In response to David Noble’s campaign presence on Facebook some have claimed that the payments Noble exposed were authorized by NALC’s 1996 convention, and that the convention is NALC’s supreme authority. The resolution to which they refer stated that the following payments are approved and confirmed:

• Up to $500 per month allowance for in-town expenses;

• Employee share of Social Security and Medicare Tax for Full-time national officers

• Per diem payments while the convention is in session in the amount set by the Committee on Mileage and Per Diem to NALC Officers

A close examination of the resolution reveals nothing but smoke and mirrors. First, the resolution presupposes that the per diem amount is set by the committee, which it isn’t. According to NALC’s constitution, it’s set by the convention, and the constitution can’t be amended by a resolution. Second, the resolution presupposes that NALC pays the employee share of social security, which again it does not. Instead, NALC reimburses officers for the employee share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. Finally, the resolution purports to authorize up to $500 per month for in-town expenses. But that authorization doesn’t do anything more than is already provided in the constitution, which is reimbursement for itemized expenses. Under the constitution an officer is entitled to be reimbursed in any amount for expenses so long as they are “legitimate” and “itemized.” Nothing in the resolution purports to exempt officers from those requirements. In reality, the resolution doesn’t authorize anything. It’s a monument to the kind of trickery that can be played by very expensive lawyers.

 

After Noble filed his federal lawsuit in 1994 the officers changed their arguments, making contentions to the court that they wouldn’t have dared make to the membership. While they had contended to the membership that the payments were not “under the table,” to the court they conceded that they were, arguing that the constitution empowers the officers to authorize under the table payments to themselves. In response to Noble’s assertions that the payments were not reported to or authorized by the membership, the officers argued that they weren’t required to report the payments, and that while they weren’t authorized by the membership, they were self-authorized by the officers. Therefore, it is the officers’ position that they’re legally empowered to secretly raise heir own salaries. Former NALC President Bill Young testified to that under oath in 2004.

In 2006 the trial court dismissed Noble’s case. He appealed, and in 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed, vacated and remanded to the trial court the in-town expense issue. The appeals court ruled as to the in-towns that Noble had provided “ample evidence that the officers were using the allowance for personal use,” rather than for union expenses. The appeals court instructed the trial court to determine how the expenses were being used and six years later, the court is still stuck on that task. However the trial court rules, there will be another appeal, so the final resolution of the legal case is still years away.

“I was elected as a delegate to the 2014 convention in an election held in Br. 142 in 2013. I spent months corresponding with Br. 142 and NALC HQ trying to confirm my delegate status, but they did not reply until the Friday before the convention when they notified me that the branch had not certified me and, therefore, I would not be seated as a delegate. I protested that decision to Rolando’s hand-picked credentials committee, but they denied my protest without giving a reason. I had a right to appeal their denial to the convention, but Rolando said to make such an appeal it would be necessary to come to the podium. I was blocked by guards from going to the podium. As a result of the wholly improper refusal to seat me as a delegate the Rolandoists prevented me from asking why officers were being given a per diem based on hotel rates and lost time when they suffered neither. I was also prevented from nominating the members of my slate.

When Br. 142 delegate Jerry Ellis Hemby approached the microphone at the convention to nominate Travis Lober for director of city delivery, Rolando partisan Mickey Morris blocked her access to the microphone. As witnessed by hundreds Hemby and Morris scuffled until Hemby muscled her way past him.  Morris succeeded in delaying Hemby, however, until after the nominations for Director of City Delivery closed. After the nominations were closed Secretary-Treasurer Broendel announced that there were “technical problems” with Lober’s and Ring’s (another Clean Sweep candidate) nomination paperwork and asked that they come to the podium so that the problems could be fixed. Neither Ring nor Lober was present at the convention, so they were unable to go to the podium. Had they been contacted at home, however, they would have been happy to dot whatever “i”s they may have missed. Incumbent president Fred Rolando hand-picked an election committee and that committee withdrew Secretary-Treasurer Broendel’s invitation to correct whatever the perceived deficiencies were, and announced on the NALC website on August 13, 2014 that both Lober and Ring had been disqualified and would not appear on the ballot. The committee gave no indication of what the supposed technical deficiencies were or why the committee had withdrawn Broendel’s invitation to correct them.”

“The labor movement in this country peaked in 1955, when 35% of American workers belonged to unions. That number has been down to 10% for about the last
decade. If it goes any lower the labor movement may just disappear altogether. This precipitous decline in union membership is unique to the United States. No
other industrialized democracy has suffered such a sharp fall-off. One reason for the fall in union membership is that for many Americans the first associations with
“union” are “corruption” and “abuse of power.” NALC’s General Counsel for the past 35 years – Bruce H. Simon – agrees with that view of the decline in union
membership. What I have seen in pursuing my lawsuit and this campaign reaffirms my need to continue my stand against Union corruption.” David W Noble