ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE:
ELIGIBILITY OF FRANCISCO REYNOZO, Protestors
05 Elec. App. 005 (KC)
ORDER
On October 25, 2005 the Election Supervisor issued his decision ("Decision") in this matter, which deals with the membership status of Mr. Francisco Reynozo. On October 26, 2005 Barbara Harvey, counsel to the protestor, filed a notice of appeal and letter brief raising questions about the interpretation of the IBT Constitution as implicated in the Decision. On November 1, 2005 Bradley T. Raymond forwarded copies of correspondence and documents that he had submitted on behalf of the IBT to the Election Supervisor regarding the membership status of Mr. Reynozo. On November 4, 2005 I scheduled a hearing in the matter for 11 a.m., November 9, 2005. On November 7, 2005 the hearing was rescheduled, because of a conflict with a hearing before Judge Preska, to 3:30 p.m., November 10, 2005. On November 7, 2005 Mr. Raymond by letter advised that "the IBT is not directly involved in the dispute over the eligibility of delegate candidate Francisco Reynozo." On November 8, 2005 Jeffrey J. Ellison submitted a letter brief on behalf of the Election Supervisor.
During the course of the hearing, I pressed Mr. Raymond to obtain a formal position from the IBT on the Constitutional question raised by Ms. Harvey. The following day, Mr. Raymond submitted a letter dated November 11, 2005 and copied to all the parties. In it, he stated that he had "directed further inquiries to the IBT's legal department concerning the issues amplified by Ms. Harvey during the conference." He then stated that he offered "the following additional comments and observations" which constituted a summary of the case, his understanding of the arguments made by the parties, and his interpretation of the impact of the various Constitutional provisions. These comments do not purport to be a definitive Constitutional position of the IBT, although they may have been intended as such. Indeed, it is unclear whether further direct advice on the matter is to be forthcoming from the IBT legal department. I do note, however, that Mr. Raymond clearly and unequivocally asserted that the IBT is a) "unaware" of the "common understanding" referenced in Ms. Harvey's argument and b) would consider such a "common understanding" to be "inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the IBT Constitution." Mr. Raymond explicitly invited the parties to respond to his submission. I am unaware of any such response.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit any desired response to Mr. Raymond's November 11, 2005 letter by 5 pm, December 20, 2005.
SO ORDERED:
_/s/__________________ _
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: December 16, 2005