Transcript of Court Conference on December 4, 2013

THE COURT: So following our last session I was quite concerned about some of the issues that we discussed and that appear to be going on here, and for that reason I issued the November 25, 2013 order and have received some helpful submissions from all of you, including the Mr. Walsh's latest report, the seventh interim report of the review officer, which I think is very helpful. It also raises some issues or perhaps they've been bubbling under the surface which I'm quite concerned about in addition to the issue of the technology and the technology fixes which I want to discuss today.

So I'd like to get right to it. In a subsequent memo endorsement of mine dated November 27, I indicated an order in which I would like to proceed today and I indicated that I'd like to hear from the government first and then the district council and then Mr. Walsh. And let me just tell you why I think that's the appropriate order and mechanism.

So first, obviously, this is the government's case historically and currently. It's U.S. v. District Council, et al., and the origin of the case has to do with, among other things, what were undeniably a history of bad practices and corruption in the union.

So I thought that given that context and given that one of the central problems I'm concerned about now is the implementation, the very belated in my opinion implementation of these electronic reporting systems which were, as I indicated in my order, part and parcel of approval of the collective bargaining agreements going back over the last month, given the fact that those very reporting requirements were presented to me and described by you all -- and by "you all" I mean, for example, Mr. Murphy and others -- as anti-corruption measures, I wanted to start and get the government's take on this particular issue about how these collective bargaining agreement aspects are being implemented from the bigger perspective of what this case has been all about.

And I don't have to remind you as I indicated in the order dated November 25 that there was on my part, and others, as well, there was an enormous change in these collective bargaining agreements which was the implementation of what is described as full mobility. And that was done with considerable thought, but it did represent a sea change in how hiring took place with these contractors. These contractors got a huge benefit in that regard in my opinion. And the quid pro quo for that full mobility was the implementation of -- one of the quid pro quos was implementation of these anti-corruption measures. And so clearly the full mobility was implemented but the measures were not.

And as I read these materials -- by the way, I haven't read all of them in detail, but I've read most of them in the main including the seventh interim report, including Judge Jones' letter dated December 3, and including the additional supplemental letter dated December 3, 2013 from Kauff McGuire & Margolis that has to do with pension issues.

So before I just turn to all of you because I don't want to monopolize the conversation, but there was one other point that I would like to make. And I don't know if it's become obvious, but from my point of view when we have these proceedings and hearings, one of the most beneficial aspects from my point of view is to hear actually from the people who implement whatever it is we're talking about.

So, for example, when we're talking about the benefit funds, you know, we have the most talented lawyers in the world sitting right here in front of us, but sometimes it's preferable to get beyond the lawyers and to hear from the people who are actually doing the work and I would like to continue to do that going forward. We had that experience particularly with the benefit funds, and I think that has worked quite well actually hearing from those people who are in charge of investments and the benefit funds as employees, not just as lawyers.

And I would like -- there's a lot of mention in both Judge Jones' letter and in the seventh interim report of the people who were actually implementing these technology changes. It would be useful and beneficial for me to hear directly from them. And I'm always happy to hear from lawyers as well, but those are the people who really are doing the job and so I would like to hear from them as well.

But anyway, enough said by me. I would start with Mr. Torrance.

U.S. v. D.C. 12.4.13

Tweet