Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Westchester D.A. Janet Di Fiore: More Bad News

Wednesday, August 22, 2012


WESTCHESTER D.A. JANET DIFIORE COVERS UP CAR THEFT FOR PEDOPHILE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Pedophile
1st Deputy Commissioner
Phil "Sandusky" Gille  

Ready. Set. Go…… The cover up is now in full swing to deflect all media attention away from “Nanny Gate”, the scandal on the part of Westchester District attorney Janet DiFiore.  Mount Vernon Exposed has gained more insight into the cover up and who the alleged players are.  Mount Vernon Exposed will continue to cover this event and bring you news not found anywhere else.  No holds barred. 
           
           A few weeks ago we have all read he coverage courtesy of the Journal News regarding the recording with 1st Deputy Commissioner Phil Gille and Westchester Independence   party chairman Guilio Cavallo.

Gille can be heard on tape admitting that Janet DiFiore sent her team of rogue 
investigators to investigate a "trumped up" complaint filed by Human Resources Director Valerie Raynor, wife of Terrence Raynor, Chief Criminal Investigator for Janet DFiore. Terrence Raynor was recently sued for bilking Westchester County taxpayers out of more than $40K for claiming S.T.A. R. exemptions on three different properties at the same time.


Corrupt D.A. 
Janet DiFiore
Mount Vernon Exposed has recently reported that 1stDeputy Commissioner Phil Gille is a known pedophile and has been preying on young boys for more than 20 years.  Gille is Westchester’s own Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State football recently convicted of raping and molesting young boys at Penn State University.  After our coverage on Gille, Mount Vernon Exposed was inundated with calls and emails seeking to know how Gille was involved in the “Nanny Gate” cover up and how did/does Gille benefit from such a cover up.  We will now explain detail for detail Gille’s motives and reasoning for covering up the “Nanny Gate” scandal.

Approximately two weeks ago, Gille’s Westchester County issued car was stolen by one of his young male lovers.  Gille reported the theft to his superiors in the County Executive Rob Astorino’s administration. While Astorino’s administration was frustrated and angered at Gille’s negligence, Gille was assured that the incident would be covered and made to look as if it never occurred.  If the public became aware of Gille’s activity it would be damaging for Astorino and his administration.

 The Astorino administration then sent detectives from the Westchester County Police to Gille’s residence at 21 Fairfield Place in Yonkers, NY.  To date, there is no evidence or records on file to suggest or indicate that Gille was ever issued a county vehicle even though most employees would confirm same.  No police report was ever filed at any police department, anywhere in Westchester County or the State of New York. 

Corrupt Chief Investigator
Terrence Raynor
When detectives arrived at the residence and rang the doorbell, they were greeted by a 15 year male, dressed in only a tank top and underwear.  When questioned by the detectives the 15 year male told detectives that he was an acquaintance of Gille’s and that they just returned from shopping and having dinner.  When detectives tried to get further information regarding the minor, the minor told the detectives to ask Gille about the extent of their relationship.  According to sources, Gille and the minor are sexually involved, and have been for some time now. Gille has also hired numerous of his “boy toys” to various positions in the Department of Social Services.  The Astorino administration is fully aware of Gille’s conduct and his pedophilia hobby. 

Westchester County detectives then took this information back to Terrence Raynor, Janet’s crooked Chief Investigator.  DiFiore then instructed Raynor and her 1st Deputy John George to pay Mr. Gille a visit and tell him that if he didn’t cover up and squash the “Nanny Gate” investigation they would prosecute him for having sex with a minor and statutory rape.  Raynor and Janet’s deputy also paid a visit to Kevin Plunkett and advise him of same.  Raynor and George told Plunkett that they would arrest Gille in the Department of Social Services and would say that he was the source of the “Nanny Gate” leak and his reasons for doing so was to damage Janet’s reputation and to clear the path for Plunkett to run for Westchester District Attorney.  Plunkett can be seen on almost a daily basis going in and out of Janet DiFiore’s office. 

