Protest Decisions

IN RE: CANDIDATE FORUMS
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 428
Issued: August 22, 2001

(See also Election Appeals Master decision 01 EAM 77)

This decision consolidates our several notices concerning the decision to conduct a candidate forum for nominees for General President and explains more fully the rationale supporting each aspect of our decision.

To summarize, the Election Administrator will exercise his discretion under Article VII, Section 6 of the Rules to conduct a candidate forum for the nominated candidates for General President of the IBT, James P. Hoffa and Tom Leedham. The forum will take place Friday, September 21, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Because both candidates have accepted our invitation, the forum will be a debate between the candidates, moderated by Sanford Ungar. A panel of journalists will pose questions and the debate will be governed by rules originally adopted for such purpose by Election Officer Cherkasky in 1998. Those rules are attached to this decision as Exhibit 1.

As more fully discussed below, the information the debate generates will be disseminated to the membership in the following ways: 1) although it has not yet committed to broadcast the debate, the cable news station C-SPAN has indicated that there is some possibility that it will broadcast the debate on a live and/or tape-delayed basis; 2) we will contract with a vendor to manufacture 500,000 copies of a videotape of the debate, giving 200,000 each to the Hoffa and Leedham campaigns for dissemination as each determines, and providing 100,000 copies to local unions for literature table distribution,[1] all at a cost of approximately $469,000; and 3) we direct the local unions to post on all worksite and union hall bulletin boards the notice attached to this decision as Exhibit 2 advising members of the debate and the means used to disseminate the debate to them.

A. The Election Administrator's authority for the forum.

Article VII, Section 6 of the Rules provides in full:

The Election Administrator may schedule and conduct International Officer candidate forums. The Election Administrator shall make every effort to schedule and conduct such forum(s) at times and locations to insure broad participation by the membership either personally or by video or voice transmission. The Election Administrator shall make every effort to provide advance notification of such forum(s) to the membership.

This provision grants the Election Administrator discretion, reviewable on appeal for abuse of that discretion, to conduct "forums" among candidates for International office, including the office of General President. It is an elucidation of the Election Administrator's broad authority under Article I to insure "fair, honest, open and informed elections."

The Election Administrator previously explained the rationale for exercising his discretion to conduct a candidate forum in a letter to the campaigns:

I will exercise my authority under Article VII, Section 6 of the Rules to conduct candidate forums at which the candidates for General President will debate. I do so principally because the Rules require me to "take all necessary actions … to ensure fair, honest, open and informed elections." Article I. Candidate forums serve two important functions in this regard: they educate the members about the issues facing their union, and allow members to compare and contrast the respective qualifications each candidate has to lead and the policies a candidate would pursue if elected. The Consent Decree and the Rules are built on assuring broad participation in all facets of the electoral process, and in particular in exercising the right to vote. Candidate forums will help energize the electorate, make the election of their officers relevant to them, and encourage their involvement in the process.

The Rules emphasize the importance of an informed electorate by granting rights to candidates to spread their messages and to members to receive those messages, and by removing barriers to such dissemination.

The candidate forum language has been in place since the Rules were first drafted. Article VII, Sections 6 (candidate forums) and 10 (Teamster publication of battle pages) derive directly from the Consent Decree provision that reads:

In advance of each election, the Election Officer shall have the right to distribute materials about the election to the IBT membership.

Both Judge Edelstein and the Second Circuit overruled the IBT's objection to the battle page rule, with the Second Circuit holding:

We find ample authority in the Consent Decree for the order in question. The Election Officer has broad authority to "supervise" the IBT election process as well as to "distribute materials." The Election Officer thus has substantial discretion to impose election rules and procedures that ensure that the upcoming elections are free, fair and informed. In light of this broad supervisory authority, the Election Officer's independent right to distribute materials should be read to encompass any reasonable effort to inform the IBT membership of matters relating to the election.

The Election Officer's plan to permit accredited candidates to publish campaign literature in the International Teamster is just such a reasonable effort. … The publication rule is, as the district court found, a particularly "efficient and effective vehicle" for this purpose.

