[Mailed to all 51 current AFL-CIO Executive Council Members.]
See <http://www.aflcio.org/about/profile_vps_a_f.htm>.
 

    RE: Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
 

Dear AFL-CIO Executive Council Member:
 

It is time for you to remove AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard L. Trumka.

In the 1950s, unchecked union corruption led to aggressive congressional hearings headed by Senator John L. McClellan (D-Ark.) and his general counsel, Robert F. Kennedy.(1)  The McClellan Committee's overwhelming work product led to sweeping labor law reform in the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, which enables the federal government and union members to attempt to combat union corruption.(2)
 
Arguably, there is a "wave of union corruption today" that is on par with that of the 1950s.(3)   For example, within the last two years, at least ten officials of international unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO have pled guilty to, been convicted of, been indicted for, and/or been removed from office because of union corruption:  1) Gus Bevona, International Vice President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU);(4)  2) Ronald Carey, International President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT);(5)  3) Arthur A. Coia, International President, Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA);(6)  4) Albert A. Diop, International Vice President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME);(7)   5) Peter J. Fosco, International Vice President, LIUNA;(8)   6) Edward T. Hanley, International President, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE);(9)   7) Thomas Hanley, Director of Organization, HERE;(10)   8) William W. Hamilton, Political Director, IBT;(11)   9) Fred G. Summers, Director of Organizing, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers;(12)   10) Joseph C. Talarico, International Secretary-Treasurer, United Food and Commercial Workers.(13)  Additionally, the recently disclosed report on the $4.6 million corruption problem within AFSCME illustrates the pervasiveness of union corruption today.(14)

The situation is arguably worse today than it was in the 1950s.  At least back then the AFL-CIO itself was not tainted by corruption -- today, however, it is.(15)

On November 17, 1997, IBT elections officer and former federal judge Kenneth Conboy implicated Trumka, the AFL-CIO's second most powerful officer, in the Ron Carey campaign's money-laundering scandal.(16)  Conboy alleged that Trumka was involved in two schemes that wrongfully routed $100,000 and $50,000 to Carey's 1996 campaign.(17)  Conboy also disclosed that Trumka "refused to testify, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination."(18)

On November 20, 1997, the Washington Times ran an article calling public attention to the AFL-CIO's 1957 policy that states, in part: if a union official "decides to invoke the Fifth Amendment for his personal protection and to avoid scrutiny...into alleged corruption on his part, he has no right to continue to hold office."(19)
 
On November 21, 1997, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, responded by stating:

[W]e have review the Federation's 1957 policy covering affiliate and AFL-CIO officials who assert the Fifth Amendment.  The policy, consisting of two resolutions adopted during the McLellan [sic] Committee hearings, remains in effect, although it has never been applied by the Federation in the intervening 40 years.  The policy discusses the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege by union officers in the course of proceedings by law enforcement agencies, legislative committees and other public bodies involved in investigations of corruption within the labor movement.

The policy recognizes that in many instances this basic constitutional right affords vital protection to the innocent.  On its face, it makes clear that invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege does not automatically warrant an official's removal from office. The policy calls for removal only when the union determines that the Fifth Amendment is being invoked to conceal discovery of corruption.

The AFL-CIO, as you know, has for some time been conducting its own internal inquiry, and has no basis to conclude that there was any unlawful conduct by Secretary-Treasurer Trumka.  Furthermore, he has explicitly denied all wrongdoing. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the policy does not apply.(20)

The policy...states that it applies to the invocation of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege by union officials who are subjected to 'serious and apparently well-founded charges of corruption' or 'misuse of office for personal gain,' and if an official who invokes the privilege 'refuses to state whether or not these charges are true,' an investigation by the officer's union is warranted as to whether or not the privilege was asserted 'as a shield to avoid discovery of corruption on his part.'(21)

The following two passages from the summation of Assistant United States Attorney Martine Beamon to the Hamilton jury illustrate the point.  The first concerns Trumka's alleged $50,000 contribution to the Carey campaign:

Now, we come to February of 1996.  At that time, the Carey campaign realizes that they need a professional campaign manager. And who do they turn to? They turn to Jere Nash. Jere Nash, who you know was a political consultant down in Mississippi, but he had done work for the Teamsters' Union. Jere Nash was approached to see if he would be campaign manager for Ron Carey. And Jere Nash agreed to do that job...

