Our last annual report, for 2004, characterized

that   year   as   a   time   of transition   for   the

Association for Union Democracy (AUD). In

2004, we settled into a new office and recruited a

new executive director. The year 2005 found us

undergoing further staff transition, while at the

same time, the financial situation stabilized and

several new projects were launched. AUD contin-

ues to fight for democracy in the labor move-

ment, and we were in the forefront of a number of

successful   reform   struggles   in 2005. AUD

worked with a groups in a number of different

unions to confront problems of corruption, intim-

idation, and undemocratic practices. AUD pro-

vided steady and continuing support to these

reformers, through meetings and by   telephone

and email, advising unionists on their rights with-

in the law. Because our office is in Brooklyn, a

large part of our work involves direct personal

contact with workers in New York City.

REFORM PROJECTS

ATU   Local   1181:   Reformers   Organize,

Challenge Entrenched Leadership

Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU)Local 1181 is

the 16,000 member New York City local that rep-

resents   school bus   and   para-transit   drivers

throughout the City and Long Island.   Most of

them are minorities and recent immigrants. In

April 2004, school bus drivers filed suit against

the union to enforce their seniority rights and

formed the group that would ultimately become

"Members for Change." In July 2004, one thou-

sand bus drivers won a two week strike against

four private companies that provide paratransit

service to the elderly and disabled for the

Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) in New

York City. The strike was led by insurgents in the

local that was organized to demand better repre-

sentation in their union.

After meeting with AUD repeatedly in early 2005

regarding their election rights and the process, the

Members for Change ran a slate of eight (includ-

ing president/business agent and financial secre-

tary) in a June 2005 election, the first contested

election in over ten years. The group got over 20

percent of the vote, a respectable showing. Even

in defeat, the rank and file opposition had made a

difference in the atmosphere in a local that had

been closely controlled and independent voices

quelled. The importance of the change became

clear a few weeks later when the president, finan-

cial secretary, and the manager of the union's pen-

sion fund were indicted along with alleged boss

of the Genovese crime family for corruption in

the local.

Meanwhile, the indicted officials remain in

office, in full control of the local. Members for

Change, still active, mounted a campaign to oust

the indicted officials. In a series of letters, now

supported by a petition campaign among the

members, the group called upon the ATU interna-

tional to impose a trusteeship over the local, oust

the offending officers, encourage reform,   and

take steps to prepare a fair election.

So far, the international, remaining passive in the

face of scandal, has refused to intervene. At this

writing, the reform campaign aims to bring pres-

sure upon the international from local members

and the general public. For the first time, Local

1181 is experiencing the stirring of rank and file

democracy.

ATU Reformers Win in Local 241

AUD had been working with   reformer Peter

Fionda, of ATU Local 241 for some time. The

ATU International had placed its Local 241 under

trusteeship back in October 2002 immediately

after Fionda (a long time union member and

founder of Transport Workers for a Democratic

Union) and two others had been elected delegates

to the convention. These duly elected delegates

were subsequently denied their seats. Fionda

reported that an   international vice-president

appointed delegates in their place, though federal

law requires the secret ballot election of dele-

gates who, in turn, elect international officers.

AUD advised Pete regarding filing a complaint

with the Department of Labor for election law

violations, and advised him of his rights to cam-

paign without intimidation when the trusteeship

was imposed. Fionda and his associates formed a

reform slate, which ran for office in May 2005

elections. An amendment to Local 241's bylaws

created a new position of Assistant Business

Agent which Fionda and another reformer had

been urging since 2001

Fionda's slate won 15 of the 31 seats available,

including,   after   a   runoff,   the   positions   of

President and Assistant Business Agent for

Maintenance.

Reform Successful in IATSE 798

Over the course of 2005, AUD provided hours of

education and workshops and fielded questions

on union democracy and local elections for a

group in Local 798 of the International Alliance

of Theatrical and Stage Employees [IATSE], a

1,200-member east coast local of hair stylists and

makeup artists in which a reform group main-

tained itself through a trusteeship and then won a

sweeping victory.

