Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Open Letter to SEIU Local 1021 V.P. Larry Bradshaw "Concessions & Kangaroo Courts"
"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.)
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.)
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
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?
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?
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
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
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network