February 25, 2004

David Buvinger                                                                         Via Facsimile  312-886-0657

U.S. Attorney                                                                                       8 pages total

219 S. Dearborn St., 5^th Floor                                                              Hardcopy with attachments

Chicago, IL 60604                                                                                   via express mail

                        Re:  Laborers’ Local 872, Las Vegas, NV

Dear Mr. Buvinger:

I am writing you this letter on behalf of myself and other concerned members of Laborers’ Local 872.  Before I proceed any further I would like to acknowledge that some of the following remarks might be accusatory, inflammatory, strongly opinionated, and occasionally sarcastic.  If General President Terry O’Sullivan, Mike Bearse, Robert Luskin, or more recently Mano Frye had returned any of my phone calls in the last 2-½ years, this letter may have been unnecessary.  Occasionally some of Mr. Luskin’s subordinates would call, but mostly we have been left to draw our own conclusions.  It is not my intention to defame anyone or any organization, and I will try to state the facts a much as possible.  I am writing to you for several reasons, including, but not limited to the following:

A)    Your ongoing involvement with the reform process, and up coming meeting with Douglas Gow and Robert Luskin.

B)     I do not believe the LIUNA reform process actually alters or corrects error, or abolishes abuse or malpractice.  In our case it seems to reward it.

C)    The current system of discipline, trusteeships, voluntary supervisions, settlements agreements, and complete autonomy by the General Executive Board Attorney and the not so “independent” agencies does not appear to work.  At least not for the membership.  The process seems all too seldom to reward the guilty and punish the innocent, and discipline has an appearance of being entirely too selective.  I am sure the reform process has had its successes, but perhaps it is time to institute social and political conditions with a more revolutionary change.

D)    To best succeed this process should include the rank and file members such as the Brothers and Sisters who are driven only by their love of the Union, and not possibly the agendas of their law firms or personal goals.

In 2001, Laurie Vitale (Office Manager), Joe Vitale (Vice President), Manny George Gonzales (Recording Secretary), Eddie Dobbs (Executive Board), myself (Executive Board), Alfredo Castellanos (Business Agent/Organizer), Tony Castellanos (Organizer), and others saw our Local falling apart at the seams.  We were running out of thread long before this journey began in Vancouver, Canada.  It was in Canada where I heard a speech by Terry O’Sullivan.  In his speech he told the gathering that if they were just happy to have a job in their local, then it was time to get out and that an individual’s primary responsibility is to the Membership, not themselves.  I knew this wouldn’t happen in our Local.  We had too many people with personal and financial interests to ever heed Mr. O’Sullivan’s words.

In July and August 2001, not too long after this convention, we received a visit from Mike Pagano and Brent Pilarski, International Auditors.  Tony Valdez (Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer), John Seaton (Assistant Business Manager), and Thomas White (President) strongly encouraged us to mislead Mike Pagano, Investigator, with many promises of wholesale changes, including restoring our salaries back to their original amount.  (We later found out our salaries had been cut so Tony Valdez could pay himself $130,000 dollars, but more on that later).  Initially we all misled Mike Pagano.  However, this audit opened some of our eyes and we learned our problems were more serious than we initially realized.