Questions about the activities of Local 798 union

officials arose in summer 2004, when rumors of

a government investigation and financial double-

dealings by the business manager began to circu-

late. Members formed the "Concerned Members

of Local 798" and began holding regular meet-

ings and set up a website. Concerned Members

sent a letter to the membership with thirty-eight

signers, describing the problems in the union and

calling the members to action. In December,

2004 members of the caucus met with AUD. As

Concerned Members gained momentum so did

the stories of financial corruption. The press

reported that the business manager "tried to sell

more than $1 million worth of real estate bought

with members dues to his brother and brother's

girlfriend at sweetheart prices,"   and that he had

engaged in an "elaborate plot to rob" the family

of a retired Local 798 member of her entire

estate. The Manhattan Attorney' s office con-

firmed the rumors of government investigation.

Concerned Members had their work cut out for

them. Two brothers, Ed and Vincent Callaghan,

had held the office of business manager for more

than forty years between them. This would be

the first election in years where the position of

business manager was contested. In addition to

this, the local's president was apparently willing

to look the other way,   although the local had

filed suit against business manager Vincent

Callaghan. The President wrote the membership,

"...Vincent Callaghan, continues to do his job

representing us with our employers. And Vince

has been co-operating fully with the attorneys."

In postings on the Concerned Members on-line

forum she referred to the rank and file reformers

as "assholes" and said the website is run by

"ignorant dissidents" who are "uneducated and

obnoxious...who do not believe in democracy."

In the Local's January 2005 meeting, she called

the reformers terrorists, referring to them as "our

own   little   Taliban."   In   addition,   Vincent

Callaghan used the front page of the newsletter to

blatantly campaign for his own re-election.

The January 10th general membership and nomi-

nation meeting in New York City drew members

from as far away as Delaware, Philadelphia,

Baltimore, and North Carolina, just to have their

voices heard. Concerned Members organized a

pre-meeting, which almost fifty members attend-

ed. At the local's meeting reformers donned spe-

cially made t-shirts which read "truth and democ-

racy   for   the   rank   and   file   --

www.798members.com," and distributed press

reprints and literature. They nominated reformer

Joe Cuervo for business manager. Rank and file

members stayed on for almost an hour to discuss

the future of their union after the president

abruptly ended the meeting and stormed out.

But in January 2005, shortly before the election,

the IATSE international office announced a

trusteeship   over the   local.   The   Concerned

Members did not go away. In October 2005, the

trusteeship was terminated.   Local membership

promptly voted to require that the business man-

ager be appointed by the incoming executive

committee. In the ensuing election, Concerned

Members slate swept the Executive Board, taking

all positions. They were installed December 12,

2005. Vincent Callaghan was indicted and ulti-

mately pleaded guilty.

Operating Engineers Local 18: At last, suc-

cesses in a tough construction local

In Local 18, International Union of Operating

Engineers (IUOE), AUD has been working with

a group of insurgents called "Members Voice."

Operating engineers are the workers who run the

huge bulldozers, cranes, backhoes, and pile driv-

ers out on the roads. Local 18, with 14,000 mem-

bers, has work sites in 85 of Ohio's 88 counties

and four more in northern Kentucky. The local

has a history of undemocratic practices. In 1984,

Stephen W. Gard, a law professor who had repre-

sented insurgents in Local 18, testified before the

Senate Labor Committee that there had been a

ten-year record of illegal elections, blacklisting,

intimidation, and beatings of those who dared to

oppose the regime. An insurgent group waged a

reform battle, but after ten years of defeat, and

the death or retirement of its leaders, it vanished

from the scene. AUD told their story in its publi-

cation Union Democracy Review. But until the

appearance of this new reform group, we heard

little from Local 18 for 15 years.

Patricia Kohl, who headed the Members Voice

slate, ran a campaign critical of the local's "one-

party system of government."   The Members

Voice platform insisted that "every union should

be thoroughly democratic in its own internal

life." It called for an end to "blacklisting, black-

balling, and retaliation," for the election of busi-

ness agents instead of their appointment, for

opening the pages of the union's publication to

members' opinions, and for full accountability

from all union funds. In its campaign, the group

distributed lengthy excerpts from AUD's book

Democratic Rights for Union Members and suggested that local members visit AUD's website.