U.S. v. IBT, 941 F.2d 177, 187 (2d Cir. 1991)(emphasis supplied).

The Election Agreement under which the current election is conducted and funded emphasizes this point:

The Election Administrator shall have the same rights … to distribute materials about the election in advance of the election … as were available to the 1991 and 1996 Election Officers.

Id., ¶2.

The language of the Consent Decree, the Rules, and the Election Agreement, and the judicial construction of that language, therefore authorize the Election Administrator "to distribute materials about the election … to the IBT membership."

In addition to the candidate forum language of Article VII, Section 6 directly involved here, that article lists other means that champion the goal of an informed electorate:

	Section 3 allows accredited or nominated candidates for International office to access the membership directly through use of the IBT's membership list.
	Where a local union allows any candidate access to a membership meeting for purposes of campaigning, Section 5 allows candidates equal access to such meetings.
	Section 10 allows accredited or nominated candidates access to the Teamster magazine for publication of battle pages.
	Section 11(e) overcomes common law property rights to allow campaign access to employee parking lots on employer-owned or leased property.

The rights candidates have under Sections 5 (membership meetings) and 6 (candidate forums) of Article VII depend first on the exercise of discretion by the controlling authority. Thus under Section 5, a union is not obliged to allow campaign access to meetings. However, once the union in the exercise of its discretion elects to do so, all candidates for that particular office have the right to campaign in that forum. Similarly under Section 6, the Election Administrator need not conduct candidate forums. But once he exercises his discretion to hold a forum for General President, each candidate for that office has the right to attend.

Section 11(a) of Article VII stresses that rights to campaign do not belong merely to the candidates and their supporters. Rather, "[w]here any candidate or other member of the Union exercises or attempts to exercise any right under the Rules to campaign for or against the candidacy of any person for the position of … International Officer, members of the Union shall have the reciprocal right to hear or otherwise receive such campaign advocacy." (Emphasis supplied.)

B. The background for the decision announced here.

Since the time we announced the forum would occur, we have involved the parties in a number of ways. We have invited the candidates to attend; we have sought the views of the candidates, the IBT, and TDU concerning dissemination of the debate among the IBT membership and the cost thereof; and we have asked the candidates if they would be available for an earlier debate date. We will briefly summarize the interchange of the parties on these matters.

First, both the Leedham and Hoffa campaigns have accepted the debate invitation for September 21, 2001. Leedham accepted July 31; Hoffa accepted August 8. The debate acceptances are reported in the September issue of The Teamster now in press and expected to be delivered to members' homes by September 14.

Second, following our earlier announcement of our intent to mail a copy of the debate videotape to the home of each eligible IBT member, we sought specific bids from vendors for mass manufacture and mailing of a debate videotape. The best quote received was for approximately $1.6 million, but would have required advancing the date of the debate by at least one week in order to qualify for cheaper bulk mail rates while at the same time assuring delivery to members' homes by the time they receive ballots, which are to be mailed on October 9, 2001. (Absent the use of bulk mail rates, first class mail would be required to meet the delivery target, and an additional expenditure of nearly $1.4 million would have been required, for a total expenditure of $3.0 million.)

Third, since bulk mail distribution could have been utilized if the debate date were moved forward, we explored that possibility, seeking alternative dates from the two campaigns. The Hoffa campaign had previously noted that General President Hoffa was unavailable the week of September 10, 2001, due to the scheduled meeting of the General Executive Board, so we explored holding the forum during the week of September 3, 2001. Leedham offered an alternative date during that week; the Hoffa campaign did not. Therefore, we have maintained the September 21, 2001 debate date, although the debate could still be moved to a date earlier in September to allow for an all-member mailing at the quoted price of $1.6 million.

