UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------)(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: (S--ll3
Plaintiff,
90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)
-against-
DECISION AND ORDER
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY
and VICINITY OF THE UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS and
JOINERS OF AMERICA, et aI.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------)(
Having reviewed the record herein, including (i) the Consent Decree entered into
between the Government and the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ("District Council"), approved by United
States District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. on March 4, 1994, ("Consent Decree"); (ii) the
Stipulation and Order, dated June 2, 2010, appointing Dennis M. Walsh, Esq. as the review
officer ("Walsh" or "RO") and vesting in him the authority to review the persons currently
holding office or employment and to "veto" any matter that may be "contrary to any fiduciary
responsibility imposed by 29 U.S.C. 501" or that "is inconsistent with the objectives of [the]
Stipulation and Order;" (iii) the January 31, 2013 Notice of Possible Action by the Review
Officer to Joseph Passero ("Passero") notifying Passero "that the Review Officer is considering
issuing a veto of your service as president of Local Union [1556] of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters CUBC')" because Passero "violated [his] fiduciary duty by [among other things]
providing personal information of members of Local Union 1556, including social security
numbers, to a convicted felon without the knowledge and [prior] consent of Local Union 1556's
1
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 14
2

executive board and membership,
1
(Notice of Possible Action at 1); (iv) Passero`s February 9,
2013 letter to Walsh acknowledging that he 'by-passed procedures and 'made some mistakes
which may have placed some membership information to unwarranted exposure. (Passero
Letter at 2.) Passero also stated that 'I will stand by your decision, whatever it may be. If there
is a question of whether I . . . have not exercised properly the fiduciary responsibility bestowed
upon me by the membership . . . [I] never had any criminal intent or any intent to harm those
Members I represent. (Id. at 1); (v) the February 12, 2013 Declaration of Chief Investigator
Jack Mitchell ('Mitchell) concluding that Passero provided personal information, including
social security numbers, of dockbuilder members of Local Union 1556 to Tsakanikas 'without
appropriate safeguards and the approval of the executive board and membership of [Local
Union] 1556, (Mitchell Declaration 7, 13); (vi) the February 12, 2013 Notice of Veto by
Walsh dismissing Passero as the President of Local Union 1556, (Notice of Veto at 12)
2
; (vii)
Passero`s appeal oI the RO`s Veto, dated March 13, 2013, contending the Veto was 'arbitrary
and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, (Passero
Appeal at 12); (viii) the March 25, 2013 letter from Bridget M. Rohde ('Rohde) to the Court
asserting that 'there is no basis for vacating the veto because the RO acted within the scope of
his authority and rendered a decision that was not arbitrary or capricious and that was based on
substantial evidence. (Rohde Letter at 1.) Rohde also states that Passero`s 'unsworn

1
The person in question is James Tsakanikas ('Tsakanikas), a 'computer consultant for
Union Solutions, Inc. (Union Solutions`), who, on November 3, 2006, plead guilty to two
counts of theft/embezzlement in connection with a health care benefit program in violation of 18
U.S.C. 669, one count of theft/embezzlement of an employee benefit plan in violation of 18
U.S.C. 664, and two counts of false statements and concealment of facts in relation to
documents required by the ERISA in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1027. Judgment at 2, United States
v. James, CR-06-00723-001 DLJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2007); Mitchell Declaration 5.

2
Passero is currently running Ior President oI Local Union 1556 in the Union`s June 2013
elections. (See Hr`g Tr., dated June 4, 2013, at 34:1315.)
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 2 of 14
3

accusations that Mitchell included falsehoods, inaccuracies and misleading information in his
declaration 'do not merit consideration by the Court. (Rohde Letter at 34); (ix) the hearing
held by the Court on June 4, 2013 during which, among other things, the RO stated that there
was a 'hue and cry Irom outraged members that their social security numbers had been
disclosed, and that, while Passero`s intentions in seeking to develop a software program for
Local Union 1556 may have been good, Passero`s methods were flawed. (See Hr`g Tr., dated
June 4, 2013 at 18:78, 20:17; see also Hr`g Tr., dated May 22, 2013); and applicable legal
authorities, WKH&RXUWKHUHE\GHQLHV3DVVHURVappeal as follows:
3

