Open Letter #5 to SEIU President Yvonne Walker

OPEN LETTER (5 of 7)

To:       Yvonne Walker, President of SEIU Local 1000
From:  Ken Hamidi
CC:       California State Employees represented by SEIU Local 1000

Date:     July 22, 2010

RE:          Open Letter (5 of 7), questions about SEIU Local 1000’s 2009 operating expenses

Dear Ms. Walker,

I am writing this fifth open letter to ask about the SEIU Local 1000’s 2010 – 2011 Chargeable Expenses published in SEIU Local 1000’s 2010 – 2011 Hudson Notice of Fair Share Fee Payers.

In the above mentioned notice, based on the independent audit of Local 1000’s 2009 operating expenses, you are claiming that 70.71% of Local 1000’s expenses in 2009 have been germane to collective bargaining; therefore, chargeable to the Fair Share Fee Payers who chose to file for Non-Germane Objector status.  This means that from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 Local 1000 will reduce their union dues by 29.29%.

In 2009, Local 1000 paid a per capita fee of $14,446,723 to SEIU International.  Per the Hudson Act, Local 1000 is mandated to provide the report of the independent audit of SEIU International’s 2009 operating expenses too.  Per that audit, only 25.31% of SEIU International is germane to collective bargaining and therefore only 25.31% of the full dues is chargeable to the Fair Share Fee payers who chose to become a Non-Germane objector

This is very consistent with the 2009 audit report of the SEIU California Faculty Association, which shows that 25% of their 2009 operating expenses were germane (i.e. Non-Germane Objector’s dues should have been lowered by 75% in 2010).

This gross difference also suggests that SEIU Local 1000 in 2009 has spent 45% more on germane expenditures.

Question 1:

  • In 2009, there was no bargaining, how did Local 1000 spend 45% more than other unions on expenses germane to the Collective Bargaining?

 Question 2:

  • In 2009, SEIU Local 1000 fired majority of its LRR’s – (Labor Relations Representatives) and reduced the representation of the members to a Call Center, which was mostly operated by volunteers.  With a low cost Call Center for minimal representation, how could Local 1000 have spent 45% more than other unions on expenses germane to the Collective Bargaining?

 Question 3:

  • 45% of Local 1000’s 2009 operating expenses of $58 million equals $26.1 million. 
    What and how did Local 1000 spend that $26.1 million of our union dues?

 Question 4:

  • Will SEIU Local 1000, in the name of transparency and accountability, show us the details and an itemized breakdown of its 2009’s operating expenses?

We will publish the above questions on CPPEA’s website to share with our members, supporters, and fellow state employees.  If you would like to answer or correct any part of the above questions, please contact me no later than July 29, 2010. 


Ken Hamidi


PS – List of 2 additional open letters which will be published on July 23rd & 26th, and will also be posted on:              

1. 7/23/10- Fair Share fee payers challenge SEIU in arbitration for fabricated Expenditures
2. 7/26/10- How SEIU Local 1000 Leadership did not suffer the furloughs (insider info)