October 26, 2004
Mr. Thomas Short
International President, I.A.T.S.E. via certified mail
1420 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
Re: October General Membership Meeting
Dear President Short:
The General Membership meeting of October 19, 2004 was unlike any I have ever attended. The current crisis brought on by the alleged improprieties of Business Representative Vincent Callaghan spurred a massive turnout at Nola Studios, with the meeting room crammed to capacity—though I understand the attendance sheet has since gone missing. Sitting just a foot away from the Executive Board table, directly in front of Vice President Angel De Angelis, I leaned over the table to observe her sign her name to the sheet as the 148th signature. President Sharon Ilson Burke and Freelance Makeup Trustee Toy Russell followed for an even 150 signatures. There is no doubt we had a quorum (in good standing) and then some, to say the least.
Apparently in the belief that the best defense is a strong offence, our President talked tough, opening the meeting with a monologue about a “Witch Hunt” in progress with regard to the allegations concerning the Business Representative. The President expressed her full support for Vincent Callaghan (despite the fact we are suing him right along with his brother and Maureen McGuckin), citing his right to “due process.” The President also read aloud a letter from Mr. Callaghan’s attorney, instructing his client to answer no questions from the membership.
Certainly Mr. Callaghan is entitled to his rights—whatever the outcome of the civil litigations and the investigative efforts of the District Attorney. Though the total truth will be a long while coming, one aspect of this so-called “Witch Hunt” was readily apparent from the start: the inherent conflict of interest in Vincent Callaghan’s mixing of Local 798 business and finance with those of his blood relations. “Not necessarily” suggested Attorney James Murphy at the meeting, “as long as there was full disclosure.” Full disclosure? There was no disclosure whatever according to our President and the Executive Board.
Indeed, pertinent information about a wealth of concerns (including Vincent’s secret marriage to Pension & Welfare Administrator Anne Sabrizzi) was provided to the membership entirely by outside sources—such as the District Attorney—long before the “revelations” in the President’s letter to the membership on October 8th, in which she claims knowledge of these affairs dating back to June 2nd as provided by Steven Spivak’s law firm. Despite this, the President’s forum in the September newsletter dismisses news of Vincent Callaghan’s improprieties as “slanderous rumors”—yet the
suit filed on July 1st clearly names Vincent among several defendants. These discrepancies bear out the fact our President is responsible for some non-disclosure of her own; she could have stated the case to the membership long before she chose to.
Recently, I read a book in which the late John Chambers, Oscar-winning makeup artist for the original Planet of the Apes, defined Hollywood’s Local 706 at the time as “a
cesspool of friends and relatives.” East certainly meets West in this regard; we are mired in a cesspool of our own due to the incestuous nature of our local’s political structure—in itself a conflict of interest—effectively nullifying the safeguards provided in our constitution to prevent corruption. The Business Representative is not an autocrat; our constitution makes it clear he is entirely answerable to our President and the Executive Board. However, when these officers are beholden to the Business Representative for their livelihoods, how can they be relied upon to take him to task for improper or downright illegal procedures?
Most of our officers are consistently employed in the most coveted venues of this business, the production of feature films and primetime series. The very nature of the Business Representative’s job gives him the inside track on all such work, and he is therefore influential as to whom receives it. One hand washing the other; a cozy arrangement—and another direct conflict of interest—which this time may have led to the incrimination of all those holding office during the present crisis. The Executive Board claims ignorance of Vincent Callaghan’s improprieties—or, was it simply safer for these officers to foster ignorance, looking the other way to avoid reprisals from the Business Representative which might jeopardize their individual employment opportunities? Every experienced union stylist knows full well you don’t work in features regularly without the full blessing of the Business Representative. The playing field has never been level in this fiercely competitive local, and there is always a percentage of members willing to assume office to facilitate their own agendas and those of friends and family. As we are all aware, one particular family has been ever present in our local’s government, with none of them hurting for top-level employment regardless of age or experience.
Whether due to direct complicity, self-interest, or sheer neglect, the President and the Executive Board have failed in their duty to police the activities of the Business Representative. In a direct parallel, they have failed also in their duties as officers of the Local 798 Realty Corporation to safeguard its assets. Sure, they’re suing now—the Secretary of Labor wouldn’t tolerate anything less—but as officers they were responsible for heading off this scheme at its inception. If we are to believe their own assertions, Attorney Spivak had to inform The Board to prevent our building from being sold as a condominium right out from under them. Our officers should have been the first to know—not the last.