Before the wheels of Pagano and Pilarski’s plane left the ground, things were back to the “old” ways, democracy was out the window, and the abuse was back.  By September 2001 Laurie Vitale had resigned and Joe Vitale was on a leave-of-absence.  Before Laurie resigned, she had reported to the Northwest Regional Office that Tommy White, President, was abusing the hiring hall rules, knowing that Tony Valdez thought the matter frivolous. She also reported that Tony Valdez was not heeding the recommendations from the audit and that she was concerned about the inconsistencies in some of the agreements with new contractors that were being accepted by Tony Valdez and John Seaton.  Northwest Region Vice President Chuck Barnes sent Lou D’Ambrosio (Representative) to “unofficially” investigate our complaints.  He found our problems to be trivial, and offered  “kiss and makeup” solutions.  If this was so trivial, why did we end up under supervision, why was Tony Valdez was thrown out of LIUNA, and why did Tommy White have to enter into a settlement agreement?  Why did Lou D’Ambrosio get promoted to Assistant Northwest Regional Manager?  After the audit John Seaton wrote a letter to Mike Pagano, strongly endorsing Mr. Valdez and Mr. White clearly stating he was sent down by the Northwest Region to make sure everything was done right.  Mr. Seaton even tried to “negotiate” with us and have us place him as Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer and shift Tony Valdez to head of Organizing if we would drop our charges.  John Seaton got a promotion to head of Northwest Regional Organizing.  Also, Tommy White never missed getting a paycheck, but much more on him later.

Since the Northwest Region thought our problems were trivial, I decided to call Mike Pagano and tell him we originally misled him, knowing that he had voiced his suspicions upon completion of his original investigation.  The decision of the Inspector General’s Office to meet with us at the International Convention (to elect the General Executive Board) probably did little to improve our relationship with the other officers of the local, the Northwest Region, and the General Headquarters.  I believe this single act is the largest reason we have lacked the support from International.  It was never our intention to sour such a great event for the General President and his staff. Immediately after this convention, those of us who supported this reform instead of Tony Valdez, were fired.

October 2001 brought forth a meeting with Matt Paul, an attorney from Robert Luskin’s office.  He encouraged myself, Joe Vitale, Manny Gonzales, and Eddie Dobbs to vote for voluntary supervision.  We now held the majority vote on the Executive Board.  A meeting was held for the membership to approve supervision, and we were told by Matt Paul to “stack” the meeting with supporters to assure a “yea” vote.  Mr. Paul told us if a “no” vote was received, Trusteeship would be invoked.  Vice President Chuck Barnes read the entire Supervision Agreement to the membership.  Why did he do this?  Was the intent to make everyone look guilty?  Was the purpose to take the spotlight off of Valdez and White?  That is exactly what happened.  The meeting became out of order and was adjourned.  The minutes of the meeting were never allowed to be submitted and were not read at the next meeting. Those minutes would have been an official record of the proceedings.  Why did this happen?  Was it because the minutes would have been a record of allegations by Jose Hernandez against Tommy White that Mr. Paul would have had to act on?  In our previous meeting with Mr. Paul, he assured us that those facing allegations would not be left to run the Local.  Why did he mislead us?  Why were those who voluntarily came forward dismissed so readily?  Was a preconceived agenda already in place?  Since anyone in power has been reluctant to speak with me, I can only draw my own conclusions.

Supervision was granted.  Vice President Steve Hammond became Supervisor.  He briefly met with all of us who had voluntarily come forward, and came to the conclusion we were unsuitable to serve the Local in our former capacities.  Were his conclusions made long before he actually met with us?  Why did he believe people who voluntarily came forward be less suited than those who stood behind a soon-to-be expelled Business Manager?  Why were people who obstructed an investigation and were under investigation, allowed to serve?  An Executive Board meeting was held shortly after and Mr. Hammond dissolved the Board because he stated we could not work together, although the minutes from this meeting show the opposite.  Why was this done?  How can this action be consistent with the purposes and provision of the LIUNA Constitution, the Ethical Practices Code, and/or the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure (Section 4, Supervision Agreement)?  How can officers who came forward voluntarily be deemed unsuitable to serve?  Was this meeting a formality and the disbanding of the E-Board a foregone conclusion?

