Pages

Thursday, February 17, 2011

DA Union Loses Lawsuit - All Deputy DAs May Be Forced to Pay for Folly

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?
A number of comments on Dragnet have been posted attacking candidates who are considered to be "anti-labor." Although the comments are anonymous, it is highly likely that the authors are associated with the ADDA - the Association of Deputy District Attorneys.

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How about stealthily going around setting up a "vote" to force all deputy DA's in grades I through IV have $900 a year withdrawn from their salaries for compulsory "union dues."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

and

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.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yikes - this is either a bad joke or Ipsen/ADDA is in a lot of trouble. No wonder Ipsen has been quiet about his campaign to become DA - with this stinker about to hit the fan he will look like a total jerk. I suppose the ADDA will try to appeal the court of appeal's decision to the Supreme Court and delay the inevitable, and also drive up the cost of legal fees.

David Berger said...

Any Deputy DAs who are opposed to having $900 a year deducted from their pay in union dues should go to http://www.lalidda.net/contact/ and leave a message there. We're building an email list of Deputy DAs who want to stop the ADDA from forcing us to follow their ridiculous policies. All in the strictest confidence. Please sign up. It's time we took control of our representation.

David Berger

Anonymous said...

Too bad David Berger is is one brain short. DDAs aren't going to pay a dime for Peter Burke, who along with Cooley, Lacey and Truilljo behaved illegally and are being sued in federal court. That's right. The union dues will not be used to pay for Peter Burke's illegal behavior when he stole the union list from the Employee Relations Office and gave it to Cooley. But, Berger is so out of touch that he looks like a fool to those in the know. Have fun.

Anonymous said...

Hey DDAs,
David Berger said that if you join his crusade, he will give the list to Cooley and you will be promoted, just like Burke gave the list to Cooley. But now Cooley and Berger are running the show. I can't sign up fast enough.... NOT

Anonymous said...

I'm glad that someone has the guts to stand up to the ADDA. It's intimidating tactics (last 2 comments) have got to be stopped. I'm with Berger, and kudos to him for standing up and identifying himself.

Anonymous said...

"DDAs aren't going to pay a dime ..." Really? Is that why you're taking $900 a year in dues? How stupid do you think we are?

And as for your pathetic lie about Burke "stealing" the list, my understanding is that the list was willingly (if stupidly) handed over. That's not theft - or did you get the larceny question wrong in the last Grade IV exam?

Keep trying bozos.

Anonymous said...

How come the union did not tell its members that they lost the case with Burke? I don't think I trust this union - they should have told us.

This is huge. Not only $160k in Burke's legal fees, but I bet the union has paid as much if not more to their lawyers. All because the union doesn't want to hold a fair election. That's what they're afraid of - fair elections, and that's why they're trying to rush through the closed shop deal.

Anonymous said...

Can't wait for Snacker, Cooley and Burke to face the federal judge!

Anonymous said...

"Can't wait for Snacker, Cooley and Burke to face the federal judge!"

Oh yes, I bet that federal judge will be mighty impressed when he reads Burke v. Ipsen, probably about as impressed as everyone else in the office is now that they've found out what the union was hiding.

How about an official statement on the case Ipsen? Or are you just going to blog bile anonymously?

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that David Berger will use his own name for one of his comments, but uses the fake name of Windscale for all of the other blog postings on this blog.

He also posts many comments anonymously, and he posts on all his other blogs under other fake names.

Is he schizophrenic or suffering from an identity crisis?

No wonder he's known around town as BERGER THE BOOGER. LOL!!!

Anonymous said...

Interesting that 10:31am criticizes Berger for using his real name, but comments anonymously.

Also rather pathetic to see the typical ADDA crap here, like 9:02am "... if you join his crusade, he will give the list to Cooley and you will be promoted,...

In case you hadn't noticed there's a little bit of a recession going on. Promotions? Are you nuts? You think anyone buys the idea that there are going to be promotions for signing Berger's list?

That is so unrealistic it's not even funny. But then again, it was the ADDA who were saying that they would get us pay parity with Orange County etc. etc.