1) The RO was (originally) appointed in order to help ensure the 'eradication of
corruption and racketeering as they affect union carpenters and union employers. (Stip. & Order
at 3.) The RO seeks to instill the highest ethical standards in the management of the affairs of
the District Council.
2) The RO is empowered to veto matters enumerated in Paragraph 5.b.iii of the
Stipulation and Order.
4
(Stip. & Order 5.b.) In this instance, the RO based his veto on
subsections (d) and (e). (Notice of Veto at 1.) 'The RO unquestionably has the power to remove
elected officials. United States v. Dist. Council of New York City, No. 90 Civ. 5722, 2012 WL
5236577, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2012).

3
Any issues raised by Passero not specifically addressed herein were reviewed on the
merits and rejected.

4
'Upon reviewing any matter described in paragraphs 5.b.i and 5.b.ii, the Review OIIicer
may determine that the matter reviewed (a) constitutes or furthers an act of racketeering as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1961; or (b) furthers or contributes to the association, directly or
indirectly, of any member, employee, officer, trustee, or representative of the District Council or
the Benefit Funds with any barred person; or (c) is contrary to or violates any law or Court order
entered in this case; or (d) is contrary to any fiduciary responsibility imposed by 29 U.S.C. 501
or [ERISA]; or (e) is inconsistent with the objectives of th[e] Stipulation and Order. Upon such a
determination . . . the Review Officer may veto or require the District Council to rescind its
action, proposed action, or lack oI action. (Stip. & Order 5.b.)
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 3 of 14
4

3) In reviewing the RO`s decision, the Court applies the 'standard oI review
applicable to review oI Iinal agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA`), 5
U.S.C. 701 et seq. (Stip. & Order 11.) The Review OIIicer`s Iindings oI Iact 'are entitled
to affirmance on review if they are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the
record as a whole and may be 'set aside only if they are unsupported by substantial evidence.
United States v. Dist. Council of New York City, 941 F. Supp. 349, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
(internal citations omitted). 'Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but something
less than the weight of the evidence, and the substantial evidence standard may be met despite
the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence. Id. 'The court must
consider the reasonableness oI |the RO`s| action based on the record in existence at the time oI
the decision; it will not engage in an evidentiary hearing or a de novo review. Boatmen v.
Gutierrez, 429 F. Supp. 2d 543, 548 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). 'In considering a relevant question of law
. . . the reviewing court asks whether the agency`s action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse oI
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.` Dist. Council of New York City, 941 F.
Supp at 362.
4) Passero has acknowledged in writing that he took the actions identified by the RO
(i.e. engaging Tsakanikas and Union Solutions to work for Local Union 1556 and disseminating
personal union member information to Tsakanikas) without prior authorization. '[I]n my zeal to
do what I felt was my fiduciary duty on behalf of the Members I represent, I by-passed
procedures. Whether I was duped into this situation or not, the responsibility must lay with me,
as President of the Local Union 1556[.] I accept this fact . . . I will stand by your decision,
whatever it may be. If there is a question of whether I . . . have not exercised properly the
fiduciary responsibility bestowed upon me by the membership, then I must say to you, that I
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 4 of 14
5

have never, I repeat never had any criminal intent to harm those Members I represent . . . It
bears repeating that I recognize and take responsibility for my mistakes . . . Clearly as you have
pointed out . . . I made some mistakes which may have placed some membership information to
unwarranted exposure . . . This is no excuse for overlooking or bypassing procedures. I submit
that the task at hand was larger than I expected, and I may have been overwhelmed. In the
process I failed to follow procedures . . . Let it be known that not one member of the Executive
Board ever volunteered to assist me in this task nor [were] they forthcoming in any type of
assistance. (Passero Letter at 12.)
At oral argument on June 4, 2013, Passero appeared to backtrack from his February 9,
2013 admissions. The following colloquy is illustrative:
THE COURT: You wrote, 'I bypassed procedures. You then go on to say,
'|w|hether I was duped into this situation or not, the responsibility must lay with
me as President of Local Union 1556. I accept this Iact. This is all what you
wrote, right?

PASSERO: Yes.

