United States Courthouse Southern District New York _________________________________________ United States of America Plaintiff

VIA EXPRESS MAIL Dated/Sent/Rcpt April 3 2013 Please Docket

90 cv 5722 (RMB) against District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, et al, Defendants _________________________________________ State of New York ) ss) County of Marion Fla.) I Robert Makowski who resides in Queens County N. Y. - UBC# XXXXXXXX: Deposed and Says That;

1. I am a member of Local 157 of the NYCDCC and categorically state that MOUs and or Contracts, and all that has to do with them, were jammed down the members throats through a vicious campaign of deceit, lies and non-transparent/ non democratic methods.

2. As active member of the NYCDCC I am aptly knowledgeable of the all issues re: mobility, compliance, MOUs and Collective Bargaining Agreements being presented to the Honorable Richard M. Berman.

1. I am not in favor, of Mobility. (i)

2. It is my conviction that mobility is a threat to my livelihood 3. Though this submission is lengthy, due to adequate spacing for ease of viewing, there is a long period of time and many highly questionable circumstances that have arisen since the presumed Resumption of Democratic Self Governance. This raises question of intentional wrongdoing within the District Councils Executive Board consisting of EST Bilello, ex -President, Lebo, Current President Mcinnis and V.P. Cavanugh.

4. Though necessary, compliance measures under the premise of satisfying Prong Two of the Consent Decree in the return to Democratic Self Governance have in fact not been achieved 5. Being unilaterally seated to this committee is one thing. This has also had a most detrimental effect as to the amount of further concessions outside of Collective Bargaining, or that the Council Delegate Body has no say when making said concessions. 6. Being seated as such to the hardship committee has had a most detrimental effect as to the amount of concessions outside the scope of Collective Bargaining; PLAs and Market recovery initiatives. 7. That the removal of W. Mack and J. Zazzali from the trial committee was in fact, by way of Mr. Mack presenting himself to the Council Delegate Body, where he explained, as fictitious information contained and released in the Report of Matt Walker the Director Of Operations, aka: The Walker Plan. 8. Said release of the Walker plan was approved by the Council Executive Body, and or the executive committee without debate and discussion by the Council Delegate Body. Each of the Executive Board Members are responsible for this falsehood. 9. EST Bilello appropriately designated the March 2012 member wide election ballot which defeated the Wall and Ceiling Agreement a Member Referendum on the Mobility Issue. ( ii )

10. The District Council web site/ Magazine were not functioning in necessary capacity leading up to the Wall & Ceiling MOU ratification. By law sec 12 (G) was not followed according to the stated goals the Review Officer had required. 11. This business of scant pages being identified as addendums to CBAs, presenting them up to eight months apart, and somehow they then become intertwined as reliant on each other, w/out ever having been seen nor acted upon by Council Delegate Body as a complete finished Collective Bargaining Agreements, is trickery in the least . 12. As per 11 above: To then, declare any finished CBA draft released after Council Delegate Body has voted Government Extensions, as did VP Cavanaugh at the March 13 Delegate meeting, which according to the Consent Decree, Federal Oversight has no authority, this has been a sham presentation at best. 13. To expect an average member to follow never mind understand such gerrymandering, or legal sleight of hand is beyond reality as members have explained, I dont know what is going on anymore.

14. The claim of mobility, the 100% employer manning provision, as a cure all for unqualified members being dispatched from the Out of Work List, was a misnomer created by the UBC, as had occurred, to conquer and divide the membership

15. Review Officer Walsh has allowed continual NYCDCC by law & Roberts Rules Of Parliamentary Order violations to occur, whereas EST Bilello, ex-President Lebo and VP Cavanaugh, when in moving forward since 1/12, in conduct concerning presiding over the Council Delegate Body meetings.

16. No by law violations were ever lodged, as per 16 above with the NYCDCC as the sum total of agreed consensus among Delegates and Members alike was that if the RO is watching this happen and does nothing, we/anyone does not stand a chance with same.

( iii )

17. The Authoritative Question Stating MOUs are Contractually Binding For what this is worth, please consider this. That given what has taken place since 1994, moreover since January 2012 with democracy being such a fleeting concept to the membership, with and for the intent it was designed to have in confusing the hell out of the membership at large, is it not time as Your Honor had stated in the November and December 2011 status conferences for the Common Sense Approach.

