Transcript of June 15, 1999 Trusteeship hearing for Local 2  

Laborers for JUSTICE © 2000 All Rights Reserved.
Not for republication on the Internet. Not for 
mutilation, alteration, or theft by the webmaster
of laborers.org 

OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER
LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

IN RE: ) 
TRUSTEESHIP PROCEEDING ) NO. 99-25 T
LOCAL 2 )

Record of proceedings before PETER F. VAIRA, Hearing Officer, at VFW - Rhine 
Post, 5858 West Archer Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, commencing at 6:30 o'clock 
p.m. on the 15th day of June, A.D. 1999, upon the hearing of the above entitled 
cause.

A P P E A R A N C E S

COMEY BOYD & LUSKIN
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 420 East
Washington, D.C. 20007-5201), by:
MR. DWIGHT P. BOSTWICK and
MR. MATTHEW PAUL,

Office of the GEB, Laborers' International Union of North America.


2
EXAMINATION INDEX

WITNESS: 
PAGE:
JACK O'ROURKE
Direct Examination
By Mr. Bostwick 
........................16
Examination
By The Hearing Officer 
........................57
WITNESS: 
ROBERT A. SCIGALSKI
Direct Examination
By Mr. Bostwick 
........................62
WITNESS: 
ROBERT BLOCH
Direct Examination
By Mr. Paul 
.......................103
WITNESS: 
MARK TOMASIK
Direct Examination
By Mr. Bostwick 
.......................113
WITNESS: 
EDWARD J. ERB
Direct Examination
By Mr. Paul 
.......................146
WITNESS: 
DAVID P. SCHIPPERS
Direct Examination
By Mr. Paul 
.......................158
Examination
By The Hearing Officer 
.......................183

3
EXHIBIT INDEX
EXHIBITS ADMITTED
INTO EVIDENCE: PAGE:
Exhibit No. 1 
........................47
Exhibit No. 2 
........................48
Exhibit No. 5 
........................49
Exhibit No. 8 
........................50
Exhibit Nos. 11 through 19 
........................54
Exhibit Nos. 20 and 
21......................55
Exhibit No. 22 
........................56
Exhibit No. 11 
........................56
Exhibit Nos. 48 and 49 
........................67
Exhibit No. 23 
.......................100
Exhibit Nos. 25 through 32 
.......................101
Exhibit Nos. 34 and 35 
.......................101
Exhibit No. 24 ........102
Exhibit Nos. 42 and 47 
.......................103
Exhibit No. 33 
.......................113
Exhibit No. 51 
.......................138
Exhibit No. 36 
.......................159
Exhibit No. 38 
.......................165
Exhibit No. 40 
.......................168
Exhibit No. 37 
.......................179
Exhibit No. 50 
.......................187
4

THE HEARING OFFICER: Ladies and gentlemen, let me call this hearing to order. 
I'm Peter Vaira and I am the Independent Hearing Officer for the Laborers' 
International Union of North America and sitting beside me is a lawyer associate 
of mine, Carla Van Beek. She is in my law firm.
This is a trusteeship matter in the matter of Local 2 and the Docket Number, Ms. 
Reporter, is 99-25 T, as in "Trustee."
Let me just give you a couple of comments as I go. I see that the Laborers' 
International Union has popped, once again, for a large array of food and 
beverages. We have coffee and ice water, which is better than some of the places 
I've been where they only gave us ice water; but tonight, this is sort of a high 
rolling event, so we have coffee.
All right. Now, gentlemen and ladies, this is a trusteeship hearing and 
representing the General Executive Board is whom, sir?

MR: BOSTWICK: Dwight Bostwick from the

5

General Executive Board attorneys' office.
MR. PAUL: I'm Matt Paul, P-a-u-l, also from the GEB attorneys' office.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Gentlemen and ladies, we have an official court reporter 
and I will hear evidence and pursuant to my rules I will hear it all and decide 
later on what I will accept and not accept. That's pretty much the way we have 
done it in the labor arbitrations.After I hear the GEB attorneys' case,
I certainly will welcome any comments from anybody in this union from
the floor to tell me whatever they think about the matter good or bad. 
I'll be glad to hear from you.Okay.As I say, the coffee is available 
and this is informal. Please don't hesitate to go get yourself a 
coffee or water while the testimony is going on. You may see me 
do that. Okay. I have one qualifying question. We're in the 
VFW. I want to know how many guys here qualify to be in this club.
(Show of hands.)

6

THE HEARING OFFICER: One veteran, two veterans, three, four. Okay. That's four 
of us. Okay. Mr. Bostwick, we'll hear from you.

MR. BOSTWICK: As I said -- we've got a microphone. That's all right. Can 
everybody hear me?
(Chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOSTWICK: As I said, my name is Dwight Bostwick. I'm from the 
international. Basically, in 1995 a lot of you have seen this book.
There was an ethics and disciplinary procedure established placing 
Mr. Vaira in the role of the independent hearing officer and our 
office was charged with being the attorneys to bring cases in the 
event -- either against individual union members or 
entities, like local unions, if our investigators determined that 
there were instances of undemocratic practices, organized crime 
corruption or financial malpractice.This is my chance to talk both 
to you as a membership and to Mr. Vaira as the Independent Hearing 
Officer before we present some evidence as to why we took 
the steps that
7 
we did; and if there are any questions and comments, I take it that Mr. Vaira 
will account for that at some point in the proceeding.
I notice just for the record there is no opposing counsel here today and so 
we'll be presenting the evidence just through witnesses.
Let me tell you what we've done to the extent that people aren't aware of it and 
what we're going to be doing here tonight.
We initially at our office brought a trusteeship action against Local 2, which 
means that we were -- we sent out a complaint with various allegations about 
organized crime corruption and other undemocratic practices in Local 2 and what 
we were prepared to do is come in here and prove those charges in a setting like 
this; and then, in the event that we won, we would place a trustee in the local 
union to take over its affairs and relieve the Executive Board officers of their 
trust.What happened was after we filed this or after we sent notice to the

8
membership, a number of things happened that led to our determination that we 
needed to move quicker than that and that is our -- we, have that ability under 
our process and under the constitution.
We took an emergency action and we put David Schippers, an attorney here in 
Chicago, in charge of the affairs of Local 2 and we're going to describe a 
little bit tonight through witnesses why it was we took that action.
When we imposed the emergency trusteeship over Local 2 -- and that was May 24, 
1999, just recently here -- Local 2's Executive Board had proved itself to be 
corrupt and undemocratic, financially irresponsible and unwilling to run this 
union's affairs honestly.
This is a very simple case in our view. We had an Executive Board here at Local 
2 that was led by an organized crime member whose name is John Matassa. He 
repeatedly refused to follow the union's constitution.

9
When it became clear that our office was intent on bringing an action to take 
over the affairs of the local, the Executive Board responded by refusing -- by 
lying to the membership, by refusing to tell the membership about why they were 
spending money and what they were spending money on, locking the union members 
out of their own union meeting on May 22nd and attempting to steal the members' 
money and that's why we took the action.
Again, we're going to present evidence of exactly how and why this took place 
tonight from the witness stand.
The first thing we're going to do is we're going to hear from two of our 
inspectors and the Inspector General group is comprised of ex-law enforcement 
officers generally with some kind of background in organized crime corruption. 
We're going to hear from two of them tonight, what they do, how they do it, what 
types of things they uncovered.The first guy who is going to testify is 
Jack O'Rourke and he's going to tell you that John Matassa, who has run this

10
local for over a decade, is a member of the Chicago mob and he's going to tell 
you why and how that's true, how he knows that to be true.
Matassa has got admitted associations with over twenty mobsters. He's got a 
consistent pattern of meeting with known mobsters. That was part of the evidence 
that led to the decision to impose a trustee over the District Council here in 
Chicago and Matassa's loyalty to the mob was so strong and his loyalty to this 
union is so weak -- that's going to help -- his loyalty to the union was so weak 
that basically even after we proved that he was meeting improperly with a number 
of high ranking mob officials, he kept meeting with them and he was caught on 
surveillance by the Chicago police meeting with those same people we were 
complaining about, and then in a sworn testimony that was given in his 
disciplinary action he admitted to consistently, continuing to meet with these 
same people we had a problem with.After Jack O'Rourke is going to give you 
a summary of his testimony, we're going to

11
hear from another one of the inspectors -- can people hear me with this?

(Chorus of ayes.)

MR. BOSTWICK: After Jack O'Rourke testifies we're going to hear from another one 
of the Inspector Generals or another individual from the Inspector General's 
Office, Bob Scigalski, and he's going to tell you basically how it was Matassa 
came to his position of power in Local 2 and how he held it so strongly over 
such a period of time.He's going to tell you that there hasn't been a single 
contested election in -­as long as anybody can remember in this union. He's 
going to tell you that he brought into the Executive Board individuals who were 
associated as relatives and otherwise with organized crime and he's going to 
show you how these people rose to the top officials in the local in the exact 
minimum amount of time that's required without ever having been members of Local 
2 before.Then you're going to hear how John Matassa and Local 
2's Executive Board

12

authorized $125,000 to be paid to Matassa's own attorneys, an investigator for a 
variety of labor work, including an investigation -- a so-called investigation 
of basically the allegations against John Matassa at the same time these 
attorneys were representing John Matassa.
You're going to hear -- you're going to hear -- after Inspector O'Rourke and 
Scigalski testify, you're going to hear from Robert Bloch, who is the District 
Council trustee who is going to tell you briefly about an event that he attended 
where representatives from the international told the Executive Board in late 
April we got evidence against you, we're not going to let this continue, you've 
got two options; the first option is going to be less expensive for the 
membership, less burdensome for the membership, less of a problem for the 
membership, you can sign to an agreed supervision; some of you can keep your 
jobs and we'll monitor the situation and make sure there's no organized crime; 
that's the less 
13

expensive option;The option that's worse for the membership potentially is 
a trusteeship option where we take over entirely and we relieve the 
Executive Board of their trust consistently.
You're going to hear how they refused to agree to that, the supervision. They 
rejected the offer and then they failed to tell the union membership about it; 
and later when they were asked about it at the union meeting, they lied about 
it. After hearing from Robert Bloch, you're going to hear from a couple of your own 
union members who were at those meetings. Some of you may have been at those 
meetings. You're going to hear that they -- that the Executive Board -- that 
John Matassa with the Executive Board standing by told the membership that there 
had never been a proposed supervision agreement and you're going to hear that he 
wasn't -- that the union wasn't allowed to vote on delegates to the District 
Council.You're going to hear that the union

14
members raised questions about finances of the local and what people were 
spending money on and they weren't given any information.
So the members voted forty to ten -­and again, some of this may be some of the 
same members, but the membership voted forty to ten that the Executive Board 
couldn't pay anymore bills and you're going to find out that that meeting got 
heated enough that it was moved and -- postponed and moved to May 22nd where 
they were supposed to hold a meeting and address these same issues and other 
issues and you're going to hear how when people showed up for that meeting on 
May 22nd the doors were locked and nobody came and that's when we decided that 
we had an emergency on our hands and the membership wasn't being heard and we 
didn't know what was going on with the members' money and we had to step in and 
so we did.You're going to hear last from the new temporary trustee, David 
Schippers. He's going to tell you a little bit about what's going on 
since he's taken over and the first

15

thing you're going to hear is that after the emergency trusteeship was imposed 
and after the former Executive Board had absolutely no right to sign over any 
checks of your money, that they signed over checks for about $85,000, some of it 
to themselves and some of it to attorneys, and you're also going to hear how Mr. 
Schippers was able to stop payment -­by working with the bank he was able to 
stop payment of all but about $9,000 of that money and he's still working on 
that $9,000. As I said before, we view this as a very straightforward case. 
It was a corrupt and defiant Executive Board. It wasn't following the constitution. 
It was involved in organized crime -- the leader was involved in organized crime and 
that it's time to clean house and that the membership wanted to do that and they 
weren't being allowed to have their voice heard.At the close of this hearing 
what we're going to ask Mr. Vaira is to determine based on the evidence 
that we present that the emergency trusteeship was necessary, that it

16

should continue and that it's the best and only chance for this membership to 
take this local back into their own hands and start over; and with that, we can 
present our first witness and I call Jack O'Rourke.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Please swear the witness.
(Witness duly sworn.) JACK O'ROURKE, called as a witness herein, having been 
first duly sworn, was examined upon oral interrogatories and testified as 
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Mr. O'Rourke, can you state your name and spell your last name for 
the record?
A John J. O'Rourke. That's spelled 0, aspostrophe, capital 
R-o-u-r-k-e.
Q You currently work for LIUNA?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q And what position do you hold?
A Inspector with the office of the Inspector General.


