UnionBook

FROM:            Monty Kroopkin,
                        Candidate for President of SEIU Local 221,
                        and representative of the Reform221 Slate

                        4440 33^rd Place
                        San Diego, CA 92116
                        858-373-7018

reform221@earthlink.net

RE: Election Protest

DATE: July 28, 2008

Dear Mr. Murray, Merriman River Group, and SEIU Local 221:

An election protest and demand for a new election is hereby made.

SEIU Local 221 is a new union, formed in 2007, of both public sector and private sector workers in California. Public sector members include employees of the County of San Diego, employees of 7 incorporated cities, employees of 4 school districts, and employees of the San Diego Superior Court. Private sector members include Head Start employees of Neighborhood House Association, and of the MAAC Project and of the Episcopal Community Services.

The election of July 1, 2009 through July 21, 2009 was for all 16 positions on the executive board of the Local Union, including the offices of president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer. This was the first election of officers and executive board members for the new Local 221 union. Prior to this election, all officers and executive board members of the provisional Local Union had been appointed by SEIU International President Andrew Stern.

All members of the Local Union in good standing, including both public sector and private sector members, were eligible to vote. Three slates of candidates were competing for election. Two of the slates were led by incumbent appointed members of the provisional executive board. The election was conducted by the Merriman River Group and by the SEIU Local 221 Election Committee. A total of 750 ballots were cast. The Local 221 2008 LM-2 filed with the federal Department of Labor reported a total membership of 7,692.

Multiple violations of law and irregularities make a new election necessary. An investigation is required to determine exactly how widespread such violations have been and to disclose this information to the membership. Existing documentation of violations is sufficient to warrant a new election.

n Many members did not receive mail ballots, notice of election, and/or the candidate statements voter information booklet, which were supposed to be mailed to all members of Local 221. Many members who did not receive said election materials report that they have not changed their address and have received other mailings from SEIU Local 221, including a mailing done by the Unity Slate to campaign for this election. Mailings for candidates/slates were done by Select Mailing, using member name and address data provided by Local 221.

Matthew Fitch stated in an email of July 22, 2009, that 7137 mail ballots were mailed out (fewer than the 7,692 members reported in the local’s 2008 LM-2) and that 652 of these were returned by the post office. Thus, it appears that 1207 members in good standing did not receive a mail ballot. It is likely that these same members also did not receive the mailed notice of election and did not receive the mailed candidate statements voter information booklet (which also contained the notice of in-person polling locations and their dates and hours of operation). With only a total of 750 ballots cast, this 1207 number would clearly be determinative of the outcome.

In the course of campaigning at multiple work sites and through both in-person and telephone conversations with many workers, Mr. Kroopkin and Reform221 candidates Rose Marie Peralta, John Rochfort, Denise Knobloch, Diane Sabeghi and Cornelius Hill frequently heard workers say they were not aware that any election was taking place, or heard workers say they received a mail ballot but not the candidate statements booklet (or vice versa), and that their address had not changed recently and that they have previously received other SEIU Local 221 mailings at their same current home address. Many of these workers said that despite not receiving a mail ballot or other official election materials, that they did receive the campaign mailer sent by the Unity Slate, led by incumbent President Moore.

Candidate Peralta did receive her mail ballot, and did not receive her candidate statement booklet, which contained the locations and schedule for the in-person election polls. She did receive a campaign mailer from the Unity Slate. She was informed on or about July 17, 2009, by a friend who works for the County Assessor, at the San Marcos facility, that none of the workers at that building received any election materials. They did not know an election was taking place until Ms. Peralta told them.

Candidate Diane Sabeghi was told by member and co-worker Ge Yang that she received the campaign mailer from the Unity Slate but did not receive a mail ballot. Ms. Yang did then request and obtain election information and did vote.

Steward Charlene Wilson was told by member Margarita Flores that she did not receive a mail ballot or any mailed election information.

Member Jo Comer reported to Mr. Kroopkin that she did not receive any mail ballot but did receive the Unity Slate campaign mailer.

Member Charlene Demus did not receive a mail ballot, nor the notice of election, nor the candidate statements booklet (with the notice of in-person poll locations). She has resided at the same address for 10 years and has received other Local 221 mailings at this address. Ms. Demus was one of a group of workers who filed internal union charges against the incumbent president, Candidate Sharon-Frances Moore, on September 12, 2007.

