Archive for the ‘Election 2010’ Category

Local 600 Election Rerun: FAQ

June 10, 2011 Leave a comment

In case you had any questions here is the indisputable FAQ of the June 2011 re-run of the 2010 Local 600 Election, Western Region D.P./VFX Supervisor category.

Q: Why is Local 600 re-running the election for Western Region DP candidates for the National Executive Board?
A: Because the leadership of Local 600 agreed to do so, under threat of a civil action brought by the Federal Department of Labor (DOL).

Q: Why?
A: After a lengthy investigation, the DOL found probable cause that Local 600 violated Federal labor law.

Q: How did Local 600 break Federal labor law?
A: By illegally applying a new “Working-at-the-Trade” rule RETROACTIVELY in the 2010 election.

Q: What’s wrong with that?  Read more…


On Local 600’s Special NEB

February 18, 2011 Leave a comment

written by Douglas  Hart

Brothers and Sisters –

I was elected, as were all of you, to the National Executive Board of ICG Local 600.  I have been a board member or officer for 33 of my 36 years a member of Local 644, 666, & 600, winning those posts in approximately 20 elections since 1974.

I was invited to this Special NEB meeting with an email, as an ELECTED NEB Member, as were all of you.  I replied by FAX that I would be attending, which is my right under the Const. & BL of ICG Local 600, as an ELECTED NEB member.

Also in that meeting notice was the REQUEST that NEB members who filed protests to the 2010 ICG 600 Election were being asked to recuse themselves from this Special NEB.

Since there is nothing in the ICG Local 600 C&BL, and nothing in the IATSE Intl. C&BL, and nothing in Federal Law that would allow an ELECTED NEB member to be excluded from attending or voting at ANY Regular or Special NEB Meeting, I have chosen NOT to recuse myself from this or ANY other NEB meeting.           Read more…

A Letter To The Local 600 Executive Board

February 18, 2011 Leave a comment

written by Kristin Glover

Dear Fellow NEB Members,

I am writing to make an appeal to you – some of whom I’ve known for many years – regarding the NEB meeting planned for tomorrow, Saturday, February 19th, 2011:

As one of the 6 original “complainants” in the 2010 election protests that were eventually presented to the Department of Labor (DOL),  several duly elected NEB officers including myself, have been singled out to be prevented from participating in the Executive Session, dealing with the decisions coming down from the DOL.  We’ve been asked to recuse ourselves from that meeting and several of us have declined that request.

And here’s why: Read more…

To The Members Of Local 600

February 17, 2011 Leave a comment

written by Haskell Wexler

I was nominated for various offices at the recent Local 600 election.  I accepted the NEB nomination.

Weeks later, an election committee ruled me ineligible.  Reason given: Haskell is not “Working in the Trade.”

I believe the rule as applied is unfair, illegal and discriminatory, not only to me but to many other members.  My union remedies were exhausted when President Loeb chose not to exercise his waiver.

Now my case, along with others, is part of legal dealings between Department of Labor lawyers and Adelstein.  You can read my full correspondence with President Loeb, as well as my letter of protest to the Department of Labor.      Read more…

Local 600 Gets Off With A Slap On The Wrist

February 17, 2011 Leave a comment

written by Kristen Glover


Yes, this was BIG NEWS to me – when I spoke with the federal Department of Labor (DOL) attorneys on February 8th 2011. Apparently, the Local 600 Election Committee under the guidance of Local 600’s attorney David Adelstein, the Local 600 Officers, the National Executive Director (NED), and International President Matt Loeb, neglected to note or find out that enforcing the newly adopted rule (adopted to our Constitution and By Laws in the fall of 2009) retroactively was forbidden by LMRDA laws governing union elections.

I find this news quite shocking. I protested the ruling as unfair in its face, as it disproportionately discriminates against women, minorities, and older members – but was unaware that Local 600 had pulled a fast one by choosing to enforce it retroactively. It’s a ruling that requires 3 years qualification time – and it was created in 2009 and then enforced in February of 2010 – thus working backwards to Feb of 2007 – thus creating the illegal retroactive enforcement.          Read more…

California Corporate Law is Protecting Us Right Now

May 8, 2010 Leave a comment

Get an official email from the ICG recently?

The corporate dissolution campaign is continuing to heat up as the election winds to a close. Whether you know it or not, you and I are paying overtime to the Local staff to spend their weekend writing an official position paper about a members-only ballot referendum.

The issue is deceptively simple. Virtually every nonprofit in California is organized in the same way. Corporate law historically has been one of the great engines of prosperity in our society. Look at the chapter headings in the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporations Law, California Corporations Code §§ 77110-8910 which defines and regulates directors (board members), managers, members, assets, mergers, files, records, voting, and the right of members to bring suit. The usefulness of this law for all nonprofits has been tested for over a century.

As I read it, your union leadership is upset because it was unable to quickly hold a video conference to discuss one computer contract over the last six decades. This worry about expense is noble, especially when linked to the shamefully expensive $1.2 million dollar system that, whenever it goes on line, will be little more than a database management system. This was an isolated problem of logistical planning, not corporate law. As a California corporation, the Local has operated its day-to-day business successfully over six decades, long before computers, long before voice mail, long before video conferencing.

No one on the Local staff is an attorney. Although they may play one on TV. I am not surprised they have misrepresented more than a few points of law. Here is my response:

(1) Federal law trumps state law. No one on the staff took Conflicts of Law, one of my stronger classes at The Law School, The University of Chicago where I received my Doctor of Law degree in 1991. Federal labor law rights have not and will not be taken away because the Local is a state corporation.    Read more…

An Attorney Says Members’ Rights at Risk

May 8, 2010 Leave a comment

Dear Fellow Local 600 Member,

Your elected union leadership and the final legal status of Local 600 will be decided next Friday, May 14th. I’m asking members to please vote in your union election. Ballots must be received by 11:59 PM this Thursday, May 13th. I’m strongly recommending a NO vote on corporate dissolution (AKA, “The Green-Ballot Measure”).

If membership authorizes the dissolution of Local 600’s non-profit mutual-benefit corporate status, then I assure you, that decision will be irreversible. The new association’s Articles of Association will be written to ensure permanence in perpetuity. You will never again regain the rights that you are now being asked to willingly surrender. Vote wisely.


Below is an impartial legal opinion on the issue of corporate dissolution for your review.

Bill Roberts
1st Assistant Cameraman
WRC/NEB Alternate
Candidate for National Secretary-Treasurer

Dear Members of Local 600,

As an attorney who represents a variety of California nonprofit corporations and who does not work for or represent any of the unions affiliated with IATSE, I was asked by Bill Roberts, a candidate for National Secretary-Treasurer, for my views regarding the memo by Local 600 legal counsel David Adelstein supporting dissolution of Local 600 as a nonprofit corporation entity and its conversion to an unincorporated association.

·       Guaranteed membership rights. The legal guarantee of specific rights of membership to members of a California nonprofit corporation prevents the board of directors from ignoring members’ wishes on significant decisions including election of directors, sale or transfer of the assets of the corporation, merger or dissolution. Members retain the ultimate control over the leadership and direction of the corporation. Such broader and stronger rights are in addition to union members’ rights under federal law. Why give them up? Read more…