested. I think it was convicted. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: Convicted. THE COURT: Right. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: He said I was convicted over 20 years ago, that that's the bar. THE COURT: When did he tell you that? MR. TAGLIAFERRO: The day of nominations. THE COURT: Which was? MR. TAGLIAFERRO: December 11. He told us that December 11. Your Honor, I've been a president of my local for three years. When I took over my local we had about $358,000. We now have just shy of a million dollars. My local is the only local in the State of New York or New Jersey who gives their members, at no additional cost to them, dental and vision coverage. My local is run one hundred percent squeaky clean. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

5 E169USAC And I've gotten compliments from Mr. Walsh's office on how good of a job I've done there. I believe I'm the only candidate in this race that has a proven track record. And he says in his refusal or refusal to approve me that I made a bad judgment. I believe every person that's walking this earth has made bad judgments. And to hold something that I did 20 years ago against me, I think that's a bad judgment on Mr. Walsh's part. THE COURT: I got it. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: About two years ago we had the last election here for district council. Mr. Walsh approved president -- then president Bill Lebo and EST Mike Bilello. Within nine months, he sent down a letter of possible action which led to Mr. Lebo resigning after nine months. This year, or 2013 he removed Mr. Bilello within 14 months. Again, that's an example of a bad judgment. I mean we've all made bad judgments. THE COURT: We're talking about your case. We're not talking about those cases. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: Directly in related because Mr. Walsh is saying I made a bad judgment, as he made bad judgments. THE COURT: He's not running for office. So we've got to focus on your situation. So he said because you were convicted, bad judgment I guess is what he's saying, you know. And then the question is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

6 E169USAC whether his decision is reviewable legally. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: In the stipulation and order it says that the review officer must establish threshold qualifications beforehand. That is not written anywhere. None of his rules are ever written anywhere. He just simply makes them up as he goes along. He approves some people. He disapproves some people. That's why I believe this election should not take place. In the stipulation and order -THE COURT: Now you're all over the lot. We have the election. It is scheduled. The question is whether you can run for that office. That's the issue as far as I can see. So these more global issues have been resolved. We're having the election. That's been determined already. So the real question is whether such an old conviction which is 21 years old should bar you from being a candidate for EST. Isn't that the story? MR. TAGLIAFERRO: That's part of question. The other part of the question is how come the rules and the qualifications weren't established beforehand. THE COURT: Fair enough. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: How does the Court determine if he's just being undue -- biased. I mean in my opinion, he picks and chooses who he likes. I don't believe this Court runs that way and I don't believe the laws of the land state that Mr. Walsh can run that way. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

7 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough. I got it. I will look at your submission. Mr. Nee is next. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: You bet. MR. NEE: Good morning, your Honor. I would also like to bring up an additional issue but I don't know if this is the appropriate way to do it. THE COURT: We're talking about -- I don't know what issue you want to speak to. MR. NEE: Bill Walsh who has also appeared today. Basically I want to go to the EST election that's going on right now, which actually has no rules. If you go to the stipulation and order, there are no election rules. There are no election rules because the stipulation and order has specific procedures which must be followed in order to create rules. The first step of which is to take the rules and you submit -- you give them to the membership. And then you have to ask the members to respond, to make comments on these rules. Then the review officer, under the stipulation and order, is required to look at these things, consider them, before promulgating the final rules and then submitting them to the Court. What the review officer has done is he's cut the membership out of their own election. He does not have the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

8 E169USAC authority to make the rules on his own. He has done so, and he never had the right to do so. In a democracy the members get to decide to -THE COURT: Is there a provision of the stipulation and order specifically you're referring to? MR. NEE: I think it's 5KI2, I think. It is 5KII. THE COURT: 5AII. MR. NEE: K, Kevin. But it says F on it. But it is K, 5KII. The review officer must propose rules and procedures for the conduct of elections no later than 120 days before the first election during his tenure is to occur. The rules must set out procedures for the nomination of candidates, dissemination of information about nominated candidates to the membership at union expense, and the conduct of the final secret ballot election. The rules must seek to ensure that those eligible members who reside outside of the New York metropolitan area are able to vote. Draft rules will be disseminated to the membership by means deemed appropriate by the review officer for comment. The review officer must consider any such comments, then promulgate the final rules for the election by submitting an application to this Court. When approved by the Court, the final rules will be incorporated into and made a part of the bylaws of the district council. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

