Demand Roeder Tell Us How She Spent $4.1 million dollars
Members have a right and privilege to know how their dues money is being spent, based on basic democratic principles. But Roeder refuses to share this information, ignoring request for this information. Incredibly, Roeder goes into her two bit politician mode, avoiding the issue and downplaying the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Audit Reports:
Roeder lied that she spent $526,650.00 in three years building this local membership by organizing unorganized workers. She didn’t.
In three years Roeder spent $ 612,1623.00 of the contingency fund, money that was to be used for emergencies. $5000 is left in the fund. What did she spend it on? Fighting for your Pension? What about all the other issues facing this Local?
$3 Million Dollars was spent on salaries in three years. Roeder refuse to say who was paid what. She pays Sandy Coia, a former state employed charged with stealing, over $70,0000. Almost twice what she was willing to pay the second highest officer, The Executive V.P., Diane Spence-Brown. She’s paid more than the staff representatives. Why the disparate pay? What does Coia do?
The members have a right to know! Test the democratic principles of the Roeder Administration. CALL THE LOCAL AT 394-7725. ASK ROEDER WHERE’S THE MONEY? And if she hangs up on you or doesn’t get back to you, post it here.
7 Responses to 'Demand Roeder Tell Us How She Spent $4.1 million dollars'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on July 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The rank and file are curious: any clarification yet on the above mentioned expenditures?
Any clarification on salaries?
Has anyone yet figured out who has been ‘organized’ ?
Oh, rank and file = the members… the ones who keep the local financially afloat… pay the salaries… the utilities… the chicken dinners at the membership meetings…etc.
rank and file = the UNION.
on July 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
. Can someone do something about this? She needs to be investigated and sent to jail if she spent our money like she did. I’m going to write an email to Christie myself, since he is looking at what Carla Katz did. Rae is doing the same thing and getting away with it for all these years.
on August 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 am
Lot of whispering over here at MVC about Rae hiding behind the auditor and the food.
I believe Rae did a super job during her first two terms. I don’t know what happened, but in the last election I didn’t vote for her because I thought she was missing the target badly.
About the money, I just think she just blew it on failed planning.
on August 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
re: Dew Change’s comment:
That’s an unacceptable amount of failed planning…
Salaries… (the horse is still alive despite many a whack)…what’s the big secret regarding pay scales/salaries? What’s so frightening about releasing this information…especially since our collective dues PAY these salaries?
Here’s what’s frightening (and let the reader guess who’s scared):
When state workers (especially MVC personnel, many of whom have second jobs to make ends meet) learn exactly what certain individuals earn to do nothing but smoke and walk around the office …ah, yes… when state workers learn the truth,.. the truth will set this administration free.
What does Local 1033 need?
1. Transparency in expenditures
2. Expert and valid steward training given by qualified outside entities
3. A current website dedicated to Local 1033 membership interests, including up to date national and local union matters (just take a look at some other locals websites)…
4. A serious evaluation of private employment sectors we may be able to organize!
How’s THAT for positive change?
Any other ideas?
on August 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I am posting my letter to the auditor’s attorney regarding my contentions on the website.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED & 1st Class Mail
Jesse J. Averhart
23 North Lenape Ave
Trenton, NJ 08618
(609) 865-5431
JAverhart5@comcast.net
July 28, 2008
Podvey, Meanor, Catenacci, et al., P.C.
The Legal Center One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, New Jersey, 07102
Re: Bedard, Kurowicki & Co., CPA’s, P.C.
Dear Counsellor:
I am in receipt of your letter, dated July 24, 2008, on behalf of the above-referenced clients. I am requesting some clarifications before I seek the expense and advice of counsel regarding the issues, as I believe we can come to some amicable resolution of the issues without court intervention.
First, I am inclined to disagree with your conclusory statement that my statements “are clearly defamatory and made with reckless indifference.” Indeed, defamation is very difficult to prove where our Supreme Court has noted that such “threat[s] of prolonged and expensive litigation [have] a real potential for chilling . . . criticism and comment upon public figures and public affairs,” and may further “inhibit the full and free exercise of constitutionally-protected activities.” It must be proven that I acted with “actual malice,”—-a heightened standard, on matters touching on public affairs, here Independent Auditor Reports and a Labor Union—-by clear and convincing evidence that I published the statement with ‘knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.’”
Assuming actual malice is proven, damages must also be proven. Presumed damages are limited to four categories of defamatory allegations against your client, that they: (1) have committed a crime, (2) have a loathsome disease, (3) have engaged in conduct or has a condition or trait incompatible with his or her business, or (4) have engaged in serious sexual misconduct. I have made none of these allegations.
Consequently, a defamation claim can be construed as a frivolous and meritless suit filed primarily to chill the exercise of my First Amendment rights.
Relative to the issues. My understanding of your letter is that the sole issue is “The Auditor’s Report, is purposefully and willfully fraudulent” on the website….[and] “that the current statement on the website, or in any other literature, be retracted, and that a public apology be made to our client.”