How many members did not receive a mail ballot or other official election mailings, despite receiving other Local 221 mailings at their same current address and despite not having changed their address? Did Local 221 maintain an “enemies list” and purposely provide the election contractor, Merriman River Group, with incorrect mailing addresses of certain members?

n Merriman River Group prevented observers from observing the complete counting of the ballots.

During the ballot counting on the evening of July 21, 2009, observers from all 3 slates were present. On several occasions, Merriman River Group staff did request that an observer from each slate view and note a ballot problem of one sort or another. However, during the actual count, one table for counting was set up, with one MRG staff member reading the ballot marks and 2 other MRG staff members recording the votes. After this count had gone on for a half hour or so, and without any notice to the observers, MRG did set up a second table, with 3 additional MRG staff members, to count the votes. When candidate and observer Kroopkin realized this had happened, he questioned Mr. Fitch about what the second table was doing. Mr. Fitch said they were counting votes. Mr. Kroopkin objected that no observers were told that a second table would be started for the counting, that no observers were watching the count at the second table, and asked that the counting at that table be started over again, with observers present. Mr. Fitch, who was in charge of the MRG staff at that time, angrily refused to start the count over again at the second table. We have no way of knowing if false counting was introduced into the outcome during this lapse of observation. Candidate and observer Denise Knobloch witnessed this incident.

n A member of the Election Committee violated neutrality and directly engaged in campaign activity against Reform221

Candidate Knobloch received a phone call from a worker at the Family Resource Center in Escondido. The worker reported that the union steward at the building took all Reform221 fliers out of the individual members’ mailboxes. Reform221 member Chris Buenaflor later interviewed co-workers at this building and learned from Doranna Bortz that she had seen steward Linda Correa removing the fliers from the mailboxes. Ms. Correa is a member of the Election Committee, and she should not have been directly involved in any campaigning, for or against any candidate or slate. Such activity by any member or members of the Election Committee grossly taints the entire election.

The number of workers at the Escondido Family Resource Center where the incident involving Election Committee member Linda Correa took place, is more than one hundred. The number of votes separating candidate Moore and candidate Kroopkin, was only 297. The number of votes separating other candidates, in many of the other races, was far fewer. Correa's illegal action, alone, may have changed the outcome of the elections. Together with the other violations cited in this protest, it is clear that the outcome of the elections may have been illegally and unfairly tipped in the favor of incumbent candidates.

n Union staff (on their paid time) introduced candidates at union meetings or allowed them to campaign during union meetings. These meetings were not called for the purpose of providing an equal forum for all candidates.

On July 9, 2009, representatives of the three slates received the following email from Merriman River Group:

From: Matthew Fitch <matt@merrimanriver.com>
To: EricBanksNY <ericbanks@aol.com>,
Kathy Griffee <bratkd@cox.net>,
Monty Kroopkin <mkroopkin@juno.com>
Subject: Campaign advisory
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:17:19 -0700
Cc: theobj@sbcglobal.net

A friendly reminder from Hank Murray, our protest officer...

We have been made aware by the local union that at one of the work site union meeting yesterday, two candidates, from two different slates, requested and received permission to address the members at that meeting for purposes of promoting their candidacies. The Local Union has sent a memorandum to all work site organizers reminding them that such meeting are for the conduct of union business and not for campaigning and that candidates who show up at such meetings should not be permitted to campaign during such meetings. Candidates of course are free to campaign before or after such meeting but cannot use the time set aside for union business for that purpose. I am writing to the three of you as the heads of each of the slates to request that you remind your candidates to abide by this understanding. There will be several dozen work site meetings held between now and the day of the election and it is not to any slates' advantage to have the election marred by protests that some candidates received an unfair advantage by campaigning at a union meeting. Candidates are clearly free to campaign and distribute literature before and after the meeting but shouldn't be campaigning during the meeting. Thanks for your cooperation.