Plunkett and Janet are now on the same team.  Plunkett was promised a Supreme Court Judgeship position and the endorsement for Westchester D.A. in the event Janet doesn’t survive politically. All Plunkett has to do in Janet’s own words is to “fire that bitch Vasquez and get rid of whatever she was working on.  She is dangerous and can bring us all down.”

To be continued……..


Sunday, August 19, 2012

Brandon Raub: Former Marine Held by FBI for Patriotic Facebook Entries

Christine Rubino and other teachers are being fired for writing on Facebook. This is a national alert about illegal violations of First Amendment rights semmingly sanctioned by our government.

We must do something to stop this.

Betsy Combier 

U.S. Marine Arrested for Facebook Posts

LINK


Feds retaliate against another critic of the U.S. government.
LINK

Brandon Raub
Brandon Raub is a decorated Iraq and Afghanistan War Vet. Photo courtesy: United Truth Seekers

(SALEM / RICHMOND) - A decorated U.S. Marine who served his nation in two wars, Brandon Raub, of Richmond Virginia, was arrested for airing his critical views of the U.S. government on Facebook this weekend. We just reported yesterday that a Human Rights activist in Bahrain is being prosecuted for six Twitter messages. Politically, this country is increasingly resembling Bahrain and other nations that arrest those who speak out critically over federal policy.
His mother, Kathleen Thomas, says it is another case of the word 'terrorist' being applied to arrest and detain a citizen. You can hear the pride she feels for her son when she explains what he has been through, and by all counts Ms. Thomas makes her points loud and clear.
The law enforcement officials rolled up to the man's home around 7:00 last night. "He was there, the FBI, Secret Service and Chesterfield Police showed up in a storm," she said.
Thomas says her son was questioned about why he was writing certain comments, "He basically said 'I have some disagreements with the government and share this', and they said, 'You have to go with us'".
"He was handcuffed, not read his rights, put into a Chesterfield Police Department vehicle and taken to John Randolph Psychiatric Hospital in Hopewell, Virginia," Thomas said.
Agent Sherry Grainger with the Federal Bureau of Investigation called Kathleen Thomas, who described the conversation.
She said, "I am with the FBI" and "We have taken your son. He has been arrested by the Chesterfield County Police Dept because he assaulted an officer and resisted arrest. He has been arrested and taken to the Chesterfield Police Department."

The agent asked about whether her son was violent, Thomas explained that he was not, but that he loves his country. She asked the FBI agent if freedom of speech still exists in the United States.
"Yes we still have freedom of speech", Grainger reportedly said.
The FBI agent reportedly added, "The threats that he was making were terrorist in nature," telling Thomas roughly the extent of information that has been released so far, which is not much. Thomas was able to talk to her son on the phone.
As to what he is being charged with, she said, "He does not know, he has no idea why he is being held, he is told he will see a judge on Monday."
As referenced, the FBI agent, Grainger, reportedly told the woman that her son Brandon Raub was arrested for assault and resisting arrest… It was later when Grainger stated that the threats made by Raub was "terrorist in nature".
We do not have a track yet on what the comments on the Facebook page were, or if this arrest and failure to charge and administer Miranda Right, is an aspect or development of the new U.S. federal government's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which has Americans bewildered, frightened and angry.
Thomas said in regard to the political view she and her son share, "We're not violent but we're very serious about what we believe. He is a patriot, He basically said that they, the government, are lying."
Our friend and fellow writer in Occupied Palestine, Siraj Davis, knows well that 'terrorism' is a label applied to those who resist fascist rule and decree. With regard to the arrest of this Marine, he said:
    I checked his profile out. This guy doesn't belong in jail :) The guy has a picture with his own personal firearm on his fb profile. Yeah okay, so do millions of people on Facebook, some I know personally. Some of the "seditious" things he said were 9-11 was done by the government (even going to such length, and an interestingly detailed thesis, of providing evidence to augment this), the War on Terror is a lie, Americans are killing innocent people in the ME, the current federal banking system is corrupt and unfeasible to Americans, and that the George Bush's family rapes little children :) I think there is circumstantial evidence to prove all of the above and none of what he says offends ME as an American. In fact if any American has publicly stated any of the above, you may be next.
    Personally, I think our tax money was just wasted toward arresting, detaining, and charging an innocent man who became victim to a witch hunt. This case is indicative of what I have been stating two years ago, I am sadly crying on the inside as I watch my own government terrorize some of its own people for thinking and living differently from the others. What separates the US government from World War II Germany and Japan!?
    I hope the best for this gentleman and that God protects and blesses him. This man only wanted to express his disapproval of everything happening in America and sought to provoke the minds to consider that if change does not occur, Americans all over the US will consider making the change themselves. Why should we punish a voice from one of our own who is stating what many are inured, scared, or too apathetic to state publicly?
    Oh!! Another thing, this guy liked playing rap music on his Facebook such as John Cena's WWE entrance theme. So I advise everyone to stay clear of that song.