9 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What he's done is he's cut out the entire part which involves the membership. And under the stipulation and order he's not allowed to do that. The members are -- have a right under the stipulation and order to weigh in on their own election and what the rules should be, including Mr. Kelty who has complained that there is no mailer. The stipulation and order actually requires there to be some form of a -- the members getting notified on the candidate's issues and the council to pick up the expense. The stipulation requires it. One other brief thing. Mr. Walsh, in his response to me, said that he's authorized to conduct elections. But if you look at 5KI, the review officer is empowered to supervise all phases of any union election conducted by the district council. He is conducting the election. If you go and you look at his rules, he conducts everything. He does the questions. He decides what questions. Everything to do with the election is his agenda. The membership aren't involved in this. They come in second place. If this is a democracy, then the members have to be involved in deciding how their democracy is run. And when the right is given to them in the stipulation and order and he specifically has gone outside of that. In the latest election, he does not even have court approval. The only one who has approved his election rules is himself. He has gone completely in excess of any authority he has on the stipulation and order. The election isn't valid because there are no valid SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10 E169USAC election rules. And anybody who knows anything to do with an election, an election -- a union election is like an on-and-off switch. It's either valid or it's not. And if you don't follow the rules, if you don't send out notification prior -enough days prior to the nominations, that's it; it doesn't count. THE COURT: So which are the rules that are not being followed? MR. NEE: The number one rule is just creating the rules, so there are no rules. THE COURT: There are no rules. MR. NEE: There are no rules because he didn't follow the procedure to create the rules. It's very specific, the stipulation and order. I have a copy here. You can read it yourself. The stipulation and order is very specific on this. There's not ifs, ands, or buts. THE COURT: I got it. MR. NEE: I would just like briefly. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. NEE: What I'm seeking is an injunction, believe it or not. THE COURT: Well, you don't walk in and say I get an injunction today. MR. NEE: I know. I'm very sorry. What I'd like to do is give you a brief overview. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

11 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I don't need an overview because that's not the way we run the ship here. Someone just doesn't walk in and say I want an injunction. MR. NEE: What I'd like to do, it's in connection with Mr. Walsh's case, in which Mr. McCarron has deemed him ineligible to hold office. And I have documents here. THE COURT: Well, you've got to look at the court procedures and if you want to seek an application for some sort of an injunction -MR. NEE: I'm sorry I just thought -- not to interrupt you. I thought you had to do a conference before you could do a motion. THE COURT: Well, here we have it. Okay. This is a conference. I don't know if you have standing to seek an injunction in his case but that's a whole other -MR. NEE: No. I have a case here. I have basically an outline in my case here, if I could just give you this. It has a brief description of what I am holding, and it also has a case that I'm relying on, which is -- I don't know if I can pronounce this correctly -- it's Kupau v. Yamamoto. It's the Ninth Circuit. It's 1980 Hawaii. Basically in this case the union changed the election rules after the fact. There was rules in place, and the election chose to change them. Mr. Walsh has been declared ineligible to run because he's -actually I don't know why. There's nothing in the constitution SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

12 E169USAC that I could find that would bar Mr. Walsh. Collecting a union pension or collecting a tools pension has absolutely no bearing on this issue. I have letters here from -THE COURT: Just let me understand. You're seeking an injunction to do what? MR. NEE: Injunction to have Mr. Walsh remain in office until the end of his term because what the UBC has attempted to do is illegal. THE COURT: You're not talking about the election for EST now? MR. NEE: No. This is for -THE COURT: This is totally different? MR. NEE: Mr. McCarron is attempting to remove all 48 delegates. THE COURT: That wasn't really on my agenda today. MR. NEE: That's why Mr. Walsh is here. THE COURT: I understand. MR. NEE: So I'll submit this. THE COURT: You're welcome to submit it, but you have to follow the rules. MR. NEE: I'll find out what the rules are. THE COURT: If you're making an application for an injunction you have to do with that with a memorandum of law, etc., and you have to determine that you have standing to make such an application. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

13 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. NEE: Oh, yes, sorry, now that you bring that up. Mr. Walsh was questioning my standing to actually question the election. THE COURT: No. MR. NEE: I have here -THE COURT: What I'm saying is I'm not taking that right now. We're talking about the EST election. MR. NEE: I'm going back to the EST. He questioned my standing to question -- the litigate this issue. THE COURT: I don't know -- what are you litigating in connection with the election? MR. NEE: Mr. Walsh's acting in excess of his authority and that the election has to be canceled. THE COURT: Okay. I got it. MR. NEE: No. But I do actually -- it's under the United Brotherhood of Teamsters. They found that if a nonparty can show that he's affected by a decision of the Court, they have standing to appeal that decision. I have it written down here. And it also has another citation from the -- from the Teamsters, which if I may just read this one out briefly. Rules that are necessary to enable the IRB to fulfill the specific duties and functions given to it by the consent decree must not be confused with rules that merely seem desirable to the Court, or which may be a better way for the IRB to fulfill its purpose than the ways set forth in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

14 E169USAC consent decree. A court may not replace the terms of the consent decree with its own no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals. THE COURT: I got the point. If you want to make a written submission with respect to that situation -MR. NEE: No. This is EST. THE COURT: Okay. MR. NEE: This is Mr. Walsh has changed the rules and the Second Circuit has ruled -THE COURT: I'm not understanding you. First you said there were no rules. Now you say he's changed the rules. MR. NEE: No. There were election rules. You made election rules. This went back, Mr. Bilello got elected. He's changed those rules. THE COURT: Before you said there were no rules. MR. NEE: There are no rules for these elections because they've never been approved, because they never followed the process in order to change the rules. If you have set election rules and if you want to change them, you have to follow the same process you made to create the original rules. So if you're bringing in rules and you're setting schedules which are not -- have nothing to do with the original rules, then you have to follow the same procedure. You can't suddenly invent a new procedure and give yourself the power to change the rules otherwise the original rules meant nothing. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

