Pages

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Which Way ADDA? Pt 7 Debbaudt Debunks AFSCME "Message"

DDAs will have received "A Message from your Law Enforcement and Public Safety Colleagues in the CCU" hot on the heels of the December 15 ADDA Board meeting.

The message purports to be from three law enforcement unions representing Deputy Sheriffs, Deputy Probation Officers and Firefighters, and urges DDAs to "stay with AFSCME."

Probation Officer's Union President Ralph Miller did not authorize the use of his signature
to this letter.


The Dragnet previously speculated that the letter was likely the work of AFSCME's Cheryl Parisi, "she may well have dictated, printed and mailed it for them." we said. Confirmation of our suspicions came in the form of a comment from ADDA President Marc Debbaudt suggesting that the digital signature of Ralph Miller, President of the Probation Officers Union had been affixed to the letter "without his [Miller's] permission or authorization."
 
"This is the equivalent of forgery" Debbaudt said.

Debbaudt points out that under "union rules" individual unions are not allowed to criticize other unions, and they must "come to their aid or be sanctioned." In other words, if Miller has been presented with the letter he would have had to sign it or face sanctions. But according to Debbaudt, Miller was never even asked.

Miller has been an outspoken critic of AFSCME, according to DDA Steve Dickman's open letter to DDAs urging them to disaffiliate, Dickman says "I attended an ADDA meeting in which the President of the Probation Officers Union (that is stuck in AFSCME and can’t get out of it) spoke. They affiliated with AFSCME yet he was deeply critical of them saying AFSCME had not provided the promised services or support. He warned us not to affiliate with them." Dickman said. It is therefore possible that Miller would have chosen to decline to sign the letter and face "sanctions," perhaps even challenge the validity of those sanctions on first amendment grounds.

Whether AFSCME's unauthorized use of Miller's signature constitutes the crime of Forgery was a question raised by a later comment.


The answer likely depends on whether AFSCME's unauthorized use of Miller's signature was done with the "intent to defraud." If indeed, a referral for investigation is made, that will be the key issue. [Those wishing to offer opinions on whether the necessary intent can be established are cautioned to refrain from doing so, due the potential conflict of interest previously discussed.]

If ever better proof was needed that AFSCME is a bad fit for DDAs, this must surely be it.

&tc.




27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nothing to see here folks. This is what you get when you get into bed with big labor. Your first amendment rights are suspended, 'they' get to put words in your mouth, and you better follow their lead.

Which way ADDA? Disaffiliate before it's too late.

Anonymous said...

There's more to the ADDA disaffiliation drama than you know. The big fear is that if DDAs vote AFSCME out, it will open the floodgates to other unions who are unhappy with the poor service AFSCME provides. Expect the Probation Officers union to be next in line.

ADDA Dues Payer said...

I have a question for the disaffiliation supporters who are on the board. Do you support Marc's pledge to reduce dues?

How much are our dues going to be reduced if we disaffiliate?

Marc what is the actual amount of the reduction you are going to request at the first meeting? I don't believe you have ever stated an amount. Is it $30 or is it $3??? There is a big difference between a substantial amount and a token amount.

If you are going to promise a reduction I need to know how much it is going to be and who supports it. If you don't have any support from these other board members who want to disaffiliate then you are making an empty promise.

I have had enough of all the empty promises from both sides. I want to see real numbers!

DDA Against Lying Cheating AFSCME said...

2:01pm. Nice try. Best defense is offense and deflect the issue. Why don't you AFSCME apologists start explaining why DDAs should remain affiliated with a corrupt organization that just got nailed trying to foist a forgery on DDAs? Just read Parisi's pathetic explanation for her lie about Prop 47, can't wait to see how she tries to spin the forgery, or will she do the sensible thing and claim the 5th?

nohumansinvolved said...

I will request a reduction from 0.6% to 0.5% and at the end of the year when we are in a better position to determine our exact costs after disaffiliation we will revisit it again. I never promised a reduction because how could I guarantee that when I am one vote? I specifically said I couldn't promise for that very reason. I refused to make s promise I could not keep. While I know a few board members support reduction I can't claim that a majority do. So we will all learn at the same time.
Marc Debbaudt

Anonymous said...

