Reporting in progress meetings Reporter So the board members are present accounted for I'd like to start by the central regions of the United States
right all
right okay. first started my business. Are there any citizens wishing to address the board on the agenda? Agenda was passed out today. Is there anybody who wants to specifically address the board on the agenda items?
Hearing none, we'll move forward. Next up approval of the agenda. So moved. Second. Any opposed? Moving forward. Next approval of the DRC FA meeting minutes of September 28 2023. We have a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Second. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Hi. The boats. Move on. Next discussion an update on efficiency agreement with event visa unions presented by Mr. Schroeder.
Good morning, members of the board Mr. Director lanes you have so there is an agreement between six, five or six different trade unions and the authority that goes back to 2013. I know, Mr. Chair, you're familiar with this agreement, and it's a deficiency agreement to help resolve jurisdictional disputes. And we do have one that is currently existing between two of the event based unions and talked to several board members about this. There's a dispute resolution clause in the agreement that calls for a Trade Council to be convened. That would include someone from the DRC, FA and all of the participating unions to the agreement. When push comes to shove this agreement, just portion of the agreement hasn't really been implemented. The different members don't want to sit in judgment of each other when there's this type. of dispute. So that's just not going to work. I guess the current dispute may go to arbitration. There's been a suggestion of Michigan Employment Relations Commission. Historically, I'm told that going back a number of years this was a major problem leading to stoppages and major disputes and disagreement has solved a lot. But for now, we have a portion of this agreement which isn't working, which is the dispute resolution clause, so the agreement automatically renews every April and in order to amend the agreement change the agreement or even any agreement. There needs to be 90 days notice by one of the parties, so any one of the parties can trigger a renegotiation or termination of this agreement. I wouldn't recommend termination. I think it's good to have this agreement. And but I think there needs to be we need to revisit some of the roles responsibilities. We do have labor counsel representing the authority on this brand in foreign EA, who was excellent attorneys doing an excellent job. But with respect to this agreement, I think that's an issue that we need to look at. I did talk to board members, I know that there may be some individuals here who want to address the board on this, but I'll leave that up to the to the board.
We just have I mean, I'm comfortable moving forward with having that discussion now. Okay. So there's a My understanding is a member of the carpenters you'd like to be heard on this particular topic?
Yes, thank you Chair millenarian board members for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mike Jackson, Jr. and I'm here to speak on behalf of the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters and before anything else, I would like to applaud the Board for their leadership. And guiding Huntington place through a building addition and the creation of hotels to help this place thrive as an integral part of the revitalization of not just Detroit, but Southeast Michigan are grateful for the effort that's gone into attracting and retaining new shows that create work for our members and the goal here today, as for us to be seen as a valued partner to you and those efforts. That's why the carpenters have invested heavily across the state to build three training centers. That includes curriculum for the tradeshow industry, not just for Detroit, but across the state. We're trying to ensure that the next generation of skilled trades are prepared to deliver not only for the employers but for your customers and to have careers instead of just jobs. And that's why we've partnered with other trades to adopt and promote training and safety standards. We do endeavor to perform our work efficiently and deliver high customer satisfaction. Partnerships is why we are also a repeat customer of Huntington place and a donor supporter of popular projects here including the Hubert PASI mural and a Scott hocking sculpture. I'm here today to address an issue that if left unaddressed, will become an obstacle to all those positive efforts. And unfortunately, I'm here to sound an alarm that the current general manager is constantly mismanaging labor relations in this facility. Now I'm typically reluctant to call on anybody by name ever but unfortunately, it's become necessary After many failed attempts to resolve issues behind the scenes. Since Karen has taken the reins of ASM, we've seen labor harmony take a clear step backward and worse, a new reputation begins to take hold that customers can expect a bad labor experience when inside Huntington place instead of proactively fulfilling her responsibility to head off jurisdiction disputes, she routinely routinely tells the trades to just work it out on our own. Once the works awarded, she steps in and changes the award to ASM financial benefit. This is a clear conflict of interest as they have some claims the authority to reassign jurisdiction under the efficiency agreement and consistently makes reassignments based on what's best for their bottom line instead of what's best for the customer, based on past practice jurisdiction