15 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I got it. MR. NEE: No. Because of the standing issue -- I just had an interview. I'll read it. This just establishes -- the Teamsters say that if I'm affected by it, which I am. I was a candidate in this. I'm a voter in this. I'm a member of this union. This election affects me. And a person in such -okay. Although the general rule is that a party of record may appeal a judgment, a nonparty may appeal when the nonparty has an interest that is affected by the trial court's judgment. And they ruled that the affiliates, who were nonparties in the consent decree, had standing to litigate the issue. And I have the same standing. This affects my rights. THE COURT: I got it. MR. NEE: Very good. Can I give you this, or no? THE COURT: Yes. You can hand it in, if you want. I want to hear from Mr. Kelty next. Do you have copies for Mr. Walsh? MR. NEE: Yes. Copies for anybody who would like one. THE COURT: So we'll take that. MR. NEE: How many copies do you like? THE COURT: I just need one copy for the record. MR. NEE: Thank you, your Honor. MR. KELTY: Thank you, your Honor. I appreciate you giving us this opportunity. THE COURT: So Mr. Kelty, you are running for EST, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E169USAC right? MR. KELTY: That's correct. I'm a candidate for the EST position. THE COURT: You're one of two candidates? MR. KELTY: That's right. I come here as a concerned member and a candidate. I'm not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be a lawyer. Yet, I find the RO treats our members that have interest in seeing over, our organization properly run as pseudo attorneys, expect us to look at everything he does as an attorney; only we're really carpenters. I can only look at these issues with a common sense approach. I have several things I'd like to submit to you, two of them which are the Carpenter magazine. According to the original election rules that Mr. Walsh wrote up, there was supposed to be a special edition of the Carpenter where the candidates could submit their information and it would be disseminated to the membership. THE COURT: About their background? MR. KELTY: Right. Now, in Mr. Walsh's special election rules, which his reasoning was cost and time restraints, they couldn't do this. Well my argument -- that doesn't hold water because this has been going on since August. So there's been more than enough time to arrange this. And as he said in the last court SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

17 E169USAC hearing, we have $25 million sitting idly in a bank account which should be used for the members. What better way to inform the members than to let them know what's going on with this election. THE COURT: How have you informed the members of your candidacy? MR. KELTY: I've been handing out fliers to the shop stewards when they come in, handing out posters to the guys that get out on the jobs. And I found -THE COURT: Are you on the website? MR. KELTY: I've been on the 157 blog spot because -I sent you the copy of the homepage on our website. And it's absolutely absurd to pretend that that's really informing the members of what's going on here. THE COURT: Why is that? MR. KELTY: Because for one thing if you see the website, it gives absolutely -- here's the website. Really nothing stands out on there that we're having one of the most important EST elections coming up. That's the top spot at the castle. Yet it's blended right in here with everything else. You would think it would come out here. THE COURT: What does it say? MR. KELTY: Come to the EST election. THE COURT: What does it say about you? MR. KELTY: What does it say about me? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

18 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Yeah. MR. KELTY: It only has the information -THE COURT: No. What does it say? MR. KELTY: What it says here is: EST special election headquarters. View the latest candidates. Election Q and A plus -- from the RO plus campaign literature. Read more. That's what we get. Now I would also like to point out. We just received, maybe two weeks ago, the winter issue of the Carpenter magazine. Now, there's fully a page in here from the RO, a page from the president, a page from -- and EST, a page from the vice-president. Yet there's absolutely no mention -- this just came out about a couple weeks ago, we received it -- no mention whatsoever of the upcoming EST election. There was more than enough time to have that information in here. This is last year's, which we had an election for the president. Now, the president is not a paid position, doesn't hold a full-time position at the council. Yet, last year's edition has at least this much saying that there's a presidential election coming on December 20. But we got nothing in the other one. I have here -- I'd just like to -- I have here a response, my e-mail response to Mr. Walsh, if you would like, when he sent me the letter saying that, pretty much that the election rules are modified because of the timing and financial SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

19 E169USAC restraints. THE COURT: If you want to submit that, you can. MR. KELTY: Yes, I would. Anyway, I'd just like to make a statement here to the Court, which I've typed up. Like I told you before, I'm not an attorney. I'm not big on public speaking, but here it goes. THE COURT: Well you're going to need to be a public speaker if you're going to be the EST, right? MR. KELTY: That's correct. I'm getting a lot of practice. How does modifying the election rules help meet these goals? Well, first of all, I said: Goals of the consent decree are to eliminate corruption and promote union democracy. How does modifying the election rules help to meet these goals? The answer is it doesn't. We have a set of election rules that were put in place to help accomplish the goals of the consent decree, and informing the membership of their choices is a step in the right direction. Many members who don't attend membership meetings and are not actively involved in our union have no idea we are having an election. The website is an absolute failure for notifying our members on anything. Neither the RO nor the council has produced any evidence that the website is an effective tool for notifying and informing our membership. To make these assumptions without any SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

