RT Vote Response to Protest #4

After conducting the "Exempt" vs. "Non-exempt" vote for the Rehabilitation Therapist Task Force Outreach Committee, the Election Committee received four protests. Below (and to follow) are the protests and the Election Committee’s responses to each of the protests.
Protest #4 filed on November 17 by Darrel Charbaszcz:
1. This election/vote involved a major change in the class of Rehabilitation Therapists; Any election committee member should be neutral and objective with regards to the outcome Cindy Ihm is a rehab therapist who has in the past and expressed during the counting of the ballots a desired outcome of remaining hourly stating "of course I want it to stay hourly it will affect my income". Therefore, having a Rehabilitation Therapist, on the Elections Committee, is a conflict of interest and she should not have been eligible to serve on this committee as she had the general responsibility for the conduct of the election/voting, decision making of ballot acceptability, and directly overseeing the counting of the votes directly impacted in the outcome of this vote and she is likely to be biased in carrying out her duties, (Duties of the Elections Committee are specifically stated in the elections Manual, pg. 12-13, and are as follows:
(2) "to hear and decide any challenge…"
(4) "To prepare or supervise the preparation of the ballots."
(5) To supervise the issuance and return of the ballots…receiving their ballots…depositing them in a ballot box…"
(6) "Counting the ballots and certifying the results of the election."
(7) "Hearing and deciding…any protests that may be filed concerning the conduct of the election." and
(8) "Making a report to the membership concerning the results of the election and,…the decisions made on any protests."
("No member of the Election Committee may be a candidate for office" appears to be equivalent in meaning that no member of the election committee may stand to benefit from the outcome of the election. Elections Code, Section 2, B).
2. There were several ballots that were not counted due to judgments made by the elections Committee; however, these judgments seemed to be inconsistent with other judgments made in allowing other ballots to be counted. With the results being so very close, 128 – 130, the judgments made to not count certain ballots becomes significant. The Elections Manual, page 22, states:
"If the intention of the voter is clear, count the vote." Page 23 of the Elections Manual states: "When the tabulation has been completed, the committee should turn its attention to any remaining challenged votes…..If the number is great enough that it might affect the outcome….the committee must then take up each challenge separately and,…make a decision as to whether or not the ballot should be counted."
3. The ballot box was not secured. A storage box with a hole cut in the lid and the lid taped to the box and kept in the union office does not make the box "secure" and tamper-proof. Many people come in/out of the union office each and every day and the box was not under supervision 24/7. Furthermore, the tape had no signature or date written across the tape to ensure when and who taped it. With the box being unsecured, it is quite possible that there were more than one ballot boxes with ballots being added to both boxes; yet only one box was counted. Without using a post office box as the manual requires, there are endless opportunities for potential of manipulation of the mail-in ballots. In addition, the deadline for all returned ballots was 11/09/17 by 4pm. The ballots were counted on 11/10/17 at 10am. Friday, November 10th was an observed holiday for many state workers but the Federal holiday for postal workers was on 11/11/17. Mail was delivered on 11/10/17 and had the ballots been sent to the post office, this would have allowed for more ballots to have been counted. The Elections Manual (pg. 32-33) states, "If elections are to be conducted by mail, the following procedures must be followed:
"The return envelopes should be addressed to a neutral address, not to the union office…The best way is to have them returned to a Post Office Box requiring two keys to open. One of these keys should be retained by the chair-person of the election committee and the second by another committee member."
4. No opportunity for members to come and observe the preparation of the ballots, prior to mailing, was given. There have been reports from many members who have not received a ballot and had to request a duplicate ballot. With receiving duplicate ballots, there is always a problem of the ballot not arriving in a timely manner. Had there been observers present during the preparation of the ballots, could have eliminated so many members from not needing a duplicate ballot. There was only one email notification sent on Monday, October 9th stating that ballots would be mailed the next day (10/10/17). The Elections Manual, page 33, states:
`"Official observers designated by the candidates are entitled to be present during the addressing, stuffing, and mailing of the ballots."
5.The postmarks on each ballot were not consistently checked to determine being mailed and received prior to the deadline as well as confirming membership prior to the deadline.
These above issues have negatively interfered with the results of this election.
As a result of these violations regarding no protocols being followed and the absent of any reasonable security to protect the integrity of this vote there is now a list that is growing daily of confirmed and identified members ballots that were not recorded and or unaccounted for. There are 602 confirmed rehab members it was announced only 511 ballots were sent out after 7 months of outreach, however there were only 263 ballots at the office at the time of the count leaving 248 ballots unaccounted for?
I look forward to your response.
Thanks
Darrel Charbaszcz, AFSCME Local 2620 Steward
—————————————————————————————–
The Election Committee requested supporting evidence. No supporting documentary evidence was provided.
The Election Committee’s response:
1. The only eligibility requirement as to who may serve on the Election Committee is that the person be a member, not a fair share payer. Other than that, the guidelines only spell out who may NOT serve.
Per Article X, Section 2 of the Constitution of AFSCME Local 2620, "An Election Committee shall be appointed by the president and ratified by the executive board. Members of the Election Committee may not be a candidate for office or serving in the capacity as an executive board member, trustee or Council 57 delegate. "
The AFSCME Local Union Election Manual states, "The Election Committee, like any other local union committee, is ordinarily appointed by the Local President, with the approval of the executive board."
B. For the record, Cindy Ihm states she is being misquoted; she never verbalized which way she voted or indicated her preference.
2. Only one ballot was not counted. You do not specifically state which judgments were made which you felt were "inconsistent with other judgments made." Each questionable ballot was addressed individually by the Election Committee and a vote was taken as to whether to accept or dismiss the ballot based upon the instructions which were provided with all of the ballots.
3. There are no guidelines as to what constitutes a "secured" ballot box. The ballot box prepared and used is consistent as with past elections/votes. Never has more than one ballot box been required. The Ballot Box was kept in Shirl Martinez’s office. During business hours, Shirl Martinez, Teresa Munoz, Monique Aubrey and Lisa Trujillo are always present; Shirl, Teresa, and Monique are Council 57 staff. During non-business hours, Shirl’s office door is closed and locked by a key.
As to the deadline to receive ballots, the Burbank mailbox was checked in the presence of the Committee members and observers on November 10 and it was empty. Any ballots received on that day or after, regardless of postmark, would have been passed the deadline. The instructions stated that "Ballots are due at the Burbank office by 4:00 P.M. on November 9," not that they should be postmarked by 4:00 P.M. on November 9.
Regarding the post office box: both the post office box and the Burbank office mailbox require only one key to open them.
4. It is not clear how having observers present during the preparation of the ballots "could have eliminated so many members from not needing a duplicate ballot." E-mails were sent October 2, October 6 and October 16 with regard to this vote; members had notification of the important dates and the instructions to send all questions to the Election Committee via e-mail. You are assuming that no observers were present.
5. It was not necessary to check postmarks as when the ballot was mailed is irrelevant; only when the ballot is received. As stated in #3, the Burbank mailbox was checked in the presence of the Committee members and observers on November 10 and it was empty. Any ballots received on that day or after, regardless of postmark, would have been passed the deadline. The instructions stated that "Ballots are due at the Burbank office by 4:00 P.M. on November 9," not that they should be postmarked by 4:00 P.M. on November 9.
As for verifying who were members prior to the 4:00 P.M. deadline on October 25, there were only 6 RTs who became members between 10/26/17-11/08/17. They were identified on a separate list and if ballots were received from them, the envelopes were set aside and were not counted.
As to ballots "unaccounted for," there are no ballots "unaccounted for." The questions to be posed are: not all Recreational Therapists may be "members" as opposed to fair share payers. Of all members, does Local 2620 have a mailing address on file for all of the members? If not, that would account for why during the initial mailing, only 511 ballots were mailed out. The Election Committee is not the RT Task Force Outreach Committee and thus is not responsible for what outreach may or may have not been done; the Election Committee is solely responsible for overseeing elections. In no election is there ever 100% participation, meaning that of the ballots mailed out, there is a chance that not all of the ballots mailed out will be returned.
In unity,
The Election Committee

RT Vote Response to Protest #3

After conducting the "Exempt" vs. "Non-exempt" vote for the Rehabilitation Therapist Task Force Outreach Committee, the Election Committee received four protests. Below (and to follow) are the protests and the Election Committee’s responses to each of the protests.
Protest #3 filed on November 13 by Rafael Garcia:
Dear Mr. President and AFSCME Local 2620,
Re: RT Vote
The Powers Vested to all members to challenge elections are according to Appendix D, Election Code, of the AFSCME International(Election Code): Section 4, Number 3, If the subordinate body determines that there were violations which may have affected the outcome of the election, it may order such election or any part thereof set aside, and a new election held.
