The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents some 6,200 State Compensation Insurance Fund employees, is expressing its displeasure with State Fund’s supposed transparency. Under 2008’s SB 1145, authored by Sen. Mike Machado (D-Stockton), now a State Fund board member, State Fund is subject to the California Public Records Act and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. But according to SEIU members, State Fund honors only the letter of the law, not the spirit.
It’s reached the point that SEIU had to file an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board, attorneys say.
Randy Cheek, legislative advocate for SEIU, let State Fund’s Board of Directors know publicly that the union had to file Public Records Act requests just to access what is discussed in closed sessions when the board meets. Cheek tells Workers’ Comp Executive that the board does not honor its pledge or requirement to be transparent.
“We’ve been finding that there are things in closed session that shouldn’t be in closed session.”
—Randy Cheek, SEIU
“We’ve been finding that there are things in closed session that shouldn’t be in closed session, things that deal with employee issues that affect the system statewide,” Cheek says. “We’ve been having to file Freedom of Information Act requests [to get the information].”
Cheek concedes that there are legitimate reasons for discussing some items in closed session, such as personnel matters related to discipline or pending litigation, but he doesn’t think many of the items qualify as confidential.
Cheek says that unless an employee from one of SEIU’s units reports that an audit is being done, the only heads-up is an agenda item listed for the general board meeting or one of the subcommittees. Then they are almost always closed. Furthermore, frequently subcommittees meet concurrently, making it difficult for members of the public to catch any information that can be shared.
“We usually send more than one person, but it’s harder for the public to do that,” Cheek says. “If you’re going to be open and transparent, I don’t know why you’re having meetings [at the same time]. Are you really being transparent?”
State Fund spokeswoman Jennifer Vargen tells Workers’ Comp Executive that the State Fund board meetings are not out of compliance with Bagley Keene. The scheduling is meant to allow the board members to move through their jobs more efficiently. “We heard the concern, though, and are taking it under advisement,” Vargen says.
Unfair Practices Act
According to legal sources within SEIU, it’s been like pulling teeth to get State Fund to release documents under the California Public Records Act. As the union representing SCIF employees, SEIU also requests information under the Dills Act, which governs state employee and employer relations. That has been just as difficult.
“My experience has not been a good one,” says an SEIU attorney who asked not to be identified. SEIU attorneys have made two requests under CPRA and the Dills Act—one for information on Internet monitoring and one for information related to access of State Fund locations by non-State Fund employees. The experience has been painful.
“It took them six months to get the Internet monitoring request to us, and they claimed it was taking so long because of the complexity of the audit. Looking at the audit, it doesn’t look all that complex.”
—SEIU legal
“It took them six months to get the Internet monitoring request to us, and they claimed it was taking so long because of the complexity of the audit,” the attorney tells Workers’ Comp Executive. “Looking at the audit, it doesn’t look all that complex.”
The other request related to non-State Fund employee access has been mostly denied. State Fund sent some “baloney” access policy but did not provide any of the other information that SEIU asked for, and as of this date has still not provided it. It’s gotten to the point where SEIU filed an unfair-practice charge under the Dills Act (click here for a copy or go to our Resources Section).
According to the unfair-practice charge, SEIU says it made a request under the Public Records Act and Dills Act and sent both requests to their respective offices, as follows:
“Although SCIF was on notice of the Union’s Dill Act request since January 12th, SCIF responded by claiming that its Public Records Office was not responsible for handling Dills Act requests. SCIF further stated that the Union should contact Ms. Rowan [the labor relations manager]. The Union also sent a copy of its April 21st letter to Ms. Rowan. As of today, SCIF has failed to provide the information request.” PERB still needs to act on the charge.
The request asked for information related to areas of access of State Fund locations by non-employees, including vendors; information related to access doors and entry points at State Fund by non-State Fund employees, including vendors; and any policies or memoranda related to access.
The PERB complaint points out that the information is necessary to make sure State Fund employees are treated the same way as non-State Fund employees. “Without the information requested, the Union cannot determine if contract violations or unfair practice charges are occurring at SCIF regarding access. This severely undercuts the Union’s ability to represent its members and enforce their rights,” it reads.
Other SEIU members have sent PRAs, too, including one from Janeen Tang, the secretary of the Research and Legislative Department, asking for table listing all the worksites at State Fund, including building name and address. This request was honored, but calls to the legal analyst for explanation for why the information was requested were not returned.
“We’ve asked the Board if we can sit down with them to discuss these issues. We want to deal with the closed-session [issue] more than anything,” Cheek says.