Fourth, given the concerns of the IBT over the costs of membership-wide videotape distribution, as expressed on several occasions, and most recently in its August 17, 2001 letter to the Election Administrator, we have explored other methods of distribution. Thus, we explored the purchase of airtime on cable networks. This option could not be pursued, however, because the networks require a multi-week post-debate review of the videotape itself. This fact precludes this option, since a refusal to broadcast the debate on paid airtime several weeks after the debate itself would leave insufficient time for any other meaningful distribution to be undertaken. We have also explored web-streaming a videotape of the debate on the internet web site of the Election Administrator, but have rejected that option since it is likely to reach only those IBT members who have advanced computers and high-speed internet connections.[2]

While mailing the debate videotape to each IBT member remains our preferred option, we have determined that the expenditure of the $3.0 million required to accomplish this end -- given the September 21, 2001 debate date -- is too great to justify in these circumstances, and in light of the other distribution option that we have decided to adopt. That option, as described below, will require an expenditure of $469,000 for videotape manufacture and delivery, and will result in the shipment of 200,000 videotapes each to the Hoffa and Leedham campaigns, each of which has a self-interest in the distribution of tapes containing the views of their candidates to the electorate, as well as the delivery of an additional 100,000 videotapes to local unions for literature table distribution. As we discuss in more detail below, this choice will allow large-scale distribution of the debate videotape to members, and will do so in a media that has proven most effective.

C. Importance of debate.

To this point in this election cycle, the information provided the membership has been of two kinds: promotional leaflets and battle pages touting the promises and platforms on which each candidate seeks office, and by contrast, flyers attacking the opponent. While these materials aim at informing the membership of the candidate's positions on the issues and distinguishing them from the opponent's, they necessarily lack the possibility of counterargument. Such materials are useful in informing the membership and inspiring their participation, but they can be effectively supplemented by distribution to the membership of a recording of the point and counter point of a debate.

In contrast to each candidate's one-sided campaign materials, a debate constitutes the only real opportunity for the membership to test a candidate's ideas against those of his opponent. Debate provides a measuring device by which "error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."[3] Put another way, "profound thoughts arise only in debate … when there is a possibility of expressing not only correct ideas but also dubious ones."[4]

The importance debate serves in self-governance cannot be overstated. Through debate, each candidate displays not only his particular ability to think critically on substantive issues, but of equal value, the candidates together demonstrate for the membership that an "uninhibited, robust and wide open"[5]exchange of views on issues important to them is not only encouraged but vital.

The democracy fostered by the Consent Decree is central to its purpose of eliminating the corruption that has existed in the IBT. Unfortunately, the candidate forum provisions of the various Election Rules that have been enforced under the Consent Decree have to date resulted in no candidate forums, and democracy has been less than well served by their omission. The September 21, 2001 debate, and its broad dissemination to the membership, will mark the fulfillment of one of the significant democratic promises of the Consent Decree. It is a tribute to both candidates that they have agreed to carry out that promise. They have both done honor to the IBT members they wish to lead.

D. Importance of involving membership in debate.

Our analysis and research has shown that dissemination of debate videotapes is a superior method of involving the IBT membership in the important electoral decision they are entitled to make beginning October 9, 2001. Thus, while 80 percent of homes have videotape players, as discussed below, the number of homes with computers tied to the internet is lower, and the technology of web-streaming may be used only by the computer proficient. Similarly, while C-SPAN is part of many basic cable services, it is not a widely viewed television network. Even if C-SPAN decides to air the debate, many members will not see it because it is unlikely to be carried at a time when they are not working. Further, because C-SPAN will make its decision about airing the debate the day before the event, members will effectively be denied advance notice to tune in. Accordingly, we find that we can "insure broad participation by the membership," as contemplated by Article VII, Section 6 of the Rules, only by means of wide-ranging videotape distribution. Our reasons follow.

1. Distribution of tapes as optimal means of involving membership.

a) Since the last airing of this matter before the Election Appeals Master, we have gathered information concerning the efficacy of videotape information in raising the awareness of and motivating recipients. Thus, political videos made their first and sparse appearance in the 1980s. They have since been used with increasing frequency in political and advertising campaigns, and have been used in some states even at the state legislative race level.

