|The Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys' website|
talks about preliminary victories in their lawsuits, but makes no mention
of a huge loss, confirmed on appeal. Will all Deputy DAs have to pay?
Ironically, the ADDA is hardly "pro-labor" itself, having endorsed right wing Republican John Eastman during the 2009 primary election for State Attorney General. Nevertheless, the ADDA appears maintain the appearance of a typical "pro labor" association.
Forgive the cynicism, but appearances can be deceptive and it does appear that the ADDA is not fully informing those who might be affected by significant developments.
We therefore repeat here a couple of comments received this evening, the contents of which are self explanatory:
A Deputy DA said...
OMG The 'Union" thing again @ 10:16am. The so-called DA's union that endorsed John Eastman, the extreme right-wing candidate for Attorney General. That "labor" organization, right.
Hmmm, has anyone bothered to see what the so-called DA's "union" is up to? How about stealthily going around setting up a "vote" to force all deputy DA's in grades I through IV have $900 a year withdrawn from their salaries for compulsory "union dues."
Think I'm joking? Take a look at 189 Cal. App. 4th 801. Looks like the "union" has a $160k problem and wants all the deputy DA's to pick up the tab.
For all their bragging and bloviating about winning preliminary rulings in "Federal lawsuits," the ADDA who endorsed right wing ultra conservative John Eastman, are keeping their mouths tightly shut about how they LOST a lawsuit at trial, and then again on appeal, because they did not follow their own bylaws.
As a result the ADDA are now are left with having to pay $60,000 in attorney fees for LOSING at trial, and a further $100,000 for LOSING on appeal, and guess what? They want the rank and file Deputy DAs to be forced to pay for their folly.
There is not a mention of this case on the ADDA website. So come on "Windscale" I've given you the story. How about you have the guts to write about it?
February 17, 2011 9:02 PM
Another Deputy DA said...
189 Cal. App. 4th 801 is the case of Peter Burke vs. Steven Ipsen et al.
Looks like Burke, a deputy DA, sued Ipsen and the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys (union) because Ipsen didn't follow the rules and hold an election when and how he was supposed to, and then amended the ADDA bylaws inappropriately.
This is typical of the way this so-called union operates - they do something under the radar, and then try to tell members that it was all done in accordance with the rules they make up to suit their purposes.
So the trial court agreed with Burke and awarded him his attorney's fees ($60k). Instead of obeying the court's order, Ipsen appealed, and on October 29, 2010, the Court of Appeal rejected Ipsen's arguments and also awarded Burke his attorney's fees for the appeal, which are around $100k.
So now the "union" doesn't have the $160k to pay for screwing up, and they want us to pay for their stupidity? I don't think so.
So far this "union" has been the problem not the solution. They claim to be 'labor' but they endorsed an extreme right wing candidate for AG - John Eastman.
Ipsen and his appointed replacement Seligman have manipulated the truth about the Burke case. As a member of this union, I have not received any notice of this case, and neither have I heard anything about them trying to force me, and everyone else at the DA's office, to pay $900 a year so they can pay off their debts.
I hope the Dragnet has the balls to write about this.
February 17, 2011 10:45 PM
The ADDA website, http://la-adda.com/, makes no reference to either the "compulsory" $900 a year "union dues" nor the loss of the lawsuit.
One can only assume that the ADDA hopes to fund their estimated debt of $160,000 in attorney fees through membership dues, and that might explain why there's no reference to either matter on the ADDA website.
Those who have received communications from the ADDA regarding either the "Closed Shop" mandatory union dues proposal, or the results of the Burke v. Ispen lawsuit and its funding are free to comment here to correct any inaccuracies.
Equally, those who wish to express their dissent and disapproval of the way the ADDA conducts its affairs, often claiming to "represent" all Deputy DAs, when that could not be further from the truth, are welcome to voice their opinions.
Hopefully a healthy debate here might lead to a more representative organization.