17
Q How long have you held that position?
A Since May of 1986.
Q What's the nature of the work you do for the international?
A We're charged with conducting investigations into organized crime 
infiltration involvement as well as corruption, financial mismanagement, 
undemocratic practices in the LIUNA union.
Q Have you worked for any other union here in Chicago?
A Yes, sir.
Q What union is that?
A The Hotel Workers' International Union, Bartenders' Union.
Q What did you do for them?
A We were the investigators for the monitor that was established by 
U.S. District Court in New Jersey and conducted investigations into the hotel 
workers' union into corruption, undemocratic practices, financial mismanagement 
and organized crime involvement.
Q How long did you do that job?
A Approximately, two years.


18
Q Do you have any prior experience in law enforcement that gives you a 
background to conduct organized crime related investigations?
A Yes, I do.
Q What's that?
A Thirty-two years as a law enforcement officer, six years with the 
Office of Naval Intelligence as a special agent, twenty-six years as a FBI 
special agent and a year and a half after I retired from the FBI as a inspector 
with the Cook County Sheriff's Office assigned to the FBI major theft and 
organized crime task force in Chicago.
Q In total, how many years have you spent investigating organized 
crime here in Chicago?
A Twenty-three years.
Q What period of time?
A From 1973 when I was transferred back to Chicago, which is my home, 
until I retired in 1996 and then for another -- or 1995 and then another year 
and a half until May of '96 when I left the Sheriff's office and the task force.
Q Can you estimate for us the number of organized crime investigations 
you worked on over


19
that period of time?
A Several hundred in that 23-year period.
Q Can you estimate the number of convictions of organized crime 
figures that you've participated in at that time?
A Approximately, seventy-five in which I was either the case agent or 
part of a team of FBI agents working on a case.
Q Did you receive any awards?
A Yes, sir.
Q What were those?
A In excess of a hundred letters of commendation from the director of 
the FBI and various other law enforcement agencies.
Q Do you hold any teaching positions?
A Yes, sir. I was a field police instructor for the FBI teaching local 
law enforcement officers, state's attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys and some 
federal agencies in organized crime matters, informant development and 
particularly in hostage negotiations.
Q Now, Mr. O'Rourke, is it true that you've previously been qualified 
as an expert on the structure and operation of organized crime in


20
other LIUNA hearings?
A Yes, sir.

MR. BOSTWICK: I would ask to move him as an expert in this case.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I will do so. Mr. O'Rourke has testified before me several 
times and I think on two or three occasions I have ruled that he is an expert 
and may testify as an expert as to organized crime matters.
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Mr. O'Rourke, how does the FBI define organized crime?
A The FBI uses the definition of any group having some formal 
organizational structure and the organized group utilizes violence, the threat 
of violence, graft corruption, bribery to obtain their ends, which is to make 
money, to gather money which goes up to the top of the organized crime bosses.
Q Let's talk just a little bit about the structure and operations of 
organized crime here in Chicago.First of all, how do you learn about


21
the structure and operation of organized crime at all?
A The methods used to gather information and to gather evidence 
against organized crime figures, which is basically a closed conspiracy, is 
varied. Confidential informants play a very important role; cooperating witnesses who 
will agree to testify in open court; subjects who agree to testify and plead 
guilty and come forward and testify in open court; the use of court authorized 
wire taps; consensual monitoring of subjects and victims who wear a concealed 
recorder and record their meetings with mobsters and the threats and so on; 
physical surveillances and testimony in U.S. District Court and before grand 
juries regarding organized crime.
Q Have you personally participated in all these phases of investigation 
-- of these types of investigations during your career with the FBI?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Now, give us a little understanding about the general structure of 
organized crime in Chicago.
22




A The organized crime family in Chicago, which is referred to locally 
as the "Chicago outfit," stems from the days of Al Capone and the structure is 
similar to those in other major cities in the United States.
There's twenty-six or twenty-seven identified families -- organized crime 
families throughout the United States. The structure is essentially the same in 
each.There's a boss, which for many years was Tony Accardo. It got a lot of press. 
There's a boss. There's an underboss -- or underbosses. Sometimes there's two. 
There's a consigliere or individual who was an adviser, C.E. member of organized 
crime who is an adviser, and then there are crews of individuals who actually do 
the work. Each crew is headed by a crew boss and lieutenants who direct the work 
of the soldiers or the members of organized crime on the street.
Q Mr. O'Rourke, does the FBI keep an internal classification system 
about members and associates of organized crime, who's in it?
A Yes, sir, they do.
Q What is a member of organized crime


23
versus an associate of organized crime?
A An individual who is a made member of organized crime as the term 
goes is a person who, has undergone some sort of formal initiation.
He has to be proposed by another made member, a long-time member of organized 
crime, as being trustworthy. He then undergoes a formal initiation; and once 
he's a made member of organized crime, it's almost like a franchise for 
McDonald's or something. He then has the right to have his own crew, to give out 
juice loans or loan shark-type loans, to extort money from bookmakers and 
gamblers, to extort other businesses that are in questionable or legal status 
and to collect money himself. The money goes into him and then he has to pass a 
percentage of it up the line to the eventual top bosses of the mob.
Also, it all involves in order to work corruption on a fairly great scale, 
corruption among the police, corruption among judges, corruption among 
politicians, which allow organized crime to flourish. Sometimes it's more active 
than at other times.
Q You talked about made members of


24
organized crime. What's an associate?
A An associate member is a soldier or an individual who actually does 
the work.These are criminals engaged in the everyday activity of organized crime, which 
would be settling up with gamblers on sports bookmaking, threatening 
individuals, shaking down businesses, delivering money to corrupt politicians, 
carrying messages back and forth, and they are under the control of a lieutenant 
who works for a particular boss of a crew.
o there are approximately six or seven -- or six historical crews and these are 
the actual workers on the street who are themselves generally criminals and who 
hope to someday become made members and rise in the mob.
Another aspect of this is individuals who are controlled or influenced by 
organized crime and they are not out on the street breaking legs or collecting 
money or making threats. These individuals can be tavern owners or bookmakers or 
corrupt officials who do the mob's bidding and follow their orders.
Q Now, you said, Mr. O'Rourke, that you


25
left the FBI in 1996?
A 1995.
Q 1995. Were you aware of the FBI's classification of Local 2's 
president and business manager John Matassa at the time you left the FBI?
A Yes, I was.
Q And what was that?
A John Matassa was considered a mid-level boss of organized crime or 
the Chicago outfit in the north side -- the near north side of Chicago.
Q Now, in addition to your understanding of the FBI's classification 
of John Matassa's status in the Chicago mob, did you also speak to certain 
witnesses and confidential informants, people who had been in the mob or were 
currently in the mob?
A Yes, I did. 
Q And did you review FBI records relating to John Matassa?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Now, did John Matassa -- I'm sorry. Did you previously testify in 
another hearing on this same subject?
A Yes. I testified in the Chicago


26
District Council trusteeship hearing as well as the disciplinary hearing 
regarding John Matassa.
Q Did you prepare a lengthy affidavit of what these individuals told 
you about John Matassa?
A Yes, I did.
Q We're going to offer those into evidence at the end of your 
testimony, but what I would like for you to do now just for the benefit of the 
membership and Mr. Vaira is to simply give us an overview summary of your 
understanding of what these individuals told you about John Matassa's position 
in organized crime going from about 1980 to the present.
A I interviewed a total of eight cooperating witnesses.
Q What is a cooperating witness?
A These are individuals who are either defendants themselves and agree 
to testify in public, have their name come forward and testify, or they're 
individuals -- individuals with information, members of organized crime 
themselves who have testified publicly, provided information publicly about 
their knowledge of organized crime


27
activities.
Q Do you want this, the microphone?
A Can you hear me?
(Chorus of ayes.)
MR. BOSTWICK: Somebody will flag us if people can't hear. Right?
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Can you continue with your description of Mr. Matassa?
A Yes, sir. I had interviewed as an FBI agent and then later as an 
inspector with LIUNA a total of eight cooperating subjects.
These included James LaVally, who was a mob enforcer; Leonard Patrick or Lenny 
Patrick, who was fir fifty years a member of organized crime and a boss; Gerald 
Scarpelli, who was a mob hit man enforcer; Duke Basile, who we operated as a 
cooperating witness wearing a concealed body recorder who was involved in 
enforcement street debt collection and various other crimes; and several others, 
all of whom were all members of organized crime and each of them identified John 
Matassa as being known to them as a fellow member of organized crime and a boss 
of

28

the north side crew for the Chicago outfit.
Q Tell us a little bit about your review of records relating to Ken 
Eto. Who is Ken Eto and what did he tell you the about John Matassa?
A Ken Eto was a Korean American and a long-time member of organized 
crime even though he was oriental. He ran gambling on the near north side, 
Bolita and other games, card games, and reported up through Caesar DiVarco and 
other mobsters to Vince Solano, who was the boss of the north side crew of 
organized crime. 
Ken Eto was taken for a ride, if you will, to a restaurant parking lot on the 
north side and then shot several times at point-blank range in the back of his 
head by an individual with a silencer. He lived, survived; and after the 
assailants left him for dead, he was able to struggle a block or so to a 
restaurant where police were called and he was taken to the hospital.
At that point he had been shot four or five times point-blank in the back of the 
head and so he decided that his career in organized

29

crime was apparently over and he agreed then to cooperate and be debriefed by 
FBI agents and he provided thereafter a voluminous amount of detailed 
information about particularly the north side crew run by Vince Solano and these 
other mobsters of which he had been a long-time participant.
Q And what did he tell you about -- what did he tell the FBI about 
John Matassa specifically?
A He identified John Matassa as part of the north side crew, 
originally a muscle man and reporting to Mike Glitta and Babe DeMonte and Caesar 
DiVarco and running porno book shops, in charge of loan sharking and collection 
of money from various individuals on the north side.
Q What period of time was that?
A Early 1980s.
Q And did you talk to individuals about Mr. Matassa's position in the 
mob or in organized crime after the mid-'80s, for example?
A Oh, yes, as recently as a few months ago -- a few weeks ago.
Q Pardon me?