The video shows that the arrest was non-violent. Marines know when to employ self-defense and when to comply with an impossible situation.
Brandon Raub is a Marine with serious background, but it is extremely noteworthy that he was a Sergeant of Marines and a fairly young one it appears. This is a sign of a tremendous individual capable of beating amazing odds.
I personally think it makes the rambunctious agents in the federal government squirm when they consider the power and pull that current and former U.S. Marines have in regard to community leadership. They don't seem to find a great deal of comfort in the existence of Occupy Marines which we are proudly part of.
People trust and respect the word of Marines far more than their overpaid cousins in law enforcement who lap from the public trough while working as the guard dogs of a government descending into non-existence due to its ridiculous policies that favor war over the poor.
Brandon Raub, you're on point Brother, but we have your six- your Brothers and Sisters will see you are out of there soon enough...

The President of the United States: Free Brandon Raub

His arrest based on his patriotic Facebook posts is against the Freedom of Speech. He is in no way a terrorist and only wants to see this country turn around. Petition for his release and for everyone's freedom of speech. The government does not have our permission to monitor our Facebook posts and they do not have persmission to arrest someone for non-violent patriotic posts. Here is the link with all the information we have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaE5zChbC5w Sign now!!

From Parentadvocates.org:

Raub Brandon: Former Marine Held by FBI for Patriotic Facebook Entries

Former Marine Raub Brandon is being held by the Chesterfield County Police after the FBI and Secret Service last night (8/15/12) investigated the former Marine for his patriotic Facebook Posts according to this radio interview. According to the interview given by Kathleen Thomas, Brandon is being held in a mental facility. Mother Jones magazine: Did Congress Just Endorse Rendition For Americans?
LINK

Raub Brandon: Former Marine Held by FBI for Patriotic Facebook Entries
Former Marine Raub Brandon is being held by the Chesterfield County Police after the FBI and Secret Service last night (8/15/12) investigated the former Marine for his patriotic Facebook Posts according to this radio interview. According to the interview given by Kathleen Thomas, Brandon is being held in a mental facility. Mother Jones magazine: Did Congress Just Endorse Rendition For Americans?

          

   

Former Marine Raub Brandon's Facebook page

Why was Raub Brandon Arrested? (Video)
August 17, 2012 06:50 PM EDT
LINK

Marine Raub Brandon of Richmond, VA, was taken by FBI and Secret Service and nobody knows why. Syndicated talk show host Josh Tolley conducted an interview with Brandon's distraught mother, Kathleen Thomas. She confirms that Brandon was questioned about his "terroristic" Facebook posts before he was hauled away.


Brandon's mother provided Tolley with details about Brandon's "patriotic" Facebook posts may have put the Marine (not on active duty, but has served in Iraq and Afghanistan) on the government radar. So what makes a Facebook post concerning enough to justify arrest? If one was calling for the bombing of white babies, for example, is that not as horrific as these posts?

Ms. Thomas said that she and her family are "strong patriots that believe in our country." She says that her family is "vocal" about their belief in the Constitution.

Does being "vocal" about displeasure with the government mean that one could justifiably be carted away? Whether one agrees or not with Brandon, the story should be concerning.

