Breaking the Devil’s Pact: The Battle to Free the Teamsters from the Mob

3. IBT Resistance and Judge Edelstein’s Resolve: July 1989 – September 1992

48 3 IBT Resistance and Judge Edelstein’s Resolve July 1989–September 1992 As the Consent Decree went into effect this spring, the Government and the IBT expected to implement its reforms in a spirit of cooperation and a unity of purpose. Unfortunately, the honeymoon ended by August [1989], and the IBT and the Court Officers began sinking into a confrontational posture. . . . The day-to-day implementation of the Consent Decree became mired in a morass of accusations, venomous correspondence, applications, hearings, and ultimately, decisions by this Court, and the inevitable appeals.1 —Judge David Edelstein, January 17, 1990 Q: Did the IBT comply with [the consent decree’s] terms and conditions? A: That is a question I could spend the rest of the week on. They fought me at every turn.2 —IRB member Frederick Lacey’s response to a question, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 30, 1998 The settlement in U.S. v. IBT by no means guaranteed eradication of Cosa Nostra’s influence in the union. The union vigorously opposed the consent decree’s implementation. As Judge Edelstein observed, “soon after the signing of the consent decree, the IBT waged a zealous attack on the reforms contained in the consent decree. . . . Relations between the Court Officers and the IBT began in a spirit of hoped-for cooperation and unity of purpose, but as the months passed these interactions became IBT Resistance and Judge Edelstein’s Resolve 49 increasingly bitter.”3 Making matters worse, many local IBT officials and rank and filers, whom, in the court officers’ and DOJ’s view, the consent decree was meant to protect and empower, also opposed enforcement of the consent decree. Some Teamsters simply distrusted the “government.” Others did not believe that there was organized-crime influence in their locals. Still others supported the status quo because they were the beneficiaries of corruption and racketeering. The IBT’s Counterattack The day after signing the consent decree, General President McCarthy insisted that “the Government’s case was groundless and politically motivated to embarrass the Teamsters.”4 His criticisms escalated as the IA and IO began hiring staff, launching investigations, and filing disciplinary charges. Soon, the IBT deliberatively or reflexively challenged practically all of the court-appointed officers’ actions and decisions. Attacks on the Investigations Officer’s Authority and Activities Office Space. IA Lacey asked Judge Edelstein to compel the IBT to provide IO Carberry with office space in NYC.*5 The IBT leadership objected, pointing to language in the consent decree: “the Independent Administrator , Investigations Officer and Election Officer shall be provided with suitable office space at the IBT headquarters in Washington, D.C.” and “all costs associated with the activities of these three officials (and any designee or persons hired by them) shall be paid by the IBT.”6 Despite the consent decree’s explicit reference to “office space in Washington,” Judge Edelstein ruled that an NYC office for IO Carberry was consistent with the consent decree’s purpose and language, as well as with the signatories’ intentions.7 Access to Records. The consent decree provided that the “Investigations Officer shall have the right . . . to examine books and records of the IBT and its affiliates.”8 The IBT argued that the union affiliates merely had to show * The consent decree authorized only the IA, not the IO or the EO, to make “applications” to the court. The applications were numbered sequentially. Each application resulted in a court order. The IA filed over one hundred applications with Judge Edelstein from August 3, 1989 to October 10, 1992, when the IRB replaced the IA/IO. 50 IBT Resistance and Judge Edelstein’s Resolve the IO requested documents, not provide the IO with originals or copies. Judge Edelstein disagreed. Characterizing the IBT’s position as “part of a fierce campaign to avoid the reforms that it agreed to,”9 he ruled that the ability to obtain copies is “reasonabl[y] and necessar[il]y incident” to the IO’s powers under the consent decree.10 Compensation and Expenses. The consent decree provided that the three court-appointed officers submit to the court itemized bills for salary and expenses every three months. The IBT general president would have fourteen days to note objections. The IBT routinely disputed the reasonableness of these expenditures and appealed them to Judge Edelstein. In order to keep the work of the court officers...