(Hr`g Tr., Dated June 4, 2013, at 11:2312:3.)

THE COURT: But you wrote it that you did. Is it true or not true?

PASSERO: I don`t think it`s true now.

THE COURT: Oh, you wrote it but you don`t think it`s true.

PASSERO: Now. Back then I wrote that based on an interview that I had with
the review officer in January.

THE COURT: So you told him incorrect information at the time?

PASSERO: I may have told him incorrect information, yeah.

THE COURT: But what did you mean when you said bypassed procedures?

PASSERO: If I bypassed procedures, show me some procedures I bypassed.
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 5 of 14
6

THE COURT: No, no, no. This is not for me to show . . . you wrote that and now
you`re telling me that it was not true.

PASSERO: I may have wrote that incorrectly, sir.

THE COURT: Well, did you or didn`t you? Did you say that? First oI all, it`s in
written form.

PASSERO: I wrote that.

THE COURT: Okay. And it was correct or not?

PASSERO: I don`t think it`s correct now.

THE COURT: Okay. And how is it not correct?

PASSERO: Because there is no written procedures or guidelines that I`ve ever
found that say anything about doing this.

(Id. at 12:813:10.)

THE COURT: Well you didn`t say here that, 'The review officer told me I
bypassed procedures. You say, 'I bypassed procedures. And then you say,
'Whether I was duped into the situation or not, the responsibility must lay with
me. Do you agree with that still or not?

PASSERO: Yeah, I still agree with that. I`m responsible.

(Id. at 13:1913:25.)

5) Passero also stated that he sought and obtained approval to engage Tsakanikas
and Union Solutions after the fact, i.e., from the Executive Board at the meeting of September
2012 and from the membership at the General Meeting of October 2012. (Passero Appeal at 4.)
Tsakanikas and Union Solutions had begun working on the project in August of 2012. (Mitchell
Declaration 9, 11.)
6) The RO`s removal oI Passero as President was supported by substantial evidence.
For one thing, as noted, Passero conceded in writing that he 'bypassed procedures and gave
Tsakanikas conIidential inIormation which 'may have placed some membership information to
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 6 of 14
7

unwarranted exposure. See infra, at 46; see also Passero Letter at 2. Passero also
acknowledged that he entered into the agreement with Tsakanikas and Union Solutions without
prior Executive Board or membership approval. (Passero Appeal at 4.) Second, Mitchell
conducted an investigation for the RO which included a January 2, 2013 interview of Passero
and concerned Passero`s dealings with Union Solutions and Tsakanikas. (Mitchell Declaration
13.) It also included review and analysis of documents and records of Local Union 1556 and
Union Solutions and a review of Local Union 1556 meeting minutes. (Id.)
The Mitchell Declaration concludes, among other things, that: (i) 'on or about August 14,
2012, Passero and Tsakanikas discussed Passero engaging Tsakanikas and Union Solutions to
build a computer program to assist |Local Union| 1556 in its collection oI |union members`| 2
working assessments, which are used to pay members cash beneIits when the member is
unemployed (Mitchell Declaration 8); (ii) 'on or about August 22, 2012, Passero . . . agreed to
engage Union Solutions to begin work on the Program (Id. 9); (iii) Passero agreed to pay
Tsakanikas at an hourly rate of $125 with a maximum of $10,000 (Id.); (iv) on or about August
22, 2012, Passero told Tsakanikas 'that payment oI Iees by |Local Union| 1556 is contingent
upon approval by the |Local Union| 1556 executive board and membership (Id.); (v) '[i]n or
about late August 2012, Tsakanikas began to work on developing a new computer program for
|Local Union| 1556 (Id. 11); (vi) in August 2012, Passero provided Tsakanikas with
individual Iiles Irom the Local Union 1556`s computer system ('DAMS) which included
personal information of dockbuilder members of Local Union 1556, 'including, but not limited
to, name, address, and social security number, and, in September 2012, Passero provided
Tsakanikas with two additional computer files containing information about individual
dockbuilders (Id. 1112); (vii) Tsakanikas uploaded Iiles containing dockbuilders` personal
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 7 of 14
8

