Prepared for the United States Department of Labor

Office of Labor-Management Standards





Official election protest by Wayne Plumb and the Plumb Committee in the matter of the 2002 election of officers of Local 302, I.U.O.E., prepared for Mr. Don Todd, Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Labor.





The Plumb Report is presented in two parts.


Part A contains the official charges set forth by Wayne Plumb and the Plumb Committee in the matters of the 2002 election of officers of Local 302, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). These charges constitute the basis for Plumb's official election protest to the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OL-MS) of the United States Department of Labor (DOL). If in fact additional violations are discovered either by Plumb or by the OL-MS, Plumb's election protest should not be limited to the charges entered in this report.


Part B contains material evidence to support allegations that Local 302 operates as a labor racketeering organization. The evidence presented is cumulative from 1990 and is subject to examination by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the DOL. Evidence in the form of depositions, reports, financial documents, union publications, and letters are offered to the OIG and OLMS for consideration of prosecution.










Preface                                            i


Introduction                                       1



PART A             





1. Misuse of Union Funds by Allan Darr for

Promotional Purposes During an Election       2


2. Misuse of Union Equipment and Postage Permit

by Allan Darr During an Election              5


3. Denial of Inspection of the Membership List     7


4. Denial of Adequate Safeguards to Ensure a

Fair Election:

(a) Election Committee Chairman               8

(b) Neutral Location for Ballot Tabulation    10


5. Postal Fraud                                    11




1. Threats of Violence and Intimidation            12


2. Subornation of Perjury                          15


3. Timeline of Evidence:


1990 ......................................   16

1993 ......................................   16

1996 ......................................   16

1999 ......................................   17

2002 ......................................   18


Conclusion                                         19

Witness List                                       21







Viewed under the the most basic standards of common sense, Local 302 is a rogue union. Its officers repeatedly violate the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the union consitution, and the bylaws. All power within the union emanates from the triennial elections, which have been at issue since 1990. While the DOL has investigated and exonerated incumbent officers for past election violation charges, the challengers are not deceived by actions of the incumbents.


The Plumb Report marks the fifth election protest since 1990. No fewer than seven lawsuits have been filed in federal court against Local 302 and the DOL. Still, the incumbent officers hold an iron grip on the Local and rely on the DOL's investigative conclusions in order to defend against suits.


Whether challenged at the ballotbox or in court, the incumbent officers resort to unlawful retaliation against members who pursue their basic rights guaranteed to them under Title I of the Act. Val Albert, a former candidate for business manager in 1990, 1993, and 1996, was unlawfully expelled from the Local in 1996. Ed Hanson, a candidate for business manager in 1999, had the election stolen from him by unlawful ballot tampering and destruction of election records to hide the evidence. Wayne Plumb, the most recent challenger, learned of death threats made against himself and his family by his opponent, incumbent business manager Allan Darr.


It is the sincere objective of the Plumb Committee and all prior challengers that the DOL fully investigate these charges. Due to the enormous amount of evidence collected and presented to support the charges, the Plumb Committee will accept no remedy short of a new election of officers in which the DOL monitors every aspect of the election to provide adequate safeguarding, and to ensure fairness.











1.   Misuse of Union Funds by Allan Darr for Promotional Purposes Durinq an Election. ,


Misuse of the union newspaper will generally be treated as likely to have changed the outcome of the election, unless the union can show convincingly that the outcome would not have been affected by the violations. Shultz v. Radio Officer Union, 344 F. Supp.58 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) supra note 32 at 64-65.


LMRDA Title IV, § 401 (c) requires that a labor organization refrain from discrimination in favor of any candidate with respect to the use of lists of members ... similar distribution at the request of any other bonafide candidate shall be made by such labor organization and its officers, with equal treatment as to the expense of such distribution.


(g) requires that no moneys received by any labor organization by way of dues, assessment, or similar levy shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election.


Incumbent business manager Allan Darr applied a deceptive editor's technique to excessively promote his own candidacy and the candidacy of his slate of incumbent officers. In 2002, Allan Darr served as the "executive editor" of Local 302's publication "Loadline," (see July 2002 issue, page 2). The executive editor holds the position of ultimate editing authority (see sworn Deposition of Allan Darr, pages 9-15). Loadline is entirely produced by monies from the general fund of the members. The Plumb Committee requested of the union a financial accounting for costs allocated to production and mailing of the Loadline. Those requests went unanswered. Plumb's examination and search through LM-2 Reports for detailed cost allocations to the Loadline produced no results. (see LM-2



Reports for years 1995-2001).


