IN RE: RICHARD BERG, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 276
Issued: May 31, 2006
OES Case No. P 06 277-050506-MW
(See also Election Appeals Master decision 06 EAM 44)
Richard Berg, a member of Local Union 743 and delegate candidate on the 743 New Leadership slate, filed a post election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 3(a)(1) of the Rules for the 2005 2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that 1) a large segment of the membership of Local Union 743 was not mailed ballots and therefore was disenfranchised, 2) the membership list used to mail ballots in the Local 743 delegate and alternate delegate election was untrustworthy, 3) the New Leadership slate was denied its right to observe the mailing of duplicate ballots, and 4) the slate was denied its right to have its campaign literature mailed by the least expensive means. Berg also incorporated by reference all previous protests he had filed.
Election Supervisor representatives William C. Broberg, Joe Childers, Nancy Golen and Maria Ho investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
A. Challenges to the Adequacy of the Local Union 743
Mailing List and Ballot Mailing
This is not the first protest Berg filed relating to Local Union 743 and its mailing list, and a brief review of Berg's prior protest provides background essential to the analysis of the current post-election protest. Berg filed a protest dated February 7, 2006 charging that Local Union 743's mailing list was "tainted with fraud," in that the list included numerous false addresses used in a scheme to divert ballots from the members entitled to receive them and into the hands of others for voting. See Berg, 2006 ESD 211 (April 25, 2006). The pre-election protest suggested that Local Union 743's entire mailing list "must be reconstructed," and requested the Office of the Election Supervisor to analyze the list for flaws. Berg founded his pre-election protest on allegations and preliminary disclosures made by the United States Department of Labor in a LMRDA Title IV lawsuit challenging the 2004 Local Union 743 officer election. Chao v. Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, C.A. No. 05C 4642 (N.D. Ill.).
Investigation of the pre-election protest found that Local Union 743 had been working for months before the current delegate election to update, correct, and prepare its mailing list. Thus, the mailing list to be used for the current delegate election was apparently in a state of readiness or repair better than in the local union officer election that had occurred almost two years earlier. Our investigation found that the local union had updated more than 1,000 addresses based on returns from a union periodical mailed in December 2005. Berg, 2006 ESD 211 at 3. Our office separately contracted with a mailhouse to analyze the list using independent, available sources, and to determine "if the addresses shown were current for the individual member names" and to prepare "a report of address corrections." Id. That exercise demonstrated that "[t]he vast majority of the names on the Local Union 743 mailing list were verified to the addresses shown." Id. It also produced a list of 1,023 address updates, all of which were supplied to Local Union 743 and incorporated into its mailing list before the ballots were sent. Id.
Finally, the pre-election investigation found that Local Union 743 has membership fluctuations typical of IBT locals of similar size and urban location. Normally about 10% of a Local Union 743 mailing to membership (about 1,300 pieces of mail) is returned as undeliverable from each mailing. Id. The undeliverables result from regular movement and change of the membership. Id.
Based on our investigation, we concluded that Local Union 743 had taken reasonable steps to update and correct the addresses on its membership list before the April 5, 2006 mailing of ballots and had satisfied its obligations under the Rules to maintain its list in a reasonably accurate state. Id. at 4. We deemed the protest "RESOLVED." Id. at 4. Neither the protestor, nor anyone else, appealed from that disposition.
We turn now to the allegations of Berg's post-election protest.
1. The failure to send ballots to members for whom Local Union 743 lacked addresses adequate to deliver mail.
Local Union 743's membership exceeds 13,000 members. The post-election protest alleged that 1,685 members were "denied their right to vote because they were not sent ballots." Thus, the protest alleged that 754 members were not mailed ballots at all because the local union had no addresses for them or the addresses it had were incomplete; further, that 893 ballots were returned to the post office as undeliverable; finally, that the ballots of 38 members were intentionally misdirected to other addresses. Our investigation analyzed each of these claims.
The printer reported to our representative on April 5, the date ballots were mailed, that no ballots were mailed to 754 members because of missing or incomplete addresses. Subsequent review of the mailing record by Julie Hamos, the election officer the local union hired to conduct its delegate and alternate delegate election, and by the printer found that 703 was the correct number of ballots not mailed to members (not 754) That is, with the Local Union 743 mailing list updated as described in Berg, 2006 ESD 211, 703 names remained on the list for whom the address was insufficient to deliver a piece of mail, viz., the member record consisted of a name and city only, with no street or post office box address, or consisted simply of a name. Our representative obtained this list of members from the printer on April 5 and forwarded it by overnight mail to election officer Hamos. The list was forwarded so that Local Union 743, under the supervision of its election officer, could immediately begin research on those members to try to obtain current mailing addresses. Election officer Hamos, in turn, delivered the list to the local union on April 10 and directed the local union staff to obtain addresses for these members. As described below in connection with remailed ballots, Local Union 743 contacted employers for information and, through that process, obtained addresses for fifty members. Thus, at the end of this process, 653 members were not mailed ballots for lack of an address, not 754 as the protest alleged.
Apart from those 653 individuals, every other member on Local Union 743's mailing list was sent a ballot package. There were no culls or exceptions made from the list consisting of addresses sufficient to deliver a piece of mail.
The protest alleged, however, that ballots sent to 893 members were returned to the post office as undeliverable and that those should be counted as not having been mailed at all. The protestor did not obtain this figure from the actual count of ballot packages returned as undeliverable. Instead, he derived this figure from the number of campaign mailers returned to the New Leadership slate's post office box from a membership mailing it conducted using the same list that was used to mail ballots and which it asserted was carried out "within hours" of the mailing of ballots.
Our investigation showed that 790 ballot packages mailed out on April 5, 2006 were returned as undeliverable. The figure of 790 is the count of actual ballot packages returned as tallied by Election Officer Hamos, and not the surrogate figure the protester derived from his purportedly parallel mailing. From ballot packages returned as undeliverable, Local Union 743 followed the procedure outlined in its local union election plan to attempt to obtain correct addresses and remail ballots to those members. Under the direction of Hamos, Local Union 743 found new addresses and remailed ballot packages to 150 members. Twenty addresses were obtained from the yellow stickers affixed to the returned envelopes pursuant to postal service forwarding orders. Local Union 743 secured other addresses by contacting employers and requesting current addresses for these members. The local union faxed requests to 94 of the local union's 134 employers; local union staffers telephoned an additional 3 employers. This effort obtained 130 additional addresses from 25 employers; these were used to remail ballot packages to members whose ballots had been returned as undeliverable. In addition, the local union mailed ballots to 107 members who called to request them.
29 U.S.C. § 481(e) provides that "[n]ot less than fifteen days prior to the election notice thereof shall be mailed to each member at his last known home address," and this provision is incorporated into the Rules by reference. Rules, Article XII. While the statute
on its face appears to impose an absolute duty upon unions to mail an election notice to the last known home address of every member, the Supreme Court has cautioned against an excessively literal interpretation of the LMRDA. Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n, 389 U.S. 463, 468, 88 S. Ct. 643, 646, 19 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1968). We cannot agree that a violation of the Act occurs every time a union fails to send a notice to a member who is known to be no longer residing at the address the union possesses and who does not receive mail sent to that location. We must consider the Act's statutory language in light of the objectives that Congress sought to achieve. Id. The obvious purpose of the notice requirement is to ensure maximum participation in union elections by rank and file members. See Donovan v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific, 739 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004, 105 S. Ct. 1886, 85 L. Ed. 2d 160 (1985). It is not designed to force unions to spend time and money on futile mailings of notices that have no prospect of reaching their intended recipients.
Reich v. District Lodge 720, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 11 F.3d 1496, 1501 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).
The protestor asserts that Local Union 743 violated the requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 481(e) because it did not mail the notice of election (which is combined with the ballot, under the Rules) to: a) approximately 700 members for which it lacked an address insufficient to deliver mail; and b) approximately 750 other members who were sent ballot packages on April 5 that were later returned as undeliverable. The protestor cites Chao v. Local Union 54, HERE, 166 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.N.J. 2001), in which the court found a Title IV violation based on the local union's failure to mail ballots out to addresses the union knew to be incorrect.
