IN RE: LEEDHAM SLATE, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 307
Issued: June 26, 2006
OES Case No. P-06-300-062606-HQ
The Tom Leedham campaign filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that Hoffa 2006 received an employer contribution, in violation of the Rules.
Election Supervisor representatives Steven R. Newmark, Dolores Hall, and Maria Giardini investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
The Leedham campaign alleged that, on the morning of June 26, 2006, the first day of the proceedings of the IBT convention, "at least 3" hostesses at the Sidewalk Café Restaurant at Bally's Hotel and Casino wore buttons, while on duty, supporting candidate James P. Hoffa and other members of the Hoffa 2006 slate. Investigation confirmed that several of the hostesses, who are employees of Bally's and not IBT members, wore the Hoffa campaign buttons.
At our investigators's request, Vivian Neubauer, a manager at the Sidewalk Café, asked each hostess to remove her campaign button; all complied, as our investigators verified.
Article XI, Section 1(b)(2) of the Rules prohibits contributions by employers to any candidate. Thus:
No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is [to] influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions are not limited to employers that have contracts with the Union; they extend to every employer, regardless of the nature of the business and include, but are not limited to, any political action organization that employs any staff; any nonprofit organization, such as a church or civic group that employs any staff; and any law firm or professional organization that employs any staff. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by an employer and include contributions or use of employer stationery, equipment, facilities and personnel.
The Rules define "campaign contribution" as "any direct or indirect contribution of money or other thing of value where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate for Convention delegate or alternate delegate or International Officer position." Definition 5. The definition expressly includes "[a]n endorsement or counter-endorsement by an individual, group of individuals, or entity." Id., subparagraph (f). Further, the definition includes "the making available for use of space, equipment, supplies or advertisements." Id., subparagraph (h).
The Rules hold candidates "strictly liable to insure that each contribution received is permitted under these Rules. Prohibited contributions must be returned promptly. Within three days of the return of any contribution, the candidate or candidate's campaign returning the contribution shall provide to the Election Supervisor an affidavit identifying the original source and the date of the contribution being returned, the amount of the returned contribution, the person to whom or entity to which the contribution was returned and the date on which the contribution was returned." Article XI, Section 1(b)(13).
The strict liability the Rules place on candidates is emphasized by Article XI, Section 1(b)(14), viz.
Ignorance by a candidate, by a union and/or by an employer that union or employer funds or other resources were used to promote a candidacy shall not constitute a defense to an allegation of a violation of these Rules.
We deem this protest RESOLVED. The hostesses that are the subject of this protest wore the campaign buttons briefly, and promptly removed them at our investigators' request.
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 Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20006-1416, 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 307
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
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
Stefan Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
Steven R. Newmark, Esq.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
1725 K Street, NW, Suite 1400
Washington, DC 20006
snewmark@ibtvote.org
Dolores Hall
1000 Belmont Place
Metairie, LA 70001
hall1000@cox.net
Maria Giardini
400 Fourth Avenue, SW
Suite 3000
Calgary, AB T2P 0J4
Canada
mfgiardini@davis.ca
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com