At that time, he had been assured by Martin Davis and Eddie Burke, one of Ron Carey's closest advisors, that this wasn't going to be that tough a job as campaign manager. Why? Because Ron Carey was a popular incumbent. He had brought reform to the union. Ron Carey wasn't going to have trouble raising money.

Well, quickly, ladies and gentlemen, it became clear that that just wasn't the case. It was going to be very difficult to raise money for this campaign because there were lots of rules about how to go about doing that. Within weeks of Jere Nash being hired, he learns that one of the ways that the union is going to raise money is through an illegal scheme to get cash from other labor union leaders. And that's against the election rules because those other labor union leaders are employers.

...Jere Nash told you that early on, he learned that there were commitments from three labor union leaders to raise $50,000 a piece. The heads of AFSCME, the leader at SEIU, and Richard Trumka at the AFL-CIO...

...How about the Richard Trumka angle? How about the fact that Richard Trumka was trying to raise $50,000 for the Carey campaign? Well, one piece of corroboration that you have for that is Defense Exhibit C, which we've blown up for you.  You know from Defense Exhibit C that a lot of money came into the November Group to do the direct mailings. ...[M]onies came in directly as a result of the corrupt scheme and one of the ways the money came in was that $10,000 came in from Richard Trumka and you know from Special Agent Sollet's testimony that that's what Martin Davis said what happened. Now, this is a chart that Jere Nash has never seen. $10,000 from Trumka corroborates what Jere Nash was telling you that other labor union leaders were out there trying to raise money for the Carey campaign.

...[O]ne other thing about raising money from labor union leaders before I forget.  The other thing that Jere Nash tells you is who participated in the scheme. He tells you he participated in it. He tells you that Martin Davis participated in it. He tells you that Ed Burke participated in it. He tells you that Richard Trumka participated in it...(26)

 Bill Hamilton had agreed to the swap with respect to the AFL-CIO. Bill Hamilton agreed when Jere Nash went to him and said: Will you make a $150,000 contribution to the AFL-CIO in exchange for donations to the Carey campaign?

Shortly after that, as you know, Bill Hamilton wrote a memo recommending the $150,000 contribution to the AFL-CIO. That's Government Exhibit 401A.

What happens next? Well, Martin Davis had already gone to Ira Arlook [of Citizen Action] to see if Ira Arlook would request money from the Teamsters' Union.  And Ira Arlook had said, yes, but Bill Hamilton had rejected that idea.

So, what did Martin Davis need to do next? He needed to get the AFL-CIO on board. He needed to get them to make a request for $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union. How do you know that that's what happened? Well, you know from [AFL-CIO controller] Sue Mackie that right around this same time period, she gets called to a meeting in the secretary-treasurer's office, in Mr. Trumka's office, and there are four people at that meeting; Sue Mackie herself, Richard Trumka, Richard Trumka's secretary, Kathy Smith, and a fourth person that Sue Mackie can't identify, someone that she's never seen before and she can't remember since. What happens during that meeting?  Well, when Sue Mackie leaves, she knows this: She knows that the AFL-CIO might be getting $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union, and that if that money comes in, then that $150,000 should be sent to Citizen Action.

Who was that fourth person?  Well, you know that it wasn't someone from within the AFL-CIO because Sue Mackie had never seen that person before. You know it wasn't anyone from Citizen Action, because Ira Arlook and Rochelle Davis told you that, they both told you that they never requested $150,000.  And, in fact, as Ira Arlook explained to you, they wouldn't have requested that $150,000 from the AFL-CIO. Ira Arlook wouldn't go back to that well one more time. Not only wouldn't he go back to Steve Rosenthal, he wouldn't go over Steve Rosenthal's head to Richard Trumka.  So, if it Wasn't someone from the AFL and it wasn't someone from Citizen Action, who else could it be?

Who else knew that Citizen Action was looking for $150,000?  Who else wanted Citizen Action to receive $150,000? Who else would have access to Richard Trumka? The only person, ladies and gentlemen, who fits all of those criteria is Martin Davis.  Martin Davis was the very person who told Ira Arlook that he should ask for $150,000.

Martin Davis wanted Citizen Action to get $150,000. Why? Because Martin Davis wanted more money that he could apply to the Carey campaign. Remember, the election is getting close. He hasn't raised all the money he needs to and he needs more money. So, he wants Citizen Action to get some money hoping Citizen Action would pass some on to him.