We reject the protestor's argument. As shown by the Ninth Circuit's opinion in District Lodge 720, the command to mail notice of election to every union member must be read in light of the related regulations that the union take reasonable steps to maintain its mailing list. Here, as shown by Berg, 2006 ESD 211, Local Union 743 took reasonable steps, starting months before the delegate election, to update and improve its mailing list. The local union took active steps based on its own mailing; the addresses on the list were independently verified by a mailhouse engaged for that purpose by this office, and further improvements to the list were actively sought out and made before and up to the date of ballot mailing. The mailing itself complied with the mandate of 29 U.S.C. § 481(e) in that a ballot package was mailed to every member of Local Union 743 on the list for whom there was an address sufficient to deliver a piece of mail.
The protestor's authority does not control here and is distinguishable on two very significant bases. In Local Union 54, the court's finding that the union failed to mail to all members on the list cannot be divorced from its factual underpinnings. First, the court found that the local union failed to take sufficient active steps to update its list before mailing the notice of election. Local Union 54, 166 F. Supp. 2d at 117-20. That failure contrasts sharply with Local Union 743's proactive efforts to update and improve its mailing list before the ballot mailing. In addition, and consistent with its local union election plan, Local Union 743 continued to work to find addresses for these members and successfully mailed ballots to fifty of them.
Second, in Local Union 54, the local union further limited distribution of its notice by excluding from the mailing those members for whom it had an address sufficient to deliver mail, but that the union believed was not a current address of that member. Local Union 54, 166 F. Supp. 2d at 113, n.1. Again, and in contrast, Local Union 743 mailed ballot packages to every member for whom it had an address sufficient to deliver mail. Specifically, the 790 ballot packages returned as undeliverable show that Local Union 743 did not exclude from the mailing ballot packages addressed to members whose address was not in fact current for whatever reason. In Local Union 54, the local union arbitrarily excluded members for whom it had mailable addresses from its mailing; Local Union 743 did not do that but, instead, fulfilled its statutory obligation to mail to all of its members.
The protestor contends that Local Union 743 should have placed 703 ballot packages lacking street addresses or even city names, into the U.S. mail in order to comply with the law. That would incur a postage cost, but yield nothing. The Rules and the LMRDA "[are] not designed to force unions to spend time and money on futile mailings of notices that have no prospect of reaching their intended recipients." District Lodge 720, 11 F.3d at 1501. We find that Local Union 743 complied with its obligation to mail ballot packages to all of its members and, accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
2. Allegation that the membership list used to mail ballots was not trustworthy.
In Berg, 2006 ESD 211, we examined Local Union 743's membership list and the efforts the local union undertook to correct and update it. We held as follows:
The importance of an accurate mailing list cannot be overstated in an election that depends on the U.S. Postal Service to deliver notice of the election and to send and return ballots.
On the facts presented here, we are satisfied that our effort and that of the local union to update and correct the addresses on the local union's membership list before the April 5 ballot mailing meets the requirements of the Rules.
Berg's post-election protest raises essentially the same allegation. He asserts that the membership list was not trustworthy. Specifically, he asserted that the list he examined contained 630 fewer names than the one used to mail ballots. The mailing list used to mail ballots contained 13,051 names and was forwarded electronically by the IBT simultaneously to Progress Printing Company in Chicago and to our office in Washington, D.C. on April 3, 2006.
The membership list Berg inspected on April 27 and 28 was generated by the TITAN system at Local Union 743 on April 11. Ted Bania, local union comptroller and TITAN supervisor, told our investigator that he printed the list because he anticipated that Berg would pursue his right under the Rules to inspect the list. When he ran the list, Bania concluded that Berg's right was to inspect a list of all active members. Accordingly, Bania instructed the TITAN to exclude status codes 03 (withdrawal) and 18 (not listed on check-off).