On the reformers' web site (www.locall 8mem

bersvoice.org) and in their handbills, they

offered a program of democracy and fair play in

job referrals.   They said that the union should

comply with the provisions of the LMRDA and

"must exceed them....Most of us have been sub-

jected to or, at least been afraid of being black-

listed, blackballed, or other retaliation."   Kohl

said that she was fired after working for 5 1/2

years as a union staffer: "I could have kept my

$78,325 a year job ... by just keeping my mouth

shut. I just couldn't do it."

Another insurgent, Paul Gonter, ran for local

financial secretary. He proposed opening the

pages of the union's publication, the Buckeye

Engineer, to comments by the members and

"responsible constructive criticism of officers

and policy "

In the 2005 elections, the insurgents surpassed

their predecessors. The reform slate elected five

of the eight candidates it ran for district advisory

board. Patricia Kohl was elected to the executive

board of Local 18 as one of the two delegates

from her Division 6. Even more impressive was

her campaign for president of the local, finishing

second in a three-way race with 1,244 votes, or

27.7 percent of the total, running well ahead of

the third candidate, a man, who got 827 votes.

Kohl was one of only eight women among some

300 candidates running in races in all six of Local

18's divisions. Paul Gonter, the slate's candidate

for local financial secretary got 1,404 votes, or 33

percent of the total. John Ginley, an independent

candidate for the top job of business manager, got

over 35 percent of the votes.

Nevertheless, in the larger interests of her union's

democracy, Kohl and her associates are challeng-

ing the conduct of the elections, though it could

jeopardize their own victory. Kohl and six other

local members filed an election protest with the

International. They argued that an electronic sys-

tern of counting ballots made it impossible to ver-

ify the tally; that an unreasonable meeting atten-

dance rule was unfairly applied to disqualify at

least two aspiring candidates; and that other pro-

cedural defects violated the law's requirement for

adequate assurances of a fair election.   They

protested the refusal of the local to break down

the election tally for local officers by district.

They charged that the incumbent used union

money is the campaign.

Operating Engineers Local 66: Reformers

Lose But Continue to Fight

Reformers in Operating Engineers Local 66

fought to get elected to local office this year. This

was a formidable undertaking since the 7,000

member local is spread over 33 counties in

Pennsylvania and three more in Ohio. Reformers

put over 18,000 miles on a single vehicle and

spoke to 1,400 members face to face.

Joe Beasley (candidate for Chief Executive

Officer-Business Manager) identified the key

issue in Local 66 as effective job representation.

Another candidate concurred and said, "...you

don't dare to try to enforce the contract even if

you are in the right." The gripe is with the busi-

ness agents, "it has got to the point where agents

come in [to investigate a member's grievance]

and the first thing the agent does is talk to the

boss." While representation is the number one

issue for members there are financial concerns

too. In 2002 the union leadership proposed a

building fund to either build or buy a much need-

ed new space to house the union. The member-

ship approved the proposal and began paying into

the fund. Two years later, Beasley (who was then

Recording Corresponding Secretary) says he dis-

covered that the union leadership was using the

building fund to pay for general overhead. One

member says this building fund plan has turned

into nothing more than an unauthorized dues

increase; he reports that when Joe Beasley's

father was Business Manager (a position he held

for twenty years) the union was much more fru-

gal; retirement parties used to be simple affairs

serving only sandwiches. "Now they are held at

country clubs."   Beasley and his team are con-

cerned about the rising salaries of the top officers

in the union. He reports that in the last 41/2 years

they have received a 40 percent increase while

union members' income has risen approximately

3 percent per year.

The reformers tried to run a slate to fill almost all

24 positions at stake, but, Beasley reports, they

lost some of their candidates due to restrictive

eligibility requirements because candidates were

-one or two days late in dues payments. The chal-

lenges in this campaign were huge. The incum-

bents have mounted an aggressive retaliation

campaign against the reformers. Beasley no

longer gets regular work, and the union has filed

charges against him for posting minutes from the

membership meetings on his website www.vote-

beasleyhay.com. AUD provided guidance and

encouragement in this difficult situation.

