IN RE: HOFFA UNITY SLATE,
Protest Decision 2000 EAD 73
Issued: December 26, 2000
OEA Case No. PR103003NA
The Hoffa Unity Slate (the "Hoffa slate") filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules")against the Tom Leedham Rank and File Power Slate (the "Leedham slate"). The protest alleges that the Leedham slate has violated Article XI of the Rules in seven different respects concerning its receipt of campaign contributions, expenditures and financial disclosure.
Election Administrator representative Lisa Taylor investigated the protest.
We address each of the seven allegations made by the Hoffa slate separately.
1. First, the Hoffa campaign alleges that the Leedham slate has violated Article XI, Section 2 of the Rules by failing to file Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports ("CCERs") for their slate, even though they filed slate accreditation petitions in late August 2000.
The Election Administrator received the Leedham slate's CCER #2 on October 30, 2000, the same day that this protest was filed. The Leedham slate requested and received an extension on the filing of its CCER until October 25, 2000, due to the difficulty it was having with the CFRS software that had been supplied to the slate. The Election Administrator received the slate's CCER five (5) days beyond the date of the extension. However, it appears that receipt was delayed due to the forwarding of the CCER to the Election Administrator's new address. Since the delayed receipt of the slate CCER was not the fault of the slate, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.
2. The Hoffa slate protests the Leedham campaign's failure to report expenditures related to the Leedham slate web site. Leedham campaign treasurer Stefan Ostrach claims that the website is managed by Tom Sheibley, a member of Local 635, who volunteers his time with the campaign. Ostrach submitted two (2) email messages sent from Sheibley to Ostrach and dated October 28, 2000 and November 7, 2000. The first email states that Sheibley has been contributing the cost of the website and gives a list the costs and dates that the payments were made.[1] Sheibley also included his address, local number and social security number in the email. The second email informs Ostrach of the $35.00 cost of renewing the Leedham.org domain. Also in the second email, Sheibley expressed his desire to consider all expenses for the website as contributions to the campaign. All costs listed covered June through September 21, 2000, for a total of $174.91.
The Leedham campaign did not report expenditures related to the website in its CCER 2. We do not find that this non-reporting was intentional, since we credit Ostrach's statement that the campaign was not informed by Sheibley of the actual website expenses until October 28, 2000, after the filing deadline, for the CCER #2. Nevertheless, the burden was on the campaign to obtain and timely report this information on its CCER. However, since the slate has agreed to report these transactions on its CCER #3, due February 15, 2001, this aspect of the protest is deemed RESOLVED.
3. The Hoffa slate alleges that the Leedham campaign failed to disclose any payments to photographer Jim West, whose photographs of Tom Leedham appear on the Leedham slate website. The Hoffa slate further alleges that Jim West is the publisher of Labor Notes and an employer, and is thus forbidden from making in-kind contributions to the Leedham campaign.
Ostrach admits that West failed to initially bill the Leedham campaign for the pictures that appear on its web site. West has since billed the campaign, and Ostrach states that the expenses for the photos will appear on the slate's CCER #3. Ostrach submitted an emailed copy of an invoice from Jim West. The invoice was dated October 31, 2000, after the filing deadline. The Leedham campaign was billed $50.00 for a "Non-exclusive license to use color photo of Tom Leedham on Leedham Campaign web site. Use limited to years 2000 and 2001."
As the campaign has agreed to cure this deficiency by paying West and reporting this transaction on its next CCER, this aspect of the protest is deemed RESOLVED.
4. The Hoffa slate alleges that the Leedham legal and accounting CCER improperly fails to list any payments or debts to attorney Betty Grdina for the period ending September 30, 2000, even though Grdina notified the Election Administrator that beginning September 7, 2000 that she would appear as counsel of record for the Leedham slate. The Leedham campaign, however, has stated that Grdina did not bill for any services between September 7 and 30, 2000, and that therefore there was nothing to report on its legal and accounting CCER #2. Grdina confirmed that she did not bill the campaign until November 19, 2000. For these reasons, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.