On April 27, the day Berg began his inspection of the local union list Bania had printed on April 11, the IBT sent two copies each of the election control roster (ECR) and the election challenge roster to Election Officer Hamos to be used during the local union's tally of ballots on April 29. Simultaneously, the IBT sent electronic copies of the ECR and the challenge roster to our Washington, D.C. office. The ECR used to check voter eligibility during the ballot count listed 13,053 names, a fact confirmed by comparing the electronic list and the hard copy sent to Election Officer Hamos.
The membership list Berg inspected was not a complete list of members of Local Union 743 because it excluded two categories of members not in good standing. However, the membership list used to mail ballots on April 5 and the list used to check voter eligibility on April 29 were complete lists, verified by Election Supervisor representatives.
In sum, 3 membership lists were generated within a period of 4 weeks. The list generated April 3 was used to mail ballots; the list Bania printed April 11, with 2 categories of members excluded, was inspected by Berg on April 27 and 28; and the membership list generated on April 28 was used to check voter eligibility at the tally on April 29. The variation between the April 3 and April 28 total membership was 2, an insignificant difference given the normal additions and subtractions from membership that occur over several weeks in this large local union with an urban population. The greatest differential was caused by Bania's exclusion of 2 categories of members not in good standing from the list he printed on April 11. That does not demonstrate any untrustworthiness of the membership list.
For these reasons, we find no merit to Berg's allegation that the list was not trustworthy because the total membership on the list Berg inspected differed by 630 members from the one used to mail ballots. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
Berg's next contention is that "C-4" challenged ballots were "counted on the basis of unauthenticated hearsay employee lists that were not business records ..." (original emphasis). Berg further stated that these challenged voters were "members who were 90 days or more delinquent in the payment of their dues ..." and therefore ineligible. The protestor is wrong. Members who appear on the TITAN system as 90 days or more delinquent in payment of their dues are listed as C-5 challenges, not C-4.
At the resolution of challenged ballots conducted May 1 in the local union delegate and alternate delegate election, 95 C-5 challenges were resolved, with 71 of these ballots counted and the remaining 24 voided. Resolving challenged ballots often requires the Election Supervisor's representatives to contact employers to verify that members were active with dues remitted in the most recent employer remittances. In addition, Election Supervisor representatives examine business records of the local union to determine if a particular member's dues were included in the latest remittance of dues by the employer. At the Local Union 743 challenged ballot resolution, in all cases but one (Corporate Express, discussed below) the records inspected by OES representatives were payments made by employers to the local union indicating the date and amount of the total payment and the amount remitted for each Local Union 743 member. Election Supervisor representatives William C. Broberg and Nancy Golen verified that these records were Local Union 743 business records reflecting actual due postings.
When analyzing the voter eligibility of Corporate Express employees, Election Supervisor representatives utilized a list of current active employees sent by company representative Connie Tippett, senior HR representative, to Local Union 743 on April 21, 2006. Golen confirmed with Ellen David, assistant to Connie Tippett, that the list forwarded by Tippett was comprised exclusively of current, active Local Union 743 members employed by Corporate Express. Local Union 743 had not updated the TITAN system with this employer's payments by the date the election control roster was generated. Our investigation revealed that the last remittance of dues by Corporate Express for its current active employees before the counting of ballots was made on April 7, 2006. It was the Election Supervisor representative's judgment at the challenged ballot resolution, exercised pursuant to Article V, Section 2 of the Rules, that to exclude these members by voiding their ballots would be inconsistent with Article V, Section 1(b) of the Rules. Investigation of this protest revealed that all of the members employed by Corporate Express who voted in the election were listed on the remittance from the employer dated April 7, even though Local Union 743 had not updated the TITAN system to reflect the payment by the date the ECR was run on April 27. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
Berg's next contention concerning the alleged untrustworthy membership list was as follows:
More than 200 duplicate ballots were mailed out to addresses furnished by Mr. Bania, without any independent check to avoid committing the same offense (intentional misdirecting of ballots) that warranted suit by the Secretary of Labor to set aside the last officer election, which Mr. Bania tainted by sending ballots to false addresses.
