February 1, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James Hoffa & Richard Volpe
February 1, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Richard J. Volpe, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 550
6 Tuxedo Avenue
New Hyde Park, NY 11040
Teamster Magazine
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
John Sullivan, Associate General Counsel International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Noathwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James Hoffa & Richard Volpe
February 1, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-310-IBT-SCE
P-316-IBT-SCE
Gentlemen:
James P. Hoffa, candidate for general president, filed a protest in P-310-IBT-SCE and Richard J. Volpe, Local Union 550 secretary-treasurer, filed a protest in P-316-IBT-SCE, each filing pursuant to the Rules for the IBT 1995-1996 International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). Both protesters allege that the cover story in the January-February 1996 issue of the IBT-published Teamster magazine contained campaign material. Because the two protests involve similar claims, the Election Officer consolidated them for decision.
James Hoffa & Richard Volpe
February 1, 1996
Page 1
Both protesters allege that an article in the January-February 1996 Teamster concerning a movie entitled “Casino” gratuitously termed Mr. Hoffa’s father as corrupt, thereby discrediting and attacking the candidate. Mr. Hoffa further alleges that the article unnecessarily congratulates General President Ron Carey on his recent efforts to reform the union, thereby supporting his candidacy.
The protests were investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
Entitled “Casino,” the protested article in the January-February 1996 Teamster is about a major motion picture with the same name which was widely released in November and December 1995. There is no dispute that the movie prominently shows the control organized crime held and the profits it derived from the IBT pension fund. The article is the cover story in the January-February 1996 Teamster magazine.
On the cover of the issue is a still shot from the movie portraying speakers and guests at a Central States Pension Fund meeting captioned, “New Movie Tells How Past Teamster Officials Gave Our Pension Money to the Mob -- But There’s More To The Story.”
The article, appearing on pages 4 and 5 of the magazine, explains the past connections between organized crime, Teamster officials and the Teamsters pension fund and describes how these links are depicted in the movie. While the article applauds the movie and the book by Nicholas Pileggi on which it is based as a “valuable reminder of how past top Teamster officials gave members’ money to the Mob,” the article complains that the movie gives no information about “the reforms of recent years.” Small pictures of two union members and quotes from them telling their reaction to the movie accompany the article. One quoted member complained that the movie devoted much attention to the union’s control by “high rolling people in Las Vegas and the kind of parasites that made a fortune off our union,” but showed nothing about the effect of corruption on the rank and file, the legitimate and important benefits members received from union representation, and “the change in identity that is underway in the Teamsters Union.” The other quoted member expressed his pride in his union membership and warned, “[W]e can’t ignore what happened in the past, or it won’t be cleared up.” The article is also accompanied by two small still shots from the movie. One shot is the movie’s portrayal of Allen Dorfman, who ran the Central States pension fund, speaking at a fund event. The other picture depicts Dorfman’s execution in front of a Chicago restaurant in January 1983.
The article complains that two significant reforms are omitted from the movie: first, “Teamster General Presidents are now chosen democratically by the membership instead of by the Mob,” and second, “officers are punished if they take kickbacks or embezzle members’ money.” The article cites these reforms as taking place in “recent years” but does not credit them to any event or person. The article expresses regret “that many Americans will leave the theater unaware of the long fight for democracy and honesty in our union.”
James Hoffa & Richard Volpe
February 1, 1996
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 8(a) states that “No publication or communication financed, directly or indirectly, by a Union may be used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person . . .” and provides criteria for determining whether the communication is campaign material. The standards for evaluating union-financed publications, which have been extensively described by the Election Officer, apply the criteria listed in the Rules and consider the communication’s “tone, content and timing.” See Martin, et al., P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The standards recognize that a union-financed communication will tend not to be considered campaigning when it concerns an event of legitimate concern to union members and which is unrelated to the election. Id.
Here, the depiction in a major motion picture of the extensive corruption intertwining organized crime, certain union officials and the union’s pension fund is a significant and newsworthy event of obvious concern to the union membership. See id. There is a reference in the article to former-Teamster president James R. Hoffa in the context of his relationship with Allen Dorfman, the main Teamster character in the movie. The reference, in a quotation from Nicholas Pileggi, the author of Casino, is to Mr. Hoffa as the Teamster president whose “close friend,” Mr. Dorfman, “was left in charge of the pension fund” when Mr. Hoffa was sent to prison. Thus, the reference to the former Teamster president is historical and not a political attack such as the gratuitous reference to Protester Hoffa found to be a violation in In Re: Hoffa, 95 - Elec. App. - 31 (KC) (October 31, 1995). The union does not violate the Rules by informing the membership of the movie and its own view of the facts concerning the connection between organized crime and the members’ resources as portrayed in the widely-released motion picture.
Additionally, the article articulates the union’s concern that the IBT’s portrayal in the movie is entirely negative. The article succinctly describes the accomplishments of the union which it charges were ignored by the movie. The union does not violate the Rules merely because it cites its efforts at institutional reform. The Election Officer has permitted the Teamster magazine to “advocate[] that convention delegates support a democratic, ethical and financially sound union” without promoting or denigrating any candidacy, describing such advocacy as “a statement of principle, not an endorsement of any specific candidate or slate.” Hoffa, Case No. P-202-IBT-EOH (November 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 39 (KC) (November 30, 1995).
Here, the Election Officer finds that the mention in the “Casino” article of recent reforms in contrast with the description of the very different view of the union prominently featured in the movie is not campaign material. See Martin. The Teamster’s view of recent and significant reforms omitted from the movie “Casino,” outside of the context of the elections, is newsworthy, legitimate and of expected interest to the membership. Hoffa, supra; Martin.
Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that the “Casino” article in the January-February 1996 Teamster neither attacks Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy nor supports Mr. Carey’s candidacy in violation of the Rules. The protests are DENIED.
James Hoffa & Richard Volpe
February 1, 1996
Page 1
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham and Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator