LOCAL 32BJ/SEIU 2021 ELECTION COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT ON CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY
I. BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2021, the Election Committee issued a preliminary decision on the eligibility of candidates to run for office and distributed that report to each slate’s representatives. A copy of the preliminary decision is attached.
In the preliminary decision, the Election Committee found that the petitions for the Stand
Together and Time for A Change slates contained the requisite number of signatures for nomination. However, the Committee found that the petitions submitted for the We Are The
Union slate, the One goal, One Passion, One Union! slate, and the Michael Maffeo slate did not have enough signatures to support those slates’ nominees. The Committee also noted that the
We Are The Union slate had presented a protest arguing that its efforts to secure names on petitions had been unfairly interfered with. The July 27 preliminary decision included a notice that the Election Committee would hold a hearing on the protest and consider any evidence offered in support of the protest concerning such alleged interference before making a final determination about the sufficiency of the number of signatures presented by the We Are The
Union slate.
The July 27 preliminary decision also included the Election Committee’s determination of whether the candidates named in the petitions met the 24-month continuous good standing requirement for nomination. The Committee notified the slates that the Union’s records showed that certain candidates did not meet the two-year continuous good standing requirement for nomination and thus were not eligible to run for office. The names of those identified in the July
27 report are listed here, together with the dues discrepancies that trigger disqualifications:
Stand Together
Edward Doctor – Missing payment June 2020.
Luisa Lazo – Late payments in December 2019 and January 2020.
Caonabo Mercado – Missing payment May 2020.
We Are The Union
Lida Guzman – Missing payments May 2020 through May 2021.
Jeffrey Phillips – Missing payments November and December 2020, and January and
February 2021.
Juan Cumpa – Missing payments June 2020 and November 2020.
Tona Gashi – Late payments June 2019 through February 2020.
Mildred Porras – Missing payments August 2020 through February 2021.
Nohora Leon – Missing payments May 2021.
Hung Tam – Missing payment May 2020.
Lydia McCarthy – Missing payments May 2020 through May 2021.
Yokasta Martinez Reynoso – Missing payments April, May, and June 2020.
Juanita Mercado – Missing payments December 2020 through May 2021.
Jenny Tejada de Cuello – Missing payments May 2020 through May 2021.
Basilia Reyes – Missing payments November 2020 through May 2021.
Francisco Cardona – Missing payment for August 2020.
Senija Sula – Late payments July 2019 through December 2019.
Yared Perez Ibarra – Missing payments November 2020 through May 2021.
Evelyn Santana – Missing payments July through October 2019.
Jose Flores – Missing payment November 2019.
Rainaldo Hernandez – Missing payments May 2020 through January 2021.
2
Carlos Alvarado – the Committee has no information on this person; no willingness to
run form has been submitted and no information on his identification has been provided
despite a request for such information.
In the July 27 preliminary determination, the Committee notified slate representatives that it would consider any evidence that the Committee’s determinations about dues discrepancies were incorrect, and that candidates should submit that evidence, either in writing to the Election Coordinator (Andrew Stehney-Vargas) or at the hearing.
Finally, in the July 27 preliminary determination, the Committee notified slate representatives that no Willingness to Run statements has been submitted for the following candidates: Amilcar Alvarado, Tona Gashi, Naseer Bokhari, Lee Lebron, Evelyn Santana,
Carlos Alvarado, Hellen Curtis, Jose Flores, Haydee Mayor, Elsa Milan, Rainaldo Hernandez,
Lucia Morales, Joe Alexander, Juan Cumpa, Senija Sula, and Vilma Sanchez. The Committee advised that if these candidates were otherwise found eligible to run, their names would not be included on the ballot (and they would not be deemed eligible) unless their “Willingness to Run” statements were submitted to Andrew Stehney-Vargas by no later than 6:00 p.m. on August 6,
2021.
II. The July 30 hearing
The hearing was held on July 30 and the following individuals appeared and offered evidence: for the We Are The Union slate, Carlos Guzman, Carina Cruz, and Harold Mena; for the Stand Together slate, Phoebe Schell, Brikena Bekteshi. In additional, at the request of the
Stand Together slate, Selwyn Felix joined the hearing remotely. Committee representatives present for the hearing were Nyah Foster, Candie Carrion, Ena Softley, Otto Marin, Jordan
3
Weiss, Raymond Perez, Yaovi Acolitse, Jamal Johnson, and Elijah Mackay. Also present to assist the Committee were Walter Meginniss, counsel to the Election Committee, and David
Prouty, SEIU 32BJ General Counsel. A court reporter was present to record the hearing and prepare a transcript.
