Jesse J. Averhart
23 North Lenape Ave.
Trenton, NJ 08618
(609)865-5431
December 29, 2008
Anthony Miskowski Secretary
CWA Local 1033
321 West State St.
Trenton, New Jersey 08618
Dear Mr. Miskowski:
This is a complaint of your partisan determination, as Secretary, to deny Members for Change election appeal of
the Election Committee to the Executive Board, even though, you acknowledged in your letter of denial that it was an
“Appeal of the Determination of the Election Committee.” Your denial was premised on “defects” in our submission. We
disagree and submit the election appeal, not “charges” as you refer to them, were properly submitted, absent
specificity on your part as to the claimed “defects.”
The CWA Union Constitution, Article XV, section 4 (b) provides a “right of appeal to the governing body and to the
membership of the local.”
This “right of appeal to…the membership of the local” is effectuated via this complaint pursuant to the CWA Union
Constitution, Article IX, Section 7, which provides that:
The purpose of these appeal procedures is to provide reasonable regulations for
the consideration and review of complaints of members regarding actions of the
Union or Local Officers or governing body, which are alleged to be in violation of
the Constitution, Local Bylaws, rights and privileges of members. Emphasis added.
These "reasonable regulations," are found at Article XI—Amendments, entitled "Internal Appeals Procedures" of the
Constitution.
As provided therein Mr. Miskowski, please place this complaint and the appeal of the Election Committee on the
agenda for the next General Membership Meeting scheduled in January 2009, as required by the Constitution.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINED OF FACTS
For the benefit of the members the complained of facts by the Election Committee are summarized as followed:
1. Members employed by the Local should not sat on the Election Committee as they have a vested interest in
continued employment, and is a clear conflict of interest. This included Peter Maurer as chairman and Michael
Calabrese as a committee member.
2. Ballots should not be printed by a Printer who has a business arrangement with the Local, and is a clear conflict of
interest.
3. The Election Committee Chairman was vehemently against changing the Post Office. This Post Office could not and
did not, according to the Election Chair, provide a special restricted-access post office box as mandated by the laws
governing this election. The Post Office should be changed.
4. The incumbents were permitted to have a membership and robo-call listing to call members at home and work,
giving them an unfair advantage over other candidates.
5. The incumbents should not have been permitted to call members at work using employer’s equipment.
6. The incumbents should not have been permitted to use employer’s premises, where the same access was denied to
other candidates.
7. The incumbents should not have been permitted to use employer paid days to take members off the job for
purported contract training so conveniently close to the election and was arguably campaigning.
8. The incumbents should not have been permitted to pass out movie tickets at these purported training sessions,
which was definitely campaigning.
9. The incumbents should not have been permitted to use the Local’s property, funds and equipment for purported
contract training, when it could be construed as campaigning.
10. A review of the payroll and time records of Sandra Coia and Russell Caffey will show that the incumbents paid
these employees exhorbitant salaries (union dues) that were inconsistent with duties perform, as reward to campaign
on behalf of the incumbents.
11. Members were not properly notified by the Election Committee regarding the illegal requirement of signing only one
candidate’s petition for a particular office and believed they had to vote for whomever petition they signed.
12. The incumbent’s functioned as the de facto Election Committee, advising members in the Department of Law and
Public Safety, that the area representative seat was uncontested and the Election Committee refused to submit
corrective information to members in this area that Doreen Griffin was contesting for this seat.
13. A significant number of members received ballot packages that were incomplete, e.g., no ballot, ballot envelope,
etc.
The Election Committee claims to have followed federal law under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act
(LMRDA). They did not. The violations as noted are considered substantive violations under federal law as violations
that could have affected the outcome of the election. Such violations mandates an election to be re-ran. However, the
Election Committee conveniently ignored the established burdens of proof, determining that we must prove these
violations affected the election. Contrarily, the onus or burden of proof was upon the incumbents to prove how these
violations did not affect the election result, which obviously they could not.
REMEDY
The membership should vote to: take this election out of the hands or control of the incumbents; replacing members on
the Election Committee with members who do not have a vested interest in the outcome and who will ensure a fair
election, and; that this election be re-ran under the purview of a third party election company, so there can be no
questions regarding the results.
In the event this matter comes before the CWA Union for resolution, it is respectfully demanded that the CWA Union
intervene by taking control of this Local to protect the democratic rights and financial interest of the local members and
the union.
Thank you,
/s/ Jesse J. Averhart
Jesse J. Averhart
c. Members For Change
bc: ☺