information to an online computer server maintained by Pace Software (Id. 10); (viii)
'Tsakanikas had access to the Iiles on the server and downloaded them to his computer hard
drive, and he 'still has the computer Iiles (Id.); and (ix) 'Tsakanikas was not required to sign a
confidentiality agreement prior to receiving the personal individual member information that he
received. (Id. 11) Mitchell also concludes that: (x) '|a|t no time did Passero obtain prior
approval of the Executive Board and membership of [Local Union] 1556 to provide personal
inIormation oI dockbuilder members to Tsakanikas . . . or anyone else (Id. 15); (xi) in a
January 2, 2013 interview, 'Passero admitted that he provided Tsakanikas three computer Iiles . .
. that . . . included personal information of dockbuilders including social security numbers (Id.
13); and (xii) Passero also admitted that he provided this inIormation 'to Tsakanikas without
appropriate safeguards and the approval of the executive board and membership of [Local
Union| 1556. (Id. 7.)
7) Passero`s contention that Mitchell`s Declaration created 'Ialse impressions
leading to the decision oI |Walsh| to veto Passero as president oI Local Union 1556 is
unpersuasive. (Passero Appeal at 2.) Passero`s contention that his engagement of Tsakanikas
and Union Solutions was approved 'by the Executive Board on the Meeting oI September 2012,
and approved at the General Meeting oI October 2012 does not rebut the RO`s argument that
prior approval was not sought or obtained. (Rohde Letter at 4.) Likewise, Passero`s assertion
that he engaged a computer consultant to facilitate the 2% working assessment project without
having been 'given any clear instruction by . . . the Review OIIicer|`]s Office on how this should
be accomplished (Passero Appeal at 2) does not address the RO`s Iindings, i.e. that Passero
'proceed[ed] to give sensitive personal information to a vendor without proper safeguards and
without the knowledge and approval of the Local`s Executive Board and membership. (Rohde
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 8 of 14
9

Letter at 3.) That a confidentially agreement for Local Union 1556 was allegedly signed and
returned by Tsakanikas on October 26, 2012, similarly, does not rebut the fact that private,
personal information regarding union members was disclosed without prior approval and/or
appropriate safeguards. (Id. at 34 ('Passaro had retained Mr. Tsakaniasis by August 24, and
supplied the sensitive personal data, prior to the September 25 meeting of the Executive
Board.).) Passero`s contention that his handing over of sensitive personal information to Mr.
Tsakanasis falls under an April 2011 confidentiality agreement between the UBC and Union
Solutions is unpersuasive because that confidentiality agreement is for a specific (different)
project. (See Passero Appeal, Ex. 4 (Vendor Confidentiality Agreement between Union
Solutions and UBC, dated April 11, 2011 ('|Union Solutions| is planning to work with the
|UBC| to provide Ieasibility analyses related to its soItware products.)).) Passero concedes that
'|t|he OIIice oI Review OIIicer`s |sic| advised me, Local Union 1556 should have a separate
conIidentiality agreement. (Passero Appeal at 5.) And, Passero`s argument that he did not give
to Tsakanikas two additional files in September 2012 and that the files did not contain members`
dates of birth, addresses or telephone numbers is unpersuasive. (Id.) Walsh reasonably
concluded that Passero disclosed 'conIidential personal identiIication inIormation oI members oI
Local 1556, including social security numbers. (Notice of Veto at 1; Mitchell Declaration
13.)
8) The RO`s decision to veto Passero as President was not arbitrary or capricious.
The RO afforded Passero appropriate and legally sufficient notice and opportunity to contest his
Notice of Possible Action. United States v. Dist. Council of New York City, No. 90 Civ. 5722,
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 9 of 14
10

2010 WL 5297747, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2010).
5
He was sent the Notice of Possible Action
by Walsh on January 31, 2013 which included the charges against him and which advised
Passero that he could 'deliver a written submission . . . stating any facts, law or arguments (and
appending any exhibits) which might be . . . relevant to consideration of the matter. (Notice oI
Possible Action at 1.) The Notice of Possible Action also stated that Passero may appear in the
RO`s oIIice to discuss his submission and ask questions about the case. (Id.)
Passero appears to have availed himself of the opportunity to respond to the Notice of
Possible Action by submitting the two-page letter to Walsh, dated February 9, 2013.
6
(Passero
Letter.) At the Court conference on May 22, 2013, the RO stated that he had met with Passero
and that the RO has 'embraced every question that |Passero| has ever posed . . . |and| answered
all of his emails when he was the President oI Local |Union| 1556. (Hr`g Tr., dated May 22,
2013, at 5:14); see Dist. Council of New York City, 2010 WL 5297747, at *6; United States v.
Mason Tenders Dist. Council, No. 94 Civ. 6487, 1998 WL 23214, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13,
1998).