According to advertising industry data, response rates to videotape advertising are significant:

Mercedes-Benz built the largest and broadest marketing campaign in their company's history around a lead-generating video direct marketing campaign. Walt Disney World promotes their resorts via video. Non-profit groups like the World Wildlife Fund solicit contributions through video marketing. NordicTrack practically built their company around video (and suffered considerably when they began utilizing other media). McDonnell Douglas trains their employees with quarterly video magazines. … McDonalds sent an annual report out on video. The applications are endless, but the results are all the same: tremendous response and highly effective marketing for a reasonable cost.

Brandweek, July 12, 1999.

Further, videotapes have distinct advantages over non-video media, such as print. As the Brandweek article summarizes, in a given year Americans receive:

over 63 billion pieces of direct mail … Experts further estimate that as much as 98% of direct mail is tossed in the garbage can without ever being opened. This explains why many traditional print direct marketing campaigns are limping along with 1% response rates. Rather than being direct response, it's more like direct rejection.

Video is the savior here. … In the end, video has high perceived value while print mail is still stigmatized as "junk mail." … [V]ideo is often seen as being a gift. This is a far cry from "junk mail."

***

Studies now show conclusively that up to 90% of people receiving a video will watch it. Few marketing tools will deliver that kind of penetration with the target audience. Industry experts have quoted research saying that as many as 50% of viewers will watch the tape more than once. And the high perceived value of video also contributes to a strong pass-along rate, perhaps as high as 89% by some estimates.

***

The bottom lime is that you can create, produce, manufacture, duplicate and distribute a video direct marketing campaign for less than $1.00 per unit in quantity. Video now meets or beats print production costs. In many cases, why mail a piece of paper when for about the same cost you can mail a videotape? Especially when video is pulling as much as six times the response rate of print direct mail (a Wharton School of Business study has shown that video direct response rates can be up to 600% higher than printed brochures).

Id.[6]

Similar views have been expressed concerning the effectiveness of videotape in the political arena, where policies rather than products are being "marketed." According to one Republican Party consultant, "[v]ideo communication is a powerful tool …" with high "perceived value… Few people will take a video and toss it into the garbage like 'junk mail…" Campaigns & Elections, Volume 15 (June 1994). In addition, notes this article, more than 80 percent of all households have VCRs.

We recognize that the Election Administrator's task is not to sell any particular candidacy, or any platform issues mounted by one or another campaign. But it most assuredly is the task of the Election Administrator to "market" engagement of voters in the election process, so that they can decide for themselves the direction their union should take and the leaders who will lead the union forward. Such is the essence of an "informed election." And that is why Article VII, Section 6 of the Rules provides that the Election Administrator shall "insure broad participation by the membership" in candidate forums.

Distribution of debate videotapes will significantly help to achieve that end, and such distribution is thus a tool worth using. For the reasons expressed above, we find that it is, as the Second Circuit characterized another voter communication device, "a particularly 'efficient and effective vehicle' for this purpose." U.S. v. IBT, supra, 941 F.2d at 187.

b) We also base our decision to distribute a significant number of debate videotapes for circulation among the IBT membership upon the need to raise voter participation in the International officer election. The IBT has acknowledged the need to increase such participation, and its concern is well founded. Voter turnout was disappointingly low in the 1991, 1996 and 1998 International officer elections. Thus, in 1991, 424,669 ballots were cast out of 1,403,831 eligible voters, or 30.25%. In 1996, 486,300 ballots were cast out of a total of 1,517,613 mailed, or 32.04%. And in 1998, 416,098 ballots were cast out of 1,452,726 mailed, or 28.64%. In sum, average voter turnout in these elections was 30.23%.