The Loadline was mailed to approximately 9500 members in late July 2002. The mailing occured about six weeks into the campaign period, which was also one and a half weeks before the ballots were sent to the members. The mailing was completed through the exclusive use of the union's mailing list of member's names and addresses. Only the incumbents have control of the mailing list.


Darr's picture appeared in that issue 19 times (see pages 1, 11, 15). In addition, Darr's personal statements to the members, as well as the use of his name in large, bold print, appeared throughout the issue (see pages 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 15). Clearly, Darr's intention as executive editor was to excessively publicize and promote himself to all 9500 members just prior to the election, using union funds.


Furthermore, all of Darr's officers received publicity and promotion in that issue through the use of pictures, personal statements and name usage. Neither Wayne Plumb, nor any of Plumb's slate, received any publicity or promotion in the Loadline. Neither Plumb or his slate were invited to submit any articles about themselves for publication in the Loadline.


Excessive publicity and promotional material (even subtle in nature) favoring incumbents in the union's newspaper, without balance by challenging candidates, is a violation of the Act. Bliss v. Holmes, C.A.Mich. 1983, 721 F2d 156. Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, D.C.D.C. 1969, 305 F. Supp.868, supplemented 305 F. Supp. 876. Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of America, D.C.D.C. 344 F. Supp.17. New Watch-Dog Committee v. New York City Taxi Drivers Union, Local 3036, AFLCIO, D.C.N.Y. 1977, 438 F. Supp. 1242. Donovan v. National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees, D.C.D.C. 198, 566 F. Supp. 529, appeal dismissed 740 F.2d 58. Morrissey v. Curran, D.C.N.Y. 1973, 356 F.Supp. 312.


The Local has argued that the tone, manner, and content of the Loadline has been consistent with prior issues in





non-election years. However, the timing coupled with the excessive publicity photos in the July 2002 issue was unmistakingly self-promotional for Darr. Even a cursory examination shows the July 2002 issue to be unlike any other issue. That issue is about Allan Darr's candidacy.


A similar situation occured during the campaign period of 1996. The incumbent business manager's picture appeared seven times along with numerous instances of name usage and personal comments. The challengers protested, citing violations of excess publicity. Allan Darr was the "editor" during that year, even though he was reluctant to admit it while under oath (see sworn Deposition of Allan Darr, as well as Loadline 1996 Third Quarter, page 2).


However, incumbent business manager Wilson did not violate the excessive publicity rule in the 1999 election. In that year, his picture appeared only twice. And that Loadline issue was mailed in May, several weeks prior to the start of the campaign period. Allan Darr was not the Loadline editor in that year (see Loadline, May 1999). The challengers did not file a charge relating to the Loadline in 1999.


An examination of past issues of the Loadline reveals two additional facts. The Loadline has grown dramatically in volume; and the publicity for incumbent officers has grown exponentially (see Loadline issues from Fall 1991 to July 2002). Allan Darr served as the editor for approximately seven years. He personally developed the current style which features essays and pictures of the incumbents. Darr has served as the executive editor for the past two years. While the Loadline has served the incumbents as a year-round, brain-washing tool to gain affection of the members, no challenger has ever been photgraphed or permitted to submit an article in any issue.


Since the Loadline is produced and distributed by union funds, and since Darr has unfairly misused the funds by promoting himself and his slate through the union's newspaper during an election period, Darr has violated the Act. See 29 CFR §452.73;







Finally, the Loadline has been produced on a somewhat inconsistent schedule during the past six years. However, the timing of the July 2002 issue was obviously designed to coincide with and provide maximum promotion to the incumbent business manager, candidate and executive editor, Allan Darr. When examined against the May 1999 issue for timing and excessive promtion, there are no coincidences. The intent by Darr was clear. He wanted to use the union's money to win the election.


