MR. LUSKIN: GEB Attorney calls Arthur Coia.
(WHEREUPON, the witness was duly sworn.)
ARTHUR COIA, called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Mr. Coia, could you state your full name for the record, please?
A: Arthur A. Coia.
Q: Do you hold a position with the Laborers' Union, sir?
Page 1053 - Page 1056
A: Yes. I do.
Q: What is that?
A: General President.
Q: How long have you held that position?
A: Approximately two years.
Q: And before that, have you been affiliated with the Laborers' Union?
A: Yes. I joined the Laborers in 1957.
Q: So you have been a member for almost 40 years?
A: And I've had, I've held various office positions, from local union, District Council, International representative, regional manager, General secretary/treasurer, and now General President.
Q: And your father is also Arthur Coia, is that right?
A: Yes. Arthur E. Coia.
Q: He is deceased now, is that right.?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he also affiliated with the Laborers' Union?
A: Yes. He was affiliated from 1933 until his passing in 1993; 60 years.
Q: Mr. Coia, when did you first hear of John Serpico?
A: 1984.
Q: What was the context, sir?
A: He was just put on the Executive Board of the Laborers' Union
Q: Have you ever heard of him before that?
A: No.
Q: Who put him on the General Executive Board?
A: He was elected to the Board in 1984.
Q: Who was the General President in1984?
A: Angelo Fosco.
Q: And do you know whether MR. Serpico was elected at convention or was he elected by the General Executive Board?
A: He was elected by the General Executive Board in 1984.
Q: Who nominated him for that position?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Would it normally be the prerogative of the General President to make a nomination to fill a vacancy on the G.E.B.?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you hear about Mr. Serpico next, after 1984, when you heard that he had become a vice president of LIUNA
A: 1985, when he testified before the President's Commission on Organized Crime
Q: What do you recall hearing about his testimony before the President's Commission on Organized Crime?
A: Allegations of ties to Mob figures in Chicago.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: What were you at the time Mr. Coia? What position did you hold in the union at the time?
THE WITNESS: I was an International representative. ;
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Working out of?
THE WITNESS: New England region.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Now, in 1985. when you heard the allegations that Mr. Serpico was associated with organized crime did you personally have any way of knowing one way or another whether those allegations were true?
A: No. I didn't formulate any determination of whether they were true or false.
Q: And you had no personal information about him at that time?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Now, over the nest four years, what contact, if any, did you have with Mr. Serpico?
A: Well in 1986 convention, which was held in Miami, and then from there, probably two or three times a year up through 1989 at either Executive Board meeting or meetings, or a conference.
Q: And you weren't a member of the General Executive Board then, were you?
A: No.
Q: How would you come to attend General Executive Board meetings?
A: I attended the Board meetings, I accompanied my father, that was from 1987 through 1989.
Q: And your father was a member of the General Executive Board,
A: Yes. He was a General secretary/treasurer.
Q: Did there come a time when you wanted to succeed your father to the General Executive Board?
A: Yes.
:Q: When was that? Mr. Coia?
A That was in 1989. My father was seriously ill. For his benefit and the health reasons. I thought it would be best if he would retire and enjoy some years that he had. And I thought that I would like to get on the Board myself.
Q: And what did you do about the possibility of succeeding your father?
A: I contacted the General President Angelo Fosco.
Q: And when was this as best you can recall?
A: Either in the later part of December of 1988, or the first week in January of 89 in that vicinity, in that time frame.
Q: Did you call him on the telephone or did you come visit him personally?
A: I spoke to - I called him on the phone and asked, that my father was ill ,was thinking of retiring and I wanted to speak with him. So I went to Washington and spoke with. him personally.
Q: What do you recall - how long between this phone call did you come to Washington to meet with Mr. Fosco?
A: A couple of day, later.
Q: Tell me what you can recall about the :meeting in Washington, what you said to Mr. Fosco, what he said to you.
MR. LYDON: Can we have a foundation as to who else was present.?
BY MR. LUSKIN:
a: Was anyone else present at this meeting with Mr. Fosco?
A: W hen I met-
Q: When you met with him in Washington
A: No; just myself and Angelo Fosco.
Q: Okay. Can you recall what was said at that meeting?
A: Yes. I explained to him that my father was sick, wanted to retire and that I would like to come on the Board.
C: What did Mr. Fosco say in response?
A: He said that, well, he as generally supportive of that position. He acknowledged the work that I had been doing in New England. He said but he would like me to contact John Serpico. I want you to talk to him and I'll talk to some other Board members myself.
Q: And did Or. Fosco identify anyone other than Mr. Serpico that he wanted you talk to?
A: No. He said he wanted me to, he said, call John Serpico and then you can get back to me.
Q: And did you in fact after- was there anything else said at this meeting that you can recall by you or Mr. Fosco?
A: Well I thanked him for his position of support .And that was basically it. That was basically it.
Q: Was the idea, to be clear, that you would become the General secretary/treasurer and not simply vice president.
A: I expressed to him that I wanted to succeed my father in his role as General secretary/treasurer.
Q: And he was he supportive of that?
A: Yes.
Q Now, did you in fact call John Serpico as Mr. Fosco recommended?
A: Yes.
Q: How long after your meeting with Mr. Fosco did you all Mr. Serpico?
A: It could have been the same day or the next day. It was very close timewise.
Q: What do you recall about that telephone conversation? What did you say to Mr. Serpico?
A: I told him that I had spoken to Angelo, that my father had wanted to retire, he was sick, and I wanted to succeed him, and Angelo told me to call him. And then John said he would get back to me. He called me two or three days later, and told me to come to Chicago.
Q: Can you recall anything else about either of those two conversations?
A: No. We made a date to meet in Chicago. And I came in to O' Hare Airport and met John there
Q: Did you know what the purpose of the meeting in Chicago was to be?
A: He just told me over the phone that he wanted to see me in Chicago, and I came..
Q: Based on that conversation did you know where you would be meeting or who you might be meeting other than Mr. Serpico?
A: No.
Q: You say you did go to Chicago?
A: Yes.
Q: How long after this second phone conversation did you travel to Chicago?
A: Probably two days, three days after that.
Q: Plane lands in Chicago you get off the plane. What happens next?
A: John meets me at the gate where I came in. the jet way. And from there -
Q: Was he by himself? I'm sorry. Was Mr. Serpico by himself when he met you at the gate?
A: Yes.
Q. What happened next?
A: Well then we walked from the gate through the airport, then we stopped at an area where there was a little coffee shop. And he said I want you to meet a friend of mine.
Q: You were still in the airport?'
A: Yes in the airport area, the concourse area.
Q: And what happened next?
A: He said to me I want to - I want you to meet a friend of mine and he is sitting over there: and brought me over to this person.
Q:: And was this a person you recognized.?
A: No.
Q: Were you introduced to this person?
A: Yes.
Q: Who did Mr. Serpico tell you is the person you were meeting.?
A: Vincent Solano.
Q: Can you tell me what happened next?
A: I went over to the table and he introduced me and at that point Solano told me to sit down and told John to leave us alone and to walk over to another area.
Q: Did Mr. Serpico in fact leave you and Mr. Solano alone?
A: Yes, he did.
Q Did he disappear completely from sight or did he stay in this coffee area?
A: No. He was in the coffee area but out of hearing lengths
Q: What happened next?
A: Well. I sat down. and Solano asked me how my father was. He said, I understand he's ill and I understand also that you are coming on the Board. And I said yes. Then he said to me I want you to understand this, that John Serpico will be the next General President of this union. He pounded on the table and pointed over. He says, we're grooming that man there to be the next General President. He said it quite emphatically and -
Q: What else, if anything ,did he say to you?
A: That was about it really.
Q: What was his manner in this conversation?
A: Well his demeanor and manner was forceful. He told me. He was emphatic about it. And it was a statement that he made to me. And I didn't answer it.
Q: Did he indicate to you in any manner why and I think his words were Mr. Serpico, we are grooming Mr. Serpico to be the next president? Did he explain why at all?
A: No, he didn't say why. It was forceful. It was not in a position of - it was a position of telling me. There was no reasons or answers or questions to be delivered at that point.
Q And did he indicate who "we were?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Who's we?
MR. LUSKIN: "We".
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Oh the term .'we.' I'm sorry.
MR. LUSKIN: Yes.
BY THE WITNESS
A: I understood it to mean it wasn't union politicking that we were talking about here. I had heard of Solano through the organized crime committee's reports. The whole thing which I indicated earlier came to be a reality in a sense ,with Serpico and Solano, and me sitting there. And the rumor issue became a reality.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Now, what if anything did you say in response to what Mr. Solano said to you.?
A: I didn't say anything in response. As a matter of fact, at that point, he called John back to the table, and may have talked about the weather very casually; really got out of there. That was it. He dismissed the both of us. We got up and we left.
Q: How long in total did you spend sitting with Mr. Solano privately?
A: About five minutes.
Q : And what happened after that.?
A: Well he got up. We left, said good-bye. And I went to the - or John and I left .And we went to the ticket counter. I got a ticket back to go to Rhode Island.
Q: Now how long were you in Chicago total?
A: Probably an hour and a half to two hours. I mean. by the time I got a ticket back and got the next plane back.
Q Now did you and Sir. Serpico have any conversation at all about your succeeding your father to the Board while you were there in Chicago?
A: No, not really. He inquired again about the health of my father and basically he would get some support of other Board members, told me to get some support from Board members, and he would get back to Angelo.
Q: Now based on the circumstances of this meeting at O'Hare Airport here in Chicago, did you form an understanding of who was in control of the circumstances?
A: Yes I did.
Q: And what was that based on.?
A: Based on the way it as presented to me. The way he told John to leave the table, to leave us alone, the way he called him back, that this his show. I'm talking about Solano. The way he got up abruptly, it wasn't like, you know, thank you Mr. Coia for being here and any niceties. It was, okay time's up ,and the show is over.
Q: Did you know what position Mr. Solano held within the union at that time?
A: I'm not sure if I knew at that time. but I'd have to say he was either a president or business manager of one of the locals in Chicago.
