MEMBERS OF Local 21-S, assisted by ratepayers and former employees, have won a four-year-long battle against two commissioners on the board of the Southwest Suburban Sewer District.

Their victory came when the commissioners — against whom they had waged a vigorous campaign — lost their positions, one in a recall and the other in an election.

The district covers all of Burien, White Center, Normandy Park, SeaTac and parts of Des Moines.

The uphill battle began in 2000 when the two commissioners began acting against employees in the Sewer District.

They cut staff by about a third and contracted work to an outside engineering firm. The move prompted staff, who had previously belonged to an employees’ association, to seek union protection. They voted unanimously to become members of Council 2.

After that move, the commissioners targeted employees who were not members of the bargaining unit, says Loree Johnson, the Local’s secretary-treasurer.

“They eliminated supervisory positions and a superintendent, leaving two treatment plants and a compost facility without direct managers,” she says. “The only manager was the general manager of the district.”

In the wake of their action a former general manager sued the district for illegal termination and alleged several incidents of misconduct. A former superintendent settled a suit for illegal termination against the district for $124,000 in May last year. And another employee filed a suit alleging illegal demotion and loss of wages based on age and racial discrimination against one of the commissioners; the Human Rights Commission found in the employee’s favor in 2003.

One of the employees who had testified in favor of the employee later filed a claim of illegal retaliation against one of the commissioners with the Human Rights Commission. The commission found in his favor and he reached a settlement with the district.

The costs of the legal settlements amounted to about $1 million, Johnson says. That was more than they claimed to have saved in staff cuts.

A ratepayer initiated a recall of one of the commissioners. In the case of the other, it was determined that it was so close to the November 2003 elections when his term expired that the voters could decide then whether he should be retained.

In November the voters rejected the commissioner’s bid for a second six-year term.

But the recall application for the commissioner who had more than two years left on his term of office was granted. It was the first time that King County Superior Court Judge James Doerty had ever granted such a request.

But more work needed to be done on the recall. “Once the recall is issued you have six months to obtain signatures,” Peter Sanchez, Local President, explains. “In this case we needed 3,800, or 35 percent of the people who voted in the November 2000 election, to get it on the ballot.”

A group of about 40 ratepayers, employees and former employees went from door to door and gathered signatures.

While the signature-gathering campaign was under way, the board of commissioners passed a resolution in August 2003 to increase the number of commissioners from three to five. Ratepayers had 90 days to object and needed to gather 1,284 certified signatures to force an election on the issue. Those signatures were obtained, effectively stopping the board expansion.

By the end of December when a total of 3,500 signatures needed to be turned in on the recall, the workers on the signature-gathering campaign turned in more than 5,000.

In the March ballot, 61.12 percent of the voters opted for recall.
The two current board members will appoint a commissioner to serve through 2005, when a new commissioner chosen by ratepayers will take office.