1. We Are The Union protest and the number of signatures submitted in support of the nomination of candidates on that slate. The petitions for this slate contained 1670 names.
The vendor hired by the Union to analyze petitions and compare them to the list of members in good standing could only match 1064 names to the good standing list. Union staff spent four days, working 12 hours a day, reviewing the unmatched names. The Union staff was able to find matches of another 336 names, bringing the valid signature total to 1, 400. The candidates on the We Are The Union slate are seeking nomination to New York Metro District offices and to
Union-wide offices. The minimum number of signatures required for nomination to New York
Metro district offices is 1,464 and the minimum number of signatures required for nomination to
Union-wide offices is 1,500.
At the hearing, Mr. Guzman made several arguments why his petitions should be deemed adequate. He argued that the thresholds were too high; he demanded that the Committee instead apply only a 400-signature threshold, as this was the number of signatures that had been required when he first ran for Union office in 1983. This argument lacks merit for the obvious reason that the thresholds are established by the Constitution and Bylaws, and the Committee is bound to follow the Constitution. It is not free to establish its own threshold. The Committee also notes that the Union has grown very substantially since 1983 and the Constitution has been amended a number of times since 1983.
4
Mr. Guzman also argued that the constitutional changes enacted in early 2021, pursuant to which the Election Committee for the 2021 election was appointed by the Executive Board rather than elected in District meetings, was an unfair boost to the incumbent office-holders.
The change he refers to was in fact made in early 2021 – by a vote of the membership approving the proposed constitutional change. The Election Committee is bound by the Constitution, and nothing about the appointment of Committee members violates the Constitution. His argument lacks merit.
Mr. Guzman also argued that the self-identification requirements deterred members from signing nominating petitions. The self-identification requirements are the following: in addition to recording one’s name on the petition, a member must include two of three numbers that are unique to the member: last four digits of the social security number, date of birth, union identification number (each member’s union identification number had been included on the
Notice of Election sent to the member in May). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the Election Committee can identify the person and, of even greater importance, to ensure that the person inserting the name on a petition is in fact the person whose name is inserted. That is, it is a requirement that provides some protection against someone fraudulently inserting the name of a co-worker, because it is very unlikely that such unique identifiers are known to others.
Mr. Guzman asserted that members were deterred from signing petitions because they were concerned that the inclusion of all this information, particularly the combination of the birth date and the last four digits of a social security number, might lead to identity theft. No evidence was offered to support this argument. The Committee notes that thousands of members included this information on the petitions submitted by the slates. Apart from the argument made by Mr.
Guzman at the hearing, the Union and the Committee have received no other such complaint
5 from a member. In sum, the arguments that Mr. Guzman and the We Are The Union slate offered in support of that the Committee set aside the minimum signature requirement or lower the threshold to 400 signatures did not have a base in any evidence and were contradicted by the requirements of the Constitution, and the Committee rejects those arguments.
However, the We Are The Union slate did submit evidence with respect to one part of their protest. First, Mr. Guzman and Carina Cruz testified that they had sought signatures from members working in buildings in Manhattan and the members purportedly informed him that they would not sign because their shop stewards had told them not to. Mr. Guzman was able to identify one location where the members named the shop steward – a member named Selwyn
Felix. Mr. Guzman testified that he had also had other colleagues tell him that that had been met with similar refusals, allegedly because the shop steward had told the members not to sign.
He was not able to identify the names of the shop stewards he was told had engaged in this behavior. Mr. Guzman argued that the shop stewards were the agents of the Union and that the interference with his petitioning by agents of the Union violates Title IV of Landrum-Griffin.
Carina Cruz testified that she had sought to get signatures from members at the Lincoln Towers complex in Manhattan and had received similar responses. She also said that after she tried unsuccessfully to secure these signatures, a security guard told her that she would not be permitted in the buildings. She did not know who had summoned the guard or whether he had been told to intercept her, but she believed it might have been done by her opponents.
