UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
x
Plaintiff, 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY
AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
x
DECLARATION OF DENNIS M. WALSH
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1746, Dennis M. Walsh, Esq., declares under
penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
1. I am the Review Officer appointed pursuant to the June 2010 Stipulation and Order in
this matter. I am fully familiar with the terms of the Stipulation and Order, having reviewed it
many times, having participated in meetings with the parties, i.e., the government and the
District Council, in the months preceding its finalization, and having served as Review Officer
for over four years.
2. During the period when the Stipulation and Order was being drafted, I was present at
meetings with representatives of the government and the District Council, as well as with
representatives of the Benefit Funds. I understood from participation in those meetings that an
impetus for the new Stipulation and Order was the indictment of individuals involved with the
District Council, including its highest elected official, Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael
Forde, who also served as a trustee of the Benefit Funds. I also understood from participation in
those meetings that the government sought to provide expanded authority to the Court-appointed
1
officer, including the ability to veto District Council officers and employees, in order to
eliminate ongoing corruption. The District Council ultimately agreed to this veto authority. The
Benefit Funds did not agree to the veto authority, resulting in the language affording the Review
Officer with power to review Funds' trustees and personnel and provide written notice to the
Funds regarding the findings, leaving it for the Funds to take whatever action they deemed
merited.
3. The "whereas" clauses of the finalized and fully executed Stipulation and Order set forth
the history of continuing corruption involving the District Council, including the noted
indictment of Mr. Forde, consistent with discussion in the aforementioned meetings I attended.
A "whereas" clause similarly reflects that, based upon this history, "the presence and activity of
an independent court-appointed officer granted powers beyond those provided to the
Independent Investigator in the December 2002 Stipulation and Order and the August 2005
Order...are essential to the eradication of corruption and racketeering as they affect union
carpenters and union employers." Stipulation and Order at 3. This new court-appointed officer
with expanded powers was named the Review Officer and I was appointed to serve as Review
Officer.
4. From the inception of my tenure on June 3, 2010, I have exercised the authority provided
to me as Review Officer pursuant to the Stipulation and Order, including the Review and
Oversight Authority set forth in paragraph 5.b. I read the language of subparagraphs 5.b.i(3) and
5.b.iii to empower the Review Officer to veto the service of, or remove from office, District
Council (including local union) officers and employees who, in my view, have been involved in
an act of racketeering, association with a barred person, violation of law or a Court order in this
case, breach of fiduciary duty or conduct inconsistent with the Stipulation and Order.
2
5. I read the language of subparagraph 5.b.ii(3) and 5.b.iii to afford me more limited power
with respect to Benefit Funds' trustees and personnel, i.e., if upon review I find a trustee or
employee to have violated a stricture of 5.b, I must provide written notice of my findings to the
Funds, rather than vetoing and removing the person from office myself as I am empowered to do
with respect to District Council officers and employees pursuant to subparagraphs 5.b.i(3) and
5.b.iii.
6. I view the Review and Oversight Authority set forth in paragraph 5.b as structurally and
conceptually distinct from the Disciplinary Authority set forth in paragraph 5.f (as well as from
the authority to determine whether members are qualified to run for office under paragraph 5,k).
To me, the language of subparagraph 5.f further demonstrates that the Review and Oversight
Authority and Disciplinary Authority are separate and distinct. Pursuant to paragraph 5.f, the
District Council was required to provide me with proposed procedures for disciplining officers,
employees, agents, representatives and members of the District Council for misconduct including
violation of federal, state or local law; union rules, bylaws, or constitutional provisions; the
Consent Decree or other court order; or any action furthering or threatening to further the
interests of organized crime. In turn, I was responsible for reviewing the proposed procedures.
The procedures most recently approved by me, and currently in use by the District Council, are
the "District Council of New York and Vicinity Trial Procedures" (or "Trial Procedures") that
went into effect in August 2013 and are included as Exhibit 15 to my Seventh Interim Report.
7. According to the language of the Trial Procedures, and as I have seen from their
operation in practice, charges for misconduct specified in paragraph 5.f are lodged by a member
of the District Council, or its Inspector General ("IG"), against another member of the District
Council. I have never utilized the current Trial Procedures and used those originally implemented
(with carpenters serving as jurors) on only a few occasions in which I was seeking to have
3
individuals fined and expelled from the union. Discipline under the Trial Procedures primarily
functions as an ongoing, routinized, intra-union process to adjudicate charges by union members,
or the union's IG, against union members. It is different than the veto authority I am authorized
to employ when, in my discretion, conduct by an elected officer requires me to remove him.
8. I have exercised my veto authority with respect to District Council (including local
union) officials on several occasions, the first time early in my tenure, with the vetoes of Messrs.
Willoughby, Holt and Daly, and the last time, to date, in May 2013, with the veto of then
Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello. I issued other Notices of Veto in between,
including the vetoes of Patrick Nee as president of Local 157 and as a delegate and of Levy
Messinetti as recording secretary of Local 157 and as a delegate. Neither the government nor the
District Council has objected to my use of the veto authority to remove officeholders; they have
not lodged objections in proceedings before the Court regarding my vetoes and they have not
objected to me personally regarding the vetoes. During Frank Spencer's tenure as UBC
Supervisor for the District Council, I routinely forwarded Notices of Veto to him, never
receiving any objection from him to my exercise of the veto authority. By way of example, in
April 2011 when I vetoed Lawrence D'Errico as the District Council's Director of Operations,
Mr. Spencer did not object (nor did Local 157). See Exhibit 7 to my Second Interim Report
(Notice of Veto addressed to Mr. D'Enico and to Mr. Spencer, as Supervisor). In the Bilello
matter, the government specifically wrote to the Court to express its view that I had properly
exercised my veto authority. I understand this history of acceptance by the parties of my
exercise of the veto authority to further confirm their intent for me to use the authority to remove
District Council officers from office pursuant to paragraph 5.b of the Stipulation and Order.
9. In the time since I vetoed Messrs. Nee and Messinetti from the positions they held on
June 26, 2012, Local 157 has conducted a number of elections. It held a February 20, 2013
4
election to fill their positions, although Messrs. Nee and Messinetti did not run in that election.
Messrs. Nee and Mesinetti did run in subsequent elections. On June 19, 2013, Local 157 held a
regular election for delegates and Messrs. Nee and Messinetti ran and won. In February 2014,
that election was re-run (for a reason having to do with the eligibility of another member) and
Messrs. Nee and Messinetti again ran for, and were elected as, delegates. On June 19, 2014,
Local 157 held a regular election for officers, the trial committee and one vacant delegate spot.
Mr. Messinetti ran to be a trustee and won and Mr. Nee ran to be financial secretary and lost.
Both Messrs. Nee and Messinetti currently remain in place as delegates.
10. My vetoes did not prevent Messrs. Nee and Messinetti from running for District Council
or local union office thereafter, or from subsequently holding such positions.
Dated: New York, New York
August 12, 2014
5