Protest Decisions

IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF DARWIN MOORE, Local Union 243.
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 129
Issued: February 21, 2011
OES Case No. E-017-011111-MW

Jim Cianciolo, member and president of Local Union 243, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that delegate candidate Darwin Moore is ineligible for nomination to that position.

Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact

Local Union 243 held its nominations meeting for the delegates and alternate delegates election on January 8, 2011. Therefore, the 24-month period during which candidates must be in continuous good standing in order to be eligible for nomination ran from January 2009 through December 2010.  To verify Moore's eligibility during that period, we reviewed TITAN records for dues remittances received from him or remitted on his behalf during this period and other information that was supplied to us by him, his counsel, the protestor, and the protestor's counsel.

The investigation showed that for the months January through June 2009, Moore's dues were paid pursuant to check-off authorization through his employer, UPS. UPS terminated his employment on May 29, 2009. Moore grieved the discharge, and the grievance was denied at a joint grievance panel on June 17, 2009. Following his dismissal by UPS, Moore paid cash dues timely through December 2009.

Investigation further showed that in December 2009 Moore tendered dues to the local union for January 2010. However, the local union rejected the January dues payment and issued a withdrawal card. The local union's January 5, 2010 letter returning the dues stated the following:

Please be advised that in accordance with Article XVIII, Section 6 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Constitution we are returning the above referenced check and you will be issued a honorable withdrawal card (check enclosed).

Moore replied to this letter by letter dated January 15, 2010, writing in part the following:

I am once again sending you my dues (check #1896) for January 2010, because under the LMRDA and the IBT constitution, I remain a member in good standing as long as I continue to challenge my discharge from employment at the NLRB.

Enclosed with the letter was a Charge against Employer filed on Moore's behalf with NLRB Region 7 on November 10, 2009; the charge challenged UPS's discharge decision as unlawful retaliation for protected activity in violation of Sections 8(a)(3) and (4) of the LMRA. Moore's letter also quoted a USDOL regulation concerning "Working at the Trade," 29 CFR 452.41.

The local union replied to Moore's January 15 letter on January 29, 2010. The union's letter recited the history covered in the previous letters and stated that the union's issuance of the withdrawal card would stand because Moore had been unemployed since June 17, 2009 and the IBT Constitution required the local union to issue an honorable withdrawal card. See IBT Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 6(a) ("an honorable withdrawal card must be issued six (6) months after the month in which the member first becomes unemployed, if he is still unemployed at that time"). The union's letter told Moore that "Local 243 has no authority or jurisdiction to do other than what the IBT Constitution requires." The union returned Moore's dues check once again and advised him that he could appeal the issuance of the withdrawal card to the IBT General Executive Board within 15 calendar days of the date of the union's letter.

Moore appealed to the GEB, as his local union had advised, on February 12, 2010. General Secretary-Treasurer C. Thomas Keegel responded on February 25 that Moore's appeal right lay with Joint Council 43 and that if he was dissatisfied with the decision of the joint council he could then appeal to the GEB.

Moore appealed the issuance of the withdrawal card to the joint council by letter dated March 3, 2010. The letter stated the following, in relevant part:

I ask you to rule that Local 243 cannot refuse to accept my efforts to deposit the honorable withdrawal card that was issued to me against my will six months after I was discharged from employment by UPS and lost my grievance before the State Panel. This is because I continue to seek work within the jurisdiction of Local 243, while pursuing my legal recourse for challenging my discharge from employment and Local 243's handling of my discharge case. Enclosed is the lawsuit I have filed, showing that I am claiming that Local 243 breached its duty of fair representation in the grievance procedure to eliminate me as a political adversary. DOL regulations require Local 243 to permit me to remain in good standing while I continue to pay dues under such circumstances.