Q: And Mr. Serpico was an International vice-president?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have any doubt at all about who was in control of the situation?
A: Not the way it came down, no.
Q: Did you also reach an understanding about the purpose of this trip to Chicago which you just made?
A: I was brought into this meeting to tell me that, here I'm coming on the Board and John Serpico will be the next president
Q: And did you form an understanding of what Mr. Solano meant when he said that we, or Chicago, were grooming Mr. Serpico to be the next president., `
A: I understood that the scenario that developed ,again, the demeanor, the emphasis that was placed on the words, the rumor of the organized crime committee report ,the whole thing became a reality. It was something- I don't know- like out of the movies. That is what I would have to describe it as.
Q: When you say the rumors became reality, what conclusion did you draw about what had just happened?
A That I was told that he was going to be the next General President. That's the way it was. It was a matter of fact; and that the issues that developed out of that Crime Commission was a reality, that this group of people were controlling the show.
Q: And did you form a conclusion based on that meeting about whether Mr. Fosco was aware of the circumstances that you encountered in Chicago?
A: Right. After that meeting I formed a conclusion. He directed me to John Serpico. John' Serpico directed me to Vincent Solano. And I'm going back to Angelo Fosco. So the conclusion that I formed was that the, there was- everyone was aware of this particular meeting but only me, before I got there.
Q Despite the fact that you had come to the conclusion that the rumor about Mob influence in LIUNA was a reality ,as you put it, did you decide nevertheless to go ahead and try to assume a seat on the General Executive Board?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Would you tell me why?
A: Well I came to the conclusion that there were a lot of good people in the union, that there may have been some bad apples here and there but generally speaking, there were a lot of good people and a lot of good people on that Board. And the union should go forward to do what it was supposed to do in good ,which in most instances it was
Q. And did you form any kind of strategy about how you were going to pursue that goal?
A: Well not then. I didn't form any strategy. My next - I had to in fact get elected.
Q: Let me stop you then, and ask you what happened next. Let's try and get back on track here. Were you subsequently elected to be General secretary/treasurer?
A: Yes. A couple weeks later, maybe two or three weeks later. The Board met in Florida. My father submitted his letter of retirement. And the Board elected me unanimously. That was on February 11 or 12 of '89.
Q: On becoming General secretary/treasurer - let me stop you for a second, and ask you if you can describe for me the duties of the General secretary/treasurer of LIUNA
A: Well, they are limited. They basically handled the books and records and monitoring the financial issues. The general day-to day operation of the union were in the powers of the authority of the General President. General secretary/treasurer monitored the investment of the union, auditing program. So they were limited to the financial transactions, I'd have to say.
Q: Now you testified a minute ago that based on this meeting in Chicago, you got the word from Mr. Solano, you formed the opinion that the allegations about Mob control of LIUNA were essentially true, is that right?
A: Well there were a lot of good people in LIUNA. Mob control at the General President level, yes.
Q: Well, and my question is, what if anything on becoming General secretary/treasurer did you do about that?
A: Well, I did a lot. I did a lot, especially from 1989 to the middle of 1992.I first went down to Washington and got a picture of the - or lay of the land, as we would say, structure of how International headquarter was laid out. people, departments, how they ran; developed a program on some of the things that I thought were, could make the organization more efficient, spoke to Angelo Fosco about that. I developed or analyzed the regional office structures, specific regions in particular, brought forward some new innovative programs that make the union more open, especially in labor management and training and education, health and safety. I also hat to direct certain priorities, to have the members more informed and communicate better with them, make the membership and the regions and the district councils more aware of what my abilities were. I was younger then, you know, back around 1989; had to develop a certain level of respect for the - from the people at headquarters, department heads, certain level of respect from the people in the field. , And in that time and in that process, I paid close attention to the individuals that were employed by us in the field, our International representatives, and also the regional offices.
Q: Let me stop you there.
A: I made -
Q: Sorry.
A: You know why? Because this is a process that developed from '89 to '92.I did that, and at the same rime tried to develop a respectful and energetic rapport with the General Executive Board. It was, almost tried to politic, because I just, I mentioned to you this 1989 meeting, and either myself or someone else on that Board had to be put in the position of assuming the General President's role, because we, "we" meaning the union, the members, could not afford to have anyone that was outlined in that Commission's report head this organization. We had a cloud on the organization for a long time, very long time. And that hampered our organizing efforts. That hampered our collective bargaining issues. It hampered our abilities to get federal grants, So we needed someone in a General President's role that could carry that message forward, and not be hampered by a cloud of suspicion, and dealing with organized come figures or undesirables. That could not be. So I set out for a program to make the Union better in one respect, and to politic, so that in the event Fosco retired, or decided not to run again, that someone, either my or someone else would be in position to assume the President's role, and not John Serpico.
Q: Now, during this time period, 1989, 1990, when you first got down there as General Secretary/treasurer, did you have relatively close contact with Mr. Fosco?
A: I did.
a: Did you ever raise with Mr. Fosco the concerns you had about organized crime influence?
A: I did. I told -
Q Tell me when it happened.
A: I told him that this organization has been under a cloud for a long time.
Q When did this conversation tactic place?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Can you tell us approximately when this first came up?
THE WITNESS: Well, I first of all got my feet implanted in the position as General Secretary/treasurer. When I got there, my first conversations with him about trying to develop new programs, new structure, ways of minimizing any undesirable effort on this union, probably six months into the office. I pointed out to him that a better updating or better auditing updating system should be put into place; a compliance program. I learned that there were people in the field that were doing two jobs, where they weren't able to handle one, getting paid for two. I brought this out to him. And I also discovered in that period that Mr. Serpico was assistant to the General President. I wasn't aware of that before. And I told him that, you should make an effort to put someone else in that position, someone like Jim Norwood or a Lou Ellysie or a Carl Booker.
Q:: When did that conversation take place, as best you can recall? Let's just focus on that conversation.
MR. LYDON: And who else was present?
MR. LUSKIN: Well. I'll ask it. Thank you.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q When does it the place?
A: Well, I had a number of conversations with him. The first conversation -
Q: When was the first conversation?,
A: - dealing -
Q:: About Mr. Serpico being - your concerns about Mr. Serpico being special assistant to the President ,.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Roughly the period. roughly.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: Probably four months later, which would be four months from February.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Was anybody else present when you were talking to Mr. Fosco?
A: No, not then.
Q: What did you say to him?
A: I said to him. I didn't realize that John was the assistant to the General President,
Q And when did that take place.?
A: And he told me that that was around 1987 or 1988, in that time frame. Well, I said, why did that take place? Because you know what developed in the Commission's report. You know what the problem is in Chicago. Why did you allow this to happen.? You are only , putting us under a cloud more by doing this.
Q: What did he say in response?
A: He said, well, it had to be like that.
Q: Did he explain?
A: No.
Q: - why it had to be?
A: No. And I didn't go into it any more either at that time.
Q: Now, in these first several months, were there any other matters related to the possibility of organized crime influence that you raised with Mr. Fosco?
A: Well, as I was going through and developing the regions or reviewing the regions, we pointed out there was special International representatives, which are part timers.
Q: Let me stop you and ask, are those International positions, people paid by the International?
A: Yes.
Q:: Go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
A: I'm sorry. I lost my -
Q: I asked you, you were starting to tell me that you found that there were positions, part-time positions called special International representatives.
A: Right. They were special International representatives, which we, which were classified as part timers. There were no records of any activity being developed. I told him, I said, these people are basically no-shows. How do you allow this to happen?
Q: Who were these people, And where were these people?
A: Well. the time, we are into the end of 89. Frank Caruso was one. And I believe another one was Palermo, Palermo. As time went on, others were hired and the same problem or the same conversations I had with him.
Q: Okay. But focusing on these first two, Palermo and Caruso, did you believe these to be no-show jobs?
A: I did. yes.
Q: What did you say, if anything, to Mr. Fosco?
A: I told him, how come they are on our payroll?
Q: Was anyone present when you raised this with him?
A: No.
Q: Anyone else present?
A: No.
Q: What did he say in response?
A: He may have been silent. I'm not even sure he gave a response to it. It is tough to really remember that
Q: Did you raise this issue with him on more than one occasion?'
A: In 1992, on the no-shows, again, after the convention, at that time, there was another individual put on without me even knowing it, which was John Matassa. And I told him then, how come this fellow is, you just put him on, when it doesn't have the right appearance? If they are not doing anything, this is wrong. He said. well, I was told to put him on.
Q: Did he tell you who told him to put him on?
A: No.
Q: Are Mr. Palermo, Mr. Caruso and Mr. Matassa all from Chicago?
A: Yes, yes.
a: Now, moving ahead to 1991, the next convention, after that, when is the next time, if at all, that the subject of Mr. Serpico possibly succeeding Mr. Fosco came up, that you can recall?
A: Right after the convention; well, the first part of 1992.The convention was in September of '91. So first part of '92.Angelo started to talk about retiring, and just casually talking about it. And then the subject really blew up in the middle of '92, when one day I was in the office, and Carl Booker come to speak with me, and said that -
MR. LYDON: Can we just stop here and get a foundation for this conversation, as to who was present,
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Give us an idea of where it is, and roughly what time.
MR. LUSKIN: Sure.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q:: Let me ask you, where did this conversation take place, Mr. Coia?
A: In my office; he came down or came up from his office.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: This is in D.C., sir?
THE WITNESS: This is in Washington, yes.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: In the headquarter of LIUNA in Washington?
A: Yes. My office was on the seventh floor. He came to my office, and said to me that Mary, which was-
MR. LYDON: Is there embody else present.?
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Is there anybody else present?
A: Carl Booker and myself.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Mr. Coia, who is Carl Booker?
THE WITNESS: Carl Booker?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: What was his position at the time?
THE WITNESS: He was director of jurisdiction.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q:: Did Mr. Booker also function in a de facto capacity as an assistant to Mr. Fosco?
A: He wasn't - there was no formal title. His formal title was director of jurisdiction. But he helped him
Q: But were those responsibilities that he actually exercised?
A: Did that and he had an assistant by the name of Steven Hammond. So Carl's real job was to answer the mail for Angelo and work with Angelo.