Matthew Fitch

203-281-7600

888-450-VOTE (8683)

888-224-3391 (Fax)

www.merrimanriver.com

Subsequently, candidate Monty Kroopkin made inquiries to Henry F. (“Hank”) Murray and to Matthew Fitch, to obtain the names of the two candidates, the location of the work site union meeting, and the name of the employee of Local 221 who gave permission. That information has not been provided to Mr. Kroopkin. Mr. Kroopkin also inquired as to the name of the person(s) reporting these facts to Merriman River Group. Mr. Murray states he is unsure who he initially spoke with at the Local after Mr. Fitch told him of the incident, but that he did speak with Local 221 President Sharon-Frances Moore about the incident and that he believes she has the information about the individuals involved and the location. Ms. Moore was also a candidate in this election. Mr. Fitch states that he believes the person who informed him of the incident was Local 221 employee, Eric Banks, or Ms. Moore. Mr. Banks was the campaign representative for the Unity Slate. Mr. Kroopkin did inquire of Ms. Moore on July 24, 2009. Ms. Moore’s reply denies that any incident took place on July 8, and claims Mr. Fitch was mistaken about the date and was writing about an incident on July 9, 2009. Ms. Moore sent Mr. Kroopkin copies of emails from other Local 221 staff, which seriously misrepresent what did take place on July 9, 2009, and which appear to be an attempt at a cover-up.

On July 9, 2009, candidate John Rochfort attended a union work site meeting. Mr. Rochfort reported to his slate mates of Reform221:

“I DID ATTEND A WORKSITE MEETING THURSDAY at the Van Houten St. office. I happened to be in the building during my lunch break and heard an announcement that there was a worksite mtg.....I thought myself lucky to happen to fall into this scenario.

“I walked into the meeting room and there were a good number of workers present; perhaps 20. Among them was Nico Portillo, a candidate on the "Accountability" slate. I sat down to Nico's immediate right, immediately noting that he had in front of him, a stack of campaign material; some very slick glossed, heavy stock paper with multi-color, purple, gold and white with the word "ACCOUNTABILITY" across the front, as well of the names of all the candidates on their slate.

“The field rep, "Salida" was running the meeting. She had been talking about the board of supervisors election and the importance of getting out the vote, as I entered the room. Shortly thereafter, she paused and said, "oh, Nico wants to say a few things regarding the campaign, so I can't get involved in that..."

“Nico then proceeded to stand and stated that he was running for the E Board and that there were several other qualified candidates on the Accountability Slate that needed their votes. He openly spoke to the qualifications of several of the candidates on the Accountability slate. He proceeded to walk around the table and hand out the placard to each person in the room, with the exception of me, of course.

“I said nary a word at this point, and frankly, when I first entered the room, I'm sure he was surprised to see me since I work elsewhere, but again, it was happen chance that I was there. So I waited to see if he was going to campaign and pass out the placards. I thought that perhaps, with my sudden presence, he would have opted not to do that; but he did so, anyway.

“Nico then excused himself from the meeting, indicating he needed to attend a work-related hearing.

“He left, and the field rep began her business again, at which time I raised my hand, indicating I wanted to speak. The field rep acknowledged me with eye contact.

“I then proceeded to say...."My name is John Rochfort and I was a steward in this building for five and one-half years in during a time that we fought many a battle on behalf of workers; some of you may have been around long enough to remember my efforts here."

“I added...."I am also running for the E Board, but I'm not here to campaign, as that is ILLEGAL. What I am here to do is to tell you that many workers have told me they have not received (in the mail) either the voter ballot or the candidate statements. If you have not receiving either of these documents, you need to contact the union because there is a venue for casting your vote at a pre-designated site."

“I continued...."as for the campaign, read the literature and decide for yourself and vote."

“I then left the meeting room.”

Similar incidents may have taken place at other work site union meetings and/or other union meetings, involving the same and/or other candidates and the same and/or other employees of Local 221, prior to the warning email from Merriman River Group and even thereafter.

Candidate Knobloch reports that she attended a steward council ‘round table’ meeting at the union hall on the evening of July 9, 2009, where Unity Slate candidate Merrill Mickelson started to tell the meeting that we were in the middle of elections. At this point Local 221 employee Kay Ryan jumped into the conversation and stated it was not allowed to discuss the campaign at this meeting. Ms. Mickelson then said something about remember to vote. After July 9, if Reform221 representatives were not present as witnesses at other meetings, did Local 221 staff and opposing candidates adhere to the rule against use of union or employer resources to promote a candidate? Evidence regarding the conduct of candidate Omar Lopez, on July 16, 2009, strongly suggests the answer to the question is “no”.

n Candidate Omar Lopez distributed Unity Slate campaign literature during work time at his building.

