Page 59 - 2022augustBOG

Case 2:19-cv-11962-LMA-JVM Document 106 Filed 08/08/22 Page 31 of 33

95
the objection process. The prospective budget breaks expenses down into categories

and sub-categories, to a significant level of granularity. The majority of budget items,

e.g., “Telephone,” are self-explanatory. However, some, e.g., “LIFT Program,”
96

are not.

The Court recognizes that the Fifth Circuit criticized the Texas Bar for

“plac[ing] the onus on objecting attorneys to parse the Bar’s proposed budget—which

only details expenses at the line-item level, often without significant explanation—to

determine which activities might be objectionable.” McDonald, 4 F.4th at 254.

However, in the same paragraph, the Fifth Circuit proceeded to cite the following

Hudson footnote:

We continue to recognize that there are practical reasons why absolute
precision in the calculation of the charge to nonmembers cannot be
expected or required. Thus, for instance, the Union cannot be faulted for
calculating its fee on the basis of its expenses during the preceding
year. The Union need not provide nonmembers with an exhaustive and
detailed list of all its expenditures, but adequate disclosure surely would
include the major categories of expenses[.]

475 U.S. at 307 n.18 (quotations omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, for instance, with

respect to “the Union’s payment of $2,167,000 to its affiliated state and national labor

organizations,” the Hudson Court required “either a showing that none of it was used

to subsidize [nonchargeable activities], or an explanation of the share that was so

used.” Id.

95 Id. at 4.
96 Id.

31