And for all your pathetic name calling, how come you haven't answered the question - why didn't the union tell its members that they LOST the lawsuit? How will the ADDA pay the legal fees, its own and Burkes? How about some answers on the ADDA website instead of the BS that's there now.

ADDA has no credibility. ZERO.

Anonymous said...

Berger, Windscale, anonymous, Jack... etc. It sure takes a lot of energy to spew this much hate over this many blogs, over this much time. Sad, desparate, unfortunate...

Anonymous said...

Wow, that sounded threatening

Anonymous said...

Berger, Winscale, Jack, Jim, Boris, Sam, Franz etc. etc. it sure takes a lot of energy to come up with a question that they cannot answer. It's kinda embarrassing that they LOST, TWICE. That's why they didn't want to say anything about it.

Frank Tavelman said...

Firstly, I am a former ADDA officer and current member and have been for years. I am not anti-administration, and do not agree with everything the ADDA’s Board has done over the years. However, I joined and still am a member because over the last 20 years the County has shown that they did not honor their promise that if we decertify we will never be treated worse than organized labor.

People are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but they too often don’t want facts to get in the way. For those interested in the facts they are:

1. Burke Lawsuit - Peter Burke initially sued the ADDA after members voted to amend the bylaws and permit the existing Board of Directors to remain in office to finish negotiating our first Memorandum of Understanding in over 20 years since we were a certified bargaining unit. Peter’s initial suit was thrown out of court, but he refiled it and ultimately won on appeal. Before the appeal, the ADDA held another vote ratifying the prior election to address Peter’s concerns. Peter was not satisfied. During the appeal, the ADDA held a third election concerning the bylaws to address Peter’s concerns, and again DDAs overwhelming voted by over 2/3rd margin to ratify the bylaws. Peter claimed he spent over $100k bringing this suit on behalf of the DDAs which ultimately accomplished nothing. The ADDA obtained our first contract, and immediately held an election in which Hyatt Seligman was elected as president. No nefarious acts, no secret agendas, just an effort to have the Board that started the bargaining process and who spent a year preparing continue and get us a contract.

2. ADDA Elections – There have been TWO ADDA elections since Peter brought his suit. The first was an election to fill board vacancies that were created last year. The second election was a full election for all officers and directors. Instead of people crying about what may or may not have taken place years ago, they should have joined the organization to have a say as to our future. I ran for president against Hyatt so DDAs could have a choice and to end the allegations of a group trying to maintain control. He won by ONE VOTE. If those critics were builders rather than destroyers they could have had a say in the election. They prefer to remain on the sidelines, collect the benefits of the good the ADDA has done (reducing out medical insurance costs, maintaining mega flex benefits, maintaining the opportunity for a 401(k) and 457 plan match all of which were threatened by the County).

3. Federal Lawsuits – Despite the misinformation from some, the ADDA is forced to file lawsuits and bring administrative actions not because the Board likes it, but because the County has proven time and time again that they are willing to violate the law. When the County wrongfully increased medical insurance premiums, it was the ADDA, not Peter Burke or the DA’s Office who got it resolved. The ADDA filed the Federal lawsuit and a Bush appointee to the Federal bench issued an injunction for violating our Constitutional rights. Imagine that, the government violating the rights of those very DDAs that are tirelessly working to protect the public. In addition, class action lawsuits were also filed by individuals against Peter Burke and County for violating their privacy rights – a silly claim??? Perhaps, except that the Federal judge did not think so and certified the class action rather than dismissing it. Apparently a neutral Federal judge believes there is merit to the claim.

Many believes that DDAs should not be suing DDAs, and generally this is something I agree with; however, I also believe that our colleagues should not take lists that are confidential and disclose them needlessly. Even after being advised the list was confidential, Peter REFUSED to stipulate to have it sealed. He required the ADDA to get counsel and bring motions in Superior Court. This is akin to a DDA mistakenly getting attorney work product and refusing to return it to the court.



Frank Tavelman

Frank Tavelman said...