On Thursday, July 16, 2009, Reform candidate John Rochfort received a phone call from county employee and SEIU 221 Union member, Peter Watkins. Mr. Watkins informed Mr. Rochfort that at 10:40 a.m. the morning of July 16, Unity candidate and incumbent Local 221 Secretary, Omar Lopez, was walking though the county worksite at the Bay Marina, National City office, passing out campaign literature; handing the literature to employees and placing the campaign materials on workers' chairs. Mr. Watkins inquired of Mr. Rochfort...."isn't it illegal to hand out campaign materials during regular working hours?"

Reform Candidate Rochfort replied, "yes, it is illegal to hand out campaign literature during regular working hours; it is supposed to be limited to employees' lunch time, during non-working hours. Basically, Peter, handing out campaign literature at 10:40 a.m. is not doing so during lunch, even for those who take early lunch at 11:00. Mr. Lopez is an E-Board member; he knows better."

n The incumbent president, Sharon-Frances Moore, was a candidate for election. During the campaign period, she used employees of the SEIU Member Resource Center (call center staff) to contact all Local 221 stewards to arrange individual meetings with herself, purportedly to discuss plans for San Diego County Board of Supervisors elections in 2010. Ms. Moore has not ever previously sought such meetings with all stewards, on any subject, during her entire term of office, from 2007 until now.

On or about June 17, 2009, candidate Monty Kroopkin did receive a voice mail from the Member Resource Center. The message informed Mr. Kroopkin, a steward, that Ms. Moore was seeking these meetings. Mr. Kroopkin did return the call, on or about June 17, and spoke with the employee of SEIU about the meeting plans. Mr. Kroopkin also spoke with the employee’s supervisor, and explained that Ms. Moore was a candidate for election, that she had never before sought such meetings, and that it was improper for union staff resources to be used to promote Ms. Moore’s ‘name recognition’ as a candidate and that these calls should stop. Other stewards also received the same type of phone call from the Member Resource Center.

About a week earlier, candidate Cornelius Hill also received a phone call from Local 221 employee Alicia Bacon, stating that Ms. Moore wanted to set up individual meetings with members of the 2009 county contract negotiation team, on the same subject. Other members of the negotiation team also received this same type of phone call from Ms. Bacon and/or other 221 staff.

n Ms. Moore refused to give steward and candidate Denise Knobloch a copy of the same steward roster used to make the call center calls to stewards, until after the election.

On July 5, 2009, Ms. Knobloch requested a copy of the steward roster. On July 7, 2009 Ms. Moore characterized the steward roster as “election materials or lists” and told Ms. Knobloch to contact the election contractor. On July 8, 2009, Ms. Knobloch wrote back to Ms. Moore stating she did not understand why the steward roster was not available and asking for clarification. On July 9, 2009, Ms. Moore responded, stating that only a partial roster would be made available and not until on or about July 22, 2009, which is the day after the election was scheduled to end.

n The incumbent president, and candidate for election, Ms. Moore, campaigned at work site union meetings (during her paid work time?). She spoke about her accomplishments and goals as president.

Candidate Denise Knobloch attended a work site union meeting, at her own work site, which was also attended by Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore has seldom attended work site union meetings during her entire term as president, from 2007 to now. At this meeting, Ms. Moore spoke like a candidate, without stating that she indeed was a candidate. This meeting took place on June 18, 2009. Ms. Moore did not state, either, that she was attending the meeting on her own time, and it appears that the union was paying her for the time. Mr. Kroopkin was informed by other workers that Ms. Moore attended other work site union meetings, at other locations, for this same purpose of campaigning at union meetings, without saying that she was campaigning.

n Evidence indicates the Merriman River Group was not neutral toward all candidates. The rule against campaigning at the polls within the designated election zone was arbitrarily and improperly applied, making it impossible to leaflet or talk to voters entering the poll, at a reasonable distance from the poll. A public sidewalk was held to be in the no campaigning zone.

In the May 30, 2009 candidates meeting held by Merriman River Group, the materials given to candidates included:

“Candidates and their observers have a right to campaign at polling places, but under

no circumstances shall they engage in campaign or conversation within the

designated election zone. The zone will be designated on a site by site basis, but will

generally be, 50-75 feet from the check-in station.”