Listen to the interview with Brandon's mother here:

Josh Trolley Show

Video of Raub Brandon's handuffing and removal from his home

President Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite "Serious Reservations"
January 02, 2012 10:10 PM EST
LINK

From Hawaii on Saturday, President Obama signed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act. The Defense Bill is renewed every year to decide the budget and expenditures for the US Department of Defense. This year, some troubling provisions are included in the bill that have many concerned. The president signed the bill because military funding was due to expire, even though he has "serious reservations."

At issue are several detainee provisions that would "allow the military greater authority to detain and interrogate U.S. citizens and non-citizens and deny them legal rights protected by the Constitution," according to the Washington Post. In essence, if one is a suspected terrorist, whether it is a U.S. citizen and whether it is on U.S. soil, the government can detain the suspect indefinitely, without a trial. Once the controversy was starting to bubble surrounding these provisions, an amendment was introduced that stated that indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial was forbidden. However, that amendment was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 38-60.

Additionally, the Defense Bill applies sanctions to Iran to encourage them to abandon their nuclear program, as well as freeze $700 million in aid to Pakistan. Also troubling is that any terrorism suspect can be transferred to any country. There is a very good discussion of this provision at Mother Jones, where relevant sections of the bill are highlighted.

Obama stated that "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." The disturbing thing is that now, he CAN. He is not saying that detaining American citizens is illegal, he is just saying that he will not do it. He goes on to say that "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Again, this should not be open for interpretation. This bill is troubling because it opens the door for "exceptions."

From the ACLU to Glenn Beck, everyone seems to have a problem with this bill. Even the President, who said in a statement, "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it." Obama goes on to say, "My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law." How will the next administration "interpret" the bill?

Friday, August 17, 2012

"A Practical Guide to Registering an Independent Expenditure Committee for New York State Elections”


August 17, 2012
By Richard Winsten, Thomas Hartnett, and Deanne Braveman 
Labor Press 
LINK

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2010,  expanded the ways that unions can participate in elections.  The Court found that restrictions placed on unions and corporations participating in independent expenditures violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Therefore truly independent expenditures cannot be limited in amount as campaign contributions can be limited.  The court, however, has upheld disclosure requirements for permissible independent expenditures in a line of cases. As a practical matter this allows unions to engage in unlimited spending for campaign activity (i.e. spending to support or oppose a candidate), subject to disclosure, where the candidate did not authorize, request, suggest, foster or cooperate with the unauthorized committee.
This article is meant to serve as a practical, nuts and bolts guide for unions interested in establishing and registering an independent expenditure campaign in New York State. Independent expenditures in New York State differ from those in federal elections because they are still subject to the contribution limits applicable to New York State elections as well as those limits placed on contributors. Of course, these limits are not explicit in the NYS election law and regulations and an interpretation can evolve as cases are presented. Also, the interpretation above may present constitutional issues.  Because the State law is newly developing in this area and because New York State Law has severe criminal and civil penalties for missteps with respect to unauthorized committee contact with candidates and campaign, we strongly urge you to consult legal counsel before venturing into these waters.
Unfortunately, as we are seeing in the current Presidential and Congressional campaigns opponents of organized labor have jumped into independent expenditure with both feet. Union friendly candidates are in danger of being overwhelmed by massive negative independent expenditures sponsored by billionaires, anti-union corporations and right-to-work front organizations. Unions cannot afford to sit on the sidelines; but they must participate in strict observance of the New York State laws and rules. Legal caution and prudence must be a priority for unions engaging in independent expenditure campaigns.   
UNAUTHORIZED COMMITTEES   

Independent expenditure committees in New York State are called “unauthorized committees.”  These committees are different from the typical politicalaction committees (PAC) because of the strict requirement that the unauthorized committee not coordinate with a candidate. Again, a candidate cannot authorize, request, suggest, foster or cooperate with an unauthorized committee in any of its activities. 

An unauthorized committee can engage in the activities usually engaged in by PACs other than by making contributions to candidates. They can run advertisements for or against candidates, reach out to voters, etc. These unauthorized committees can use what are commonly thought of as electioneering words such as support or oppose candidate x. They are not limited to non-partisan voter participation or issue oriented messages.  Unauthorized committees must comply with all New York State laws related to registration of the committee and reporting of receipts and spending and activities.  

