FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                    CONTACT:    Eric Christensen

                                                                                                703-554-6100

                                                                                                703-554-6119

                                                                                                eric@landmarklegal.org

 

LANDMARK LAUNCHES COMPLAINT AGAINST

CALIFORNIA TEACHERS UNION

 

Union May Be Diverting Special “Debt Retirement” Assessment

To Cover Ballot Initiative Campaign

 

 

            (September 14, 2005, Leesburg, VA)…Landmark Legal Foundation has today asked the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to investigate the California Teachers Association (CTA) for the union’s use of nonmember teachers’ fees to illegally finance a multimillion dollar effort to defeat ballot initiatives in the statewide November 5 special election.

 

            Landmark has asked PERB to investigate whether the CTA is using a $60 per member annual special assessment for three years - that the union described as being for “debt retirement” - to, in fact, finance political expenditures to defeat Propositions 75, 76 and other ballot initiatives in the November special election.  Teachers who are not members of the union but who are required by law to pay fees to the union for collective bargaining services are also being assessed the special $60 fee.

 

            “We have built a very compelling case that shows that the CTA is using its special assessment to enable it to divert teachers’ dues and fees to pay for campaign activities, which would violate federal and state law,” explained Landmark President Mark R. Levin. 

           

            Nonunion teachers are entitled by law to a refund for any part of the fees they pay that are used for political expenditures.  By diverting tax-exempt dues and fee revenue to debt retirement, which is chargeable to fee payers, the union is attempting to avoid complying with that requirement.  Landmark’s complaint is accompanied by CTA documents, numerous media reports and a thorough legal analysis.

 

(More)

 

Landmark/California

Page 2

 

            “The only debt the union appears to be retiring through this assessment is what it incurred for the ballot initiative campaign,” Levin said.

 

            Landmark has asked PERB to intervene at the present time because the union is spending millions on the campaign now, before the special election.

 

            “California’s teachers deserve better from their union.  PERB should force the union to comply with the law, and the CTA should be held accountable,” Levin said.

 

            Earlier complaints by Landmark against the NEA resulted in an ongoing full-field audit of the national union by the Internal Revenue Service and an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor.  Landmark is a public interest law firm founded in 1976 with offices in Kansas City, MO and Leesburg, VA.

 

 

END

 

 

The full text of Landmark’s complaint against the CTA is available on Landmark’s website at www.landmarklegal.org.

 

 

KEY POINTS IN LANDMARK’S COMPLAINT TO PERB ABOUT THE CTA

 

 

  • “The California Teachers Association contributed $21 million this week to campaign committees opposing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special election, in what is believed to be the state’s largest single-day campaign contribution.

 

            “The association has tapped bank lines of credit and dipped into its financial       reserves to come up with the contribution funds, the group’s president, Barbara         Kerr, said in an interview Friday.  Its members voted earlier this year to pay a $60         special assessment per member for the next three years to help cover the costs, for        a total of more than $50 million.”  “Teachers give $21 million to election fight,       Union borrowing to oppose governor’s ballot measures,” San Francisco        Chronicle (SFGate.com), September 3, 2005.

 

  • “The California Teachers Association has imposed a $60 extra assessment for three years on its 335,000 members . . . to fight Props. 75, 76 and others on the ballot.  That would raise above $50 million.” “Union war chests,” Orange County Register, July 10, 2005.)

 

  • Two months after the $50 million “debt retirement” assessment was imposed, the CTA pledged its Burlingame, CA headquarters as security for a $50 million loan.  The proceeds from this loan have been earmarked for the ballot measure campaign.  (Exhibit 4, “Teachers union mortgage will finance campaign,” Washington Times, August 18, 2005.)

 

  • The CTA reportedly has also spent millions on political commercials promoting a ballot measure on a business tax proposal.  “How state Democrats regained the driver’s seat,” Contra Costa Times, July 31, 2005. (Since that report, the union has abandoned that business tax proposal.  LATimes.com, August 10, 2005.) 

 

  • In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that a union may not constitutionally compel objecting agency fee payers to contribute to a union’s expenditures “for the expression of political views, on behalf of political candidates, or toward the advancement of other ideological causes not germane to its duties.”  431 U.S. at 235-36.

 

  • California’s Education Employees Relations Act (EERA) codifies constitutional protections for fee payers, set forth by the U.S. and California Supreme Courts.  While the CTA is free to align itself with a wide variety of viewpoints, it cannot compel agency fee payers to endorse such positions by expending their fees on particular issues.  The EERA provides that the agency fee shall cover the cost of negotiations, contract administration, and other activities of the employee organization that are germane to its functions as the exclusive bargaining representative.  Gov. Code Section 3546. 
  • The California Supreme Court has held that the chargeable activities may only include those set forth in the EERA.  See Curmero v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 49 Cal. 3d 575, 262 Cal. Rptr. 46, 778 P.2d 174 (1989).