Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Controversy Rages Over Endorsement

OPINION: LA Daily News' political insider Rick Orlov's Monday Tipoff that District Attorney candidate Jackie Lacey has the "backing of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, as well as the County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO" sparked a deluge of disbelief in our Monday Briefs post.

No comments questioned "the big story" that Steve Cooley has 'cooled it' with Carmen Trutanich and considers him basically unfit for the office of District Attorney.

It was the report that Lacey has the backing of the County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, that must have been greeted with cheers by the rank and file Deputy District Attorneys who are more than disenchanted with the self-destructive antics of the ADDA "Board Majority."

The ADDA "Board Majority" has invested heavily in trying to portray Lacey as a "union buster," a charge that remains to be fully litigated and, from an outsider's perspective, one that will likely be disproved once all the facts are established in a court of law, rather than propagandized from a bully pulpit.

Regardless, the ADDA "Board Majority" clearly see the prospect of "real organized labor" supporting Lacey as terminal to their efforts. It appears that the ADDA "Board Majority" acted swiftly,  through their contacts at AFSCME to obtain clarification from the County Federation of Labor.

A letter from the County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO Executive Director
Maria Elena Durazo states that endorsements have yet to be decided.

(Credit: LA Union Buster)
A letter from Maria Elena Durazo, the Executive Director of the County Federation of Labor responded swiftly to the "Tipoff," providing some temporary relief for the ADDA "Board Majority." The letter, published at the LA Union Buster blog, states that no endorsement has been made for any candidate, and states that the endorsement process has not yet commenced. Nevertheless, Rick Orlov did not retract his "Tipoff" and the likelihood is that his sources are sound.

Readers will recall the controversy surrounding DA candiate Danette Meyers endorsement by LACBA Executive Director Sally Suchil, from which it appears that statements and indeed endorsements by Executive Directors should not be taken as reflective of the decisions of the organizations they serve.

The "Tipoff" has, however, brought the "union busting" claims of the ADDA "Board Majority" more sharply into focus. In the process, it has highlighted the hypocrisy of the ADDA "Board Majority." In one of their more widely known "shots in the foot," last year they endorsed conservative republican John Eastman for Attorney General. Eastman has something of a reputation for being ultra conservative and has probably sued unions - he is hardly a champion of the organized labor movement, and probably more richly deserving of any "union busting" appellation, than someone who simply tried to help a friend.

No doubt the debate will rage on, but it does appear that as people become more aware of the issues, the ADDA "Board Majority" may have to re-think their endorsement policy - one comment suggested that the ADDA "Board Majority" might endorse Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ... 

Meanwhile, we're hearing rumors that Steve Cooley's June 2, 2011 City Club fundraiser for Lacey is heavily "oversubscribed" and going to be a crowded event. Trutanich may have to drop the dime to a Fire Marshal and make sure the room capacity isn't exceeded, or perhaps he'll just launch a 'criminal aspects' investigation and threaten to arrest a few guests to keep himself in the headlines.



Anonymous said...

Congratulations on reaching the 40 comment bar on your prior post. The success of your blog is a testament to the fact that most DDAs don't trust the ADDA. And the fact that ADDA shills pelt your comment section with silliest of claims shows that they're worried. They no longer control the conversation. The administration doesn't control the conversation either. And now there is a forum for people to discuss important stuff without being shouted down.

Contrast this with the "launionbuster" blog. This is obviously a blog controlled by Steve Ipsen and his cronies on the board majority to assist Ipsen's campaign. It's not the first phony blog Ipsen's campaign has fielded and likely not the last.

Anonymous said...

Airport Branch loves the Dragnet!

Anonymous said...

@12:31AM is right. Most DDAs do not want anything to do with the ADDA Board Majority, not because they think the administration is anti-union, but because the ADDA seems to only exist to be a problem. It's run by a bunch of people who think they've been passed over and are too busy fighting their own battles. Anything that the ADDA claims it has done for the majority of DDAz could easily have been done without the stupid lawsuits, but the other stuff is purely and simply the personal beefs of people who think they should have been promoted and don't like their assignments.

We all want to be promoted, and sure it would be cool to have an assignment near home, or one that has a little glamor. But the ADDA is not the vehicle for changing that.

We want a union that represents our needs and our concerns, and frankly the Performance Evaluations are sooo low on the list of priorities that the 'victory' was worthless.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were wasted trying to fight Peter Burke when all the ADDA had to do was follow their own rules. They refused to do that and that mindset is why nobody wants to join the ADDA, and why most of those in it, want out.

Anonymous said...

Telling Rob Dver not to work with the union because it will hurt his career, then transferring him to BFE is illegal PERIOD. If Jackie Lacey doesn't know the First Amendment to the US Constitution, then she is not capable of being our next DA. But, you probably won't post this because it is clear you were hired by Cooley and Jackie to campaign for Jackie on county time. When Danette gets elected I hope she seizes your computer, then makes you actually work for a living. If you think Jackie has the African American population sealed down, think twice my friends.

Anonymous said...

