ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE:
HOFFA 2006, Protestor.
06 Elec. App. 039 (KC)
ORDER
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decisions 2006 ESD 153 and 180 issued March 31, 2006 and April 14, 2006 respectively.
A hearing was held before me on April 27, 2006. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Richard Mark, Esq., Election Supervisor, Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq. and Steven Newmark, Esq. on behalf of the Election Supervisor, Barbara Harvey, Esq. on behalf of Teamsters for a Democratic Union, David Hoffa, Esq. on behalf of Christie Bailey and the Hoffa 2006 Campaign, Christie Bailey, the Hoffa 2006 Campaign Manager, Bruce Dubinsky, Esq. of Klausner Dubinsky & Associates, Keith Neus and Todd Thompson, accountants.
These matters have been consolidated because the Hoffa 2006 Campaign raises the same broad claim in both: that the Election Rules should be interpreted to require broad disclosure by the Election Supervisor, as a matter of course, of relevant documentation reviewed by him in connection with his mandated audit of campaign contributions and expenses arising out of the inter-relationships of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) and the Teamster Rank & File Education & Legal Defense Fund (TRF). It is important to note that Hoffa 2006 does not provide a) any evidence that irregularities violative of the Rules have in fact occurred, or b) a basis to impugn the integrity of the Election Supervisor's conduct of the required audits.
The exhaustive review provided by the Election Supervisor on remand demonstrates the evolution of the present campaign resources oversight mechanism and the limited inspection rights thereunder granted to candidates under the Rules. The current Rules' provisions and standards controlling such matters are irrefutably the result of a balanced, progressive and thoughtful analysis endorsed by all interested parties over many years and election cycles, including the current elected leadership of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Indeed, the IBT specifically approved placing ultimate compliance oversight on campaign contributions and expenditures in the Election Supervisor and not politically driven slates or candidates, and cautioned, as did the Government, that deference must be given to the history, custom and practice on the matter, as reflected in the legal precedents that have shaped the rules and their application.
I am satisfied on the basis of the present record that the Huddleston system and the Rules sanctioned procedures followed by the Election Supervisor in these cases adequately ensures that TDU and TRF are in compliance with their obligations under the Rules.
Accordingly, the decisions of the Election Supervisor herein are affirmed.
SO ORDERED:
__/s/_____________________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: May 15, 2006