Operating Engineers Local 2: Despite a

Partial Victory Reformers Want An Audit

In Local 2, a 2,500-member union based in St.

Louis, Walter J. Russell and Pat Vaughan headed

up a "Committee for Change and Fairness" to

participate in the August 2005 officer elections.

They report that there had not been a contested

local election since the   1960's and that the

incumbent business manager had held the job for

23 years.

Neither Russell nor Vaughan ran for office, but

the committee which they sparked tried to enter

two candidates. However, too late for a substitute

to be nominated, one candidate was disqualified

because of a misdemeanor conviction many years

ago. And so the incumbent Business Manager

coasted in without opposition; although the oppo-

sition candidate who remained on the ballot

defeated the incumbent financial secretary, 284 to

203.

But the successful insurgent lasted only a month

as financial secretary. After taking office, he

demanded a "full and independent audit of Local

2's   finances."   When   the   local   refused,   he

resigned, explaining, "Without a complete and

independent audit it may be impossible to deter-

mine what actions and decisions were mine and

which were my predecessor's."

Meanwhile, as chairman of the Committee for

Fairness   and Change, Walter Russell   filed

protests before and after the election charging

that more than 25 percent of the membership had

not been informed of the nominations meeting

and that the meetings were held at a time when it

was difficult for working members to attend.

LEGAL BATTLES

AUD continues to struggle for union democracy

not only within unions but with the Department

of Labor and through the courts. In 2005, AUD

fought for members rights on a number of fronts,

having to do with enforcement and interpretation

of the Labor Management and Reporting and

Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the federal law that

protects union democracy. AUD board members

Alan Hyde, Michael Goldberg, Arthur Fox, and

Barbara Harvey made important and potentially

groundbreaking advances. Some of the legal

issues currently being pursued by AUD:

Federal Unions Must Let Their Members

Know Their Rights

After years of neglect, the US Department of

Labor   (DoL),   the   agency   responsible   for

LMRDA, announced in early 2005 that it will

adopt a regulation which directs unions of feder-

al employees to inform members of their demo-

cratic rights. A petition and brief prepared for

AUD by Arthur Fox and Michael Goldberg, AUD

board members, prompted the DoL to act. The

proposed rule   would incorporate into the stan-

dards of conduct for federal sector labor organi-

zations an obligation to inform their members of

such critical rights within the union as freedom of

speech, equal treatment, due process in union dis-

ciplinary proceedings, and the right to nominate

and vote for candidates for union office in fair

elections.

DoL decided to adopt a rule in response to the

2002 AUD petition following a decision of a fed-

eral appeals court (as a result of an AUD initia-

tive) which ruled that unions in private industry

have a continuing responsibility to comply with

LMRDA, section 105 (which provides that

unions must inform members of the provisions of

federal law which protect their rights in their

unions.)

Some unions complied with this provision, but

only once, when the law was first adopted. Since

Section 105 required enforcement by private suit

of union members, union members had to find

the resources of a dedicated attorney to take on

the tough battle in court. AUD recruited Andrew

Rotstein to represent three machinists pro Bono,

and the U.S. Appeals Court, Fourth Circuit in

Maryland, ruled in 2000 that a one-time compli-

ance was not enough, that unions had a continu-

ing disclosure responsibility.

Since federal employees are not protected by the

LMRDA, this decision had no direct immediate

effect on them. However, under the terms of the

Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), the DoL is

responsible for enforcing rights for federal union-

ists similar to those written into the LMRDA.

DoL is now preparing to publish the final regu-

lations that will incorporate the section 105 duty-

to-inform into the CSRA.

In the proposal by DoL notice would be given to

all new members of the labor organization; all

members would receive notice at least once every

three years through the union journal; and the

web sites, if any, of federal sector unions would

be required to contain a hyperlink either to the

union members' rights and officers' responsibili-

ties under the Civil Service Reform Act or to the

union's own accurate notice of the CSRA's stan-

dard of conduct.

AUD has endorsed these approaches but recom-

mended additional ones including a requirement

that the summary of members' rights and officers'

responsibilities be included as an appendix in the

Constitutions of the covered labor organizations.

