IN RE: HOFFA UNITY SLATE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 514
Issued: October 18, 2001
OEA Case No. PR100513NA
The Hoffa Unity slate ("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 Teamsters for a Democratic Union ("TDU"). The protest alleges TDU filed the campaign budget required by Article XI, Section 2(d)(3) improperly.
Election Administrator representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Article XI, Section 2(d)(3) requires each candidate, slate and independent committee, two weeks before ballots are mailed, to file "a budget of fund raising and expenditures anticipated through the end of the campaign …" Each filer must thereafter "report deviations from the submitted budget of more than $1,000 with respect to any budgeted item within 48 hours of learning of such deviation."
To carry out the provisions of Article XI, Section 2(d)(3), the Election Administrator promulgated CCER form Addendum # 2, to be filed with CCER #5 on September 15, 2001. The instructions for the form state, inter alia: "You must report all obligations for expenditures agreed upon or anticipated, whether or not an actual invoice has been received or paid, or goods/services received, through the end of the election in November 2001."
The protestor alleges that TDU failed to list as budgeted expenditures the costs of installing additional phone equipment and running phone banking at its Detroit headquarters and costs associated with making campaign telephone calls to members. TDU's Addendum #2 to CCER #5 lists no anticipated expenditures related to such undertakings.
In the 1991, 1996 and 1998 International officer elections, TDU conducted phone bank operations for certain candidates from its Detroit, Michigan office. Three phone lines were wired in by the local telephone company for this activity in 1991, and then the phone lines were switched off after the election, and were reconnected for phone-banking in the later elections, and shut off afterwards. Most recently, these three phone lines were switched on for phone-banking purposes on approximately October 12, 2001, in order to allow for phone-banking in support of the Leedham slate. The charge from the local phone company for this action is anticipated to be less than $100. TDU says it will pay this bill from election funds received from eligible IBT member contributors when the bill is received, without reimbursement from the Leedham slate.
The phone-banking in this election cycle from TDU's offices has been predominantly to the geographic area near southeast Michigan. Phone bills have yet to be received, but it is estimated that the charge will be in the area of $1,000.00. By agreement between the Leedham slate and TDU, the Leedham slate will be responsible for the full amount of these bills.
We DENY the protest. Although neither Article XI, Section 2(d)(3) nor Addendum #2 as promulgated set any limited dollar amount for the reporting of anticipated expenditures, we do not find it appropriate to require reporting of an amount less than $100.00, which is the minimum threshold for the reporting of campaign expenditures on CCER Schedule B. Since the anticipated expenditure for switching on the three phone-banking lines is less than $100, it is not required to be reported on Addendum #2.[1] The remaining phone-banking charges are to be borne by the Leedham slate, and are reportable on its Addendum #2, not TDU's.
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 514
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 3060
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
Matt Ginsburg
30 Third Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11271
James L. Hicks, Jr., P.C.
Suite 1100
2777 N. Stemmons Freeway
Dallas, TX 75207
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
7437 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48210
Jeffrey Ellison
65 Cadillac Square
Suite 3727
Detroit, MI 48226
[1] IF TDU learns that the amount charged will be more than $100.00, it must be reported on Addendum #2.