20 E169USAC empirical evidence is negligent at best. The debate. The last debate was an embarrassment to say the least. The RO rented a large room in the Javits Center at a cost never divulged to the members. THE COURT: When was that? MR. KELTY: That was at the last EST election. There were barely 125 people in attendance, of which half were council employees. That debate was also videotaped at an enormous expense to our members and very few members actually bothered to watch it. THE COURT: That's an election that already took place? MR. KELTY: Right. THE COURT: So let's talk about this election. MR. KELTY: I am. The mailing is the most effective way to ensure the members have an opportunity to inform themselves. Surely about one dollar per member isn't too much to ask this Court to inform our members of the choices for their leadership positions. We recently received the winter issue of the Carpenter. There were two pages dedicated to the IG watchdog program, congratulations to the newly elected city council members and the mayor. There was a full page dedicated to the president and pro-tem EST Steve McInnis and VP Mike Cavanaugh, which neither mentioned the upcoming election. Even the review officer failed to mention the election in his SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

21 E169USAC message to the members. There was not one mention of the upcoming EST election in the entire issue. There was ample time to inform our members of the upcoming election and a two-week delay in distribution would have enabled the candidates to submit their single double-sided page of election material, eliminating the need for a special edition. Yet, this didn't happen. Cost and time restrictions. It has been brought to my attention there's a $50 million surplus at the district council. As I said, the RO just stated last month there was $25 million sitting idly in the bank working for members. What better than to put the money to work by informing our members of their choices in the election for our highest office? The RO started this process in August and here it is now January. How could time possibly be a restriction? There has been plenty of time for appeals and court conferences yet no time to inform our members. The modified election rules, intentionally or not, clearly stack the deck for the highly paid council employee candidate. Your Honor, we need to move forward with election rules and procedures. THE COURT: You're saying that there's one preferred candidate? MR. KELTY: Yeah, there's a council backing employee candidate who makes over -- about $150,000 a year. THE COURT: Who is that? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

22 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KELTY: Joe Geiger. He's my opponent. I'm semiretired. I have a 38,000-dollar a year pension and I try to work a week a month. Anyway -THE COURT: Have you had any kind of forum or debate with him? MR. KELTY: Not yet. That's supposed to happen Wednesday. THE COURT: Okay. This Wednesday? MR. KELTY: Right. THE COURT: Where is that going to be? MR. KELTY: That's going to be at the district council in a room that holds about 150 people. It's supposed to be on the 10th floor, I'm pretty sure. But we'll be lucky if we get 150 people show up out of 20,000. What happens today -- we need to move forward with election rules and procedures set in stone, not rules that arbitrarily change with the wind. What happens today will determine what happens in the future. If the RO changes the rules for this election, then what will happen in the next year or five years from now? One of the determining factors for me to run for this office was based on knowing I'd be able to inform all our voting members of my candidacy and the issues we face because of the election rules that were established. I would not even have considered taking this challenge because of the expense I SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

23 E169USAC would have to bear to inform our members. If the RO felt that this election was not worth the expense for the mailing, why even bother to have it? THE COURT: All right. I got it. Thank you. So where is the fellow from the district council, the lawyer from the district council? Are you from Mr. Murphy's firm? MR. HEALY: Yes, your Honor. Adrian Healy, law firm of Spivak Lipton for the district council. I just would add very briefly two points in response to some of the comments that you have received. One is that in our view the stipulation and order quite thoroughly vests Mr. Walsh with the authority to set the rules for this election, and he has done so; and secondly, that your Honor has already, I believe, ruled at least once that Mr. Walsh's determination on candidate eligibility is nonreviewble. THE COURT: Is nonreviewble? MR. HEALY: Correct. I believe that's the words that the stipulation uses. THE COURT: So you, as counsel for the district council, are in agreement or approve the process that is going forward currently for this new election? MR. HEALY: Well I would say, your Honor, that the district council agreed to this process when it endorsed the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

24 E169USAC stipulation and order in 2010. And, of course, the district council would be more than happy to discuss any of these issues with the review officer. I don't have any doubt that he'd be willing to do so in the future. THE COURT: Well what, for example, is your view as to Mr. Tagliaferro's complaint? MR. HEALY: I would say once again, your Honor, that given the Court's ruling and Mr. Walsh's nonreviewable determination, that it must stand, just given the precedent and the expressed terms of the stipulation and order. Again, I should add that that should not be construed as a commentary upon the merits of his complaint, but simply that those are the terms that have been imposed. THE COURT: And what about Mr. Nee's? MR. HEALY: I'm not a hundred percent certain about Mr. Nee's position. Of course, if Mr. Nee intervenes and seeks to enjoin the election or positions himself as a proposed intervenor, perhaps we can respond to it more completely at that time. THE COURT: And finally Mr. Kelty? MR. HEALY: Once again, I would just rest on my initial comments, which were -THE COURT: His central complaint seems to be that the union is not paying for distribution of materials describing his candidacy. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

25 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HEALY: Right. When Mr. Walsh submitted the proposed election rules to your Honor back in August, I believe that his application made it clear that there would be other reasonable means of distributing information about candidates. THE COURT: Do you think there have been? MR. HEALY: I believe so, yes. I believe that that district council website has included all that information. THE COURT: Thanks. Before we hear from Mr. Walsh, what is the government's view about all of these issues? MS. LaMORTE: Sure, your Honor. As to the first issue of the candidate that was not approved. As Mr. Healy said, your Court already has a ruling. And the stipulation is very clear that that's nonreviewble. But even beyond that, I think, if I recall correctly, even assuming that it was reviewable, Mr. Walsh's determination is accorded great discretion here. THE COURT: It does seem a little bit harsh, right, that somebody who was arrested 21 years ago and then convicted I guess 21 minus three or four years ago has paid his debt to society, so to speak. Do you think that? MS. LaMORTE: Your Honor, you know, each situation has to be analyzed individually and I understand that this crime occurred -THE COURT: Well that's the situation we're analyzing. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

