Taxation Without Representation Is Tyranny
"..As set forth more fully in the Government's moving papers, the District Council's repeated non-disclosure and evasion of Government review justifies the issuance of a disclosure order.
In clear violation of the Decree, the District Council has amended its By-Laws to impose two different assessments with out notice to the Government or Government approval....
the District Council opposes such an order on the ground that the District Council agrees not to object to providing disclosure in the future. Given the District Council's demonstrated history of non-disclosure, however, its assurances about its future conduct should not dissuade the Court from entering a disclosure order...
Not withstanding the District Council's effort, serious questions persist about the amendments , and the Government cannot approve the amendments at this time....
The District Council also concedes that it enacted a $.30 per hour dues increase without giving the Government notice. Yet it ignores the additional factual premise that which leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the District Council has violated the Decree: In enacting the $.30 increase, the District Council amended its By-Laws...
the express terms of the enactment of the $.30 increase make it impossible for the District Council to deny that its By-Laws were amended. The relevant minutes state, :be it so resolved that section 21A of the By-laws... be hereby amended to provide that the Council shall receive ...one percent of the members total package rate...for each hour worked ,plus $.30 for each hour worked."...
The District Council stated that it was amending its By-Laws, specified the particular By-Law section to be amended and the precise language to be inserted, and selected an effective date of July 1, 2000...
Thus the District Council cannot plausibly dispute that it amended its By-laws... To accept the District Council's argument that the $.30 dues increase is a mere "administrative exercise" that need not be reflected in the By-Laws invites the somewhat metaphysical question of where the additional $.30 assessment would then exist...
Contrary to common sense, the District Council argues that the dues as they existed before July 1, 2000 are embodied in the By-Laws, but the $.30 increase need not be embodied anywhere...the District Council's prior notice obligation under the Decree extends without limitation to "any proposed changes to the By-Laws."...while the District Council might not view the $.30 assessment as "fundamental," it seems at least possible that the members -- who have been levied with a dues increase of MORE THAN 50%, costing them more than $5 million each year--might view the assessment as quite important indeed.
Of course, since the $.30 assessment apparently was not put to a membership vote, was not the subject of prior notice to the membership, and was not the subject of authorization by the membership, the members views remain unknown...
As to the $250 fine, the District Council asserts that a By-law amendment was unnecessary, and that it acted under the pre-existing section 21G as approved by the Court in 1999...However the District Council could not impose the $250 fine under the pre-existing 21G, so that the amendment the District Council sought was indeed necessary...
This fine is apparently being assessed without benefit of the usual procedural safeguards governing internal union disciplinary charges, trials and appeals under By-law section 28 and UBC Constitution sections 52 and 53. rather than receiving the protection of disciplinary procedures that take up 11 pages in the UBC Constitution, members simply "have been informed that they will be assessed."...
They have also been warned that failure to pay the $250 fine "will result in suspension."...the District Council imposed the fine without notice to the Government, notwithstanding the Governments repeated reservation of its objections to the proposed amendments, and its repeated requests to be advised if any proposed amendments were implemented...
Thus, as to both the $.30 assessment and the $250 fine, the District Council amended its By-Laws and proceeded to implement these amendments , all without the notice and Government approval mandated by the Decree.
In doing so, the District Council flagrantly violated the Decree...the District Council is collecting millions of dollars from its members pursuant to the assessment , which effected a dues increase OF MORE THAN 50%...
Nor does the District Council dispute that its failure to disclose occurred in the midst of discussions about other proposed amendments to the By-laws, and in the face of the Government's repeated inquiries and reservations of its objections...the District Council's demonstrated pattern of non-disclosure and circumvention of Government review cannot be overcome by the District Council's assurance that it will make disclosure in the future.
The district Council's assurance is difficult to accept as sufficient, given that it comes in response to the Governments application for a disclosure order...Even assuming that the District Council is sincere in its promise to make future disclosures, absent a disclosure order, the District Council will remain "to return to (its) old ways."...
Nevertheless, in its moving papers, the Government identified a number of serous questions concerning the propriety of the assessments...to a troubling extent , the District Council's submission raises more questions than it answers...The District argues that it has satisfied ERISA's written authorization requirement because the members have signed cards "since at least 1987" containing a purported CARTE BLANCHE authorization for the Vacation Fund "to deduct ...such amounts as designated , or as hereafter designated, by the District Council."...
The District Council argues that by signing a card as long ago as 1987, each member authorized the deduction of the $.30 enacted in June 2000, effecting an increase of over 50%...
It would grant the District Council an unlimited prerogative to help itself to the members vacation benefits, to the point of DEPLETING THE VACATION FUNDS ASSETS ENTIRELY...
The District Council also makes no attempt to demonstrate that it has satisfied ERISA's additional requirement that the Vacation fund receive reasonable compensation from the District Council for the Fund's services, EXCEPT TO IMPLY THAT ZERO CONSTITUTES REASONABLE COMPENSATION...
And the District Council says nothing in its opposition memorandum about when it is collecting the assessment from the Vacation Fund, even though ERISA permits payment "only when or after the money would otherwise be payable" to the participant...
In addition questions remain about the District Council's defense of its use of $.05 of the mandatory $.30 assessment to fund political action consistent with federal election law...
further examination is warranted as to the activities of the PAC, and the District Council's characterization of the governing election law...
Finally, the District Council argues that the LMRDA did not entitle the membership to vote on the $.30 assessment...
the District Council argues that it.. can increase dues not only through a secret vote but also through a special convention...While the District Council characterizes the meeting at which the assessment was enacted as a"special convention" the participants at the meeting were not elected for the specific purpose of attending the convention, but instead were the usual union officer delegates elected for general purposes in 1999.
The purported "special Convention"--which lasted 18 minutes and followed an ordinary Executive Delegate Committee meeting--thus may not qualify as a special convention...The "special convention" in essence appears to have been nothing more than a meeting of union officers. As the Second Circuit observed, the LMRDA "is intended to ensure that dues will not be imposed by the mere fiat of their officers."...the District Council's decision to exclude the membership from the enactment and implementation of the $.30 assessment causes concern.
Besides the District Council's unwillingness to put the assessment to a vote, it appears that the members did not even receive advance notice of the assessment...Then, even after the assessment was enacted, the District Council did not even seek authorization from the members before taking $.30 per hour from their vacation benefits, on the theory that blanket authorization cards signed more than a decade earlier were sufficient...
Given that the Decree expressly provides that "one of the purposes of the Consent Decree is to ensure that the District Council and its constituent local unions shall be maintained and run democratically, the Government can not approve the amendments at this time..."
What does this all mean? It means that the present administration under Mike Forde and his band of thieves, and supported by Doug Mccarron, attempted to illegally take millions of dollars from the brotherhood but got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The revolution is a hand, "Taxation without representation is tyranny !"
