IN RE: TOM LEEDHAM SLATE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 355
Issued: May 9, 2001
OEA Case Nos. PR111505NA and PR031914NA
The Tom Leedham Rank and File Power Slate (the "Leedham slate") filed pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protests allege improper reporting by the Hoffa Unity Slate (the "Hoffa slate") of payments for services provided to that slate by Richard Leebove and/or RL Communciations, in violation of the provisions of Article XI of the Rules.
Election Administrator representatives Bruce Dubinsky and Michael Nicholson investigated the protests.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Leebove is the principal of RL Communciations (collectively with Leebove, "RLC"), which has and continues to provide services to the Hoffa slate in this election cycle, beginning August 1, 2000.[1] RLC has agreed to accept $5,000 per month for its services beginning August 1, 2000, with this amount increasing to $7,500 per month on February 1, 2001. It billed the Hoffa slate for its August and September 2000 services on October 5, 2000. The Hoffa slate paid the $10,000 due for those services by check dated October 10, 2000.
The Hoffa slate's CCER #2 filing covered the June 1, 2000 through September 30, 2000 reporting period. It was filed on or about November 6, 2000 pursuant to an extension of time granted by the Election Administrator. It did not report the debt accrued for Leebove's services in August and September 2000, which had not been paid by the end of the reporting period. On December 22, 2000, after the filing of the first of the two instant protests, the slate amended its CCER #2 to report a $10,000 extension of credit by RLC for the services rendered in those two months. That amended filing was accompanied by a vendor report for RLC, indicating that RLC was providing "political consulting" services to the Hoffa slate and that RLC had also worked for a number of IBT bodies during the twelve months that preceded the execution of the report.[2]
CCER #3 covered the reporting period from October 1, 2000 to January 31, 2001. Its itemized expenditure schedule disclosed payments to RLC of $25,789 during the CCER #3 reporting period for consulting fees and expenses.[3] $10,000 of this amount, reflected in an October 10, 2000 transaction with RLC, retired the $10,000 debt to RLC accrued but not paid during CCER #2 reporting period, for August and September 2000 services. Consistent with this approach, CCER #3's schedule for debts and obligations properly reported an outstanding balance of $10,000 owed to RLC at the beginning of the reporting period, and the reduction of the outstanding debt balance to zero due to the slate's CCER #3 reporting period payment for RLC's August and September 2000 services.
According to Hoffa slate accountant Gary Kushner, because RLC's invoice for August and September 2000 services was not received during the CCER #2 reporting period, the slate omitted any report of the $10,000 owed to RLC for those services from the extension of credit schedule that was part of its original CCER #2. Further, according to Kushner, all amounts invoiced from RLC for months within CCER #3's reporting period were reported on CCER #3, with the exception of RLC's invoice for services provided in January 2001, which was received on February 15, 2001, after the submission of CCER #3. The slate states that RLC's January 2001 billing will be reported on CCER #4, due on June 15, 2001, along with the payment for the January services.
The Leedham slate's allegation that the January 2001 billing was improperly omitted from CCER #3 is without merit. So long as an accrued liability for goods or services is paid by the end of the month following the month in which those goods or services are received or rendered, under Steger, P827 (September 3, 1996), as properly understood, it need not be reported as an extension of credit.[4] Conversely, when goods or services are received or rendered and not paid for by a campaign by the end of the month following the month in which they are received or rendered, the obligation accrued by the campaign for those goods or services must be reported by the campaign as an extension of credit.[5] Since the January 2001 RLC services had not gone unpaid for a period of one month following the end of the month in which they were rendered at the end of CCER #3's reporting period, the slate was not required to report the amount owed for such services as an extension of credit on its CCER #3.
On the other hand, an extension of credit for RLC's August 2000 services in the amount of $5,0000 should have been reported by the Hoffa slate on its original CCER #2, since the campaign did not pay for those services by September 30, 2000.[6] However, since the slate corrected this error in its post-protest amended CCER #2, and given the confusion that may have been engendered by Stegner, we deem the protest allegation concerning the August 2000 RLC services RESOLVED without the need of any remedial action. We DENY the remaining protest allegations, for the reasons stated above.
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, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (fax: 202-454-1501), all within the time 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
2001 EAD 355
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA 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
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
Todd Thompson
Hoffa Unity Slate
209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Gary Kushner
Kushner, Chupack, Kippelman & Taub, P.C.
30400 Telegraph Road
Suite 314
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Richard Leebove
RL Communications
18600 West Ten Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48075
Bruce Maffeo
Seiff, Kretz & Maffeo
645 Madison Ave.
New York, New York 10022
Bruce Dubinsky
Klausner Dubinsky & Associates
4520 East West Highway
Suite 640
Bethesda, MD 20814
[1] Our investigation determined that RLC was not paid by the Hoffa slate for any services rendered during the period from June 1, 1999 to May 1, 2000, and that no liabilities were accrued by the slate to RLC during that time.
[2] The Leedham slate argues that the Hoffa slate should have refiled a new vendor report for RLC with CCER #3. We DENY this protest allegation. Once a campaign files a vendor report for an individual or entity, it need not repeat this filing. Further transactions between the campaign and such vendors will, however, continue to be reported on the campaign's CCERs
[3] The payments were in the amounts of $10,409 on October 10, 2000 for August and September 2000, $5,000 on November 7, 2000, $5,380 on December 18, 2000 and $5,000 on January 12, 2001.
[4] Steger, supra, holds that "[w]hen the expenses are not paid for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice, such expenses should be reported under Section C of the CCER as an extension of credit received by the candidate or campaign." (Emphasis supplied.) This statement in Steger assumes without saying so that invoices are submitted in a timely manner. Read literally, the trigger for reporting extensions of credit stated in Steger is subject to abuse, since invoices from suppliers may not be timely submitted, see Leedham Slate 2001 EAD 302, p. 10 (April 12, 2001). If that were the intent of Steger, extensions of credit could go unreported whenever an invoice is not timely submitted. We do not believe that was the intent of the Election Officer in Steger, and we accordingly hold that extension of credit reports are required in the manner stated above in text.
[5] This is so even where the campaign subsequently pays for those goods and services after the end of the month following the month in which they are received or rendered, but before the closing date of the CCER reporting period in which the payment is made.
[6] RLC's September 2000 services did not result in an extension of credit, since they were paid for in October 2000, before the end of the month following the month in which they were rendered.