Hypocrite

Remember these words of wisdom? Now fast forward, who has been caught issuing personal loans to himself or herself? Does the name John E Samuelsen ring a bell? Or Ms. Benita Johnson or Ms. Roxanne Rotgers - don't take our words for it. Ask Stephen A Downs he is a person who indulges in hypocrisy. He has an excellent explanation in which he will inform you the U.S. Department of Labor Form LM-2 Labor Organizational Annual Report is wrong. Rather you should not believe your own eyes but instead proceed to the optometrist for corrective lenses. He will add that is not our money which John E Samuelsen awarded himself but instead is a loan. In addition he will turn it into the TWU International vendetta against John E Samuelsen. He will equate it to something like Robin Hood taking from the riches to help the poor. In his view it makes no sense to address one and destabilize a viable TWU Local 100 thus creating more problems. Have we learned nothing about financial shenanigans.

Compare Toussaint and Friends Raises to Yours‏ by Steve Downs

Toussaint got us a 3% raise for 2006. For the same year, he gave himself a 17% increase. In 2007, when our wages went up 4%, Toussaint gave himself a 7% boost. He went from $91,920 in 2006 to $115,475 ($141,928 after expenses) in 2008. (Don’t take our word for it, go to www.tbou2009.organd click on the link to the Union’s financial report.)

Toussaint was generous to his friends, too. Ed Watt was up 22% from 2006 to 2008. Curtis Tate got an 8.2% boost from 2007 to 2008. And Brian Clarke got an 11% bump for the same year.

All of this happened despite layoffs of clerical staff and Toussaint supposedly imposing a 10% pay cut on the officers and staff in 2007 when the dues check-off was lost. And it happened despite the Local by-laws limiting raises for officers and staff to the same percentage increase negotiated for members at the TA.It's time for them to go ,vote the entire Take Back Our Union (TBOU) Slate.

Steve Downs Chair, T/O Division of TWU Local 100

Do you believe John E Samuelsen statements:

‘I do want to make two things clear: I did not borrow money from the Union and I always returned all unused advances.’

or do you believe U.S. Department of Labor Form LM-2 Labor Organizational Annual Report below?

SCHEDULE 2 - LOANS RECEIVABLE

FILE NUMBER: 003-424

List below loans to officers, employees, or members which at any time during the reporting period exceeded $250 and list all loans to business enterprises regarless of amount.  (A)	Loans  Outstanding at  Start of Period  (B)	Loans Made  During Period  (C)	Cash  (D)(1)	Other Than Cash  (D)(2)	Loans  Outstanding at  End of Period  (E)
Name: John Samuelson Purpose: Personal Loan Security: none Terms: as able	$0	$1,297	$1,159	$0	$138
Name: Benita Johnson Purpose: Personal Loan Security: none Terms: as able	$0	$669	$362	$0	$307
Name: Roxanne Rotger Purpose: Personal Loan Security: none Terms: as able	$0	$8,474	$7,865	$0	$609
Total of loans not listed above					$0
Total of all lines	$0	$10,440	$9,386	$0	$1,054
Totals will be automatically entered in...	Item 24  Column (A)	Item 61	Item 45	Item 69  with Explanation	Item 24  Column (B)

Form LM-2 (Revised 2003)

Fixed Assets

The TWU Local 100 - LM2 Labor Organization Annual Report for 2010 on statement A - Assets and liabilities line 27 indicates on column A that at the start of the period the fixed assets amount was $230,198 then on column B at the end of the reporting period the fixed assets jumped to an amazing amount of $673,039. A difference of $448,841 which is almost half a million - it also informs you to review schedule 6.

However when you review schedule 6 - Fixed Assets you notice the numbers do not add up to make that difference - on line 5 you are told there are automobiles and other vehicles that are lumped to $505,752. If you follow the instructions of LM2 ‘Report details of all fixed assets, such as land, buildings, automobiles and other vehicles, and office furniture and equipment owned by the labor organization at the end of the reporting period.’ we are aware the automobiles at the possession of TWU Local 100 are leased from their respective companies which are on schedule 9 at a whopping $339,391. So how can you claim you own them instead of leasing as per LM2 instructions? For $505,752 we can get 25 Ford Fusions at $20,000 each - for comparison the TWU Local 100 - LM2 for 2009 on schedule 6 of fixed assets line 5 automobiles and other vehicles the cost on column A was $73,038. That reveals since John Samuelsen took office he acquired more automobiles than the preceding administration. 505752-73038=432714 what a difference of almost half a million which is unsupported by facts which is the number you find in schedule 4 under automobiles.  It’s amazing that those leased vehicles value belong to the bank not TWU Local 100. 

The more you review schedule 6 - Fixed Assets the more that the numbers do not tell a straight story - as we know numbers do not lie. Then on line 6 you are told that there is office furniture and equipment, on column B you are given a cost or other basis at $1,185,636, then on column C total depreciation or amount expensed at $912,849, then on column D you are given book value at $272,788 - almost a significant depreciation value of 77 percent. Now if you review the special tax law provisions intended to help stimulate the economy, businesses are now entitled to take an additional first-year depreciation deduction equal to 30 percent of the value of certain types of qualified property before calculating their normal depreciation deductions. Usually the office furniture and fixtures depreciation cycle is for 7 year property as the table indicated starting at 14.29 percent depreciation. Then gradually going down till the end of the 7th year the deduction is at 4.46 percent and at the eighth year those office furniture do not qualify for depreciation deduction. The question is how the depreciation value exceeded the recommended value of the IRS guideline of 30 percent? Maybe this is a vapor law of depreciation deduction rate at TWU Local 100. In addition if the same office furniture and equipment were claimed as a depreciation deduction in prior years at TWU Local 100 - LM2 of 2009, if you add those two depreciation values of the two years (2009+2010) they exceed their cost - the numbers do not add up - 795875+912849=1,708,724 clearly this depreciation exceeds the cost of $1,185,636 the difference is $523,088 which is another half million.

Secondly those $10 folding tables, $5 folding chairs, desks, phones, computers, copiers, faxes and worn out dilapidated sofas do not add up to $1,185,636. In addition they do not depreciate at the rate of 77 percent, the numbers do not lie - people do.  Therefore those people will have to answer questions from the proper authorities hence New York District Attorney.