26 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. LaMORTE: And this crime did occur some time ago. I understand that. But I think when Mr. Walsh is making this decision -- obviously he can speak more to it -- his decision is supposed to be based on the terms and objectives of the consent decree, and that's what's in this stipulation and order. And we're dealing -- and also, you have to consider the historical context. We're dealing with a union who was corrupt from the top. And we in 2009 indicted the whole top membership of the union. So, drastic measures -- when we were in front of Judge Haight and we were having the stipulation and order approved, Judge Haight agreed that drastic measures needed to be taken to ensure that this doesn't happen again, to get the union in a place where its procedures and policies were greater than any individual person. So, you know, whereas in a vacuum I could see that it would -- it's sort of difficult to say someone who committed a crime such a long time ago is now precluded to run. I think we're dealing with a very unique circumstance here, in light of the history, and Mr. Walsh's obligation to consider the consent decree in making his determinations. As to Mr. Nee's complaint, I would just say that the election rules that are in effect for this election have been submitted to the Court and have been approved by the Court. So this is not some ultra vires modification of any sort. Finally, as to Mr. Kelty, I'm not so well versed in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

27 E169USAC the particulars of dissemination but I will say it did sound like the district council website does include all the campaign literature. And, again, this modified distribution that we're talking about has been approved by the Court. So I don't see any issue there. THE COURT: Okay. Finally, Mr. Walsh. MR. D. WALSH: Thank you, your Honor. Dennis Walsh, the review officer. First of all, with respect to Mr. Tagliaferro, as Ms. LaMorte has pointed out, my obligation under the stipulation and order is to approve candidates. Taking into consideration -- and this is the standard that everyone had notice of back in June 2010 -- considering the terms and objectives of the consent decree, I made the determination as to whether a candidate is qualified to represent the members of the union. Now, this has been a union with a tortured past. It has been plagued by racketeering conspiracies for many decades. Mr. Tagliaferro participated in an illegal conspiracy that was of sufficient import that it was the subject of a federal sting. He described in his interview, which I -THE COURT: This is the matter for which he was arrested? MR. D. WALSH: Convicted, yes. He described the people that he participated in this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

28 E169USAC conspiracy with as bad people. He knowingly decided to enter this conspiracy to drive a truck which he knew contained stolen property at the behest of bad people. I think the expected response of any normal citizen is to recoil in horror at the prospect of being asked to participate in a conspiracy that could, upon conviction, gain him serious time in federal prison. Mr. Tagliaferro did go to federal prison. Federal policy, as recognized by Congress -THE COURT: What was his sentence? MR. D. WALSH: Pardon me? THE COURT: What was his sentence? MR. D. WALSH: He was sentenced to six months followed by supervised release of I believe two to three years. And he was incarcerated in the Lewisburg facility. Federal policy, longstanding federal policy recognizes that for certain prescribed offenses there's an absolute bar not only to serving as an officer but even menial employment in a local union. That's not negotiable. This is a situation -THE COURT: Is this one of those -MR. D. WALSH: It is not. But because of -- the 13-year bar is not expressly applicable because the time had run. It was not by much, but it had run. But the question here is given the responsibility that I have to the court, to the union, and to the rank and file members, is it reasonable and prudent to allow a person who SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

29 E169USAC made this decision to participate in this criminal conspiracy to lead them as the principal fiduciary of the district council and as a cochairman of benefit funds worth over $4 billion. I don't know the people that he ran with back in the 1990s. I don't know if they are still interested in his comings and goings. But I do not want to be the person responsible for opening the door to communication from them should they decide to reacquaint themselves with Mr. Tagliaferro if he wins in this situation and make a further proposal that he engage in illegal activity. So, considering the terms and objectives of the consent decree, I made a determination on the record -- which was not in any way arbitrary or capricious -- not to approve Mr. Tagliaferro. It's obviously a decision which he vehemently disagrees with. It was a decision that I stand by as reasonable and prudent and in the best interests of all concerned. Now, with respect to the election and the election rules. As the Court knows, we went through a very detailed process of getting election rules approved back in 2011 which are now part of the district council bylaws. There was a comment period. The Court considered them. And the Court issued an order adopting those election rules. We have had more than one special election. It was at least one election for a trustee of the district council, and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

30 E169USAC an election for president of the district council, where the Court endorsed my proposal to use the modified rules because these were interim elections. They were not for the full blown terms which the original election rules, which the standing election rules contemplate. As of now, there were two notices that were sent to every rank and file member of the upcoming election for EST. Those election notices contained much more information than the average union election notice. And they actually contained dates showing the schedule for various events to occur. Every member of this union has had ample notice of the special election for EST. The election rules contemplated that this job be filled quickly. When the winner is installed on February 12 there will be eleven months left in this term. We are -- I am trying to meet the number one goal here, which is to have an election, which is to give the members a choice about who they would like to have fill the remainder of the term. If the schedule is wiped away, one wonders what purpose is really served if we are going to add additional months to a process that will leave so little time in the term of the person who is elected as executive secretary/treasurer. So there's been ample notice. Everybody knows what the schedule is. The district council website does, in fact, have every word of every document submitted by Mr. Kelty and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