Where were the rank and file members while all this was going on? I think a union official of your experience knows the answer, Mr. Short. Nobody attends meetings anymore because our membership is wise to the self-interest permeating our Executive Board. We know from hard experience that, whenever we try to introduce democratic reforms to defeat the various conflicts of interest, the Executive Board will go through the motions before shooting it down with the time-honored excuse that the I.A.T.S.E will not allow it—and that our charter will be pulled if we don’t tow the line. First the late Alfred DiTolla and now you, Mr. Short—how do you like being typecast as the heavy behind your back? The Executive Board throws the I.A.T.S.E in our faces whenever it suits them, which is why you usually won’t find anyone else in attendance at General Membership meetings except friends and family of our officers. With the furor created by Vincent Callaghan’s improprieties, there was renewed hope on October 19th that our internal corruption is finally so obvious that, at long last, something tangible will be done with the full blessing of the I.A.T.S.E to finally drain the cesspool. What about it, Sir?
The Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 addresses issues such as violations of fiduciary responsibility concisely in Title Five, Section 501. (attached). Given the state of Local 798’s current Executive Board, with conflicts of interest fully evident to those of us in the know about the Board’s intermix of personal/professional relationships, it seems likely several in our membership will file complaints with the Department of Labor beyond the issues presented to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Under Title 4, Section 402 of Landrum-Griffin, the actions of our officers will come into question not only with regard to their fiduciary violations, but also subsequent behavior not in keeping with the constitutional requirements of our local. I believe our membership is within its rights to ask the Secretary of Labor to bring a civil action in the appropriate district court against all those who circumvent our constitutional requirements and bylaws pertaining to the election and removal of officers. Which brings us back to the meeting of October 19th.
After a motion was passed to move on to “new business,” plaintiff Alan D’Angerio presented our President and the Executive Board with Articles of Impeachment according
to the standards of our constitution, naming all the officers and union trustees as defendants. Mr. D’Angerio pointed out to our President that she, as the presiding officer
cited with the charges, was required to relinquish the chair until the case was settled as per Article 11, Section 3 of the constitution. President Sharon Ilson Burke flatly refused to comply, further denigrating our constitution by contemptuously waving the booklet at the membership, shouting, “It’s not all about the little blue book!” I protested, with the reminder that her “due process” was contained within the pages of that “little blue book.” Sharon’s brand of what I can only describe as “Pit-Bull Diplomacy” was all captured on tape, since she herself plunked down a tape recorder on the table in front of me before opening the meeting. I understand Sharon has since provided highly abbreviated “minutes” of the meeting in writing, claiming her tape recording was unintelligible. Many of those present made very detailed notes—with quoted dialogue—as the evening wore on. Convenient memory lapses now will not erase the full content of the meeting; too many witnesses agree totally on what was said by our President and anyone who was given the floor. Her defensive posturing is an impediment to our memberships’ right to know and as such another conflict of interest. Clearly, an interim set of officers is required until the present Executive Board’s problems are officially resolved.
Mr. D’Angerio then motioned for a majority vote of the members present to entertain the charges so presented (as is also cited in Article 11, section 3), but this was deliberately circumvented by the President, who—with uncalled for coaching from Colleen Callaghan—abruptly declared the meeting to be adjourned in yet another direct conflict of interest and further violation of her oath of office. Like a Tag Team, the ladies insisted a vote of the entire 798 membership was required to entertain the Impeachment charges. That is not what the “little blue book” stipulates, and no officer of the local may rewrite our constitution or deny motions on the floor to suit their own political agendas.
By this time the room was in chaotic upheaval, so outraged was the membership by the illegality of our President’s manipulative tactics. The last event of the evening was an announcement by Freelance Makeup Trustee Toy Russell that she was resigning from the Executive Board immediately. It is my understanding that several other Board members have resigned in the past few days, and that our President is phoning members in an effort to recruit replacements. Since there is a wide consensus among the membership that Sharon’s Presidency—in view of her refusal to relinquish the chair—has been rendered illegitimate, I doubt that she—as a renegade—will have much luck in reconstituting our rapidly vacating Executive Board. What honest member would choose to serve in such an atmosphere of distrust and pending legal consequences?
This is why I am writing directly to you, Mr. Short, the International President of our parent organization. I am among those who view Local 798’s current government as illegitimate, so expressing my concerns to that body seems like an exercise in futility. We are trying to exhaust all internal remedies available to us, but Federal Receivership—the “dirty” word—seems ever more attractive when the I.A.T.S.E. refuses to institute what is now essential housecleaning. Autonomy is a fine principle, but only when it applies to the local as a whole—not just those pulling the strings.
Sincerely,
Norman J. Bryn – Journeyman, Local 798