My further understanding of the Independent Auditor Report is that it is an opinion, not a certification or guarantee of the auditee’s financial statements—this separate opinion in effect gives credibility to the accompanying financial statements—that proper accounting principles appear to have been applied consistently by management and that standard auditing procedures deemed applicable under particular circumstances have revealed nothing that would give rise to a question about the fairness of the statements.
In consideration of the above, the audit reports reflects what the auditee has divulged. Therefore I have no reservations whatsoever of retracting the statement from the website or anywhere else and issuing an apology on the website to your clients regarding my misstatement that:
“The Auditor’s Report, is purposefully and willfully fraudulent”
As noted, your client assumes responsibility only for the opinion that accompanies the auditee’s financial statements. The other issues you raise—I will make appropriate adjustment as needed—-involves the auditee’s financial statement and responsibilities therein, where arguably your inquiry could be characterized as a conflict of interest regarding your client’s audit independence and responsibilities. Inclusive of your clients giving the President of this Local an endorsement at the membership meeting on July 24, 2008.
For the record as the former Executive V.P. of the auditee I am aware that there were audit scope limitations. I recall your client’s due diligence in attempting to speak to me and other employees about salaries and duties—to differentiate whether duties were chargeable or non-chargeable activities against member’s dues monies—in an attempt to have this Local voluntarily comply with the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act, though not required. I never had these discussions, nor had I ever participated in any type of audit scope limitation discussion with your clients.
There was a claim of expenditures for “Organizing” unorganized workers, when in fact no workers were organized. Clearly, this was a material misstatement in the auditee’s financial statements and auditor report—apparently based upon scope limitations in the auditors’ examination–the members of this Local, as readers of the audit report and financial statements should be informed of.
Granted your client is entitled to a retraction. The members of this Local Union are also entitled to an appropriate modification to the Audit Report as the users —showing whether the auditor has examined sufficient competent evidential matters to support the material misstatement noted and whether it affects the appropriate audit opinion: qualified, disclaimer, or unqualified.
I am hopeful that this response resolves these issue. If there are further issues that need to be addressed please do not hesitate to contract me.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jesse J. Averhart
c. CWA Members
on August 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
‘Consequently, a defamation claim can be construed as a frivolous and meritless suit filed primarily to chill the exercise of my First Amendment rights.’
Just had to reprint this paragraph from Jesse’s letter above: ‘chill the exercise of my First Amendment rights’. Think about that phrase for a moment.
Chilling rights at 1033 is standard operating procedure. If you disagree with the boss, protect your yourself: retribution is swift. Calls may be made to worksites questioning your ability to perform your duties or to personal friends questioning your integrity. Anyone remember Doreen and what happened to her when she disagreed? There are others.
The bottom line is, if you disagree on ANY level with the current administrator at 1033, you risk retribution. There is no opportunity for frank discussion. It’s Roeder’s way or the highway.
In one of the first blogs on this site I urged members to watch the character assaults which would follow a challenge to Roeder’s ‘administration’. I blogged further, repeating the same questions we’ve been asking all along regarding salaries and expenditures.
I ask again: why the SECRECY regarding these expenditures? Why is the release of salaries problematic for this administration? What’s with the smoke screen? WHERE are the committees we are mandated to have… the community involvement we need, especially here in the heart of Trenton where many of us live and most of us work?
No one is ‘mad’ at Roeder, least of all me. No one has ‘turned against’ her. Let’s not confuse exercising democratic rights with ‘turning against’ the current administration. Roeder is simply unaccustomed to responding to anyone on any level regarding any decision she has made…
Nonetheless, her opposition to accountability not withstanding:
What many have done and will continue to do is QUESTION the operation of and expenditures on behalf of the members of this Local. That is a RIGHT in this beloved land, a country for which mine and yours have (and continue) to sacrifice much.
It’s time for a change. Let’s make it happen.
And oh, by the way, I’m Mary R. Walker — mrw! — and I’m proud to run for Local Secretary on Jesse Averhart’s slate along with Mary Brown, Sharon Divis-Kidder, Shirley Huntley, Dona Varga and Doreen Griffin.
It’s time for a change!
on September 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The CURRENT TREASURER of Local 1033 DENNIS REITER is now REFUSING ALL CALLS.
For two days straight, dues paying members have been calling the Local to ASK FOR THE SALARY/STIPEND/OT/ETC financial information.
After the first call to Dennis, which he accepted, all callers are now told that DENNIS IS NOT TAKING CALLS.
When asked for the information, Dennis said he had to
‘…talk to Rae about it.’
Why does the Treasurer need Roeder’s permission…?
What ARE THEY HIDING AT LOCAL 1033?
They cannot hide the felon; she’s been exposed.
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM THE MEMBERS, RAE ROEDER?
OUR SALARIES ARE PUBLIC — WHAT ABOUT LOCAL 1033 STAFF ?
We PAY YOUR SALARIES, including the FELON’S.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Where are the FEDs these days, I wonder.
Change WILL come.
In solidarity,
Mary R. Walker
Shop Steward, Employee NJMVC
and
Secretary, CWA Local 1033 Members for Change