The secret ballot and direct democracy at

stake

How should LMRDA differentiate between a

"local union" and an "intermediate" body?   In

2005, DoL requested public comments on this

question, "to determine whether additional rule-

making is necessary."   AUD responded with a

brief prepared by board member Alan Hyde with

a supplement by Herman Benson. Rank-and-file

members of the Carpenters union also submitted

a mass petition.

The background to the DoL request involves

efforts by some unions to evade requirements for

direct secret ballot elections. The LMRDA

requires local unions to elect local officers by

direct secret ballot vote of the membership. But

"intermediate" bodies are allowed to elect offi-

cers by vote of delegates. By merging locals into

"regional councils," top union leaders are able to

set up effectively authoritarian "intermediate"

bodies, thereby evading the requirements for

secret ballot elections of the council officers.

"Regional councils", which have been set up

across the country by the Carpenters union, take

on all of the power of the locals, including col-

lective bargaining. The local themselves become

little more than social clubs, in the view of AUD.

This effort increases the tendency toward   the

bureaucratization of the American labor move-

ment.

A group of Massachusetts Carpenters asked the

DoL to order their New England Regional

Council to elect its officers by direct vote of the

membership. In 2004, the DoL rejected their

appeal, ruling that, as an "intermediate" body, the

council could continue to elect officers by vote of

delegates.   In a 2-1 decision, a federal appeals

court upheld the DoL decision. However, the

court's two-person opinion was so narrowly

drawn,   and   so   skeptical   of   the   Labor

Department's rationale, that the DoL felt it nec-

essary to present the problem for pubic discus-

sion.

In its petition, rank and file carpenters raised their

concerns: "We once had local unions which were

important to us in our collective bargaining. This

is no longer the case ....We are not lawyers and so

we will no try to come up with any fancy legal

formula to correct the situation. All we can say is

that the Labor Department should come up with

a definition of local that returns the right of

Union Carpenters to a voice in running their own

affairs, especially the right to elect those officers

of the council who have taken over the power of

the locals."

In AUD's brief to the DoL, AUD board member

Alan Hyde proposes a line between organizations

which are engaged in collective bargaining and

those which are not. Union bodies which bargain

for their members are subject to the National

Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and should be

defined as "labor organizations." They should be

required to live up to the standards imposed on

local unions by the LMRDA. Only a union body

which is not engaged in collective bargaining and

consequently not under NLRB jurisdiction

should be properly defined as an "intermediate"

body.

The LMRDA provisions reflected Congress's

judgment in 1959, when the law was written, that

such non-bargaining intermediate bodies, partic-

ularly Teamster conferences, were   frequent

sources of corruption and autocracy in the union

movement and thus should not escape LMRDA.

The entire thrust of the relevant legislative histo-

ry is the need to regulate such intermediate bod-

ies.

Moreover, Congress, in the LMRDA, limited the

ability of higher levels of unions to deprive local

unions of autonomy and democracy. At the time

the law was written, intermediate bodies were

limited to union bodies that do not deal with

employers. Congress therefore had a much nar-

rower working definition of 'intermediate body'

than the DoL has assumed in its rejection of the

appeal. We await the DoL response to our brief

The rights of election observers

Patrick Ellis, running as an insurgent for presi-

dent of the 200,000-member Civil Service

Employees Association in New York State, was

defeated after receiving 37 percent of the votes.

He challenged the conduct of the election on the

ground, among others, that his election observers

had not been permitted to function. The DoL

agreed that the denial of his observers' rights was

a violation of federal law; but it dismissed his

complaint, ruling that, in the absence of other

demonstrated violations, the illegal restrictions

on observers could not have affected the election

outcome. It seemed like an odd ruling: if his

observers could not observe, how could they

detect other possible violations? However, a fed-

eral district judge upheld the decision, finding

that it was not arbitrary and capricious.

When the decision was challenged in federal

appeals court, AUD submitted an amicus brief,

written by Alan Hyde, in support of Ellis. Hyde

noted that it was established that a finding of any

violation in a union election created a presump-

tion that the election was invalid; the party

defending the validity of the election has the bur-

den of proof to overcome that presumption. In

Ellis's case, Hyde argues, the DoL did not meet

the burden of proof test.