Q: I'm sorry. I broke your train here to establish this foundation, but we have to do it. Mr. Booker came to your office on the seventh floor at headquarters in-
A: That is what I said. I don't know if he came down, because he may have been upstairs with Angelo, which is, his office was on the eighth floor. Or he may have been in his office on the fifth. I'm not sure.
Q: He came to your office?
A: He came to my office. He came up or he came down.
Q: He ended up in your office is that fair?
A: He came to my office yes. And he said to me that Mary, Mary Devella, which was Angelo Fosco's secretary was very upset and may have even been crying, because Angelo told her that he was retiring and that she had to leave also; further went on and said that the reason is that he told Mary that John Serpico would be replacing him as president, and he would be taking his secretary, or people down to take her job.
Q: Is that all that happened in this conversation?
A: That's basically it, yeah. So I immediate -
Q: What did you do?
A: I was very disturbed over it because I had had these conversations with Angelo. He knew my feelings. He knew what the problem was. So I went upstairs, spoke to Mary and said that, did he just tell you -
Q: Was anybody - let me stop you. Was anybody else present?
A: May have been Carl. I'm not sure. But I stormed upstairs, went in to see Mary; did he tell you that he was retiring, and John was replacing him?
Q: What did she say?
A: She said yes.
Q: What did you do next?
A: And he is taking some people down from Chicago? She said yes. I went in to see him at that point and closed the door and started yelling at him
Q: Was anybody else present?
A: It was just me and him. Maybe Mary heard it - I'm not sure - because her office is right outside. But I was yelling at him
Q: What were you yelling about.?
A: That this is - first of all, I asked him did you tell her that you were retiring, and that John was replacing you., He said yes. Then I said you know the problems that this union has had in the past, you know the problems you personally went through back in 1980; how can you allow, even think of bringing John Serpico and replacing you in this position?
Q: Let me stop you for a second here. What problem, in 1980 were you referring to?
A: There were accusations and allegations and ultimately indictment on Angelo that he had been controlled by the Mob in Chicago.
Q: Okay.
A: So I said, with all these problems that you had and this union has had .you cannot do this. Do me a favor I said to him, stay in your job. I'll do your work. I'm not going to get into this. He says, well, I can't really do that because I have no one to turn to in Chicago anymore. I said, well, what are you talking about? He said, well, Vincent Solano is dead now. I said, well, I didn't even know that. That was the first time I had heard that. So he had said, well, he is dead. I have no one to turn to. I said, look: just stay here and I'll do the work for you.
Q: Did you underhand, did you have an understanding about what Mr. Fosco meant when he said to you, Vincent Solano is dead I have nobody to turn to?
A: Right
Q: What did you understand that to mean?
A: That his contact man, Solano, was no longer around, and he had no one to turn to, and someone else was calling the shots, which he did not have a friendly relationship with,
Q: Contact with whom?'
A: The Mob.
Q: Was he referring, you think, to the District Council or the local unions in Chicago?
A: No, no, no.
Q: What else, if anything, did you say in this conversation?
A: That was, I said we have done so much, I've tried to do so much in the union, and here you are, trying to take it down, and I'm not going to stand for it. As a matter of fact, if that is, and you can convince the Board to have him succeed you, I will quit. And I will take the key people in this organization in this building back to New England with me. And that was a seeking out people like Carl Booker or Steve Hammond, people that made the operation run effectively. And that was the end of the conversation at that point.
Q: Is that everything you can recall that you said or he said?
A: I think so. He just sat there and listened to me. I was very upset with him. I was banging the table. I said this, you can't do this. You can't do this to these people. You can' t do it to people like Booker and Ellysie and Hammond and the rest of the people down there. You just can't.
Q: And apart from his comment about Mr. Solano being dead, did he say anything in response to this?
A: No, no.
Q Now after you left his office that day, did you form some sort of strategy or plan about how you were going to deal with the threat that Mr. Fosco would retire and designate Mr. Serpico as his successor?
A: Well, I'd have to reach out now to the Board, and subtly. I didn't tell anybody what happened, the way it happened I said that he is anticipating retiring and what their position would be, subtly. But about a month or two, month after that, he got sick: Angelo Fosco got sick, might have been a month or two after that And I had learned from the family that he was very sick, very sick. There was rumors around that he may not ever come back to the office again; he was that ill. At that point -
Q Did that lead you to believe that things might be imminent in terms of his succession?
A: Yes. I stepped up the politicking issue. I informed the Board that he was very ill. I didn't want to make anybody panic over it. But I started the - I had to tell them also, because I didn't want anyone to pull any rugs out from under anyone. So it was a process of him or his health deteriorating; that's it.
Q: And you say this is - when was this in time, just so we are clear on the sequence?
A: .November.
Q: Of 1992?
A: '92, yes. November.
Q: What happened next, if you recall?
A: Well, I was getting reports or rumors, whatever, statements back from Chicago on the condition of his health, both from the family and others.
Q: What were those reports?
A: That he was doing poorly, very poor.
Q: What else did you hear, if anything.?
A: That he we going into the hospital. He was at one time in a coma. I also heard that John Matassa and John Serpico were going to the house.
MR. LYDON: I'll object. unless we have some foundation for this as well. Even though it is hearsay, we ought to know where, when, who was present
MR. LUSKIN: I'll try and connect up the dots
MR. LYDON: Wait. It is better than connecting up the dots. I'm asking for a foundation. He is starting to relate a conversation that he heard. Where did he hear? Who was present?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I think that's fair. I think it is fair to describe it, in what fashion he heard. We can certainly hear hearsay, if it is third-party, rumors, so forth, at least identify where it came from.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: With respect to what you are about to start telling me and start to say something about Mr. Matassa and Mr. Serpico. whom did you hear those reports from?
A: Well, Carl Booker had a close relationship with the family. So Marie Fosco was relating as to his health condition to Carl, and as to visitors. I had gotten information back also from Bruce Monaco, not to me directly, through either John LeConche. who was a training director for Laborers/AGC and Lou Ellysie.
Q. Who is Mr. Ellysie?
A: Lou Ellysie was a head of a department down in Washington. He was head of contractual maintenance department.
Q: Tell us who Bruce Monaco is, by the way.
A: Bruce Monaco is Angelo's or was Angelo's stepson. Now, I don't know. I heard that they were going there. I don't know the amounts of time, how often.
MR. LYDON: He heard this from all of these people?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. LYDON: Or who specifically here?
MR. LUSKIN: Let me ask a question.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Direct him and have him delineate, if he knows.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: First, what did you hear from Mr. Booker, from Marie Fosco though Mr. Booker, about -
A: You have to understand, these people are very concerned, not only of the health of Anglo Fosco, but they were concerned about the future of the union. Carl Booker -
MR. LYDON: I object to that. This is not responsive to the question. I can't just let him narrate here.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I understand that.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: But people
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: He has to give a little bit of background as to the, as I understand it, the person's health is deteriorating, and he is getting reports. It is in this context I think he is giving this. Now, without going into something elaborate, could you direct it, so we can get to transmission of the information?
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Sure. What were you hearing, first focusing on Mr. Booker, what were you hearing back from Mr. Booker that he related to you that he was hearing from Marie Fosco, Mr. Fosco's wife? What did you hear?
A: He would talk to her daily, to find out Angelo's condition. And he would report it to me, because in a sense, I was running the union in that position. I had to know where, what condition he was in. I had to know that. And he would report back to me.
Q: And apart from Mr. Fosco's health, what else did you hear from Mr. Booker?
A: That John Matasssa and John Serpico were visiting him often. And that concerned me.
Q: Why did it concern you?
A: Based upon Angelo's statement a few months earlier, and based upon the 1989 airport meeting, it concerned me.
Q: Now, did you hear- now, focusing on what you heard from Mr. Monaco, through Mr. LeConche or Mr. Ellysie, were you hearing similar reports from them to what you heard back from Mr. Booker?
MR. LYDON: I object to the leading. You can have him relate what he heard from these people.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: Well, it wasn't similar really. It wasn't similar.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: What did you hear?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: What did you hear? Just differentiate, what did you hear from Monaco? What did you hear from LeConche?
MR. LUSKIN: I think he said Monaco was a source, and that was through either Mr. LeConche or Mr. Ellysie.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes. I didn't speak to Monaco personally. Monaco gave updates to LeConche on a few occasions, he gave updates as to health; Ellysie and Mazza also. Mazza was the regional manager in Chicago. He would give me updates as to the condition of Angelo.
Q: And either through Mr. Monaco or from Mazza, did you also hear anything about visits by Mr. Matassa and Mr. Serpico?
A: Yea.
Q : What did you hear?
A: Who said what at what time and how many times, this was a general, general conveyance to me, as to health and as to politicking, that was getting back to me, so that these people know that I knew what was going on.
Q: Did there come a -
A: Some of it wasn't solicited. Some just came in on their own accord.
Q: Did there come a time in this period, November or December of 1992, that you actually went to Chicago yourself?
A: Yes, during Christmastime.
Q: Christmas of '92?
A: I went to see Angelo myself. His condition got somewhat better, somewhat in the sense that he was in the hospital. He wasn't in a severely critical state. But he was in a terminal state. I don't know how to explain that. I'm not a doctor. But he was doing better but not good. I went to see him
Q: He wasn't going to recover, would that be fair?
A: Yes, that's right.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Mr. Coia, who's running the union at this time?
THE WITNESS: Me.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA : Is that by terms of your office succession as General secretary or-
THE WITNESS: No. I assume it - I was running it, I mean but there is no provision in the Constitution at that point.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Political reality, you assumed it.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Had you in fact been assuming a lot of responsibilities of Mr. Fosco in the preceding months?
A: that was okay, because I indicated to him, if he wanted to - do not retire, and I would do his duties for him It just so happens that two months later, he became ill.
Q: So if I understand ,you actually offered to him, if you stay on, I'll do the job?
A: Yes, that's right. So I went to, I was in- I came to Chicago to visit him in the hospital. It was during Christmastime.
Q: Was anyone else present?'
A: Yes.
Q: Who was present.?
