Union rallies against ban

The clash between neutrality in the courts and free speech heated up Wednesday at the Sonoma County Hall of Justice, where union members whose T-shirts and buttons have been barred from public display rallied against the ban.

The Service Employees International Union, which represents 165 courthouse workers including court reporters, file clerks and others, decried a policy prohibiting them from wearing their purple logo shirts, lapel pins, buttons and lanyards in public view.

The union is in negotiations over members' contract, which expires Sept. 24.

"Our obligation to the public to maintain the appearance of impartiality is first and foremost to keep our justice system credible to and for those we serve," Court Executive Officer Denise Gordon said in an Aug. 9 e-mail to the staff, explaining the restrictions.

Gordon was vacationing Wednesday, and neither she, several judges nor other high-level court administrators could be reached by phone. But they all came under fire at a noontime demonstration in the court complex's courtyard.

"Shame, shame, shame, shame on you, Denise Gordon," said SEIU Local 1021 President Damita Davis-Howard, accusing court officials of violating union members' civil rights. "Shame on the judges who are supposed to uphold the Constitution."

About 100 people gathered for the rally, including court reporter Carlos Martinez of Ukiah. He said Judge Raima Ballinger told him Wednesday to take off his inch-wide SEIU lapel pin, which he'd worn for a week.

"She said I could wear it while I'm out of court, but not in court," said Martinez, complaining that lawyers and others working at the courts may wear accessories from other causes and groups.

"I've seen them with their Rotary buttons on, their breast-cancer-awareness buttons on, their child safety buttons on," he said. "Where's the difference?"

Ballinger was among the judges who did not respond to interview requests Wednesday.

Beside the public counter outside Gordon's office, a Disabled American Veterans sticker exhibited the American flag and the slogan "Freedom isn't free."

It exemplifies the apparent inconsistency that offends SEIU members, including Janice Bercut, a civil division supervisor who with her staff of 10 people received a verbal reprimand Friday for wearing their purple SEIU T-shirts.

"I'm not asking for the public to vote for anything or against anything; I'm merely showing my support for an organization," Bercut said. "If I can do that for the Girl Scouts, for Save the Whales . . . my kid's baseball team or something else, why can't I do that for my union?"

In an e-mail seeking to clarify Gordon's directive, her deputy executive, Cindia Martinez, wrote Wednesday: "While we understand the right to participate in negotiations and union activities, we also require conduct that does not compromise the appearance of neutrality and impartiality to the public and other court users. Where our staff come into contact directly serving the public, such as the courtroom and the front counters for filing court documents, inappropriate posters, stickers and buttons are prohibited."

Martinez added: "Union-related items are, however, permitted on breaks, lunchtime and in appropriate workspaces not visible to the public."

Constitutional experts reaffirmed Wednesday the courts' compelling interest in maintaining public confidence in unbiased proceedings. They also questioned union members' claims that their organization is "not political," and Gordon's Aug. 9 e-mail, which focuses exclusively on SEIU paraphernalia and doesn't mention other potentially partisan groups.

"Speech about unions might stand to compromise the appearance of impartiality, just as speech about any number of political organizations might," said lawyer Derek Shaffer, executive director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center.

"She's on relatively safe constitutional grounds if those employees who are supporting unions are treated no differently than employees who are supporting or opposing other political organizations," Shaffer said. "If, on the other hand, the courthouse is singling out those employees who support unions for specially disfavored treatment, then that does seem to violate the First Amendment."

You can reach Staff Writer Katy Hillenmeyer at 521-5274 or katy.hillenmeyer@pressdemocrat.com.