established by the efficiency agreement. To give you example, its past practice and established jurisdiction for decades carpenters installed pipe and drape and an attempt to better serve Huntingtons customers we have through these partnerships I talked about that when there's less than four hour minimums or no other need for carpenters. We've always generously worked with the former general managers to allow other trades to perform these jurisdictions because it provides a better client experience. We believe in working together. She stated to me in the past that this process needed to be officially created. I didn't think it was necessary, but she made a good point and I wanted a new partnership. They wanted to bring into Meachum car auction show and new shows that have never been to this facility to help the facility get back on his feet after the pandemic that crippled most people in this industry. So we agreed to it. Now this MOU has been weaponized against us at Kevin's discretion ASM has begun asserting that they effectively have the right against all jurisdiction past practice a contractor wants to install pipe and drape under the guise of new terminology. First, they claim jurisdiction of pipe and drape to touch the stage then to all pipe and drape found in performance areas which is an undefined term that effectively means any show or any event. And now she's trying to change the very definition of pipe and drape and attempt to limit our jurisdiction expand that of the one trade she controls and ultimately as amended facility profits. So let me be clear, there's only one of the five trades that is directly employed by ASM. When she employs them controls the facility change the jurisdiction awards and no direction a profit from and then controls the dispute and relief process. It's a conflict. That doesn't matter if the work belongs to the carpenters by right or if an award by an experienced GC who already pre planned the labor calls. It doesn't matter if carpenters would be able to complete the work faster or cheaper. for Huntington's customers. It only matters to add some claims to work to take the profit to attain an annual revenue bonus. We have followed Karen's directive to address these issues privately but have shown but have not been shown the same courtesy as by ASM employees as they invite conflict in front of customers. Worse, Karen has baited and targeted our steward insisting without merit that he'd be removed on at least two separate occasions. Once when our steward correctly asserted our jurisdiction off of the show floor and another time when he wasn't even in the building at the time of the alleged dispute. This behavior has gone has continued to be unabated and she looks for every opportunity to set us up as unreasonable and vilified. When in reality we have been the ones to willing to compromise our own position for the benefits of Huntingtons customers in the face of these attacks on our work our people, we have to stand up for ourselves and that's why I'm here today. This was a real problem. And before I can clean I'd like to offer a solution for your consideration. It's long past time to reopen the efficiency agreement that we heard about a minute ago. The EAA expired in 2018. It needs to be updated so there's clarity around the issue of the jurisdiction inside the facility. And a fair process put in place to resolve disputes before they impact the client that doesn't rely wholly on the determination of ASM and a self interest party. We stand ready to work in good faith with our partner in trades and you to update this critical agreement. Now's the time to correct this broken process and the carpenters trust the will of the board to navigate this process moving forward with a bright future ahead of us. I do appreciate the time to be here today. And if there's any questions, I'm willing to take those but thank you.
Thank you Mr. Jackson.
Massive question of just isn't that just from from protocol? Are we able to ask questions during this or is this more like open comments?
I think Director Lane have this placed on the agenda for this specific purpose as opposed to and I also want to point out this is an efficiency agreement. It's not a CBA collective bargaining agreement. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable having a collective bargaining dispute in a meeting like this, but this is a multi party agreement. And we're a public agency. So that's how I feel we proceed
through the Chair if I may. I'm not interested in a collective bargaining dispute. Again they will the carpenters trust the will of the board to step in for the right reasons, not just for all the trades, but for the for this facility itself.
Whistling Yeah. And just for the board when I gotten the letter and spoke to Mr. Jackson, it because we are a party. We are a party to this, like it's a trade and the board. Otherwise, you know, like we're in this to like we have like a fiduciary responsibility to ask him for some relief. So I thought, well, I don't know anything about it. I call it fully support. Yeah. And so if we allowed him just to come and talk in public, we wouldn't be able to have this. So at least we could have this on. My hope is we have some action plan. Because here's the way it's February. That was my thoughts. So yeah,
I guess I understand. So basically, what you're detailing in terms of the issues that that you're saying that you've experienced have been since February, because the agreement prior but there there weren't prior to February because the agreement was in effect, you didn't have these issues that accurate.
This goes back to probably the last quarter of 21.
