Walker offers concessions, pro union ppl please read this...

[Primemuscle]

Read this an you will understand why I consider 99% of public workers no different than pick pockets, thieves, mini-maddoffs, and criminals, leeches, parasites, and overpaid, underworked slobs in need of pink slips. 


________________________ ________________________ ______




Expense-report fraud still smoldering in firefighters union
e-mail print Dec. 12, 2010 |(84) Comments


As individuals tasked with saving lives, firefighters must be brave and honest.

That's the ideal.

But it has not been the practice at the state firefighters union.

For at least seven years, leaders of the Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin filed fraudulent expense reports so they could be reimbursed for donations they made to the union's federal political action committee.

Records indicate that 11 past and current Executive Board members submitted expense vouchers for fictional meetings between 2002 and 2008, collecting more than $17,000 in mileage and per diems as a result.

The money from the phantom meetings covered the amount those board members had given to the International Association of Firefighters PAC, commonly called FirePac.

During that seven-year span, FirePac gave tens of thousands of dollars to Wisconsin politicians, primarily Democratic members of Congress. In 2006, for instance, the federal firefighters PAC contributed at least $5,000 each to U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin, Ron Kind, Dave Obey and Steve Kagen, all Democrats. Two Republican representatives received smaller sums.

A special committee set up by the state union investigated the expense voucher controversy and unanimously concluded in June: "The reimbursement practice was illegal and placed the PFFW in jeopardy of financial liability and the cost of legal defense."

After that, the 11 board members agreed to reimburse the union $17,146. The union also ordered an audit of its books and set up a new committee to monitor the organization's spending and adherence to state and federal campaign laws.

But here is what the union didn't do:

The investigatory committee didn't report its findings in June to federal or state election officials or other authorities. Five union officials involved in the expense voucher scheme haven't stepped down from the Executive Board. And the issue was not debated openly at the union's summer convention.

Mike Woodzicka, president of the Wisconsin firefighters union, issued a statement suggesting the issue is resolved. He said the union's board acted quickly after receiving the initial complaint, concluding that "certain practices were inappropriate."

"The remedy has been implemented," Woodzicka said in the statement. "We are confident that the PFFW is in compliance with campaign finance law."

Woodzicka has declined to answer detailed questions about the matter since late October.

Some in the union are not happy that the board appears to be trying to keep the lid on a potential scandal.

Chris Bell, president of the Eau Claire Firefighters Local 487, called for the resignations of the five current board members who collected fraudulent expense reimbursements. The most paid back by any board member was $3,000.

"The actions of these individuals damage the credibility of all firefighters, not just those within Wisconsin," Bell said. "Further stonewalling of this issue will prove to be equally as damaging as the actions themselves."

Bell also urged union leaders to report what happened to the Federal Elections Commission. In fact, sources say, the union just recently began the process of notifying the FEC.

An FEC spokeswoman, Judith Ingram, declined to comment on the specific case. But she pointed to a federal law that prohibits someone from funneling money from another group or individual to a federal candidate or committee without disclosing the true source of the funds at the time of the campaign donation.

An assistant law professor at Marquette University said the reimbursement scheme is a clear violation.

"It is illegal, and people have been prosecuted for it under the federal election laws," said Rick Esenberg, who teaches campaign finance law and runs a politically conservative blog. "There are really two potential criminal problems here - violations of federal election law and fraud on the union. I am really surprised the union was so forgiving."

Bell is not alone in his frustration with the union's top leaders.

"There are issues of it that are unresolved," said Chad Bronkhorst, president of the Green Bay Professional Fire Fighters Local 141. "Even at convention, it never got discussion on the floor. When discussion was brought up, it was ruled out of order."

Apparently, that wasn't the first time that debate on this issue has been squelched.

One former Executive Board member said she first alerted her colleagues to the possible ethical consequences of their actions several years ago.

"I was new to the Executive Board, and I brought up my concerns at that time," said Ann Peggs, a Green Bay Fire Department official who left the board in 2007. "Really, nobody else on the board at that meeting supported my concerns at all. It was explained to me that this is the way it was done."

Then the issue surfaced publicly at last year's state union convention, according to a memo provided April 15 to the union's five caucus chairs by the four-member committee that investigated the matter.

According to that memo, someone made the remark at the 2009 convention that one Executive Board member, Pat Kilbane of Janesville, would get reimbursed by the state union for his FirePac donations. Board members can donate to the FirePac instead of paying the registration fee when attending the national union's annual legislative conference.

The comment at the convention caught the attention of Joe Conway, a Madison firefighter who is the regional vice president for the federal firefighters union.

According to the April 15 memo, Conway began looking into the matter. The memo said Kilbane disclosed that he was directed to submit vouchers for fictional meetings by Rick Gale, the former union president. It also came to light that Kilbane wasn't the only one doing this.

Gale, who didn't return calls, stepped down as union president in 2008 after using a racial slur against President Barack Obama. Gale reimbursed the union $1,900 earlier this year, while Kilbane gave back $354.

Earlier this year, Conway alerted state union board officials what he had turned up, and in March, they set up the four-member investigatory committee made up of Executive Board members who did not submit fraudulent expense vouchers.

Along with identifying the 11 board members who faked expenses starting in 2002 - the records do not go back any further - the special committee found that Woodzicka, the current state union president, quietly stopped the practice when he took over for Gale in 2008.