And what else? Martin Davis is the one who knows Richard Trumka. Martin Davis was one of the people who was responsible for raising money from Richard Trumka for the Carey campaign and, in fact, as you know from Defense Exhibit 11 C, Martin Davis actually got $10,000 in cash from Richard Trumka that he applied to the Carey campaign.

So, what happens? On November 1st, the day after Bill Hamilton writes his request for the $150,000 contribution, a check is cut by the IBT for $150,000. What else happens the day after Bill Hamilton has written his request?

Bill Hamilton finally gets a request from the AFL-CIO, he finally gets a letter. Who does he get the letter from? He gets the letter from Richard Trumka. And what's the final thing that happened on November 1st? Bill Hamilton rejected officially the request for $150,000 from Citizen Action. That's Government Exhibit 402.

What happens then after the $150,000 goes from the Teamsters' Union to the AFL-CIO? Well, again, you know from Ms. Mackie's testimony that once the money comes into the AFL-CIO, it's supposed to go out to Citizen Action. But you don't just have to rely on Ms. Mackie's testimony on the stand about that. There are a couple of exhibits in the record that show you about it.

Take a look at Government Exhibit 408. Government Exhibit 408 is a memo that Sue Mackie wrote to another person in her accounting department explaining that $150,000 has come into the AFL-CIO and it's supposed to be recorded as a payment above and beyond the special assessment.

Then look at Government Exhibit 405. Government Exhibit 405 tells you how that money from the Teamsters' Union is supposed to be used. Government Exhibit 405 is a memo from the secretary-treasurer's office to Sue Mackie that says after the $150,000 had come in, that that exact same amount, $150,000 should be sent to Citizen Action.

How do you know, ladies and gentlemen, that Bill Hamilton made that $150,000 contribution to Citizen Action as a result of the swap scheme? Well, begin again by looking at the memo that Bill Hamilton drafted. That's Government Exhibit 401A. Again, just like the National Council of Senior Citizens memo that Bill Hamilton drafted, this memo, Government Exhibit 401A, predates any request from the AFL-CIO.  It's written before any request comes in.

You know it's written before any written request comes in because the letter from Richard Trumka doesn't come in until the next day, November 1st. And in addition, take a look at Government Exhibit 401A, Bill Hamilton's memo, and see what Bill Hamilton is asking for there. Bill Hamilton says that he wants $150,000 to be sent to the AFL-CIO in connection with Labor '96. Well, did Steve Rosenthal call and make a request for $150,000?  No, he didn't.

And who was it that ran the Labor '96?  It was Steve Rosenthal. Steve Rosenthal never made any oral request to get another $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union. Did Steve Rosenthal ever ask anyone to request an additional $150,000 from the Teamsters' Union? No, he didn't. Did anyone ever tell Steve Rosenthal that another $150,000 might be requested from the Teamsters' Union? The answer to that question again is no.  So, you know that this request didn't come through any ordinary channels.

What else shows you what was really going on with this $150,000 contribution?  Well, as we just discussed, look where the money that the AFL gets, look where it goes.  It goes to Citizen Action. As we've just discussed, Citizen Action didn't request $150,000 from the AFL-CIO. They didn't need $150,000 from the AFL-CIO because the mailing for Campaign For a Responsible Congress was already paid for. But on top of that -- how could Bill Hamilton possibly think that it was a good idea to send money to the AFL-CIO if it was only to be passed on to Citizen Action? Bill Hamilton rejected another request for a contribution in the same amount to Citizen Action. How could Bill Hamilton possibly think that it would be a good idea for Citizen Action to get the money if he rejected their very request?

In addition, did Bill Hamilton ask any questions about what that money would be used for? Did he call Steve Rosenthal and say: Hey, what are you guys going to do with this $150,000? Or, hey, why do you guys need $150,000 from us? You've raised $35 million in connection with Labor '96. Why do you need money from the Teamsters' Union, a union that owes you $3.7 million? We've already given you enough money this year, Mr. Rosenthal.

None of those conversations occurred. Bill Hamilton doesn't ask any of those questions because he just doesn't care what the AFL-CIO is going to do with the money. All he cares about is that this money is going to be raised to raise money for the Carey campaign.

