Challenge To SEIU 1021 Officials By Rank and File Leaders Against Concession Bargaining

A less perfect union and SEIU Stern operative Josie Mooney
A less perfect union
http://www.sfbg.com/print/2008/04/09/less-perfect-union?page=0%2C3

By admin
Created 04/08/2008 - 11:36pm
At a time when organized labor is slipping, SEIU's national leaders are wasting their resources trying to discredit Sal Rosselli

jesse(at)sfbg.com [1]

By nearly every measure, the Service Employees International Union has become a juggernaut. As the rest of organized labor has seen its share of the American workforce continue to dwindle, SEIU has brought in some 800,000 new dues-paying members in recent years. With the Democratic Party taking over Congress in 2006, the 1.9 million-member organization, rich with campaign funds, wields enormous political clout, and it will only become more formidable if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama wins the White House in November.

But all is not well inside the labor giant. Andy Stern, the union's president, has pushed hard for merging and consolidating local chapters into larger operations — and many SEIU members, especially here on the West Coast, say that's turning the union into a top-down autocracy in which Stern loyalists wield undue influence and meddling officials from Washington, DC squelch dissent.

And now, the Guardian has learned, Stern operatives are using their money and organizing clout in a hard-hitting campaign — not to force an employer to the table or to toss out an anti-union politician, but to discredit another labor leader.

The campaign is part of a bruising power struggle between Stern and dissident local leader Sal Rosselli, who runs the Oakland-based SEIU affiliate United Health Care Workers West. In the past few months, union insiders say, SEIU officials, including a senior assistant to Stern, set up what one leader called a "skunk team" to undermine Rosselli's efforts at winning key union delegate elections. At one point, the team — which involved a political consulting firm linked to big downtown businesses — discussed an opposition research file compiled on Rosselli by a health-care giant his union was fighting

And leading up to the delegate elections last month, SEIU staffers worked to promote Stern-supporting candidates, possibly in violation of union rules, while actively discouraging other union employees from campaigning. That's led to a formal complaint alleging improper involvement by Stern's staff in a local union election.

EMERGING TENSIONS

In 2005, Thomas Dewar went to work as a press secretary at Local 790, formerly SEIU's biggest San Francisco outlet, which represented approximately 30,000 workers, most of them public employees. Local 790 was among the most politically progressive union shops in the country, supporting left-leaning candidates for office and progressive causes like public power. In early 2007, Andy Stern initiated a merger of 790 with nine other regional locals. The move was part of a larger consolidation in the state that saw the number of California union affiliates reduced by nearly half.

The new Northern California superlocal was dubbed 1021, as in "10 to one." Local 1021 has continued 790's liberal activism. But right after the merger was finalized, Dewar and other sources told the Guardian, the atmosphere around the union changed for the worse.

"A lot of members had anxiety," Dewar recounted. Most troubling, he said, was the insertion of Stern appointees into leadership positions, including current president Damita Davis-Howard. "Members were upset. They saw co-workers whom they had elected unilaterally removed by a guy in DC and replaced by his handpicked appointments."

Ed Kinchley, a Local 1021 member who was appointed by Stern to the local's executive board after the consolidation, shared Dewar's memory of the tensions. "You had 10 different locals with 10 different ways of doing things. It's difficult to merge all of that. A lot of people who had been elected to leadership positions were removed."

Dewar told us he struggled to adjust to his new working environment. But after his initial misgivings, he said he devoted himself to backing Stern's vision for the combined local: "We were told over and over that change is hard. So I decided to give it an honest shot." Dewar said he worked to get good press for 1021 and to build Davis-Howard's profile.

But early this year, tensions between Rosselli and Stern flared — and according to Dewar, top staffers at 1021 began to focus more and more of their attention on the feud.

"They were freaking out about Sal," he said.

Enraged at what he considered International meddling in the affairs of his Oakland-based local, United Healthcare Workers West, Rosselli resigned from SEIU's executive committee in early February. He also began championing a "Platform for Change" to be voted on at the upcoming SEIU convention in June. Among other things, the Rosselli-backed slate of reforms would give local union outlets more say in proposed mergers and collective bargaining agreements. The platform, if approved, would also scrap the current delegate system for electing International officials and replace it with a one-member, one-vote structure.

According to Dewar's account and to evidence obtained by the Guardian, top SEIU officials have been working overtime to counter Rosselli — even pushing the boundaries of the union's own rules and colluding with political consultants who have often opposed organized labor.

'THE ANTI-CHRIST'

In early March, Dewar said that in early March, Josie Mooney, a former Local 790 president who is now a top assistant to Stern, approached him about joining what she characterized as a "skunk team that Andy and I are putting together." Dewar recalls Mooney telling him that the purpose of the team was to counter Rosselli's increasing popularity with the rank and file, and to sink Rosselli's platform for the convention.

Dewar told us that Mooney asked him to join the skunk team during a brunch meeting at the Fog City Diner in early March. An e-mail exchange he shared with us shows that he and Mooney discussed having brunch at the diner on March 1.

