Transcript from January 28, 2014 Court Conference

THE COURT: So first off, congratulations to the new EST. Is he here?

MR. GEIGER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Congratulations.

MR. GEIGER: Thank you.

THE COURT: And how was the vote? What was the process? Did you win by.

MR. GEIGER: It was slightly more than a two-to-one margin. The vote was held Friday, and the votes were tallied on Friday.

THE COURT: Nice to have you here.

MR. GEIGER: Thank you.

THE COURT: So I received a letter from Judge Jones yesterday evening or so, and it's very helpful. What I would like to do today is deal with these -- the following issues in the following order. First, in Judge Jones' letter she raises at the end of the letter this issue about international agreements, and frankly, I would like to hear about that first. I'm curious as to know what that's about and where that's leading us. So perhaps on that issue I might hear from Mr. Walsh and also then the district council and anybody else that wants to add anything to that. So that would be the first thing I would like to hear about.

The second I would like to talk about the two pending CBAs. I'm aware that they had -- you are too, that they had been earlier submitted but never acted upon by me, and that is because of my concern that they contain provisions that -- this may be too strong, but on their face are not being complied with. That's the whole point of the other discussion that we're having here is that the so-called anti-fraud provisions in all the CBAs do not appear to be -- well, that may be too strong, but you understand my point about that. It's kind of odd to go forward and approve an agreement, which I probably would not have done incidentally historically had I known at the time that the provisions that are mandatory in the agreements, they use the word "shall," were not or could not or were not adequately being complied with. That would be the second issue.

Then I would like to talk about the proposed new amendment of the stipulation and order, what that's about, why people feel that's important and necessary, then to talk about the status of electronic reporting. I did note that one of the consultant, I don't know if that's what it's called, that District Council retained, one of its early recommendations was that there be in-house IT capability. That's something that I have been thinking about and talking about for several months now, and frankly I have been surprised that that issue hadn't been taken care of a long time ago.But anyway, I'm all for that. And then we can talk more about electronic reporting, where that stands.

And then there's an issue about Mr. Walsh. Is he here today? Not the RO Walsh, but -- well, maybe that issue will not be pursued, but we'll see. So yeah, with that in mind, then of course we can hear about if anybody has any other issues that they want to discuss.

So let's hear about this, Mr. Walsh, if we might, this international agreements issue. It's somewhat of a concern to me because it suggests, at least from Judge Jones' letter that -- maybe this is too strong, but somebody is trying to evade the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement, at least in spirit, and that is a problem, in my opinion.

U.S. v. D.C. 1.28.14 Conference

Tweet