All three of these elections were conducted by mail ballot, which studies have shown results in higher voting percentages than other forms of election. See http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/mail.htm. Yet turnout remained low in each election. Considering this fact, the IBT is undoubtedly correct in concluding that voter turnout in IBT International officer elections needs to be improved. Broad distribution of debate videotapes is a valuable device to counter voter apathy and ignorance of the issues, and to educate the members about the importance of their union's election to issues that affect their working lives. Broad videotape distribution will serve to increase voter turnout by increasing voter engagement with the election process and by informing voters of the views of the International General President candidates and their slates.

c) We also conclude that a broad campaign-directed distribution of videotapes among the membership is superior to order fulfillment distribution. Order fulfillment distribution will be less likely to result in videotapes reaching those members who are alienated from the election process and will most likely result in distribution to members who are already engaged with process and thus most likely to vote. This is because order fulfillment requires the taking of an affirmative step -- calling or mailing in the order -- before a tape is received. Such an affirmative step can be expected only from those voters who are more rather than less engaged with the election process. By contrast, we conclude that delivery of videotapes to the campaigns for distribution will be more likely to reach alienated members, since the campaigns are self-motivated actors that have a significant interest in seeing that voter turnout is increased and that such alienated members are convinced to vote. In addition, order fulfillment poses logistic difficulties, given the short time available here, which make its adoption problematic.[7]

Literature table distribution -- standing on its own -- poses the same problem as order fulfillment. Thus, as with order fulfillment, literature table distribution requires members to affirmatively act by visiting their local union and requesting a videotape, an act that is even more time-consuming and burdensome than placing a call or mailing in an order. As a result, literature table distribution, like order fulfillment, will be unlikely to reach members who are alienated and unengaged with the election process. Moreover, some members may be fearful, even if mistakenly, of visiting their local union and identifying themselves as someone who wants a videotape. These reasons have led us to conclude that local union literature table distribution alone is insufficient to "insure broad participation of the membership" in the debate, as we are required to do by Article VII, Section 6 of the Rules. Instead, we conclude that to achieve the end mandated by the Rules distribution of a substantial number of videotapes to each of the campaigns is also necessary and proper.

2. Cost of distribution and savings obtained by advancing the date of the candidate forum.

The key variant in the cost of distributing copies of a videotape of the candidate forum is the date the forum videotape can be delivered for vendor manufacture and subsequent distribution, so that distribution will occur before the receipt of International officer ballots, which are to be mailed on October 9, 2001. While a videotape could be mailed to each member's home at a cost of $1.6 million if the debate were conducted early in September, the September 21 debate date means that timely delivery could be accomplished only by more expensive first-class mail, at a total cost of $3 million. We have concluded, as discussed above, that this $3 million expenditure is too high in the present circumstances, and have instead decided to disseminate a lesser, but still substantial, number of videotapes via the campaigns and local union literature tables.

The least expensive bid for videotape copying and distribution was received from Tele-Print Digital Media Center ("TP"), a union shop in Texas. Using that bid, 500,000 videotapes will be manufactured and shipped to the Hoffa and Leedham campaigns and local unions from September 26 through October 1-3, 2001 under the following terms:

	Manufacture 500,000 six-ounce videotapes from a master tape after delivery to TP on September 22, 2001, with label reading "DEBATE BETWEEN IBT GENERAL PRESIDENT CANDIDATES JAMES P. HOFFA AND TOM LEEDHAM"; manufacture completion date is October 1-3, 2001 (cost of manufacture is 76 cents per unit including label; total cost of manufacture of 500,000 units is $380,000).
	Beginning September 26, 2001, and until October 1-3 2001, ship 100,000 videotapes to all 526 IBT locals (adjusted per local on the basis of the most recent per capita count) and 200,000 videotapes each to the Hoffa and Leedham slates, the campaign shipments broken down into separate simultaneous shipments for each campaign to the headquarters office of each of the 42 Joint Councils (or such other locations as either campaign may designate) in amounts to be pre-designated by each campaign, with each campaign to receive tracking numbers for each shipment and to supply the names of those authorized to pick up the campaign's shipment (total estimated cost for shipment of 500,000 six-ounce videotapes in bulk shipments to all IBT local unions and all 42 Joint Council locations is approximately $83,000 [two day shipping for most locations, with possibility of increased costs for air shipments to some locations]).
	In addition, we will direct that by September 10, 2001 each local union shall post on each bulletin board to which local unions have access a notice from the Election Administrator announcing a) the holding of the September 21, 2001 Hoffa-Leedham debate sponsored by the Election Administrator, b) that the debate will be videotaped, c) that each campaign will have copies of the debate videotape available for distribution, and d) that copies of the videotape may also be picked up at each local union's campaign literature table or bulletin board maintained at the local union's office.

