If you have difficulty reading the newsletter, please go to www.patriotreturns.com to see the latest release.
THE PATRIOT RETURNS |
Vol. 39, No.1 April 29, 2008
BROOKLYN COLLEGE'S SEIDEMANN WINS A MONUMENTAL VICTORY AGAINST BOWEN'S PSC! The Federal Courts Rule that the PSC has violated the First Amendment Rights of Fee-Payers
Convinced that the PSC had treated agency-fee payers unfairly, David Seidemann, a Yale educated full professor of Geology at Brooklyn College, has been patient and tenacious in seeking justice. Since 2002, he's amassed voluminous documentation, collected and examined all relevant information and legal precedents, and pursued the PSC with the tenacity and conviction of an irate faculty member. Seidemann sensed that there was some hanky panky going on with his and your hard-earned dollars. The 1% of our gross salary that goes to union dues or agency fees should be spent for our benefit rather than being diverted to further the New Caucasians' political agenda. He could see that rather than negotiating a good contract, the PSC was using dues money to subsidize parades, demonstrations, marches, signs, transportation, etc. for every loony leftist cause under the sun. Thus, he filed suit in federal court in 2002. Now, six years later, David Seidemann has won a monumental victory against the PSC, a victory that has stunned the leadership of Battlin' Barb Bowen and Foggy London. For those not familiar with the case, and for those who wish to refresh their knowledge, we provide background information in brief below. The complete text of Federal Court Judge Lois Bloom's decision will be found in the attached file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION At CUNY and other public universities, professors and staff who choose not to join the union must pay the same yearly fees as those who choose to be members. The union is required, however, to protect the First Amendment rights of these non-members (called fee-payers) by providing them with information about the union's political expenditures, and giving a prorated rebate to fee payers who object to those expenditures. In 2002, David Seidemann sued the PSC, alleging that the union violated fee-payers rights in numerous ways. On April 10, 2008, a Federal District Court agreed. It ruled by summary judgment that the PSC violates the First Amendment rights of all non-members because it fails to provide them with sufficient information to gauge the propriety of the union's agency fee expenditures. The Court also found that the PSC unlawfully charged objecting non-members for some of the union's political activities by inaccurately characterizing them as contract-related activities. Among the activities that the PSC improperly claimed as contract-related was a forum on an anti-war resolution. The PSC also improperly charged fee payers for public rallies, picket lines, concerts, and letter-writing campaigns. They had placed these political activities under the category "office supplies." How one confuses a paper clip with a picket line is beyond our ken! Further, the District Court enforced a ruling in this case made by the Second Circuit in August 2007 that held as unconstitutional the PSC's requirement that non-members annually renew their objections to political expenditures. This Second Circuit ruling applies to all public unions in New York, Vermont, and Connecticut. THE RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE PSC, ITS LEADERSHIP AND ITS DISGUSTED MEMBERSHIP First, in her concluding statement Judge Bloom writes, "The Court finds that defendants fail to meet their burden to show that the chargeability determination for the years at issue were germane to collective bargaining and therefore defendants violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights." Our question is, although permissible in the eyes of the law for the union to spend monies to march, parade and shout out loud to bring pressure on the management on behalf of the dues paying members, how germane is it for the PSC to spend dues money on excessive participation in such activities? Instead of hiring competent negotiators and building better relations with the political power brokers in the city and the State who can help get us a better contract, Bowen and friends much prefer to take to the streets. Their spending and support on and for unrelated political matters, from Lori Berenson to Michael Letwin, have frustrated members and have become counter productive to the goal of acquiring a good contract, as the Patriot Returns and others have complained for years. Second, if it is documented in this Federal Court case that the PSC was unlawfully charging objecting non-members for some of the union's political activities by inaccurately characterizing them as contract-related, how much more of your dues money may have been spent for political activities but characterized as contract-related activities? If they say monies spent for rallies are for paper clips in one part of the budget, might they may be dishonest enough to be playing similar tricks in other parts of the budget? Is it possible that they may have charged expenses for renting buses for transporting union contingent to Washington, D.C. for anti-war demonstrations and charged it to professional legal services? Is it possible that they may have charged meals for demonstrators to computer repair expenses? Is it possible that they may have charged monies spent for dinners and theater tickets for their radical brothers and sisters and charged them to rentals of office equipment or to postage? If investigated, where might all this lead? Are the books still being cooked at 61 Broadway?
Third, is it not appropriate to tell the members of the PSC's Executive Committee and the Delegate Assembly that they are equally responsible for permitting these shenanigans to go on for so long? That they will also be held responsible for permitting and approving bewildering budgets and the non-employment related resolutions to be passed, especially at a time when the leadership is not focusing on contract negotiations, nor effectively managing the Welfare Fund? We have lost so much in terms of our prescription drug, dental and other welfare benefits under this leadership that their goals of fixing the world and fighting social injustice should no longer be underwritten by our dues. This irresponsible and inappropriate behavior will haunt the New Caucus when next they face elections. Fourth, despite the fact this decision was filed on April 10, 2008, do you think the details of this precedent setting Federal Court case will ever see the light of the day in any of the PSC's propaganda material? Take a close look at The Clarion, This Week at the PSC, the PSC Alerts, or those innumerable e-mails detailing Barbara's fantasy fights with Chancellor Goldstein. There is more information at the PSC's website about rebels in Oaxaca than there is about "Seidemann v. Bowen." The members of the PSC should read the attached decision carefully, paying special attention to Section H "Expenses PSC charged to Fee Payers" and the Conclusion, pages 5-8. We should plan a course of action that we can take collectively to get rid of this irresponsible PSC leadership. Toward that end, the Patriot Returns invites contributions from all members of the PSC (and from agency-fee payers as well) on this and other issues related to the deplorable conditions which we work under thanks, in part, to these clowns. We shall attempt to provide space for such views and opinions in future numbers of the Patriot Returns.
Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Forthcoming issues of The Patriot may be accessed at As you know, Susan O'Malley has sought to silence the Patriot by bringing a lawsuit which seeks both to limit his speech and to extract loads of money for herself. Interested colleagues have also weighed in on www.freespeechcuny.blogspot.com |