Mooney did not return numerous calls for comment and, through an SEIU spokesperson, she declined to speak for this article. But Dewar told us Mooney promised him at the brunch that his assistance in her efforts would win him positive attention from Stern. The team, she reportedly told him, was directly authorized by Stern and "that resources would not be a problem."

Dewar said he vacillated about joining the team, torn about aiding what he considered to be an internal union smear squad. "In 1021, we're conditioned to think that Sal Rosselli is the anti-Christ," Dewar told us. "But even still, he was still a part of the same union." A March 4 e-mail from Mooney's SEIU e-mail account to Dewar shows her urging Dewar to make up his mind: "You have to give me your commitment. I am (as we speak) selling you at the highest levels. Don't blow that :)."

Dewar eventually agreed to join Mooney, Tom DeBruin — an elected vice president of SEIU International — and someone Dewar said Mooney referred to as the team's "silent partner" for a dinner meeting.

E-mails from Mooney and other attendees show that the meeting took place March 10 at Oliveto Restaurant in Oakland.

Mooney's "silent partner" turned out to be Mark Mosher, of the enormously successful San Francisco consulting firm, Barnes, Mosher, Whitehurst, Lauter, and Partners (BMWL). John Whitehurst, another of the firm's partners, also attended the dinner.

BMWL has worked for the SEIU since 2001. But its client roster also included Sutter Health and the Committee on Jobs. Both organizations have less-than-stellar reputations among organized labor. Nurses at 10 Bay Area Sutter hospitals recently walked off the job for a 10-day strike. The Committee on Jobs is one of the largest lobbying organizations for downtown San Francisco business interests and has fought against numerous union causes. Mosher told the Guardian by phone that, as of November of last year, the Committee is no longer a BMWL client.

THE ROSSELLI FILE

Dewar claims Sal Rosselli was the central topic of conversation at the dinner. At one point, he says, the participants discussed an "oppo research" file on Rosselli compiled by Sutter Health. The hospital giant has clashed repeatedly with Rosselli and apparently had sought to dig up dirt on him.

Whitehurst worked for Sutter in the 1990s. His efforts for the hospital chain during a ballot campaign in 1997 earned him a place on the California Labor Federation's "do not patronize" list.

Mosher confirmed by phone that Rosselli's file at Sutter did in fact come up at Oliveto that evening. But he said Dewar "baited" him and Whitehurst into discussing it. Furthermore, he said, Whitehurst reported that Rosselli's file was "clean."

In fact, a March 12, 2008 e-mail from Dewar to Mosher suggests that the team focus on Rosselli's "hypocrisy" and states, "Have we approached anyone at Sutter re: dirt on Sal? Have we been able to peek into their oppo file?"

Later that day Mosher replied, "John Whitehurst read Sutter's whole oppo file on Sal in 1997." In a follow-up message, Mosher writes that the file "really supports the idea that he's not motivated by money."

DeBruin did not return calls for comment. Kami Lloyd, communications coordinator for Sutter, disputed whether the oppo file even existed: "To my knowledge," she told us, "no such file exists at Sutter Health."

Reached for comment, Rosselli reacted angrily to news of the alleged "skunk team" and the fact that a research file on him, compiled by a corporation perceived to be anti-union, was being discussed among SEIU officials. "It's shocking. It's treasonous. For Andy Stern to be using our members' dues money to finance [a smear] campaign against his own members in United Healthcare Workers, it's fundamentally anti-union."

Mosher defended his firm's involvement with SEIU. He told us that he and Whitehurst were "not brought on board to do negative things against Sal Rosselli." Instead, he said their mission has been to help tout the union's accomplishments as it prepares to hold its convention from June 1-4 in Puerto Rico.

SEIU spokesman Andy McDonald echoed Mosher's description of the firm's duties. Both Mosher and McDonald brought up the fact that Whitehurst has also worked for Rosselli's UHW union.

UHW's Paul Kumar confirmed that Whitehurst is currently "on our payroll" to assist in a dispute against Sutter Health — the very company Whitehurst worked for in the 1990s and the same source that provided him with access to Rosselli's research file. "These guys [BMWL] claim they are trying to reinvent themselves," Kumar said. "But to be on our payroll and to engage directly in executing a dirty tricks program ... is about the most blatant violation of professional ethics I can imagine."

Whitehurst did not return calls for comment.

Dewar claimed he urged Mooney and the other attendees of the March 10 dinner to consider "appropriating" Rosselli's democratic reforms. "The members would all wildly support it. And that way, if the International co-opted Rosselli's ideas, then [the internal conflict] really would be about this clash of personalities, Rosselli versus Stern, instead of ideas." According to Dewar, Mosher and Whitehurst were receptive to the proposal to co-opt Rosselli's initiatives, but that "Josie nixed it."

When we asked Mosher if he remembered this exchange from the meeting, he said his memory was "hazy" and that "a lot was being discussed that night."

Although Dewar was, by his own account, an active participant in the skunk team, he says he started to have second thoughts. The dinner at Oliveto, Dewar said, and the discussion of Sutter's file on Rosselli, "made me want to take a shower ... the cynicism I was exposed to was toxic."

