ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE:
RICHARD BERG, Protestor.
06 Elec. App. 046 (KC)
ORDER
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decision 2006 ESD 278 issued May 30, 2006.
A hearing was held before me on June 15, 2006. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., Steven Newmark, William Broberg and Joe Childers on behalf of the Election Supervisor, David Hoffa, Esq. on behalf of the Hoffa 2006 Campaign, Martin Barr, Esq. on behalf of Local 743 and Barbara Harvey, Esq. on behalf of Richard Berg the protester.
It is undisputed that Local 743 delegate candidate Debra Radice collected five ballots from her fellow local union members after they received them in the mail during the ballot process, in violation of Article II, Section 15 of the Rules. It is also undisputed that this improper ballot collection did not affect the outcome of the election.
Because of the serious nature of the offense, the Election Supervisor ordered Radice, who was elected delegate in the balloting, disqualified from serving. He directed that the alternate delegate who won the highest number of votes fill the vacancy caused by Radice's disqualification.
Berg argues that Radice should not be succeeded by the highest vote polling winning candidate for alternate delegate, but the highest vote polling losing candidate for delegate. The argument made is quite simple but curious: the democratic will of the membership should be thwarted by the thrusting aside of the top alternate delegate, even though he has not been shown to have had anything whatever to do with the improper ballot collecting. The theory is apparently that general deterrence of ballot collection requires conviction without proof, of innocent bystanders.
The Rules and the precedent unequivocally support the result reached by the Election Supervisor. There is nothing in this record that would justify imposing upon the membership a delegate that it did not choose in the untainted democratic ballot that has been conducted.
Counsel for the protester in her letter dated June 12, 2006 contends that the leadership of Local 743 was under trusteeship in 1996, that its most recent officer election was plagued by "ballot fraud," that "it is likely that Ms. Radice collected ballots because she was instructed to do so" (no citation to any proof in this record) and that ballot collection occurred in Local 743 ten years ago, and in 2004. Generalized philippics will not do.
The remedy imposed by the Election Supervisor is, on the facts before us, well within his discretion. Accordingly, it is affirmed.
SO ORDERED:
__/s/_____________________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: June 20, 2006