When ballot packages are returned to the post office as undeliverable, the Election Supervisor instructs all IBT local unions to attempt to obtain current addresses for these members and, if successful, to mail duplicate ballot packages to them. In response to Local Union 743's request for updated addresses for members whose ballot packages had been returned, 25 employers forwarded 130 addresses they believed to be current. Another fifty addresses were obtained from employers in the course of following up on the 703 members to whom ballot packages were not mailed in the first instance. Election Supervisor representatives reviewed the information these employers supplied, as well as a spreadsheet compiled by Election Officer Hamos showing addresses where these ballots were mailed by her office. This review confirmed that the 180 addresses given to the local union by employers were in turn the same ones the local union supplied to Election Officer Hamos and which she used to mail duplicate ballots. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
The protestor next asserts that 38 additional members were disenfranchised at the ballot count. On April 27, 2 days before the ballot count, Berg presented our office with a list of more than 2,000 members he intended to challenge at the count based on six challenge categories. Of these 2,000, 86 cast ballots. At the count, these 86 ballots were segregated from the otherwise eligible ballots, even though many of these members appeared eligible to vote based on the Election Control Roster (ECR) used at the count. Two of Berg's challenge categories were drawn from exhibits filed by the U.S. Department of Labor in the Title IV lawsuit arising from Local Union 743's 2004 local union officers' election. Exhibit A from the lawsuit is a list of members whose ballots were allegedly diverted to addresses other than the member's address, and then voted, returned, and tallied in the 2004 officers' election. Exhibit B from the lawsuit is a list of addresses where three or more ballots were sent during the same officers' election. The Election Supervisor's representative who supervised the resolution of challenged ballots on May 1 honored Berg's challenge of these ballots (3 ballots from Exhibit A, 35 from Exhibit B). The names and addresses associated with these 38 ballots were identified as suspect by the Department of Labor as in an ongoing Title IV lawsuit. We did not, and do not, find that these addresses are incorrect and not associated with the named members. We do find, however, that the Department of Labor's disclosure as brought to our attention by the protestor provided substantial evidence on which to challenge the ballots.
Berg now claims that these 38 members were disenfranchised and that each of the 38 should have received individual attention, with their votes counted if it could be determined that the addresses given were correct addresses for the members. We disagree. Our representative at the count honored Berg's challenge to these ballots because the members' names and addresses had been identified in the Department of Labor's lawsuit against Local Union 743 as possibly tainted; the decision was made at the count to segregate and void those ballots. We will not disturb that decision now.
Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
B. Allegation that the New Leadership Slate Was Denied
its Right to Observe the Remailing of Duplicate Ballots
Berg asserted that his slate received no advance notice of when duplicate ballots would be mailed, and subsequently learned that they were mailed daily. His protest claimed that his slate was denied observer rights with respect to these ballots.
Investigation showed that Election Officer Hamos mailed 307 duplicate ballots. In the local union election plan the Election Supervisor approved on January 20, 2006, Local Union 743 described the process for obtaining a duplicate ballot:
Members will have the opportunity to call the Local office directly to have a ballot package mailed if a ballot was not received or was spoiled. The Local will transmit the names and addresses of all such members on a daily basis to the Election Officer for mailing of the ballots. A strict count of all ballot packages mailed by the Election Officer will be maintained, for reconciliation with all candidates on election day.
Local Union 743 Election Officer Hamos filed an affidavit in response to this aspect of the protest. She stated that immediately following the March 6, 2006 nominations meeting, she held a candidates' meeting at which she distributed a fact sheet to all candidates in attendance titled "2006 Local Union 743 Delegate Election Information for Candidates and Observers." The fact sheet stated the following with respect to observer rights:
Each slate and independent candidate has the right to have one (1) observer at the addressing of envelopes, plus the printing, assembling and mailing of mail ballot packages. The names of any observers must be furnished to the Election Officer at least 24 hours prior to any dates for observing … The Election Officer will work with the Local Union to secure updated addresses from employers and will re-mail ballots to members at any such addresses from her office listed below.
