Jonathan Lee's Response to the change.org Support Rainbow Staff Save Rainbow Petition
On Saturday, June 7, 2025 a Vote of No Confidence and Motion to Censure against Jonathan Lee from "union staff at Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa County" was published on change.org.
The petition alleges the following:
1. "During his tenure as Interim Executive Director and as a Board Member, Jonathan Lee engaged in actions intended to dismantle and undermine the staff union."
This is not true. During my tenure as Interim Executive Director (October 2023 to August 2024) and later as a board member, I was never reported to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). However, on April 25, 2025, the Union at the Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa County (RCC) reported Co-Executive Director Correen "Cori" Johnson for violating Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The report was based on an email she sent to all employees, which included a statement that undermined the Union by suggesting the Employer did not need to worry about the Union and announcing that the Company would be changing the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) before it expired.
She repeatedly referred to a "local attorney" in her communications with the Board. During our Board meeting, we requested the contact information for this “local attorney” so we could consult with them directly and cover any consultation fees. At that point, she admitted the individual was actually “my professor.” This misrepresentation is significant, as it led to the RCC Union filing a claim against her with the NLRB. Why refer to this individual as a “local attorney” in the March 7 Board Update, rather than accurately identifying them as her professor?
Moreover, how do we know this professor is even qualified to provide legal advice? I would like the professor’s name and contact information so we can confirm whether any such discussion took place. However, I am fairly confident Correen will not provide that information—because it appears this individual may not exist at all.
While I was Interim Executive Director, Union staff submitted a request on December 14, 2023, to have me removed, citing that I was attempting to bust the union.
Employers have the right to prohibit employees from using work hours and employer resources for union organizing. If what they described is union-busting behavior, why was I not reported to the NLRB?
This is not true. Whistleblower protections do not cover lies or illegal activity.
Late night on May 22, 2025 Correen Johnson changed the Primary Admin of RCC's Google Workspace System from the catch-all email ****@rainbowcc.org to her own correen@rainbowcc.org.
By the afternoon, I alerted the Board to the situation:
Simultaneously, I emailed the Board to make a motion for an emergency meeting, as it was clear Correen had taken sole control of RCC’s Google Workspace system and was unwilling to restore access to ****@rainbowcc.org. The motion was seconded, a Zoom link was sent out, and a quorum was achieved with four board members in attendance.
This became a critical matter, as Co-ED Jorge did not have access and was unable to regain control of the system. Correen’s unauthorized seizure of RCC’s Google Workspace system was not only improper but illegal, placing all of the agency’s accounts—including Chase, Divvy, Microsoft, and others—at significant risk. Her actions created a serious security vulnerability, especially given the uncertainty around her intentions.
In the email thread titled "Jonathan's Resignation," she claimed I had sole control, and therefore, she revoked it. She also stated, "Attached are other emails that got deleted, but I was able to print them out ahead of time."
Correen claimed that I held sole "Super Admin" privileges on the Google Admin platform, which is absolutely not true. In August 2024, my final month as Interim ED, I worked with Correen and Jorge to remove myself from all accounts and assigned Admin privileges to them.
Correen's and Jorge’s Super Admin privileges were confirmed on December 23, 2024. However, the catch-all email ****@rainbowcc.org has always held Super Admin privileges and must continue to do so, as it serves as the catch-all email for RCC. Removing this, denies anyone else access to the Admin console.
This record shows that the catch-all administration email has not been logged into for over a year.
Additionally, in Correen's email on May 23 and in her demand letter, she claimed that I had sole Super Admin control. When I reviewed the log history for the Admin account, it revealed I never held Super Admin privileges. You’ll see that none of the logs mention my email address, jonathan@rainbowcc.org.
If I had Super Admin status, the logs would include entries such as: “The password for primary admin jonathan@rainbowcc.org was reset”— which should appear at the point Correen allegedly discovered my supposed sole Super Admin status and made herself Super Admin. More importantly, the log would clearly state at the top: “The primary admin for your organization was changed from jonathan@rainbowcc.org.”
Instead, you’ll see that on May 22, 2025, Correen changed the primary admin from ****@rainbowcc.org (not jonathan@rainbowcc.org) to herself. Then, on May 23, 2025, Jorge changed it back from correen@rainbowcc.org. There is no record of my status as primary admin being removed—because I never had it.