How else do you know that? You know that because he doesn't talk to any member of his staff about $150,000. Even if he had, you can imagine what the reaction would have been. Remember the IBT at this point didn't have enough money to send out to its local unions that were making requests for political contributions.  And more specifically, Bill Hamilton and Mike Mathis discussed whether a contribution should be made to the AFL-CIO above any special assessment amounts not in conjunction with this request, but some time after an AFL-CIO meeting, they discussed it.

And what did Bill Hamilton say? Bill Hamilton said he didn't want to give any more money to the AFL-CIO. He had given enough money to the AFL-CIO. The Teamsters' Union had done their part. So, after having that conversation with Mike Mathis, how on earth would he just go to his staff and say that he needed to send this money along? He couldn't have just tied it to his staff, and that's why he didn't tell them. That's why his staff had to find out about this contribution in the newspapers in 1997.

What's the unmistakable conclusion from all of the facts, all of the circumstances surrounding this contribution? That Bill Hamilton is asking for this help, for this $150,000 to be contributed to the AFL-CIO in exchange for contributions to the Carey campaign?

Now, does the money ever benefit the Carey campaign?  Yes, it does. But again, it's not like the Citizen Action or Project Vote deals. It's slightly different. How do you know that the money actually gets to benefit the Carey campaign?

You know that after the AFL-CIO cuts a check to Citizen Action on November 4, Rochelle Davis writes an e-mail to people who work for her. That's Government Exhibit 409.

Now, in Rochelle Davis' memo, she says: We just got in $150,000 from the AFL-CIO. I want you to send $100,000 of that amount to the November Group, and that's exactly what Citizen Action does. It's Government Exhibit 410. The check is cut from Citizen Action to the November Group for $100,000.  What happens to the money that comes into the November Group? How is that used? Oh, and by the way, let me just note, I don't want to forget this fact: When Rochelle Davis directed Citizen Action to send that $100,000 to the November Group, she hadn't even received an invoice for any services.

The invoice from the November Group doesn't come to Citizen Action until two days later. That's Government Exhibit 411. The November Group sends Rochelle Davis an invoice for $100,000. I mean, that's not how business usually works. Why not? Because this money isn't going for any business purpose of the November Group. It's going to benefit the Carey campaign. How do you know that?

Take a look back at...Defense Exhibit C. You can see that Martin Davis applied $100,000 from Citizen Action toward the cost of the Carey mailing. We know that because Special Agent Sollet told you that. That money, the $100,000 was applied to defray the costs of the Carey campaign mailing. Now, again, just like with the National Council of Senior Citizens, neither Jere Nash nor Bill Hamilton knew exactly how the money was going to end up benefiting the Carey campaign. But as I mentioned before, as the Judge is going to tell you, Bill Hamilton didn't need to know that detail to be a member of the conspiracy and neither did Jere Nash.

All that Bill Hamilton needed to know and that he did know was that this contribution to the AFL-CIO was made in exchange for some type of donation to the Carey campaign. And that's exactly what happened here. You know, there actually was one other thing on Bill Hamilton's mind when he made that contribution to the AFL-CIO. The other thing on his mind was that he didn't want to get caught. How do you know that? Let's go back to something we discussed a moment ago.

Bill Hamilton told Jere Nash that he couldn't defend another contribution to Citizen Action for $150,000. Why couldn't he? Because he couldn't justify a single penny more to that organization. He'd be sure to be found out. There's no legitimate reason for that kind of money to be going to Citizen Action at a time when the union was close to financial ruin, at least in terms of where it had been.

And besides, he knows that the $475,000 contribution to Citizen Action alone had caused a lot of controversy within the IBT so how could he possibly go back and say that he needed to send another $150,000? But he didn't balk when that same amount of money was going to go to the AFL-CIO. He didn't stop for a minute. He went ahead and sent it on. If this money, this $150,000 is really being used to defeat the Newt Gingrich Congress, why would it matter whether Bill Hamilton sent that money to Citizen Action or to the AFL-CIO? Why would that matter one bit?