A: .Marie Fosco, and Terry Healy, and I.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Mr. Healy is a union official here in Chicago?
THE WITNESS: Yes. He is the new regional manager in Chicago. He replaced Joe Mazza.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: They were there. And when I got into the room, Angelo excused them. He wanted to talk to me privately. So they left the room And the first thing he said, I want you to know, Arthur, that John is taking over. And in the same breath, Peter Fosco will replace John as vice-president, which is my son, and Terry Healy will be the regional manger. And the amazing thing is, he didn't give me a chance to say, how are you, how are you feeling, how is my family. I mean first thing out of his mouth was, John is taking over.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Did you say anything in response?
A: Yeah, I said, Angelo, you're crazy. You know I will not go along with that. I will not permit it. And as I told you before, if that ever happens. I have to quit. And by the way, I didn't want to upset the man. I said, why don't you concentrate on getting better, and we'll discuss it another time. I stayed there about another 15 minutes, and then I left.
Q: And in the other 15 minutes, did you have any other conversations on this subject matter?
A: No. It would only- it - too emotional. I didn't want to get into that.
Q: Now, focusing on the period of time between Christmas of '92 and the General Executive Board meeting on Mr. Fosco's death, which testimony was established is in early February of 1993, what if anything did you do concerning the question of who would succeed Mr. Fosco as President?
A: I made some telephone calls to Board members, told them his condition was bad; I saw it firsthand. I waited, as time went on, and the whole board came to Washington for the Presidential inauguration, which was I believe the second week in January. I got the whole board there, spoke to them individually, told them that it did not look like Angelo was going to recover, and I would like their support, if in fact he died. It wasn't a question of, if in fact he retired. And they all gave me a commitment.
Q: Did you solicit Mr. Serpico's support.?
A: No.
Q: Is there anybody else on the Board who you didn't approach?
A: Mr. Vinall
Q: Why was that?
A: Well, I thought he was quite friendly with Mr. Serpico. He has been on the Board the longest, and I didn't - I didn't think it was appropriate.
Q: Moving ahead to the G E.B. meetings in February of 1993, did there come a time when you heard that Mr. Fosco was actually going to leave his bed and come down to those meetings?
A: The Executive Board meeting was the second week in February, second week. .And he got out of his bed and got a private plane to come down to Florida. I couldn't believe it. That's what happened.
Q: Why couldn't you believe it?
A: Well, the man was seriously sick. He was blown up. It was, his whole body was distended from fluid. He couldn't pass it. I mean, his organs were breaking down. If you seen a person that is sick with cancer, or kidney failure, that is what happened.
Q: What significance, if any, did you attach to his willingness to get on a plane and fly down to Florida in that condition?
A: My significance?
Q: Yes.
A: He was coming down to gather support from the Board to endorse John Serpico to replace him as president.
Q: What happened next? Did he do that?
A: No, He died on February 11, which was the third or fourth day of our meetings.
Q: When you heard about his death on February l 1, what time of the day was that, Mr. Coia?
A: Approximately 3:00.
Q: What did you do next?
A: Well, we had an office at the Americana, which is like a cabana setup there. And most of the vice-presidents were there. And those that weren't, I sent someone out to get them, and told them that he had died. Most had heard. And I indicated to them that were - we would have an election the next day to replace Angelo.
Q: So did you in fact have a meeting with all the vice president members of the G.E.B. present?
A: Yes, everyone was present, yes: told them that there would be an election the next day. I did that for a couple of reasons. One, I did not want to, I personally did not want to go back to Chicago to have an election after his burial.
O: Why not?
A: There was a whole bunch of problems that happened during Angelo's election in 1975. I don't know if they were true or not. But they were reported, that there was bad politicking going on. And I didn't want that to happen.
Q: What do you mean by bad politicking? How specific can you be here? What happened in 1975?
MR. LYDON: Objection, foundation, as to who he heard this from and when.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: It is bad politicking
HEARING OFFICER VIARA: Time out. There is an objection on the record. What is your objection Mr. Lydon?
MR. LYDON: My objection is one of foundation He is now alluding to a conversation again or it has to be conversation He was asked what he heard, I'd like to know where and when he heard it, from whom, who else was present
BY THE WITNESS:
A: It was in the-
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Just a moment, sir, just a moment.
MR. LUSKIN: We are going about his state of mind here.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: He is talking about his state of mind. He said he doesn't know whether it is true or not. He said it is something he is reacting upon. It is reasonable to as him, what was this, quote, "bad politics," and how did he hear it, to give it some credibility.
MR. LUSKIN: Of course.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I think that ought to be the question. Mr. Lydon wants a foundation, as good as you can give a foundation, because he says it is giving his state of mind.
MR. LUSKIN: I'll furnish as much of a foundation as the witness can.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Along those lines.
MR. LUSKIN: Sure.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Rephrase your questions.
MR. LUSKIN: Fine, that's fine.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I have a question. When you finish this particular conversation - it is about 20 after 12, we are going to go the rest of the afternoon - can we finish this conversation and take a break? Is that all right?
MR. LYDON: Fine.
MR. LUSKIN: That is fine.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Finish this little scenario about his state of mind, what he heard. Then we will break for about half an hour. I mean an hour, okay?
MR. LUSKIN: Okay.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Mr. Coia, when you talk about bad politics that you associated with Chicago and the election of Angelo Fosco, what do you mean?
A: That was reported-that there was some Mob influence in the President's Commission on Organized Crime report that that went on in 1975. I don't know if it was true or not. But based upon everything that unfolded from me from 1989 to 1992. I placed some truth in that. So I didn't want that to happen. And if I was going to be elected the General President, I didn't want that to be surrounding my tenure in office, nor did I want to expose anybody on that Board to any what I'd call bad politicking. That is the No. 1 reason. No. 2, Carl Booker was with the family when Angelo died. He went there at my direction. because it looked like he was not going to make it. And I asked him to inquire of the family, which is Marie Fosco, whether they had any preference of having the election immediately, or wait after the funeral. And she said that she would prefer to have it immediately, so there would not be any kind of distractions while the wake was going on and the funeral.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I think now we can stop.
MR. LUSKIN: Okay.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Off the record.
(WHEREUPON, the hearing was recessed until 1:20 p.m., this date, May 19, 1995.)
OFFICE OF THE INDEPEDENT HEARING OFFICER
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN SERPICO No.95-020
May 19,1995
BEFORE MR. PETER F. VAIRA, HEARING OFFICER.
MR. JAMES A. GEORGES
APPEARANCES:
COMEY, BOYD & LUSKIN.
2828 Pennsylvania Avenue. N.W. Suite 200.
Washington, D C. 20007-3763),by:
MR. ROBERT D. LUSKIN.
MR. DANIEL A. BRAUN.
appeared on behalf of the G.E.B.
WINSTON & STRAWN.
(35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, 60601 9703),
MR. MATTHIAS LYDON,
MR. JOHN W. CHRISTOPHER. appeared on behalf of John Serpico.
ALSO PRESENT
MR JOHN SERPICO
REPORTED BY: MARY K.AY BELCOLORE. CSR.
Page 1110
ARTHUR A. COIA,
called as a witness herein, having been previously duly sworn and having testified was examined and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Mr. Coia, when we broke for lunch, you were, you had just finished answering the reason, giving us the reasons why you wanted to hold the election in Miami the next day, rather than postpone it to Chicago. After the General Executive Board meeting that afternoon of the 11th, did you have occasion to meet with Mr. Serpico that afternoon or evening?
A: After I notified the Board of the death -
Q: Yes, sir.
A: - and the election, I then had written a formal notification, given to each Board member at their hotel room, as to the time and place of the election, which would be the following day, which I believe was Friday, which was the 12th.
After the meeting- it wasn't a formal meeting, I mean, everyone was there. I made an announcement as to what was happening. I went to the Fosco house, paid my respects. I went there with my wife, and stayed there for a couple of hours. And then I had something to eat, and then I came back to the hotel
Q: Did you see Mr. Serpico at any time that afternoon or evening after this meeting?
A: He was at the meeting. Then after the meeting -
Q: After the meeting. yeah.
A: - this 'was around 8 or 9:00 at night, when I came back to the hotel, I saw him in the lobby.
Q: Were you with anyone at that time?
A: I was with my wife, Armand Sabitoni, and Albert Lepore.
Q: Who is Mr. Sabitoni?
A: Sabitoni at that time was regional manager of New England, and now he is a vice-president and New England regional manager.
Q: And how about Albert Lepore? Who is he?
A: Albert Lepore is a friend of mine.
Q: Was Mr. Serpico with anybody, or was he by himself?
A: He was alone.
Q: Did you two have a conversation?
A: Yes. I went over to him and we spoke. He said that, I guess I got this all wrapped up - meaning me - with respect to the General Presidency and then he asked me, do you think I could be General secretary/treasurer?
Q: What did you say in response?
A: I said no; Jim Norwood I would like as General secretary/treasurer. And not only that, it wouldn't be appropriate, John, to be secretary/treasurer, again because of the history that goes back to '86, '89, and the innuendo, allegations, that I had heard and then personally experienced
Q: You said this to him?
A: Well, not in those kind of words. I just said -
Q: Give me the words as best you can recall.
A Oh, the words: no, you can't be secretary/treasurer, there's too much baggage that you have to bring to that position, for the union. Those are the words.
Q: What if anything did he say in response?
A: He said that he would like to see me the following morning, that he would like me to meet with a friend of his.
Q: Did you ask-
A: I asked him what time. He said 7:00. I said fine. I'll meet you then.
Q: Did you ask him then who that friend was?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he say?
A: John Matassa.
Q: What did you do next?
A: Well. I then spoke to Armand and Albert, and went over the conversation that had developed. And the three of us decided that I would not speak to the two of them together in the lobby the next morning.
Q: Can you tell me why?
A: Because of the cloud around the both of them.
Q: So what did happen the next morning? Did you meet with Mr. Serpico or Mr. Matassa?
A: The next morning, Albert, myself and Armand went downstairs in the lobby at 7:00, and Matassa was not there. John said that he would not be coming.