The DOL regulation Moore cited in his appeal states that a union's membership requirements "should not be so inflexible as to disqualify those members who are familiar with the trade but who because of illness, economic conditions, or other good reasons are temporarily not working."[1] It states further that "a member would not be considered to have forfeited his membership in the union … merely because he is discharged or laid off."[2]

Moore had filed a hybrid Section 301/DFR suit on December 17, 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.[3] The complaint named UPS and Local Union 243 as defendants.[4] Moore alleged that UPS had discharged him from employment "without just cause, in breach of the collective bargaining agreement."[5] Moore, a UPS package car driver with 25 years of service, itemized the purported bases for dismissal as follows: "he had neglected to report to work wearing a new belt clip that the Employer had recently distributed to package car drivers; he had failed to sound the horn while approaching customers' buildings; he had failed to call out 'UPS' each time he approached customer entrances on foot; he had engaged in excessive package handling; he had failed to maintain maximum posted speed limits; he had failed to achieve maximum posted speed limits as quickly as desired; and he had failed to make a regular practice of walking across customer lawns where the lawn presented more direct access to the customer entrance than the established walkway."[6] The suit further alleged that, although UPS termed Moore's alleged failings as "gross insubordination," UPS did not cite Moore for disobedience of an order nor did it claim that he "failed to complete his work in the scheduled time or any other actual deficiency in the performance of his work."[7] The suit also alleged that Moore, an elected steward of long standing, had in his capacity as steward repeatedly requested that UPS produce certain productivity data and statistics that the employer had previously distributed voluntarily for years but had recently stopped distributing and, when UPS did not produce the data, had urged his local union to pursue an NLRB unfair labor practice charge against UPS for refusal to bargain.[8] The suit alleged that on May 29, 2009, the day after several "harassment" grievances Moore had filed were heard at the state grievance panel, UPS subjected Moore's work performance to undue and improper scrutiny and discharged him from employment. The suit implied, but did not allege directly, that UPS discharged Moore for his activity as a union steward pursuing grievances and the unfair labor practice charge against UPS, not for the cited work-related reasons.

The suit further claimed that Local Union 243 did not represent Moore fairly in the grievance process protesting his May 29, 2009 discharge. It alleged that the local union "fast-tracked" the case to a hearing on June 4, before a grievance protesting the discharge had been filed or the matter investigated.[9] The case was then heard at the state grievance panel on June 17.[10] The panel is comprised of an equal number of management and union delegates. At least one union delegate voted with the management members to sustain the discharge and deny the grievance. The suit alleged that the union's actions or omissions with respect to Moore's discharge were in retaliation for Moore's political activity in defeating a slate comprised of incumbent local union officers in the 2006 delegates and alternate delegates election, his role as a candidate for IBT Central region vice president on the Leedham slate in 2006, and his candidacy in the 2007 local union officers election.[11]

The suit's prayer for relief requested that the defendants be ordered "to pay plaintiff the lost wages and benefits he suffered as consequences for their wrongful acts" and other monetary compensation. The suit initially did not request that UPS be ordered to reinstate Moore's employment.

The joint council denied Moore's appeal. The written decision relied on the IBT constitutional provision requiring the union to issue a withdrawal card after six months of unemployment. It held the following:

In our view this section of the IBT Constitution gave the Local Union no choice except to issue the withdrawal card and return the tendered dues. Whether six months of unemployment is or is not consistent with the DOL regulation dealing with "temporary" unemployment at the craft is not an issue within our authority.

The decision advised Moore of his appeal rights to the GEB[12]. Moore did not appeal.

In advance of Local Union 243's nominations meeting held January 8, 2011, Moore requested that OES verify his eligibility for nomination. OES found Moore eligible in a letter dated January 7. With respect to the withdrawal card the local union issued Moore in January 2010, the letter stated:

Under Article VI, Section 2(b) of the Rules, "[t]he active employment at the craft requirement may be excused … by active pursuit of an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging suspension or discharge." Your pending litigation constitutes "other legal action" within the meaning of this provision and thereby excuses your failure to be actively employed at the craft during the eligibility period.

Relying on this eligibility verification, Moore attended the nominations meeting on January 8 and was nominated for delegate.