Unlike independent expenditures in federal elections there are contribution limits on NYS unauthorized committees. The NYS BOE has interpreted the law to apply contribution limits for the primary and general elections of statewide and legislative elections to unauthorized committees. Contribution limits for these elections are set each cycle by the BOE and are available on their website.  Unauthorized committees are subject to these limitations as well as those placed on the contributor. Maximum contributions to an unauthorized committee are based on what elections the unauthorized committee is registered with the BOE to participate in.  If an unauthorized committee is registered to participate in three senate primaries a contributor could give the maximum amount for three senate primaries. Where the contributor has reached the limit of the amount they can give for all elections an unauthorized committee cannot accept more than this limit.
UNAUTHORIZED COMMITTEE REGISTRATION

Registration of unauthorized committees for state elections must be completed before any receipt of funds or spending by the committee. Participants in local elections must also register with the required entity (i.e. New York City Board of Elections).The NYC Campaign Finance Board recently issued rules that purport to define independent expenditures in NYC campaigns and mandate disclosure of spending. These rules are now more specific than NYS election laws and rules. 

This article will focus on state elections (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Assembly and Senate) and the registration and filings required to be completed with the New York State Board of Elections (BOE). Registration must be done within five days of picking a treasurer and a depository bank.   

Two forms are necessary to register an unauthorized committee. Form CF-02 is the Committee Registration Treasurer and Bank Information form.  When filing this form for a new registration you must indicate what level of government the unauthorized committee will be working on (state or local campaigns). In Section A the name of the committee as well as any acronym associated with it are indicated. Section B asks for the committee type, in the case of an unauthorized committee you would report “9 - unauthorized committee”.

Section C requires information on the treasurer of the unauthorized committee. The person designated here will be individually legally responsible for completing the required filings and ensuring that information is correct on these filings. Personal information for the treasurer such as name, address, mailing address and phone numbers are required. The form asks for the social security number of the treasurer, reporting this information is optional.

Section D requires a depository/bank to be designated. The bank account does not have to be opened prior to registration. Some banks require proof of registration with the BOE prior to opening an account for an unauthorized committee. You must report the bank and the branch you intend to use on your registration. The bank must be licensed to do business in New York and the branch you use must be located in New York State. 

In order to open the bank account for your unauthorized committee you will need a tax id number from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The number you need is an “employer identification number” commonly referred to as an “EIN.” This number can be applied for online or by telephone. If you apply online you will receive your number immediately.     
The remainder of the CF-02 requires you to list which elections the unauthorized committee will be working on. Information required includes the candidates to be supported or opposed and the ballot issues to be supported or opposed. Anyone other than the treasurer who is authorized to sign checks must be indicated as well. When completed the form is signed by the treasurer.   

The second form required for registration of an unauthorized committee is a CF-03. This  form designates the committee authorization status. An unauthorized committee would fill out section B of this form indicating that the committee is not authorized by the candidate.  You must include the date of election, office/district, and the candidate’s full name. This form is signed by the treasurer and must be notarized. Both forms must be sent to the BOE with original signatures.
Upon receipt of the forms by the BOE they will be reviewed. If the forms are complete a packet will be issued to the treasurer and mailed to the mailing address provided on the CF-02 form. The usual turn around time is about a week but can be longer, particularly around busy times for the BOE (reporting periods and elections). Your registration packet will contain your filer id number and information on required reporting and filings. You may not spend or receive money until you have received this information acknowledging your registration.
AMENDMENTS   

Amendments to both forms are required when there are any changes to information covered by the form. When amending either form be sure to provide your filer id number.  CF-02 should be amended when there are any changes to contact information for the treasurer or any changes on contact information for individuals authorized to sign checks. An amended CF-03 form is necessary when there are changes to the candidates that your unauthorized committee will be supporting or opposing. When amending the CF-03 to add an election that your unauthorized committee is working on you must list all elections that the committee is working on. It is not sufficient to submit an amendment containing only the new election. When you make changes to the elections your unauthorized committee is working on you will only need to amend the CF-03 and submit with the original signatures of the treasurer and the notary.
REQUIRED REPORTING AND FILINGS 