Q: Well, let me stop you there. Was Mr. Serpico there?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Serpico?
A: Yes.
Q: Was anyone else within earshot?
A: No. I was talking-
Q: Was this a private conversation?
A: I talked to him alone. Armand and Albert were just off to the side.
Q: Tell me what you can recall about that conversation.
A: Well, he said that Matassa wasn't coming, and that he would like to have a job with the union. And I said, well, I have to think about it. He says, well, I'd like to have a job, because I'd like to build up some pension. I only want to work a couple of years, until I'm 68. I said I would think about it. And he also asked me if Peter Fosco could replace Jim Norwood in his Vice-president position.
Q: What did you say in response?
A: I said no-that Jack Wilkinson-who has been regional manager for at least 20 years, and he had promoted all the programs, to doing a lot of good things for his region, and that I am going to support Jack Wilkinson
Q: Now, explain for me if you can, why giving Mr. Serpico a job would build up his pension. I'm not sure I understand that.
A: Well, he was making $20,000 a year as a vice-president. And by giving him a job to add to the salary, it would increase his level of benefits by increasing the salary. And by giving him a job, job, and appropriate salary, that would increase the level of benefits. That is basically -
Q: Do I understand the -?
A: Increase the level of benefits is really the short answer.
Q: Thereafter, did the G.E.B. in fact meet and hold an election that morning?
A: Yes
Q: What happened?
A: - about an hour later. I was elected General President and Jim Norwood General secretary/treasurer and Jack Wilkinson elected to the vacant vice-president position. They were, all of us were elected unanimously.
Q: Now, shortly thereafter, did you in fact give Mr. Serpico a job?
A: Yes.
Q: What position was that?
A: He was a hearing officer, panel hearing officer.
Q: And do you recall what salary he was to get for being a hearing panel officer?
A: That was the same as a regional manager's salary, which at the time I believe was $100,000, or 90 or $100,000.
Q: And that was in addition to the $20,000 that he was earning as vice-president?
A: In addition to that, he would be receiving $20,040 as a vice-president, as an Executive Board member.
Q: Let me stop and ask you, Mr. Coia, and you have testified and indicated that you think that Mr. Serpico was influenced by organized crime, was under the direction of Mr. Solano, and that you thought is was your duty to the union to ensure that he didn't succeed Angelo Fosco as president because of that. Why did you give him a job as hearing officer, which sounds like a responsible position?
A: Well, I gave him a job knowing that he would leave in a couple of years. That was the way of doing it easily. I gave him a position of hearing officer, which is not really a - it sounds responsible but it is really not. There is no financial responsibility attached to it. There is autonomous decisions that come out from that position. He would accompany another vice-president to hear regular charges or regular issues that would come before the panel. He was a fact-finder basically, which would be accompanied with an attorney. That panel makes a recommendation to the Board, and then the Board votes on whether the recommendation should be followed or not. And the final decision process is with the Board, basically or is, not basically.
Q: And as the hearing panel officer would Mr. Serpico or did Mr. Serpico have the ability to hire other persons to positions?
A: No.
Q: Now following your election you told us before about certain jobs that you believe were no-show jobs held by people in Chicago whom you believed, based on your conversations with Mr. Fosco, were put in those positions, by people associated with organized crime. Did you do anything about that?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you do?
A: I indicated that, when I got into Washington, and learned the operation and the regional offices more thoroughly, there were certain things that had to be corrected. Certain structures had so be changed, certain positions, that I felt were no-show. So approximately six weeks later, with respect to the no-show positions, I terminated Matassa, Caruso, Palermo and Dumo, which is out of the Chicago region.
MR. LYDON: Could I have those names again?
THE WITNESS: Matassa, Dumo, Palermo, and Caruso.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Frank Caruso or Bruno Caruso?
A: I transferred Joe Mazza who was the regional manager; which in my opinion I felt he couldn't handle that job, and replaced him with Terry Healy. Now, Terry Healy was the best on that staff at that time. I also appointed as an assistant regional manager Bruno Caruso, who I personally had the most faith in, in the Chicago region. He was a hard worker, dedicated, was committed to the programs. And personally, I wanted so put him as he familiarized himself with that region, as a regional manager at some time. I also implemented a compliance program' which I had suggested to Angelo Fosco to do, headed by three of our vice-presidents, which was George Gudger, Chuck Barnes and Bud Vinall, assisted by attorney Dave Elbaor. I upgraded our auditing program, put additional auditors on, with additional functions and additional responsibilities. I restructured regions in Atlanta, Chicago; terminated a regional manager that I felt was not performing as a regional manager should to promote our programs and to enhance the members' position in Atlanta. As vice-presidents left, I encouraged -excuse me- I encouraged the retirement of Ledger Diamond, who had been a long time member of the Board who was not assigned to any particular duties, with George Gudger. Jack Wilkinson I said came on the Board. Louis Bravo, he retired; replaced him with Mike Quevedo, who I felt also had a deeper understanding of the Hispanic community.
MR. LYD0N: How do you spell that?
THE WITNESS: Q u-e-v-e -d-o.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Let me move on. A few weeks later-
A: One other thing I forgot. There were jobs that I had discovered through reviewing LM-2 forms, when I was a secretary-treasurer that people had two and three of, and receiving two and three salaries, which I singled out and corrected. So I did a lot of things. I mean, I did a lot of things, that structure, restructured headquarters, developed new programs, new departments, and basically was working towards a good goal in the compliance program, good goal to auditing and restructuring.
Q: A few weeks after your election, February 12, 1993, did you have occasions to talk again with Mr. Serpico, in Mr. Serpico's presence, about your succession to the Presidency?
A: Yes. My father died on March 4. And John Serpico and John Matassa came to the funeral. And that was the next time I talked to the both of them, the next time I talked to John Serpico with John Matassa
Q: And did you have a conversation about the succession issue?
A: Yes. Well, the day of the funeral ,John asked me to come and talk to his friend, John Matassa And we went off to the side, and John Matassa told me -
Q: Le: me stop you. When you went off to the side, who's together here?
A: John Matassa. John Serpico and myself.
Q: So John, while I talked to the two of them, John Matassa did the talking this time and said that he didn't like and the boys here did not .like what I did by stealing and taking the Presidency from Chicago.
Q: By "boys" here - you were in Providence at the time - who were you referring to?
Q: Was that the term he used?
A: That's the term he used, yeah.
Q: What if anything did you say in response?
A: I said, I don't care what you think about it. Then I left.
Q: Let's skip way ahead, Mr. Coia. In November of 1994, did you receive notice that the Department of Justice was contemplating filing a civil RICO action against the Laborers' Union?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you learn that.?
A: I was in Rhode Island. And I know it was November 5th. I was in Rhode Island, I received a telephone call from the then general counsel, Bob Connerton. He indicated to me that he had received a letter from the Department of Justice, indicating that they wanted to sit down to discuss issues that were formulated in a draft civil RICO complaint. That was on a Saturday, November 5th.
Q: And thereafter, did you have an opportunity to review the Complaint.'
A: Yes. I was in Washington And I reviewed it with Bob Connerton on November 7.
Q: Let me show you what has previously been labled as Serpico Exhibit 6 and ask if you can identify that as the draft RICO complaint.
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Let me show you a letter dated November 4, to Connerton from Paul Coffey, chief of the organized crime and racketeering section, ask you if that is the letter that accompanied the draft complaint.
A: Yes.
Q: In reviewing the complaint. Mr. Coia, did you understand that the complaint, the draft complaint made certain allegations against you personally?
A: Yes.
Q: You understand that you were named as an individual defendant in the proposed draft RICO complaint.'
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Did you understand that the Department of Justice in the dust civil RICO complaint was seeking relief that would have barred you from continuing to serve as General President of the Laborers' Union.'
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see that it also makes certain allegations against John Serpico?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Mr. Serpico named in his individual capacity?
A: As a defendant?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Did the suit allege that he was an associate of organized crime in Chicago?
A: Yes.
Q In the draft complaint, is what I'm -
A: Draft complaint.
Q: And did the draft complaint also make certain allegations against vice president Sam Caivano?
A: Yes. They indicated that he was an associate of certain crime families in New York and New Jersey.
Q: And was Mr. Caivano named in his individual capacity?
A: As a defendant, yes.
Q: Now. when you received this suit - or I'm sorry, this proposed draft complaint, the letter from Mr. Coffey, did you understand what your response - What was expected of you or the union, I should say, in response?
A: Yes. They indicated that they had put forth certain contentions, and the type of relief that they sought. They indicated that they would like the union, me, to get back to them on November 18, by November 18. I contacted you, Bob Luskin.
Q: Let me stop you right here.
A: Okay.
Q I want to go over these questions. Now, did that proposed draft civil RICO complaint occupy most of your attention over that week and the beginning of the following week?
A: Well, we had a civil RICO case that was filed on one of our affiliates in New York, which was the Mason Tenders. And we had just received approximately eight volumes of material, evidence, depositions concerning allegations of wrongdoing in that complaint. And that weekend, I was going through some of that, and Monday also, because I had to consider imposing an emergency trusteeship on that District Council. So most of my attention was in the Mason Tender case as opposed to this one. This one, we had until November 18 to get back. And they were contentions, versus the real thing in the Mason Tenders, and some serious allegation of wrong doing, and money that was taken from their funds.
Q: Let me digress for a second to the Mason Tender case. Did the evidence that the government has provided to you in that case, that you described a minute ago, almost about the same time you received this draft civil RICO complaint from the Department of Justice, did it matte specific allegations against Sam Caivano?
A: Yes.
Q: Was there evidence that you saw that Mr. Caivano was associated with organized crime families in New York, and that they influenced his, influenced, excuse me, his actions as regional manager?
MR. LYDON: Excuse me, was in the Mason Tenders?
MR. LUSKIN: In the Mason Tenders, yes.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Was there evidence there that you reviewed that weekend?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Now, on November 9, 1994, did you call a meeting of the General Executive Board?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the purpose of that meeting?