But the agreement was in place at that time. The agreement is still in place. It's just expired.
Yeah, trying to arbitrate it according the rules and there's no process that works for them since February sitting here with nobody to listen.
Got it. But the agreement. I guess I've just wanted to make clear. You were having these issues while the agreement was still an act it active, right? Yes, yes. So the agreement didn't necessarily solve the agreement is still I'm fully supportive of them and I guess it's still lagging regions over
a year. The agreement is still active. It was a five year agreement. Until 2018. But it automatically renews every year. And by the end of this year, we have to trigger the portion of the agreement to renegotiate.
Okay, so So are you asking that we look at certain terms of the agreement because it sounds like at the heart you're dealing with some issues. And yes, we can fix the agreement. But if the agreement doesn't necessarily fix your issues, what can we do to actually also like get at the heart of the issues that you're experienced?
Yeah. So what I think you could do is I can explain to what I believe on the carpenter side what the issues are and that's that we would probably need some more defined lines of jurisdiction in there. And again, I'm not here to tell you what those are.
So you're saying strengthen the agreement and have some stronger guardrails to ensure that we don't have the same kind of questions as you experiencing since 21.
Yes, exactly. And I think again, we would trust the will of this board to look at that and say, Well, this looks efficient, and this makes sense. And, as counsel had mentioned earlier, the continual process or the the current process of resolution doesn't work. It's never been used. It has to be unanimous agreement. When two trades are feuding any two traits. And yeah,
this one is a lot more clarification I found in reading into this. So there are only that might have to be looked at to only means for them to get a resolution when there is a dispute of the four traits teamsters carpenters 58 and state chanters for home. So right now, it's the state chants and carpenters disputing their contract says that the IBEW Local 58. And and the teamsters have to form a committee and has to decide who's right who's wrong without they don't want to do that the trees don't want to pick amongst themselves. So I think that process is flawed. I don't think nobody wants to be. So I think it's incumbent in that agreement that we find something that is fair to all parties, that would work. I mean, that's the whole point of as I'm sure Jeff would speak to mediation and arbitration so I was hoping that we can help them because they are not going to no one's ever come to the call. I mean, they're not doing it.
Yeah, that's fair. I would say it's, I don't think it's I can't speak to the veracity of all of your allegations. With great respect, Mr. Jackson Jr. I do think though, that it's these things aren't going to work themselves out. Labor harmony is critically important to the operation of this building. The board and our men needs to know needs to needs to take the role of leadership in this position. If
you just lost your mind, because you might not
thin hair on that. Hello.
You got to watch it. I can
make a suggestion. I don't know if this fixes anything. So I'm just trying to help move this through. Would it be helpful because this board has, I think, a lot of talent. We have a former general manager that you said always a resolved thing. So I mean, there's past practices that this can be worked out. We have a mediator by law by look by trade here. We have a lawyer that does mediation and then of course, we have Rick who understands the trades in itself. Maybe we should have Rick and Jeff and Jeff, our lawyer I don't know the chair would like to be but we need to formulate something here to help create the process where everybody can put down what they need in a contract. Because I'm certain if you all sit at a table, you're not going to come up with the agreement either. Agreed. So I think we need to help them and I know you have a problem, but I don't think you want that problem solve. You want the big picture where it's understood. And if this conversation happens, that conversation would be the big picture. It will resolve your dispute since February. That seems like a good resolve. I mean, we need to figure out who is that helpful? Error. You know, I can't see us having your attorney and our attorney and then they gotta go back. Things that you have a lot of down here they can
Yeah, so So I don't know how counsel feels on our suggestion for for the board to just conclude the EA it could avoid potential arbitrations, which of course we're still willing to go to, but that that's our ask. And our our other Ask is that ASM stops reaching in after a contractor already made an award and steers it another direction and we don't even we don't have an opportunity to have the discussion until it's over. And then we get an aroma and argue about why it already happened.