30

A As recently as a few weeks ago.
Q As recently as a few weeks ago. And what information were these , people and 
informants and witnesses telling you about John Matassa at that point?
A A total of ten confidential informants that had been operated by myself when I 
was an FBI agent and then thereafter continued to be contacted after I became an 
inspector with LIUNA and they have all identified John Matassa as known to them 
as being a member of organized crime, being a mid-level boss in organized crime, 
having been with organized crime in the late '60s, '70s and '80s as part of the 
north side crew of organized crime.
Q And are you aware that John Matassa has testified in a couple of cases here in 
the LIUNA process?
A Yes,I am.
Q And are you familiar with that testimony?
A Yes,I am.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Before you go into that, let me just ask you a couple questions


31

about the five -- about the eight cooperating witnesses.
BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You know their names. We said their names.
BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And those individuals all, you can say, led a life of crime.
BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes, they do.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And they are all cooperating now in some fashion or another?
BY THE WITNESS:
A Correct. One individual, which was Imberto Phillipe (phonetic), was 
an Italian born waiter and maitre d' and he -- well, he did too. He was a bookmaker, so yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And the majority of them have testified for the United 
States in some form or another?

32

BY THE WITNESS:
A The majority of them have, yes, sir.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And you would say each of them have a steep tradition and 
experience in the organized crime structure? 
BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes. That's correct, Mr. Vaira.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And to summarize their testimony, what would you say?
What did they have to say about Mr. Matassa?

BY THE WITNESS:
A Each of them when interviewed independently verified and identified 
John Matassa as known to them as a fellow member of organized crime based on 
their own knowledge, based upon their observations, based upon his 
identification by other members of organized crime with whom they were dealing, 
and they indicate that they know John Matassa based on their experience as a 
member of organized crime.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead.
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Mr. O'Rourke, I'm going to refer to one piece of John Matassa's testimony and 
the question


33
that I asked him was as follows -- and then I'm going to ask you about some of 
the individuals that I'm talking about in question. Okay?
THE HEARING OFFICER: What testimony are we talking about?
MR. BOSTWICK: This is Exhibit 1 and page -- the pages are a little --
THE HEARING OFFICER: What's the proceeding?
MR. BOSTWICK: This proceeding is the Chicago District Council 
trusteeship action on October 21, 1997 and the page number is 3940. There are 
four pages on a page.Do you have it?
THE HEARING OFFICER: Find it, Mr. O'Rourke. I believe this transcript is public, 
isn't it?
MR. BOSTWICK: Yes. 
BY THE WITNESS:
A All right, sir.
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q It says Mr. Matassa -- the question is:
"Mr. Matassa, in light of all these individuals who you know who


34
have been identified at this hearing as having organized crime positions -- and 
let me just give you a partial list of the people we've talked about so far -- 
Vince Solano, Mike Glitta, Frank DeMonte, Joe Arnold, Joe DiVarco, Jasper 
Campise, Michael Marcello, Jimmy Marcello, Alphonse Tornebene, Sam Carlisi, 
Johnny DeFronzo, Rocky Infelice and Rocky D'Amico, in light of your associations 
with these people, your knowledge of these individuals, is it your testimony 
that you never associated with any of these individuals with the Chicago 
outfit?"
His answer was:
"That's correct, sir.''
Now, what I want to ask you, Mr. O'Rourke, is in light of Mr. Matassa's 
admissions relating to his associations with these various individuals -- which 
I'm not going to delineate fully here but is part of the record


35
here -- who are some of these people?
Let's take Mike Glitta, Frank DeMonte and Joe Arnold, for example. Who are they?
A Michael Glitta was a member of organized crime. He was the first 
cousin to John Matassa's father and he was referred to by John Matassa as his 
uncle. For a period of approximately nine years John Matassa acted as a chauffer and 
bodyguard driving Mike Glitta around on his rounds on the near north side of 
Chicago. He would take Mike Glitta to meetings at restaurants with other mob 
figures, including Joseph Vincent DiVarco or "Caesar" DiVarco, "Big" Joe Arnold 
and others who were all known to be part of the north side crew and members of 
organized crime.
Q How about Joe Arnold. Tell me a little bit about Joe Arnold.
A "Big" Joe Arnold was a member of organized crime, part of the north 
side crew. He used as a front a store.He was in charge of juice loans or 
loan sharking for the north side group under


36
Vincent Solano, who was the boss. He was at one point shot several times by a 
disgruntled juice loan victim, which received a lot of publicity, and he was 
sentenced in Federal Court and sent to prison.
Q How about Joe "Caesar" DiVarco?
A Joseph Vincent DiVarco or Joe "Caesar" DiVarco was a mid-level boss 
of the north side crew for many years controlling Rush Street and the north side 
in charge of the mob's operations, which were porno shops, extortions, loan 
sharking, gambling, and was well-known to the FBI and to the U.S. Attorneys' 
Office.
He eventually was charged in Federal Court with organized crime related 
offenses, was found guilty and was sentenced to a lengthy term in prison where 
he died of natural causes.
Q How about Alphonse Tornebene?
A Alphonse Tornebene is a man now in his 70s. He is a long-time member 
of organized crime, mid-level boss, gambling boss under John Monteleone, the 
underboss of the Chicago mob, and he is a made member of organized crime.
Q Are you aware of any contact Mr. Matassa


37
has had with Mr. Tornebene?
A Yes, I am.
Q And what is that?
A Mr. Matassa was surveilled on several occasions meeting with A1 
Tornebene. On one occasion Chicago police intelligence unit detectives saw him 
meeting with Tornebene and Michael Marcello, another known member of organized 
crime, and there was a heated exchange apparently.
Tornebene, who is an older man, was seen poking John in the chest and yelling at 
him. He was last seen meeting with him right after the hearing in court on the 
trusteeship matter or on the disciplinary matter in December and was observed by 
Chicago police intelligence unit detectives meeting with John Monteleone and A1 
Tornebene at a restaurant in Riverside, Illinois.
Q Is that date an approximation?
A Yes, I believe so. I don't recall the exact date. I think it was 
March.
Q Okay. who is John Monteleone?
You say Mr. Matassa after a court hearing relating to the Chicago District Council


38
was seen meeting with Alphonse Tornebene and John Monteleone. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Who is John Monteleone?
A John Monteleone, also known as Johnny "Apes" or "Apes" Monteleone 
is a long-time member of organized crime in Chicago. He was a member of the 
Cicero crew for many years under Rocky Infelice. He is now underboss of the 
Chicago mob controlling most of the south side, incorporating what used to be 
separate crews, the Cicero crew, 26th Street, Chinatown crew and the Chicago 
Heights crew. He's the man in charge of all of the mobsters in those crews and 
is underneath the current boss of the Chicago mob.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. O'Rourke, do I recall testimony from the Chicago 
District Council hearing, which I believe Mr. Matassa said that he visited Mr. 
Tornebene in his home after he delivered a pizza? Am I correct on that? BY THE 
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir. His explanation for knowing


39

Alphonse Tornebene was that he liked part cooked pizzas and so he used to drive 
from his home in Park Ridge, Illinois all the way to Stickney, Illinois where he 
would go to Mr. Tornebene's pizza parlor to buy these part cooked pizzas.
On many occasions he would call up to order them, drive all the way from Park 
Ridge out to Stickney and he would go to A1 Tornebene's house where A1 would 
take the pizzas home so he could pick them up.
Q Now, Mr. O'Rourke, at the disciplinary hearing -- well, let's get 
right to the point.
Mr. O'Rourke, you testified that the FBI classifies John Matassa as an organized 
crime figure here in Chicago as of 1995.Is that correct?
A '95, '96. I was a member of the task force until May of '96 and was 
still in and part of the FBI, although I was no longer a special agent. That's 
what I want to clarify.
So as of May of '96, John Matassa was known to the FBI in Chicago as a made 
member and a mid-level boss of organized crime.
Q Now, you've also talked -- we've just


40
talked a little bit about some of the discussions you've had with individuals 
and the investigations you were personally involved in, which is detailed a lot 
more fully -- your testimony is detailed a lot more fully here in these 
exhibits, but this is an uncontested hearing and I'm not going to keep these 
guys here all night about it.
Q What is your expert opinion about John Matassa's position, if any, as 
a member of organized crime?
A Well, based on my interviews with ten independently interviewed 
confidential informants over a period of years, based on my interviews with ten 
cooperating witnesses who were themselves members of organized crime who 
testified at federal trials in which there were convictions, based on my review 
of the surveillance reports of the FBI and Chicago police intelligence unit and 
based on review of FBI files such as the Ken Eto interviews, it's my opinion 
that John Matassa is a made member of the Chicago organized crime syndicate or 
organized crime family or Chicago outfit and is a mid-level boss at this time.
Q Is active today?


41
A Is active today, yes, sir.
Q Mr. O'Rourke, let me talk to you a little bit about two people John 
Matassa recommended for official positions with the Executive Board of Local 2.
You've mentioned Joe "Caesar" DiVarco. There's a Vince DiVarco on the Executive 
Board of Local 2. Can you tell me what relationship, if any, there is there?
A Vincent DiVarco is the son of Caesar DiVarco, who I referred to 
earlier.
Q Okay. Now, tell us what John Matassa's position vis-a-vis 
Joe "Caesar" DiVarco was in the Chicago outfit?

THE HEARING OFFICER: With one caution here. I've encountered these episodes 
before. Just because somebody's son, his father happens to be in the mob, I need 
a little bit more with that because whoever your father is your father is, I 
just want everybody to know that that's my position, that whatever your father 
did doesn't follow you. If you have some other evidence, you can certainly go 
forward


42
with that. Go ahead.
MR. BOSTWICK: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
(Read as requested.)
BY THE WITNESS:
A Joe "Caesar" DiVarco was a mid-level boss of the north 
side crew for many years and John Matassa reported to him as part of that crew. 
He was his superior in organized crime.
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Now, there's another individual on the Executive Board, Dominick 
DiMaggio. Are you aware of any relationships that Mr. DiMaggio has with organized crime?
A Mr. DiMaggio has relatives who are members of organized crime and he 
has so admitted in depositions and in interviews. His uncles were Roy Carlisi of 
Buffalo, New York, who was identified as a member of organized crime; and the 
other uncle was Sam Carlisi, who was the boss of the Chicago organized crime 
family for many years until he was convicted and sent to prison. He died in 
prison. He also was a cousin of Alphonse Tornebene, who John


43
Matassa has been observed meeting with.
Q That's the Alphonse Tornebene you were talking about with the pizza 
incident?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, are you aware of John Matassa being asked under oath whether 
Mr. DiMaggio ever arranged golf meetings with Sam Carlisi and John Matassa?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Sam Carlisi, again, is the mob boss?
A Yes, he is -- was.
Q What was John Matassa's response under oath?
A John Matassa under oath in a deposition stated that Dominick 
DiMaggio had arranged golf outings for John Matassa to play golf with Sam 
Carlisi.
Q And that is something we'll identify and admit in a moment here.
Was Dominick DiMaggio asked that same question under oath about whether he in 
fact had arranged meetings with Sam Carlisi and John Matassa?
A Yes, sir.