18. I, we, ask Your Honor, would you sign a mortgage for a home that was to have attached to it at a later date addendums you were not privy to. Would you in that or any particularly similar circumstance or situation not desire to check every structured paragraph, at least twice prior to executing that agreement/contract?

19. There has been dispensed by the Review Officer a double standard of justice wherein members have been vetoed for lesser infractions while, i.e., The Inspector Generals office while operating under the resumption of Democratic Function has spent large sums to establish his office w/out Council Delegate Involvement or Approval.

( iiii )

Judge Berman;

I submit the following detailed synapsis pertaining to the malfeasance undertaken by the current Billello administration. It is my firm contention that these issues must be addressed in totality prior to any action being taken by this Court pertaining to this court relative to any NYCDCC MOUs/ CBAs. What is of the most critical importance, right here right now, whereby circumstances presently under review by RO Dennis Walsh i.e.

Review Officer Notice of Possible Veto Action against EST Bilello, specifically relevant to Democratic Function re: items C&D.

Inconsistencies that are under Review Officer Review as presented in inaccuracies having to do with an executive Board Members taking of Delegate Meeting Minutes versus the recording of said meetings,

The countless emails sent to the Review Officer by Delegates on the floor, and members in attendance as witnesses in the member gallery, having described the nonexistence of parliamentary processes or a return to Democratic Self Governance, within the Council Delegate and executive Bodys, since January 11 2012.

That also, these reviews first need be brought to a conclusion before deciding whether or not to advance MOU/Contract issues. Wherefore, depending on the outcome of those matters, and as to other member submissions to this Court, upon the April 4 deadline, in sum total, may prove true to fact and correct.

At this point in time given the specificity of injurious conduct and strife the membership has endured during a twenty year failure of the Consent Decree, and as well within the UBC Trusteeship 8/2009 thru 1/2012, in not enabling Democratic Self Governance, certain guarantees need be afforded the membership, and Your Honor as well, that yet another chapter in this painfully long 20 year Consent Decree case, need not be repeated once again. (1)

Allow me to directly quote the Review Officer, who had stated to me while conducting grievance business within the District Council, rather unsuccessfully I may add, whereupon highly probative evidence to corroborate my claims, conversely that cases have been decided for the employer, ( The Case Was Buried) which should not have been the result: The mindset has not left the building

Since stating this and whereby according to others as well who also conduct business at the District Council, meaning in large measure the Council Delegate Body as well as for individual members, that for whatever rhyme and reason there has been no substantial alterations to the manner, method, or as many thousands see it, madness, in which such business continues to be conducted inside 395 Hudson St..

In the above instance certain corroborative evidence was buried and the case went nowhere. What was more amazing is that rather than do justice and implicate personnel who remain to this day at the NYCDCC, as authoritative committee members and delegates, as well as general members, the Review Officer did nothing to correct the wrong, but instead protect the wrongdoers. There is also a witness account as to this circumstance.

The following submission is as best a description of exactly how the return to Democratic Self Governance, the second prong of the Consent Decree, has yet to be achieved. Therefore any and all MOUs/contracts and other sensitive business conducted for the previous 1 year and four months need be further scrutinized prior to implementation. When looking to conditions that are presented as (C & D) in the Notice of Possible Action against EST Bilello;

(c) on March 13, 2013, you refused to answer questions about your report to the Delegates properly posed to you by a delegate at a meeting of the Delegate Body of the District Council;

(2)

(d) on July 25, 2012, you engaged in indecorous and undemocratic behavior in a debate with a delegate at a meeting of the District Council Delegate Body.

Though here as described as a onetime event, with one individual at each separate occurrence, by no truth, were these isolated incidents.

That with the ability to sit in the member gallery, as an afforded protection extended to the membership by the RO, events such as this have been regularly taking place since the Bilello administration was first seated.

Example:

Delegates still have not been presented for approval the American Arbitration Associations expenditure for the mail out of contract ballots reaching as far back as February 2012. Though they continuously bring this up, todays Executive Board on the dais refuses to address the issue and remain silent.

Example;

The Non Transparency/Disclosure by the Executive Board of relevant information was not presented to the Council Delegate Body.