4. John Eastman – The endorsement of John Eastman was not the only endorsement made by the ADDA. It was a hotly contested one, and one I vociferously opposed, but in a very close vote it passed. Some believe that candidates should be endorsed because they share law and order positions that are consistent with DDAs mission to keep the public safe. They believe we should endorse those individuals even if they may not be 100% pro labor. Rather than bitch about it, get involved and have your voice heard. The last election was decided by one vote, now is not the time to complain about those who have proven to have obtained improvements for all DDAs.

5. PERSA, Military Leave, Pensions and other Accomplishments – Why individuals want to focus on the Burk fiasco is baffling. That lawsuit accomplishments NOTHING to benefit DDAs except distract from our mission to get a descent contract for all DDAs. Let’s focus on what the naysayers don’t: (1) PERSA – at the request of many DDAs, the ADDA took up the PERSA battle as an unfair downgrading of good, hardworking DDAs in an effort to ferret some of our lazy colleagues. Some DDAs are told that they are not in assignments where they can ever exceed expectations. Simply put, such a rating system is lame. Every DDAs should be given a chance to achieve and be recognized for outstanding work regardless if they are filing DDAs, assigned to juvenile or in other non-trial assignments. Guess what …. The neutral County Commission agreed with the ADDA and threw out PERSA as a violation of the law (County ordinance and the Government Code).

I personally all DDAs should be rated fairly – if they suck DOCUMENT it and rate them accordingly. If they do a good job, then they should be able to exceed expectations.

In addition, it was the ADDA, not Peter Burke or the DA’s Office who brought up the illegal actions taken by the County for DDAs who are veterans serving as reserves. They are illegally docked salary that they should be paid. When the ADDA brought up this issue, some DA representatives at the bargaining table walked out! Only after another class action lawsuit was brought to defend our veterans did the County and the DA’s office relent and agree that their methods did violate the law. Wasted money? Not to our colleagues who sacrifice on behalf of our Country.

Now we hear grumblings from the County that they want to change our “generous pension plans.” Generous? Really, did they ever look at what 30 years of service gets you on Plan E? I can assure you that it will not be anyone other than the ADDA that fights that fight for us all. But such fights do not come for free. Including top lawyers and consultants for these fights. If we don’t have the money, through agency shop we will not have the resources to take on the fight. The County will give you NOTHING and honor little without our success in court and at administrative Commissions. Other than the Burke fiasco, the ADDA has been successful in every legal and administrative action it has brought due to the County’s and others bad faith.

By supporting agency shop, you have a chance to “secretly” support the ADDAs efforts on behalf of all DDAs. Too many DDAs are too scared to actually join, but if support the need for a union and will happily contribute. Others are happy to reap the benefits obtained including more money, no loss time for leaving early, comp time for extra hours worked, and more.

I encourage everyone to learn the truth.

Anonymous said...

Also -- Please stop accusing the ADDA of doing things. The ADDA is made up of it's officers, directorsf and members. The board includes many individuals was all areas of the office. Some individuals who hate the administration and some who have no compliants. Don't lump us all together. That's simply not fair.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tavelman,
I think the shark was jumped on this board even before Berger's recent post because one particular poster has chosen to (like a broke record) invoke the federal litigation whenever certain DA candidates are mentioned. Considering two ADDA board members running for the SAME office have already approached many of us for support, the whole thing is starting to smell.

Frank Tavelman said...

Anonymous 1:03

Although I am not currently on the Board of Directors any more I still attend meetings. I am not aware of any current ADDA Board directors who are running, but I'm probably just not in the loop. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and don't really understand your message.

As for the Federal lawsuit. It has multiple aspects. What I remain baffled about is how the County has the money to pay lawyers from one of the most prestigious law firms around, Jones Day, who they are probably paying $1,000 an hour or more in the aggregate for the 3-4 lawyers they have on the case, but can't find money to give DDAs, even as a one time bonus or "educational allowance which the ADDA proposed PRIOR to the lawsuit.