There are two types of filings associated with unauthorized committees: periodic filings and election related filings.  Both types of filings require you to report activities of the committee related to receipts and expenditures. There are two periodic reports due in January and July of each year. Election related filings include a 32 day pre election filing, 11 day pre election filing, and a post election filing (10 day for primary and 27 day for general election).  Post election filings must include copies of campaign materials purchased or produced. Originals are not required, but pictures of buttons or signs and transcripts of radio and television advertising are acceptable.  In addition there are 24 hour filings that require a committee to report any contribution or loan over $1,000 within 24 hours of receipt. These filings are required after the 11 day filing cut off until the election.
Committees working on campaigns for state office must complete these filings electronically. The BOE has an electronic filing system (EFS) that committees working on state elections must use. The information required by these filings is similar to that on form CF-01. The software doesn’t directly correspond with the form, but the form can help you to keep track of items that need to be reported. Each year the BOE releases a calendar specifying the due dates for each filing that can be found on its webpage. Each period covers the day after the cut off date of the previous report up to and including the cut off date for the report you are making.
Filings are required even when your unauthorized committee has no receipts or expenditures to report. An unauthorized committee is not allowed to file an “in-lieu-of statement” but may file a “no-activity report” (form CF-18) in this case. All filings must be completed, even if there are no receipts or expenditures, until the committee is terminated. The treasurer is responsible for the completion of all reports as well as termination of the committee when necessary. If the treasurer for your unauthorized committee changes you must contact the BOE and complete the required paperwork to change the treasurer. 

Unauthorized committees can be used by unions to effectively participate in elections. Unions must be careful to not coordinate with the candidate.  Unauthorized committees that coordinate with a candidate run the risk of being determined to be authorized which would apply contribution limits to them on what they could accept. An unauthorized committee found to be coordinating with a candidate can face huge fines and potential prosecution.
About the Authors
Richard D. Winsten is Co-Chair of Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.’s Government Relations practice, based in the New York State capital of Albany. Thomas F. Hartnett is Co-Chair of the firm’s Government Relations practice and a part of the firm’s Labor practice in the Albany office. Deanne M. Braveman is an Associate, where she also practices with the firm’s Government Relations group in Albany.  
All NYS BOE forms mentioned in this article, as well as the Campaign Finance Handbook and guides to using the Electronic Filing System, can be found at this website: http://www.elections.ny.gov/CampaignFinanceForms.html
Information on Employer ID Numbers, including where to apply for free online, can be found by going to www.irs.gov and searching for “Employer ID Numbers.” 
The Campaign Finance Filing Calendar can be found on the NYS BOE Campaign Finance website located athttp://www.elections.ny.gov/CampaignFinanceForms.html

U.S. Department of Labor: Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)

Protecting labor: How does the UFT measure up?
Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
On This Page