One week later, he sent Mooney an e-mail informing her that, "Today's my last day at SEIU ... the circular firing squads that are now forming in the local and in SEIU nationally have left me jaded, stressed out, and depressed."

SEIU's McDonald denied that the skunk team exists, or ever existed. He added that "the meeting [at Oliveto] was about talking about how [Mosher] could help SEIU communicate our message ... within the context of the misinformation campaign being spread by Sal Rosselli and UHW's leaders."

OUTSIDE INFLUENCE

The rancor between Rosselli and Stern has reached a boiling point in recent weeks. In compiling this story, we had to wade through reams of documents and endure long expatiations from officials and press flaks about the sins of the other side. Both factions have constructed slick, professional-looking Web sites to question the probity of their rivals, and both have coined kitschy names for their respective policy initiatives. The SEIU has countered Rosselli's "Platform for Change" with what union leaders call a "Justice for All" platform.

But the internecine struggle may have driven Josie Mooney and other high-level SEIU staffers to do much more than vent about Rosselli or seek dirt on him from political consultants. E-mails obtained by the Guardian suggest that she and other SEIU officials worked to influence an important local delegate election last month — possibly in violation of union rules — and, some union members now allege, in violation of federal law.

Delegates selected in the election will attend the union's international convention in June and will decide between the Rosselli's "Change" and Stern's "Justice" platforms. The outcome of that vote, and others like it, will shape the mammoth labor organization's future for years to come. And the e-mails appear to show a concerted effort by Mooney and Stern loyalists to ensure that Rosselli's dissidents don't stack the convention and push through their set of reforms.

Referring to themselves in the e-mails as the "Salsa Team," SEIU staffers discussed strategy and coordinated campaign activity for the delegate election with high-ranking union officials like Mooney and Damita Davis-Howard, the president of Local 1021, the e-mails show. In a formal complaint, some members charge that these activities violated Local 1021's Election Rules and Procedures — specifically Rule 18, which states that "while in the performance of their duties, union staff shall remain uninvolved and neutral in relation to candidate endorsements and all election activities."

While Rule 18 does not specifically spell out when union staff can advocate for candidates, other than proscribing such activities "while in performance of their duties," the e-mails in our possession are date- and time-stamped, and at least one was sent during normal business hours. Furthermore, the Guardian has obtained an internal memo from Local 1021 official (and apparent Salsa Team member) Patti Tamura in which she warned union staffers that the phrase "'performance of their duties' goes beyond [Monday through Friday] and 9-5p."

One Local 1021 official who asked not to be identified told us that Tamura's memo appeared to be a clear message that staff should stay completely out of the election. "They made it perfectly clear to the lower staff that your employment doesn't stop [after hours]; you're still staff. That means you don't get involved. But now it turns out they themselves were doing it. That's a double standard ... it's certainly not right."

The messages between Salsa Team members show them actively working to recruit potential delegates sympathetic to Stern's platform and to aid Davis-Howard in her bid to represent the union at the June convention. One missive, dated Feb. 18, which appears to come from the personal e-mail account of Local 1021 employee Jano Oscherwitz and was sent to what appear to be the personal accounts of Tamura and Mooney, requests that a "message for Damita" be drafted.

A forwarded e-mail from that same day, from Oscherwitz to what appear to be personal e-mail accounts for Tamura, fellow 1021 staffer Gilda Valdez, and "Damita" includes a "Draft Message" with bulleted talking points, apparently for Davis-Howard to use as she "Collect[s] Signatures on Commitment Cards."

"Commitment cards" refers to pledges from union members to support certain delegates.

The e-mails go beyond merely aiding Davis-Howard and other Stern-backed candidates. They also include detailed strategy for opposing Rosselli and countering his message. A March 5 Salsa Team message includes an attached document with several talking points critical of the dissident leader. In the body of the e-mail, SEIU staffer Gilda Valdez advises Davis-Howard, Mooney, 1021 Chief of Staff Marion Steeg, and others to "Memorize the points in talking to folks." Valdez goes on to say in the e-mail that she "will be calling ... about your assignments."

Reached for comment, Davis-Howard confirmed that the AOL e-mail account listed as "Damita" was hers. But she claimed no knowledge of the Salsa Team or the messages sent to her. "If you're saying those e-mails went to my home computer, who knows if I ever even got them?"

Davis-Howard bristled at the suggestion that the Salsa Team's activities violated union rules. "Are you trying to tell me that I can never campaign? Does it [Rule 18] say that I have to be neutral and uninvolved 24 hours a day?"

Calls to Mooney, Oscherwitz, Valdez, and Tamura were not returned. Through an SEIU spokesman, Mooney declined to comment.

A BAD AFTERTASTE

On April 4, three days after the Guardian first reported on the Salsa Team e-mails on our Web site, Sanchez and several other 1021 officials filed a formal complaint with the union's election committee. In the complaint, they accuse Davis-Howard and the other team members of vioutf8g Rules 10 and 18 of the union's election codes. Rule 10 forbids "the use of union and employer funds ... to support any candidate."

Local 1021 executive board member and Stern appointee Ed Kinchley authored part of the complaint. According to the text, which was obtained by the Guardian, Kinchley wrote, "While telling other staff that they may be fired for any intervention in this election, Ms. Davis-Howard and the others involved secretly did exactly what they told other staff they were forbidden from doing."