Phoebe Schell testified for the Stand Together slate and asserted that the Stand Together slate had trained its agents and supporters to refrain from interfering with the petitioning done by any other candidate. She argued that shop stewards are not agents of the Union, and that the actions of shop stewards could not be attributed to the Stand Together slate (Mr. Guzman
6 disputed this contention, referring to the stipends that are provided to shop stewards and to the provision of the Constitution that authorizes the Joint Executive Board to designate shop stewards and define their duties). Ms. Schell also asserted that the claims of the We Are The
Union slate were not credible and asked for the opportunity to have Mr. Felix join the hearing remotely.
The Committee was able to have Mr. Felix testify by telephone. He denied that he had never instructed members not to sign petitions for any candidate, and he denied knowing that Mr.
Guzman had even come to the building where he worked.
The Committee is not able to conclude that these events, even as described, are violative of the Constitution. First, all members, including shop stewards, are permitted to make clear their preferences in an election and to advocate for or against any candidate. A shop steward who tells his/her colleagues not to sign the petition of a candidate the steward does not support is not violating the Constitution; rather the shop steward is engaging in political activity that is protected by law. That political activity may cross the line where the shop steward is coercive or using improper intimidation or employer coercion. But no concrete evidence of such conduct was presented in these instances, and the Committee cannot infer it simply because the candidates running against the incumbents believe it to be so.
The We Are Together slate then offered the testimony of Harold Mena, and the evidence offered by Mr. Mena is of a different character. Mr. Mena testified that, on two occasions, he had secured signatures on petitions and these petitions were taken from him by shop stewards.
First, he testified that he had obtained the signatures of members at 90 Church Street. After a discussion with the shop steward there, he left the petition with the shop steward who had told him that he would secure the signatures of other members working in the building. Mr. Mena
7 testified that when he returned, the shop steward told him that he not only had not secured the signatures of other members, but he refused to return the petition that Mr. Mena had left with him. Mr. Mena testified that the petition he had left had four signatures on it and he had expected he would be getting more when he came back to the building.
Mr. Mena also testified to a similar incident at the 9-11 Memorial and Museum. He arrived and was circulating petitions among the members. He saw that two sheets had been completed in full, each sheet bearing 10 signatures. He left to go to another building, with the understanding that the members would be circulating the petitions and securing more signatures.
More than 100 members work at the site.
When he returned, he met a shop steward there who told him that he had been told by a delegate not to allow the petitions to be turned over. The shop steward refused to return them.
Mr. Mena testified that is cousin worked at the site and witnessed the shop steward ripping up the petitions.
The Stand Together slate brought in Union Representative Brikena Bekteshi to testify about these events. She testified that her duties had previously included representing the area in which the 9-11 Memorial is located, but her are had changed before the petitioning period. She testified that she had worked with Harold Mena and knew him. On a date that she thought was
June 24, she received a phone call from the Union representative who had taken over for her in the area that includes the 9-11 Memorial. She testified that this representative reported that the shop steward there had observed Harold Mena circulating information with the members at the site and, when the shop steward asked Mr. Mena what this was, Mr. Mena responded that
Brikena had asked him to circulate the material. Ms. Bekteshi testified that she told the Union
8 representative that she had not told Mr. Mena to do any such thing and that there was some miscommunication going on.
After that phone call, Ms. Bekteshi learned that the shop steward had in fact taken the petitions, including signed petitions and was holding them in his locker. Ms. Bekteshi reported these events to her supervisor, Denis Johnston, and, at Mr. Johnston’s direction then spoke with the Union representative responsible for the area to let him know that the shop steward should return the petitions and not interfere with the petitioning process. Ms. Bekteshi learned that the shop steward did return the petitions, not to Mr. Mena, but to the members who worked there and that those members had destroyed the petitions because they had not known what they were at the time they signed.
In response, Mr. Guzman again argued that the Union was responsible for the actions of the shop stewards. Ms. Cruz then played a tape which she asserted was the statement of a member. She declined to name the member or offer other information that would allow the
Committee to identify the member. The gist of the statement on the recording was that the
Union representatives frequently asked members to sign documents without explaining what they were. It appeared that Ms. Cruz was offering this as evidence that Mr. Mena did nothing wrong in circulating the petitions without explaining exactly what they were for. That evidence, however, also supports the claim of the Stand Together slate that the members at the 9-11
Memorial site were not informed of what they were being asked to sign.