Added to the costs outlined above are the $6,000 production costs for the debate. This brings total costs billable to the Office of the Election Administrator budget for the manufacture and distribution of the 500,000 debate videotapes to approximately $469,000.

3. Justification for cost of distribution.

In weighing the decision to expend the $469,000 required to conduct the candidate forum and to manufacture 500,000 videotapes of the forum, we have also considered the fact that the election operations called for under the Election Agreement between the government and the IBT are significantly under budget. Thus, the IBT committed to fund operations under the Election Agreement in the amount of $12,722,924. For the period beginning with the start-up of the election operations and ending June 30, 2001, $3,515,516.90 has been expended. When the total amount of $3,337,500 budgeted for the conduct of the mail ballot vote for International officers is added to the amount expended through June 30, 2001, the total arrived at is $6,853,016.90. This leaves $5,869,907.10 to fund additional election operations through to conclusion, or $5,400,907.10 if the distribution of candidate forum videotapes is undertaken.

The election operations are scheduled to end on December 31, 2001. It is difficult to imagine that in the six-month period from July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001, the election operations will expend anywhere close to $5,400,907.10, the amount that will be available after the manufacture and distribution of candidate forum videotapes. Indeed, it is just as difficult to imagine that the amount to be expended during the last six months of the election operations will exceed the $3,515,516.90 expended in the fourteen month period from May 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, a period that witnessed all IBT delegate elections and the IBT convention, as well as the heavier protest volume that has historically accompanied those periods. This factor plays a significant role in our decision to distribute videotapes of the candidate forum to the IBT membership as discussed above. In fact, we believe that a full mailing via bulk mail to all members would be justifiable given these numbers, if a debate could be held in time to permit such a bulk mailing. In any case, it is a fact that the under budget operations of the Office of the Election Administrator and the Election Appeals Master provide the opportunity for the important exercise in democracy that will be afforded by the distribution of candidate forum videotapes.

Similarly, the cost of the videotape distribution compares favorably with the cost of the distribution of battle pages to the membership. Thus, it appears that the $469,000 expenditure for debate videotapes decided on here is not more than the IBT's battle page expenditures in this election cycle, and may in fact be significantly less.[8]And, as discussed above, videotapes are likely to provide more "market penetration" than materials sent to members via the mail, such as the battle page issues of The Teamster. They are particularly more likely to engage those IBT members who are more alienated from union affairs, and thus less likely to be regular readers of The Teamster.

In deciding to undertake the videotape distribution announced herein, the Election Administrator has considered the significant costs of distribution, and has weighed those costs along with the financial performance of the election operations as compared to the amount of money the IBT committed to fund those operations. The Election Administrator has also considered the substantial interest of the IBT's members, the IBT and the United States in having a "fair, honest, open and informed" election of International officer candidates, as provided for under the Election Agreement and in a manner consistent with the letter and spirit of the Consent Decree.

These considerations weigh in favor of videotape distribution to the membership at large. That distribution is financially reasonable, when weighing into the calculus both the available resources from committed election operation funds and the benefits of the distribution to the IBT membership, the IBT and the United States. It is also significantly less costly than the broader full membership mailing to which the IBT has objected. We conclude that the expenditure for distribution of videotapes of the September 21 candidate forum to the IBT membership is financially prudent and will, for the reasons stated previously, result in increased voter engagement through the increased "market penetration" afforded by the videotape medium, and, accordingly, a more informed and involved electorate. The expenditure of $469,000 is well worth the price, and comports with the requirement of Article VII, Section 6 that the Election Administrator "insure broad participation [in the candidate forum] by the membership either personally or by video or voice transmission."