The complaint was signed by 16 Local 1021 officials, including numerous members of the local's executive board. It called on the election committee to remove Davis-Howard "from the elected Delegate list" and to bar Salsa Team members from attending the convention in June.

The issue also has landed in federal court, where UHW was expected to file against Stern and other SEIU officials, alleging interference in delegate elections.

More cynical sources both inside and outside SEIU told us they believe the Rosselli-Stern feud boils down to one thing: power — either holding onto or expanding it. But labor scholar and former Local 790 member Paul Johnston had a more nuanced perspective.

Johnston, who taught at Yale and, until recently, worked for the Monterey Bay Labor Council, told us he admired both leaders and the work each has done on behalf of the larger union. Calling the current strife "a huge can of worms," he added, "These are questions of principle and there are good ideas on both sides."

Stern's push to increase the union's bargaining and political clout through more consolidation, Johnston went on, "has some very positive aspects to it.... In the old days, many of these kind of mergers were done for purely political power. The mergers being conducted today [at Stern's direction] are primarily strategic, though. But there are some power issues that inevitably arise." On the other hand, he said, Rosselli's UHW, "is a dynamic organizing union that has [its] own issues."

Open Letter to SEIU Local 1021 V.P. Larry Bradshaw "Concessions & Kangaroo Courts"
by Patrick Monette-Shaw
Friday Dec 30th, 2011 7:08 PM
"Reform" Candidate And ISO "Socialist" Larry Broadshaw was elected to the top leadership of SEIU 1021. Since getting elected to the 55,000 member local Bradshaw and his cohorts have pushed one concession after another and targeted those members who are opposed to concession bargaining with the bosses. Their latest stunt is to support the candidate of union buster Sean Elsbernd Deborah Landis to represent the over retirees. She is not even vested in the pension plan and is a boss with the police department yet she gets your vote. Bradshaw and company also pushed anti-labor ballot initiative C in San Francisco which blamed public workers for the budget crisis. Who are you and your collaborators representing?
An Open Letter to SEIU Local 1021 Vice President Larry Bradshaw

Dear Veep Bradshaw (I forgot to add your e-mail address),

At some point last October, you left a message on my home answering machine that I now wish I had not deleted. You called asking me to return your call about the potential for me to assist Local 1021 with some data analysis, which I may have agreed to help with. But you started out your message on my machine saying something to the effect that you’d wrapped up Local 1021 efforts on the “ridiculous” member opposition to Proposition C on San Francisco’s November ballot, and was just finding time to contact me, or words to that effect.

I knew before then that Local 1021 was going to support Mayor Ed Lee’s Proposition C, but I was so shocked that Officers of the Local had concluded member opposition to Prop C was “ridiculous” that I decided right then and there not to donate my personal time to do research for SEIU Local 1021, and was so pissed by your flippant phone message that I deleted it (I now wish I had saved that message).

But now, I’m even more shocked by reports that you staged, or allowed, some sort of “mob action” during Local 1021’s November Executive Board meeting by bringing charges against our duly-elected CEO, Sin Yee Poon, over her choice to use her personal time and her First Amendment right to speak out against Proposition “C.”

While you pay lip service, Mr. Bradshaw, to “democratic union principles,” it appears you don’t believe that your members live in an actual democracy, and have First Amendment rights to take positions that may be in stark contrast to the propaganda Local 1021 so often shoves down the throats of its dues-paying members. Not only do we have First Amendment rights which apparently you haven’t heard of, we also have rights to express our individual opinions under LMRDA — without retaliatory actions being taken against us by our own Union for exercising our rights.

I’ve been on the brunt of spurious Kangaroo Court proceedings conducted by this Local in the past for my involvement in the 2006 decertification campaign against SEIU Local 790, the precursor to Local 1021. I don’t recognize this Executive Board’s misguided use of Kangaroo Court proceedings, but I am officially requesting that if you are going to bring these ridiculous charges against Ms. Poon, that you also level the same charges against me, even though I hold no elected office in the Local.

After all, I, too, refused to “honor” the decisions of Local 1021 regarding Proposition C; I, too, “attacked” Local 1021 political programs publicly; and I, too, have long questioned the “integrity” of many of Local 1021’s so-called “leaders” as not being in the best interests of our members throughout Northern California.

Just one recent example is Local 1021 “leader” Maria Guillen, who reportedly slandered Herb Meiberger, a candidate for re-election to the San Francisco Retirement Board, during an endorsement session of the San Francisco Labor Council. Ms. Guillen has the same axe to grind against Mr. Meiberger as you seem to have with Sin Yee: Herb’s opposition to Prop C cost him the endorsement of Local 1021.

Apparently, Ms. Guillen, and Local 1021 itself, would rather endorse “safety” candidate Deborah Landis, the CFO at the SF Police Department, to throw Meiberger off of the Retirement Board where he has served admirably for over 20 years as the only elected “miscellaneous” representative on the Board. Handing over the three elected voting members of the Retirement Board to “safety” (police and fire) employees — something safety has been trying to do for over a decade — is NOT in the best interest of Local 1021 members, or other “miscellaneous” members represented by other Unions, but in the infinite wisdom of Local 1021’s so-called “leaders” you’re again asking the members to ignore their own best interests by shooting themselves in the foot again, just two short months after shooting themselves in the foot over Prop C.

Like Sin Yee, I, too, do not want to be remembered by the rank and file as someone who supported Prop C when the members learn the full extent of the economic damage brought against them by their own Local, because in many ways, the members will see their paychecks grow significantly smaller under Prop C.l Most significantly, the single Prop C change of giving up an elected seat to the Health Services Board so that “management” will now have a four-seat majority is going to lead directly to massive increases in health care co-pays, deductibles, and premiums taking an ever larger share of our dwindling paychecks to pay for health care costs spiraling out of control due to the greed of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, and the inability of Congress to implement true health care reforms.

I didn’t sit idly by while Local 1021 was urging its members to shoot themselves in the foot by voting for Prop C; instead, I took out an $800 voter guide ballot argument against both Prop C and Prop D, and I did so out of my own pocket. Worse, I wrote two articles in the Westside Observer newspaper in its October and November 2011 issues, urging conservative West Side families — and union members — to vote against both Props C and D. And you know what? It was $800 well spent, which I’d do again!

Sin Yee is right: Our Union spent member dues money to campaign for Prop C, and you didn’t bother informing the membership of the critical negative consequences of what will now happen since Prop C passed. And you didn’t tell the membership in San Francisco that Prop C has set the stage for even further “concession bargaining” this coming spring.

Our members deserve to be told crucial facts to make informed decisions. You and I both know, Larry, that Prop C is NOT in our members’ best interests, and you should be ashamed of the propaganda Local 1021 cranked out urging members to shoot themselves in the foot — or worse, to shoot themselves in their own wallets.

It’s disturbing that five years after SEIU’s mob actions in 2006, this Union is still at it, using mob action against Ms. Poon, and to intimidate our members in order to quell First Amendment dissent.

So I am officially requesting that if you are going to bring these ridiculous charges against Ms. Poon, that you also level the same charges against me.

But don’t stop there: Perhaps Local 1021 can get some of its thugs to hack into San Francisco’s elections department database to identify any and all SEIU “traitor” members who may have voted on a secret ballot last November AGAINST Prop C, and against the “decisions” of Local 1021 leaders. Out of the approximate 13,000 members Local 1021 represents in San Francisco, I’m sure there are hundreds and hundreds of members who voted “No on Prop C.”

They should be punished at a Kangaroo Court trial at the E-Board, too, along with me. Will you throw them all into Local 1021’s Kanagroo Jail, too? Or just Sin Yee and I?

After all, until Local 1021 routs out any and all “dissident” members, you are always going to have to fear that the members will not be driven by the Local’s fear-driven propaganda. And you’ll have to forever watch over your shoulder in fear, always wondering about Margaret Mead’s famous quote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.” We may be a small group in your eyes, Larry, but we’re committed and thoughtful, and one day we’ll change this rotten-to-the-core Union!

Just so you know, I will not honor the decision of Local 1021 to stab Herb Meiberger in the back after he has so honorably served us, by following Local 1021’s recommendation to vote for Landis. I’ll strongly be advocating with the membership to ignore Local 1021’s recommendation, and am actively urging them to vote only for Mr. Meiberger, instead.

There’s your gauntlet, Larry. I hope you fall, or choke, on it.

In Solidarity, (but only with Democratic Trade Unionists like Sin Yee Poon),


Patrick Monette-Shaw
Immediate Past President, Laguna Honda Hospital Chapter, SEIU Local 790

(Proud son of the first elected woman President of [an un-named] Union in Wisconsin, un-named because I don’t want Local 1021 thugs hunting down an 82-year-old gravely-ill woman to harass.)

SEIU1021 Political Action Comm Chair Alysabeth Alexander Defends Slander Of Herb Meiberger

Thursday Jan 5th, 2012 4:40 PM

SEIU1021 Political Action Committee Chair, Alysabeth Alexander Defends Slander Of Herb Meiberger At SF SEIU 1021 COPE Meeting
From: Alysabeth Alexander
Date: January 5, 2012 4:28:44 AM PST


COPE works in the following way:

Chapters nominate delegates who serve representing the interests of their chapter on the COPE body. When an endorsement vote is taken, two votes are recorded: 1. The sentiment of everyone in the room, which should inform the delegates, 2. The vote of the delegates.

Members of SEIU 1021 are not sheep, and if some individuals did not like the way the vote turned out I'm not sure why the leadership you elected to carry out the will of the democratic process gets blamed. If you didn't have the votes, you didn't have the votes. The meeting was properly noticed and attendance was good.

For some, supporting Herb seems to be about his opposition to Prop C. For others opposing Herb and supporting a new-comer is about recognizing Herb's unwillingness in the past to communicate with our local, give our member leaders information they request, his repeated crossing of picket-lines and historic PAID opposition to extending retirement benefits to same-sex couples.