5. The Hoffa slate protests the Leedham campaign's failure to list expenditures for telephones, post office box rental, literature production, and its reporting of "only miniscule expenses for copying and postage costs." Specifically, the Hoffa slate alleges that "it strains credulity that the Leedham campaign has spent only $91.04 for non-travel-related expenses in the first ten months of [its] campaign, yet boasts of a successful nationwide mobilization to secure 60,000 petition signatures."
Ostrach claims that the Leedham slate established its office on October 15, 2000. Before this date, the campaign conducted its campaign activity from Matt Ginsberg's office. Ginsberg is the campaign manager for the Leedham slate. Ostrach claims that expenses for telephones, copying and postal expenses were included in payments reported as being made to Ginsberg in the slate's CCER #2. In that CCER, the Leedham slate reported $10,092.97 in payments to Ginsberg; $3,050.47 for expenses and $7,042.50 for services. Ostrach submitted four invoices from Matt Ginsberg showing a breakdown of the expenses between June 5, 2000 and September 8, 2000. These invoices cover expenses for phones, mailings and copying, faxing and other such expenses.
The total itemized expenditures in the slate's CCER #02 shows expenditures of $20,658.97 and reports the slate's fund balances in a Sun Trust Bank account listed under the name "Tom Leedham Campaign." It is also clear from the Ginsberg invoices that Ginsberg accomplished much of the slate's campaign activity from his office.
Contrary to the Hoffa slate's allegations, our investigation failed to show that the Leedham slate's campaign is underreporting expenditures in the manner alleged in this aspect of the protest, or that a "third party is financing [Leedham's] candidacy, in violation of the Rules." Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.
6. The Hoffa slate alleges that the Leedham campaign's CCER improperly failed to list any payments to any vendor for bumper stickers, hats, or t-shirts, even though such items are advertised on the campaign's website.
The Leedham slate's CCER #2, however, lists payments made to Advertising Novelty Co., Inc. for t-shirts, bumper stickers, roll labels and caps in the total amount of $8,997.30. For this reason, this aspect of the protest is DENIED
7. Finally, the Hoffa slate alleges that the Leedham CCER "fails to list expenditures related to distribution of [Leedham's] campaign announcement press release on June 1, 2000." The Hoffa slate notes that "copies of this release were widely circulated to the media via fax and wire services, yet no expense is listed on his CCER."
Ostrach states that this press release was faxed to only twelve (12) newspapers. Ostrach further states that he is unaware of the identity of the person responsible for the press release. He claims that at the time of its distribution, rank and file members did much of the work on a volunteer basis and that the cost of the fax distribution was minimal. Ostrach argues that the expense of distribution was not reported because CCER reporting does not require the listing of any expenditure less that $100.
While true, Ostrach's argument does not address the failure of the Leedham campaign in this instance to keep accurate accounts of in-kind contributions from each member, in order to assure compliance with the contribution limits established by the Rules. See Article XI, Section 2(b)(2)(A). It is due to such inadequate record keeping that the Election Administrator is unable to determine whether the expenses for distribution of the June 1, 2000 press release were sufficient in amount so that they should have been reported on the Leedham CCER.
For this reason, this aspect of the protest is GRANTED. As a remedy for this violation, the Leedham campaign is ordered to cease and desist from failing to comply with Article XI, Section 2(b)(2)(A) of the Rules.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Administrator in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
Suite 1000
885 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Fax: 212-751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15th Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
William A. Wertheimer, Jr.
Election Administrator
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2000EAD73
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA FAX AND UPS NEXT DAY AIR:
Patrick Szymanski
IBT General Counsel
25 Louisiana Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
J. Douglas Korney
Korney & Heldt
30700 Telegraph Road
Suite 1551
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
Detroit, MI 48226
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
[1] The dates and costs were listed as follows: 08/08/00 - $25.11; 09/06/00 -$24.95; 09/21/00 - $89.95.