I have found when DDAs learn the facts and of what really happened instead of listening to the noise blasted by either pro-union or anti-union individuals they make better decisions. I'm hoping my posts help.

Frank Tavelman

David Berger said...

Frank,

First of all, thank you for a cogent summary of many of the issues that cause most Deputy DAs to baulk at the idea of the ADDA representing them, let alone forcing DDAs to pay dues.

Let me be clear, I am also a member of the ADDA, although given the paucity of information I receive from the ADDA, I can only conclude that I am on a "Do Not Mail" list. Perhaps for good reason in their eyes.

Indeed, I was wholly unaware of the recent election until a colleague told me that one was underway - the ADDA website is useless for anything other than vitriolic propaganda.

I voted for you, but in order to do so, I had to first contact Leslie Simon at AFSCME and had to demand a ballot as the ADDA had not told me there was an election, let alone who was running. Ms. Simon did indeed sent a ballot to me and I was able to cast my vote for you to be president. I can only assume my vote was counted, but I have no way of being sure. I also asked Ms. Simon to ensure that I received regular and routine communications from ADDA, but it seems that my request has not been effected.

Again, I was wholly unaware that moves were being made to change the ADDA into an "Agency Shop" also know as a "Closed Shop," or in plain English, an organization that requires all DDAs to have to pay dues regardless of their personal opinion. If you are a DDA not in a management position, $900 a year will be forcibly removed from your pay and given to the ADDA to use as they see fit.

It was not until an incident with a ADDA Board Member that I became aware of this latest move, and without going into details, it is precisely this kind of lack of transparency that makes me, and I'm sure, many others like me, utterly opposed to the ADDA representing me.

You say that you are not a Board Member, yet you attend meetings. May I ask, how do know when and where meetings are held? Why, as a fully paid up member, do I not receive any notice of a meeting? It's not as if the ADDA is unaware of my email address. Is it so hard to send an email, or is it preferable to keep members who may not agree with the agenda in the dark and then tell them the decisions that have been made in their name?

I do agree, Frank, that there are significant things that the ADDA has achieved for DDAs especially in terms of dealings with the County, but they continually destroy and goodwill they have by their secrecy as well as a sometimes foolish and vindictive attitude to those who stand in their way.

You make a compelling argument in support of the enforced deduction of $900 a year to fund battles that DDAs will have in the future. The problem it that the recent history of the ADDA is such that many simply do not trust the ADDA to fight those battles. The blatant lack of transparency and the all too convenient loss "by one vote" of key matters, such as the presidency or foolishly vindictive political endorsements, are but a few examples of why fueling the ADDA with close to $630,000 a year in forcibly extracted member dues is unacceptable to me.

Perhaps if you had become president, you might have been able to bring the very necessary change in the way the ADDA conducts itself and inspire a degree of trust and confidence in the DDAs. But that did not happen, again for what I consider to be very shady reasons. After all, I am sure that I was not the only member who was "out of the loop" on the election. Where there 2 more members out there who, had they been informed of the election, would have voted for you?

I also heard a rumor, that Steve Ipsen failed to gain sufficient votes to win an elected position on the Board. He was nevertheless summarily appointed to a vacant position. Perhaps you can confirm or deny this?

... continued

David Berger said...

... continued

All of this, and more, makes me feel that the ADDA cannot be trusted to represent me, even though I acknowledge that DDAs need responsible representation. There is no guarantee that the ADDA will not again, illegally postpone elections or adopt bylaws, and then try to end-run the illegality with ratification. That they won't again engage in political endorsements for the sole reason of causing the administration embarrassment. That they won't again vilify those who stand in their paths.
It is for those reasons that I am opposed to further empowering the ADDA in any way, and therefore voice my non-approval of an "Agency Shop" or to repeat the plain English that the ADDA runs from - I am opposed to allowing the ADDA to forcibly take $900 from my salary and that of all 700 DDAs.

I realize, from what you say, that without the $630,000 a year warchest, the ADDA will be unable to fund worthwhile fights, equally, they will not be able to engage in frivolous, wasteful and ill-advised activities.