There is a strong credibility dispute between the We Are The Union witnesses and the
Stand Together witnesses on this matter. On the one hand, the We Are The Union slate contends that the shop steward at the 9-11 site interfered with Mr. Mena’s collection of signatures and destroyed signed petitions; on the other hand, the Stand Together slate contends that the
9 members were misled and that, when they learned the true nature of the document they had signed, they destroyed it. The Committee is deciding this issue without deciding that dispute; that is, the Committee does not find that either Mr. Mena or Ms. Bekteshi is not credible.
Instead, the Committee focuses on the facts that are not in dispute and the requirements of the Constitution. It is undisputed that petitions were taken from Mr. Mena and not returned to him. The number of signatures cannot be readily determined. It is also undisputed that the
Union has been able to confirm that the We Are The Union slate presented petitions with 1.400 valid signatures, a sum that is 93% of the threshold required for the nomination of Union-wide offices and 96% of the total required for the nomination of New York Metro District officers.
The purpose of the requirement that a minimum number of signatures be presented is to ensure that intending candidates have some support of the members. Given how close the number of valid signatures presented by the We Are The Union slate is to meeting that threshold and given that it is clear that some other signatures were secured by that slate that they were unable to present because of the confiscation by others, the Committee concludes that the showing required by the Constitution has actually been met. That is, the Committee concludes that the
We Are The Union has met the constitutionally required minimum numbers of petition signatures required for the nomination of their candidates. The Committee notes that this decision is based on the very specific facts presented by Mr. Mena, and this should not be taken as a precedent indicating that the constitutional minimums may be set aside.
2. The failure of candidates to meet the two-year continuous good standing requirement
The Committee also received any evidence offered in connection with the dues histories of the candidates identified in the Committee’s preliminary determination as not having met the continuous good standing requirement.
10
Stand Together
The Stand Together slate submitted evidence that Caonabo Mercado had made a double
payment of dues in November, 2020, which made up for the missing payment for May, 2020.
Both months fell within the period covered by the recent constitutional amendment which
specifies that late payments from March 2020 through June 2021 will not deprive a member of
continuous good standing. Accordingly, Mr. Mercado is eligible to run for office.
The Stand Together slate acknowledged that it does not have any information that would
affect the Committee’s preliminary determination concerning Luisa Lazo and Edward Doctor.
Accordingly, the Committee finds that those two members are not eligible to run.
We Are The Union
We Are The Union did not offer evidence concerning the dues histories of those candidates who had been found ineligible in the Committee’s preliminary determination. Instead
Mr. Guzman argued that the Union had an obligation to collect the dues of members and that the
Union failed to meet that obligation with respect to members with missing payments.
The continuous good standing rule is a traditional one that many unions have incorporated into their constitutions. It ensures that those who become officers of the Union have cared enough about the financial well-being of the Union that they have consistently paid their dues on time, and that they have been with the Union a minimum length of time that will give them at least some familiarity with its operations. The Committee notes that there is no evidence that the application of the rule disqualifies a significant number of candidates. In fact, of the many dozens candidates who have been nominated in this election, only the handful of candidates covered by this report failed to meet the continuous good standing requirement.
Furthermore, the obligation to meet the continuous good standing requirement is on the
11 member, not the Union. The notion that a member should not be found to have violated the requirement because the Union has not taken steps to secure delinquent payments is not supported by the language of the Constitution. It is an argument that has been made on behalf of delinquent payers in other elections and has always been rejected.
Mr. Guzman noted that, in its preliminary decision, the Committee had noted that when a member is terminated and the Union is grieving the termination, the non-payment of dues during that period will not affect the member’s good standing provided that the member makes up payments for those months upon return to work. For that reason, the Committee has determined that Carina Cruz remains eligible despite a lack of payment of dues for many months because the Union is pursuing a grievance contesting her termination. Mr. Guzman assert that this same rationale should apply to Lida Guzman. He asserted that Lida Guzman had been terminated from employment in 2020, and a grievance contesting her termination is pending. Following the hearing, the Committee obtained evidence that Ms. Guzman did in fact file a complaint shortly after she was laid off in April, 2020. She then stopped responding to the Union representative’s outreach. The Union sent her a letter in June, 2020, requesting that she respond to the representative and informing her that, if she did not respond in five days, the grievance would be terminated. She did not respond and the grievance was terminated. Thus, her failure to pay dues for the past 13 months makes her ineligible to run for office.
Mr. Guzman did not have information as to the dues histories of the other candidates on his slate with dues delinquencies. The Committee advised him that it will continue to take any evidence he has on this subject until 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 4.