The protest that followed challenged Moore's eligibility with three arguments. First, it asserted that the local union was required by the IBT constitution to issue Moore a withdrawal card once he accrued six months of unemployment in the craft and that the withdrawal status interrupted his continuous good standing and rendered him ineligible for nomination. Second, the protest claimed that Moore's only recourse to avoid the effect of the withdrawal status was to have it voided through the appeal process laid out in the IBT constitution and that he waived his right to challenge the withdrawal by failing to appeal the joint council's denial of his appeal to the GEB. Finally, the protest noted that the complaint in Moore's lawsuit did not request reinstatement to employment, suggesting that absent that requested relief his suit does not qualify as "other legal action challenging suspension or discharge" within the meaning of Article VI, Section 2(b) of the Rules.

Additional investigation of the protest showed that Moore has not held employment under the jurisdiction of the local union since he was discharged by UPS in May 2009. Late in 2010, Moore began selling securities, mutual funds, life insurance and annuities as a licensed financial advisor for Prudential, working from an office in Troy, Michigan. On this evidence, protestor added a fourth basis for finding Moore ineligible, that he has worked outside the craft during his period of unemployment.

Analysis

Under Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules, "[t]o be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate or International Officer position, one must: (1) Be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one's dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments; (2) Be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior the month of nomination; and (3) Be eligible to hold office if elected."

With respect to the first criterion - timely payment of dues - evidence shows that Moore timely paid his dues by check-off or cash for the period January through December 2009. Thereafter, he attempted twice to remit his dues for January 2010. Each time the local union refused his tender, asserting that he was on withdrawal status because he was unemployed in the craft for more than six consecutive months. Based on these facts, we conclude that, had Moore timely remitted dues payments for February 2010 and all subsequent months, the local union would have responded in the same manner it did with respect to the January 2010 tender, rejecting the payment so long as the local union considered Moore to be on honorable withdrawal. Accordingly, we conclude that the issue of Moore's eligibility for nomination as delegate does not turn on the first criterion, timely payment of dues. Instead, we focus on whether he satisfied the eligibility rule's second criterion, active employment at the craft.

The principles relevant to the inquiry into active employment at the craft include Article XVIII, Section 6(a) of the IBT constitution, which grants local unions "jurisdiction over the granting and acceptance of all honorable withdrawal cards." This constitutional provision permits a member who becomes unemployed to request an honorable withdrawal card. A withdrawal card suspends a member's obligation to pay dues; it also may cause an interruption in the member's continuous good standing unless it is deposited no later than the month after it is issued and the member timely pays dues for both months or is excused by another provision of the Rules. In the event the member does not request a withdrawal card, one "must be issued six (6) months after the month in which the member first becomes unemployed, if he is still unemployed at that time." The provision excludes from the definition of "unemployed" the period during which the member is on sick leave, FMLA leave, and worker's compensation, provided the member retains reemployment rights with an employer that is under contract with a local union. The constitutional provision does not list an exclusion for the period when the member is actively pursuing an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging the suspension or discharge.

Article XVIII, Section 6(e) of the constitution declares that "issuing a withdrawal card in alleged violation of this Constitution shall be subject to appeal in accordance with the appeal procedure provided for by this Constitution, excluding, however, any appeal to the Convention." Appeals are governed by Article XIX, Section 2(a) and must be filed within 15 days of the date the decision appealed from is mailed to the appellant. A member contesting the local union's issuance of a withdrawal card may appeal to the joint council and, if dissatisfied with the determination of that body, to the GEB.

While the IBT constitution through its withdrawal provisions speaks to "active employment at the craft," so too do the Rules. Article VI, Section 2 of the Rules, titled "Modification of Eligibility Requirements," states the following:

(b) The active employment at the craft requirement may be excused by unemployment if, for the period of unemployment, the member was actively seeking and available for employment in the craft and not working outside the craft during such period of unemployment, or by active pursuit of an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging the suspension or discharge.

