 |
| Dian Palmer |
Here’s an update from Chicago about SEIU’s trusteeship of SEIU Local 73.
It turns out that SEIU officials did a real doozy on Local 73’s constitution and bylaws during the trusteeship of this union of approximately 25,000 mainly public-sector workers in Illinois and northwestern Indiana.
Under the
union’s old rules, Local 73’s officials were required to hold four general
membership meetings each year where members could pose questions to union
officials, introduce resolutions, vote on motions and budget issues, and take
other actions.
What changes
did the union’s new constitution bring?
Well, they eliminated
the union-wide membership meetings and replaced them with one “assembly” per
year… where only delegates are permitted to speak and vote. Members can only be
observers.
In a recent
newsletter, an opposition slate called “Members leading Members” offers more details:
the most damaging change came when the trustees eliminated all four annual membership meetings required by the old constitution. This act alone will completely take the members’ rights away when it comes to holding their leaders accountable and charting the direction of their local. Dian Palmer, from the very first day she came in from Wisconsin as a trustee, hated the membership meetings and the fact that the members were asking questions. At one staff meeting in June of 2017, Dian Palmer proposed that we eliminate the question and answer sessions from the membership meetings altogether.
At a
membership meeting held on February 23, Local 73 officials – including the
union’s current Chief of Staff Tyson Roan -- reportedly called police arrest Local
73’s former president, Christine
Boardman, for allegedly “trespassing” when she attended the meeting and
handed out the leaflet below. Boardman said she has a right to attend the meeting
since she’s a retiree.
Meanwhile,
the “Members leading Members” slate reports
that trustee Dian Palmer -- Local 73’s
new president -- got her salary bumped to $166,000 per year. Union
members reportedly filed charges over the pay increase, alleging it was not
properly approved.