I challenge the decision made by the committee on grounds that no majority was reached on either for exempt or maintain non-exempt.
According to Election Code, Section 1, Number 10, upon completion of the voting, the ballots shall be tabulated and the candidate for each office receiving a majority of the votes cast for that office shall be declared elected.
The count resulted in 267 votes cast. Nine (9) envelope or ballots were invalidated. The final tally was 130 votes to remain Hourly (Non-exempt) and 128 votes to become Salary (Exempt) employees.
Although there is mention that for the purposes of this vote only 258 are part of the total ballots cast. I challenge this conclusion. As mentioned above, a majority must be reached in accordance with all votes cast. All votes cast is in actuality 267. Furthermore, Pursuant to Article XIV Authority Section 4 of the AFSME 2620 constitution, we, AFSCME Local 2620, are governed by Robert’s Rule of Order, Newly revised (RRONR), when not inconsistent with the constitution.
Per RRONR, an illegal vote is still counted as a vote cast in relation to a majority vote, so long as it is not blank. In this instance, an invalidated ballot/envelope is considered illegal because they function as interchangeable terms. Which results in those illegal votes being a part of the total cast ballots which makes it a total cast ballots of 267 and the basis of majority votes. In order for either side to reach majority, it must exceed 133.5 votes(or proportional amount depending on blank ballots) and be declared a victor. As a result, pursuant to RRONR, we the members of the RT classification must vote again in the interest of justice.
In addition, I would like a line item explanation of each ballot/envelop invalidated.
Sincerely,
Rafael Garcia
—————————————————————————————–
The Election Committee requested supporting evidence. No supporting documentary evidence was provided.
The Election Committee’s response:
As this was not an election, there is no "candidate" who needed to receive "a majority of the votes cast" to "be declared elected."
It was not stated that there were 267 "votes cast," but that 267 envelopes were returned. Eight envelopes and one ballot were invalidated.
Regarding the eight envelopes which were invalidated: six were members who are not part of the affected classifications, one was sent in by a non-member; and one envelope was not completed on the outside. Not all of the eight envelopes had ballots contained within them; thus, they cannot be counted towards the overall vote count, as they were not all votes. The one ballot was invalidated because of writing on it, which went against the instructions provided.
In unity,
The Election Committee

RT Vote Response to Protest #2

After conducting the "Exempt" vs. "Non-exempt" vote for the Rehabilitation Therapist Task Force Outreach Committee, the Election Committee received four protests. Below (and to follow) are the protests and the Election Committee’s responses to each of the protests.
Protest #2 filed on November 13 by Kim Shin:
Dear Emiko or to whom it may concern,
My name is Kim Shin and I am an AFSCME local 2620 steward and an RT In Vacaville California. I believe that this the integrity of this recent voting for/against EXEMPT status has been compromised in numerous ways. I personally, was given misinformation on the telephone by Shirl Martinez on October 24, 2017 regarding deadlines dates/times for requesting a duplicate ballot etc. Being a steward, I disseminated this information( have emails to document)to my fellow co-workers and it was incorrect – this could have directly affected the voting process. I personally know of two employees who did not even receive ballots initially for some reason -they have been living at the same mailing address for years receiving union mail at other times. Also, It was reported that The ballots were kept in a cardboard box ? taped shut- that doesn’t sound very secure to me. In addition, the ballots collected were not delivered to a neutral PO box, but the Burbank office – which is not impartial or secure. I also did some very brief cross-checking of votes received/tallied and verified there were at least two members from my institution that were not accounted for at all that sent ballots in on time. There were dozens of votes that were also disqualified for reasons that I find questionable and likely made by a subjective party. I question the conduct of this election and how it was carried out.
It is for these reasons and others I can elaborate on upon request that I am protesting and ask that the recent vote be disqualified. It is only fair that the voting process take place in a clearly defined, unbiased, secure manner. Since this did not happen I am respectfully requesting that this vote set aside and a new election held.
Sincerely,
Kim Shin
—————————————————————————————–
The Election Committee requested supporting evidence. The supporting documentary evidence received was five written statement affirming that their ballots had been mailed. The written statements received were from Candice Bain, Hiromi Itoh, Maria Loya, Shari Borkin, and Natalie Pio. Of those five members, two ballots were received, two ballots were not received and one became a member after the deadline and is not one of the affected classification.