The first clause of this provision (excusing unemployment where the member was actively seeking and available for employment in the craft) uses the same language as IBT constitution Article II, Section 4(a)(1). As used in the Rules, the Election Office has applied the provision to find members eligible even though they were not employed continuously during the 24-month eligibility period. See Eligibility of Taylor & Price, 2011 ESD 95 (January 31, 2011) (member who contacted the local union seeking work and actually worked only one day in a four month period satisfied the "employment at the craft" criterion); Eligibility of McPartlin, 2011 ESD 79 (January 24, 2011), aff'd, 11 EAM 17 (February 11, 2011) (member who took voluntary layoff but worked two widely separated days during 14-month period satisfied the "employment at the craft" criterion where he was on the employer's recall list and actually was recalled on occasion); Eligibility of Gabriel, 2006 ESD 49 (January 20, 2006) (member who applied for and was accepted on referral list satisfied the "employment at the craft" criterion even though he was not called to work during the eligibility period); Eligibility of Duncan, 2006 ESD 55 (January 26, 2006), aff'd, 06 EAM 9 (February 14, 2006) (ready-mix driver on employer's on-call list satisfied "employment at the craft" criterion even where he did not work during lengthy winter season); and Eligibility of McCauley, 2006 ESD 151 (March 17, 2006) (laid-off member who actively sought new employment following layoff satisfied the "employment at the craft" criterion even when not working).

The second clause, regarding members who are not actively employed at the craft because of a suspension or discharge, but are "in active pursuit of an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging the suspension or discharge," is unique to the Rules and is not found in the IBT constitution.[13] Precedents under this provision establish that members may be found eligible for nomination so long as the adverse action is subject to legal challenge. See Eligibility of Pessagno, 2011 ESD 118 (February 17, 2011) (member's continuous good standing was not interrupted during the 4-month period the grievance protesting his discharge was pending); Eligibility of Montes, 2011 ESD 114 (February 16, 2011) (steward's continuous good standing was not interrupted by discharge where a pending grievance protested the discharge); Eligibility of Martinez, E-113 (March 12, 1996) (member whose May 1995 discharge was still the subject of a pending grievance at the time of the March 1996 protest decision was not ineligible for failing to be employed at the craft); Eligibility of Kempton, E-60 (February 8, 1996) (discharged member with pending grievance is not ineligible for failure to work at the craft); Eligibility of Stephenson, E-11 (November 8, 1995) (discharged member is excused from active employment requirement because of pending grievance contesting the discharge); Eligibility of McGinnis, E-175 (January 25, 1991) (a member actively pursuing grievance protesting his discharge remained eligible where he continued to pay dues in a timely fashion); West, P-699 (March 28, 1991) (member remained eligible while not employed in the craft because he was actively pursuing a grievance protesting his discharge and he attempted to tender his dues to the local union). But also see Eligibility of Hamilton, E-118 (March 13, 1996), aff'd, 96 EAM 136 (March 19, 1996) (member was not employed at the craft where her discharge from covered employment was not the subject of a grievance or other pending legal action).

On the facts presented here, Moore is eligible for nomination under the Rules' unique provision. We first address the local union's issuance of the honorable withdrawal card to Moore in January 2010. Here, the local union issued what it termed a mandatory withdrawal card because Moore had been unemployed for more than six months. The local union contends that this interrupted Moore's continuous good standing and rendered him ineligible. The Rules' special provision addressing active pursuit of legal action to challenge suspension or discharge from employment supersedes the withdrawal card and preserves Moore's eligibility.

A withdrawal card issued under the IBT constitution after an extended period of unemployment implicates the employment at the craft eligibility criterion of the Rules. The Rules modify the eligibility requirements to excuse unemployment - even extended unemployment - "by active pursuit of an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging the suspension or discharge." Moore's lawsuit against UPS and Local Union 243 is a legal action challenging discharge within the meaning of the Rules and excuses his unemployment at the craft while it remains pending, notwithstanding the withdrawal status.

