Tech Guild Feud Continues Over Officers' Legal Fees

CLAUDE FORT: Lawyer's fees still an issue.

A brewing battle within the Civil Service Technical Guild was temporarily defused at a Jan. 21 delegates assembly after a motion by opponents of the union's president, Claude Fort, to deny union members reimbursement for private legal fees was tabled.

A conflict within the often-turbulent union, which is Local 375 of District Council 37, has been building over the appropriation of dues money to pay for private legal representation of Mr. Fort, Housing Authority Chapter Chair Mitchell Feder and Labor and Political Activities Chair Fred Newton. All three have been represented by Arthur Schwartz in recent legal battles.

A Hotbed of Controversy

Mr. Fort is fighting charges brought by DC 37's ethics committee that he withheld evidence about the abuse of union release time by Local 375 Public Relations Officer Vincent Sawinski. Mr. Feder is involved in a battle with the Housing Authority over his alleged abuse of the HA e-mail system for union communication. Mr. Newton faces internal charges for calling the police following an altercation with the sergeant-at-arms at an executive board meeting, spurring an accusation that he had shown "continuing disrespect" for fellow union officials.

JON FORSTER: Cover only those acquitted.

At the union's December executive board meeting, a motion was quickly introduced and passed covering the private legal fees of the president, the chapter presidents and officers of the local if they are brought up on union charges. Opponents of Mr. Fort, most notably Behrouz Fathi, the Transit Chapter President, have vocally opposed the measure as being rushed through without proper debate.

But the legal troubles of the union's officers have led to a strange shifting of alliances within the local, with Mr. Fort and Mr. Feder, who ran against each other in a 2007 leadership election, both arguing that it is fair for the union to cover fees for union-related battles. Meanwhile, long-time dissident Mr. Fathi has aligned with Jon Forster, the union's first vice president who was elected as part of Mr. Fort's slate, against such coverage.

FRED NEWTON: Wants full airing of facts.

At the delegates assembly, Mr. Forster presented a legal opinion from Rachel Minter, the local's in-house counsel, saying that it was inappropriate to pay for private legal defense, and that once someone was found not guilty, he or she could then request re- imbursement for fees from the local. Mr. Schwartz presented a memo rebutting her charges.

"One of my clients, Fred Newton… then stood up and said, everybody should read all these things and we shouldn't vote until we think about it," said Mr. Schwartz in a phone interview. "Either people agreed with him or they were just tired. Claude didn't rule the motion out of order, and we took a vote, and that's what happened."

Mr. Schwartz said that Ms. Minter's opinion was flawed and inaccurate, and accused her of playing politics to protect her job if Mr. Fort was removed as president. "The union counsel wrote an opinion that the Federal courts have directed unions not to pay for the legal expenses of members, which is totally inaccurate and baseless," he said. "She did it at the request of Jon Forster, the first vice president, who would become president if Claude were to be removed, and I guess she's decided to line up with Jon."

Calls Logic Questionable

Mr. Schwartz contested the precedents cited by Ms. Minter, and cited the aftermath of the 2005 transit strike to prove his point. "[Transport Workers Union Local 100 President] Roger Toussaint was charged with being in contempt with Judge [Theodore] Jones's order. Do you think he'd have to get private counsel? No," he said. "His defense was that [the strike] was justified. But according to her, he would have to get private counsel and then only get reimbursed if he won."

Delegates will be presented with the report by Ethical Practices Officer Bruce Maffeo about the charges against Mr. Fort, on the suggestion of Mr. Newton. "Delegates should make this important decision on more information, not less," Mr. Newton argued in a phone interview. "Claude Fort tried to ignore [my proposal], but the pressure was such that he couldn't, and it passed by a large margin."

Mr. Feder said in a phone interview that he didn't like the idea of delegates receiving Mr. Maffeo's report, saying it "may skew [their] opinions… this is not to say he skewed the report, but you just don't know." He added, "There have been times where he found people guilty and [the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] found them innocent. I'm looking at it more so of depersonalizing it, and de-politicizing it, and looking for the local president and board members to be properly covered."

Mr. Feder's argument since the beginning of the debate has been that local officers should be required to repay covered legal fees back if they were found guilty, but until that happens they should get support from the union.

Mr. Newton said that he presumed the issue would be revisited in a week or two at a special delegates assembly, after delegates had a chance to digest the various legal documents and opinions.