Since my tenure as Interim ED, and throughout my subsequent service as a Board member, I have only held the Group Admin role, which allowed me to manage the share Google files, board group email, and related functions.
On June 8, 2025, we discovered that the emails I allegedly deleted by hacking into Correen’s account were, in fact, not deleted and are still in her inbox.
The Board’s action on May 23, 2025, to remove Correen from the Co-Executive Director position was not an act of retaliation for "whistleblowing," as her allegations of wrongdoing were entirely false. Additionally, her actions were unlawful and placed the agency’s accounts at risk.
The emails Correen claimed I deleted from her account do not prove any attempt at union busting, as they were never shared with staff. They were part of my internal admin communication with the Co-EDs during their onboarding process, as my tenure as Interim ED was coming to an end. They were also research that I was gathering at the instruction of the board at the time. After August 21, 2024, I had no further involvement in that process and no knowledge of what Correen and Jorge intended to do until Correen’s update on March 7, 2025. I only learned more during the April 24, 2025 Board meeting, when the union attended to question Correen about that March 7th email. The Board has not discussed union matters—either in open or closed session—since September 2024.
The Board and management are fully within their rights to explore the options available at the conclusion of the CBA. The CBA clearly states that either party may request termination, that it may automatically roll into a new contract, or that both parties may meet to renegotiate terms—with proper notice required 60 days before the expiration date. Researching those options is not union-busting.
Let me be absolutely clear: the Board and management did not, and will not, attempt to eliminate RCC’s union. That decision lies solely with RCC staff. However, we will negotiate with the union to revise certain terms of the CBA in the best interest of the agency.
It should be noted that Lindsay Litowitz Souza, the removed board member did not address Correen’s May 23 allegation that I secretly deleted her emails related to the union CBA renegotiation research. This omission is significant, as she knew the claim was false—Correen had forwarded all three of those emails to her on May 21, 2025.
This is not true. The sole focus of the Board during the emergency meeting on May 23, 2025, was to regain control of RCC’s system. Correen did not restore Jorge’s Admin role until I mentioned that he had been instructed to contact the Concord Police Department for assistance, as we believed we might need their help to regain access. At that point, she restored Jorge’s Admin role, after which he suspended her access and reinstated the Primary Admin to the catch-all email ****@rainbowcc.org.
Additionally, the Co-ED structure at RCC was my idea. I was the first to advocate for Correen and Jorge to be appointed as Co-EDs, based on the principle that the agency should promote internal talent and provide opportunities for leadership development. I was also the first to congratulate them when the Board approved their appointments.
Insinuating that someone is racist or misogynistic is a sign of desperation—just as easily, one could argue that those behind this petition are anti-Asian and misandrist.
This is not true, as I have no involvement with staff regarding day-to-day operations in my role as a Board member. However, as the Board member designated to support the Co-EDs—given my experience as Interim ED—I made myself available to answer questions related to their roles. In this capacity, I received three complaints about Correen’s performance as Co-ED, which led me to meet with each party separately, and then together, to understand the issues and help develop a plan for effective collaboration.
This communication is a complaint about Correen not being at the center on Wednesdays and Thursdays, despite those being the days she is scheduled to be present.
As a result of these complaints and my meetings with Co-EDs Jorge and Correen, I recommended to the Board that we hire professional trainer Misha Safran to work with them to build trust and establish a stronger professional relationship. I told the Board that we owe it to them to invest in their development so they can succeed in their new leadership roles. Some board members expressed concern about the costs and the need for such training.
In an email to the Board on May 27, 2025, Ms. Safran stated:
“I was hired to work with the Co-EDs and all staff as a coach and trainer to support building trust and improve communication because Jonathan expressed a desire for the Co-EDs to be able to work well together.”
Correen’s actions since May 22, 2024, appear to be a frantic attempt to preserve her position as Co-ED. However, it has not yet been determined whether she will be dismissed from the role. Ironically, I had intended not to renew my service on the Board, especially since we have new members who are eager to take on leadership roles. I had communicated this to the Board, as well as to Jorge and Correen. I mentioned this at the April Board meeting and explicitly stated that the "new Board" would need to handle the matter, as I did not intend to renew my term. I assumed the new Board would develop a plan to deliberate on the Co-ED structure starting in July. There were some options: maintain current Co-ED structure and provide more professionalization training, or restore the single ED structure, or even, hire a new outside ED.