2. Misuse of Union Equipment and Postage Permit by Allan Darr During an Election.


In 1996, challengers Val Albert and Edgar Hanson were given an inside tour of the new union hall in Bothell, Washington. The tour included a look at the computer and graphic arts room where several large computers were installed for purposes of desk-top publishing. Material for the Loadline is written onto a computer disk at the union hall by union employees and when completed, that disk is turned over to Service Printing for printing (see Deposition of Christopher Gianelli, pages 7-15, 37).


Service Printing also prints the incumbent's campaign literature (see Deposition of Gianelli, pages 15-21; and see campaign brochures of Allan Darr).


Allan Darr and Service Printing owner, Chris Gianelli, have had a curious, if not suspicious, relationship since 1990. Gianelli's telephone records from 1996 showed calls made from his place of business and his personal residence to the personal residence of Allan Darr (see the Hanson Report, 1999). It was the timing of these calls that aroused suspicion by the challengers. The calls were made in the late night hours on the same days that Gianelli was printing ballots for use in the 1996 election. Darr was an incumbent candidate for Trustee in that year.


Darr hired a new ballot printer for the 2002 election





because of the evidence presented by Edgar Hanson. That evidence identified Gianelli's inconsistent statements made to DOL investigators about his involvement in ballot printing in the 1999 election (see DOL's Interviews of Gianelli: 1/31/00, 3/15/00; and Interview of Kempf: 2/7/00; and see the HAC REPORT II and III).


However, Gianelli was still involved in the production of the Loadline in July 2002. He also printed Darr's campaign material.


Since the Loadline is prepared on a computer disk at the union hall by union employees, and since the Loadline featured excessive publicity of the incumbent and executive editor Allan Darr, Title IV §401(g), and 29 CFR §452.73 were violated. No union officer or paid union employee may use union equipment during an election for purposes of campaigning or promoting themselves. Violations of this rule may invalidate the election. Shultz v. Local 6799, Steelworkers, 426 F.2d 969 (9th Circuit 1970), aff'd 403 U.S. 333 (1971); Hodgson v. Liquor Salesmen's Union, 444 F.2d 1344; 1350 (2nd Circuit 1971).


The same legal standard above applies to the use of union equipment and employees engaged in the production of campaign brochures. Since the union owns publishing-quality desk-top computers, and since Allan Darr has an extensive history of using the union's equipment for production of union publications, it is rationally infered that the production of Darr's 2002 campaign brochures were created with union equipment. This is a violation of the Act. All of the evidence indicates such a conclusion is true. The burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise should fall squarely on Allan Darr, the former editor of past Loadline issues and the creator of Larry Johnson's campaign literature in 1993 and 1996.


Finally, evidence demonstrates that Allan Darr used mailing permit number 5544 for mailing his own campaign literature and for mailing the election ballots in 2002 (see Darr's campaign brochures and see the outer envelope of the election ballots).




That permit number is solely owned by Publishers Mailing Service (PMS). The union argues that PMS uses the same permit number for all mailing activities. However, the relationship between PMS and the union must be investigated further because if Darr procurred preferential treatment or a discount rate by PMS for mailing the campaign brochures, the savings to Darr would have been a direct benefit to him in his position as a paid employee of the union. Wayne Plumb received no savings or discounts as a challenger. This would be viewed as unequal treatment, a violation of the Act (see 29 CFR §452.69).


3. Denial of Inspection of the Membership List.


Allan Darr and the union incumbents jealously guard the membership list. In 1990, IUOE President Frank Hanley sent a man named Ken Allen from Washington DC to Seattle to run the special election. Allen was never a member of Local 302 and the bylaws were violated when Allen became the Election Committee Chairman (see Article XIV,(C)(1)(b) of the bylaws). Allen was seen leaving the union with a copy of the membership list. Ever since this incident, future challengers were fearful that a manufactured membership list was used unlawfully during the mail-out of election ballots. Such a ploy would affect the outcome of the election to benefit incumbent officers.


On August 5, 2002, Wayne Plumb and his election observer Donald Smith, requested an on-the-spot inspection of the membership list. This request was made at the mailing center just prior to the mailing of the ballots. The purpose of the request was to check the authenticity of the list before the ballots were sent out. This would be viewed as a most crucial inspection, looking for inacurracies or fraud just before it could occur. Plumb's request was flatly denied by union attorney Russell J. Reid.


