A union member writes:
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I think I need to clear the air on my outburst at Monday’s Charter meeting. The context had to do with the investigation of the DOL and our elections, specifically the e-mail challenges.
In 2012 there was an Activist email sent out that was not BCC’d (blind carbon copied). I saved the list and used it to send e-mails along with a list of e-mails that I had gathered along the way. Along the way I let a now former e-board officer know that I had it, they informed the former President and the former President confirmed to me that he knew that I had it.
Fast forward to the current elections, the current VP (campaigning with his ticket) used the Activist list to send out disparaging e-mails concerning a now former President. In an interview with the DOL representative, they stated the current VP “admitted” that they used an e-mail list to campaign. Now the crucks of the issue is that the current VP stated that the list he used came from me and that it was free and clear to use since it was not from union resources. During the interview with the DOL, I provided evidence and statements that destroyed the current VPs statements.
Now to current events, I received a call from an attorney representing ATU757 concerning challenging any DOL outcomes and needed information concerning interviews with the DOL and candidates. I told them the same thing I said to the DOL (without divulging the evidentiary information), then they wanted me to sign a statement that would possibly challenge whatever the DOL ruling that would come. I said “NO”; I would not change my story for you or anyone else. Plus, I find it offensive that they would be using union resources to fight the DOL for using union resources. I told that person that I find it a conflict of interest that they should be calling me and trying to convince me to change my statement, when they were the ones who violated the rules and now are using union resources to fight what they did.
Lastly, an e-board officer at Monday Charter made a recommendation that the officers “accept” any ruling the DOL hands down.