  • Contents
  • Unions covered by the election provisions of the acts
  • Who must be elected and how often
  • Nomination procedures
  • Campaign rules
  • Election procedures
  • Protesting elections
  • Relation of the bill of rights to the election provisions
  • Application of other laws
  • Election procedures checklist
  • Electing union officers by mail: Suggestions and safeguards
  • Excerpts from the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act Of 1959, as Amended (LMRDA)
  • Excerpts from title VIl of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 — Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Electing Union Officers
Contents
Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as Amended (LMRDA or the act) establishes election procedures that must be followed by all unions covered by the act, regardless of whether their constitution and bylaws so provide. The act does not spell out detailed procedures; rather, it sets minimum requirements. Beyond this, elections are to be conducted according to the constitution and bylaws of each union, as long as the union's rules do not conflict with the provisions of the act.
The LMRDA applies primarily to unions that represent employees in private industry. Under sec. 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act, unions of U.S. Postal Service employees are also subject to the LMRDA. Most unions of other Federal Government employees are subject to the standards of conduct provisions established in 5 U.S.C. 7120 by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). Regulations implementing these provisions have been issued by the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards in Parts 457-459 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR Parts 457-459). Sec. 458.29 of the regulations applies the substantive election requirements of title IV of the LMRDA to unions subject to the CSRA, but the regulations establish a different method of enforcing these substantive requirements. (For a more detailed discussion of the unions that are covered by the CSRA, see the pamphletRights and Responsibilities under the LMRDA and the CSRA or Reports Required under the LMRDA and the CSRA.)
The election requirements are not applicable to unions that are subject to neither the LMRDA nor the CSRA, such as unions composed entirely of employees of States and subordinate governmental units such as counties and cities.
The election provisions in title IV apply to national and international unions, except federations of these unions such as the AFL-CIO; to intermediate bodies such as general committees, conferences, system boards, joint boards, or joint councils; and to local unions. These provisions, however, do not apply to State and local central bodies, which are excluded from coverage under the act.
A "mixed" local-one that contains both covered and noncovered members-is subject to the act. An international or national union or an intermediate body that has any mixed or covered locals is likewise subject to the act. Further, while the election requirements generally do not apply to a local union composed entirely of government employees not covered by the act, there is an important exception: When such a local participates in the election of officers of its parent union which is subject to the election requirements, then the title IV election procedures must be followed. The same is true in the case of the election of delegates who elect officers of a national or international union or of an intermediate body covered by the act. A local union composed exclusively of city maintenance employees, for instance, would be required to elect, by secret ballot, delegates to a convention of its international union who participate in the election of the international officers, if the international is subject to the act.
Although the act is limited to the activities of persons and organizations within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, an international union or intermediate body is not exempt from requirements of the act by virtue of the participation of its foreign locals or foreign membership in its elections. For example, votes received from Canadian members in referendum elections held by an international union with headquarters in the United States must have been cast under procedures meeting the requirements of the act, and delegates from Canadian affiliates participating in conventions where officers of the international body are to be elected must have been elected by secret ballot.
The act requires that all officers be elected. But what does "officer" mean? The act defines the term as "any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, or other executive functions of a labor organization, and any member of its executive board or similar governing body." A constitutional officer is any person holding a position identified as an officer by the constitution and bylaws of the union. All constitutional officers must be elected, even if they do not perform any executive functions. The major union offices (the president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and members of executive boards or similar governing bodies) must be filled by election. In addition, any person who has executive or policymaking authority or responsibility must be elected even though he may not occupy a position identified as an officer position under the union's constitution and bylaws.
Most shop stewards, for example, are not required to be elected because they normally do not exercise executive functions. However, a shop steward would qualify as an officer (and thus become subject to the act's election requirements) if he were so designated in the union's constitution or if, as a steward, he were a member of the union's executive board. In many cases the business agent or business representative of a union has duties that result in his position falling within the definition of "officer." For example, if he has primary responsibility for the control and management of the union's funds and fiscal operations, he would be considered an officer for purposes of the act.
In addition, any delegate who votes for officers of a national or international union or an intermediate body, such as a conference or a council, must be elected by secret ballot among the members in good standing of the union he represents. If the constitution and bylaws state that one of the functions of a particular elected officer is to be a delegate who votes for officers, a special election of that officer to be a delegate is not necessary if the officer has been elected by secret ballot among the members in good standing of the union he represents.
While all union officers, including members of executive boards or similar governing bodies, must be elected, the act provides a choice for some types of unions between direct secret ballot elections by the members and indirect elections by delegates or officers representing the members.