Eventually, Hammond cancelled all Monthly Membership Meetings beginning with the January 2002 meeting.  The Laborers were not allowed their right to another Monthly Membership Meeting until December 2003, a full two years, which contradicts the Ethical Practices Code, Democratic Practices, Section 2 of the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure!!  Hammond unjustly claimed that the members were too unruly to conduct any further meetings.  The members were upset because Mr. White was still employed and acting as Business Manager.  How can this action be consistent with paragraph 4 of the Supervision Agreement mentioned above?  The cancellation of Monthly Membership Meetings contradicts the LIUNA Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure once again.  For the next two years the members had no voice and were stripped of their constitutional rights to vote.  They had no vote on higher salaries, no vote on Collective Bargaining Agreements, no vote on their own raises, no vote on the allocations of their raises, no vote in the type of election process, and no vote on new hiring hall rules.  Basically they paid their dues to be members in name only.  Isn’t it easier to push an agenda when you have no opposition?  Our Membership was forced to endure a “like it or lump it” Local.  Was Voluntary Supervision really a Trusteeship in disguise with a softer title?  I still find it curious that up until the time I complained to the Department of Labor, OLMS in April 2003, all the LM-15 reports stated continuing problems.  Mysteriously after the Department of Labor questions the International, our problems were instantly fixed and provisions made for an election almost two years after the Supervision commenced.  (Why did Steve Hammond never sign a LM-15 report?  Why was it Chuck Barnes?)

At this time I engaged in a letter writing campaign and made many phone calls.  To this day I have not received one written answer from Mr. Luskin’s office, nor have I received any return phone calls from LIUNA’s headquarters.  Why is it that we never allowed any information?  Why are the powers at large inaccessible to the membership?  If you are the victim of a crime, or make a complaint to the Law Enforcement, for the most part, you are included in the process.  Why is this not so with our reform process?  Is it because we don’t have a uniform discipline procedure?  Why is there no system of accountability in place?  A “like it” or “lump it” policy is totally unacceptable.

The following is a history of some of the events and the discipline that followed.

Tommy White entered into a settlement agreement with the GEB attorney not to hold office for 90 days.  This was done to avoid formal charges.  He was shuffled off to the Trust Fund for that time period and then brought back to the Local as a Business Agent.  He never missed a paycheck.  Is this the GEB’s Attorney’s idea of discipline?  Mr. Paul told me Vice President Steve Hammond negotiated Tommy’s suspension.  Why did he do this?  Is it traditional for the Supervisor/Trustee to be involved in such procedures?  While we were under Mr. Hammond’s supervision, a grievance was filed against Tommy White by the NLRB (Joel Schochet 702-388-6012) for hiring hall violations.  Was this reported to the GEB?  If so, what was done?  In 2001 Tony Valdez paid himself a salary of over $130,000 dollars (2001 LM-2 report).  Mr. White was President and signed the checks.  He had to have known this salary was unconstitutional since the members never voted on it.  Why did he not report this?  If he did, why was nothing done?  While Mr. Hammond was absent from Local 872, Tommy gave Mr. Valdez an additional $15,000 back pay.  It was discovered and was determined to be undeserved, but to this day we cannot find out if this money was paid back.  Why are we not entitled to know?  Prior to our Supervision, large monetary judgments against our Trust Funds were made because of actions by Tommy White.  Threats and intimidation were used against Mike Reith and Frank Benedetto.  The GEB had this information.  Why was no action taken against Tommy White?  During the investigation Tommy White solicited damaging information against Joe Vitale from Phil Brown (Trust Benefits Collector).  Mr. Brown refused to lie and later lost his job.  The GEB has Mr. Brown’s statement.  Why was no action taken?  Tommy’s name is also mentioned on a tape where he was on his way to join Tony Valdez, Tom Morley (Organizer), and others and they were going to go to Joe Vitale’s house to “take care of people”.  Why was no action taken by the GEB?  As soon as the investigation began, several of us received “gag-order” letters from an attorney threatening to sue us on behalf of Tommy White.  Is this the action of an innocent man?  During our recent election of officers (2003), Tommy had a similar letter sent to certain candidates and supporters of Tommy’s opponents.  What does Mr. White have to hide?  Who paid for the attorney’s services?  In the past Mr. White worked for the Local and also the Trust Funds simultaneously.  Did he receive double pay, double benefits, double vacation, etc.?  Why is there no free flow of information?  This is just a little history of Mr. White prior to and after Supervision, not including allegations of other hiring hall violations, obstructing the GEB investigations, undemocratic practices, and failure of running the Local correctly (duties of a President).  All of this and he reaches an agreement not to hold office for 90 days, but never misses a paycheck.  Is this reform or reward?  How does someone, who at one time had to enter into a settlement agreement, become a Deputy Supervisor of the Local of which he is responsible for bringing under Supervision?