44
Q And what did he say about those golf outings?
A Dominick DiMaggio denied that he had ever arranged golf outings between John 
Matassa and his uncle, Sam Carlisi.
Q Now, did you have occasion to interview another member of the 
Executive Board, Michael Christopher?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did Michael Christopher tell you about an incident where he got 
into a fight with Dominick DiMaggio?
A Yes, he did.
Q And what did he tell you about that?
First of all, when was the interview that you had with Michael Christopher?
A Approximately, two weeks ago.
Q About two weeks ago?
A About two weeks ago, yes, sir.
Q And what did he tell you about the incident where he got into a fight 
with Dominick DiMaggio?
A Christopher alleged that he was afraid of Dominick DiMaggio, that 
they had been at odds


45
over operation of the union and they got into a scuffle or pushing match in the 
office, the Local 2 office, and during this Vince DiVarco was in the bathroom 
and that he became fearful of Dominick DiMaggio.
Q And what did Mr. DiMaggio say about his family, if anything, at that 
time?
A Mr. Christopher alleged that Mr. Dominick DiMaggio made 
a statement "My family is John Matassa's boss" during this confrontation and on 
another occasion.
Q And what, if anything, did Mr. DiVarco say at that time?
A Mr. DiVarco, according to Mike Christopher, came out of the bathroom 
after this was over and made a comment "You live by the sword, you die by the 
sword."
Q Now, Mr. O'Rourke, I'm going to ask your help in introducing some of 
the documents here tonight. We're not going to go through -­
THE HEARING OFFICER: Run that conversation past me again. Tell me 
what sort of context it was. Give me a picture of that conversation that Mr. 
Christopher described,


46
if you can, how it started, what happened, who said what to whom. BY THE 
WITNESS:
A According to Mike Christopher, he alleged that he was afraid.
THE HEARING OFFICER: He said. All right.
BY THE WITNESS:
A That they had had a physical confrontation, scuffle in 
the office, and that during this DiMaggio made the statement "My family is John 
Matassa's boss." DiVarco came out and allegedly made a comment "Live by the 
sword and die by the sword."
I interviewed Vincent -­Mr. DiMaggio within the last week and he admitted they 
had had a disagreement and a scuffle and he said this was caused by Mr. 
Christopher suggesting that he have a sex act with himself basically.
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Go ahead. BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q I'm just going to go through some sort of procedural items now, 
introduction of a few


47
exhibits, if we can refer to your binder.
A Yes, sir.
Q I'm just going to take you through them quickly and I'll ask for a 
brief description of what it is and then I'll simply ask Mr. Vaira for 
clarification that they're appropriate to introduce.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Tell us what the first is, Exhibit 1?
A Exhibit Number 1 is the October 21, 1997 testimony of John Matassa 
in connection with the Chicago Trusteeship Proceedings, Chicago District Council 
Case No. 97-3-30T.
MR. BOSTWICK: And I can represent that that has been made public in a Federal 
Court proceeding and is a part of the public record and I move its admission.
THE HEARING OFFICER: So moved.
(Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Number 2. What is Exhibit Number 2?
A It's a February 7, 1998 "IHO order and


48
memorandum regarding Chicago Trusteeship Proceedings" in the same Chicago 
District Council case.
MR. BOSTWICK: I move its admission.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You're moving admission of my order, is that right?
MR. BOSTWICK: That's correct.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. I guess I can accept that as trustworthy. Admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q I'm going to skip 3 and 4 here and go to 5. What is 5, Mr. O'Rourke?
A It's an affidavit by myself, John J. O'Rourke, regarding John 
Matassa, Case No. 98-43D, which was in connection with the disciplinary hearings 
against John Matassa.
THE HEARING OFFICER: That's an affidavit which I've seen. In fact, I requested.
It pretty much follows your testimony today, is that correct?
BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes, sir. That's correct..


49
THE HEARING OFFICER: But in much more detail. It's already been accepted in 
another hearing and is admitted. BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Now let me just make one point about that for the record.
That's in the disciplinary, matter and so the disciplinary matter hasn't been 
made public; but it's your declaration, you can vouch for it today as a separate 
item. Is that correct?
A Yes, I can.
MR. BOSTWICK: Is that acceptable?
THE HEARING OFFICER: Acceptable.
(Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And let's move to December -- Number 8. What is Number 8?
A Number 8 is the December 8, 1998 letter from James Krupkowski to 
Dwight Bostwick regarding Ken Eto with attachments.
Q All right. And what, specifically, if you turn to Exhibit 8, what is 
behind that letter?


50
If you turn to the tab Number 8, tell us what specifically is behind that 
letter? What are those documents?
A These are copies of FBI report of interviews known in the FBI's 
FD-302s of Joe Ken Eto made in '83, which are essentially the summaries of what 
Mr. Eto told FBI agents concerning organized crime and the north side crew.
Q In other words, that's the fellow who was shot in the head. He gave 
statements to the FBI. These are some of the recorded statements with 
information about John Matassa, is that right?
A Yes, sir. That's correct.
MR. BOSTWICK: I would move for that admission.
THE HEARING OFFICER: So admitted.
(Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q How about 9 and 10.
A Number 9 is the special September 1981


51
Grand Jury charges, United States versus DiVarco, which would have been Joseph 
"Caesar" DiVarco, in the Federal Case No. 83 CR 955.
MR. BOSTWICK: Okay. And those are public. I'll represent that those are also 
public court documents and move for their admission.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You may move their admission.
Is this the trial, the case of which John Matassa was also charged but 
acquitted?
MR. BOSTWICK: That's correct.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I've already -- you already know my position on that, that 
I don't give that much credence. All right? BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And how about Number 11. What are those?
A Those are March the 12th 1998 surveillance photographs, which were 
the surveillance photographs taken of the meeting between John Matassa, John 
"Apes" Monteleone and A1 Tornebene in Riverside, Illinois to which I referred 
earlier.


52
Q So those are pictures of them meeting together?
A They're pictures of them coming out of the restaurant and different 
pictures of them individually as they exited the restaurant.
Q Now, Number 12 through 19, what are those?
A "Order to testify in regard to John Monteleone."
Number 13 is a March 20, 1985 "Notice of Prosecution for Criminal Contempt and 
order to Show Cause," United States versus John Monteleone.
Number 14 is a "Judgment and Probation Commitment Order" in the United States 
versus John Monteleone.
Number 15 is a "Special September 1981 Grand Jury Charges," the United States 
versus DiVarco; and Number 16 is the "Jury Verdict," U.S. versus DiVarco.
Q That's through 16. I am offering those to -- well, let's keep going 
for a moment here, Mr. O'Rourke.
A All right, sir.


53
Q You're at 16. Do 17, 18 and 19 as well.
A Number 17 is the affirmance decision by the United States Court of 
Appeals in the United States versus Monteleone.
18 is a "Special September 1990 Grand Jury Charges," United States versus Sam 
Carlisi, et. al; and Number 19 is the judgment in the trial of the United States 
versus Samuel Carlisi.
Q And I'll represent that those are court documents that are offered 
to show the criminal status of some of the people we've just been talking about 
that Matassa has met or associated with.
A Yes, sir.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You're offering those to show that the 
persons he associated with are -- have some connection with the underworld?
MR.BOSTWICK: That's correct.
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. They're admitted. I'll decide what weight I'll 
give them.


54
(Exhibit Nos. 11 through 19 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q How about 20, 21 and 22?
A 20 is a September 29, 1980 FBI interview of an individual named 
Richie, who was Richard John Mara, M-a-r-a, a member of organized crime who was 
cooperating with the FBI concerning the organization of the Chicago organization 
crime family as of 1980.
Q And 21?
A 21 is a July 25, 1988 FBI interview of Gerald H. Scarpelli.
Scarpelli was a mob hit man and enforcer whom I and other agents arrested and he 
was then debriefed and made statements in the course of his being placed under 
arrest and interviewed and it's a forty plus page interview report in which he 
also discusses the organized crime structure in Chicago and admits he's a part 
of organized crime.
MR. BOSTWICK: I would offer 20 and 21 to corroborate Mr. O'Rourke's information 
about the structure of organized crime.


55
THE HEARING OFFICER: 20 and 21 I don't think talks about Matassa, does it? I 
don't think so.
MR. BOSTWICK: I would have to look more closely.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll admit them to talk about the other persons he's 
associated with.
MR. BOSTWICK: Right, in the same vein as the judgments would identify the people 
who he has met with as being organized crime people. There is an offer there.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I admit it.
(Exhibit Nos. 20 and 21 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And 22, what is that?
A 22 are the miscellaneous news clippings regarding organized crime.
MR. BOSTWICK: And I would offer those to show notice and knowledge and the fact 
that these individuals were publicly known to be figures involved in organized 
crime.
THE HEARING OFFICER: We've done this


56
before and I've seen these newspaper articles come in. Notice to whom?
MR. BOSTWICK: To Mr. Matassa.
THE HEARING OFFICER: How about the other members of -- any members of Local 2?
MR. BOSTWICK: I'm sorry. That's correct, any member -- notice generally in the 
Chicago area, including John Matassa and other members of the Executive Board or 
local union members for that matter. 
THE HEARING OFFICER: Admitted.
(Exhibit No. 22 admitted into evidence.)
MR. BOSTWICK: And that's all I have for Mr. O'Rourke.
(Pause.)
MR. BOSTWICK: I'm told I didn't ask to admit the photographs, Exhibit Number 11.
THE HEARING OFFICER: They will be admitted.
(Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence.)
MR. BOSTWICK: And that's all the questions I have for Mr. O'Rourke unless


57
Mr. Vaira has some.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I do.
EXAMINATION BY THE HEARING OFFICER:
Q Mr. O'Rourke, you describe Mr. Matassa as being a member of the north 
side crew. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the north side crew covers what geographic section of Chicago?
A Well, historically it covered Rush Street and the north side of 
Chicago, gambling, loan sharking, extortion and porno rackets, porno stores.
Q Do I understand -- you've testified before me before about Mr. 
Matassa and I'm going to direct your attention to three separate subject matters 
or disciplines, if you want to call it, that involve what the north side crew 
did or does. That's extortion, gambling and pornography?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, would you go down through each of


58
those topics and tell me what you know Mr. Matassa did or does as to each of 
those? You can take either one -- any one first.
A Well, there was testimony that he -­that Mr. Matassa was the driver, 
bodyguard, chauffer for Mike Glitta and Mike Glitta was known to be in charge of 
the porno book stores and other related adult entertainment activities on the 
north side. Further, Mr. Matassa was observed by a police officer in charge of pornography 
investigations, Thomas Bolling (phonetic), unloading materials at a porno 
bookstore owned and operated apparently by his cousin, John Matassa.
Q Was there testimony in that proceeding by Mr. Matassa that he did 
help out and perhaps he ran that store on some days?

A Yes, sir, there was.With regards to collecting street tax, 
Mr. Matassa admitted in his deposition and in his testimony that he in 
fact was collecting money from a gay tavern where an individual was 
owed money to "Babe" DeMonte, as I recall, that he was asked to go collect the money.


59
This was an FBI investigation in which he was indicted and then later found to 
be not guilty.
Q Was the testimony that he admitted going and collecting the money 
from the owner of a gay bar but it was merely to collect the loan?

