Asks AFSCME to Overturn

District Council 37's battle over Lillian Roberts's salary continued last week, as Social Service Employees Union Local 371 President Charles Ensley, a longtime Roberts foe, petitioned the union's parent organization to keep Ms. Roberts's pay at $175,000.

CHARLES ENSLEY: Pay hike was improper. Ms. Roberts and her allies Dec. 7 rushed through a vote at the end of a five-hour union budget committee meeting to restore her salary to $250,000, the rate the job paid until the executive board reduced it following her re-election in February 2004. Treasurer Maf Misbah Uddin's salary was also cut from $180,000 to $140,000 at that time.

Procedure Trumps Vote The restoration of both officials' former salaries was rejected by the executive board a week later by a 14-12 vote. But a union parliamentarian concluded that a majority of the entire 29-member board, not just those present, was required to overturn the budget committee vote. That led President Veronica Montgomery Costa to rule the salary restorations should stand.

"I'm asking that the international president establish the salary proposals of the majority wishes of the board," Mr. Ensley said regarding his letter to American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees President Gerald W. McEntee.

LILLIAN ROBERTS: Won't discuss controversy. Ms. Roberts has refused to comment on the salary issue while her lawsuit against the executive board claiming racial, gender and age bias moves forward.

Mr. Ensley took issue with the parliamentary interpretation of the Dec. 14 executive board vote, particularly since during the Dec. 7 budget meeting, only 16 board members voted on the original proposal.

'Majority Thwarted'

"No ruling by Ms. Costa can obscure that a small minority of board members are attempting to thwart the will of the majority and in doing so are enriching Ms. Roberts and Mr. Uddin," Mr. Ensley wrote in his letter.

Mr. Ensley cited DC 37 constitutional stipulations that state the executive board has the right to set the salary of the executive director and treasurer. He also wrote that he advised Ms. Roberts and Mr. Uddin "that they would be in violation of State law and of the Federal Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act if they flaunted the board's authority."

The Local 371 leader remains optimistic that the appeal to AFSCME will turn the tide in his favor.

"We're confident that the international president will assert that the constitution will prevail," he said. "I would not have written to Gerry if I didn't feel he'd respond positively."

If the letter does not bring relief, Mr. Ensley said he and Ms. Roberts's other foes have many options — with legal alternatives among them.

"That's always an option," he said of going to the Manhattan District Attorney's office. "You could conceivably have 15 different opinions on what to do next. But I'd like to stay within the framework of the international union."