I am glad the membership vote went the way it did, in light of recent information that Herb stepped out of the room on a key labor vote. But, any work this local does on candidates is work done that's vetted through the democratic process of our COPE committee through all those in attendance and chapter delegates at minimum, and through various different bodies for input at maximum--like Prop C which was recommended by the bargaining team.

Looking forward to a powerful 2012!

Alysabeth Alexander
Political Action Committee, Chair
SEIU Local 1021
350 Rhode Island
San Francisco, CA 94110

Letter To Alysabeth Alexander

I am becoming very concerned about the false allegations against a good candidate for our retirement board. These allegations were made by a minority of SEIU 1021 members who were roundly out voted at the SF Labor Council. I am helping to re-elect Herb Meiberger who I consider the best candidate for the position. Kay Walker SEIU 1021 West Bay Chapter member.
An open letter to Alysabeth Alexander:
This clique (yours) has proven nothing against Herb. Why don't you try to clarify which picket line and when? H. Baker said Safeway. The history there is that workers from L.A. who were on strike, came to SF and asked for support. Unionized Safeway Workers did not give it, so there was no formal picket line AND we don't know if Herb was even near this site in the first place. This too, was a long time ago and it is Harry Baker's memory vs Herb's, if it is memory. Also, the ballot proposition Haaland and yes Maria, was referring to, is 17 years old. Herb's opposition had nothing to do with being against funding domestic partnership health care in any case. According to Herb it was the wording/concept of that proposition which spelled economic disaster to him. People have a right to make decisions not based on identity politics without innuendo or attacks, in any case. To think that is not the case, is to be either narcissistic or a political manipulator. All of these allegations against Herb are cheap shots ie not fully researched or evaluated and if not slander, very close to it. Herb's supporters know he has done a great job as a Commissioner and yes he was against Prop C which is "big" to union retirees, who by the way,have given a great deal of support to active workers after we retired and got sold out by SEIU 1021 with Prop C. Alysabeth, you are too new to SF and to these issues to have the necessary knowledge to evaluate Herb or anyone else's participation in the SF Retirement System. The COPE meeting referred to was like something out of the McCarthy era - I was there. By the way, only 23 people were there to vote and out of the 23, only 10 voted to endorse Landis - 5 abstained! I am totally disgusted with SEIU 1021 and I don't want a small clique attempting to make decisions about anything affecting my benefits or political life in SF - they will bankrupt us economcially, politically and psychologically. From what I hear, many people would like to dump this union if you can call it that! Kay Walker SEIU 1021 West Bay Chapter Member

Picture of Police Department CFO Deborah Landis. This boss is not even a vested member of the pension and has been supported by union busting supervisor Sean Elsbernd who has been attacking public workers, retirees and the city's healthcare plan for years. The question is why SEIU 1021 top officials would support a candidate who is openly supported by union busters and the bosses for control of the Retirees Pension Funds and also slander a fighter for retired workers?
Add a Comment
§How “Deborah Landis for Retirement Board Commissioner” Flier Illustrates SEIU1021 Sell-out
by Patrick Monette-Shaw
Sunday Jan 8th, 2012 8:20 PM
How the “Deborah Landis for Retirement Board Commissioner” Flier Illustrates SEIU Local 1021’s Sell-Out of Its San Francisco Membership: Vote for Meiberger, Instead!
January 8, 2012 8
Pmonette-shaw(at)earthlink.net

It’s clear that only one candidate is actually qualified in the election underway for San Francisco’s Retirement Board. That would be Herb Meiberger, not Deborah Landis.

Just read the candidate statements that arrived with your ballot and election instructions. The other two candidates simply don’t possess Herb’s experience or skills.

When I received a flier in the U.S. mail from the “Friends of Landis Committee,” a committee supporting Deborah Landis over Herb Meiberger, I was shocked by the disinformation and irony in it.

There are several problems with Landis’ flier.

First, the flier contains a “pull-quote” by Croce Albert "Al" Casciato, current Retirement Board president and a Captain III in the Police Department. His quote reads: “I support Deborah Landis for the Retirement Board because Miscellaneous Employees need a voice.”

I narrowly escaped falling off my chair in laughter reading Casciato’s quote. Perhaps Mr. Casciato hasn’t heard that Miscellaneous employees already have a voice on the Retirement Board — and has for over 20 years. That voice is the voice of Herb Meiberger, the only qualified candidate for the job.

Casciato may be unaware of the irony in having “safety” (police and fire) employees advocate on behalf of “miscellaneous” employees (everyone who isn’t in Police or Fire). He may also be unaware that back in the days before the November 2010 ballot measure Prop “B” (Jeff Adachi’s first signature initiative at pension reform that failed at the ballot box 14 months ago), the Firefighters had dispatched a highly-paid firefighter to attend a debate at the San Francisco Coalition of Neighborhoods about Prop “B.” CSFN members were reportedly in great disbelief that a “safety” member earning well over $100,000 was appealing to them to protect workers making just $50,000. The firefighter — and now Casciato — don’t seem to get the irony of this, or the disconnect in logic.

