May 22, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Thomas Fahling
May 22, 1996
Page 1
Thomas B. Fahling, Treasurer
United Minnesota Teamsters Coalition
413 19th Avenue, N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Erik Jensen
Ron Carey Rank and File Slate
4343 11th Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Sue Mauren Unity Slate
1901 S. 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55454
Amy Rynerson Markus
c/o The Minnesota Daily
2301 University Avenue, S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Thomas Fahling
May 22, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Officer Case No. P-761-LU320-NCE
Gentlepersons:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2 of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Thomas B. Fahling, a member of Local Union 320. Mr. Fahling alleges that the Minnesota Daily (“Daily”), an independent, student-written and student-managed newspaper for the main campus of the University of Minnesota, failed to include the United Minnesota Teamsters Coalition slate (“UMTC”) in its reports about the pending delegate election. The protester further asserts that the Daily acted improperly by failing to accept advertising from the UMTC while accepting similar advertising for the Ron Carey Rank and File slate.
The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Judith E. Kuhn.
Thomas Fahling
May 22, 1996
Page 1
The Daily is circulated, free of charge, to the thousands of students, employees and others who visit the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis. It is also available to the general public by subscription. The scope of its news coverage is controlled by its board of directors. Controversial advertisements must be approved by the business office, either by the business manager individually or in conjunction with a 12-member advertising review committee. There is no evidence showing that either the members of the board of directors, the business manager or the members of the Advertising Review Committee are connected in any way with Local Union 320 or the IBT. Local Union 320 represents approximately 1,200 employees of the University of Minnesota.
An editorial feature headlined, “Teamster reformers battle corruption,” appeared in the May 7, 1996 issue. Placed in the “Opinions” section, the article describes the recent history of Local Union 320, the recent delegate election and the Election Officer’s decisions in Birch, P-603-LU320-NCE (March 21, 1996), aff’d 96 - Elec. App. - 154 (KC) (April 1, 1996) and Birch, P-708-LU320-NCE (April 19, 1996), aff’d 96 - Elec. App. - 181 (KC) (April 30, 1996). The article refers to the Sue Mauren Unity slate and the Ron Carey Rank and File slate. The writer makes no mention of the UMTC, with which the protester is affiliated, or the independent candidacy of Matt O’Brien for delegate.
Two letters were submitted by UMTC slate member Skip Staehnke to the Daily’s editor. Neither of them were published. The newspaper did print two other letters which concerned the May 7 article. Neither of these letters made reference to UMTC candidates or to Mr. O’Brien.
In January 1996, the UMTC slate submitted an advertisement to the Daily. A copy of the material submitted was requested, but not provided to the investigator. The Daily’s business manager, Ann Rynerson Markus, rejected the advertisement. In a letter to the protester dated February 20, 1996, the reasons for the rejection were stated as follows:
On advisement from our lawyer, the reasons why the ad in letter form could not appear in the Daily is because it specifically names two individuals and states that they have been involved in allegedly illegal acts. This could be considered defamation of character even though it would clearly state that this is an advertisement. You also can not substitute “management” or any other similar term because it would still be clear who the individuals are.
We can run an article about the same issue simply because when an article is written, we give the other side a chance to respond to any accusations. This is not possible in an advertisement. The two people would have no way to defend their character other than to take an ad. By then the damage has already been done.
The Daily ultimately agreed to run another ad submitted by the UMTC slate which did not contain the accusations. An advertisement, placed by the Ron Carey Rank and File slate, later appeared in the May 14, 1996 edition of the Daily. It contained such statements as the following: (1) “Sue Mauren was appointed a business agent by the corrupt former officers and was their friend and colleague;” (2) “Violating federal orders comes easy to her;” and
Thomas Fahling
May 22, 1996
Page 1
(3) “Ron Carey does not endorse delegates. Mauren’s claim that he supports her is one more example of her dirty tricks.” The protester contends that the Daily discriminated in its acceptance of advertising.
The Election Officer finds that the Daily did not discriminate against the UMTC slate in its rejection of advertising copy. The actions taken by the newspaper to protect itself from a potential action for defamation, on advise of counsel, had a reasonable non-election-related basis. Since the protester failed to provide the proposed advertisement copy, the Election Officer cannot compare the language in it with the advertisement published on May 14 for the Ron Carey Rank and File slate.
The Daily’s articles and decisions as to which letters to publish also do not violate the Rules. The term “campaign contribution” is inapplicable to “newspaper or magazine articles published by entities which are not owned or whose editorial policies are not controlled by candidates or committees acting on behalf of candidates.” Scott, P-969-IBT (October 18, 1991); Hasegawa, P-161-LU41-MOI (October 24, 1995). The so-called “media exception” described in Scott applies to the Daily. It is not a union-financed newspaper within the meaning of the Rules at Article VIII, Section 8(a). It is not published by an independent union caucus or IBT-related committee. It is, however, an “employer”-produced publication of general circulation which is not targeted toward IBT-related audiences. The “media exception” applies because pertinent evidence demonstrates that the Daily is an independent newspaper whose editorial and advertising policies are not owned or controlled by any candidates or any other person or entity affiliated with the IBT. As such, it is free to make editorial judgments and comment on one slate to the exclusion of another.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
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 & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Thomas Fahling
May 22, 1996
Page 1
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 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
Judith E. Kuhn, Regional Coordinator