The Election Committee’s response:
1. Regarding misinformation being provided by Shirl Martinez via phone:
All pertinent information was contained in the e-blasts which were e-mailed on October, 2, October 6, and October 16. The information on the e-blasts was also posted on Facebook and on the AFSCME Local 2620 web site on the same dates. The e-blasts and posts all instructed to e-mail the Election Committee for questions and additional information.
2. As for two employees who did not receive ballots initially:
There could be several reasons as to why an employee did not receive a ballot: Do they belong to AFSCME or another union? Are they fair share payers or members? If they are members, did they receive a ballot after requesting a duplicate? Did Local 2620 have their current mailing address on file initially? We would need specific information.
3. As to the "ballots being kept in a cardboard box which was taped shut," which does not sound secure" to you:
There are no guidelines as to what constitutes a "secured" ballot box. The ballot box prepared and used is consistent with ballot boxes used in past elections/votes.
4. "The ballots collected were not delivered to a neutral PO box, but the Burbank office-which is not impartial or secure":
The Burbank office is impartial, because it is Council 57’s office, not Local 2620’s. The mailbox can only be opened with a key, which only Council 57 staff Shirl Martinez, Teresa Munoz and AFSCME Local 2620 staff Lisa Trujillo have access to.
5. You "did brief cross-checking of votes received/tallied and verified there were at least two members from (your) institution that were not accounted for at all that sent ballots in on time."
You do not mention how you obtained a list of the members’ names whose votes were received/tallied, what the names of the "at least two" members are and how you verified that their ballots were sent in on time. Further, there was no deadline set for when ballots could be mailed in, only for when they were received by.
6. You state that "There were dozens of votes that were also disqualified for reasons that (you) find questionable and likely made by a subjective party":
You don’t mention which votes were disqualified, what the reasons were for which they were disqualified and which subjective party you are referring to who disqualified votes. All decisions made during an Election Committee are made by the Election Committee, not unilaterally by one party.
In unity,
The Election Committee

RT Vote Response to Protest #1

After conducting the "Exempt" vs. "Non-exempt" vote for the Rehabilitation Therapist Task Force Outreach Committee, the Election Committee received four protests. Below (and to follow) are the protests and the Election Committee’s responses to each of the protests.
Protest #1 filed on November 14 by Denise Nicks:
I am hearby protesting the recent election/vote regarding the Rehabilitation Therapists remaining non-exempt or becoming exempt from the FLSA, regarding the conduct of the election, based on the following several counts:
1. Although this election did not involve an office or position, it did involve a major change in the class of Rehabilitation Therapists; therefore, having a Rehabilitation Therapist, Cindy Ihm, on the Elections Committee, directly overseeing the counting of the votes and having general responsibility for the conduct of the election….should not be eligible to serve on this committee as she is directly impacted in the outcome of this vote and she is likely to be biased in carrying out her duties, (Duties of the Elections Committee are specifically stated in the elections Manual, pg. 12-13, and are as follows:
(2) "to hear and decide any challenge…"
(4) "To prepare or supervise the preparation of the ballots."
(5) To supervise the issuance and return of the ballots…receiving their ballots…depositing them in a ballot box…"
(6) "Counting the ballots and certifying the results of the election."
(7) "Hearing and deciding…any protests that may be filed concerning the conduct of the election." and
(8) "Making a report to the membership concerning the results of the election and,…the decisions made on any protests."
("No member of the Election Committee may be a candidate for office" appears to be equivalent in meaning that no member of the election committee may stand to benefit from the outcome of the election. Elections Code, Section 2, B).
2. There were several ballots that were not counted due to judgments made by the elections Committee; however, these judgments seemed to be inconsistent with other judgments made in allowing other ballots to be counted. With the results being so very close, 128 – 130, the judgments made to not count certain ballots becomes significant. The Elections Manual, page 22, states:
"If the intention of the voter is clear, count the vote." Page 23 of the Elections Manual states: "When the tabulation has been completed, the committee should turn its attention to any remaining challenged votes…..If the number is great enough that it might affect the outcome….the committee must then take up each challenge separately and,…make a decision as to whether or not the ballot should be counted."