There is also the Lebo resignation as it was termed. That letter was not written by the/a person voluntarily withdrawing from service to the membership. EST Bilello wrote and signed that that letter. There was activity associated with him that was kept quiet. The only explanation we were given was that he lied to the Review Officer. What did he lie about? And did such behavior put into jeopardy, Democracy!

(3)

Another item is that disgraced ex Pres.s. Peter Thomassen, and V.P. Dennis Shiel, have not been touched and in all reality have reaped benefit from their crimes and when referencing the Gilbert Arbitration they have, in absentia, furthered the goal of the previous criminal enterprise. Though not public knowledge it is tangible conjecture within the membership that confidentiality agreements for turning states evidence with the US Attorneys office, allowed them to get off Scott Free. This is but another major feature in creation of member indifference.

August 2008 thru March 2013;

Grave errors in judgment, transparent disclosure, and also a campaign of misinformation, deceit and plain old trickery has occurred at the New York District Council of Carpenters. This is not to say the UBC trustees did not partake in similar methods as well. Of immediate concern is that these practices have continued after the UBC Trusteeship ending in January 2012 when EST Bilello and others were seated into Executive positions.

Wherein the UBC circumstance, The Review Officer has stated multiple times that there were in fact multiple failures of UBC supervisors which he classified as missed opportunities that would have left us much more informed and better positioned to deal with the issues of an anticipated return to Democratic Self Governance, Contract Issues, and that of the general betterment of our union standards.

Intentional wrongs, including that which will be further covered in description of the present administration at the District Council, has produced the most regrettable situation of obliterating what was once envisioned by the Review Officer, and eagerly anticipated by the members, as the hopeful return to Democratic Self Governance. Such is not the case.

(4)

Paid Delegates as Council Employees;

The UBC reorganizational plan does not automatically enable Delegates to be paid employees. Within this enclosed material I will attempt to show Your Honor and the Court the deck continues to be stacked against the membership even though Paid Council Employees that are also Delegates were, supposedly, fairly and freely elected, amd have not performed to the standards according to DC by laws.

Prior to 50% of the delegates being paid employees of the NYDCC there was a silent cooperative of accomplices which ushered to the wayside Democratic Function inside the Council Delegate Body. For those members attending Delegate Meetings since January 2012, whereas either on the floor as a minority member driven delegate, or in the member gallery as witness, the situation continues to be known as the rubber stamp process. As sole authoritative power as to District Council business the present crop of Off the Reservation Delegates, except for a small minority intent on representing the will of the membership, there is utter amazement by many thousands of members as to why the Delegate Body refuses to stand and be recognized when it comes to flatly rejecting the prospect of a roll call accounting on any MOU/contract vote. If right minded men are making fair decisions, they need not be fearful of those that condemn them.

In rationally speaking about this new and open society the conundrum in striking parallel has been to return the ways of yesterday. This is being done so as not to shed sunlight where it was darkest before respective of seriously lacking transparency, debate & discussion, & near zero due process of relevant parliamentary processes in the Council Delegate Body.

(5)

Todays eerily similar resurrection of that rubber stamp designation has manifested its ugliness by way of two obvious factors which I s determinable with minimal application of common sense and was pre-envisioned and emphatically stated to the Review Officer by the membership at large, as well as certain Delegates, much earlier on in this reorganizational process. Now that we have experienced it through one year and four months, the current rubber stamp moniker largely due the Reviews Officers failure to listen to us regarding any of the aforementioned or following, is now definitive to many thousands of members.

Paid Delegates - A Blow To Democracy;

Our current problems do rest with the exorbitant salary bands which are out of touch with the realities of the membership. It is understood that the UBC has this right under its reorganizational plan and this is a separate issue that needs to be addressed if challenging the Harrinton v Chao decision.