Election Officer Hamos stated that no one present at the meeting requested any further information regarding the mailing of duplicate ballots, and no one requested specific information about observer rights for such mailings. Election Officer Hamos stated that duplicate ballots were processed daily, and often on evenings and weekends. She spoke with Berg on many occasions, and he never requested the right to observe the process, nor did he give 24 hours' notice of his intention to observe the mailing of duplicate ballots. Finally, Election Officer Hamos indicated that had Berg asserted his observer rights in this regard, she would have accommodated him.
On the facts presented, we DENY this aspect of the protest. Election Officer Hamos did not deny Berg's observer rights with respect to mailing of duplicate ballots; instead, Berg did not assert those rights until the election was concluded.
C. Allegation that the New Leadership Slate Was Denied
the Right to Have Its Campaign Literature Distributed
by the Least Expensive Means Available
Berg alleged that Local Union 743 violated his rights under Article VII, Section 7(d) to have his slate's campaign literature distributed by the least expensive means available to the local union. He complains that the ballots were addressed using ink-jet technology while he had to use printed labels. He asserts that in-jet printing would have cost less and that he was not afforded that opportunity.
Progress Printing Company was designated by Local Union 743 as the mailhouse for campaign literature. Its part-owner, Nina Gapshis, told our investigator that Berg contacted her the week before the April 5 scheduled ballot mailing and requested that his slate's campaign literature be mailed the day before the ballots were mailed. Berg did not deliver his sealed campaign mailers to Progress until Monday, April 3, for a mailing to be conducted the next day. Progress, however, does not have the capability to do ink-jet printing of addresses. Had Berg wanted to use that method, he would have had to arrange to obtain that service from another company. To have this work out-sourced, the outside vendor requires three weeks' notice from Progress before the mailing. Berg did not arrange such out-sourcing with Progress sufficiently in advance.
In contrast, , our investigation showed that Local Union 743 made advance arrangements with the outside vendor to ink-jet the ballot envelopes. Because the membership list was not provided by the IBT until two days before the ballots were mailed, in order to incorporate corrected addresses as ordered by the Election Supervisor, Local Union 743 had to pay a premium in order to have the outside vendor complete the task of addressing the envelopes by ink-jet in the limited time available. Had Berg asked for his slate's campaign literature to be mailed the day before the ballots using the same list as the list for the ballots, this would have left only one day for the outside vendor to supply Berg with the envelopes. According to our investigation, the cost of ink-jet addressing under these circumstances would have been greater than the cost of using address labels. Local Union 743 paid $1,377.00 for ink-jetting alone, not including any processing or delivering the mail to the post office. In contrast, Berg's slate was billed a total of $1,048.00.
We DENY Berg's complaint that his slate was not granted the least expensive means available to mail its campaign literature. On the circumstances presented, address labels were less expensive than the ink-jet printing the protest advocates.
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 Supervisor 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
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, New York 10022
Fax: (212)751 4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, Suite 1400, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2006 ESD 279
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
braymond@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa, Esq.
Hoffa 2006
30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 324
Farmington Hills, MI 48834
David@hoffapllc.com
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold Street
Suite 3060
Detroit, MI 48226
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
ken@tdu.org
Daniel E. Clifton
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10001
dclifton@lcnlaw.com
Stephen Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
Richard Berg
1336 West Argyle
Chicago, IL 60640
Richard Lopez, Secretary-Treasurer
IBT Local Union 743
4620 South Tripp
Chicago, IL 60632
Robert Walston, President
IBT Local Union 743
4620 South Tripp
Chicago, IL 60632
William Widmar III
IBT Local Union 743
4620 South Tripp
Chicago, IL 60632
William Broberg
1108 Fincastle Road
Lexington, KY 40502
wcbroberg@aol.com
Joe F. Childers
201 West Short Street, Suite 310
Lexington, KY 40507
childerslaw@yahoo.com
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com