A That's right, sir. That's what he said.
Q And how about gambling?
Will you direct your attention to the specific area of gambling?
A Mr. Matassa was identified by Joe Ken Eto as being involved in the 
gambling operations, actually having a table at a gambling festival, if you 
will, on the north side.
And he has admitted under deposition going and playing cards with the individual 
who was identified by Eto as the man who shot him, Jasper Campise, and 
associated with him, who was known to be in charge of gambling operations.
Q Was the testimony there also concerning Mr. Matassa's part in 
notifying the police or ensuring that the police would not bust the games?
A Yes. Joe Ken Eto stated that there was a particular police officer 
who was responsible


60
for letting them know if there was going to be a raid and okaying the games and 
that Matassa was involved in that and had this particular tactical unit police 
officer whom he was the contact for on behalf of organized crime.
Q Directing your attention once again to driving Mike Glitta around, 
you say he drove him around. He went with him and actually sat in meetings with 
these other individuals?
A Yes, sir.
Q And is it the practice of organized crime figures to have strangers 
or persons who are just hired to come along to be a driver?
A No, it is not. A driver is generally selected as being a trusted 
member of organized crime. It's oftentimes a launching place to become a boss, 
and sitting in on meetings of bosses in organized crime such as in those days 
Mike Glitta, "Babe" DeMonte, "Big" Joe Arnold, "Caesar" DiVarco and later 
meetings with John Monteleone, the underboss of the mob, or Jackie Cerone, whom 
he played golf with, those are strictly for people who are trusted and upcoming 
members of organized crime, made members.


61
Q You say these meetings with individuals, Mr. Cerone and the others 
you described, were these fleeting or casual or were there circumstances to 
suggest otherwise?
A They were meetings in restaurants which lasted anywhere from a half 
an hour to sometimes two hours, which were surveilled about Chicago police 
intelligence unit detectives.Photographs were taken of them emerging from 
the restaurant as they were identified -- cooperating witness such as 
James LaVally testified that he observed John Matassa playing golf with 
on several occasions Jack Cerone, who at that time was the underboss of 
the Chicago mob reporting directly to Tony Accardo.Cerone was later 
convicted in a Kansas City skimming case out of Las Vegas and 
sentenced to an extensive term in prison and he died several years ago, but 
individuals would not be playing golf with Jackie Cerone and talking to him 
unless they were trusted members of organized crime. It's just something that 
doesn't happen. 

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. MR. BOSTWICK: If we can have a short break.


62
(A recess was had.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Swear the witness, ma'am.
(Witness duly sworn.) ROBERT A. SCIGALSKI, called as a witness herein, having 
been first duly sworn, was examined upon oral interrogatories and testified as 
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Sir, state your first name and spell your last name?
A Robert A. Scigalski, spelled S-c-i-g-a-l-s-k-i.
Q You currently work for LIUNA, the union?
A Yes, I do.
Q What do you do?
A I'm an inspector in the Chicago area conducting investigation.
Q And how long have you done that?
A Since May of 1996.
Q You also worked for another union?


63
A Yes, I did.
Q What union is that?
A Hotel Employees' and Restaurant Employees' International Union.
Q What did you do for them and when did you do it?
A I worked through a monitor of that union to investigate that union 
with respect to organized crime activity, undemocratic practices and the like.
Q Do you have any prior experience in law enforcement to give you a 
background in organized crime work?
A Yes, I do. For twenty-seven years I was a special agent with the FBI. 
I worked during that time organized crime investigation and supervised the squad 
that conducted organized crime investigation.
Q I'd ask you to speak up as loudly as you can because the blower is 
on here.
A All right.
Q Now, the Inspector General's Office has had an investigation of 
Local 2 for some time. Is that correct?



64
A Yes, they have.
Q And during the course of this investigation did you collect 
documents from Local 2?
A Yes, I did.
Q You and others from the Inspector General's Office?
A Myself and other investigators collected documents, including 
minutes, deposition information and certain financial records. Also, we 
collected certain communications between certain members and organizations with 
respect to the local.
Q Okay. Have you yourself reviewed the minutes of Local 2?
A I have.
Q How far back?
A Back to 1984.
Q Until when?
A Until the present.
Q Okay. And when you say "the minutes," what do you mean?
A The minutes are recorded minutes of meetings that were the Executive 
Board meetings


65
and the general membership meetings.
Q Okay. And give us a sense of like the volume. How much material did 
you review?
A If you were to pile it on this desk, it would possibly be as much as 
a foot in height.
Q What is Exhibit 48 in this booklet? It's a little hard to turn over.
A Exhibit 48 are portions of those minutes -- certain portions of 
those minutes that regard our investigation and our findings.
Q Okay. So this is just a small portion of the stack of 
documents you reviewed. Is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q And why were these minutes selected instead of other minutes?
A Because they relate to specific incidents and activities that in 
turn relate to the trusteeship that's now taking place in Local 2.
Q Okay. What's Exhibit 49?
A Exhibit 49 is a chronology date list of activities based on those 
reviews and that investigation.


66

Q Does that basically track the minutes we just were talking about on 
Exhibit 48?

A Yes, it does.

Q I'm going to -- and that's basically -Exhibit 49 is basically an aid, 
is that correct?

A Yes.

MR. BOSTWICK: And I'd move both of their admission on that basis.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Who prepared 49? 

BY THE WITNESS:
A Oh. It was prepared by the attorneys in this case, by Mr. Luskin's 
office based on information collected by us and discussed with the attorneys.

THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to ask you one question.

Mr. Bostwick, you certify that Exhibit 49 is a true and correct summary or 
composition of what appears in 48?

MR. BOSTWICK: Yes, basically the highlighting -- the highlighted portions of the 
minutes are just summarized in the chronology.


67

THE HEARING OFFICER: So if I looked at 49 and took paragraph 5, I would go back 
and find the corresponding date and paragraph? Okay.
MR. BOSTWICK: You'd find the fifth document and then there would be a 
corresponding --

THE HEARING OFFICER: So admitted.
(Exhibit Nos. 48 and 49 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Now, Mr. Scigalski, you've testified to your background as an 
investigator for labor unions and in organized crime in general.
What types of patterns do you look for to determine whether a union entity is 
corrupted by organized crime?
A We look to see if the leadership involves members of organized 
crime, associates of organized crime.
We look to see if organized crime controls the purse strings of a union through 
associates and members that are involved in the union organization, and we look 
at the movements


68

of power in the union with respect to the selection of individuals that are 
placed in positions of power by other organized crime members in the union, lack 
of democratic types of activities and unopposed elections.
Q Did you see any of these patterns on display at Local 2 as you 
reviewed the minutes and these other documents that you've referred to?

A Yes, I did.
Q You identified, I take it, as a result of Mr. O'Rourke's testimony and 
information that John Matassa was involved in organized crime?

A Yes, I did.
Q Did you review how Mr. Matassa came to his positions of power in the 
union?

A Yes, I did.
Q I refer you to Exhibit 49; and again, that is just a summary and the 
actual evidence is really 48. I'm really just having Exhibit 49 marked for 
identification purposes, but I'll refer you to 4-2-85.
Can you tell me how Mr. Matassa was -- came to the union, Local 2?

A Mr. Matassa was not a member of LIUNA at


69

all and on 4-2-85 he was appointed to work at Local 2 as a field representative, 
which is one of the paid positions within a union.
Q Okay. And you say that he got that
field rep position with no prior -- no prior
background at LIUNA or Local 2. Is that correct?

A Yes. He was not involved with LIUNA or Local 2. Nor was he a member.
Q All right. I refer you to 6-28-86.
What occurred on that date?
A Approximately, a little more than a year after he was placed in a 
position -- having not been involved in LIUNA was placed in a position of field 
representative. He was sent as an observer to travel to the convention in Miami 
representing Local 2.
Q Was he on the Executive Board at that time?

A No.
Q Now, I refer you to 5-5-87, May 5th 1987, the minutes 
there that you reviewed. What transpired then?

A This is two years after he came on and


70

the rule in LIUNA is that in order to become an officer, you must be a member of 
a union for two years. That's the minimum.
He met this minimum and at that time he was nominated and elected in an 
uncontested circumstance to become the business manager of Local 2, which is the 
highest position in Local 2.
Q So within the absolute minimum amount of time he took the absolute 
maximum position. Is that fair?
A Of two years and one month after he was in.
Q And let me refer you to July 17, 1989, the minutes there. What 
happened then?
A Because of a sudden illness by Dominic Christopher, who was the 
president of Local 2, he resigned and the Executive Board unanimously appointed 
Matassa to now a combined position of both president and business manager with 
an increase of Matassa's salary at that time.
Q Okay. Now I'm going to refer you to -­I'm going to refer you to 
12-12-89, December 12, 1989. What did you find in the minutes on


71

that date?
A 12-12-89 there was a unanimous vote that gave Matassa authority to 
reduce and increase salaries based on his decision, which is not consistent with 
the constitutional requirements in LIUNA.

Q Whose salary?
A Anybody's salary. I mean anybody's salary that was an officer in the 
union.
Q So it gave John Matassa the complete right to raise or lower any elected 
official's salary?
A It gave him the right to say your salary is this and your salary is 
that.
Q And did you review the minutes to determine whether or not that 
policy ever changed from 1989 to the present during these ten years?
A Based upon my review, it had not changed since that time; and were 
it not for the trusteeship, it would be ongoing now, today.
Q So the business manager would have the right to just set the 
salaries at any moment?
A He could tell any of the officers this is your salary on his word.


72

THE HEARING OFFICER: I believe the constitution provides that the salary can 
only be raised at the time -- right before the election.

MR. BOSTWICK: The nomination.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Right before nomination.

BY MR. BOSTWICK: By a vote.

THE HEARING OFFICER: You have to get the general presence, am I right, to make 
that change? 

BY THE WITNESS:

A That's right.
BY MR. BOSTWICK:

Q We can reference the specific constitutional cite.

So is it fair to say about regarding what you've just testified 
about, Mr. Scigalski, within four years of being in the union John Matassa had 
taken over the business manager's slot, which was the top position, also the 
president's slot, and also has full authority over all salaries of the elected 
officials?

A In four years he went from -- he went to


73

become the business manager and added to that the presidency and added to that a 
new concept where he could make decisions absolutely about the salary of his 
officers.

Q After you reviewed the records with respect to John Matassa, did 
you take a look at any of the other Executive Board members and how they came on 
to power and whether they fit any pattern that you'd seen?

A Yes, I did.

Q And who did you -- whose patterns did you review?

A Vincent DiVarco's and Dominick DiMaggio's.

Q And why did you choose those individuals?

A Well, Vincent DiVarco was the son of Joe "Caesar" DiVarco, who was 
a mob boss for whom Matassa worked on the north side crew, and Vincent DiVarco 
also was not a member of Local 2. He was a member of Local 1.

Local 1 had as its president Vince Solano, who was also one of Matassa's bosses 
in organized crime on the north side crew.


74

Q I'll refer you to March 4, 1988 and ask you about what you located 
in the minutes about Vince DiVarco.
A At that time Matassa announced the need for an additional Local 2 
field representative. This was his first election and at that point he appointed 
Vince DiVarco to move from Local 1 and to become the field rep for Local 2.

Q In decision to Matassa's recommendation was there any other 
recommendation mentioned in the minutes about Mr. DiVarco?
A Yes. This was based on the recommendation of the Chicago District 
Council.
Q And what was -- what do we know about the Chicago District Council 
at this time?
A It's currently in a trusteeship because of organized crime 
association and it dates back to that period of time.
Q And did you look at whether or not Mr. DiVarco had any other 
occasions to rise to power in the union?

A Yes, I did.
Q And let me refer you to -- well, what did you find?


75

A I found that pretty much precisely two years after he was a member 
of Local 2, the requirement to become an officer, he was nominated again in an 
uncontested circumstance to become the secretary/treasurer -- recording 
secretary, secretary/treasurer of the union. I'm not sure of which position he 
had.