Though in precise application of 50% of the Council Delegate Body that are now classified as Paid Employees, of the NY District Council their Highly Paid for Allegiance has not been to the voice of the membership, but lies within singularly answering the demands of their employer. By their employer, I mean the Executive Board and all but two local members that sit on the Executive Committee. One of which is my locals Executive Delegate John Daly. He has publicly announced that we were not properly, nor transparently informed to the degree necessary at any time either through the UBC or the NYCDCC since 1/12, regarding the MOUs negotiation stages. It is plainly obvious the UBC negotiated Contracts have been forwarded by the present executive committee, w/out much in the way of further or substantial change to them. This is to say that what the membership had shot down was never stricken from the contract in renegotiation since voting against the Wall & Ceiling MOU in March 2012. (6)

Re: Factor - 50% of Delegates as Paid Council Employees. The Review Officers Anti-Corruption Initiative & Rider Again a Blow to Democratic Function A dynamic that cannot be discounted as well is when referencing the Review Officers AntiCorruption Initiative, and its attached Rider. Of which that Rider basically traded information relative to previous crimes so as they can keep their jobs at the District Council. This in turn has allowed those complicit of turning a blind eye, or that they themselves had assisted in the perpetration of said previous racketeering, to remain as paid employees. Some have wormed their way into the delegate body under the guise of free and fair elections. We all know that to be a direct result of the continued association within the good old boy network of the past.

In the three years hence that initiative it has not yielded any further USAO charges other than those eight or nine in the 2009 indictments. We are of the opinion that to such the extent of previous racketeering activity they were not, or that through the many tentacles of members, stewards and or companies and various Associations, noit the sole nine involved. The Consent Decree must protect us from furthering, what once was. Weve been beaten down far too long and denied participation in our affairs, as is the case today, during the tenure of US v NYCDCC 5722.

At present now there must be a favorable decision that insists on, that which still evades us, a genuine return to Democratic Self Governance. I mention genuine because as the Review Officer suggests the way to change this in the near or far future, via elections, is to make sure they dont get reelected.

(7)

There is much more of an immediate concern here, that in the meantime theres something rotten @ 395, and it is not the stuff in the lunchroom fridge. And because of it, these contracts are being rammed down our throats with the mentality of oligarch rule.

The aforementioned holdovers are largely the reason apathy that exists today. Generally speaking members simply are either afraid, or do not wish to deal with those that aided and abetted the M. Forde administration.

Make no mistake that I, as involved and actively participating and whereas in addition with many thousands of other members, believe that their presence is disrupting Democratic Function at the District Council and thus has created the lethargy that exists today. Certain 157 e-board members have resigned due to this factor whereas similarly the Review Officer has paid them no mind when they pronounce to him that the democratic process is currently being undermined.

Those that refuse to come forward to report present day wrongdoing, or those that bring to the Review the questions regarding authority of the Paid Council employees as Delegates, are not doing so because in all actuality they are dealing with those in elevated positions at the NYCDCC that they previously had, in specific respect, unsuccessful dealings with. This is not a difficult concept to understand or see through.

This includes the previous Out of Work List supervisor Scott Danielson who was elevated to the Inspector General position. The membership at large is not in agreement w/this decision and whereas there are also others that remain and maintain the past Status Quo, regardless of that Institutional need. The Review Officers opinion, and that of EST Bilellos, is that they have worked hard at cleaning out the NYCDCC and are doing a wonderful job. Is it not prudent at this juncture to take no chances?

(8)

Look to The Review Officers statements, and possibly your own thoughts as well, when being perplexed as to why there hasnt been a more robust turnout and involvement by the membership that would in fact alternately constitute a turnaround inside 395??

The Review Officer as Witness @ Delegate Meetings

Mr. Walsh has been at many of these meetings and has refused to correct monumental errors, both as to by law violations and within parliamentary procedures that have assuredly compromised Democratic Self Governance. Hes received many, many emails stating this subject matter. The primary reason no-one has filed charges against the Exec. board violators in such instances is that, if hes witnessing them as Federal Oversight and does nothing to stop it, what chance in hell does anyone else have. Had he acted in the alternate anytime during the previous 1 & yrs. the membership would have not distanced them from him, as has been the case.

I had directed a question to him at his most recent RO Forum concerning why he allowed an MOU vote on August 22 2012, without the requisite fair & balanced debate & discussion at the local level. Mr. Walsh does in fact disapprove of the above charecterization when delegates and members alike point to by law violations such as not allowing debate & discussion at the local, level based on the material the delegates were presented with only the night before, or in other cases at the meeting itself. He asked, Bob what would you do if you were RO?