3. The ballot box was not secured. A storage box with a hole cut in the lid and the lid taped to the box and kept in the union office does not make the box "secure" and tamper-proof. Many people come in/out of the union office each and every day and the box was not under supervision 24/7. Furthermore, the tape had no signature or date written across the tape to ensure when and who taped it. With the box being unsecured, it is quite possible that there were more than one ballot boxes with ballots being added to both boxes; yet only one box was counted. Without using a post office box as the manual requires, there are endless opportunities for potential of manipulation of the mail-in ballots. In addition, the deadline for all returned ballots was 11/09/17 by 4pm. The ballots were counted on 11/10/17 at 10am. Friday, November 10th was an observed holiday for many state workers but the Federal holiday for postal workers was on 11/11/17. Mail was delivered on 11/10/17 and had the ballots been sent to the post office, this would have allowed for more ballots to have been counted. The Elections Manual (pg. 32-33) states, "If elections are to be conducted by mail, the following procedures must be followed:
"The return envelopes should be addressed to a neutral address, not to the union office…The best way is to have them returned to a Post Office Box requiring two keys to open. One of these keys should be retained by the chair-person of the election committee and the second by another committee member."
4. No opportunity for members to come and observe the preparation of the ballots, prior to mailing, was given. There have been reports from many members who have not received a ballot and had to request a duplicate ballot. With receiving duplicate ballots, there is always a problem of the ballot not arriving in a timely manner. Had there been observers present during the preparation of the ballots, could have eliminated so many members from not needing a duplicate ballot. There was only one email notification sent on Monday, October 9th stating that ballots would be mailed the next day (10/10/17). The Elections Manual, page 33, states:
`"Official observers designated by the candidates are entitled to be present during the addressing, stuffing, and mailing of the ballots."
5. Lastly, the postmarks on each ballot were not consistently checked to determine being mailed and received prior to the deadline as well as confirming membership prior to the deadline.
Please let me know your recommendations as to the above issues which I believe have negatively interfered with the results of this election.
Thank you,
Denise Nicks, Steward
AFSCME Local 2620
—————————————————————————————–
The Election Committee requested supporting evidence. No supporting documentary evidence was provided.
The Election Committee’s response:
1. The only eligibility requirement as to who may serve on the Election Committee is that the person be a member, not a fair share payer. Other than that, the guidelines only spell out who may NOT serve.
Per Article X, Section 2 of the Constitution of AFSCME Local 2620, "An Election Committee shall be appointed by the president and ratified by the executive board. Members of the Election Committee may not be a candidate for office or serving in the capacity as an executive board member, trustee or Council 57 delegate. "
The AFSCME Local Union Election Manual states, "The Election Committee, like any other local union committee, is ordinarily appointed by the Local President, with the approval of the executive board."
2. Only one ballot was not counted. You do not specifically state which judgments were made which you felt were "inconsistent with other judgments made." Each questionable ballot was addressed individually by the Election Committee and a vote was taken as to whether to accept or dismiss the ballot based upon the instructions which were provided with all of the ballots.
3. There are no guidelines as to what constitutes a "secured" ballot box. The ballot box prepared and used is consistent with ballot boxes used in past elections/votes. Never has more than one ballot box been required. The Ballot Box was kept in Shirl Martinez’s office. During business hours, Shirl Martinez, Teresa Munoz, Monique Aubrey and Lisa Trujillo are always present; Shirl, Teresa, and Monique are Council 57 staff. During non-business hours, Shirl’s office door is closed and locked by a key.
As to the deadline to receive ballots, the Burbank mailbox was checked in the presence of the Committee members and observers on November 10 and it was empty. Any ballots received on that day or after, regardless of postmark, would have been passed the deadline. The instructions stated that "Ballots are due at the Burbank office by 4:00 P.M. on November 9," not that they should be postmarked by 4:00 P.M. on November 9.
Regarding the post office box: both the post office box and the Burbank office mailbox require only one key to open them.
4. It is not clear how having observers present during the preparation of the ballots "could have eliminated so many members from not needing a duplicate ballot." E-mails were sent October 2, October 6 and October 16 with regard to this vote; members had notification of the important dates and the instructions to send all questions to the Election Committee via e-mail. You are assuming that no observers were present.
5. It was not necessary to check postmarks, as when the ballot was mailed is irrelevant; only when the ballot is received. As stated in #3, the Burbank mailbox was checked in the presence of the Committee members and observers on November 10 and it was empty. Any ballots received on that day or after, regardless of postmark, would have exceeded the deadline. The instructions stated that "Ballots are due at the Burbank office by 4:00 P.M. on November 9," not that they should be postmarked by 4:00 P.M. on November 9.
As for verifying who were members prior to the 4:00 P.M. deadline on October 25, there were only 6 RTs who became members between 10/26/17-11/08/17. They were identified on a separate list and if ballots were received from them, the envelopes were set aside and were not counted.
In unity,
The Election Committee