Section 401(c3 of the Act entitles every bona fide candidate to have the right, once within 30-days prior to an

election, to inspect the list. 29 CFR §452.71 further entitles





the candidate an option to inspect the list once at "any time" within the 30-days.


Here, Allan Darr violated the Act because he denied bona fide candidate Wayne Plumb an opportunity to inspect the list at the time of "Plumb's option." Plumb's request was made before the ballots were mailed out and before the election.


The union argues that Plumb and candidate Terry Quirk requested an inspection of the list on August 2nd and August 5th. However, Plumb decided to exercise his option at the place of ballot mailing in order to be more assured that a fraudulent list wasn't deployed by the incumbents at the last minute.


This denail of inspection is not only prima facie evidence of a violation, it is also evidence that Allan Darr had something to hide. If Darr had nothing to hide regarding the authenticity of the membership list, then Darr would have gladly allowed Plumb an inspection at the mailing center, if for no other reason than to eliminate controversy.


4. Denial of Adequate Safeguards to Ensure a Fair Election.


(a). Election Committee Chairman.


The Election Committee Chairmanship has been a position of continuing controversy at Local 302. Adequate safeguards to insure election fairness is a requirment under Title IV §401(c), as well as under Article XXIV, Subdiv.(1), §(e) of the union constitution.


In 1990, Ken Allen, a non-member, became the Election Chairman. The rule was violated. In 1996, Barry Riedesel became the Election Chairman. Under sworn oath in his deposition, Riedesel stated that he never communicated with incumbent officers during the election period (see Deposition of Barry Riedesel). However, Riedesel's telephone records show that he perjured himself. Indeed, Riedesel had regular communication with at least two of the incumbent candidates, including business manager Johnson. Some of the calls were placed by Riedesel immediately after an Election Committee meeting. Later,





Riedesel was generously rewarded by the incumbents for his role in safeguard violations.


In 1999, the Election Chairman allowed for the tampering of ballots and the destruction of election records at the union hall. That Chairman was rewarded with a job from the Local.


In 2002, former union officer Jack Jakubiec became the Election Chairman. John Hageter of the the Plumb Committee protested to the Local's Executive Board that Jakubiec's position posed a safeguard violation for the following reasons: during the 1999 election, Jakubiec served as an incumbent candidate for Recording-Corresponding-Financial Secretary. Jakubiec violated the bylaws because he did not preserve the trimmed and tampered ballot strips as he is required to do under the bylaws (see Article XIV,tC) §4 of the bylaws). The assumption by the challengers is that Jakubiec was complicit in destroying evidence of election fraud.


Most notable is that Jakubiec came out of retirement in 2002 in order to serve on the Election Committee. (note*: After he was successful in his 1999 race, Jakubiec mysteriously retired following three brief months of service). On nominations night in June 2002, Jakubiec resurfaced and got himself on the Election Committee. Plumb tried to get neutral members on the Election Committee but was unsuccessful. How Jakubiec got placed on the Election Committee is somewhat of a mystery. But why Jakubiec was so adamant about staying on the Election Committee is not a mystery to the challengers. In order to control the election process, then cheat to retain power, the incumbents needed Jakubiec to oversee the election.


Plumb argued against Jakubiec's status as Election Chairman, citing a conflict of interest. The union knew that litigation was pending against the DOL involving the matter of Jakubiec's bylaw violations stemming from the 1999 election. Nevertheless, Jakubiec belligerently remained as the Election Chairman and even filed retaliatory charges against John Hageter in an attempt to intimidate him.





The election safeguardinq provision under both federal law and under the constitution was violated because the Executive Board did not remove Jakubiec from the Election Committee. The Executive Board is comprised entirely of incumbent officers.


(b). Neutral Location for Ballot Tabulation.


Another §401(c) election safeguarding viblation was made by Jack Jakubiec in 2002. The Plumb Committee formally requested that election day ballot tabulation be conducted off site at a neutral location. That request was denied by the Election Committee. In the years prior to using the new Bothell union hall as an election headquarters, the ballots were tabulated at the old Labor Temple in downtown Seattle. But this practice was terminated when the new union hall was built.