Second, the flier contains a headline reading, “We trust Landis to protect our investments,” without specifying who they mean by “our investments.” If the headline is referring to “safety” investments, nowhere does the flier indicate that “safety” members pay in just 17% to the pension fund, but collect 36% of pension payouts. Conversely, Landis’ flier doesn’t mention that miscellaneous members contribute 83% to the pension fund, but collect just 64% of payout. In effect, miscellaneous members appear to be subsidizing safety member pensions.

Neither the flier, nor Casciato, mention that “safety” already has a 66%, two-thirds representation on the Retirement Board, and that it wants 100% control. By endorsing Landis — who isn’t really a “miscellaneous” voice, she’s a voice of the Management Executives Associations (MEA), and a voice of the Police Department as its current CFO — “Safety” wants to grab 100% control of the Retirement Board’s elected seats.

It appears that already having 66% of the elected seats on the Retirement Board, and 36% of pension payouts, isn’t enough; 100% control appears to be the objective.

Third, the flier wrongly claims, “That’s why active and retired Police, Fire and Labor agree” that you should vote for Landis.

This ignores two realities: a) There is significant Labor opposition to Landis: Both the San Francisco Labor Council and IFPTE Local 21 Professional and Technical Engineers endorse Mr. Meiberger, not Ms. Landis; and b) A broad coalition of retirees have endorsed Mr. Meiberger, not Ms. Landis.

Fourth, the Landis flier did not note that “safety” employees currently on the payroll represent just 10.9% of active employees, while true “miscellaneous” employees represented by SEIU Local 1021-Miscellaneous represent fully 38.3% of the current employees as of July 2011, such that just 11% of the employees (safety) want to gain control 100% of the elected seats to the Retirement Board, in an effort to disenfranchise almost 40% of current “miscellaneous” employees represented by just SEIU Local 1021.

But it gets worse: Adding in all unions who are classified as “miscellaneous” unions and not just SEIU Local 1021’s miscellaneous employees, “safety” employees who represent just 11% of all active City employees (as of June 2011) appear to expect that the remaining 89% of all City employees — like lemmings headed to the sea — will willingly hand “safety” 100% control of the three elected seats on the Retirement Board.

It may not be the 1% against the 99%, but 11% against 89% is pretty damn close! Myopic Casciato can’t see his own chutzpah — unmitigated gall — in demanding 100% control of the Retirement Board.

Fifth, the Landis flier does not mention the ugly backstory of how SEIU Local 1021 was internally hijacked into endorsing Landis over Meiberger, a sad chapter in the history of Local 1021.

During a meeting of Local 1021’s COPE committee that was not widely publicized, just 23 members out of the approximate 13,252 SEIU-Miscellaneous current members represented by the local (without even including a large number of retirees formerly or currently represented by the Local) voted on the endorsement for the Retirement Board.

Those 23 members voting at Local 1021’s COPE endorsement meeting represent less than two-tenths of 1% (actually just over zero percent, at 0.1735587%) of the current 13,252 SIEU-Miscellaneous members.

But it gets worse, from there. Of those 23 voting members, only 10 (0.0754603%), or less than two-hundredths of one percent) voted “for” Landis, while 8 (0.0603682%) actively voted “against” Landis. Five voters (0.0377302%) “abstained” from casting a vote, shirking their elected-to-represent responsibility to take a stand, for one political reason or fear of retribution, or another. In all, Landis failed to receive 13 (0.098098%) of the 23 votes cast, a higher percentage than the 10 votes she obtained.

The two-vote difference among 13,252 members represents just over one-hundredth of one percent (0.0150921%), hardly representative of Local 1021’s rank-and-file members. Landis scored SIEU’s rigged endorsement with a mere two-vote margin.

So how did this happen?

During the SEIU Local 1021’s COPE meeting, the debate about the various candidates reportedly centered on discrediting Herb Meiberger, but didn’t and couldn’t touch or discredit his performance and expertise as a 20-member of the SF Retirement Board.

Five of Local 1021’s so-called COPE “delegates” mounted charges against Herb based on very tenuous allegations related to politics. Those people in the room who were for Herb reportedly couldn’t bring the focus of debate back to actual qualifications of the candidates for the Retirement Board, because just five members — Robert (a.k.a., Gabriele) Haaland, Alysabeth Alexander, Harry Baker, Maria Guillen, and Ed Kinchley — possibly including non-voting delegates, kept bringing up unrelated arguments.

The endorsement session’s false charges against Meiberger seemed like a witch-hunt straight out of the McCarthy era, according to COPE meeting attendees. Although Guillen argued forcefully against Meiberger, she abstained when the vote was taken for Landis at Local 1021’s COPE meeting; Guillen eviscerated Meiberger during debate and prior to the vote, but then, ironically, Guillen couldn’t bring herself to cast an affirmative vote for Landis. Guillen abandoned her duty as an elected COPE delegate to cast either an “affirmative” or “negative” vote (yes or no), choosing instead to chicken-out when it came time to actually cast a vote up or down.

Guillen — and the other five delegates who abstained from voting, and the ten wayward delegates who actually cast affirmative votes for Landis — must have (all) surely known that they would be contributing to the 100% takeover of the Retirement Board by police and fire. When rank-and-file members elect delegates to various SEIU Local 1021 subcommittees, we never intend to hand those delegates authority to so brazenly sell us out to the interests of “Safety” employees.