In this case, it is undisputed that the statute was

violated.   The Supreme Court has stated that all

violations of the elections section presumptively

"may have affected" the results. The statute and

congressional purpose are satisfied, according to

Hyde "by ascribing to a proved violation... the

effect of establishing a prima facie case that the

violation 'may have affected' the outcome. This

effect may of course be met by evidence which

supports a finding that the violation did not affect

the result."....The burden of proof is on the party

who asserts that it did not (in this case the DoL).

The DoL also argued that because this was a

computerized election, ballots were cast and

counted electronically; therefore the presence or

absence of observers could have had no effect.

AUD's brief pointed out that the record revealed

at least one election breakdown seriously affect-

ed by the absence of observers.   Printed ballots

contained a serious printing error and on numer-

ous occasions, the software read the misaligned

box line of empty boxes as a vote, causing the

ballots to be read as containing more than one

vote. Ultimately, 19,860 - over half of all ballots

cast and more than double the margin of victory

in any of the races - could not be read accurately

by the scanning equipment employed. The union

solved this problem by "manual determination of

the intent of the voter." But as was true of all

aspects of ballot tallying, these determinations

could   not be   observed by   the   candidates'

observers. The majority of ballots was read by

humans, not machines. The DoL investigation of

this charge consisted of asking those who read

those ballots whether anything improper hap-

pened. Not surprisingly, this failed to turn up any

improprieties. We await the appeals court deci-

sion.

Fair Election Process

Barbara Harvey, AUD board member, established

the right to watch the casting and counting of bal-

lots during contract ratification referendums for

the Teamsters.   From now on,   it's no longer so

easy to manufacture a fraudulent result. A group

of 16 office workers voted on ratifying a supple-

ment   to   the   National   Master Automobile

Transporters   Agreement.   When   the   union

announced that the contract had been ratified by

vote of 5 to 3, Harvey's clients knew the

announced tally was false. In court, she produced

a sworn statement by five members that they had

voted against it. In the consent decree that fol-

lowed, her three clients won the right to observe

the process in any future contract referendum in

which they were eligible to vote. The effect of

this decision went far beyond the interests of the

group of 16 because it established the right to

observe in the ratification vote on the Master

agreement, which involved thousands of car

haulers.

Free Speech

In the United Auto Workers, a retiree and former

plant chair and former secretary treasurer of the

big Ford Local 600 ran a losing insurgent cam-

paign in 2002 against the local's incumbent finan-

cial secretary. During the election, the two rivals

indulged in a spitting and hitting fracas. After the

election, when the union stonewalled in schedul-

ing hearings on the insurgent's protest, he sought

to goad the officers into action by issuing a series

of handbills, which he distributed at plant gates,

excoriating them as a bunch of corrupt sellouts.

Obviously shaken, they filed criminal charges

against him with the police, after which he was

arrested, fingerprinted, and barred from commu-

nicating with the union officers by any means.

The charge: "malicious annoying by writing."

AUD Board member Barbara Harvey and the

local ACLU went into court and got the charges

dismissed. Now Harvey is back in court with a

civil suit against the local, charging violation of

King's free speech right under LMRDA Title I;

the complaint charges that the union   misused

criminal prosecution to suppress the right to dis-

sent. The police department is charged with mali-

cious prosecution.

OPERATIONS REPORT

Counseling and Intake: AUD counseled thou-

sands of workers from hundreds of unions in

nearly every state on their rights to free speech,

fair elections, due process, and a safe work envi-

ronment free of sexual and racial harassment.

Counseling took place on the phone, over the

internet, in person, and by mail.   Complicated

requests and complaints led us to formalize a new

intake and record keeping process. Problems

were handled in a variety of ways, including 1)

information and education done by phone, 2)

arranging for in-person meetings or workshops if

the contact was in a larger group, 3) the sending

of publications concerning the right to union

democracy, or 4) referrals to AUD cooperating

attorneys.