Plumb's fears were that an election site controlled by the incumbents might create an unpleasant environment for the challengers and an opportunity for the incumbents to cheat. Moreover, the union hall represents the incumbent's home. While the challengers are only permitted to stay in a designated area, the incumbents may travel freely in any area of the building. Another fear was that ballot protection safeguards might be violated because the ballots would remain on site at the union hall after the election.


The incumbents argued that no improprieties or misbehavior was observed at the union hall on election day. However, that is not the case. Former incumbent business manager Larry Johnson verbally assaulted and harassed Wayne Plumb on election day. This was witnessed by many observers. Election Chairman Jack Jakubiec did not maintain order on election day.


The lack of a neutral setting for ballot tabulation, and the orchestrated abuse and harassment by the incumbent's supporters caused a violation of the safeguards provision of the Act.









1. Threats of Violence and Intimidation.


At 6:30 am on Friday, October 25, 2002, Wayne Plumb was contacted by Alaska State Troopers (AST) advising Plumb that threats of violence had been made against him and his entire family by Allan Darr. Trooper Kemp of Fairbanks, Alaska informed Plumb of the circumstances and assigned Plumb's case as Case #02-76847. (see AST Case # 02-76847 and Wayne Plumb's Statement to Fairbanks Police Department, 10/28, 2002).


The notice by the AST was the result of a secret informant who attended the monthly meeting of Local 302 in Fairbanks. That meeting took place at 8:00 pm on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at the IUOE union hall at 819 1st Avenue in Fairbanks. The secret informant said that about 25 members attended the meeting, including the top labor bosses of Local 302. Among those attending were: business manager Allan Darr, Corresponding-Recording-Financial (CRF) Secretary Malcom Auble, and President Curtis Hall. At some point during the meeting, Allan Darr asked the Secretary to cease taking notes and to turn off any electronic recording device. Then, Darr began to spurt out venomous language about Wayne Plumb and stated that something must be done to Wayne Plumb and his entire family to stop him from proceeding with his election complaint.


As Darr's violent message continued, he raised both arms in the air and used his left hand like a chopping block and his right hand like an ax, jesturing physical harm to Plumb. He also stated that physical harm must come to Plumb's entire family in order that the lesson be complete. Plumb has a wife Cindy, and four young children, Janelle (14), Briana (12), Joshua (10), and Luke (8). Darr even extended the threats to Plumb's elderly parents, Bob and Amy.


Apparently Darr was extremely concerned about the pending





election investigation. According to the secret informant, there was nothing subtle about Darr's intentions. Darr was trying his very best to incite the attending members to take action and cause physical harm or even death to Plumb and his family. According to the informant, Darr jestured, screamed, and used profanity during his diatribe to the members.


The secret informant rarely attends union meetings and does not know Wayne Plumb, nor has he ever met Wayne Plumb. Out of a very real concern to Plumb and his family, the secret informant contacted AST immediately after the meeting. Fearful for his own safety, the informant chose to speak only to Wayne Plumb about the incident. The informant's name is concealed from identity in this report. However, it is available upon request to the DOL.


Since the early morning hours of October 25, 2002, Wayne Plumb and his wife have had to adjust their lifestyles. Fearful for their children's safety, they have taken added precautions in their daily routines. Allan Darr's threats of violence are perceived as real and the Plumb family has acted accordingly.


LMRDA §610 makes threats of violence for the purpose of interfering with or preventing the exercise of any right guaranteed by LMRDA unlawful. Plumb has a guarnteed right to file an election protest after a union election.


Plumb has notified the following authorities about the threats: Fairbanks City Police, Anchorage City Police, Washington State Patrol, FBI, U.S. District Attorney's Office in Seattle, Washington, and the U.S. Department of Labor.


Neither Allan Darr or any of the incumbent officers, nor Frank Hanley from the IUOE, has attempted to contact Wayne Plumb and discuss or apologize for the threats made on October 23, 2002.





2.  Subornation of Perjury.


Subornation of Perjury is a crime of procuring another to make a false oath. Proof of subornation of perjury requires proof of both perjury in fact and that the perjured statement was procured by the accused. There must also be proof that the suborner knew or should have known that such oaths or testimony would be false. (See Barron's Law Dictionary Third Edition, 1991).