Yeah. How is it normally done or what's the usual processes usually are? And I don't know I mean, listen I'm happy to help if we can. But also, best thing caught up to her mentioned is that I appreciate everything you're saying and we recognize there may be there may be a problem. But I guess without hearing from both sides and seeing everything I'm not going to jump to any conclusions as to who's at fault. Maybe it's our fault as the board for not having reviewed this agreement and corrected it or come up with a more efficient way of doing it or, or the way it should be done. But I'd like to hear from some of the experts. You may Mr. Schroeder on what is it for us to inject ourselves into actually taking on another role and doing this or it's how is it usually done? I don't I don't personally I don't know anything about it. So but I'm happy to help. See,
the public world do you have or not? The way this is set up? Is the management company is responsible for managing the day to day operations equity and the managing the day to day operations and dealing with these issues. And and again, I think that if the if there's an issue to expedite the situation, management should step in, make a decision. If it's the right decision. There'll be held up if it's the wrong decision. You know, it can be arbitrated, but it's it's it's I think that that needs, I mean that that's how it should work. And then if if it's not working appropriately, you know, the board can appeal. I mean, the the aggrieved party could appeal.
So in that perfect world, and it sounds like that's how it should go. But if there's no no mechanism to arbitrate, because the way it's written, which is slide, they don't want to the members don't want to choose amongst himself that in itself. I think if you fix that component, I think any future disputes that might arise on either portion, there's a real mechanism to find a willingness to collaborate and find a resolution. They don't have that. I mean, I'm certain he doesn't want to be here. He's probably just frustrated. We're now thrown into it because if they had a workable Resolution Center process, they would use it. But even if we did nothing, they're still leave here with no way to resolve it. And I think they're saying to us what is the best practical way because what we have written won't resolve this.
So chaired millenary answered it, you know very well, but you know, our experience is the manager of the contractor weeks in advance has already prepared to manage the show and, and make the awards. And then that's, that's changed in the 11th hour. So our perception of the way we used to work is if a trade wasn't happy with the way that happened, they could try to work it out among the stewards, which 99% of time used to work. And then if that didn't work out, then they had a relief process that they would go through through the through the grievance and we're being the night that we just this Monday, we had a situation where the contractor called me to say I'm sending home carpenters with a four hour call that I've had slated for weeks to come in and they're told they're not doing it.
So it's more about that situation to kind of give us a sense of of so they were it was a show, right. And a contractor said I had carpenters all set to go, was it. They were told that they needed to bring in another trade instead of carpenters. Yes. And what other trade was that it was it okay. Yeah, they're told they had to work with IATSE and wasn't Huntington place but that made that decision ASM I was told it was okay. Um, I appreciate that. I don't I think we also need to give give ASM an opportunity to say something Sure.
Mr. Tyrell, excuse me.
All right, Mr. Tara.
Thank you. Thank you. I know this has been frustrating for Mr. Jackson and his team for a while and I just want first the board to know that ASM has been dealing with union issues and working with unions very well for years and years and, and my own experience coming in here has been to really build a great cohesive environment with our business agents with our stewards. There has been this one mitigating piece that we understand is frustrating for the carpenters, but we've been using the tools we have the way the efficiency greement is it's kind of an umbrella agreement. So so the carpenters do have a separate collective bargaining agreement. With the contractors, but the contractors are not signatory on the efficiency of agreement on the efficiency memorandum. So that's a tool that we have to use when when it's called into question so so I think there's just different components though. We also would love to see changed. We have a meeting setup for November 10. With all the business agents, and the idea was from our last meeting with all the business agents, there was the concern. There was the concern about time commitment, you know, because it's written that we would have to meet once a month, there was a concern about you know, speaking out against one or another unions, you know, jurisdiction that kind of thing. So the idea was to come back together with all the business agents and and talk about changing the language so that we can actually still use the the, you know, create a council that all the business agents feel would be equitable and fair, and make sure that there are contractors on the on the council, that there are the business agent representatives and then that there are one or two representatives on behalf of the DRC FA so that it truly is a full council. And and if they don't agree if the council doesn't agree, then it then it would go to arbitration, but it could go to mediation first and then arbitration. I think those are the things we want to really talk to the group about to decide what their comfort level is. Because we really want to resolve this. It's just It's old language. It's, you know, it's an umbrella policy on top of collective bargaining. So it's just you know, it's more complicated than then you would wish for for any venue having to work through this but, but it is it's there and we try and abide by all of the notations and all of the agreements as best we can. And we, we do our best to be fair to all of our, all of our business agents, all of our unions with respect to that.