Q Was he moved to the Executive Board?

A Yes, he was.
Q And it was either -- your recollection right now is he was either recording 
secretary or secretary/treasurer?

A Yes, but he did become an officer there.
Q Okay. And that was -- you said it was almost exactly two years.
I mean, he was put on in 1988. Was it 1990 or not?

A It was 1990.
Q Okay. Now, you also mentioned another individual whose patterns you 
looked for.

A Yes, Dominick DiMaggio.
Q Why did you look at Dominick DiMaggio on the Executive Board?

A Again, Dominick DiMaggio was not a


76

member of Local 2. He wasn't associated with Local 2. He was in fact initially 
from Buffalo, Dominick DiMaggio being the nephew of Sam Carlisi and Roy Carlisi; 
Sam Carlisi being, as was described earlier, a mobster in the Chicago area and 
Roy Carlisi being a mobster in Buffalo.
He did reside with Roy Carlisi, his uncle in Buffalo, and at that time he was 
associated with and a member of Local 210 in Buffalo.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Did any of these members you're describing, including Mr. 
Matassa, have any experience in the labor movement before they came into this 
union? BY THE WITNESS:
A Well, Dominick DiMaggio did work in 210 in Buffalo and Vince DiVarco 
was a member of Local 1 and I believe that both of them had done some work in 
the Chicago District Council.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Now, let me -- did Mr. DiMaggio also have any relationship to 
Alphonse Tornebene?

A Yes. That's his cousin.


77

Q Now, let me take you to January 12, 1990. What did you find out 
about Dominick DiMaggio in those minutes?
A At that time Matassa citing unexpected resignation and new tunnel 
work announced the need for a new field representative and he offered the 
recommendation that came through the Chicago District Council and the Executive 
Board unanimously approved that Dominick DiMaggio, again, nephew of mob bosses 
Roy and Sam Carlisi, become the rep there at that time, a paid position.
Q Those were Mr. Matassa's two choices for field reps?

A Yes.
Q And neither of those individuals had been Local 2 members, is that 
correct?

A They were not.

Q Both came from outside Local 2?

A They did.
Q And did anybody other than John Matassa recommend Dominick DiMaggio?

A Yes, the Chicago District Council.

Q Again, was it corrupted? According to


78

findings in the LIUNA process was it under -- was it infiltrated and, controlled 
by organized crime at that time?

A Yes, it was.
Q Now, what did you -- let me refer you to the notes on 
June 11, 1991, one year after -- approximately one year after Dominick DiMaggio
comes on board. What did you find in those minutes?

A Approximately, one year after he came on board to Local 2 and, in 
fact, as a field rep he was sent again as an observer to LIUNA's convention in 
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Q So he's chosen to represent the local a year after?

A Yes.
Q Now, what did you find in the November 14, 1992 notes?
A At that time Matassa announced that Dominick DiMaggio had been a 
member of Local 2 for two years and so, therefore, he was -- it was appropriate 
that he could become an officer and at that time the board unanimously approved 
Matassa's appointment of Dominick DiMaggio for the position


79

of vice president.

Q So that's two years and how long?

A That's two years and two days.
Q So the minimum amount of time to wait is two years and Dominick 
DiMaggio waits two years and two days to get on the Executive Board?
A He satisfied the minimum requirement by two days.
Q And John Matassa waited two years and Vince DiVarco waited two 
years?

A Yes.
Q And apart from -- let me ask you as to those three individuals.
They all came from outside the local, right?

A Yes, they did.
Q Was anybody else at the local who was working at the local suggested 
to be in those positions according to the minutes?

A No.
Q Nobody else they could find at that local to contest that position?
A Not according to the minutes that I reviewed.


80

Q To take the position of field representative?

A Not according to the minutes I reviewed.
Q Did all of their subsequent nominations go uncontested by the 
Executive Board and unanimously approved?

A Yes.
Q Did you review the minutes to determine whether since 1984 any of 
the seven elected positions have ever had anybody who is a contested candidate 
at all?
A They -- up until the trusteeship complaint was handed out there had 
not been any contested election.
I believe one of the positions was about to be contested. I might be wrong on my 
timing, but a few weeks ago or maybe a month ago when they had a meeting.
Q Putting the items relating to the threat in trusteeship aside, at 
any time were there any positions that were contested -- any elected positions 
that were contested at all in Local 2?

A Not based on my review.

Q Now I'd like to talk for a minute about


81

finances of the local.
Did you also review certain financial information relating to the local union?

A Yes, I did.
Q Now, you've already testified relating to Matassa -- John Matassa's 
control over the salaries of the Executive Board officials.

Is that correct?

A Yes.
Q In terms of Exhibit 23, did you take a look at the deferred 
compensation agreement?

A Yes, I did.
Q Okay. What did you find with respect to Exhibit 23?
A I found that John Matassa had signed and set up for himself a deferred 
compensation program without asking input from his board of officers or from the 
general membership.

Q Okay. Let's back up for a 
minute.
What is the date of this deferred compensation agreement? You'll find it on page 
8 or around that. THE HEARING OFFICER: February the 19th. MR. BOSTWICK: I 
believe it's February




82
1st.
THE HEARING OFFICER: February 1, 1994. 
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And what was -- this was an agreement that John Matassa -- who 
signed this agreement?
A John Matassa.
Q For himself?
A For himself.
Q And who signed the agreement for the local union?
A John Matassa.
Q So the contract says John Matassa for Local 2 and John Matassa for 
himself?
A John Matassa for himself, John Matassa for the union.
Q And what did he provide himself as a result of this agreement?
A It was kind of a financial value similar to a 401K, to a 401K kind 
of circumstance where it's deferred compensation.
The value comes through the tax basis and the fact that you don't have to count 
it


83
as income.
Q All right. Did you refer in -- did you take a look through the 
minutes in 1994 and before to see if he had asked the Executive Board or the 
general membership whether or not it was okay to approve this type of an 
agreement?
A There was no indication that he had asked them at all or even 
discussed it with anyone.
Q So, in other words, you did do that?
A I did do that, yes.
Q And you found no indication?
A Yes. I
Q Now, did you find any indication that any of these other Executive Board 
members were offered this type of an agreement?
A Not according to my review of the minutes. They were not offered 
this agreement.
Q And they were not informed before it was signed?
A They were not.
Q Now, did you take a look at the minutes to see if it ever -- if the 
subject ever came up?
A Yes, I did.


84
Q And what did you find?
A It eventually did come up shortly after the Ethics Code was 
introduced. Mr. Matassa had advised the Board that he had done this sometime 
before and it was just a matter of reference.
It, again, was not asking if anyone was interested according to my review. It 
simply mentioned that it occurred.
Q Approximately, how long after he had entered into the agreement did he mention 
it to the Executive Board?
A I think it was about a year and a half or two years later.
Q And, again, the question is was the Executive Board or the 
membership ever asked to approve that?
A Neither. Neither was asked to approve it according to my review.
Q According to your review was any Executive Board member offered a 
similar type of package?
A No.
Q Now I'd like to ask you about another financial matter and that's --


85
THE HEARING OFFICER: Before you go any further, what's its worth?

BY THE WITNESS:
A I don't know exactly.
THE HEARING OFFICER: What are we talking about here as far as dollars go?

BY THE WITNESS:
A Which number was it again?
MR. BOSTWICK: It's 23.
THE HEARING OFFICER: 23. He's supposed to get something every month, right?
BY THE WITNESS:
A It's not one that's contributed to by the union. It's his own funds. 
He gets the value of deferred compensation based on utilizing his own funds. 
It's not matched by the union.
MR. BOSTWICK: I think the answer is it depends on the investment. He's permitted 
to take his money and do something different than the other Executive Board 
members with it and it depends on the value of his investment.

THE HEARING OFFICER: You guys have to


86
clear this up because I don't quite understand this. Tell me what it means. 

BY THE WITNESS:
A Well, it's something similar -- from my review of it and looking at 
it and talking with him about it, it's somewhat similar to a 401K kind of thing 
but it's not a 401K. It's a deferred compensation. You're allowed to defer a 
certain amount of money and the way it's set up is it has to be authorized by 
the company that you're working for. In this case it's the union; and so what he 
does is he authorizes, you know, based on being the head of Local 2, that he can 
have this and he authorizes because he's the member that's receiving it. So he's 
both people and he's saying I've authorized on behalf of the union that I can 
have this deferred compensation program and, you know, in a 401K through my 
experience, for example, it would be mandatorily offered to other people who are 
employees of the company. In this case he set it up himself, took it himself and 
it was never offered to anyone else.


87
THE HEARING OFFICER: It's like a SEP plan? 

BY THE WITNESS:
A Something like that, yes. It's not exactly that. There's a few 
differences.
THE HEARING OFFICER: What's the tax benefit to him? 
BY THE WITNESS:
A The tax benefit is deferred compensation. You're not paying for it 
now. You're going to pay for it later on and there are some other elements to it 
besides.
I'd have to read through it again, but there's some other elements of benefit 
with respect to this deal and it's only set up if you're working for a specific 
company. It's not just -- it's not like an IRA where you're limited. BY MR. 
BOSTWICK:
Q And that's your best understanding?
A That's as I understood it as it was explained to me back then.
Q Now, did you ever have the specific records to your knowledge of the 
actual -- well, let me do this. In terms of the legal bills --


88
we're going to discuss some legal bills of Local 2.
Did you review the minutes of Local 2 for 1997 and 1998 to determine what was 
authorized for legal expenses from the local?
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay. I refer you to your Exhibit 49 and the minutes on 12-9-97 and 
ask you what did you find on those -- on that date?
A On that day Matassa proposed to pay up the $75,000 to attorneys Earl 
Neal and Associates to represent Local 2 and any proceedings relating to the 
Chicago District Council and Local 2 and it was approved at that time.
Q So that's how much?
A $75,000.
Q And on May 12, 1998, did you find a reference to the amount 
authorized by the Executive Board at that period of time?
A Yes. There was -- the Executive Board unanimously adopted 
authorization to pay the attorneys an additional $50,000 retainer to handle what 
was described as laborers' work.
Q And so that's $125,000 approved in all,


89
is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now, who were the lawyers that that was approved for?
A For Earl Neal and Associates.
Q And who do you know them to be?
A Judge Leighton and Peter Faraci.
Q And do you understand them to have any relationship -- 
attorney-client relationship to anybody other than Local 2?
A Yes. They had an attorney-client relationship with John Matassa.
Q Now, did you receive as part of your investigation any records 
relating to some of the work they did for that money?
A Yes, I did.
Q And are those records included in this -- in these exhibits?
A Yes, they are.
Q Can you explain briefly the investigative portion of the legal work 
that was done for Local 2 according to the records?
A An investigation was done by -- they had hired an investigator 
through the law firm and the


90
investigator reviewed the allegations against Mr. Matassa, the testimony that 
related to Mr. Matassa's involvement in organized crime.
Q Did they hire the attorneys to do an investigation in that --
A Yes.
Q -- same vein?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Go ahead.
A And the investigator's report also
included a background investigation of Mr. Vaira,
his background.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Did he pass? How did he do? 
BY THE WITNESS:
A Pretty well.
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Is it your testimony that Local 2's Executive Board hired John 
Matassa's attorneys, who were defending him about allegations of organized 
crime, to figure out whether the organized crime allegations were true?
A Yes.
Q And is it your understanding that a