Fearing for his own personal safety, the secret informant who notified the AST of Allan Darr's threats against Wayne Plumb, was induced to sign an affidavit for Allan Darr stating that the informant never saw or heard Darr make threatening comments against Wayne Plumb. The signing took place at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska where the informant works on rotating schedules. The informant knew that the affidavit he was signing was a false statement, but he signed it anyway out of fear for his physical safety and for his employment through the union.


Darr, hearing of leaks about his threats against Plumb and Plumb's follow up with the police, hurriedly dispatched a field agent, Mike Friborg, to procure the signature of the informant. Darr also had every member who attended the October 23, 2002 meeting in Fairbanks sign the false oath.


The DOL's investigation should include interviews with the members in attendance at the Fairbanks union hall on 10/23/02. If corroborating evidence is proven, Darr should be charged with subornation of perjury. A copy of the false oath should be available through Allan Darr at the union's headquarters in Bothell, Washington.





3.  Timeline of Evidence


1990:  Russ Conlon, former Local 302 business manager and IUOE Vice-president emeritus, was intensely jealous and mad because 1988 election winner Val Albert fired Conlon's son, Michael Conlon. Albert also fired the union attorney, Russell J. Reid. Conlon and other rivals of the Albert Administration (including Larry Johnson and Allan Darr) conspired to harass Albert for the next two years. Albert was called to Washington, DC to meet with IUOE President Frank Hanley. Hanley urged for a special election of confidence one year before the regularily scheduled election, and Albert agreed. Hanley sent his assistant, Ken Allen, to Seattle to run the election. Allen was not a member of Local 302. Allen was seen leaving the union hall with the membership list. Albert lost the election to Larry Johnson. Johnson immediately re-hired Russ Reid as union attorney, and also hired Allan Darr to edit the new union newspaper.


1993: Val Albert ran for his old seat against Larry Johnson. Another candidate, Tom Dillard, also ran for business manager. Ed Hanson ran on Albert's slate, but was disqualified by the incumbents for not paying his dues on time. Albert filed an election protest to the DOL but the complaint was dismissed. Albert attempted again to receive assistance from the DOL, but instead he received a phone call from C. Russell Rock, Regional Director of OL-MS in San Francisco. Rock cursed at Albert and told him, "Sue me, C. Russell Rock!" Albert continued his investigation of Local 302.


1996: After discovering probable election fraud from the 1993 election, Albert ran again for business manager. This time Albert filed suit against Local 302 prior to the election, seeking election safeguards. Union attorney Reid argued steadily against election safeguards. Albert lost the election and





immediately retired from the Local. One week later, election chairman Barry Riedesel filed three charges against Albert. A union trial was scheduled. Rick Pound, a Local employee of Larry Johnson's, traveled around various job sites telling members, "Come to the big union trial. We are going to get rid of Val Albert once and for all."


On November 1, 1996, the union held a trial and Albert was found guilty of all charges. President Clyde Wilson expelled Albert from the Local. Albert had served for 40-years. Albert's campaign manager and former member, Galen Cook, had his honorable union withdrawal card cancelled the same day. Cook received no opportunity to respond to the false charges against him.


1999: Ed Hanson was nominated and ran for business manager. Meanwhile, Albert and Cook had a suit against Local 302 and deposed most of the union officers. During their investigation, Albert and Cook uncovered the personal phone records for a number of defendants and their service providers. The records revealed that the 1996 election Chairman, Barry Riedesel had been communicating and assisting the incumbent officers to get re-elected. Riedesel was questioned about this in his sworn deposition, before the phone records were obtained. The records proved that Riedesel perjured himself. For his part in election fraud and for filing charges against Albert, Riedesel was rewarded with numerous jobs and titles, including: Field Representative, Vice-president, Editor of the Loadline and Trustee of the $2.5 billion Pension Fund.


Other phone records showed that the union's ballot printer was having unusual telephone communication with Allan Darr less than one week before the 1996 ballots were sent out.


Also, records showed unusual telephone activity between attorney Reid and Secretary Jack Jakubiec on the day the ballots were sent out. No other calls were made two months prior to, or two months after the election.