The orders of the Election Administrator contained herein take immediate effect unless otherwise stayed. Lopez, 96 EAM 73 (February 13, 1996).

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 15^th Street NW, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (fax: 202-454-1501), all within the time prescribed above.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

Election Administrator

cc: Kenneth Conboy

2001 EAD 428

Format and Rules for the IBT General President Election Debate

The Election Administrator will make a short statement before the debate begins.

The moderator -- Sanford J. Ungar, President of Goucher College -- will open the debate by announcing the rules and introducing the candidates and the panel of journalists who will serve as questioners. Journalists will be chosen from the ranks of reporters who have followed this election and are knowledgeable about the issues important to the union. The Election Administrator will provide each campaign with a list of journalists from which the panel of questioners will be picked. Each campaign will be able to strike ONE person from the list.

Each candidate will get two minutes for an opening statement (order will be determined by lot approximately 30 minutes before the debate begins and the same rotating order will be used throughout the debate).

After the completion of the opening statements, the moderator will introduce a previously assigned reporter (order also determined by lot) to ask his or her question ("Mr. Smith of AAA News, your question for Mr. XXX"). The candidate will have 1 1/2 minutes (not all of which must be used) to respond to the question. The other candidate will have 45 seconds for rebuttal. The moderator will be responsible for stopping candidates from exceeding the designated time and there will be a signal to inform the candidates that their time is about to expire. This process will be repeated with each of the candidates in the order set by lot, having reporters ask questions until the allotted time for questioning has expired. The debate will last approximately one hour.

The moderator will then introduce each candidate for a two minute closing statement.

After the closing statements the moderator will thank the participants.

Admission of non-members of the National Press Club will be under the supervision of the Election Administrator.

Exhibit 1

NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

A debate will take place between the nominated candidates for General President of the IBT, James P. Hoffa and Tom Leedham, on Friday, September 21, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Both candidates have agreed to debate.

A panel of journalists will pose questions to the candidates and Sanford Ungar will moderate the debate.

The debate may be broadcast on the cable television channel C-SPAN.

The debate will be videotaped and 400,000 copies of the videotape will be divided equally between the Hoffa Unity slate and the Tom Leedham Rank and File Power slate for distribution to the membership. Members are encouraged to contact either campaign to obtain a copy of the debate videotape.

An additional 100,000 debate videotapes will be distributed among all 526 IBT locals. IBT members may obtain a copy of the debate videotape while supplies last at the campaign literature tables or campaign bulletin boards maintained at their local union's offices.

Members are encouraged to view the debate videotape and share it with their fellow members.

For further information, log on to www.ibtvote.org or call the Office of the Election Administrator at 1-800-565-VOTE.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

Election Administrator

This is an official notice that is to be posted by each IBT local union on all worksite and local union hall bulletin boards no later than September 10, 2001 and must remain posted until November 12, 2001. It must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.

Exhibit 2

DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA FAX AND UPS NEXT DAY AIR:

Patrick Szymanski

IBT General Counsel

25 Louisiana Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20001

Fax: 202.624.6884

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

Fax: 248.855.6501

J. Douglas Korney

Korney & Heldt

30700 Telegraph Road

Suite 1551

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

Fax: 248.646.1054

Andrew Schilling

Assistant United States Attorney

100 Church Street

19^th Floor

New York, NY 10007

Fax: 212.637.2825

 

Barbara Harvey

Penobscot Building

Suite 1800

645 Griswold

Detroit, MI 48226

Fax: 313.963.3572

Betty Grdina

Yablonski, Both & Edelman

Suite 800

1140 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

Fax: 202.463.6688

Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach

110 Mayfair

Eugene, OR 97404

Fax: 541.607.4484

Todd Thompson

Hoffa Unity Slate 2001

209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20003

Fax: 202.454.5294

Matt Ginsburg

30 Third Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11217

Fax: 718.875.4631