91
portion of that money at least was paid for that amount?
A Yes.
Q I Did you review the records -- did you review records at all or seek 
records about payments made to those attorneys, checks that had been cashed?
In other words -- let me make that question clear. What you were talking about 
before was what was authorized, not what was paid.
Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q So did you review the records to see how much was paid?
A Yes, I did.
Q Okay. And what did you find?
A I found that of the authorization of the amount we've discussed $71,000 
was paid.
Q Approximately?
A Approximately.
Q And those are -- I refer you to Exhibits 31 and 32 as the -- what are 
those, 31 and 32, Mr. Scigalski?
A 31 and 32 are letters from a


92
Mr. Peter --
Q No, no. 31. You're on the wrong one.
A Okay. It's a check. What I believe, , it's copies that I received 
-- having asked for the original checks, we received copies that I believe was 
the bottom rip-off portion of the check that was actually paid out.
Q So those total approximately $71,000?
A Yes.
Q All right. I have just a few more questions for you.
Did you attend a meeting --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Before you get to that.
MR. BOSTWICK: Sorry.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Give me the bottom line here. How much money was authorized 
and what was it authorized for?
I see you're describing the law firm that represents the local union, which the 
union can do if it wants to. BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And I get from your


93
testimony that the individuals also represented Mr. Matassa in his personal 
capacity. Am I right? BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes, both at the same time.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Now, give me some line there.
As I understand the law, a local union cannot pay for the defense of an 
individual in a disciplinary matter. It may reimburse him if he's exonerated, 
but how much money for what?
BY THE WITNESS:
A I really don't know. I haven't been able to determine that based on 
my review.
I don't. know how much of it was specifically directed to the defense 
requirement for Mr. Matassa and how much of it was set aside for the 
representation of the union.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I do know that during the trusteeship portion, the 
trusteeship of the Chicago District Council, Mr. Matassa's personal lawyers 
appeared at the beginning and periodically throughout.


94
BY THE WITNESS:
A They did.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Then a disciplinary matter came up and, of course, they 
appeared on his behalf then? BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Are you saying a portion of that -- how much is it, 
$75,000? BY THE WITNESS:
A $71,000.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Some of it was for him and some of it was for Local 2? 
BY THE WITNESS:
A That's my finding of it based on my review.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you have an idea, being able to look at the bills, how 
much went for what? BY THE WITNESS:
A No.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Was Local 2 ever a party to any -- really a significant 
part of anything in the trusteeship?


95
MR. BOSTWICK: No.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I would look forward to something from these gentlemen 
giving me some sort of a breakdown as to what that means.
MR. BOSTWICK: We have certain of the bills and we can try to delineate that. We 
can try to delineate it.
I'm not sure we'll ever be able to come up with a perfectly firm number of what 
was legitimately done.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Is it your position that it was improper for the law firm 
-- not the law firm to represent, but the bills to be paid for both at the same 
time, his personal defense and also his -- also whatever position Local 2 had in 
the process?

MR. BOSTWICK: I want to be clear here. We're not focusing on the law firm and 
the propriety of the law firm.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I understand that.
MR. BOSTWICK: It's our position that it was inappropriate for the Executive 
Board to authorize large payments for what was at least


96
in large part an investigation of whether John Matassa was an organized crime 
figure while the attorneys that they hired were defending John Matassa relating 
those same -- relating to those same allegations, that the union members were 
not getting a very good dollar for dollar value for those services and the 
services of the investigator.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I'd look forward to something because there's a time 
sequence that would probably put this into perspective.
At the beginning of the trusteeship, at that point I believe Mr. Matassa was 
prominent in the trusteeship complaint and his attorneys showed up right about 
the start of that.
I never did understand Local 2 as having been involved or been under a 
microscope and it appears to me what you're saying is that even though he was 
authorized supposedly to defend Local 2, probably 90 percent of the time was 
probably spent defending him.
It seems that way because I remember


97
at the beginning of the trusteeship they showed up and said here, we're 
representing Mr. Matassa, and that was pretty early on.
MR. BOSTWICK: That's correct.
THE HEARING OFFICER: So I would look forward to something from you as a document 
or to demonstrate what you reasonably think is the breakdown.
MR. BOSTWICK: It's unfair to Mr. Scigalski to pursue this too far based on his 
limited review of the records, but I would just note that Exhibits 25 through 
30, those six exhibits are going to bear on that to some degree. That is some of 
the work product produced for that -- those payments.
THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.
MR. BOSTWICK: Which we feel was used in the disciplinary action; but, as I say, 
I'm going to move for the admission based on the following, and that's this. BY 
MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Mr. Scigalski, can you tell me whether Exhibits 30 
through 35 were collected in the


98
course of the investigation of Local 2?
A Yes, they were.
Q And that they are Local 2 records?
A Yes, they are.
MR. BOSTWICK: That's the basis with which I would move to introduce those, but 
I'm not going to ask Mr. Scigalski to testify about those documents.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I will admit them. I look forward to at least a letter of 
memoranda defining what was really -- what you can reasonably glean went for the 
defense of Matassa or all of it and I direct you to show that. All right? 
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Understood. Mr. Scigalski, in terms of -- we were about to get to a 
meeting regarding supervision. Was there a time about a year ago when you were 
in a meeting which was set up for the Executive Board of Local 2?
A Yes.
Q And do you recall the date of that meeting?


99
A I know it was in June. I believe it might have been on June 6th, but 
I'm not --
Q Of 1988?
A 1988 -- 1998.
Q I'm sorry, 1998. And what was the purpose of that meeting?
A The purpose was to meet with the officers of Local 2 to present them 
with a supervision agreement and to see if they would consent to it.
Q As an alternative to a more costly --
A Trusteeship.
Q -- trusteeship process a supervision agreement was proposed?
A Yes.
Q And what was -- who was invited to that meeting?
A All the officers of Local 2.
Q And who showed up?
A Dominick DiMaggio and Vince DiVarco.
Q Did any of the other Executive Board members show up?
A No.
Q And was it your understanding that that


100
offer was rejected?
A Yes. As I recall, we heard nothing about it, his response.
Q Did you review the minutes to see if there was any reference to that 
rejection of the supervision agreement in the minutes of Local 2 last year?
A Yes, I did, and there was none.
Q Okay. So according to the minutes anyway, the Executive Board never 
informed the membership that they had taken that action on their behalf?
A According to the minutes, they never had informed them.
Q Now I'm going to need your help as I ask Mr. Scigalski just briefly 
to go quickly through these documents and then we can hear from a couple of 
union members.
I'm going to start with Exhibit 23 and that was the Deferred Compensation 
Agreement and I move that into admission.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Admitted.
(Exhibit No. 23 admitted into evidence.)


101
MR. BOSTWICK: And then we handled 25 through 30 and 31 and 32 were the checks. 
I'm not sure if I moved their admission. If I didn't, I do so now.
THE HEARING OFFICER: So admitted.
(Exhibit Nos. 25 through 32 admitted into evidence.) 
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q There was 34. Can you tell us what 34 and 35 are, Mr. Scigalski?
A Yes. 34 is to the Executive Board of Local 2. It regards the 
trusteeship complaint pending against Local 2 and it advises -- it's just a 
letter from you.
Q So, in other words, those -- 34 and 35 Were letters 
sent out to the membership? Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Local 2?
A Yes.
MR. BOSTWICK: I move those as --
THE HEARING OFFICER: Admitted.
(Exhibit Nos. 34 and 35 admitted into evidence.)


102
BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q And 24, I didn't show you that, Mr. Scigalski. Can I show you that 
at this time? What is 24?
A 24 is a supervision agreement.
Q What supervision agreement?
A Let me see. 24 is the supervision agreement that was based on -- it 
was February 7, 1998, LIUNA's independent hearing officer. It goes through -
Q In other words, was that the supervision agreement that was 
proposed at the meeting you just described?
A Yes.
MR. BOSTWICK: I would move for its admission at this time.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Admitted.
(Exhibit No. 24 admitted into evidence.) BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Let me go through to make sure I'm not missing anything for him. Oh, 
42 through 47.What are those, Mr. Scigalski?
A Those are depositions of officers of


103
Local 2.
Q Okay. And do those relate in some part to questions about their 
attorney situation and other matters?
A Yes, they do.
MR. BOSTWICK: Okay. I would move for their admission to help clarify those 
issues.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Admitted.
(Exhibit Nos. 42 through 47 admitted into evidence.)
MR. BOSTWICK: And then 48 and 49 we've admitted and that's -- I've got no 
further questions for Mr. Scigalski.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
MR. PAUL: We call Robert Bloch.
(Witness duly sworn.)
ROBERT BLOCH, called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was 
examined upon oral interrogatories and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PAUL:
Q State your name and spell your last name for the record, please.


104
A Robert Bloch, B-1-o-c-h.
Q And Mr. Bloch, do you currently hold a position with the Chicago 
District Council?
A Yes. I'm a trustee.
Q And were you appointed to that position by the GEB attorney?
A Yes, in part, also by the Justice Department.
Q Okay. And how did the -- how did it resolve that the Chicago 
District Council was in a trusteeship? Was there a hearing before Mr. Vaira?
A Yes. A complaint was brought and Mr. Vaira issued a decision 
directing a trusteeship and shortly thereafter I was appointed.
Q . And at some point was there Federal Court litigation regarding the 
imposition of the trusteeship?
A Yes.
Q Okay. I'd like to direct your attention to a preliminary injunction 
hearing that occurred on March 12, 1998. Were you present in Federal Court



105
that day?
A I don't recall the exact date, but sometime around then, yes.
Q Do you recall being present for a preliminary injunction hearing?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And we don't need to go into a lot of detail, but can you just 
generally state for us what the purpose of that Federal Court litigation was?
A Yes. The officers of the District Council did not consent to the 
imposition of the trusteeship and a lawsuit was brought to compel their 
cooperation.
Q In other words, you used the Federal Courts, to compel them to abide 
by Mr. Vaira's ruling. Is that fair?
A Yes. That's correct.
Q Now I'd like to direct your attention to April 26th of this year, 
just, you know a few weeks ago. Do you recall a meeting that took place at Terry 
Healy's office?
A Yes, I do.


106
Q And can you describe that meeting for us?
A All right. It was in the evening about -- it began about 7:00 
o'clock. I was there; Terry Healy, the regional manager and vice president; 
Dwight Bostwick was there and the seven Executive Board members from Local 2 
were there.
Q And what was the purpose of this meeting?
A Mr. Bostwick presented to the Executive Board -- the Local 2 Executive Board 
an agreement for a supervision of the local.
Q Would that be a voluntary supervision agreement?
A Yes.
Q And can you describe Mr. Bostwick's presentation to the Executive 
Board members?
A Sure. We were all seated around the table and Mr. Bostwick passed 
out copies of the supervision agreement and reviewed -- after everyone read it, 
he then reviewed its terms and what they meant and gave the reasons why he felt 
it was in Local 2's interests to voluntarily agree


107
to a supervision as opposed to the possibility of being placed in trusteeship in 
an adversary proceeding.
Q Was one of those reasons that it would be less expensive for the 
local to accept a voluntary trusteeship -- a voluntary supervision as opposed to 
fighting through a trusteeship proceeding?
A That was one of the reasons he gave.
Q Did he discuss at all the impact on the day-to-day functioning of the 
local in a voluntary supervision setting versus a trusteeship?
A Yes. Well, he explained that under -­he explained the difference 
between a supervision and a trusteeship, that being essentially that under a 
supervision a supervisor is appointed who has the powers of a trustee but does 
not automatically remove any of the elected officers and he said words to the 
effect that under a supervision agreement there would be less disruption to the 
activities of the local, less interference with their contractual relationships 
and that it was likely that some or all of the elected officers would be able to 
stay on.