My reply: I would have walked up to the dais took the microphone from Bilello and said no I will not allow you to bypass the crucial step of taking said information back to your

members, so that it can be debated and discussed, then expecting said delegates to return to the Council Delegate Body in the next scheduled meeting as to further debate & discuss how those locals constituents have decided how their delegates are to further act on said issues at Council Delegate Body Meetings. (9)

Sr. Judge Haights -- 67/33 Ruling.

The rewarding of a contemptuous act is an abomination of the Consent Decree. If ex-President Thomassens actions were wrong, as was Forde charged and found guilty of bypassing the work list, I can confidentially tell you many members lost a degree of respect for the Federal court system, and its monitors because of this action. From what I understand and to the best of my knowledge according to that court transcript the employers associations main argument that they keep the contemptuous manning provision, which by every definition was an attempt to sneak mobility in through the back door was as quoted We did not know there was a Consent Decree. This decision needs to be rectified in returning to the members at least a true 50% manning provision, if not greater, to be assigned from the NYCDCC Work List.

The guarantee of mobility is not within the purview of the UBCs reorganizational Plan.

If members are not considered here, either through their representatives, or as themselves provided they vote on such issues, the UBC, and or the US Government, cannot with such ease, not contemplate them in this formula, thereby simply make it so. Though as indicated in a meeting with the USAO where all relevant parties were present, There was talk of such a guarantee, and I wonder if the Court had explained it as such quite some time ago, these exercises of reaching out to Your Honor, either here or in member comment, at court conferences, through TROs and motions to intervene, would then have been a waste of time. However in the contrary, if mobility is something, as weve heard, up to the membership via Democratic Function alone, that is what we are looking for, an honest playing field.

( 10 )

I can attest by way of personal experience that the UBC Trustees and the Review Officer, rather than remove them from the ability to conduct said member business, kept them around for the explained reasoning of Institutional Awareness, and consequently they have wormed their way into the Delegate Body under the guise of a Fair and Free election. It is however unfortunate that they, with such ease of the quorum necessary, carry votes when approving any District Council Business re: MOUs/ Contracts containing mobility language, this despite the fact that the membership had voted down the contracts regardless of the phantom membership they claim to represent. I speak of actual members who returned the W&C Ballot and who checked no to mobility. They, those delegates that have approved mobility language and the MOUs, cannot prove such a membership opinion exists simply by uttering the words. Where on the other hand there is tangible and simple proof, in the March 211012 member wide vote that the membership that does not approve of present MOU or Contract language.

Local 157 Delegates Bound by Their Members to Vote No On Mobility

One method of scrutinizing just how drastic the situation is that keeps us from democracy is when looking to this. In December of 2011 there was a motion taken debated and discussed where a subsequent approval vote insisted the local 157 Delegates adhere to the will of the membership and vote no on mobility.

Though without a roll call vote tabulation one can presume that the needed quorum was in fact largely populated with more than 51% of Paid Council Employees.

( 11 )

Compliance Trade off For Mobility Its All in The Name of Greed for Dollars and Cents, Not Common Sense. There are the active and aware members that realize the so called sweetener in the form of raises that reach through the life of the contracts, will in fact never be seen by the membership. These straw raises, were not at all contemplated and as a matter of fact they were soundly denounced at any time by the associations throughout two years of negotiations. The fact that they eventually were accepted by the delegate body, more so effectually by Paid Council Employees was via a direct presentation to the Council Delegate Body by Wall & Ceiling Association President Dellois, immediately prior to the August 22 2012 W&C MOU ratification. That direct dealing, by standards of existing labor law is not lawful but an exception was made in this case to attempt to fool the membership with the prospect, though a completely false one, of salary increases over the life of the contract(s). This was a tradeoff to end the compliance vs. mobility stalemate. And though compliance is a drastically needed accompaniment these days here I believe it was a requisite of sentencing guidelines in the M. Forde & Co. guilty verdicts and something that could not be refused by any of the parties involved. Herein lies the rub Your Honor, this was all a charade, and this is how they did it.

The actual number of members that will in fact see that raise is so insignificant that in and off itself will have some, but no monumental bearing, on overall contributions to the funds. While most all work being PLAs and market recovery rates as well as including the many concessions issued through the hardship committee, the members will in all reality not see these raises.

