Jesse J. Averhart                                        Mary R.Walker
23 North Lenape Avenue                           333 West State Street, Apt. 10-L
Trenton, NJ 08618                                     Trenton, NJ 08618
609.865.5431                                             609.433.3950


June 22, 2010


Anthony Miskowski, Secretary
CWA Local 1033
321 West State St.
Trenton, New Jersey 08618

Dear Mr. Miskowski:

We thank the Local 1033 Executive Board for their response, although negative, to the proposal of allowing a third
party vendor conduct this Local’s officer election.

However, please put before the Executive Board for vote our contention that the question of whether an in-house
election or third party vendor conduct the next (and any subsequent) election should  be set forth as a referendum
for the majority vote of members of this Local, rather than the 1.36% quorum of the membership at the Local
Membership meetings.

Obviously, this Board is satisfied with the 1033 current in-house election process and the 1.36% membership
meeting quorum votes on complex questions by the uninformed as a result of  failure of the Administration to
establish a program to keep members informed of union activities. The result,  incumbent political expediency.
However, we are the voice of many---a democracy. We demand, thus, a referendum vote from the entire (voting
eligible) membership.

Political expediency is also evident with the appearance of a conflict of interest for two sitting Executive Board
members having been appointed (including the Election Chairman, Pete Maurer; a direct violation) to this
impromptu so-called Bylaws Review Committee. Although cloaked as the Bylaws Review Committee, this impromptu
committee actually supplanted the Local’s Election Committee, by making election committee decisions.  

Thus,  the Bylaws Review Committee recommendations are invalid or does this mean that Mr. Miskowski and Mr.
Kaszyc-Rank have decided not to run in the 2011 election? Remember: the Bylaws preclude members of the
Election committee running for office. But then again it doesn’t matter that the Bylaws precludes it, political
expediency supercedes the bylaws under this administration. Recall that in 2005, the Co-Chair of the Election
Committee was taken off the committee to run for EVP.

More preposterous is the fact that none of the committees listed in the Bylaws, Article X. A) have been formed,
except the Election Committee and the politically expedient unlisted Bylaws Review Committee. The Bylaws, Article
X., subsections F) and G), that are cited are not in our copies of the bylaws that were last revised in 2004 and
reprinted in 2005, again political expediency. Please provide myself and the membership any revised bylaws if it
exists!

Of course the Bylaws Review Committee rails on and on in their objective review about how the National Union has
reviewed and rejected our election complaints. Consistent with the National’s review of the election complaints,
disclosure of financial disbursements, etc., the National has reviewed complaints and charges regarding the utter
failure of this administration to establish standing committees. The result: absolutely nothing, no required standing
committees. Consequently, no stock is put in the National’s reviews.

In short? The National Union has become complicit, knowingly or otherwise, in the operation of CWA Local 1033.

Speaking of financial disbursements:

According to the 2008 December Finance Report, the Bylaws Review Committee reports that $23,400.00 was
budgeted for the 2008 election. None of the Finance Reports reflect or report that $9,955.00 was spent instead.

What happened to the remaining $13,445.00?

Moreover, the Bylaws Review Committee purposefully omits the salaries, lost time wages, meals and other
expenses of the Election Committee, buried elsewhere in the Finance Reports.
We are of the opinion that  the above political expediency and the current in-house election practice at CWA Local
1033 is a continuing opportunity to continuing voting fraud, where:
•        A Local employee with a vested interest under Roeder as the Election Chairman, who does what he is told;

•        Ballots are printed by a company with a vested interest to maintain the status quo;

•        Ballots are maintained at the Local in a (sic) secure, vertical filing cabinet prior to mailing. This filing cabinet   
is  also the source of replacement ballots.

•        Ballots are accessible by Roeder after the election, see next bullet;

•        In 2005 this printer (sic) in error printed identifying/serial numbers on the ballots. Combining the three latter
bullets provides the basic technique of a vote rigger, noting names of people who never seem to vote and whose
votes are stolen, resulting in an unprecedented surge in voting for Roeder in 2005 and 2008;

•        The Election Committee Co-Chairperson - with a key to ballot secured areas - was abruptly taken off the
Election committee in the midst of the campaign in 2005 to run for Vice-President of the Local, which is strictly
prohibited by the By-laws.  Is it possible she had the key copied?

•        In 2005 members were advised they could only sign one candidate’s petition in support of that candidate for a
particular office, a violation of  secret ballot voting

•        The Post Office ‘selected’ to receive the ballots was approximately 35 miles from the Local, where members
could not observe comings and goings;

•        Returning and undeliverable ballots were maintained in one P.O Box requiring daily access and tampering,
when the return ballot P.O. Box should  have been accessed only once, when ballots were picked up for counting.

•         During the 2008 election,  members were taken off  for  state paid leave en masse for purported contract
training---the contract came out 2006---and treated to free movie tickets...a violation of a basic election tenet---use
of union or employer funds and equipment.

Lastly, we want touch on the issue of disenfranchisement, suffice it to say that all third party vendors provide
options to members of either a mail-in ballot, telephonic or internet vote.

We request, nay, demand, that this matter be put before the entire voting membership as a referendum question.

/s/jesse J. Averhart                     /S/ Mary R. Walker             
Jesse J. Averhart                    Mary R. Walker