[Ayatollahgondola]

Well despite her capitalizing on SOS's name, she doesn't seem a bad sort. she's suing her union, the SEIU, to find oout why they are spending her dues money on non union related expenses.
I've met her, but not knowing what she was babbling about at an event at the capitol, this may warrant further communication.
wonder how she feels about SEIU support for illegals?

The SEIU is demanding a non-disclosure statement before they let her see the records. She is balking, and says it's not a prerequesite. And unless there is some case law somewhere, she appears to be correct.

4. On March 18, 201 Imade a written request to SEIU to inspect the accounting books
and records and minutes of SEIU, including bank statements and bank reconciliations for each
month of 2009 and 2010. (Exhibit A attached). Petitioner was interested in detennining where
SEIU Local 1000 was spending her dues and the dues of other members similarly situated.
Petitioner currently pays dues of $43.60 per month. Petitioner is informed an believes and
thereon alleges that for the years 2009 and 2010 SEIU has spent members' dues in amounting to
several millions of dollars on matters unrelated to its duty as exclusive representative.
5. On March 30, 2011, SEIU responded by requesting that Petitioner "provide legal
authority" for inspecting the "bank statements and bank reconciliations." (Exhibit B attached).
6. On April 7,2011, Petitioner responded to SEIU and provided "legal authority" to
inspect the "bank statements and bank reconciliations." (Exhibit C attached).
7. On April 19, 2011, SEIU responded by offering Petitioner two dates to inspect the
requested records—May 10,2011 or May 17,2011. SEIU placed no time limit on Petitioner's
need to respond as to which date she was going to select. (Exhibit D attached).
8. Petitioner responded on April 28, 2011 and selected May 10,2011 at 1:00 p.m.
(Exhibit E attached).
9. However, in a letter dated May 5, 2011, SEIU notified Petitioner that she had not
timely responded to its April 19* letter, therefore, she was not being allowed to inspect the
records on May 10*. (Exhibit F attached).
10. Petitioner responded on May 5, 2011, noting that SEIU's contention that she did not
respond in a timely manner was in error, and that she would be at the SEIU office on May 10,
2011 to inspect the requested records. (Exhibit G attached).
11. In a letter dated May 9,2011, SEIU proposed that Petitioner select either June 7 or
14,2011, to inspect the requested records. (Exhibit H attached).
12. Petitioner went to the SEIU office in Sacramento on May 10, 2011 to inspect the
records. She was denied access to the records by SEIU.
13. On May 11, 2011, Petitioner notified SEIU that she would inspect the records on
June 7, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. (Exhibit I attached).
14. However, on May 19,2011, SEIU notified Petitioner that she would not be allowed
to inspect the records unless she signed a Confidentiality Non-Disclosure Agreement. (Exhibit Jattached). Petitioner notified SEIU that she would not sign the agreement in a letter dated May
27,2011. (Exhibit K attached). There is no statutory authority for SEIU to place conditions on a
members right to inspect the records identified in section 8333. Therefore, Petitioner is, and has
been, denied the right to inspect the requested records by SEIU, notwithstanding a statutory duty
SEIU's part imder section 8333 to allow members the right to inspect records ofthe corporation.
15. Under Corporations Code section 8336, where a request to review records pursuant
to section 8333 has been denied, the court may enforce the demand to inspect with just and
proper conditions.
16. Petitioner has been denied her right to inspect the requested records since March
2011. Petitioner is beneficially interested in the issuance of a writ because she is a member of
SEIU Local 1000 and has been denied the right to inspect the requested records in order to
determine where her dues are being spent.
17. Petitioner does not have a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law other than the relief sought in this Petition to enforce her right to review the requested
records.
WHEREFORE: Petitioner prays for relief as follows:
1. That the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering Respondent to permit
Petitioner to inspect all accounting books and records, including bank statements and
bank reconciliations;
2. Reasonable attomey's fees pursuant to Corporations Code section 8337; and
3. For costs of this proceeding and for such other relief deemed just and proper by the
Court.
Dated: June 10, 2011