31 E169USAC Mr. Geiger, their campaign literature. If there are people who believe that the expressed wording of the stipulation and order requires more than that, I think ultimately that question of interpretation will have to come down to the wisdom of the Court. I believe that that language is covered. The district council website has that information on there. But, if the Court -THE COURT: You mean as to campaign literature? MR. D. WALSH: As to campaign literature provided by the candidates. And each candidate has the right to inspect the membership list. Each candidate has the right to do a mailing. The membership list is sent confidentially to a mailing house. There can be a modified mailing for a targeted group. These are all rights that candidates have under federal law. THE COURT: When is the election? MR. D. WALSH: The ballots are being mailed today. And they will be counted on January 24. They must be received, by the American Arbitration Association, on January 23 by 5:00 p.m. in order to be counted. There is a debate this Wednesday which is going to be held at the district council. It is going to be video recorded. That video is going to be posted on the district council website. My hope is that it gets up within 24 hours so SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

32 E169USAC that people will be able to actually see the candidates, see their demeanor, see how fast they are on their feet and, most importantly, gauge whether their politics is acceptable to them, whether their policies are something that they'd like to hear. So, I believe that we have covered all the bases. The district council obviously received notice of every proposed modification of the election rules. We have never heard anything from the district council in opposition to any of those rules. The law of this case is that special election rules are appropriate, as they have been approved and endorsed by the court in the past. THE COURT: Have there been mailings at union expense in the past elections? MR. D. WALSH: There was. In the 2011 election, which is obviously for the full term, when the supervision of the UBC was going to end. So that was, in fact, done. THE COURT: And what about is there any precedent with respect to special elections whether the union would pay the costs of the mailing? MR. D. WALSH: We have not had any union-paid mailings in any of the special elections that the district council has run since 2011. THE COURT: So I take it at the end of eleven months there will be a regular election as it were? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

33 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. D. WALSH: Yes. THE COURT: At which time, just to stay with the issue of mailings, it's likely that the union would pick up the cost? MR. D. WALSH: It's mandatory at that point because the full regular election rules, which are part of the district council bylaws, will be in operation. THE COURT: I got it. All right. Anybody -- anything else? MR. NEE: Can I rebut? THE COURT: I don't really think we need rebuttal. MR. NEE: I think he brought up -THE COURT: So if anybody is going to go, I will give a minute to each, starting with Mr. Tagliaferro. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: Your Honor, thank you very much. I forgot one of the most important things. In the seventh interim report Mr. Walsh said that this union needs somebody to put themselves at risk before -- risk their own ruin for the betterment of the membership. There is nobody in this union that has done more so in that than me. Also, when Mr. Walsh -- he talks about something that I did 21 years ago. If I was going to remake that mistake wouldn't I have done that? Your Honor, I have definitely turned my life around. And Mr. Walsh knows that. And I find it very offensive for him to assume -- insinuate anything other than that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

34 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But the rules are clear in the stipulation and order and the consent decree that his approving and disapproving has to abide by the law. And that's not abiding by the law. As he said, the 13 years is long overdue. And, again, if he wants somebody who stands up for the membership, I do that. In my brief that I gave you, I just named four of the examples of the hundreds of times that I've done it on the job site. He is definitely arbitrarily picking it out. Me being in this courtroom right now is putting myself at risk of ruin because Mr. Walsh is a vindictive person and she going to come after me for that as he does everybody else that crosses him. Thank you again, your Honor. THE COURT: Would Mr. Tagliaferro be eligible for the election eleven months from now? MR. D. WALSH: Right now the election rules that are part of the district council bylaws contemplate that the review officer maintains the same authority. THE COURT: No. No. I understand that. But he could apply? MR. D. WALSH: He absolutely could apply. THE COURT: Okay. MR. TAGLIAFERRO: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Nee. One minute. MR. NEE: First off, according -THE COURT: I'm not hearing you. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

35 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. NEE: I've been told -THE COURT: Pull the microphone closer to you. MR. NEE: Ms. LaMorte claims that we should be putting the policies and procedures in place which will govern us after the review officer leaves, except the president review officer has said is that all the rules are changeable, you can adopt the rules to whatever you suit, just go and interpret them, that they mean nothing. The review officer is telling us that there are rules approved. I'd like to see where. I'd wan to see where in the stipulation and order, when everybody is telling us that we must abide by it, I would like him to please cite. THE COURT: You follow the docket of this proceeding? MR. NEE: I have followed the docket. THE COURT: So if you look at the docket, I think you will see that the rules were approved. MR. NEE: The rules were approved according to the stipulation and order? THE COURT: If you look at the docket -MR. NEE: Yes. THE COURT: See what the docket says. MR. NEE: Does the docket -- is there -THE COURT: Well, I'm not taking questions. If you've got anything else that you want to add in the one minute time for rebuttal, that's fine. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