Eddie Sachetti became Deputy Supervisor when Mr. Hammond became ill and could not fulfill his duties.  Mr. Sachetti is retired and not supposed to work in the jurisdiction of Local 872 for which he has been trained.  Since he is a former Business Manager, we believe he was trained for that job and should not have been receiving a pension and wages from the Local at the same time.  Was Mr. Sachetti still working for LECET while he was Supervisor?  Is the reason that Mr. Sachetti negotiated an additional $ .02 (2 cents) for his employer, LECET, while negotiating our Collective Bargaining Agreement, a conflict of interest?  We believe so.  The GEB attorney is aware of this.  Why was nothing done?  Did Mr. Sachetti influence Mr. Hammond and others in regards to those who came forward?  If so,  for what agenda?  Did he put his 2 cents in so he could get his 2 cents out?  When all was said and done, Sachetti got a promotion.  Is this reform or reward?

Rob Trenkle (former Business Manager 1996 – 1998 and current LIUNA employee)(he gets promotions, too) retired in the mid 1990’s to give his wife his pension in a divorce settlement.  He was a Business Agent at this time.  He never missed a day’s work, and shortly after won the Local Election for Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer.  With the break in service because he retired, he was not eligible to run per the eligibility rules of the Local Uniform Constitution.  Why has no action been taken?  He later resigned office and retired again with only 8 credits.  We believe this to be illegal.  We believe he owes the Local for those wages and pension be received that he was not legally entitled to.  Is the Constitution different for Mr. Trenkle?  Can persons deviate from the Constitution at will?  Can the same be said for our Local Trust requirements?

In a letter to Mike Pagano, John Seaton acknowledges he was the Assistant Business Manager at Local 872, he is a supporter of the reform process, trained in certain IG investigations, and was sent by the Northwest Region to keep an eye on how the Local was running and report to Chuck Barnes.  In the same letter he heavily endorses Tony Valdez and Tommy White.  Respectively, one is now expelled from LIUNA and the other entered in an agreement not to be charged.  Which eye was Seaton keeping on the Local?  Are we to believe everything went unnoticed by Mr. Seaton?  Why didn’t he come forward?  Why was his solution to make himself the Business Manager and have us drop charges against Valdez and White?  Why did he disappear when the crap hit the fan, and the Local went under Supervision?  Great eye, great endorsement!  After all this was said and done, Seaton got a promotion, too.

David McCune (Current President/Business Agent) accepted employment as a Business Agent and the office of Sergeant-at-Arms in 1999/2000.  Through his own admission and documentation by Election Officer Daniel Clifton, he was convicted of felony cocaine possession in October 1989.  Under 29 U.S.C. 504, he should have been barred from holding both his employment and his office.  I attended the George Meany Center for Labor Studies with Mr. McCune, and together we were involved in the 1999 campaign to elect Tony Valdez.  At George Meany, 29 U.S.C. 504 is covered and a book titled Honest Reform is part of the curriculum.  During the ’99 campaign, 29 U.S.C. 504 was used to disqualify a candidate.  McCune is well aware of this.  The current staff of Local 872 claims they have been trained in the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedures.  During the 2001 investigation by the IG’s office, Mr. McCune was investigated, but only in Arizona, not in California where his conviction occurred.  Why did he mislead the IG?  Apparently he had something to hide.  If the truth had been uncovered then, he would not have been around to run for office now.  This is clearly an obstruction of the investigation.  The GEB has this information.  Why was nothing done?  How can someone violate 504, even though his 13 years may have expired, and be immune from discipline for obscuring the true facts?  Why is there no definitive explanation regarding whether a probation is equal to imprisonment?  Why did the Special Election Officer, Joseph Guerrieri, tell me it is the same, and then later change his mind?  The Department of Labor says it has no jurisdiction over 29 U.S.C. 504 violations once the violations have expired.  They say that it’s the responsibility of the U.S. Attorney.  Not unlike Rob Trenkle, we feel McCune accepted wages and benefits he was not entitled to!!  Does the GEB Attorney believe you can “un-rob” a bank?