5
As part oI Mitchell`s investigation, Passero was interviewed on January 2, 2013 and
given the opportunity to present his version of events. (Mitchell Declaration 13.)

6
At the June 4, 2013 conference, the Court inquired as to whether Passero had retained
counsel.

THE COURT: And so Mr. Passero, the submissions so far seem to be what we
call pro se submissions. That is to say, you have not retained an attorney in this
matter?

PASSERO: No that`s it.

THE COURT: Is that correct?

PASSERO: Yes.

(Hr`g Tr., Dated June 4, 2013, at 2:914.)
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 10 of 14
11

9) The RO`s decision that 'Passero acted contrary to his Iiduciary responsibility to
Local 1556 members, and inconsistently with the objectives of the Stipulation and Order, was
not arbitrary or capricious and was consistent with applicable law. (Rohde Letter at 2; Stip. &
Order 5.b.iii.de.) First, Passero`s conduct in releasing union members` personal inIormation
(social security numbers) was at the very least grossly negligent. See Jones v. Commerce
Bancorp., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 835, 2006 WL 1409492, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006) (where
'allegations [were] suIIicient to establish a duty by |DeIendant Bank| to protect plaintiII`s
personal information); Stacey v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., No. 11-2012, 2013 WL 811818, at *12
(6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2013) (where deIendant 'owed a duty of care to saIeguard the plaintiIIs`
confidential identifying information . . . because of [a] special relationship); Bell v. Mich.
Council 25 of Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., and Mun. Emps., No. 246684, 2005 WL 356306, at *5
(Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2005) (where 'deIendant |union| knew conIidential [personal]
information [of union members] was leaving its premises and no procedures were in place to
ensure the security oI the inIormation); see also N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 399ddd(4) (McKinney
2012) ('Any person . . . having possession of the social security account number of any
individual shall . . . provide safeguards necessary or appropriate to preclude unauthorized access
to the social security account number and to protect the confidentiality of such number.).
Union officers 'owe an enhanced duty of care to their membership. United States v.
Int`l Bhd. of Teamsters, 761 F. Supp. 315, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Passero`s engagement oI
Tsakanikas and Union Solutions without prior approval and his disclosure of personal, individual
information (social security numbers) without prior approval or safeguards by the Executive
Board or the union membership was violative of the UBC Constitution provision against
'|I|urnishing to any unauthorized person, without the consent of the Local Union, a list of the
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 11 of 14
12

membership and its requirement that '|a|ll monies paid out oI the Iunds oI a Local Union . . . be
by majority vote of the members present. Constitution of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America (2006) 51(7), 54(d). The engagement of Tsakanikas and release of
personal information to him without prior approval constitute a breach oI Passero`s Iiduciary
duty. See Section 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C.
501(a) ('LMRDA) (providing that it is the duty oI an oIIicer oI a labor organization 'to
manage, invest, and expend the |organization`s money| in accordance with its constitution and
bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder . . . .); see also Guzman
v. Bevona, 90 F.3d 641, 648 (2d Cir. 1996) ('The oIIicers` acts violated the Union`s
Constitutions and thus were unauthorized expenditures oI the Union`s money and property in
breach oI the oIIicers` Iiduciary duties.); Farrington v. Benjamin, 468 F. Supp. 343, 350 (E.D.
Mich. 1979) (president oI local union`s Iailure to secure prior approval Irom the executive board
before authorizing disbursement of union funds is a breach of fiduciary duty, notwithstanding
'|s|ubsequent ratiIication by the Executive Board); Servs. Emps. Int`l Union v. Nat`l Union oI
Healthcare Workers, No. 10-16549, 2013 WL 2230726, at *6 (9th Cir. May 22, 2013).
Passero`s disclosure to Tsakanikas of confidential personal identification information
about members of Local Union 1556, including social security numbers, without safeguards or
prior approval was contrary to his fiduciary responsibility to Local Union 1556 members. (See
Rhode Letter at 1); United States v. Int`l Bhd. of Teamsters, 652 F. Supp. 2d. 447, 452 (S.D.N.Y.
2009) (a union oIIicer is 'bound to serve the membership`s interest). As Local Union
President, Passero was a fiduciary. Int`l Bhd. of Teamsters, 652 F. Supp. 2d. at 452. He enjoyed
'the trust of the general membership, and was obligated to saIeguard members` sensitive
personal information. Id.; Bell, 2005 WL 356306, at *3. He was bound to act 'with the highest
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 12 of 14
13