Thus, officers of a local union must be elected directly by secret ballot among the members in good
standing. Officers of a national or international union, on the other hand, may be elected either by secret ballot among the members in good standing or at a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot. Officers of an intermediate body may be elected either by secret ballot among the members in good standing of the constituent unions, or by officers of the constituent unions who represent the members and who have been elected by secret ballot.
Professional and other staff members of a union need not be elected if they do not determine policy but are employed only to carry out the union's policy decisions. These persons are subject to the control and direction of the elected officials, and the act does not require such professional or other staff members to be elected.
The act does not require elections for union officials who do not perform executive functions, are not officers under the constitution and bylaws, and are not members of the executive committee or similar governing body of the union. However, the union's constitution and bylaws may require that such positions be filled by election. In this case, the procedures of title IV need not be followed since the holders of these kinds of positions are not considered officers under the act.
When a union is under trusteeship, it is unlawful under sec. 303 of the act and 29 CFR 458.27 to count votes of delegates of the trusteed union in any convention or election of officers of the parent international union or an intermediate body unless the delegates have been chosen by secret ballot in which all members in good standing of the trusteed union were eligible to vote.
The act does not require that a trusteed union be represented by delegates at a convention of its parent union. However, it may send delegates with full voting powers if they have been elected by a secret ballot election in which all members in good standing were eligible to vote. The trusteed union may also send delegates not elected by secret ballot, but it would be unlawful to count votes cast by these delegates in any election of the parent union officers or on any issue or other resolution presented to the convention.
When a regular election or an election for the purpose of terminating the trusteeship is held during the trusteeship period, the election safeguards of title IV must be applied.
The maximum period allowable between regular elections of officers is stated explicitly in the act. Elections must be held as often as required by the union's constitution and bylaws, but-
  • At least every 5 years in all national and international unions;
  • At least every 4 years in all intermediate bodies such as general committees, system boards, joint boards, joint councils, and conferences; and
  • At least every 3 years in local unions.
These periods are measured from the date of the last election. These requirements do not prohibit incumbent officers from being reelected at the end of their terms of office.
Frequently during the term of office, a union official will resign or a vacancy will occur for some other reason, such as the death of the incumbent. The act is silent on the specific point of what should be done in filling the unexpired term of office. A union may therefore fill such a vacancy by using the procedure provided in its constitution and bylaws. The procedure should comply with the general standards of union procedure set forth in title I (the bill of rights) of the LMRDA or 29 CFR 458.2. The provisions of sec. 504 of the LMRDA, which prohibits persons convicted of certain crimes from holding office for up to 13 years after their conviction or release from imprisonment, also apply to the filling of vacancies, as do the prohibitions of 29 CFR 458.36 for unions subject to the CSRA.*
May a local union elect its officers every year? Yes. The act specifies the longest time intervals permitted between elections. They must be held more often if this is provided for in the union's constitution and bylaws.
May the executive committee appoint delegates to the international convention when one of the delegates' duties is to vote in the election of international officers? No. They must be elected by secret ballot among the members in good standing.
Must shop stewards be elected by secret ballot? Not ordinarily, but they must be elected by secret ballot if they exercise executive functions within the local, if they are designated as officers by the constitution and bylaws, or if they serve on the executive board or a similar governing body.
Must the chief shop steward be elected by secret ballot? If he is a constitutional officer or a member of the executive committee by virtue of being chief shop steward, or if he exercises executive functions within the local, he must be elected by secret ballot.
Must the sergeant-at-arms be elected by secret ballot? If the holder of this position is designated an officer by the constitution and bylaws, if he performs any executive functions, or if he is a member of the local union's executive committee by virtue of being sergeant-at-arms, he must be elected by secret ballot.
May the officers of a local be authorized to represent the local at conventions of the parent body by virtue of their election to office, or must the delegates be elected specifically for each convention? The constitutional duties of an officer may include representing the local as a delegate to conventions of the parent body. When this is the case and the officer has been nominated and elected in accordance with the requirements of title IV, his election as an officer fulfills the requirement that convention delegates be elected by secret ballot, and no separate election as a delegate is required. Ballots used in the election for such an officer should contain a statement to the effect that the officer, by virtue of his election to office, will serve as a convention delegate.
  • All officers of local unions must be elected by secret ballot among the members in good standing.
  • All members of executive boards or similar governing bodies of local unions must be elected by secret ballot among the members in good standing.
  • All delegates to conventions of national or international unions or to intermediate bodies must be elected by secret ballot among the members in good standing if the delegates are to vote in the election of officers of the national or international unions or intermediate bodies.
  • All officers of national or international unions and of intermediate bodies must be elected either directly by secret ballot among the members or indirectly through representatives elected by secret ballot.
  • Professional and other staff members who do not determine policy and who are subject to the control of elected officials need not be elected.
  • Officers must be elected at least every 3 years in local unions, at least every 4 years in intermediate bodies, and at least every 5 years in national and international unions.
MORE......