On or about July 20, 2009, candidate Denise Knobloch went to the election poll located at the Local 221 union hall, at 4004 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, California. She asked the Merriman River Group poll worker to tell her where the designated election zone boundary was drawn, in order to assure that she would be campaigning outside the zone. After being asked her name, and if she was a candidate, she answered the questions. The poll worker then made a telephone call to his superiors. Why was that information about name and candidate status relevant? She was then told that the zone was drawn approximately 75 feet from the front door of the union hall, instead of 50-75 feet from the check-in station, which was at least 20-30 feet inside the building from the front door. The poll worker then showed her where the boundary was deemed to be. It was so far from the front door of the union hall that no voter could be reached to hand a leaflet nor could any voter be engaged in any campaign conversation without yelling to get their attention. The election zone was deemed to include the entrance to the union hall parking lot and the entire public sidewalk in front of the union hall and extending to the 2 properties which neighbor the union hall.

n Voter privacy at the polls was not protected adequately; poll workers could see a table where ballots were being marked and see how a voter was voting.

On or about July 20, 2009, candidate Diane Sabeghi went to the election poll located at the Local 221 union hall, at 4004 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, California. She cast her ballot there. While voting she saw that the poll workers were positioned in such a way that they could see the tables where voters marked their ballots and could see the ballot she was marking and could see how she was voting. She reports:

“I entered the room, the tables were set up in a "u" position, one person was standing over the ballot box, one seated, Tosha was seated on far side of the room facing the door- I looked around the room and did not see a private area where I could sit down and mark my ballot. Once I was given the pink paper, I marked it in full view of everyone in the room and left.”

On July 20, 2009, candidate Denise Knobloch also went to the poll at the union hall. She reports:

“When I went to the union hall to vote I was very uncomfortable with the way the room was set up. I did not have any privacy and the guy at the table with the computer who checked me in was in full view of my ballot while I voted. He was not doing anything but sitting there and was looking at me. He could see how I voted.”

n Some voters and some candidates were subjected to intimidation during the nomination process and/or during the campaign period.

Candidate Omar Lopez is a supervisor and asked subordinate workers to sign his nomination petition. One worker reported to the Reform221 slate that he and other workers who are subordinate to Mr. Lopez felt intimidated and felt that they had to sign the nomination petition.

Another worker, Mr. Robert Insunza, wrote to members of the Reform221 slate on July 3, 2009. In his email, Mr. Insunza threatened candidate Denise Knobloch directly, and indirectly threatened the other members of the Reform221 slate. He stated:

“I will do everything in my family's power to crush your Reform221 campaign. I can play dirty too. Dont you EVER step on my toes Denise. You or anyone else.”

Ms. Knobloch wrote to President Moore to ask what her position was on Mr. Insunza’s statement, and to ask what would (or should) be done about it, because Ms. Moore was a recipient of the “cc” list for Mr. Insunza’s email. In an email of July 7, 2009 to Ms Knobloch, Ms. Moore dismissed the matter, stating “As for Robert’s email to you; I am not responsible for emails, communications, or conversations that members have with each other.”

n Candidate access to inspect the Local 221 membership list was arbitrarily limited to appointments on 2 specified dates.

In the May 30, 2009 candidates meeting held by Merriman River Group, the materials given to candidates by Merriman River Group included:

“All candidates and/ or slates will have the right to inspect a copy of the mailing list.

This inspection can be made by appointment for Friday, June 12, or Saturday, June

13, 2009. Please contact Matthew Fitch to schedule an appointment.”

This severely restricted the ability of candidates to inspect the membership list. Furthermore, it was never clearly stated that the mailing list and the membership list was the same list. The right of a candidate “…once within 30 days prior to an election of a labor organization in which he is a candidate, to inspect a list containing the names and last known addresses of all members of the labor organization…” was largely nullified by the limitation of appointments to only 2 days within the available 30 days.

n A candidate was told by an election official that the right to inspect the membership list did not include the right to make any notes.

Candidate Diane Sabeghi did inspect said mailing list on June 12, 2009. She was told by SEIU Local 221 Election Designee, Tasha Iglesias, that she could read the list only and could not take any notes. This rendered the inspection almost useless for election campaign purposes.

n Candidate Omar Lopez has fraudulently run for office.

He accepted a position at San Diego State University and scheduled a going away party with his co-workers for July 23, 2009. He did not inform voters that he would not be available to serve as Secretary of Local 221 if elected. He was in fact elected. He knew he had been hired for this new job before the mail ballots were mailed out on July 1, 2009. Mr. Lopez was the incumbent Secretary and was running on Ms. Moore’s Unity Slate.

Last updated 336 days ago by Reform221

Reform221

Reform221 358 days ago

| About | Terms | Privacy |