36 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. NEE: I don't see how we're implementing policies and procedures to govern us in the future when everything changes whenever he wants it to and he makes up the rules as he goes along. THE COURT: I appreciate that. Yeah. MR. KELTY: I'll be brief, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KELTY: As the RO points out, the election rules are in the bylaws. Now we need approval from the Eastern District vice-president to change the bylaws. And the RO has vetoed people for violating the bylaws. I want to point out that the EST is the only full-time position that has come up for the election. The other positions are part-time. The president is only a three hundred dollar a month stipend. And the trustees, they just get paid to review the books monthly. Mr. Walsh is also making the assumption that the website is informing the members. THE COURT: Yeah, we've discussed this before. You think it's not. MR. KELTY: But a perfect example. About a month-and-a-half ago they put on the website that the shop stewards had to have all their certs updated by the end of November; yet, nobody was getting their certs updated. It SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

37 E169USAC turned out they had to call all the shop stewards and inform them of that because they don't use that website. Nobody goes on that website unless they're looking for specific information like how many hours I had, are my benefits up, or that. That's it. And they have offered no evidence. And plenty of members have asked them. How many hits are we getting on these websites? And they have given us no information to the contrary. And I'm just not asking for a mailing for myself. This is it. I'm asking for a mailing for my opponent too so we both get the information out. Thank you. THE COURT: Anybody else? Very quickly. MR. McGONNIGLE: Thomas McGonnigle. Once again, I'm not going to go into what my history is, but I'm a 32-year member of the merger of 157/608. I'm here to backup Greg Kelty's claim that the website, and Mr. Walsh's philosophy behind being high tech in this world, it is high tech, but the carpenters aren't. The carpenters go to work. There's four or five members here today and there's almost 19,000 members in the local. No one really knows what's going on. I came off a job. I was there four months. In and out I might have saw 50 guys. Nobody knows anything about this election. People, like Greg said, go on that website to see if their hours are up, or where the pick of duty is going to be held. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

38 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The bottomline is: Mailings, when a guy gets a mailing for any reason from the district council, I hear about it, from a shop steward's -- what's this about, Shoppy? What's wrong with a mailing just saying there's an election? I asked for that years ago when I was involved running for politics in the local. Dennis Walsh, I'm sorry to say, blew me off. Mailings are old school. We don't do it like that anymore. This is the way it's always been. This is the best way to get out to the members what's going on. That's why I'm here, because it's not fair to leave it on the website and on your notebook and your iPhone. It doesn't work like that. THE COURT: Are you going to the debate on Wednesday? MR. McGONNIGLE: I will be there. I'm one of the few people that know about what's going on. I do go on the website. I go on the blog spot. The sad part is the biggest information on the website on the internet is the 157 blog spot. It has no connection. If anything, it's an adversarial website to the district council because it points out the truth. You come in here and have the lawyer come in and tell you that this has been going on, we're agreeing with Dennis Walsh because the lawyers that are here today for the district council were hired by the same people. THE COURT: I got it. MR. McGONNIGLE: Thank you. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

39 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Sure thing. MR. W. WALSH: William Walsh. I just want to read a brief statement. THE COURT: You have a different issue, right? MR. W. WALSH: It's about the election rules and my situation. THE COURT: Well, your situation is not really on the agenda today because it's not part of the EST election. MR. W. WALSH: It's not part of the EST election but it certainly has to do with the way the election rules and -THE COURT: This is a separate issue, which I'm not really dealing with today. I have your submission. I'm going to get a response to your submission. And then we'll take that as a separate matter. MR. W. WALSH: Can I just comment on this election? THE COURT: Quickly. MR. W. WALSH: I just want to talk about how the election process that we have is a major component for the consent decree and the stipulation and order. In order for our union to move forward, there needs to be a district council election committee in place, the same as is currently enforced in the local level. The bylaws and election rules are being executed by the review officer instead of our own appointed election committee. As stated in our bylaws in section 5B.9, When the review officer has completed his mission, who will SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

40 E169USAC enforce and certify candidates for upcoming council elections. You don't want me to get into my situation, but I would hope that the Court would consider saving the members tens of thousands of dollars and running our election only for the delegate body, and that my -- I did prove through my resources and all the different angles that I had as far as showing that I depended on the trade. Mr. Walsh endorsed me on it. He's written a letter to Mr. McCarron. And I was just hoping that you can maybe oversee this and see that there is a democracy, something fair is being done in our union, and that Mr. McCarron doesn't have a stronghold and just being able to put whatever he wants, whenever he wants. We are under the stipulation and order of New York and I would hope that your Honor would see that this would be fair and democratic. And also put something in place, a criteria where members proven to be depending on the trade, and also as a membership for a livelihood. So these are my issues and I would hope you consider them. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Last one. MR. QUINONES: Good morning, your Honor. My name is Mike Quinones. As far as the district council, as far as the local, our local 926, I feel that Mr. Sal Tagliaferro has done a remarkable job for our local as far as uplifting and bringing our members up to creed. As far as the situation as far as the district council SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