Parisi and McGrath should be looking for "new opportunities" and welcome the chance to spend more time with their families.

Anonymous said...

Marc, can you guarantee that the dues won't increase because of the additional costs will likely incur as a stand alone? I would hope that as the main advocate for disaffiliation you know if the amount we presently pay or the rate at 0.5% will cover our costs. I would hate to vote for disaffiliation only to see us paying more. The other question I have is what do you expect we can accomplish as a stand alone that will put us in a better position than being aligned with AFSCME? Aren't we potentially screwing ourselves by being perceived as anti-big labor? All the attacks on blue collar workers shows a certain elitist mentality that is going to come back and bite us when we need those lesser folks to support us. I would think that those comments came from lawyers who went to Ivy League schools, but my guess they are from graduates of so third tier school. Marc, please clarify the money question, and as president of ADDA can you weigh in on the level of discourse that is being displayed in discussing this important issue.

Anonymous said...

As a prosecutor I believe that an individual is innocent until there is proof of guilt. When will we hear directly from Ralph Miller that this is a forgery? So far all I have seen is an allegation from individuals who seem obsessed with disaffiliation. It is easy to make an accusation, as we all know, but as prosecutors we require proof and evidence. I will reserve judgment until I see proof and not just an accusation.

nohumansinvolved said...

Why don't you call the Probation union yourself and ask. If you've been reading you know that the AFL-CIO rules require them to defend each other. Ralph Miller would be all over me if I was lying. Also, ask our attorney, Richard Shinee, or DDA John Harrold, and all the people around us who saw our shock and outrage when we were on the phone with Ralph and teveaked to them what Ralph was telling us as it was being said, like ADDA Director Eric Siddall and Anthony Colannino and others. You think if I was lying about the misuse of the signature we would not have heard the outcry from AFSCME? Not one peep. So, as acprosectuor why don't you start thinking like one? Marc Debbaudt

nohumansinvolved said...

Plus, as a prosecutor, one witness is sufficient to prove a fact. I am telling you what we were told. Am I lying? You prove that! Marc Debbaudt

nohumansinvolved said...

I can guarantee that dues will not increase! How? Our bylaws require the members to approve a dues increase, not the board. So, it's up to the members. But ask the Board who requested that the bylaws contain a provision that permits the Board to REDUCE dues? That was me. So we can lower them but not raise them. I am not condemning local labor. I am distinguishing between local labor and AFSCME. The biggest voice in local labor on the County Fed is ALADS not AFSCME. AFSCME is a large national union, it just has no voice in this County's political scene. So we are not condemning large unions like ALADS or whoever. We are condemning AFSCME's clout in this county and specifically their relationship with us and their false claims of an ability to do anything for us. AFSCME, if you read Dickman's letter, has no clout and has a problem with us because they believe we already make too much. We don't have a problem with blue collar workers and we support their efforts for better pay; but we don't need AFSCME to do that nor to be so lackluster and unmotivated on our behalf because of our educational status,
Marc Debbaudt

Anonymous said...

Marc,
I think 12:37am's point was that was trying to make was that we haven't heard from the person whose signature was allegedly forged.

Some or your supporters say the act was criminal. Shouldn't he issuing public comments or press releases?

Instead the same people who are promoting disaffiliation are the ones claiming this occurred.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for the lecture Marc. I am thinking like a prosecutor. All I have seen is a hearsay statement from you and a claim that others heard the same thing you did. You said that if you were lying this probation guy would be all over you. Why isn't he all over AFSCME? Instead providing us evidence other than your hearsay statement you want all of us who would like to know the truth to call the probation department and try to track this guy down and do our own investigation? I have enough trouble just trying to decipher all of the information coming my way without having to go to the effort to try to do some kind of independent investigation when you apparently have access to the source of the information. Get him to provide you guys with a letter saying its a forgery.

As far as the other witnesses go I don't believe they are any better at relaying hearsay then you are. The attorney has a financial self interest in throwing out AFSCME so he can get the monthly fees. According to you he needs to get that extra income to make up for the lost income he is going to have because all those lawsuits are coming to an end.