So hey, thank you for explaining that. My next question, Mr. Schroeder. What's the next step? What do we need to do to get an agreement that works? How do we go? Oh, well,
you have I'll just give you what your choices are. Choices are status quo, don't touch it. Although one of the signatories to this agreement can force a change give direction to sit and convene meetings? All parties would have to agree to a change. So that would have to happen before the end of this year. All parties meaning all signatories to the agreement would have to change who the so they are
electrician state champion iron workers. All right, but he said, All right. So I can tell you that Yeah. What do you got agreement together was an interesting labor. A lot of running around carving things out and certain groups were more willing I mean, pregnant, the carpenters. Hey, stagehands were the most willing to compromise and the trades is, you know, we're less willing to compromise on various things for various reasons and we want to protect their own self interest. They don't want to be handcuffed by by laws and it's vague on purpose. You know, a clarity puts people in a difficult position. And so part of the challenge we've got Is there is there is some, some ambiguity, which allows for some latitude by different groups to work it out. People are coming ability to work it out, and it's a lot smoother and disputes and challenges and it makes it even harder.
I do have a comment. So we do have our other party that's in dispute here as well. I don't know if the board would allow the other party that is in dispute to have a chance to speak as well. But I don't know if that's even appropriate. But I mean, there was, you know, an attempt I think from the carpenters say, Hey, can we can we get Can we can we get the board to make a decision on this?
I have. I'm comfortable with it. I consider Joe a friend. But
I've got a question of you first, but when there has been a dis so when there's a dispute, then a decision is made correct in somebody gets awarded the job is my understanding.
Well, there's typically the dispute after a contractor who is has matured and been a part of this process for decades made an award to the carpenters and then it's changed that's when a dispute typically happens. And that's that's the biggest issue I have. We're not again, is that
dispute ever been successful, at least in your experience as far as it reverting back in the favor of the carpenters? The only
time only one time I can think it was successful and that's when the general contractor basically stood their ground on the show floor and said enough we're going to continue moving forward because we're halfway done installing everything, let it be, and we continue to do it.
So I don't think the intent or at least I didn't put the sign here at the intent we would resolve it. Or if say you're right, you're right. You're right. I mean, I don't think this was the forum. I think you just want to bring this forward in my mind. What I have concerns or I lose confidence in us kicking the can is I hear there's a meeting November 10. But this has been nine months what why did it take nine months and why now you know, this should have happened in February was the complaint. March went by, you know, April went by, you know, June was slow. I mean, there's plenty of time. And this shouldn't be here. Number one. This should have been resolved nine months. So now we're here and this contract no matter what happens, it has to be open. I don't even think it's an option for anybody because the arbitration portion of this will never work. And we're a party to this. I don't care how you get in the room and you define your scope of work has been working very fine. With some disputes. You always have disputes in the world. I mean, I argue with my husband all the time, I still a little like but you know, when you get to a point where you need somebody with a fair mind, like, what look at this or Jeff or Claude and say, here's what I think might work and you find that collaborating tool appears we're missing that here. So I would just say we need to not try to decide who's right or who's wrong. You're just asking for somebody to listen so that we can resolve this we can all work in harmony together in a fair way. I don't think Well, no, I think that's why we're asking the questions that we're asking. So to figure out why don't we just figure out what that arbitration is going to be if they're going to meet that maybe we just have our lawyer and you somebody on our board be a part of this because I'm afraid they just all get in the room, and they're gonna end up not really getting anything anyways. Right. So the thing has to help we are a member of that agreement. So whether as a representative you are you are you somebody that's a representative should be a part of this conversation help push it along, when you have these, you know, friendly disputes. There's got to be a tiebreaker
can we muster it was probably my fault because I interrupted him but can we shoulder finish with the options because I want to know what the options are, from at least the standpoint of what we can get
a status quo convened meetings to make changes terminate the agreement in its entirety. I mean, those are the things in the big picture. I do agree. If we're going to sit and try to make changes to this. I do think one or two board members or a subcommittee should be involved. Because, you know, as a lawyer, I don't want to get too far down the road negotiating with without someone from the board being involved in knowing what's going on.
