March 25, 2003

 

Mr. Don Todd Deputy Secretary

OL-MS

U.S. Labor Department

 

 

Dear Mr. Todd:

 

I have in my hand the letter that you signed and mailed to me dated March 18, 2003, stating that no election violations were found in the matter of the "Plumb Case."

 

You stated that the 2002 election of officers had been "fully investigated" and that your findings provided no basis for a DOL action to set aside the election.

 

Mr. Todd, are you sure that the Plumb Case was "fully investigated?"  If so, why were key witnesses such as Wayne Plumb's secret informant, or, the Plumb Committee Chairman, John Hageter, not interviewed by your DOL investigators?

 

Why were other key witnesses who supported Mr. Plumb's allegations not interviewed?

 

 

Based on the prior investigations by the DOL on election complaints, such as the ballot tampering and evidence of destruction in the 1999 "Hanson Complaint," I strongly believe that your investigations are seriously flawed.

 

I am extremely disappointed in you, Mr. Todd, for allowing union corruption to continue at Local 302.

 

During the past 10 years, we have uncovered and presented solid evidence that shows the continuing pattern of corruption by incumbent officers.

 

We did everything that we possibly could to lead you to the truth.  And all you can say in response is that no violations occured?

 

What do you take us for, Mr. Todd?  Do you think that we can't see what's going on between your agency and the corrupt union officials?

 

Finally, please DO NOT send Wayne Plumb or any of us your

Statements of Reasons (SOR).  Your SOR's are an insult to our intelligence, as the SOR's are a bunch of POPPYCOCK!!!

 

We consider your SOR's counterproductive to the laws of the LMRDA because your OL-MS did not "fully investigate" important facts of the PLUMB CASE.

 

Your SOR is not believable. Your SOR interferes with

Mr. Plumb's Title I right to sue his union.

 

When Local 302 members sue their union in federal court, the union officials produce your SOR to defend and protect themselves, and ultimately have the suit dismissed. I know first hand because they did this very thing to me.

 

Your agency severely undermines the member's right to sue their own union when the union uses the untruthful SOR for their defense.

 

Your practice of issuing SOR's is very disturbing, as it directly harms the individuals that you are supposed to protect from harm.

 

Sincerely,  Edgar Hanson

 

c:

Secretary Elaine Chao

Mr. Andrew Siff

Mr.David Thompson

Dr. Clyde Summers

Mr. David Clay

Mr. Galen Cook

Mr. Chris White

Mr.John Heaney