41 E169USAC stating out -- sending out voting of issues, voting proxies, I did not receive anything. I don't know anything about the elections. So I feel that this election shouldn't even take forward. THE COURT: Are you going to the debate on Wednesday? MR. QUINONES: That is correct. THE COURT: So you'll find out then. MR. QUINONES: I'll find out then. It shouldn't have -- there should have been some advance notice through the mails. Not too many people can afford computers or go on line. I'm not saying anybody is dumb or stupid. THE COURT: Nobody is dumb or stupid. I just want to make sure everybody here knows of the debate on Wednesday and that they're going. MR. QUINONES: I just found out today about the debate. THE COURT: I take it you'll be going. MR. QUINONES: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. QUINONES: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: One more hand here. MR. CORRIGAN: Your Honor, excuse my appearance. I just came from a job site. THE COURT: No problem. MR. CORRIGAN: May name is Peter Corrigan. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

42 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Your Honor, basically the EST going forward is going to be negotiating major deals with developers, billions of dollars at stake, thousands of families at stake. And in my opinion spending a couple thousand dollars, when you're going to be negotiating for billions of dollars, on a mailing is a no-brainer. I mean you can't really put a price on democracy. I think that we've all learned that. So to not have a mailing and just hope that everybody goes on the district council website -- I mean my father is a 32-year member of the Carpenters Union, doesn't know how to turn a computer on. All the retirees. How do you expect to educate them properly on something that's going to affect their benefits, their going forward. We're trying to get our benefits back. And all these retirees are paying premiums they never had to pay before. So I think we need to do a service to the retirees and send the mailing out. These retirees are spending thousands of dollars they never spent in their life. And the next leader of this organization, they're going to have to pick who the next leader of this organization is? Not really knowing what's going on? It's not fair to have a guy on the tools, regardless -- or anybody go into their pocket for that type of money when they just want to lead the organization in the right direction. So I really hope that you consider letting the council pay for a mailing. Thank you. THE COURT: Did you want -SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

43 E169USAC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. D. WALSH: Judge, I just want to make it very clear that every member of this union got a notice that was mailed on November 8 with details about the schedule. So for people to say that they are in the dark about this simply does not hold any weight. THE COURT: What did the notice say? MR. D. WALSH: The notice informed people that there would be a special election for executive secretary/treasurer. The reverse side of the notice contained a detailed description of the obligations of the office, the role of the office, and it set forth key dates, I believe, including the date of the debate. And we are sticking to that schedule so that every member of the union has received notice of the debate that's happening on Wednesday night and other key aspects of this campaign. I also do want to state that I have never opposed the question of mailings paid for by the district council. But apparently Mr. Kelty's opponent has relied upon the rules, the special rules and understood that he would have to engage in campaign fundraising. I understand that he did do that. So that he -- he is not here complaining about the rules, nor do I hear the district council complaining about the rules. THE COURT: Let me ask this. What would it cost to do a mailing for those two candidates? Roughly? MR. D. WALSH: If you figure that 20,000 envelopes SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

44 E169USAC were mailed at approximately four dollars apiece, that would be about $80,000. THE COURT: Why would it be four dollars apiece? MR. D. WALSH: There would be duplication costs. The candidates would provide their material, but then it would have to be duplicated by the production and mailing house. That's just an estimate off the top of my head. But I do not oppose the question of a mailing. But I do point out that Mr. Kelty's opponent has relied on the special rules which were endorsed by the Court and has acted accordingly. MR. KELTY: Your Honor, can could I say one thing about the mailing? THE COURT: You get the last word. MR. KELTY: I'm the treasurer of local 157. It doesn't cost us anywhere near that. We did a three-page mailing actually last year. I think it came, for the nine plus thousand members, it came to about seven, eight thousand dollars. So it would only be about, if it's 20,000 members, it should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000. To say otherwise is -- to say it would be $80,000 is absolutely ridiculous. Also, in our bylaws, section 31(e) under the notification for the elections. The mailing has to be sent out specifically no less -- no more than 60 days, no less than 50 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

45 E169USAC days prior to the election. The election is actually going to be on January 23, I believe. So that's well over the 60 days. THE COURT: So you're saying there should be no mailing because it can't comply with the rules. MR. KELTY: I'm saying the mailing for the election notice. Now if Mr. Walsh sent out a notice -THE COURT: I'm really not understanding. MR. KELTY: We have rules that for an election or a nomination you have to have a mailing. THE COURT: Right. MR. KELTY: If it's a combined mailing, it can't be more than 60 days before the election. So that's for a combined mailing for an election and a nomination. Now, that notice was sent out in the beginning of November. THE COURT: I'm not understanding. MR. KELTY: It's a violation of our bylaws. THE COURT: So you don't want to have an election? MR. KELTY: No. I want to have a mailing is what I want to have. But there hasn't been -- proper notice to the membership anyway. THE COURT: So you're saying it's an invalid election? MR. KELTY: Well I don't know if you could say it's an invalid election. THE COURT: I don't know what point you're trying to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

46 E169USAC make. Are you interested in running in this election? MR. KELTY: Yes, I'm interested in running in this election. But I'm saying the rules haven't been followed. THE COURT: I got it. So, I wouldn't be opposed to a mailing either, Mr. Walsh, if one can be arranged for the two candidates. Maybe that's something you could workout. MR. D. WALSH: I can do that right now, Judge, when I go back to the union. THE COURT: Great. Okay. Thanks very much. Any other issues I'll take under advisement. But the way things stand right now we're continuing on the path that currently exists with this one exception that a mailing will take place with respect to the two candidates. Thanks very much. MS. LaMORTE: Thank you, your Honor. (Adjourned)

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