IN RE: TOM LEEDHAM RANK AND FILE POWER SLATE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 420
Issued: August 3, 2001
OEA Case No. PR120702NA
The Tom Leedham Rank and File Power slate (the "Leedham slate") filed the above-captioned 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"). It alleges various violations of the campaign finance provisions of the Rules by the Hoffa 2001 Unity Slate (the "Hoffa slate").
Election Administrator representative Bruce Dubinsky investigated the protest allegations.
We address these claims seriatim.
1. The Leedham slate claims that the Hoffa slate filed a Supplemental Form #1 that may understate the number of persons in attendance and money raised at a slate fundraiser held on September 21, 1999. This fundraiser was most recently dealt with in our July 30, 2001 decision in Leedham Slate, 2001 EAD 415. See also, Leedham Slate, 2001 EAD 302 (April 12, 2001). We have found no evidence of any additional Rules violations with respect to this fundraiser beyond those already found. After reviewing documents including booking confirmations, invoices, and pricing proposals, and after conducting face-to face interviews with personnel at the Washington Court hotel, we have determined that the organizers of the fundraiser had guaranteed a minimum of 150 people as a condition of the contract for the catering at the hotel. The evidence of the guarantee minimum was expressly stated on the documents reviewed and was confirmed by the general manager and the catering director for the hotel. Accordingly, the total charges incurred by the campaign for the hotel charges for this fundraiser were $9,669.58. During an audit of the Hoffa 2001 campaign, we discovered that the amount charged by the Washington Court hotel reflected a 10% discount. This discount represented a standard discount given by the hotel to its "good customers," according to its general manager. After questioning by our forensic accountant, the Hoffa campaign refunded the discount ($1,074.40) and provided proof of the refund to the Election Administrator. On this basis we deem the protest allegation RESOVLED.
2. The Leedham slate alleges improprieties with respect to three fundraising events listed on the Hoffa slate's CCER #2. Specifically. the slate alleges that the CCER included no copies of flyers or invitations were attached to the fundraising event addendum to the CCER, although the addendum calls for this to be done. The Hoffa slate has now filed copies of the flyer for two of these three events. The third had no flyer. On this basis we deem this protest allegation RESOLVED.
3. The Leedham slate also alleges that the expense detail listed for two of these three fundraisers was improperly reported. Upon examination of the Hoffa slate's CCER #1 and #2, we find that the campaign has properly reconciled the expenses for the Chicago Central Region Fundraiser. Thus, $300.79 of expenses for the planning of the fundraiser were reported as detailed expenses on CCER #1. When combined with the $263.70 reported in CCER #2, expenses total $564.49, the amount reported on the challenged Addendum #1. We thus DENY this protest allegation.
Certain individual expenditures for the Philadelphia Conference fundraiser were not itemized because they were less than $100 each, which explains the discrepancy between the total expenses for the fundraiser reported on Addendum #1 and itemized expenditures for the fundraiser also reported elsewhere in the Hoffa slate's filings. We thus DENY this protest allegation.
The Leedham slate also claims that the "Chicago-Central Region" fundraiser was held on March 22, 2000 but was improperly excluded from the CCER for the first filing period, which covered the period through May 31, 2000. The fundraiser was held on March 13, 2000. Our investigation revealed that the funds raised were not received by the campaign treasurer until after the filing of the first CCER report, and were deposited by the campaign on June 27, 2000. While this delay is not a legitimate basis for the non-reporting of the information concerning the fundraiser on CCER #1, the information has since been properly reported on CCER #2. We thus deem this protest allegation RESOLVED.
According to the Hoffa slate CCER, the expenses for the "Chicago-Central Region" event were reimbursed to "Lucky Black IBT Central Region." The Leedham slate notes that Black is an employee of the International Union and the address listed on the CCER appears to be an office paid for by the International Union. It argues that this raises the issue of whether she worked on the fundraiser using the Union's office and/or on union time.
The Hoffa slate claims that Black sought reimbursement for her fundraiser expenses from Al Huntoon of the campaign. Huntoon mailed Black her check to the union office address. The slate denies knowledge of whether Black used union time or facilities to campaign. Black denies providing any services to the Hoffa campaign. She says she was asked by Hoffa supporter Dane Passo if she could facilitate paying a bill for a fundraiser held by the Hoffa campaign that had been outstanding for some time, and that she paid the bill on her lunch hour and away from the union office, doing so from her own funds. Black then sought reimbursement from the Hoffa campaign. Since we have no contrary evidence, we DENY this protest allegation.
4. Finally, the Leedham slate claims that the three Hoffa slate fundraisers reported on the Hoffa slate CCER #2 may have been improperly coordinated with IBT events held at the same location as the fundraisers. No evidence in support of this claim was offered, and our investigation did not establish any evidence of improper coordination, or that the union business events alleged to be coordinated with the fundraisers were other than legitimate union functions scheduled for reasons independent of the fundraising events. Accordingly, we DENY this protest allegation.
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 (facsimile: 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 420
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
209 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003
Bruce Dubinsky
Klausner, Dubinsky & Associates
4520 East West Highway
Suite 640
Bethesda, MD 20814
Kushner, Chupak, Kippelman & Taub, PC
30400 Telegraph Road
Suite 314
Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4540