Hanson lost the election in 1999. He obtained and





preserved evidence that showed ballot tampering. He sought and received opinions from two independent election experts. Their opionion was that ballot tampering occured. Hanson prepared a report to the DOL, which included the telephone records of Barry Riedesel, Russell Reid, and Chris Gianelli. The incumbents and Russell Reid were so scared of the evidence showing that they cheated, that they went to court to suppress the evidence. Hanson's friend, Galen Cook, was stalked and harassed by the incumbent's union goons. Val Albert was charged with contempt of court by Russell Reid and the incumbents.


Union member, Dan Sheeler, told a third party that the reason Charles Barton (former CRF Secretary) left the Johnson Administration in December 1993 was because of the corruption going on. Sheeler said that Larry Johnson was advised to quit in 1997 or he would get found out and go to jail. Barton didn't want to get involved with Larry Johnson any longer, even though Barton worked for Johnson from 1990-93. Finally, Sheeler indicated that Barton told him a lot of the incumbents had been stealing money from the Local and there would be serious jail time for them if they ever got caught.


Larry Johnson resigned in April 1997. Clyde Wilson was appointed as the new business manager, but he resigned soon after the fraud election of 1999. Jack Jakubiec resigned three months after getting re-elected in 1999. Ron Knight (former Vice-president) resigned. Mike Jonas, former President, was defeated under very mysterious circumstances during the 1999 election. Allan Darr, not employed by the Local in 2001, was appointed as the new business manager.


2002:  Wayne Plumb and his entire slate of candidates lost the election. Plumb received a call from the Alaska State Troopers advising him of threats of violence and death from Allan Darr. Darr had all attending members of the 10/23/02 union meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska sign false affidavits to protect Darr from potential criminal prosecution.








The U.S. Department of Labor must not fail to fully investigate and prosecute union corruption. For too many years Local 302 has defended itself from litigation and formal charges by seeking shelter behind prior statements issued by the DOL. The time has come for the truth to expose the guilty.


When viewed in totality, the evidence against Local 302 is overwhelming. The elections are fraudulently held in violation of LMRDA, as well as by the union constitution and bylaws. Honest members like Val Albert, Ed Hanson, Tom Dillard, and Wayne Plumb have been harmed by the various schemes of the incumbents and their enablers. The incumbents and their attorney have fraudulently held on to power for the past twelve years. As a result, the entire membership has been harmed.


The accountability by the union officers is negligent, if not criminal. If exposed for their deeds, the incumbents simply resign and the Executive Board (incumbents) appoints new officers. Allan Darr's campaign quote in 2002 identifies their actions, "...like fleas in a dog's bed simply changing positions to accomodate the latest dog."


The incumbents do not explain their lack of financial accounting. When asked about the balance of union funds, they change the subject. The LM-2 Reports show very little specificity or detail in expenditures. Theft from the union treasuries must be investigated.


When the incumbents or their enablers get caught lying or cheating, they simply defer to their attorney Russell Reid, who finds a way to keep the truth pursuers distracted and tied up in other matters, or defending themselves in kangaroo union trials.


Perhaps some of the best evidence of corruption is presented more subtly. Dan Sheeler, a member of 302 and friend of former union officer Charles Barton, told a third-party that Charles Barton resigned from the Local because he was fearful





of going to jail if he remained with the union. When Barton was served with a subpoena in 1999 to appear for his deposition, he said to the process server, "Oh god, I feared this day would come."


The officers of Local 302 are not enlightened. They spend their days scheming against challengers, and spending the members money like drunken sailors. When real challenges are mounted, such as Wayne Plumb's challenge, business manager Darr has to resort to the threat of violence. When he is exposed for the threats, Darr has to resort to false affidavits and more threats to cover-up the original threat. This is how the incumbents spend their time at the union hall.


The members of Local 302 have lost confidence in their union, as well as in the DOL to properly investigate and serveup justice. Many members now believe that the DOL routinely covers-up for the misdeeds of the incumbents in exchange for a political or financial payoff.


Wayne Plumb and the Plumb Committee respectfully request that the DOL finds for the challengers and files a civil suit against Local 302 for a new election. Further, Plumb and the Committee respectfully request that the most stringent election safeguards be imposed as to ensure that a fair election be held at the earliest possible date.



Return to Laborers.org