The investigatory committee recommended the money be repaid but did not call for any resignations.

Mahlon Mitchell, a member of the investigatory committee, said most of the union's local affiliates did not favor forcing the resignations of the board members.

"Our obligation in the union is to follow the law, one, and to follow the will of the majority of our members," Mitchell said.

That prompted Eau Claire firefighter Tony Biasi to file a complaint with the national union against the five sitting Executive Board members who participated in the scheme. Among the five are Woodzicka, who had to reimburse the union $1,100; Troy Haase of Fond du Lac, $1,000; and Brookfield firefighter and Baord Vice President Robert Baird, $3,000.

Just weeks ago, the complaint was tossed by a preliminary review panel set up by the national union. The panel noted that Biasi filed his complaint against just the five current board members, not all 11 individuals caught up in the scheme, saying this suggested a "personal and retaliatory motivation."

Besides, the preliminary panel concluded, "There is no evidence that the charged parties intentionally or knowingly engaged in conduct they knew to be wrong."

Bell, the Eau Claire union boss, said this makes no sense.

How could individuals fill out expense forms for meetings that didn't occur, he asked, and not know this was wrong? In addition, some Executive Board members never participated in the scheme while others did initially and then quit.

The issue is coming to a head, he said, only because the federal union became aware of the fraud by leaders of Wisconsin's firefighters union.

"They only confessed after they were caught," Bell said.

Daniel Bice can be contacted by phone at (414) 224-2135 or by e-mail at


http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/111766149.html#

Unfortunately, there is dishonesty anywhere you look. You'll find it in private business, the public sector and yes, even in some union activities. Finger pointing doesn't change the fact that some folks are just dishonest and some are not. No matter where they are, it is good when they get caught. Now if we could just punish those, like the CEO's and bankers who literally robbed from all off us, we might get somewhere.

[Soul Crusher]

Fraud in a private company is not the same by a crooked secretaery bookkeeper or exec is not the same as fraud in the public sector. 

These bums stole tax dollars and used it to advance union clout to gain more goodies from the schmuck taxpayer.

Soory - not an ounce of respect or sympathy for these leeches. 

[tu_holmes]

Oh i understand that, boeing etc...just ridiculous but tu's point is that a private company is going to cost more simply b/c they are profit driven...thats retarded to me

now as far as waste goes that to me is a totally different story...you can do things both private and public to cut down on waste.

Waste does need to be cut down... That's the biggest issue in government.

However, I stand by my statement... The only time a private company costs less is when they compete in an open market with other private companies... These government contracts are not open market.

Let me explain in a response to your previous post.

what companies are you asserting that were public and went private...the ngc thing was a partnership was it not?

was it simply the fact that it was a private/public partnership that made it more expensive or where there problems that occured such as is the case in 99% of partnerships?

what was the price before hand and the pricing now?

The NGC was a partnership, however, let's look at what this partnership entailed.

Firstly, The partnership entailed building 2 new datacenters in Virginia.

1 near the capital and one in the southwest portion of the state as a hot disaster site.

These were things that we were told that government couldn't provide... Buildings. The state couldn't provide BUILDINGS.

Next, the datacenters were designed to be replicated data... Which is all good in theory, but when data is fucked up in one and gets replicated to the remoted facility, well, that's just replicated bad data.

The state had a sunguard contract previously and it worked well... Only service which were deamed priority 1 for the state were on the contract and it worked... Every year they did a test to prove their services were recoverable and everything was good to go.

So while there was some service enhancement, the cost did not equate to the benefit really... Not to mention they have never had a successful Disaster test since NGC took over.

Next, let's look at where the state really spends it's money... We're assuming employees right?

Well, you had an option to stay with the state and it's benefit program or move to northrop grumman... Sounds like if you moved you'd save a lot of money right?

Well, let's see... Most people who were with the agency were over 20 years with the state... Do you think those people will leave? Nope.

The ones who did leave where already ready retirement age or had 30 years anyway... So, they did go to NGC but still collected their pensions which were guaranteed... People like myself of course who had been there about 5 years, we went, because NGC gave us a 10 percent pay hike.

Not a bad deal as an individual... as a tax payer, not so well.

People who were not of retirement age simply went to other state agencies that still have internal technology staff.

So, NGC has written into the contract that if they meet stipulations X and Y, then they get paid... Sounds normal... Except there are exceptions written in... If the state asks for someone to do something that is out of scope perse, then they must pay X percent over cost for that service.

The state is also required to pay for any additional service requested that were not originally planned, so if you say you need a DS3 pipe, but it turns out you need an OC192, you don't just pay for the OC192, you pay more for someone to manage that OC192 now.

It's all designed to let NGC make money on every single thing they can find.

Companies are designed to make money and turn a profit... if you have a non profit entity and they provide a service, especially something like IT services, which are already commodious, then how do you think a company can compete?

The truth is that they can not and to get business they paint a false picture of what is already being done.

If you do any research into Northrop Grumman and the State of Virginia, all you will see is a huge cost to the tax payers... HUGE.

Way more than the previous IT agency cost them.

[tonymctones]

contracts between private companies and govt are not the same as govt run agencies or programs.

I agree with you about the contracting companies etc...

I think we just misunderstood one another.