Workshops and Conferences: In 2005, AUD's

Executive Director conducted a day-long work-

shop for members of the executive board of

United Service Workers (USW) Local 777 in

New Jersey. She also gave a two hour seminar to

apprentice members of IBEW Local 3, and was a

guest presenter for the Union Semester program

at Queens College, and for a sociology class at

CUNY Graduate Center. AUD President Judith

Schneider gave a presentation on the LMRDA to

a group of flight attendants in Dallas. Kurt

Richwerger attended the TDU Convention in St.

Louis in November, and staffed a literature table

there. AUD advisory Board member Leon

Rosenblatt offered a workshop on the legal rights

of union members at the convention, and AUD

Board member Barbara Harvey also held a work-

shop. AUD founder Herman Benson spoke on

union democracy at a June New York Library

Guild event showcasing Benson's book Rebels,

Reformers and Racketeer" published in April.

Web Site: AUD's web site usage and activities

continued to expand, under the stewardship of

AUD's internet coordinator, Matt Noyes. In 2005

Association for Union Democracy

AUD ran a "best rank and file website" to which

35 groups submitted sites. AUD also designed an

improved "Request Help" web page This on-line

intake form will   help AUD staff to more deal

with help requests because it ensures we get the

information we need to be more responsive when

we talk to the person. The entire web site is now

being redesigned with a more sophisticated soft-

ware program which 1) allows web site users to

register, 2) allows for different levels of interac-

tive participation (forums, blogs, discussion

lists), 3) has faster posting of articles better link-

ages to other sites that we reference in our posts.

Use of the website continues to grow rapidly. In

December 2005, there were 105,812 "hits" to the

site and 22,769 "visits," compared with March

2005's 44,796 hits and 10,444 visits. Statistics

suggest that about one-third of the users are

repeat visitors. Our most popular web site pages

(outside of the home page) were 1) sample letters

for addressing various problems, 2) links to rank

and file websites, and 3) Union Democracy

Review excerpts, and 4) info about the Labor

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act's.

Bill of Rights. Finally, AUD's Yahoo group, in

which members join and discuss union issues

totaled 775 members by the end of the year corn-

pared with 595 in March, 2005.

Finances: AUD 's financial picture improved con-

siderably in 2005. In 2004, AUD ran a deficit of

slightly over $17,000. The unaudited 2005 fig-

ures show a slight surplus. AUD received more

than double the grant income it did   in 2004

($23,000 vs. $10,300). Additional revenue came

from house parties, yielding over $4,000 com-

pared with $500 in 2004. Expenditures were sig-

nificantly less, as in 2004, the staff transition

necessitated the presence of the equivalent of

three full-time staff for much of the year. In 2005,

there were only two full-time staff through

October. AUD carried one paid staff person in

November and December. In 2006, Judith

Schneider is expected to become the paid

Executive Director.

www.uniondemocracy.org

Publications:. AUD had published Secretary-

Treasurer Herman Benson's Rebels, Reformers

and Racketeers in 2005. A trial edition of 300

copies quickly sold out, leading AUD to publish

a second edition. AUD finished a fourth printing

of Democratic Rights for Union Members . In

early 2006, two more bound volumes of Union

Democracy Review (UDR) will be available, for

years 1997-2005. AUD printed, at the request

of its associate membership, gummed stickers

with the phrase "Clean up our union with

democracy". The stickers are very popular. We

issued a revised version of our brochure "The

Right to Union Democracy".

Fundraising: This year AUD employed a new

fundraising tool familiar to other small not-for-

profits - house parties, One in September, host-

ed by AUD advisory board member Leon

Rosenblatt, proved extremely successful, with

over $3,000 generated in contributions. AUD

plans more house parties in 2006.

Grant writing: AUD submitted numerous grant

proposals in 2005, in contrast to the recent past,

but so far only two were successful. A grant of

$10,000 from the North Star Fund for general

operating expenses was received in January. In

July, a general support grant letter of award of

$10,000 was received from the Stern Family

Fund. For its 2006 grant program,

Newsletters: AUD published six issues of both

UDR and the $100 Plus Club News. In 2004,

staff transition necessitated a less demanding

.

publication schedule (4 UDR and 2 $100 Plus

Club News). We published two issues of The

Clarion, a special publication for AUD sup-

porters who contribute $1,000 or more per year.