Regarding the claim that I created a toxic work environment, I would argue that it was, in fact, some union staff who contributed to that environment—both during my tenure as Interim ED and as a Board member. The Executive Director who resigned—leading to the need for me to step into the Interim ED position—did so because he felt pressured, unsupported, and bullied by some members of the union staff.
In December 2023, when union staff attempted to pressure the Board to remove me as Interim ED using similar tactics and gaslighting, one member of the union staff sent me the following messages:
The same toxic mob mentality is still present, making it difficult for staff who want to focus on the mission and their work at the center—as this communication reveals.
The toxic work environment created by some union staff members contributed to the Clinical Director’s decision to resign, as she felt her work was being undermined by both union staff and Co-ED Correen. RCC is grateful that she agreed to serve as Interim Clinical Director while the search for a permanent replacement is underway. She had been working diligently to bring the clinical team up to the professional standards required by the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS), yet was treated unfairly for her efforts. Her resignation as Clinical Director also led to the resignation of a Board member. This toxic culture has been described by some staff members as a 'mean girls' culture, which is not in line with the values of a queer space—values that should be grounded in mutual respect, kindness, compassion, and empathy.
RCC leadership and staff requested immediate action from the Board when this member engaged in Elon Musk–style micromanagement. Such behavior is unprecedented and violates RCC’s bylaws.
No, the rest of the Board is not "interested as well" as we are not involved in the day-to-day operational details of the work being carried out at the Center. We place our trust in the staff to fulfill their responsibilities competently and without the need for micromanagement.
This removed board member falsely claimed that I buried her application. These communications will demonstrate that no one initially received her application, and once I became aware of it on January 8, 2025, I responded promptly. She was subsequently voted in unanimously. The board takes great care in vetting applicants because we are committed to appointing leaders who take their fiduciary duty to keep the center open and operational seriously—not individuals with personal agendas.
This communication with a union staff member shows that their concerns were addressed and that I intended not to renew my term on the board.
5. Why is union staff advocating for a non-union Co-ED who violated the law—and whom they themselves reported to the NLRB on April 25, 2025?
Is it possible that this relates to the renegotiation of the CBA—and that removing me would allow union staff to preserve an unbalanced agreement that leaves RCC at a disadvantage?
RCC’s management is requesting several changes, chief among them a 100% return to in-office work. As a community center, RCC’s mission is fundamentally incompatible with a remote work model. Additionally, RCC seeks to hold clinical staff to higher professional, legal, and ethical standards, as required by the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS).
These are just two of a dozen proposals RCC management is negotiating. On June 2, 2025, Corey Hallman of Teamsters Local 856 delivered the union staff’s vote of no confidence to the Board, ccing all staff, and at the special boarding meeting on June 5, 2025, and was among the first to sign the petition.
Ironically, Mr. Hallman accused RCC management of bad faith bargaining after the organization temporarily suspended HIV testing and prevention services in response to a cease-and-desist demand from the union. RCC complied with the union’s demand that a non-union employee not perform union job duties—by halting the program until an agreement with the union is reached. Mr. Hallman objected and claimed RCC management was engaged in bad-faith negotiating. Yet the union's threats to go to the media and publicize these allegations are somehow not considered bad faith?
These tactics are outrageous and completely out of step with RCC’s values. Moreover, the petition claims that my actions as Interim ED and as a Board member are misaligned with RCC’s principles—while ignoring the fact that the Teamsters union donated to the RNC during the last election and that the Teamsters’ President spoke at Trump’s convention. What portion of union dues may have been used to help Trump win? If members' dues were used, wouldn't that make them complicit in his administration’s anti-queer and anti-trans policies?
It is disingenuous to claim the moral high ground on this issue.
RCC management will request that the Teamsters Union replace Corey Hallman as the union representative. Mr. Hallman’s actions and involvement in his aggressive and opportunistic negotiation tactics are troubling and do not reflect the values of the agency.
This is evidence that the petition is related to the CBA negotiation currently in progress. So, asking union staff to return to the office full-time—given that we’re a community center—is considered "anti-worker values"? Who is Jackie, and how does she know about the proposals in the renegotiation if she is not a union staff member?
6. The petition claims they wish to "prevent further public and potential media exposure" and "prevent the destruction of organizational partnerships that Cori Johnson has helped to build."