If he had legitimate reasons to send another $150,000 out of the Teamsters' Union, then he could have sent it to whomever he wanted. There was no legitimate reason, ladies and gentlemen. There was no legitimate reason and that's why Bill Hamilton wouldn't send that money to Citizen Action and would only send it to the AFL-CIO because he, like everybody else in this scheme, didn't want to get caught.(27)

Thus, the burden is on you.  As an Executive Council Member, you occupy a position of trust within the AFL-CIO, and you are in the best position to advocate Trumka's removal.(29)  The February 15-17, 2000 Executive Council meeting in New Orleans, your first since Hamilton was convicted, provides an excellent opportunity to exercise your authority.  Beyond the labor movement, we, on behalf of the American public, request that you do so.

 The New York Times summarized the problem well:
 

Trumka...is within his rights to plead the Fifth Amendment, but for the sake of propriety he would do the A.F.L.-C.I.O. a favor if he stepped aside while the investigation is under way. Refusing to testify on grounds of self-incrimination may be acceptable in a criminal trial, but it hardly instills confidence in his leadership of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.(30)

Sincerely,
 
Ken Boehm
Chairman
 

cc:
Senator James Jeffords
Representative William Goodling
Representative Peter Hoekstra
Representative John Boehner
United States Attorney Mary Jo White
 

NOTES:
 
(1) See generally 1-2 National Labor Rel. Bd., Legislative History of the Labor-Management & Disclosure Act of 1959 (1985); John L. McClellan, Crime Without Punishment (1976); Robert F. Kennedy, The Enemy Within (1994).

(2) 73 Stat. 519 (1959) (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. @@ 401-531 (1999)).

(3) See Steven Greenhouse, Corruption Tests Labor While It Recruits, N.Y. Times, Jan. 3, 1999, at 1.14 ("[T]he current scandals, which have involved the laborers, hotel workers, teamsters and other unions, have caused some labor experts to question the widely held perception that union corruption has fallen markedly since the 1950's era of 'On the Waterfront,' when organized crime dominated many unions.").

(4) See Elizabeth Walpole-Hofmeister and John Herzfeld, Bevona Retires as Head of NYC Local; SEIU International Imposes Trusteeship, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 21, at A-7 (Feb. 2, 1999).

(5) See United States v. IBT, No. 88-CIV-4486 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 27, 1999); see also "New Evidence" Insufficient to Overturn Expulsion of Carey and Hamilton from IBT, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 170 at A-1 (Sept. 2, 1999).

(6) See United States v. Coia, No. 0010024 (D. Mass. filed Jan. 31, 2000); see also Brian Lockett, LIUNA's Coia Agrees to Plead Guilty on Tax Evasion Related to Ferrari Purchases, [2000] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 19, at A-1 (Jan. 28, 2000).

(7) See More New York City AFSCME Officials Charged in Vote-Rigging, Graft Investigation, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 118, at A-12 (June 21, 1999); see also Ousted President of AFSCME Local 372 Looted $2 Million, Prosecutors Charge, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 88, at A-5 (May 7, 1999) (reporting on the indictment of AFSCME Local 372 president Charles Hughes as well as the expulsion of Diop).

(8) See Brian Lockett, Fosco Fined, LIUNA Membership Revoked in Ruling From Independent Hearing Officer, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 200, at A-7 (Oct. 18, 1999).

(9) See Michael Bologna, Former Chief of Hotel Workers Union Granted Immunity from Criminal Prosecution, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 230, at A-7 (Dec. 1, 1998); see also Court Documents Indicate Hanley's Retirement Prompted by Financial Dealings, [1999] Daily. Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 98, at D-26 (May 21, 1998).

(10) See Michael Bologna, HERE's Chief Organizer Thomas Hanley Resigns to Settle Embezzlement Charges, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 175, at A-9 (Sept. 10, 1998).

(11) See United States v. Hamilton, No. 98-CR-393 (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 19, 1999); see also John Herzfeld, Jury Convicts Hamilton of Conspiring to Steer IBT Funds to Carey Campaign, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 224, at E-9 (Nov. 22, 1999).

(12) See Iron Workers Officials Accused of Embezzling, Wash. Post, Oct. 2, 1999, at B2.

(13) See United States v. Talarico, No. 98-CR-41 (N.D.N.Y. filed July 28, 1998); see also Former UFCW Secretary-Treasurer Sentenced to 30-Month Jail Term, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 145, at D-23 (July 29, 1998).

(14) See Steven Greenhouse, Document Details Abuses in Union of Civil Servants, N.Y. Times, Jan. 21, 2000, at A1.