For her part, SEIU Union loyalist Karen Bishop — whose metronome-like diction so often sounds like a condescending teacher lecturing stupid students, or alternatively, fingernails screeching across a chalkboard — now asserts that SEIU Local 1021 COPE decisions are “determined by the direct vote of rank-and-file members, whether coming from committees, industry councils, chapters, or the Local’s executive board.” But Ms. Bishop ignores that when delegates are awarded proxy voting powers by rank-and-file members, we expect an up or down vote — not delegates who sit on the fence by choosing to “abstain” from their duly-elected duties to cast a meaningful vote. Bishop now arrogantly claims that the [Union’s] Leadership carries the desire of the Body, when in truth, much of the history of SEIU Local 1021 is that its “leadership” ignores the desires of the “body” (rank-and-file members) and often votes against the best interests of its own members.

Indeed, the “body” of rank-and-file members has never ceded to Bishop and Guillen authority to support “safety” members over SIEU members.

Guillen’s abstention was one of five abstentions that cost Meiberger the SEIU endorsement given to Landis.

Later, Maria Guillen tried to cop out of her involvement at Local 1021’s COPE meeting during the San Francisco Labor Council’s endorsement session. The Labor Council — unswayed by Guillen’s cheep crap — eventually endorsed Meiberger, not Landis.

Local 1021 is trying to punish Meiberger — by taking away giving him an endorsement for the Retirement Board — for his opposition to the November 2001 Proposition “C” pension reform measure.

These five misguided Local 1021 “leaders,” and other thugs in Local 1021, ignore provisions in San Francisco’s landmark open government legislation, the Sunshine Ordinance, that guarantees in §67.17, “Public Comment By Members of Policy Bodies,” that … “every member of a policy body retains the full constitutional rights of a citizen to comment publicly on the wisdom or propriety of government actions, including those of the policy body of which he or she is a member. Policy bodies shall not sanction, reprove, or deprive members of their rights as elected or appointed officials for expressing their judgments or opinions” under the First Amendment.

While the Sunshine Ordinance may not technically apply to a labor organization doing business with the City, you would at least expect that a labor organization would recognize that a Retirement Board member such as Meiberger has every right under the First Amendment and San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance to comment on ballot measures as does every other citizen, and that the labor organization (SEIU) would recognize the “spirit” of laws granting Board members their right to speak freely without fear of retribution.

It’s retribution — and Local 1021’s wrath — that Meiberger now faces for daring to speak out against Prop “C.” Local 1021 has never appeared to have issues with Meiberger’s performance as a trustee of the Retirement fund, but now Local 1021 seems to be taking issue with Meiberger’s First Amendment rights relative to Prop “C.” Indeed, during the past four elections for the Retirement Board, SEIU Local 1021 has never opposed Meiberger — until now, and it is now opposing his re-election out of pique for having exercised his First Amendment rights to speak freely on a matter of public, and union members’, concern.

Herb first ran for the Retirement Board in 1992 without a single endorsement. In 1997 he was reelected. In 2002, he ran unopposed, and was reelected. In 2007, SEIU chickened out, and didn’t endorse any candidate, but Retirement Board members Joe Driscoll and “Al” Casciato mounted their first campaign against Meiberger, who won reelection in 2007. But Driscoll and Casciato are relentless in their pursuit of 100% control of the Retirement Board and are back at it.

Meiberger has served admirably on the Retirement Board for the 20 years he’s represented both “miscellaneous” members and “safety” members. He was a dues-paying member of SEIU Local 790 (Local 1021’s precursor) for 20 years. It’s stunning that Local 1021 is now punishing a 20-year dues-paying member who has served with distinction for 20 years as an admirable fiduciary and trustee of our Retirement fund.

Why would SEIU endorse an MEA member — Landis who has an allegiance not only to the safety employees but also to MEA employees — over a dues-paying member who has served admirably for over 20 years, and is not only the only qualified candidate, but he’s actually a retiree?

This is not a referendum on Meiberger’s First Amendment rights. It is not a referendum on Proposition “C” or who supported or opposed Prop “C.” It’s a referendum on whether “safety” will finally grab 100% control of the Retirement Board’s elected seats. And it's a referendum on whether we will elect a qualified candidate, or a stooge.

Finally, it’s a referendum on who is the most qualified candidate to represent miscellaneous employees and retirees on the Retirement Board. The choice is clear: Meiberger is the most qualified.

If you have not already sent in your ballot, vote for Herb, and get it delivered to the Elections Department.

If you have already mistakenly voted for Landis, go down to the Department of Elections in the basement of City Hall and tell them you inadvertently “spoiled” your ballot by voting for the wrong candidate. Tell Elections that you want a replacement ballot, and re-cast your vote for Mr. Meiberger!

Unless you want “safety” unions to take 100% control of your Retirement Board, and are comfortable leaving "miscellaneous" members swinging in the wind without a real voice on the Retirement Board.

Patrick Monette-Shaw