ruled that Lauro may not hereafter obtain employment, consulting, or other work with the IBT or any IBT-affiliated entity. Id.
This Court received IRB Application XXVII consisting of the IRB's Opinion and Decision concerning Lauro together with supporting exhibits on November 27, 1995. By letter dated that same day, Chambers informed Lauro that if he wished to object to the IRB's findings and rulings, he could submit any objections to IRB Application XXVII to this Court no later than ten days from the date of the letter. (Letter from James C. Maroulis, Law Clerk to the Honorable David N. Edelstein, United States District Judge, to Costabile Lauro (Nov. 27, 1995) (on file with Clerk of the Southern District of New York).)
On December 22, 1995, this Court received a letter from Lauro, dated December 8, 1995, in which Lauro objects to the IRB's Opinion and Decision. Although Lauro admits that he associated with Malangone and Longo, he argues that these meetings were both incidental and innocent: "My chance meetings and at times, social meetings, such as weddings, are products of past boyhood obligations fulfilled by my presence and social intercourse, not to be seen as clandestine or subversive." (Letter from Costabile Lauro to the Honorable David N. Edelstein, United States District Judge (December 8, 1995) (on file with the Clerk of the Southern District of New York).) Lauro further argues that "by no means has my contact with anyone deemed unsuitable been influential in my performance or dedication to my work as a Teamster in Local 807." Id.
Having carefully reviewed all of the relevant documents in the instant application, this Court finds that the IRB's decision is not arbitrary or capricious. See IRB Rules, P 0 ("In reviewing actions of the IRB, this Court shall apply the same standard of review applicable to review of final federal agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act."); see also May 6, 1994 Opinion & Order, slip op. at 4 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). This Court has reviewed both Application XXVII and Lauro's objections to this Application. This Court finds that Lauro's objections are unavailing for two reasons. First, Lauro's objections were not timely because the November 27, 1995, letter from Chambers to Lauro clearly establishes that any objections must be "received by this Court no later than ten (10) days from the date of this letter." (Letter from James C. Maroulis, Law Clerk to the Honorable David N. Edelstein, United States District Judge, to Costabile Lauro (Nov. 27, 1995) (on file with Clerk of the Southern District of New York).) Although Lauro dated his letter December 8, 1995, this Court did not receive this letter until December 22, 1995--after Lauro's deadline for filing objections had passed. Second, Lauro's objections are meritless because his admitted associations with Malangone and Longo are sufficient to warrant IRB sanctions.
Turning, once again, to IRB Application XXVII, this Court notes with great concern that several errors have been committed. First, in the title of the IRB's Opinion and Decision, Lauro's first name is misspelled as "Constabile." Second, on one occasion, the IRB's Opinion and Decision misspells Malangone's name as "Malagone." IRB Opinion and Decision at 2. Third, the IRB submitted a copy of Exhibit 13 of the IRB Investigative Report--which is a transcript of Lauro's testimony before the IRB on April 27, 1994--with several missing pages. Because the IRB's Opinion and Decision cites to several of these missing pages, this Court obtained a copy of the missing pages from the Chief Investigator's Office prior to issuing this Memorandum and Order. These missing pages are now on file with the Clerk of the Southern District of New York. Fourth, and more troubling, the IRB's Opinion and Decision misstates Lauro's testimony regarding the number of meetings he had with Longo. The Opinion and Decision states: "Lauro testified that he has associated with Alan Longo since becoming an IBT member on approximately ten occasions," Opinion and Decision at 4, and the Opinion and Decision supports this assertion with citations to Lauro's testimony at the July 20, 1994, and April 27, 1994, IRB hearings. A review of Lauro's testimony at these hearings, however, reveals that Lauro testified to meeting with Longo on four or five occasions, not "approximately 10." Investigative Report, Ex. 1 at 47-49; Investigative Report, Ex. 13 at 19.
I am deeply troubled by the errors in Application XXVII. My displeasure is beyond words. It is hard to understand how these errors could have escaped notice. It occurs to me that due diligence and vigilance were lacking.
Despite the mistakes in Application XXVII, this Court finds that there is more than enough evidence in the record to support the IRB's conclusion that "Lauro's associations with Malangone and Longo were purposeful, not fleeting, and that Lauro was in fact aware of the LCN connections of Malangone and Longo." Opinion and Decision at 6-7. Accordingly, the decision of the IRB is affirmed in its entirety.
DATED: New York, New York
January 11, 1996
David N. Edelstein