IAFF: The One-Question Ethics Test
It’s multiple-choice, too.
The president of your local union is found to have improperly taken over $1,000,000 from the organization.
What action does the board take?
a. Nothing.
b. Hire an outside firm to investigate.
c. File a criminal complaint.
d. Raise his salary.
e. File charges
The majority of local union affiliates would c., file a criminal complaint and e., prefer charges to ensure a proper and unbiased investigation and to increase the chances that restitution would occur.
Unfortunately, IAFF headquarters plays by different rules.
In the past they would choose a., do nothing, bowing to the whims and wishes of president-for-life Harold Schaitberger.
In between, they would choose d., raise his salary and compensation as he ripped us off willy-nilly.
Then, when Schaitberger was found in default by a Federal agency, the board hired an outside firm who helped create a toothless ethics policy to justify his misdeeds, choosing answer b.
Now that secretary-treasurer Ed Kelly has introduced indisputable evidence that
- Schaitberger has been taking a pension he is not entitled to by law,
- that he violated IAFF rules by changing the pension requirements without board approval,
- and that he was paid compensation in violation of IAFF policy,
the special ethics committee is falling back on answer b. again, hiring an outside firm to rubber-stamp Schaitberger’s pilfering of the union treasury.
They’ll not only waste more of the member’s dues, they will also pave the way for the board to legitimize, once again, Schaitberger’s thievery.
It’s a costly cover-up, potentially making the committee members and the board complicit in Schaitberger’s fraud.
When the feds roll in they will all be seen as the complicit co-conspirators they are.
The sound of a latching cell door will be the sign of honesty returning to the IAFF.
It’s a shame it took so long.
