Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1491

Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 2

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York

86 Chambers Street New York, New York 10007

March 5, 2014

By hand and ECF The Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. District Council of Carpenters, 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB) Dear Judge Berman: This Office represents the United States (the government) in the above-named case. We write in response to the Courts order dated March 4, 2014, to express support for the Review Officers proposal to (1) waive enforcement of all prior notice requirements placed upon the District Council and local unions by the Stipulation and Order of June 3, 2010, as set forth in paragraphs 5.b and 5.c of the Stipulation and Order, and (2) to eliminate the veto authority given to the Review Officer by paragraph 5.b.iii of the Stipulation and Order, in favor of enforcement proceedings instituted by the Review Officer in this Court. The government believes that it is important to assess whether the structural reforms that are now (or soon will be) in place at the District Council will function as intended without constant oversight by the Review Officer, as those structures are intended to serve as the primary bulwark against the encroachment of corrupt influences. The government appreciates the Courts concern that substituting a civil contempt enforcement process in place of the Review Officers veto authority may prove cumbersome. The government is amenable to alternative enforcement mechanisms, including, for example, requiring the Review Officer to submit a written letter application to the Court showing that a particular action taken by the District Council violates any applicable order, followed by a short briefing schedule and the opportunity for oral argument or a hearing, if necessary.

Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1491

The Honorable Richard Berman March 5, 2014

Filed 03/05/14 Page 2 of 2

page 2

Finally, the government respectfully contends that further time should be permitted for the Review Officer, the government, and the District Council to attempt to agree upon the terms of an extension of the Review Officers tenure. In the event an agreement cannot be negotiated expeditiously, or any negotiated agreement fails to garner enough votes from the District Council delegate body, the Court may then proceed to adjudicate any motion by the Review Officer for an extension of his term. We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.

Respectfully, PREET BHARARA United States Attorney By: /s/ Tara M. La Morte BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE TARA M. La MORTE Assistant United States Attorneys Telephone: 212.637.2703, 2746 Fax: 212.637.2702

cc: James Murphy, Esq. (by e-mail) Bridget Rohde, Esq. (by e-mail) Dennis Walsh, Esq. (by e-mail) Raymond McGuire, Esq. (by e-mail) Barbara Jones, Esq. (by e-mail)