Finally, Union Finance Director Lori Orme brought to the attention of the panel additional information concerning We Are The Union slate member Francisco Cardona. The
12
Union’s records showed that Mr. Cardona had missed a dues payment owed for August 2020.
Ms. Orme reported that, on further investigation, it was clear that Mr. Cardona had returned from a leave of absence on August 17, 2020, and was on checkoff. Because the employer could and should have deducted and remitted dues for Mr. Cardona for that month, the
Committee has determined that the missing payment is the result of employer error and should not disqualify Mr. Cardona. He is eligible to run.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described above, the Committee makes the final decision on eligibility as follows:
1. Michael Maffeo, Francisco Benitez, Luisa Lazo, Edward Doctor, Lida Guzman,
Jeffrey Phillips, Juan Cumpa, Tona Gashi, Mildred Porras, Nohora Leon, Hung Tam, Lydia
McCarthy, Yokasta Martinez Reynoso, Juanita Mercado, Jenny Tejada de Cuello, Basilia Reyes,
Senija Sula, Yared Perez Ibarra, Evelyn Santana, Jose Flores, Rainaldo Hernandez, and Carlos
Alvarado are not eligible to run for office.
2. The following candidates are eligible to run on the slate listed for the offices listed.
(For those who have not yet provided a Willingness to Run statement, eligibility will be lost if the form is not received by 6:00 p.m. on August 6, 2021).
13
Bragg Kyle Union Wide President
Pastreich Manny Union Wide Secretary-Treasurer
Santos John Union Wide Assistant to the President
Aldebol Shirley Union Wide Executive Vice President
Brown Kevin Union Wide Executive Vice President
Contreras Jaime Union Wide Executive Vice President
Hill Rob Union Wide Executive Vice President
Johnston Denis Union Wide Executive Vice President
Morgan Gabe Union Wide Executive Vice President
Rivera Roxana Union Wide Executive Vice President
Alonzo Margarita Union Wide Vice President
Melendez Israel Union Wide Vice President
Palache Rochelle Union Wide Vice President
Stavris Kevin Union Wide Vice President
14
Tolliver Candis Union Wide Vice President
Abramson Leroy Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Agyeman Kwaku Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Gerken Katie Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Brennan James Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Diaz Dimas Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
15
Egan John Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Gjoni Suzana Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
McEneaney Gerard Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
MacManiman Wayne Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Molina Elpidio Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Sugimori Amy Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Thomson Eric Union Wide At-Large Executive Board Member
Castiglione Anthony Union Wide Board of Auditors
Klimas Danuta Union Wide Board of Auditors
Roman Tonya Union Wide Board of Auditors
Nicolai Dan 615 District Leader
Figueroa-Duran Otoniel 615 Assistant District Leader
Barraza Jose 615 District Executive Board Member
Cunningham Neil 615 District Executive Board Member
Jones Chanda 615 District Executive Board Member
Del Pozo Celsa 615 District Executive Board Member
Pinto Rosa Miguel 615 District Executive Board Member
Restrepo Margarita 615 District Executive Board Member
Wesley Jacqueline 615 District Executive Board Member
16
Cordova Antonia 615 Grievance Board Member
Peña Juan 615 Trial Committee Member
Cruz Daisy MAD District Leader
Acree Juanita MAD Assistant District Leader
Brown Sr. Mike MAD District Executive Board Member
Pujols Suazo Sarah MAD District Executive Board Member
Warryton Leroy MAD District Executive Board Member
Sims-Miller Beverly MAD Grievance Board Member
Aragones Huascar MAD Trial Committee Member
Davis Louis CAD District Leader
Lopez Mauricio CAD Assistant District Leader
Hatton Nishaun CAD District Executive Board Member
Howell Judith CAD District Executive Board Member
Miles Lemoyne CAD District Executive Board Member
Paz Alejandrina CAD District Executive Board Member
Peña Montoya Maritza CAD District Executive Board Member
Yamileth Rivera Ana CAD District Executive Board Member
Clark Marquita CAD Grievance Board Member
Kelly Donna Michelle CAD Trial Committee Member
17
Garate Luz NJ District Leader
Thomas Carla NJ Assistant District Leader
Fitch April NJ District Executive Board Member
18
Mercado Caonabo NJ District Executive Board Member
Vaughan Ederle NJ District Executive Board Member
Cuadrado Mary Frances NJ Grievance Board Member
Suarez Santos Alina NJ Trial Committee Member
Benne