degree of honesty and loyalty toward [union members] and in the best interests of the [union
members|, which he neglected to do. United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, 123
(E.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted); see Bell, 2005 WL 356306, at *3 ('A person in a Iiduciary
relationship to another is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other as to matters within the
scope of the relationship . . . It follows that part and parcel of th[e] relationship is a responsibility
to safeguard . . . members` private inIormation. And society has a right to expect that personal
information divulged in confidence, especially to an organization such as a union whose
existence is for the benefit of the union members, will be guarded with the utmost care.); see
also Jones, 2006 WL 1409492, at *3 (where bank client 'was entitled to rely on |bank`s| superior
expertise to safeguard her personal conIidential inIormation); Daly v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 782
N.Y.S.2d 530, 532 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2004); Shames-Yeakel v. Citizens Fin. Bank, 677 F.
Supp. 2d. 994, 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ('A number oI courts have recognized that Iiduciary
institutions have a common law duty to protect their members` or customers` conIidential
inIormation against identity theIt.) (citing Jones, 2006 WL 1409492, at *2; Bell, 2005 WL
356306, at *1).
Passero`s disclosure to Tsakanasis of members` social security numbers was inconsistent
with the objectives of the Stipulation and Order to ensure that the affairs of the District Council
are managed to support the welfare and best interest of the members (and to eradicate corruption
and racketeering). See Bell, 2005 WL 356306, at *5 ('|A| special relationship did exist between
[union] defendant and [union member] plaintiffs such that defendant did owe plaintiffs a duty to
protect them . . . by providing some safeguards to ensure the security of their most essential
confidential identiIying inIormation.); see also United States v. Int`l Bhd. of Teamsters, 970 F.
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 13 of 14
2d 1132,1137 (2d Cir. 1992); InrI Bhd. of Teamsters, 652 F. Supp. 2d. at 452 ("[A]n officer's
fiduciary duty [is not] satisfied through passivity and willful ignorance.,,).7
10) The decision to veto Passero as President of Local Union 1556 was within the
RO's broad mandate and authority. (Stip. & Order at 3 ("[T]he presence and activity of an
independent court-appointed officer. .. are essential to the eradication of corruption and
racketeering as they affect union carpenters and union employers.").) The RO has broad
authority to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by officers, members and trustees and to
review and veto persons currently holding office or employment. (Stip. & Order 5.a, 5.bj,
iii); see also Dist. Council of New York City, 2012 WL 5236577, at *5; Inri Bhd. Of Teamsters,
970 F. 2d at 1137 (The Court "must give 'great deference' to the decisions of' a court-appointed
officer.); Dist. Council of New York City, 2010 WL 5297747, at *8 (The RO's powers are
"broad and should be so construed.").
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Passero's Appeal [#1268] is denied.
Dated: New York, New York
June 5, 2013
RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J.
Passero's engagement of Union Solutions and Tsakanikas without prior approval for a
project involving review of sensitive information of union members appears also to have violated
the provision of the Stipulation and Order which states: "[t]he Review Officer must be given
prior notice of, and is granted the authority to review, all expenditures and investments ... [and]
all contracts or proposed contracts on behalf of the District Council." (Stip. & Order 5.bJ.)
14
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1329 Filed 06/05/13 Page 14 of 14