108
Q Okay. And at some point in that meeting did Mr. Bostwick actually 
offer to change one of the provisions regarding whether current officers could 
be dismissed?
A Yes, he did.
Q And can you describe that?
A I don't recall who, but someone raised the concern that 
if the local were to agree to the voluntary supervision agreement that the 
supervisor would be free to remove all of the elected officers immediately 
notwithstanding Mr. Bostwick's assurances on the matter and their concern was 
that they would be removed without the supervisor having the opportunity to see 
whether or not they could perform their jobs.
Mr. Bostwick agreed that -- to change the agreement so as to permit all the 
elected officers to hold their positions for at least thirty days provided they 
didn't commit any serious misconduct during that thirty-day period.
Q And did Mr. Bostwick describe the strengths and weaknesses of what 
he perceived the GEB attorney's case would be should a trusteeship action 
proceed?


109
A Only in a general sense. I don't think he disclosed particularities 
of the evidence he intended to present.
Q Would it be fair to say, though, that there was some discussion of 
how a trusteeship action might proceed against the local?
A Yes.
Q Now, did Mr. Healy add anything to the conversation do you recall?
A I don't remember him adding anything at the time Mr. Bostwick 
presented the agreement.
Q Okay. After Mr. Bostwick presented the agreement, what happened 
next?
A Mr. Bostwick, Mr. Healy and I left and -- oh, I forgot to mention that Local 
2's attorney, James Montgomery, also attended the meeting.
The Executive Board remained in a conference room with Mr. Montgomery and they 
discussed -- I presume that they discussed the supervision agreement.
Q Okay. Was it a brief private discussion on their part?
A No. It went on for at least a couple


110
hours.
Q Okay. At any point was there any interaction between the members of 
the Executive Board and you, Mr. Healy or Mr. Bostwick?
A Occasionally John Matassa would come out of the room and report to 
us what was going on or at least told us things about what was going on and 
generally chatted with us a bit.
Q At any point did Mr. Healy talk to the Executive Board members?
A Yes, he did.
Q And were you able to hear that conversation?
A No. At one point I tried to get in the room myself, but I was kicked 
out.
There was a point late in the meeting where some of the Executive Board members 
came out and in effect threw their hands up and said they were unable to 
conclude an agreement and I think that Mr. Bostwick and Mr. Healy and I all 
urged them to go back in and talk some more and at some point Mr. Healy went in 
and I did hear the sound of Mr. Healy's raised voice in the room.
Q What time did the meeting ultimately


111
conclude? Do you recall?
A Sometime after 10:00.
Q Now, is it your impression that this offer that was presented was a 
serious bonafide offer at the time?
A Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I hope so. You have ten people and the regional manager and 
a whole bunch of people standing around. I hope it was.
MR. PAUL: That's exactly what I'm getting at.
THE HEARING OFFICER: My question is what does this have to do with this case?
MR. PAUL: I think it will be clear with the next witness.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. It sounds like settlement negotiations to me and 
settlement negotiations occur often and things happen and things don't happen. 
I'm asking for the relevance of this whole conversation.
MR. PAUL: Well, the relevance is there will be testimony subsequent to this that 
this


112
meeting was never disclosed to the members; and, in fact, members 
specifically asked if any agreement like this was ever proposed and they 
were directly told no, it had never been proposed. That's the relevance to this.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.
MR. PAUL: And I'm almost done.
BY MR. PAUL:
Q And let me refer you to Exhibit 33 in that large binder in front of 
you.
Exhibit 33 is a supervision agreement, "In Re: Supervision Proceedings LIUNA 
Local 2, Chicago, Illinois."
Will you take a moment and look at that?
(Pause.) BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes.
BY MR. PAUL:
Q And is that agreement substantially the same as the one that was 
offered and handed out at the meeting that you just described?
A I can't say if it's the exact same agreement, but it's substantially 
the same, yes.


113
Q Okay. And let me just ask you one final question. When that meeting 
broke up had this offer been rejected?
A Mr. Matassa told us that the -- that they -- that the Executive Board 
was unable to agree on the supervision agreement and, in fact, it was not signed 
that night and I don't believe it was ever signed.
MR. PAUL: Okay. That's all I have for this witness; and, Mr. Vaira, I apologize. 
I would move to admit Exhibit 33.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. I'll admit it. I'm not sure how much weight is going 
to go with it but, as I say, I'll admit it and decide later.
(Exhibit No. 33 admitted into evidence.)
MR. PAUL: That's all I have.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
MR. BOSTWICK: At this point we call Local 2 member mark Tomasik.
(Witness duly sworn.)
MARK TOMASIK, called as a witness herein, having been first duly


114
sworn, was examined upon oral interrogatories and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Could you state your name for the record and spell your last name, 
please?
A Mark A. Tomasik, T-o-m-a-s-i-k.
Q How long have you been working in the union?
A Five years.
Q And are you currently a LIUNA member?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you currently a Local 2 member?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you hold any positions? Are you a steward or anything?
A I'm a foreman.
Q Where?
A Nash Brothers Construction.
Q Did you go to a union meeting two days after the meeting that was 
just described by Mr. Bloch on April 28th?
A Yes, sir.
Q And have you taken a look at minutes of


115
that -- at that meeting?
A Yes, I have.
Q One moment.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that a general membership meeting? 
BY THE WITNESS:
A Yes.
MR. BOSTWICK: If you'll give me one moment while I try to locate these minutes 
here. I believe it's Exhibit -- can we break for one minute?
(Pause.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: What are you going to call this?
MR. BOSTWICK: 51. BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Were you asked to take a look at some nomination -- some minutes from 
the meeting, general membership meeting on April 28, 1999 and some subsequent 
meetings?
A Yes, I was.
Q And what -- when you reviewed the April 28th nomination meeting 
minutes, did you also review the Executive Board minutes of a meeting on


116
April 26, 1999?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, I'm going to refer you to -- how many pages is your document 
there?
A Ten.
Q Ten. Okay. All right. On Exhibit 51, let's just go 
through the nomination meeting on April 28, 1999.Now, you were at this meeting. 
Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, it says on the third -- on the fourth paragraph there that:
"The Chairman John Matassa then read the special Executive Board Nomination 
Minutes report." Do you see that? 
A Yes, I do.
Q Now, you were there and heard those minutes read?
A Yes.
Q The special nomination report?
A Yes.
Q And the back of this -- the back three pages, 7, 8 and 9 -- 7 and 8 
of this document are


117
those minutes?
A Right, correct.
Q All right. Now, did you take a look at those minutes to see if all 
of that information was read to the general membership?
A I did look at all the minutes, correct.
Q Okay. And you took a look at this to see if all that was read to the 
membership?
A Correct. You're correct.
Q And why don't you just tell me which of those parts were read and 
which parts were not.
A Number 1(A) -- (A) was read.
Q Okay.
A (B) and (C) were read. 2 (A) was not read. (3) was not read. (4) 
definitely was not read. Now, (5) was read with a lot of discrepancies. (6) -- 
(6) I'm not real sure of. 6(A) was definitely not read. That would be 6(B), I 
don't recall that being read. 6(C) I do not recall being read. Nor do I recall 
(D) or any of them below being read.
Q Okay. Let me just focus on a couple of things you said were not read 
at the time.
You see that above paragraph number


118
one, the fourth paragraph, it says: "At this time Brother Christopher discussed 
the letter from Earl L. Neal and Associates. Judge Leighton has been 
representing Brother Matassa and the Local. At this time there might be a 
possible conflict. So the Local has to rename a new lawyer. After numerous 
interviews the Executive Board settled on the Law Firm of James Montgomery." Do 
you see that?
A Yes, I see it.
Q On April 28th, did you ever hear about that?
A No, I don't recall it. No, I don't recall it. I can't remember if it 
was or wasn't said, that actual paragraph.
Q All right. How about Number 3 there.
A Okay. 3?
Q Did you say that was not read or discussed?
A Right. That was not discussed.


119
Q And that was relating to each of the full-time elected officers be 
given supplies with an automobile or lease on purchase of a vehicle.
That whole paragraph was not read?
A Right, 3.
Q 4, I believe you said that was definitely not read?
A No. Never happened. Never read.
' Q It says:
"The Executive Board be empowered to approve any necessary political or 
charitable donations, banquets and other expenditures that do not exceed over 
five thousand dollars."
A Never read, nowhere
Q How are you sure that wasn't read?
A Because myself and other members would have objected to this. I 
mean, who gives them the power to okay up to $5,000? It was never brought to our 
attention, never.
Q How about Number 5.
"Business manager and Executive Board be empowered to decrease


120
anyone's salary make any necessary pay cuts for the financial good and welfare 
of the Local Union." Do you know about that one?
A Yes. That was read. Yes.
Q Okay. On the next page, how about all these various 
provisions about attorneys -- I'm sorry, about vacation?
A No.
Q Service, 6(A) through (D)?
A No.
Q You don't recall anything about that?
A No.
Q And I'm going to go below (D) here. It says:
"Upon approval of the Executive Board and the membership, all officers or 
employees shall be reimbursed by the Local for any expenses incurred by them in 
connection with the performance of their duties on behalf of the Local."
Was that discussed?


121
A No. Not to my knowledge, no.
Q You're not as sure on that one as you are about the other, the 
$5,000?
A Right. That's correct.
Q Now, going back to April 28th, the April 28th meeting and the 
minutes of that meeting, did you raise -- did anybody ever raise the fact of a 
supervision agreement being proposed to Local 2 and Local 2 Executive Board's 
rejection of it just a day or so before?
A On the 28th, no.
Q That was never discussed at that meeting?
A No. No, sir.
Q Never raised by any Executive Board member?
A No, sir.
Q Now, other than that, are those minutes reasonably accurate for the 
28th?
A Reasonably. I would say reasonably. They're not to the "T." They're 
reasonable.
Q How about the next page. Do you see the next page there, the regular 
monthly meeting of May 11, 1999?


122
A Right.
Q Were you at that? That's the next meeting of the general 
membership?
A Yes, it is.
Q May 11, 1999?
A Right.
Q As you sit here today, do you have a ,specific recollection of 
attending that meeting?
A Yes, sir.
Q Describe where it was held.
A That was held in our Local 2 office.
Q Let me ask you about the local office here. Was the Local 2 
offices ever moved on the membership?
A They were moved.
Q Approximately, when were the offices moved?
A I don't know. I found out through one of the business agents. 
Vince told me it was moved.
Q Was there ever any notice sent out to the membership that the 
local union hall moved?
A I didn't get one. I did not myself.
Q And how about this May 11th meeting.


123
It's in the new building, is that right?
A Right, correct.
Q Local 2, it is set up to accommodate how many people?
A Per fire code or how many did we squeeze in there?
Q How many would it reasonably accommodate?
A Ten.
Q How many were inside that meeting on that day?
A Probably, maybe fifty.
Q And did you review these minutes to see if they were 
accurate?
A I did review these minutes, yes.
Q How would you describe -- some of these members were 
probably there.



124
A Sure, correct. 
Q And you reviewed these minutes for their accuracy, right? 
A Yes, I did. 
Q Go down line by line and tell me what you remember about that 
meeting, what's accurate and what's not. 
A The first line: 
"