The DNA of the ADDA seems to be utterly resistant to change, and perhaps the answer will be for an alternate body to assume representation of all DDAs. That body should have a set of bylaws demanding more transparency and inclusiveness.

We live in an increasingly electronic age where the inclusion and involvement of all DDAs could easily be achieved over the internet. Much like this blog has prompted the first truly open debate on the ADDA, so too could other matters be easily disseminated, discussed and decided. Everyone who is interested can participate or at least find out what is being discussed and decided upon. But that degree of transparency seems to be an anathema to the DNA of the ADDA.

Indeed, it is notable that you, Frank, are the only member of the ADDA who has chosen to speak about the ADDA in this forum, apart from the anonymous comments repeating the 'federal lawsuit' mantra of the ADDA.

Unless and until the ADDA demonstrates a commitment to inclusiveness and transparent democratic decision making, it will not have the support of many DDAs. I hope that in opposing the ADDA's Agency Shop, we the silent majority, will force regime change at the ADDA.

Either the ADDA must rid itself of it's past, or a new body must be formed. What say you?

Anonymous said...

When and where is the next ADDA meeting? When and where was the last meeting? Who was there? What was resolved? Why no details?

Frank Tavelman said...

David:

I agree with much of what you say. The ADDA has done a horrible job in communicating with it’s members and non-members. When I was on the Board this was an issue that I constantly raised, but was not successful in correcting. The lack of communication is not due to some nefarious reasons, but simply that we have a Board of Directors that is made up of too many people who do something between Jack and S**t. The reality is that the majority of the work was done by only 4-5 people of the 21 member Board. There was simply too much work to do with the constant challenges we faced by the County consistently refusing to honor the law. That is not an excuse but simply a truthful explanation.

Now communications are via e-mail from Hyatt Seligman. Many members receive these, but some don’t. For some, the junk mail filters screen these out. The website is aweful, and I have made numerous requests to have agendas and minutes published on the website to that people can know what is going on, but my requests fell on deaf ears. We would love to get a new DDA volunteer to work on the website. Although I don’t know the exact reason why agendas and minutes are not included, there was concern that the County or others would somehow use this information to gain some advantage it could use against DDAs. My feeling is that it is not hard to create a password member only page, but I can only do so many things and do not have the technical ability to do it myself.

Rather than attacking agency shop which is necessary if we are to have the same successes for our members that ALADS and the LAPPL have for theirs, it is better to lead a recruiting drive of like minded DDAs to join the ADDA and vote in it’s elections. Stopping agency shop would send a message to the County that they can run roughshod over us at the upcoming contract bargaining that is set for September.

Hyatt sends e-mails concerning the meetings. If I don’t hear from him I send him a request. Meetings are generally the third Tuesday of every month at the AFSCME Headquarters located on Shatto place between 4th and 6th. We used to meet downtown but got yelled one time and then relocated to AFSCME. I encourage everyone to attend.

As for Steve Ipsen. He did NOT run for a board seat, but ran for Treasurer and was not successful. Had he run for a board seat he would have been elected since only 14 people ran for 16 spots. Hyatt sent around multiple notices about the vacancy, and at the last board meeting the two vacancies were filled by the Board with Steve Ipsen and Guy Shirley. I too sought a board seat but the Board majority voted for the Steve and Guy rather than me. Frankly some Board members hate my guts. Even though I was not voted on, I still will participate in the ADDA because it is too important for all DDAs to have all points of view heard and having worked too hard to get the ADDA certified as the bargaining agent for DDAs I refuse to be a passive member.

A correction that also needs to be made: (1) the $900 figure you put out there is based on top step Grade IV, and is not the rate paid by Grade I’s and II’s who make less money. A minor point, but still important to clarify.

Frank Tavelman

Frank Tavelman said...

Also a couple of other FACTS omitted by some who may be intentionally or unintentionally misleading DDAs about the Peter Burke lawsuit.