(15) See Corruption Comes to the Federation, Wash. Times, Nov. 25, 1997, at A18 ("Some labor unions have long had trouble with corruption, mob influence and officials unable to distinguish between union money and their own money.  The federation itself, however, has never been tainted by charges of corruption.  On the contrary, it has been a bulwark for reformers fighting corruption in member unions.  That the AFL-CIO should now find itself tainted ñ well, perhaps it's best that George Meany didn't live to see the day.")

(16) See Decision of Kenneth Conboy to Disqualify IBT President Ron Carey, reprinted at: [1997] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 222, at D-32 (Nov. 18, 1997).

(17) Id.

(18) Id.

(19) See Bill Sammon, AFL-CIO Officer Takes the Fifth: According to Rule, Trumka Should Go, Wash. Times, Nov. 20, 1997, at A1.  The article also noted:  "In September [1997], just days after U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White implicated Mr. Trumka in the Teamsters scandal, the AFL-CIO adopted a new 'Ethical Practices Code' that some say was designed to protect Mr. Trumka.  The new code, enacted at the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, makes no mention of expelling officials who invoke the Fifth Amendment.  Rather, it calls for the expulsion of any officer ëwho is convicted of any felony involving the infliction of grievous bodily injury, any crime of dishonesty or any crime involving abuse or misuse of...position." Id.

(20) Memorandum of John J. Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO to AFL-CIO Executive Council Members and Presidents of National and International Unions (Nov. 21, 1997) (Sweeney concluded the memorandum: "Rich...and I thank you for all that you're doing.")

(21) Letter of Jonathan P. Hiatt, General Counsel, AFL-CIO, to Frank Garrison, President, Michigan AFL-CIO (Jan. 6, 1998).

(22) See Court Gifford, Sweeney Defends Trumka, Denies Role in Money-Laundering Scheme, [1998] Daily. Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 84, at D-6 (May 1, 1998); Steven Greenhouse, A.F.L.-C.I.O. Chief Tells Panel of Faith in Deputy, N.Y. Times, May 1, 1998, at A20; Bill Sammon, Labor Boss Denies He Knew of Spending; Trumka Took the Fifth, So AFL-CIO Chief Testifies in His Place, Wash. Times, May 1, 1998, at A6.

(23) Id.  Subcommittee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) later called on Trumka to voluntarily resign.  See Rep. Hoekstra Calls for Trumka to Resign or Take Leave of Absence, [1999] Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA) No. 88, at D-11 (May 7, 1998).

(24) No. 98-CR-393 (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 19, 1999).

(25) Id.  See also Herzfeld, supra note 11.

(26) Hamilton, at 2611-15 (emphasis added).

(27) Id. at 2709-18 (emphasis added).

(28) See supra notes 20-23.

(29) It is arguable that you have fiduciary duty to act.  See 29 U.S.C. ß 501(a) ("The officersÖand other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group.  It is, therefore, the duty of each such person...to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder.").   See Pignotti v. Local 3 Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 477 F.2d 825 (8th Cir.) (holding that Section 501 should be used as tool to correct abuses in a union's internal process of governance), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1067 (1973); Stelling v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 587 F.2d 1379, 1386-87 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944 (1979); Sabolsky v. Budzanoski, 457 F.2d 1245, 1250-51 n.8 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 853 (1972); see also Richardson v. National Post Office Mail Handlers, 442 F. Supp. 193, 195 (E.D. Va. 1977) ("[M]ismanagement, secrecy, failure to disclose...and failure to conduct union affairs by union officers as a 'position of trust' as required by law" constituted breach of fiduciary duty in violation of Section 501), remanded without opinion, 612 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir. 1979); International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1624 v. Virginia Int'l. Terminals, 914 F. Supp. 1335, 1340-42 (E.D. Va. 1996); Wade v. Teamsters Local 247, 527 F. Supp. 1169, 1177-78 (E.D. Mich. 1981).

(30) Growing Troubles for Labor, N.Y. Times, Nov. 28, 1997, at A38.
 

Note:  NLPC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation promoting ethics and accountability   in government through research, education and legal action. NLPC’s Organized   Labor Accountability Project which is investigating and exposing corruption in the Teamsters, LIUNA, HERE, AFL-CIO and many other union organizations.    NLPC publishes the fortnightly newsletter, Union Corruption Update.  For more  information, please visit www.nlpc.org.

Related Media Release

Organized Labor Accountability Project

NLPC Home Page