A: Well, it was twofold. One, I wanted to inform them that I had imposed an emergency trusteeship in the Mason Tenders District Council case. I wanted their support for it. Constitutionally I didn't need it. But I wanted to inform them of what happened there. And secondly, to inform them that we had received this draft complaint which incorporated certain relief that the government wanted: and also, that they wanted to speak to a legal representative of the union I had, and that is what I called them for.
Q: And by then, by November 9, had you and I spoken, and you had made a tentative decision to recommend me as counsel for LIUNA in dealing with the Department of Justice?
A: Yes. You were at that meeting on November 9.
Q: Did you propose that I be retained at that meeting on the 9th,
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did the Board agree to that?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, shortly thereafter, did you get a formal notice from me that you ought to consider retaining independent counsel in connection with this proposed civil RICO complaint?
A: Yes.
Q: Did I indicate to you -
MR. LYDON: Excuse me. Was this, you said formal; is there some letter? Is that what you meant by that?
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Written, by written communication?
A: Yes, written communication, yes, yes.
Q: And in fact, did you retain separate counsel a few weeks later?
A: I did. I retained counsel the end of November of '94
Q: Who was that counsel?
Q: Now. focusing your attention on the period between November 9 and December 15, were you aware during that time period that I conducted several meetings with the Department of Justice concerning the proposed draft civil RICO complaint?'
A: Yes.
Q: And you were aware then, were you not -
MR. LYDON: I'm going to object to leading at this point.
MR. LUSKIN: All right, sorry. I'll rephrase it. Thank you.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Any time during that period, did you or to your knowledge anybody else associated with LIUNA ask or direct me to suggest to the Department of Justice in any way some sort of trade in which relief against you by the Department of Justice would be dropped, and Mr. Serpico would be substituted in your place?
A: No.
Q: Are you aware of that ever happening during that period of time.
A: No, it never happened.
Q: Are you aware of any discussions which suggested that I might have done that unilaterally on my own?
A: No, I was not aware.
Q: Let me show you what has been previously marked for identification as Serpico Exhibit 15. Were you aware sometime, did you learn some time in mid December, in connection with the discussions that have been going on between LIUNA's counsel and the Department of Justice, that the Department of Justice had decided to make a formal proposed settlement offer of the draft civil RICO complaint?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you understand that Exhibit 15 was the Justice Department's proposal to resolve the threatened litigation?
A: That's right.
Q: Was a copy of that furnished to you on or about December 14, 1994?
A: Yes.
Q: Let me ask you, if you will, to turn to Page 8 of that exhibit.
MR. LYDON: Could we just hold it for a minute?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Yes.
MR. LYDON: I thought I had my copy. And I don't.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: I'm on Page 8 now. Directing your attention to the Page 8 heading, which says, Status of Current G.EB. Members, did you understand that this, the Department of Justice's proposed consent decree, called for a permanent injunction against John Serpico, Sam Caivano and Robert Connerton?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you read this document carefully when you got it?
A: I certainly did.
Q: Did it call for any relief against you?
A: No.
Q: Did it identify you individually in any way?
A: No, it did not.
Q: Did you or to your knowledge anybody' working on behalf of LIUNA have any hand in this document?'
A: Absolutely not.
O: What did you understand it to be?
A: This was a government proposal. government prepared consent decree, which they were asking you to enter into.
Q: And after you reviewed it, what was your reaction to it?
A: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I was disturbed over it.
Q: Now, if I understand it, if LIUNA. if you had recommended that this consent decree be examined by the G.E.B. and the G.E.B. had approved it there would have been no risk as far as you are concerned that the government would have sought to permanency enjoin you from any association with the union, is that right?
A: Yeah. This would have been the end of the case; would have enjoined Serpico, Caivano and Connerton. And here was no mention of me. That is what my understanding was. And it would have avoided the litigation.
Q: So was it your understanding that if you had agreed to the government's proposal on December 15, that the threat of litigation would have ended, and that you would not have been disturbed in any way in your office as General President of LIUNA?
A: That's right.
Q: I ask again, did you agree or recommend that the union agree to these terms?
A: I absolutely rejected this.
Q: Why?
A: Because it wasn't good for the union or the people involved.
Q: What do you mean by that? Let's talk about good for the union to begin with.
A: It wouldn't have been good for the union because of other conditions in this consent decree; would have put more control, control with the government. It would have permanently enjoined three individuals from holding any position, not given them any right of due process and they would have been out of the union completely. And I don't believe that's right.
Q: Do you know whether or not counsel for LIUNA indicated to the government that LIUNA would not accept those terms?
A: Yes.
Q: As an alternative, do you know whether LIUNA proposed, made a counterproposal to the government?
A: Yes. I directed you to go back and make a counterproposal.
Q: Let me show you what has previously been marked and is really only a portion of Serpico Exhibit 16. Since that was a group exhibit, let me identify specifically the documents that I'm going, to show you. It is a contract, a consent decree, and what appears to be a draft complaint captioned, United States of America Laborers' International Union of North America the G E B of Laborers' International Union of North America, and Arthur A. Coia, General President. Again, there is a long string of defendants. Let me ask you whether or not this constituted LIUNA's counterproposal to the government in response to their proposed consent decree.
A: Yes, it was, and is, or whatever.
Q: Did you have an opportunity to review it carefully?
A: Yes. I did.
Q: Does any aspect of the contract or the consent decree or the complaint call for any permanent injunctive relief or any other kind of a disability to be imposed on Mr. Serpico, Mr. Caivano, Mr. Connerton or you,
A: No. There is no injunctive relief, no.
Q: Moving ahead to January 4, do you recall whether the terms of this counterproposal were presented to the General Executive Board at a General Executive Board meeting on January 4?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was the response of the General Executive Board?
MR. LYDON: Wait I'd like to object and ask that if we are going to get into this at this point, I realize your need to lead in other areas, but let's have foundation and what happened and who said what, okay?
MR. LUSKIN: Okay.
MR. LYDON: Thanks.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: You agree? I don't have to rule.
MR. LUSKIN: Don't have to rule. I'll be happy to rephrase the question
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Turning your attention to the meeting of January 4.1995, let me ask you whether or not the terms of this proposal were presented to the General Executive Board for its review at that meeting.
A: They were.
Q: Tell me if you can recall now what happened in connection with that.
MR. LYDON: Well, who is at the meeting, okay, other then - I'd like a foundation laid in other words.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Set the stage. He went to the meeting: who was there, who said what. and detailing whatever importance, whatever seriousness you want to -
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Were all the members of the Executive Board present?
A: Yes. We had a number of meetings during this period of time. I believe that one of the vice-presidents was not there but he was hooked up by telephone with a speaker. I believe that was that meeting. His name was Chuck Barnes. The rest of the Board was there. This proposal that
MR. LYDON: Just a minute. Were there any other persons there other than the G.E.B.?
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: was I present.?
A: Yes.
MR. LYDON: Anybody else?
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q Do you recall anyone else?
A: Mary Devella.
Q: Mr.Traini present.?
A: Carl Booker
Q: What position -
A: Do you have the minutes? It would be reflected.
Q: They were introduced. We ought to have the exhibit. Let me give them to you. Let me show you what has previously been marked as Serpico Exhibit 9, minutes of the January 4 meeting.
A: Okay yes. This is, the meeting on January 4 is again - I thought so - Chuck Barnes.
was not physically present but was hooked in by way of a telephone hookup and heard the meeting , and asked some questions. Who was there other than the Board? Was that your question?
Q: Do you recall whether Mr.Traini was present.?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: During that period of time, what function was Mr. Traini serving?
A: He was doing legal work for the union.
Q: What was his title if he had one?
A: I think special counsel.
Q: Moving ahead to the report of the Justice Department investigation do you recall whether Mr. Connerton was excused from the meeting at that point?
A: Yes he was and the reason I suggested that he be excused was that in the letter that we had received from the Justice Department which contained the November 4 letter which contained the draft complaint they indicated that Connerton would probably be called as a witness or would be a material witness in the case. So I suggested that he be excused. And he excused himself.
Q: Now again I'll ask you, at some point during the meeting was a presentation made to the Board outlining the terms of the proposal that were reflected in government Exhibit 16?
A: Yes.
Q: Who made that presentation?
A: I don't know if I did or you did to be honest with you. Did you.?
Q: Take a look at exhibit, bottom of Page 4 and top of Page 5 of Exhibit 9. Let me ask if that refreshes your recollection of how the presentation was made.
A: What was it again?
Q: Bottom of Page 4 top of Page 5.
A: Yes. Yeah, you presented it.
Q: After that presentation was there some discussion among the members of the G.E.B.?
A: Yes. there was.
Q: Okay.
A: As a matter of fact. I recommended that if we could get this particular proposal that was put together by us I recommended to the Board that we should enter into it and to give you the latitude that was necessary in negotiations to get this.
Q: Did anyone make any objections to that proposal,
A: The entire Board thought that a good idea with the exception of John Serpico, who said that he wanted his attorney to look at it first before he would vote to give you the latitude. The Board wanted to vote on it then. And I said, as a result of the allegations that are made and the seriousness of them, that I think we should give John an opportunity to have it viewed by his own attorney And that is how it was left.
Q: Did you understand whether Mr. Serpico's attorney was present in the G. E B that afternoon?
A: Not that afternoon, no. He was given the contract and the proposed consent decree, and gave it to his attorney.
Q: Do you know whether or not this proposal which -
MR. LYDON: Excuse me. When was that? You want to put a time on that?'
THE WITNESS: January 4.
MR. LYDON: When it was given to Mr. Serpico?
THE WITNESS: He was given the contract and the proposed consent decree.
MR. LYDON: Gotcha.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q And that's the document that we have identified as Serpico Exhibit 16?
A: Yes.
Q: Because we have two things that are called consent decrees out here, and I want to be very clear. So take a look.
A: Exhibit 16.
Q: Okay.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: That is the one you fellows drew?
MR. LUSKIN: Exactly.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q Do you know whether or not this proposal was in fact submitted to the government for their consideration?
A; Yes, it was.
Q: What was the government's reaction?
A: They rejected it
Q: Did you understand what the government's position was?
MR. LYDON: Can we have a foundation for that as well?