According to the IG office of the Department of Labor in Chicago, Illinois, George Vaughn (Local 872 Organizer) is “Bad, bad, bad!”  We believe Mr. Vaughn is currently or recently in violation of 29 U.S.C. 504.  In 2001, Mr. Vaughn left his employment at Local 872 to go to Local 2/District Council in Illinois.  Local 2 was under Trusteeship at the time.  Mr. Vaughn later returned to Local 872.  Wouldn’t this reform process be better served if criminal checks were conducted before individuals were appointed as Organizers, Business Agents, etc.?

Information on Thomas (Tom) Morley (Organizer/Lobbyist) was given to the IG office, since we believe Mr. Morley is also currently or recently in violation of 29 U.S.C. 504.  The GEB Attorney has this information.  Why has nothing been done?  Apparently no one is sure what barrs someone from holding employment!  Once again Mr. Luskin refuses to return phone calls.  Why are we not entitled to know?  Mr. Morley also sided with Tony Valdez and has received a promotion and a raise higher than the D.O.L.’s cost of living index.  Reform or reward?

Also, in 2002, some other members of the staff of Local 872 received unconstitutional raises.  The information was given to the GEB attorney.  Why has nothing been done?  These raises were given while under Supervision.  Can the Supervisor deviate from the LIUNA Constitution at will?  Why are Business Agents entitled to $80,000, double credits, two weeks paid vacation, 30 sick days, holiday pay, and approximately $5,400 in extra vacation pay, when the Local is newly under Supervision?  And none of those people came forward voluntarily?  More reward, less reform?

John F, Kennedy once said “that great leaders don’t do great things, they inspire those around them to greatness”.  Apparently, some people around General President Terence M. O’Sullivan can’t be inspired, because he is a great leader.  Mr. O’Sullivan inspired me to start this course of action over two years ago.  Originally, we all would have liked the opportunity to show our abilities under the proper circumstances.  This didn’t happen, but no one should doubt the resolve of myself or other small groups of people with the right focus and the determination, who can change history.  This is historically true.  I cannot believe Mr. O’Sullivan is aware of all the events at our Local.  If he were I am sure he would have intervened long ago.

We have had and still have many problems at our Local.  Nothing has really changed, except the current staff gets paid much better these days to do exactly what was previously done.  I have been threatened.  Tommy White, Keith Martial (Executive Board/Business Agent), and others have tried to blackball me and attack my character.  Tommy White even stood up in front of the membership at a meeting and called Laurie Vitale a thief.  No charges of any kind were ever filed against Laurie.  In fact, she received a letter from Robert Luskin, which clearly states she has committed no wrong.  I could go on forever on the hiring hall problems, financial abuse, etc.  Hopefully I will get the opportunity to discuss this letter with you.

I believe LIUNA’s focus on reform is an honorable undertaking.  The influence of organized crime has placed a stigma on a great organization, however, the abuses of hiring halls, undemocratic practices, and the ineffectiveness of many Locals’ leadership has been equally detrimental to our great membership.  When members see what happens to those who voluntarily come forward and what doesn’t happen to those who would rather protect their jobs and their “soon-to-be” expelled Business manager, what is their incentive to participate in any reform process at any level?