I think we should I think we have an obligation to help the process so we can work efficiently, efficiently here. Whether the agreement can be reached. That'd be great. If at the end of the day, all the conversation leads to we can't dissolve it. But I don't think this was the forum to try to point fingers who didn't wait or why I just think you want us to get to the next place.
Yeah, I'm asking to fix broken process. Yes. And the November 10 meeting. We've done that several times. And we'll continue to do that. But
so boiling this down, Mr. Jackson. Is it fair to say that you're open to continuing the process, but you question whether or not you're getting a fair shake here, that you feel that the rulings typically go against you, regardless of whether or not, you know, you've got precedents of performing that work?
Yes, our number one intention is to be a partner. But yes, every time it's been ruled against us and so,
it thank you. So if if there was, if the ASM global General Manager received some assistance from the board, in the process of making some of these decisions, like as mentioned, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Abood that might help assuage your concerns that maybe you aren't. The rulings were constantly going against you.
Yes, I'm looking for some kind of a different process since last quarter of 21. It's been it's been status quo.
So what I'd like to suggest to my trusted colleagues here is that we need in a smaller group with the general manager of ASM and and maybe the leadership of ASM global to put together a panel of us look at the current situation. And so we're all familiar with with what the current dispute into the practice of it, then meet with the parties and then make a decision. I for me when I was in this position, for me when I was in this position, I would always say, Alright, you got to make the decision. Here's the decision. If I'm right, we'll move forward. If I'm wrong. I'll pull out my wallet and I'll lose arbitration. It is what it is, but we have to make you have to keep it moving. And I think that if if again if you don't feel you're receiving justice, and again, you know, I will I will say that I don't know if you are you're not you very very well maybe, you know, I've been an ice hockey referee since I was 13 years old. Sometimes the team gets six penalties in a row because they deserve it. So you so it's possible that, you know, maybe this is just unfortunately, the jurisdictional boundary isn't going your way and but I think that if you feel that way, I want to make sure that perception is is dealt with, and I think that if we partner, you know, or if we aid in the process, and then we can make sure that it's it's not that it stays fair in for everyone's opinion. It may it may very well still be fair right now, I want to be clear that not saying it's an unfair practice, but you brought a dispute. The carpenters union is incredibly important partner here and I think that we need labor harmony, no matter what I mean this facility. Success relate are the facilities success is going to rely on our ability to have a successful labor work in this building. We have a lot of different workers here and and the ability to parcel out the jurisdictions appropriately can be the difference between success and failing over show. So that I think is critically important so that it's come to us. It's clearly we are we are on our bound to help deal with the problem because it doesn't seem like it's going to fix itself.
So it sounds like it sounds like convening a meeting with somebody from the board, or multiple people from the board. I just wanted to hear from the stage chance that they're in agreement that they're okay with convening that meeting. I wanted to hear from the stagehands that they are also an agreement because this is going to affect them as well. If that we're going to institute a process to resolve this
I'm gonna give Joe the podium Thank you so much for your time.
into to Rick's point like teamsters aren't here and know. At the end of the day, I don't think it's an option whether you want to have a meeting, we got to fix the flaw in mediation process. What comes out of that if they want to alter clarity, but clearly every it's to everybody's benefit to fix this because today it's state Shannon carpenters tomorrow might be Teamsters, and maybe local, it's gonna still be a problem. But I would assume if you have a process where people listen, I mean no trade has gone on rule against another trade no matter what you're gonna start lobbying and it becomes political. I'm assuming that when you have these disputes is this before us once a reasonable explanation is resolved? That kind of defines the lines without having to find the line generally, you've already been ruled on you already have an understanding, but it doesn't appear these understandings are happening and this line keeps moving, and that's creating conflict. So I just think we have to find a better process for arbitrating. If we don't do anything else in the contract. If we don't change a thing. The process arbitrator needs to be there'll be another nine months when someone else has a
question for Corporation Counsel through the chair. If we were just to come up with an MOU to address this dispute, could we just do that?
We could but it would mean this particular dispute in this particular dispute. Well then both parties would have to agree. Right. And I mean, in that case, we're acting like a mediator. And I suppose we could do that, as opposed to amending the agreement.