If the issue had simply been elections of officers and directors and a new vote on the bylaws it would have been one thing, but Burke also sued for the following:

1. Roll back dues to $30 per year for members (a rate that was ridiculous given the cost of collective bargaining and lawsuits and administrative hearing to stop the County from repeatedly screwing DDAs). Most unions charge members 1% per year, but the ADDA's rate ranged between .50 and .73% per year (approximate numbers). I remain baffled how Peter or others expect the ADDA to be so much more efficient than every other union in the County.

2. Peter petitioned the court to have himself appointed at ADDA Treasurer -- without an election.

3. Peter claims he spent over $100k of "his own money" to bring this lawsuit -- really? He then claimed that we all benefited from his actions so we should all pay. Remember that ultimately his lawsuit accomplished NOTHING other than distractions and costing money.

I spoke to some of Peter's former colleagues and they all say he's a principled man who just may actually spend his money. I've spoken to Peter a few times about this issue and we got along fine, but maybe had he limited his demands to simply an election we could have settled, but his other demands were simply not acceptable.

Look at the pleadings if you don't believe my representations.

-Frank Tavelman

Frank Tavelman said...

Anonymous 1:38:

The last Board meeting was February 15th at 6pm. It was held at AFSCME Headquarter on Shatto place between 4th and 6th. Hyatt Seligman sent an e-mail about the meeting to members. Meetings are generally the third Tuesday of the month at AFSCME.

The full board was in attendance which is 21 people, I don't recall all the names. The main things discussed were filling the board vacancies, moving forward on allowing ADDA members to decide if we should affiliate with AFSCME (the same union that County doctors are in - except we would consider affiliating with Council 36 of AFSCME) (NOTE: The Board was adamant that any such affiliation be based on a membership vote and would have a trial period of three years whereby we could determine if we like the affiliation or not). The need to communicate to our members about agency shop. Creating a new litigation committee to manage litigation, creating a judicial nominatons committee to interface with other unions and Gov. Brown on behalf of DDAs, and a few other housekeeping items.

Generally, information about the meetings would be sent out via the minutes when the are formally approved at the subsequent Board meeting. Hopefully this information is helpful

Frank Tavelman

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the comments of Berger and Tavelman, two people who are obviously not afraid to voice their opinions.

It's is regrettable that nobody from ADDA has offered any defense of the criticisms leveled against them, but perhaps that's not surprising.

My biggest concern about the ADDA is that far too many board members and officers have personal grievances with the DA's Office. That creates an inherent conflict of interest when dealing with the interests of all members. I will not approve an agency shop unless there is some mechanism to recuse any officer or board member from the management of the ADDA pending the resolution of their own dispute.

By all means there should be an association to represent DDAs who have grievances, but the aggrieved person should not be in a managing position while the grievance is being resolved.

Anonymous said...

ADDA members should not defend themselves in this rediculous forum. Berger just wants ammunition for the next blog. ADDA members are not Grade V, not managers right?

Anonymous said...

ADDA members do not have to "defend" themselves anywhere, neither do they have to explain themselves to idiots like 9:57am who ask stupid questions. The business of running any organization cannot be properly conducted if every decision has to be explained and subjected to forum criticism like this.

David Berger said...

I get the sense that there are a lot of DDAs who feel uncomfortable speaking publicly on this issue, however, there really isn't any other way for the views of DDAs to be known.

I therefore invite all DDAs to take part in an unofficial survey on the ADDA Agency Shop plan. Click here to take survey on SurveyMonkey.com

You can also copy this link and email it to others.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5GJD6MH

Anonymous said...

Berger, you will be added to the federal lawsuit.

Frank Tavelman said...

Anonymous 10:04 pm

Your comment is just stupid and contributes nothing to this dialogue.

As an aside, if any DDA is not currently on the e-mail list simply e-mail me your e-mail address and I'll make sure it gets forward on. Sometimes the ADDA e-mails are intercepted by junk mail so make sure you check there periodically.


Frank Tavelman

Frank Tavelman said...

Ooops. I meant 10:40 not 10:04.

Anonymous said...

Can't wait for the results of you and your 999 personalities. Pins and needles.