In reaching this conclusion, we reject the local union's argument that the suit does not constitute "legal action challenging [the] discharge"[14] because the original complaint requested only money damages and did not explicitly request reinstatement. The prayer for relief does not determine the substance of Moore's claim. A federal court "should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relied in its pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Moore has alleged he was discharged in violation of the just cause provision of the collective bargaining agreement and if that is proved, the court may grant him judgment for whatever relief is appropriate to that claim. It is not our role, however, to determine the merit or the likelihood of success of the legal action: the allegation alone is sufficient to satisfy the Rules provision. In any case, Moore has moved to amend the prayer for relief to include reinstatement.

We also reject the local union's argument that Moore could avoid the impact of the withdrawal status only by having it reversed through the internal union appeals procedure. The essence of local union's contention is that Moore accepted the withdrawal status - and its implication for his eligibility for nomination - by failing to appeal the joint council's decision to the GEB. Given our holding that Moore's eligibility is preserved under the Rules because of the pendency of his lawsuit, we find that the withdrawal status has no impact on his eligibility. We address the local union's argument nonetheless.

The local union relies on Saunders, 2001 EAD 131 (February 5, 2001), aff'd, 01 EAM 35 (February 22, 2001), to support its argument that Moore was required to exhaust his internal union appeals. In Saunders, the member, a former local union president, was unemployed for more than six months following his defeat in the local union officers election. The local union issued him a withdrawal card. The member had attempted to find employment with a variety of employers under contract with the local union but was unable to do so. He filed a succession of unfair labor practice charges against those employers alleging unlawful discrimination. He did not appeal the issuance of the withdrawal card. On those facts, Election Administrator Wertheimer found him ineligible for nomination, viz.

Article VI, Section 1(a)(2) of the Rules states that the member must be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of 24 consecutive months prior to the month of nomination. However, this requirement is "excused by unemployment if, for the period of unemployment, the member was actively seeking and available for employment in the craft and not working outside the craft during such period of unemployment, or by active pursuit of an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging suspension or discharge." Article VI, Section 2 (b). Saunders admitted that he has not been employed since January 2000. However Saunders claims that he had been actively seeking employment since the date of his unemployment. The Election Administrator considered the claims that were filed against potential employers with the NLRB as evidence that Saunders was actively seeking employment and finds that Saunders has fulfilled the requirements of Article VI, Section 2 (b).

However, the IBT Constitution states that when a member becomes unemployed in the jurisdiction of the Local Union, he shall be issued an honorable withdrawal card upon his request. If no request is made, an honorable withdrawal card must be issued six (6) months after the month in which the member first becomes unemployed, if he is still unemployed at that time. Article XVIII, Section 6(a). If a member believes that a withdrawal card was issued in violation of the Constitution they may appeal in accordance with the appeal procedure provided for by the Constitution. Article XVIII, Section 6 (e).

The Election Administrator finds that the local acted pursuant to the Constitution when it issued Saunders' withdrawal. Even if Saunders was actively seeking employment, his good standing was interrupted by an automatic withdrawal executed properly under the provisions of the IBT Constitution. Mangan, E111 (March 11, 1996). Although Saunders has filed claims against prospective employers for discrimination and against Verst for not supporting him in these claims he has never appealed his withdrawal. For these reasons Saunders is a member on withdrawal and not a member in good standing.

Saunders is the only precedent we have located that addresses a member's right to appeal issuance of a withdrawal card. We find Saunders inapposite to the present case. Saunders did not directly address the eligibility of a member who is actively pursuing legal action challenging discharge, as Moore is.[15] In Saunders, the member lost his employment with the local union by electoral defeat; he had no legal action pending that contested that result. His NLRB complaints challenged various employers' alleged refusal to hire him, which is not contemplated by the plain language of the rule. We decline to read Saunders to preclude the Election Supervisor from determining the effect of withdrawal status imposed by the local union. We conclude that Saunders applies to bar eligibility only in the circumstance where no other provision of the Rules supersedes the impact the withdrawal would otherwise have. Here, regardless of the withdrawal, Moore has pending a lawsuit challenging the discharge by UPS which preserves his eligibility.