MR. LUSKIN: Sure.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: How did you come to know-
MR. LYDON: Did you have a conversation with someone; who, where, when.
BY THE WITNESS.
A: You came, you Bob Luskin, came back to me and told me that they rejected this proposal, and they were insisting on their proposal that was given to you, or that proposed consent decree on December 14, which was Exhibit 15.
BY MR. LUSKIN
Q: In light of the government's rejection of Serpico Exhibit 16 and their insistence on Serpico 15 did you then recommend or try and recommend or consider recommending that the Board adopt Exhibit 15, the government's proposed consent decree?
A: No. I would never enter into that type of consent decree.
Q: That's 15?
A: Yeah. I would never enter into that consent decree which is Exhibit 15.
Q: Now, between January 4, shortly thereafter, when you learned the government rejected that proposed resolution and January 18, when the Board next met, did you come up with an alternative plan for addressing the threat of litigation?
A: The plan that I suggested that we do and it may have been a mutual idea. I'm not sure, was -
MR. LYDON: Can we pause? If it is mutual, I'd like to know who mutual with.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: Mutual-Bob Luskin
MR. LYDON: Okay.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: - as again attorney for LIUNA and myself; we sat down many hours to review what had transpired. It appeared that litigation that we were going to actually be sued by the government. And I wanted to get into some posture that in the event there was a suit, any restraining order, or injunctive relief would not be granted. So the best way that we could do this was to develop a disciplinary procedure and ethics code and developing that procedure to get a permanent department of an Inspector General, General Executive Board, G.E.B Attorney, Hearings Officer, and an Appellate Officer, which would then hear any case, and be decided, whether anyone that was accused would have a fair due process hearing.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q And again, before January 18, did you in conjunction with your attorneys actually develop those specific document that would be adopted by LIUNA?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Now, as of January 18, did you have any agreement with the government?
A: No.
Q: What was your understanding of the state of the negotiations between LIUNA and the Justice Department as of January 18?
A: We could be sued any day.
Q: Particularly, did you have any agreement with the government concerning the removal or suspension of Mr. Serpico, Mr. Caivano or Mr. Connerton?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any promises or pledges from the government that if you took action against those individuals, the government wouldn't file a lawsuit?
MR. LYDON: Object, lack of foundation for that, if you are going to suggest that there were any.
MR. LUSKIN: No. I'm asking if he was aware of whether there were any such things.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: He can answer the question.
MR. LYDON: I just wanted to make sure of what the question was.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: He can answer the question.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: There was no agreement There was no promises. There was no agreement.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q let me show you what we will mark as G.E.B. Exhibit 18, minutes of the Board meeting on January 18. Did the Board in fact hold a meeting on January 18, 1995?
A: Yes.
Q: Who summoned it?'
A: I did.
Q: Were all the members of the Board present.?
A: Yes.
Q: Were they physically present on the 18th?
A: They were physically present. General counsel Connerton was excused again for the reasons I mentioned in my, the last time.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: What are you reading, gentlemen? Just one second. What are you looking at? G.E.B. 18?
MR. LUSKIN: G.EB. 18.
MR. LYDON: For the record, this is the unexcised version of -
MR. LUSKIN: These are unredacted. This is an unredacted version of the minutes of January 18, which we furnished to you.
MR. LYDON: Which are identified as Exhibit 10 for Serpico.
MR. LUSKIN: But since we have a different version here -
MR. LYDON: Ours are redacted.
MR. LUSKIN: Let me, for the purposes of clarity, let me identify the unredacted minutes as G.E.B. Exhibit 18.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I see. That is why we are having-
MR. LUSKIN: So there won't be any confusion. Okay?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Go ahead.
By MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Mr. Coia, was I present at the meeting?
A: Yes.
Q: Were there other lawyers present at that meeting as well?
A: Yes.
Q: Who were they, if you know?
A: The attorney for Mr. Serpico; I believe his name was Pearl. I'm not sure of his first name, attorney Stan Brand for Sam Caivano, that's it. Yourself for the LIUNA
Q: Let me ask you to turn your attention to page -
A: I asked their attorneys to be there, incidentally. The reason they were there was-
MR. LYDON: Is that something-
BY THE WITNESS:
A: - I asked them to be there, because we were deciding on something that was critical to the union.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Hold it one second.
MR. LYDON: My question is, is that something that is reflected in the minutes on any page, or is it just your recollection?
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I think it is your first statement about who else was present.
MR. LYDON: In other words, were you just giving us your recollections or was this something that you referred to in the minutes, is all I'm asking?
THE WITNESS: Well, I'll look through the minutes, but I know they were there.
MR. LYDON: If you were just stating from your recollection, that is fine. My question was whether you were referring to the minutes, and if so, I wanted to know at what page.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: Let me ask you to turn to the page headed Department of Justice, Department investigation?
A: Justice. yes.
Q Are you there?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall that I made a presentation to the General Executive Board about the state of the negotiations between LIUNA and the Department of Justice as of January 18?
A: Yes.
Q: And taking a look at the third and fourth paragraphs on that page -
A: Yes.
Q: - does that reflect the report that I gave? The statements in the minute there, to your recollection, accurately reflect what I told the members of the General Executive Board on January 18?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall that as of January 18, that where the thing stood was that the differences between LIUNA and the Department of Justice were too fundamental to bridge and that no more negotiations were going to take place
A: That is exactly, right
Q: Did you recommend to the G.EB. that it adopt the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure?
A: Yes, I did. As a matter of fact, I met with each Board member on the 17th, and spoke with them individually, to go over the entire case with them, and to explain to them that we were in a position that we could be sued at any moment. We were in a critical position for this union, and that the appropriate thing for us to do to prepare ourselves, put us in good litigation posture, in any event was to develop the disciplinary procedure and ethics code. I spoke to each of them individually, with the exception of John Serpico and Sam Caivano, who had attorneys and they were represented. And that is what I did.
Q: So you didn't speak to either of them?
A: I did not speak to them personally, no, again because they had attorneys. and I didn't think it was appropriate for me to do that.
Q: Do you know whether or not I communicated with their attorneys?
A: Yes, you did, with their attorneys.
MR. LYDON: Okay, that is fine. I don't think there is any dispute.
BY MR. LUSKIN:
Q: How did you come to have that understanding, that I communicated with their attorneys?
A: I told you to, and you told me you did.
Q: Closed the loop them And did the Board adopt the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the vote?
A 10 to 2.
Q: Who cast the dissenting votes?
A: Serpico and Caivano.
Q: And thereafter at this meeting on the recommendation of the GEB. attorney, and on your recommendation, were Mr. Caivano and Mr. Serpico suspended from their positions as vice-presidents?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether or not the government had requested or demanded that LIUNA take that action?
A: They did not.
Q: Do you know whether the government was even aware that the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure was going to he adopted on the 18th?
A: They were not aware of that
Q: Now, why did you single out Mr. Caivano and Mr. Serpico for suspension, Let's start with Mr. Caivano, why did you single him out?
A: After we had the ethics code in place, I personally reviewed all the evidence that was submitted to me from the Southern Distinct of New York.
MR. LYDON: Excuse me. Maybe I am misunderstanding. Is this after the ethics code was in place?
MR. LUSKIN: This is moments after-
THE WITNESS: Moments after.
MR. LUSKJN: - after it was adopted in the context of the same meeting.
MR. LYDON: I follow.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: You adopted it on January 18 right?
MR. LUSKIN: Right, in the same meeting, those two individuals were suspended.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: That ethics code was proposed and shown to the other G.E.B. Board members the day before, am I right? On the 17th?
THE WITNESS: Not the proposed. It was summarized by me to them. It was summarized. Then they had a formal copy presented to them at the Board meeting.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: Okay I see.
BY THE WITNESS:
A: With respect to the suspension
BY MR. LUSKJN:
Q: Yes, please.
A: - I received eight volumes of evidence, both depositions and testimony from Allen Taffert of the Southern District of New York on the Mason Tenders case, substantial evidence that linked Caivano to two different crime families. And as a result of them I took a position that he would be suspended pending a hearing as to his guilt or innocence.
Q: Now when you say that the evidence indicated, the evidence Mr.Taffert had furnished to you had indicated that he was connected with two organized crime families in New York based on your review of the evidence, which you said you did, how is he connected to the two crime families, in what fashion?
A: His decisions as a Laborer official were influenced by them.
Q: What kinds of decisions? Can you be more specific?
A: Yes. He handled some trusteeships in his region. And those trusteeships were, trustees and the people working under the trustee were selected by either of these two crime families. And he put them in position of authority
Q : Now turning to Mr. Serpico why did you accept the recommendation and second the recommendation of the G. E B Attorney to suspend Mr. Serpico pending a disciplinary hearing in front of the Independent Hearing Officer?
A: Based on the Crime Commission report in 86, the testimony there, my own experiences that developed after that in 89, and my conversations with Angelo Fosco and my meeting at my father' s funeral.
Q: Based on those facts did you have a firm good faith belief whether or not Mr. Serpico was associated with and permitted organized crime to influence the affairs of LIUNA?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the decision to second the recommendation to suspend them motivated in any way by their dissent from the adoption of the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure?
A: No absolutely not.
Q: Do you know whether in fact Mr. Serpico and Mr. Caivano or their counsel had been advised before the meeting and before the vote was taken that you might take some disciplinary action at the meeting if the ethics code was adopted?
A: Their lawyers were told that.
Q: Now was a decision to accept the recommendation of the G.E.B. Attorney and recommend to the GEB. that they be suspended, as you understand it part of any kind of trade or agreement quid pro quo with the government concerning yourself and your own position at LIUNA?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Now in mid February of 1995 did LIUNA finally reach an agreement with the Department of Justice?
A: Yes we did.
Q: Now, does any part of the agreement between LIUNA and the Department of Justice identify specific individuals for disciplinary action?
A: No.
Q: As you understand the agreement between the United States and LIUNA is the success of its GEB. attorney in any disciplinary proceedings an element of the agreement that LIUNA must satisfy?
A: No.
Q: As you understand the agreement with the Department of Justice, is your testimony or the testimony of any other officer or employee of LIUNA any particular disciplinary proceeding an element of your agreement with the Department of Justice?
