number one eight one zero three eight pheromone can yell at all purses the council ninety three a half ass c m e at all brown i was looking for my brother on the other side rather i saw him earlier but i don't see him at the moment so i proceed let's wait a minute there's  kelley whenever you're ready thank you for our good morning together with my colleagues such a deal and i'm paul kelly and we represent the american federation of state county municipal employees and when affiliate asked me counsell ninety three my clients take appeal from a district court order that violated the policy against judicial interference in the affairs of labor organizations that this report not only adjudged the composition of local  three's executive board to be unlawful but ordered extraordinary relief i would like this morning to address the statutes under which the claim was brought to the structure of council and three admirable relief ordered by the court and with time the counterclaim of absentee your honor respectfully i'd like to reserve two minutes if that's appropriate all right thank you the prime would focus first on the overriding overarching policy of judicial none interference in the affairs of labor organizations as something this court has endorsed numerous times there's the rule have exceptions yes you are there are there are requirements that are big due to the l m r d a that unions don't have don't have the freedom to alter when it comes to elections there are specific requirements for example local unions you have to elect or your officers every three years immediate organizations every four years that's because the statute there's only the the and i think part of your question the delegates to the election are elected by the local unions they each send so many delegates to the convention the convention  ll elect vice presidents from the various legislative districts so the legislative districts in council ninety three are either geographical or they are work based essential  difficult to change a constitution but it should be frankly this is not something that i happen all the time two thirds of the delegates need to do it if there's a good reason to do it if a new if a new  bargaining unit of new hampshire state employees for example were to come in they may say well i'd like to have a legislative district ferrara for our unit and again the delegates would have to decide whether we should amend the constitution to provide that so those are the those are the two structures there are there are officers of council ninety three who are elected by all the delegates the point here that the plaintiffs made and that the district court adopted is that the executive board should reflect proportions right and it says you as a union member need the individual member have equal rights to vote to attend meetings to express your or express your opinions it says you have freedom of speech and convention but to be composed differently fair enough but it is not an individualized harm that any member has suffered everybody's got the same or everybody's got the same  title four is about elections tighter one in calhoun says it's very specifically that if you get discriminated against if you has an individual are discriminated against somehow you're denied your right to vote not if you do if you're everybody gets equal the right to vote for the convention the convention delegates then get there could they decide we want to be run more efficiently so instead of having a secular board will you know amend our constitution if we're just going to hire a management team that will the final thing i will say is this the lessons of that regulation says all members must be represented the union may not deny represented representation to locals below a certain size the idea is small locals have a right to be heard on this particular executive board they do a proportionally based one they're less likely to delegates another group with twenty five hundred members get seven representatives on the board and another group with the exact same number gets one and are finally a group with a watch over nonmembers which is an they don't get to vote equally for each member of the executive board they get to vote only for members of the executive board the d d s delegates so their vote is deluded as compared to the other states but if the convention a change that democratically elected convention could change that it could say portion of voting you could say we're just going to have three people on the executive board yes it could join her but he could not say there are ten thousand delegates one thousand of those delegates will elect two people to the board and the other nine thousand delegates who get to what one that is the case before this court that is not the case before the other circuits that is not the case was argued by my brother that is that is the case before this court and the question is does that dilute the roads now that the second point here is your honor that in the example that i got it was ten thousand and there were going to formula for each of the two groups each detail it in this case it's admitted that there's no formula which this is and that there is no rationale for explaining it and the constitution requires them get one delegate and one thousand get to it's not fair and democratic there's no explanation for it there's no rationale for it and the when i'm griffin could require takes away autonomy from unions when they violate the rights of their members and this is a irrational discriminatory violation of the rights of the embers from the district court and or requiring  interpret his own order to require strip question now and he's going to require that gross disproportionality with the minority are given more representation than the majority to be cured and he  if you don't you are that that all of your actions of for the present year of boy and i respectfully suggest to the court we are not supporting that portion of his order that is we are looking for relief twofold one is is it was it sound for the court to ask for the situation to be remedied under the bill of rights and under the constitution of the union and the second question is should be in the court more are through the express itself in its order and the answer to the second question is yes it should it should be more clear to the delegates at how what they have to do and i don't have any problem with that i would like to just touch a few more points claim that a subordinate body is out parading in violation of the bill of rights of the constantly asked me constitution and that is to advise the president that is article thirty eight sorry article nine section there isn't a strict adherence to self government in unions there are limitations placed upon it and one of the limitations is entitle one equal voting rights and you have to have a system that that is haitian then another at thirty that has fewer members now that doesn't mean they have to be given the same equal representation it means you could see stablish thirteen legislative districts and have them each have one and which is what's happened in other such a situation existed and those cases who basically decided before crowley and they were dismissed as to go one title one you can of course title one an election night or even pre election but the answer is it's that it's a challenging matter to fashion an order it is not a challenging natter to do turman that this system is undemocratic and i would voting rights and i would respectfully suggest to honor that we could clearly erroneous lee fine but this ystem is not acceptable because it is written on equal in a irrational and unexplicable direction that is the question well my understanding is that there was such a something of that nature discussed and also something discussed about this fall's constitution i'm sorry this falls legislat not seeking retroactive relief of any nature we're not challenging the last election we are to doing what the court incredibly at my suggestion said appointive can do which is seek a remedy the constitutional convention convened which they said in their response to the court below they could do at any time if they needed to matter of course they said i just say one word about the counterclaim your honor there's an appeal separate from this which will determine the issue in the counterclaim we have said we will turn over all the funds that we held at the time of the d there's no dispute about it essentially we said we can cry if we lose that appeal and if we win that appeal then we then those funds belong to us and it's just nothing to do water which is why the court dismissed it as as obliged under section article nine section thirty eight to start to do either an investigation or convene a judicial panel to fix this and he declined to do so  in fact sent it back for the offending party to resolve and that is the only provision in the constitution and it's minatory the president was required to do something in two thousand and thirteen about a and he did not i said it was a he then i don't know thank you thank you if we say any union member anywhere in the country has the right to file a federal suit challenging the composition of his or her executive board will have created a cottage industry that's not the way it goes your daughter the secretary of labor under title four runs of all elections if you have a problem with the with the two thousand and fifteen election a delegate of executive board members in council ninety three you go through the internal processes there exhausting you go to the secretary of labor if the secretary of labor comes in and says this is this is undemocratic the secretary of labor will then go into court and we can deal with the secretary of labor we can't deal with thirty six that small locals are entitled to be represented even if it requires disproportionate allocation of seats rhode island gets two senators california gets two senators why that's because historic this point the way this is the way this has evolved over time one thing i would say is two thirds of the convention delegates is a lot to change what they didn't change in this particular  dispute this particular dispute does not involve vermont new hampshire it was just this little subsection of counsel ninety three years ago message to six employees were employed by the department of mental health and there were a delegates but nobody said that's too many that's too few the department of mental health in the fullness of time became the department of mental retardation and for years individual members it's local unions and if you look at that if you look at that document you'll find some of these districts have twenty five  you're not giving small vocal sufficient voice we used up your bottle time and then some did you have a final point are you all set by the only other point i would raise your honor is that we are under an order to do something by september thirty first two thousand eight hundred and we move to stay the you are pending resolution of the appeal so i think those two issues we moved to say that order and it was it was i think it was dismissed without prejudice as to the counter claim do you agree with brother counsel  was my understanding that upon that determination the assets should have been turned over you are international so is there a possibility that the two sides put their heads together on that issue or you just want to take it as it's been submitted