I looked up what happened to the case that was thrown out because you, him and others were speaking and emailing the hearing officer. The docket for case B253571 says that the appeal was dismissed because he didn't file the opening brief? What happened you didn't want there to be a published appellate decision outlining the numerous ex parte communications in the case? It says the case was dismissed why didn't you let the members know? You keep saying how this guy is the best lawyer around but he apparently did nothing for us on this case but suck up our money. I should ask him about the probation guy? No thanks. I should ask John Harrold who is apparently as obsessed as you are to get rid of AFSCME? No thanks.

You have the best ability to put this issue to rest by getting a letter from him saying it was a forgery. If you can't get one then I don't see how this is much of an issue.

Anonymous said...

1:45pm sounds like a desperate McGrath who sees his AFSCME dream slipping away. very very sad.

Anonymous said...

1:45pm makes a valid point that can easily rebutted by having Mr. Miller come forward. At the very least, shouldn't this guy be pursuing some sort of legal remedy if any of this is true?

Anonymous said...

1:45PM is very likely not a "prosecutor" as the evidence that Miller did not authorize the use of his signature is overwhelming. 1:45PM is probably an AFSCME troll tasked with repeating the anti disaffiliation talking points and actually sounds like one of those crazy jurors that anyone who has tried enough cases ends up having to listen to when the hang the jury. You know, the f'd up hand wringer who says "well I think he did it, but you didn't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. The fingerprints/DNA could have been planted/contaminated."

Frankly, recent AFSCME's behavior has been the strongest boost for Debbaudt. DDAs can see for themselves how simple-minded these union shill really are. Whoever made the point about a blue collar union not being suited to highly educated, qualified professionals, is absolutely right. AFSCME's crap might cut it with toilet cleaners and landscapers, but for a professional group like DDAs, it's embarrassing to see such infantile arguments being made.

Anonymous said...

Marc, will you please explain what action the ADDA will be taking against AFSCME for releasing the confidential home addresses of DDAs to the Coalition of County Unions?

The forged Miller letter arrived at my home in an envelope showing that it was mailed by the CCU. I never authorized AFSCME, the ADDA or anyone to share my home address in this way. This is an outrage and constitutes a security breach as well as a violation of trust. All DDAs should be notified immediately that the confidential personal information was leaked to the CCU. At a minimum, the DA Investigators should be authorized to conduct an a investigation into the extent of the breach. We do not know what other information was shared with the CCU, we need som assurance from outside the ADDA and AFSCME. Please respond.

nohumansinvolved said...

When told of the outrageous use of DDA confidential home addresses, that is, public safety employees whose lives can be placed in danger by the release of this information, our General Counsel immediately sent a cease and desist demand to Ms. Parisi, AFSCME's Executive Director, to stop and purge our address database from the CCU. If she does not, our counsel will take all legal recourse available. These are our proprietary records that AFSCME has no claim to. We trust that Ms. Parisi, in what was probably another moment of bad judgment do to desperation, remembers her past commitment to us to not trelease or use our home addresses and/or send material to our home addresses, and that she is not so reckless as to repeat this offensive act to those she purports to represent especially after she is trying to take credit for new legislation designed to protect the privacy of your home addresses. We trust that her integrity will guide her over her will to win in terms of the safety of our members and should that not be the case the ADDA will seek immediate court redress to ensure the safety of out members. So we will see.
Marc Debbaudt

Anonymous said...

Marc, I appreciate the efforts you are making to stop Jeff McGrath and Cheryl Parisi from continuing to compromise the security of DDAs by sharing our home addresses with their union friends. But can I remind you that when Berger published email addresses of Board Members a couple of weeks ago, the first thing McGrath did to stop that, was call the DA Investigators. He says he used the DA Investigators because it is what he does when he wants to call a fellow DDA. Yeah right, we all know better than that. It really was a form of intimidation - use the DA Investigators to strong arm Berger into pulling those addresses. I suppose McGrath would now have us believe that email addresses are more dangerous than home addresses, but again, we all know better than that.

Notice that we don’t see or hear anything from McGrath about any concerns he has about his home address being given out? I guess that it’s OK when it’s his union cronies who play fast and loose with our private information? But anyone else gets a call from the Command Center.