Well, I'm just saying once we open the agreement, it could take a long time to get Yes. I think Claude had mentioned that trying to get all five trades to agree to that could take some time and in this might not be able to hit we might need to move this faster.
I think though, I just just wake up and say we make a decision on a jurisdiction. Well, it's hard, easy to live with it or fight it. Okay. And if they fight it, they can go to arbitration. And then you know, a labor dispute person will be able to say, No, I disagree with that or whatever. I mean, at some point there's a there's a Court of Appeal and, and, you know, historically the grieving party will get satisfaction or they won't know left to live with it. Mr. Miller.
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to start out by saying that the stage is I personally have the ultimate respect for Mr. Jackson. He and I met several times in private to work this out. And we both come to the conclusion respectfully, that as far as I'm concerned, the stagehands will be amenable to a third party solutions, such as what you've proposed this morning. We have both done quite a bit of work to resolve it. And without any personal inflections we're unable to do so. I respect the board's opinion on it. In a way they're gonna take Mr. Jackson for bringing this up today. So we would certainly be amenable to moving forward along the lines of what you're proposing. Thank you.
I think we have a responsibility. I have these precious portraits. We've all worked with them. We know them. They're reasonable. These disputes happen every day in the industry. This is not uncommon. But there has to be a resolution and it has to be fair, something that's going to be fair for all parties. And that's all I think they're really asking for. Is that clarity for step system to be in place? So like, Could we have Rick and you and I don't have left this or job because of his experience, but we should too, your point, create something to hear it to try to resolve the immediate issue but then create what is the go forward process and start there with the rest of the trades. And if the other trades come up with other issues they want to address now's the time just kind of start with one issue. And then it kind of just evolves in other parts of the contract. Because if you don't fix it, then just cancel it. I mean, I know it would be problematic too, but it's problematic here. But the goal is to fix it.
All right. Any further discussion on this particular man?
Do we need a motion? Do we just yeah, just do we need to put dates down? Do we, what's the next step?
I says you want to action? I recommend a motion where we can, you know, record, record it and verify it. So we would have to have that you know and on the record to give direction
I'd like to make a motion that we convene a noble we call it a board or we call it a committee resolution committee. I make a motion to make that the board established a resolution committee to resolve this matter that's been brought before us for the efficiency agreement dispute by what is one dispute or jurisdictional disputes. Why are disputes jurisdictional disputes by Wednesday,
here's our timeline on this.
I wasn't gonna put a timeline in it, but I would write to the next board meeting prior to the next board meeting. Perfect.
I support that right we have a motion and the second discussion. Call for a vote. Oh, sorry,
who's on the board who was on the committee?
I it's just myself Jeff and Mr. Cruz in this Alex's. Okay. There we go. Okay.
Need to read it back to us, Mr. Schroeder.
So the motion is to establish a resolution committee for jurisdictional disputes. And they will have they will meet prior to the next board meeting. The committee will consist of Chairman Molinari, Director preusse and director Abood and the the resolution committee will meet report back at the next board meeting.
Well, all those in favor Aye. Any opposed? eyes have like to now consider a motion to approve closed session pursuant to MCL 15.268 to discuss attorney client privilege material. so moved second. All in favor. All right. recording stopped recording. Jeff said Yeah, yeah.
What's it? Roll call? Yes, we do need a roll call. So we'll start with Director of booty votes. Yes. Director Wiley. Yes. Director preusse. Yes. Director lane. Yes. Chairman millenary. Yes.
We're in closed session, closed session. recording stopped
Chairman's just less than just somebody about
probably
I will only be moving off signing checks. Some discussions I'm trying to get going. Okay, so I think this might be the last time yay. Nice contract. Was there a maintenance contract? I don't. Okay,
trying to get the cameras any questions?
I appreciate you don't miss anything. YEAH.
Hey, what's up? You don't hear if at all, I was just waiting to see if it came back. If they're back in the meeting. I was just leaving it there. Yeah, I was just gonna let it sit there. I'm gonna I know they're not there and it's not running yet. But they everyone can see here. Oh, yeah, yeah, cuz I don't have my camera. Okay, I'll just turn it off. I didn't think it was