Q: No.
MR. LUSKIN: I have no further question,.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: We have been at this about an hour. You need a five minute break? Mr. Coia, you need a break? Let's go off the record.
(WHEREUPON, discussion was had off the record.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LYDON
Q: Mr. Coia, you are a licensed attorney as I understand it?
A: Yes
Q.: When were you licensed to practice law?
A: I was admitted before the Rhode Island bar in 1968, federal bar in '68 or '69, Supreme Court in '71, of the United States.
Q: Who kind of practice have you engaged in as a lawyer?
A: At what time?
Q Beginning - why don't you just give us a brief history. Let's not make it exhaustive It -
A: I haven't practiced law in at least 15 years. I practiced law on a somewhat formal basis before that, basically in workers compensation and maybe personal injury law before that.
Q: Any labor law work?
A: Not me, no.
Q: With what firm did you practice?
A: Coin & Lepore.
Q: L-e- p-o-r-e?
A: Yes.
Q: You had mentioned an Albert Lepore earlier in your testimony. Is that the same Lepore?
A: That is the same person.
a: Does that firm continue so do business today?
A: Yes.
a: Does it do business under the name Coia & Lepore?
A: That's right.
Q: Do you have any interest in the: practice?
A: Well. I have a shareholder interest in it. I don't practice, no.
Q: But it's a professional corporation is that what you mean?'
A: Yeah.
Q: And you have not practiced at Coia & Lepore, as I understand your testimony for the last l5 years, is that right.,
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have relatives that practice at that firm?
A: Yes.
Q: Who?
A: Well my son-in-law works at the firm.
Q: What is his name?
A: Darren Corrente. I have a cousin or a cousin's cousin, I should say ,Raymond Coia and another cousin's cousin Ronald Coia. If you have a letterhead. I can go through it and sometimes we catch it.
Q: I know. Do they practice law in a building that is, actually identified otherwise with the Laborers' Union'
A: No.
Q: Has Coia & Lepore ever shared office with any office of LIUNA or local -
A: No.
Q: associated with LIUNA?
A: No. You mean share offices? You are talking about in the same building or-
Q: Same building
A: Same building. yes. I didn't want to lead you astray. In the same building yes.
Q: What offices are in that same building?'
A: Well, right now, none.
Q: But at one time there were, I guess?
A: Right.
Q: What offices were in the building?
A: There was a local public employee office, Local 1033, local 271,the Rhode Island District Council, and the New England regional office.
Q: And although you left Coin & Lepore 15 years ago did you thereafter occupy any space within that building?
A: Did I?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't understand the question.
Q: Well, maybe I've made an assumption I shouldn't have. When you stopped practicing law, what did you undertake to do as a livelihood?
A: I was an International representative for LIUNA.
Q: For what period of time were you an International representative for LIUNA?
A: Oh, I believe from 1978 to the present time. I'm not sure of the dates though.
Q: What are the duties and responsibilities of an International representative of LIUNA?
A: To collectively bargain, to organize, to participate in arbitrations, to handle grievances, to legislate, to involve ourselves with political activities, to formulate the programs and practices of the convention and of the delegates.
Q: What specific - was there a geographic area that you had responsibility for as an International representative?
A: New England and eastern Canada.
Q: Just taking New England, forgetting about what is included in Canada, what geographically do you mean by New England.?
A: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Q: So New York and New Jersey would be separate then.?
A: That is another region.
Q: Another region?
A: Yes.
Q: So your work was throughout that area then as International representative?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Are you paid a salary during that period of time?
A: Yes.
Q: How much, do you remember? If you don't, it is not a -
A: Probably around $22,000 a year, something like that
Q: When did you next undertake any additional work or take on any new title with -
A: With LIUNA?
Q: with LIUNA or any local, subsidiary?
A: I was business manager of the Rhode Island Laborers' District Council which geographical jurisdiction was in Rhode Island.
Q: What was that title?
A: Rhode Island Laborers' District Council.
Q: Was that one of those, were you in the same building., That was one of the -
A: Yes.
Q: Was that building owned by you or family members?
A: No.
Q: Just rent?'
A: Rent.
Q: In any event, what were your responsibilities at Rhode Island Laborers' District Council?
A: I negotiated basically all the agreements.
MR LUSKIN: Can we have a foundation of time frame here? I'm a little bit lost here.
MR. LYDON: Sure.
BY MR. LYDON:
Q: This is when, from what dates, what date to what date?
A: Which dates do you want.?
Q: Rhode Island Laborers' District Council.
A: During the whole time, I negotiated the collective bargaining agreements, ran legislative programs, handled the arbitrations and grievances, made sure that our programs would be developed to the point where they would be most effective, coordinated organizing campaigns, both public employee, industry, and in the construction industry, went to affiliate meetings to assure the affiliates what direction they were going in, provided daily insight into each local
Q: What geographic area did that cover? Just Rhode Island?
A: Rhode Island.
Q: What were the years, approximately?
A: 1967 through approximately '74.
Q: So during this period of time, you actually spanned, this spanned your practice of law as well, is that correct?
A: 1960 - well. I started practicing law I believe in 71. I was admitted to the bar in '68.
Q: My only point was that you were practicing law at Coia & Lepore at the same time you were doing this job though At Rhode Island Laborers' District Council?
A: Yes.
Q: What other positions have you held with LIUNA?
A: Assistant regional manager, which was a development of the International representative position.
Q: From what dates were you assistant regional manager?
A: I believe '86 or '87,1986 or 87.
Q: Is that the -
MR. LUSKIN: Is that the beginning or the end date?
THE WITNESS: I started, I was assistant regional manager around 1986 or 1987, until 1988. Then I was a regional manager. Then 1989, I was a general secretary/treasurer, and regional manager.
BY MR. LYDON:
Q: Wait a minute; slow down. After you are regional manager - I'm sorry, after regional manager, you took what spot in '89?
A: Let me give you a chronology of it, so you will know.
Q: Fine, okay.
A: 1967, I was a business manager of the Rhode Island Laborers' District Council. Then in 74 or '75, I was an International representative. And then in 1986, The International representative, I was promoted to assistant regional manager, which is an International representative, but with a more -
Q: Different title?
A: - more responsibilities. and then in 1988, I was a regional manager, which again is an International representative, with responsibilities of the entire region, and direction of district councils and affiliates and programs, a responsibility of the regions in the regional manager's hands.
Q: Okay.
A: Then in 1989,I was the secretary/treasurer, General secretary/treasurer, and regional manager.
Q: And we know that you became the General president in 1992. Have you held other positions?
MR. LUSKIN: Correction, 1993.
BY MR. LYDON:
Q: 1993, sorry. But did you hold any other positions other than General president?
A I'm president of our LOCAL 271 in Providence, Rhode Island.
Q: What about that position of regional manager? What happened to that?
A: That when I became General President, I appointed the regional manager position to Armand Sabitoni.
Q: Is Armand Sabitoni a lawyer?
A: Yes.
Q: Does Mr. Sabitoni practice with Coia & Lepore?
A: Not now.
Q: Did he then?
A: No.
Q: Or did he at any time?
A: A long while ago.
Q:: When?
A: He hasn't practiced law I don't believe in the last five or six years.
Q: The responsibilities of being a regional manager, I take it, are considerable within a particular region, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: What do they entail?
A: Primarily, to ensure that the mandate of the convention is carried through programs: collective bargaining. to ensure that the fringe benefit funds provide the best possible benefits, the lowest cost for the respective affiliates in each state, to review their development, to review the idea whether they should be merged together for more economically sound reasons, to develop a uniform collective bargaining process in each state, so that the contractors that we deal with have a uniform rate, uniform working conditions, so that they can travel from one geographical area within the region to the other, and be competitive, to utilize the training and educational programs that were developed in New England, referring these people who were trained, those who were specialized in certain areas, such as environmental remediation, to our contractors that we had collective bargaining agreements with; to ensure that the health and safety provisions that we had developed and mandated through the convention would be consistently adhered to and enforced in the region. This is quite a big job, yes.
Q: Does it also involve some - I assume it also involved supervision of a lot of people as well?
A: That's correct; requires going to a lot of meetings. And it requires, again. the review and supervision of whatever comes out of the convention, and these programs I just mentioned to you.
Q: Does the supervision extend into locals within a region?
A: Well, the way we set it up in New England, because that is what I've been talking about now, the way we set it up in New England, that each State has a District Council, and the more direct contact from the regional office would be with a District Council. In each state, that District Council then would monitor the collective bargaining process, report back to the region, regional manager or International representative, who would be under a regional manager. And so direct contact really was with the District Council. I took the position also of getting into the locals and going to their meeting to get a pulse of the beat, of the feel of what was happening in the field.
Q: But in terms of, if we look at it as a pyramid structure, then what you are describing to me is that the District Council would be between the regional manager or the assistant regional manager and the local unions?
A: There is. a lot of ways you could do it. There is a lot of ways you could do it.
Q: I mean in the New England area
A: Different autonomy. They each have autonomy. My plan was to have a District Council review everything within the locals, and that the region review everything within the District Council. So the pyramid structure would be locals, District Council, regional office, International.
HEARING OFFICER VAIRA: I think this might be a good time to stop. Thank you, sir.
WHEREUPON, the hearing was adjourned until 9:00 a.m., June 1,1995
STATE of ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF WILL
I, Mary KAY BELCOLORE. a Certified
Shorthand reporter of the State of Illinois
hereby certify etc, etc
The testimony of Arthur Coia was obtained by Jim McGough. optically scanned and converted to html for temporary publishing on www.laborers.org which has no copyrights in the document despite its false claims to the contrary. In 1996, GEB Attorney Robert Luskin requested the document not be published on the internet so as to not jeopardize any ongoing investigations. At that time, every organized crime member/associate who wanted to know what Coia testified to already had copies of Coia's testimony
Laborers for JUSTICEŠ 1999 All Rights reserved
Jim McGough, Director
2615 W Peterson Av
Chicago, Il 60659
773-878-1002 (tel)
773-409-1503(eFax number)