( 12 )

This has taken place at a time the Dow Industrial Average hits high marks that have been absent for years. Coupled with the strengthened S&P indices, concessions and givebacks are occurring at a time when there has returned an optimism regarding the economic downturn of the recent past. Nor, does the District Council answer the Delegate call to have companies open their books to justify said reductions. None of this is Good faith Bargaining

NonTransparent/Disclosure;

I need to emphasize at this point that the RO has multiple times, and for multiple reasons, cited the lack of information and definitive action as to any number of issues by the UBC trustees and the Bilello administration when it comes to issues of Transparency, Release and Distribution of information and that does include the CBA issues.

Out of Work List Fallacy;

The wholly concocted material concerning unqualified members being the reason that the employers and associations wanted complete control of the work force is one of a minor problem best and one suited to screening at the Labor Technical College in order to correct the problem. Though a Work List will still exist, it will for all intents and purposes, be for Shop Stewards only. Ive looked through Curt Conference Transcripts and this was not a hot button issue, except as it was used for the express purpose of a conquer and divide mentality, first by the UBC Trustees and subsequently the Bilello administration.

Discrimination & Mobility; Mobility will only further corruption despite the compliance measures. Though as compliance is a necessary improvement, as I understand it this is a requisite within sentencing guidelines, would it not have been a more appropriate response to introduce such measures upon the Thomassen contempt remedy instead of awarding corrupt & contemptuous actions against the Consent Decree, but this was not to be. ( 13 )

As previously stated I am against Mobility. Even with best of compliance measures, as has been proven time and time again, corruption can and will flourish as the bad guys change to adapt. It is hard not to imagine that specific Mob adaptation in the electronic age.

With Mobility comes Categorical discrimination of all types when employers within associations gain control of complete manning provisions. As I have recently passed a birthday of 56 years, this specific type of age discrimination will affect me. It will also eviscerate certain labor law protections of fair play and an equal sense of the application of those laws & protections when things go horribly wrong. Ive witnessed racial discrimination. And youd be shocked the way foreman and other authoritative personnel on the jobsite speak of, not all, of the woman sisterhood. Tis not a question of if and to what degree, but one of when.

Paraphrasing the RO;

The Review Officer stated this to the membership at large while first appearing before them upon his appointment in mid-2010.

It Is You, It Is You, And You, (as he pointed his finger throughout the members in attendance), that have been fighting the good fight both publicly and privately, that will help put, and sustain, the District Council on the straight and narrow. Fast forward to present day, when referencing said individuals, at present in the words of District Councils counsel J. Murphys esq., in response to the Schroeder motion to intervene dated: March 20 2013, now weve become quasi Hecklers, subversives and those that would ridicule fellow members for disagreeing with mobility . These are misnomers when attempting to label the active, aware and participating members as intent on destroying democratic function within the walls of the New York District Council of Carpenters.

( 14 )

There are many thousands of members that this description is meant to address, including members of the Council Delegate Body who passionately disagree with the current portion of the Council Delegate Body that are off the reservation when it comes to the anticipated operational premise of Democratic Self Governance.

This fact and the circumstances surrounding it unequivocally proves there is a majority of Paid Council Employees who are delegates that simply are not representing the will of the membership Outside of a certain group of Delegates that are fighting for what is right respective of true member representation only a few members have persevered to the point of actions before this court, both in January 2012, of which I was one, and whereas there is a present day motion to intervene, in that I have signed it, I am temporarily out of state decline being an active party party to it for reasons of caring for an aged parent and this is why my submission originates, and is notarized in another State. I have taken time and effort from that responsibility to emphatically state what is contained herein. That is how important this is

My estimate is that far greater than half the membership feels exactly as I do.

What do I base such an assumption on?

I am one of those that awake at @ 4:30 when I am not working to be ready at the District Council to distribute information on issues of the day and have been doing so for quite some time.

I am one of those that have helped organize rallies for the same purposes. I am one of those that at every possible opportunity where I can be available attend local and delegate meetings, Review Officer Forums, and speak before Your Honor at Court conferences and so on.

I inform and educate members on the street and jobsites as well, so as the saying goes, in reading the pulse of the membership.

( 15 )

Dated: April 3 2013

Robert Makowski

Notary

( 16 )