Luckily our Local doesn’t have the “mob” problems that have plagued LIUNA.  Our guys just watch too many episodes of the Sopranos.  Great strides have been made in removing organized crime from our organization, but I also believe that any officer or employee of a Local who abuses their position and duties, or who manipulates the same for their own agenda, is an equally serious problem.

One more example is a defined benefit to the members called The Foundation for Fair Contracting (FFC).  Each member paid an hourly contribution of $.05 (five cents) so Davis-Bacon and Prevailing Wage work could be monitored.  With the help of Tommy White, Tony Valdez (former Business Manager), John Seaton (former Assistant Business Manager), and Dana Wiggins (Association of General Contractors) dissolved the fund and started a Market Recovery Fund.  Under our Collective Bargaining Agreement, if the fund was dissolved, the money was to be returned to the Membership.  The General Executive Board has this information.  Why was nothing done?  Why was Mr. Hammond’s Attorney allowed to write a “fix-it” letter many months after this happened?  Why can’t anyone tell us what happened to the money?  Is Supervision intended to help “un-rob” a bank?  To this day that money has not been returned to the Membership.  Why were we not allowed to decide?

Problems begin when the IG gives information to Mr. Luskin’s Office.  I’m not quite sure if he decides charges and discipline by the “eenie-meanie-miney-moe” method or coin toss.  Or is it simply personalities vs. principles issue?  Why is there no uniform procedure?  And if there is, why does discipline seem to vary solely based on his discretion?  We all admitted to the IG we were tardy on coming forward, but we did so voluntarily after the experience of the audit and the complete disregard of its recommendations by Tony Valdez, John Seaton, and Tommy White.

I received a letter from the GEB Attorney’s Office over two years ago saying I was guilty of nothing.  But those who failed their constitutional duties as Executive Board Members (except Tony Valdez) received little or no punishment and currently remain employed by the Local.  Reward or Reform?  Did this happen because we came forward at the International Convention?  A system that allows Mr. Luskin’s Office to be judge, jury, and executioner is unacceptable.  Would we not be better served by a pool of attorneys to choose from?  Does Mr. Luskin’s involvement with the Teamsters Reform detract from his duties with the LIUNA Reform?  How many cases does Mr. Luskin actually refer to the justice system?  In the military you can lose your benefits for a simple conduct unbecoming.  In LIUNA you can often get shuffled off to a job with the Trust.  Is this a form of probation???  Does a settlement agreement not to be charged really serve Reform?  Why do members have to go to Headquarters for documents pertaining to investigations and discipline?  And when settlement agreements are reached, why are we not allowed to view any documents?  What’s so democratic about that?  Could it be possible that the fewer the documented cases, the better the Reform? 

I believe I will exhaust my supply of paper long before I run out of questions, so I will end with this.  We are currently waiting for an election decision from the Department of Labor and two other investigations; one ongoing and the other about to start will bear witness to this letter.  Both Federal agencies feel there is enough information to warrant such investigations.

I believe if nothing else they will prove that because of a process that seems all too seldom to reward than reform, the problems at our Local continue because people were left to run the Local who had been abusing that privilege for their own personal gain to begin with.  I feel it would be naïve of us to think the problems we have addressed are isolated to Laborers’ Local 872.  Further investigation will bear this out.

A copy of this letter will be sent via U.S. Mail along with documents attached pertaining to this letter.  Anyone else requiring documents may contact me at the telephone listed below.

                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                David Martin

                                                                                                Member in Good Standing

                                                                                                2871 Calle de Oro

                                                                                                Las Vegas, NV 89120

                                                                                                702-521-8516

Laborers for JUSTICE© 1997-2004 All Rights reserved. Not for republication on the internet without permission. 
Jim McGough, Director
6304 N Francisco Av.
Chicago, Il 60659
773-878-1002 (tel)
773-409-1503 (eFax number)
laborers@comcast.net