Wake up and smell the roses DDAs, McGrath, Parisi, AFSCME need to go.

Anonymous said...

12:52 pm is typical the lying BS we get from the disaffiliation crowd. Berger was pressed on this issue and forced to admit the truth: the only thing McGrath did was contact the command center to get Berger's phone number. THAT IS IT. By this ridiculous standard, the last two grade 1s who worked with me "used DAIs to intimidate" me.

Regardless of how you feel about affiliation, Marc's henchmen are LIARS

Anonymous said...

2:05PM is typical of the lying, blame-shifting BS we get from McGrath and the AFSCME thugs on a daily basis.

The point that 12:52PM makes very clearly is that McGrath shit his pants when Debbaudt sent a message to the dragnet containing the email addresses of all the board members. McGrath said his email address should not be used without his permission and he contacted the DAI to get to Berger to pull the message. McGrath said he was concerned because in the past some hacker had got the email address of another DD and destroyed his life. Fair enough.

But when McGrath’s and everyone else’s HOME ADDRESS is handed over to another union, without permission, there’s no problem at all.

Yeah, calling the command center probably wasn’t the smartest move for McGrath - he could and should have done what everyone else does, and thats send a message through the blog, but let’s assume McGrath didn’t intend to be intimidating. Let’s assume that he had a legitimate concern about his email address. Are we truly to believe McGrath is more concerned about his email address than his home address?

Why doesn’t he shit his pants when his and all our home addresses have been disclosed?

Maybe its because McGrath and the pro-Affiliation movement don’t really care about our privacy when it suits their purposes.

Regardless of how you feel about affiliation, McGrath & Parisi’s henchmen are LIARS.

Anonymous said...

Face it. McGrath has boxed himself into a corner over the privacy thing. It sure looks like he was more concerned with shutting down any attempt to make access to board members easier, than privacy concerns. Huge double standards from him and Ms Parisi. Can't wait to get my ballot, they need to go.

Anonymous said...

Anyone got their ballots yet?

Jeff McGrath said...

Wow such hate. Unlike others I do not have an obsessive need to check this site on an hourly or even daily basis. What is clear is that there are individuals who are projecting onto me their own beliefs and attributes. I will leave it to our members to decide if the allegations being thrown on me have any substance.

As to the address issue, there is no substance to it whatsoever. Apparently Marc decided, on his own, to spend our members money on having a lawyer write a cease and desist letter without any attempt to discover what the the true facts were. The fact is that AFSCME did not provide our addresses to the CCU. All it took was a call to our business representative to learn that the while the CCU provided the envelopes, they were labeled/addressed in-house by AFSCME. There was no security breech.

The continued misrepresentation about what I did to get my personal e-mail address removed does nothing but undermine the arguments the poster is trying to make. If you can't be honest with that how can you be trusted to be honest in the other points you make.
If your going to make personal attacks on me at least have some honor and use your real name. That way people can judge your credibility.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, forgive me for saying so, but I have absolutely no faith in what the AFSCME "Business Representative" says. So far, just about everything from AFSCME has been a falsehood.

Anonymous said...

So basically, Jeff, you're saying that there's nothing to worry about regarding our home addresses, because the letter was printed by AFSCME, and wasn't actually signed by any of the signatories, the envelopes were delivered to AFSCME by the CCU, and AFSCME but the letters they printed into the envelopes given to them by CCU, and then AFSCME put mailing labels on the envelopes and mailed them.

In other words, nothing to worry about because these letters were basically shams, fakes, forgeries or facsimiles, entirely produced in house by AFSCME. That's about it, right?

Good to know. I guess some DDAs might have thought the letters were genuine and were concerned. In future, can you please ask AFSCME to place some sort of notice on these phony messages so that we know not to take them seriously, or would it be easier if we assume anything from AFSCME is false, fake, forged and misleading?

Do please let us know.

DDA who voted to Disaffiliate said...

Received my ballot in the mail this evening, Monday 12/22/14.

I have placed a large black 'X' on the ballot indicating my choice - DISAFFILIATE.

I hope other DDAs will do the same.

Adios AFSCME!