Wow, now "10:11" is bringing the Meyers campaign into this ruckus! Could it be that someone at Airport had the audacity to give Dragnet a compliment without first getting "permission." It's amazing how many "reformers" can't wait to take power an set up their own Politburos and Gestapos!

Anonymous said...

Thanks, @10:11AM, for violating Seligman's Dragnet fatwa and giving us a frightening insight into the workings of a ADDA "Board Majority" mind.

I seriously doubt Danette, or any of the other candidates, will retaliate against Berger and his crew for running this blog in his own time (check the time of the posts), so far he's given all candidates equal coverage, equal criticism and an equal opportunity to promote themselves.

I do understand that the ADDA Board Majority cannot stand the Dragnet and what it represents. Their opposition to first amendment freedom of speech is very clear and very out of date. This is America, not the Soviet Union.

Anonymous said...

To the ADDA troll @ 10:11AM

"Telling Rob Dver not to work with the union because it will hurt his career, then transferring him to BFE is illegal PERIOD."

Nice try. The two things are completely separate, legally and factually.

First, there is nothing wrong in Lacey telling Dver as a friend, in confidence to keep the hell away from Ipsen and Seligman. If someone asked me that question in those circumstances, I am free to give that answer. It's got nothing to do with union-busting, it's all about not letting a bunch of people use you to suit their own agendas and destroy your reputation in the process. So why don't you add me to the federal lawsuit?

Second, Lacey did not transfer Dver. Her involvement ended with that confidential advice to a friend. The transfer decision was not hers. PERIOD.

As for "he First Amendment to the US Constitution" it looks to me that Lacey had a 1st Amendment right to express her opinion that associating with Ipsen, Seligman et al, is a really bad idea. I think around 600 DDAs agree wholeheartedly, and the remaining few who do not want to quit the ADDA and incur the anger, resentment, retaliation and intimidation of the ADDA trolls, have my sympathy. Just look at the threat 10:11AM made to Berger for exercising his 1st Amendment right. Brave man.

Anonymous said...

hey am I the only one who noticed that this letter was sent to some rep at AFSCME? So that's why were stuck with AFSCME, so that these ADDA guys can have someone do hatchet work for them and Ipsen?

Anonymous said...

Well spotted 10:43 - AFSCME have a HUGE interest in making sure ADDA is kept sweet by trying to block Lacey's endorsement.

The interest? OK. According to Seligman's latest secret email, AFSCME will get $33 a month out of the dues taken from members. At the moment there are maybe 200 to 300 (although many are resigning). Do the math 300 x $33 = $9,900 a month, that's $118,800 a year.

But wait, there's more. Seligman has said that affiliation with AFSCME is 'critical' to getting (forcing) the Agency Shop deal through. That's because AFSCME will pay for mailers and other outreach attempts to get DDAs to vote for the Agency Shop.

Now with the Agency Shop, the deal is a lot sweeter for AFSCME. Figure that all 800 DDAs in grades I through IV (including DICs & AHDDAs) @ $33 a month, that's $26,400 a month, $316,800 a year. It's a 3 year deal, so it's worth $950,400 to AFSCME to get this done.

No wonder AFSCME is so willing to pay off ADDA's unpaid legal fees from the Peter Burke lawsuit that the ADDA lost.

It's all about the money, nearly $1M to AFSCME over 3 years. And the fix is in to get the affiliation vote passed. Watch and see...

Anonymous said...

Holy Crap, Windscale are you following up on 1:17pm's claim? Is it true that AFSCME paid off the Burke judgment? that sucker was over 150K? This is a major conflict of interest for both AFSCME & ADDA! Ipsen too since his leadership caused the whole mess!

Anonymous said...

Someone should send Windscale Hyatt's latest joke sheet, sorry, secret email. The facts are all in there - he wants to be AFSCME's Million Dollar Man

Anonymous said...

This whole fuss about Lacey being a union buster is because she told Rob Dver that he shouldn't join Ipsen.

I just read Rob Dver's transcript that Ipsen (or one of his koolaide drinkers) has published at one of his hate blogs, and it seems that Dver did speak to Lacey, but not in her capacity in management, but as "a good friend." Those are Dver's own words.

Later, Dver is asked who transferred him, and Dver says it was "JOHN PAUL BERNARDY," not Lacey.

So the points made by 3:01PM seem to be true, according to Dver himself. So, how is it Lacey's a union-buster? And is "JOHN PAUL BERNARDY" also being sued by the ADDA for transferring Dver?

The whole thing is really unpleasant, it's what happens when people with hidden agendas hijack the ADDA to promote themselves. I bet Dver wishes he had listened to his friend and stayed out of Ipsen's plot, but Rob's a really nice guy and probably thought he could be the voice of reason with Ipsen.

Here's the URL for Dver's transcript that Ipsen published:

I don't want to be any part of anything that Ipsen/Seligman and the rest of the "Board Majority" are involved with. This is not the kind of organization that I want to be represented by. I did not become a DDA to be part of this bullshit. I'm voting "No" for affiliation, and then resigning.

Anonymous said...

I have also heard from someone I consider to be very reliable and in a position to know that AFSCME did in fact pay (or has agreed to pay) the judgement for Burke's legal fees.