Again, this is a disingenuous claim, as Correen Johnson’s poor performance is what jeopardized these relationships in the first place.
RCC was the only Tipping Point grant recipient that did not have a poster documenting the impact of the grant on the housing-insecure youth we served.
RCC’s supporters who have worked with me will continue to support the center in fulfilling its mission of serving the county.
A longtime benefactor of RCC wrote the following after reading this blog.
RCC's community members who are interested in the truth will stand by us, as evidenced here.
The petition has faced criticism for spreading misinformation.
7. Some of the individuals behind this effort are the same people who should not be allowed back into leadership positions at RCC due to their poor decision-making, which led to unfunded staff expansion and several years of deficit budgeting. As a result, RCC’s investment account—valued at over $500,000 in 2015—had to be liquidated. Overstaffing and continued deficit budgeting created payroll shortfalls that required repeated withdrawals from the investment account, which was fully depleted by October 2023. Additionally, the organization relied on unrealistic fundraising goals; for the 2023–2024 fiscal year, the target was set at over $500,000—an unattainable goal for RCC.
As Interim ED, my priorities were to reduce staffing by eliminating unfunded and underfunded positions, refocus on sustainable fundraising with realistic goals, increase revenue, and eliminate unnecessary spending. By the end of my tenure, RCC had a balanced budget for FY 2024–2025 and, once again, passed a balanced budget for FY 2025–2026. Most importantly, the “going concern” flagged in RCC’s 2021–2022 audit was resolved in the FY 2023–2024 audit.
Budget update December 2023
It is not surprising to see that the top donor to this petition is RCC’s former Executive Director, Kiku Johnson, whose poor financial decisions and mismanagement nearly led the organization to bankruptcy. This individual is responsible for the defaulted second PPP loan, the decision to overstaff with unfunded or underfunded positions—creating significant payroll liabilities—and the termination of an employee followed by hiring his wife as a replacement. Her high salary was justified by an overestimated projection of revenue she ultimately did not generate. He then left RCC for another position just as the organization’s financial condition required immediate and urgent corrective action.
There are dozens of troubling charges on RCC's credit card made by Laura Cartwright, including purchases at Peet’s Coffee, Starbucks, restaurants, airport parking (in both Oakland and Portland), airport newsstand shops, and rental cars. Why should RCC be responsible for your travel and accommodations to perform work you signed to do in Concord? If you chose to move to another state, then the responsibility for covering your travel expenses falls on you—not the organization. Additionally, how can one person spend $45–$50+ on Thai food for a single meal, multiple times?
This did not occur under my watch. It happened under the previous administration at RCC—some of whom are now involved in the petition to 'save Rainbow.' Save it from what? From no longer being taken advantage of or misused? They either knew it was happening and didn’t care, or worse, they didn’t know—demonstrating gross negligence and a serious lack of oversight.
The Interim Executive Director who succeeded Kiku Johnson also failed to address these critical financial issues, ultimately passing the responsibility to the next Executive Director, who resigned after only three months in the role. Yet she now has the audacity to publicly support the effort to remove me, under the guise of "saving Rainbow." This group continues to perpetuate misinformation by falsely claiming a unanimous union staff effort, which is simply not accurate.
During her tenure as Interim ED, she had the opportunity to address the growing payroll liability by terminating all underfunded and unfunded positions early on. Especially in light of the audit’s “going concern” warning issued in June 2022, which clearly stated that the organization had experienced a significant reduction in net assets. The auditor expressed “substantial doubt about the organization’s ability to continue operating.” Instead, she allowed the problem to escalate, leading to the depletion of the investment account’s remaining $80,000 by October 2023. Rather than exercising financial caution, she left the next ED with plans to hire new staff and backfill vacant, underfunded, and unfunded positions—decisions that the subsequent ED continued, ultimately compounding the payroll deficit.
As Interim Executive Director and a board member, I have a fiduciary duty to ensure the center remains open and operational. Fulfilling this responsibility required making difficult decisions. While these decisions were not easy, they were necessary to prevent the center from facing bankruptcy and closure. Someone had to take action to protect the future of the organization.
I sincerely hope that those supporting the current vote of no confidence will take a moment to reconsider, as spreading misinformation and rumors only harms the important work we do at the center.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Lee
Comments
Post a Comment