The provision in Article VI, Section 2(b) of the Rules regarding pending legal action does not appear in the IBT constitution or in DOL regulations. Accordingly, even if Moore were subject to an exhaustion requirement as the local union contends, the relief he seeks is available only under the Rules, and not under the IBT constitution. Where this particular modification to the IBT's constitutional eligibility criteria is invoked, the Election Supervisor may consider and rule on eligibility independent of the union's internal review process.

Finally, we address the local union's claim that Moore is ineligible because he has taken work outside the craft during his period of unemployment. Contrary to the local union, we find that this work does not render Moore ineligible.

Article VI, Section 2(b) contains two clauses, either of which will serve to excuse unemployment in the craft. The first excuses unemployment if the member is actively seeking employment and is not working outside the craft. The second excuses unemployment if the member is pursuing legal action to challenge a discharge. Moore's situation falls within the second clause of the provision, which does not prohibit work outside the craft while the suit is pending. Indeed, a litigant in an employment lawsuit such as Moore's has the legal duty to mitigate his potential damages by seeking employment wherever it may be found while the suit is pending. Accordingly, we hold that Moore's work as a financial adviser does not render him ineligible.

In summary, under Article VI, Section 2(b) of the Rules, "[t]he active employment at the craft requirement may be excused … by active pursuit of an unresolved grievance or other legal action challenging suspension or discharge." Moore's pending litigation constitutes "other legal action" within the meaning of this provision and thereby excuses his failure to be actively employed at the craft during the eligibility period.

Further, the local union's failure or refusal to accept dues Moore tendered does not interrupt his continuous good standing. Eligibility of Asskaryar, 2006 ESD 53 (January 25, 2006).

Based on Moore's dues payment record and our determination that the local union's issuance of a withdrawal card does not interrupt his continuous good standing because of his pending litigation, we find that he has maintained continuous good standing for the 24-month eligibility period at issue here.

Accordingly, we find Moore ELIGIBLE to be nominated for delegate.

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:

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, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L, 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
        2011 ESD 128

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):

Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
braymond@teamster.org

David J. Hoffa
Hoffa Keegel 2011
1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 730
Washington, D.C. 20036
hoffadav@hotmail.com

Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210-0128
ken@tdu.org

Barbara Harvey
1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net

Fred Gegare
P.O. Box 9663
Green Bay, WI 54308-9663
kirchmanb@yahoo.com

Scott D. Soldon
3541 N. Summit Avenue
Shorewood, WI 53211
scottsoldon@gmail.com

Fred Zuckerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
fredzuckerman@aol.com

Robert M. Colone, Esq.
P.O. Box 272
Sellersburg, IN 47172-0272
rmcolone@hotmail.com

Carl Biers
Box 424, 315 Flatbush Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217
info@SandyPope2011.org

Julian Gonzalez
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
350 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10001-5013
jgonzalez@lcnlaw.com

Darwin Moore
9165 Evee Road
Clarkston, MI 48348
mooredarwin@comcast.net

Jim Cianciolo, President
Teamsters Local Union 243
39420 Schoolcraft
Plymouth Twp., MI 48170
Fax: (734) 420-2610

Joe F. Childers
Getty & Childers, PLLC
250 West Main Street, Suite 1900
Lexington, KY 40507
childerslaw@yahoo.com

William C. Broberg
1108 Fincastle Road/
Lexington, KY 40502-1838
wcbroberg@aol.com

Maria Ho
Office of the Election Supervisor
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L
Washington, D.C. 20006
mho@ibtvote.org77

Kathryn Naylor
Office of the Election Supervisor
1801 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
knaylor@ibtvote.org

Jeffrey J. Ellison
214 S. Main Street, Suite. 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
ellisonesq@aol.com