July 2, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
July 2, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
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
James P. Hoffa
July 2, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-791-IBT-SCE
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president. Mr. Hoffa alleges that General President
Ron Carey used union funds to pay for an opinion poll of members that is political in nature and that will be used by Mr. Carey in the 1996 International officer election. The protester contends that the Peter D. Hart Research Associates (“Hart”) collected data for Mr. Carey’s campaign under the guise of conducting a union-financed presidential preference poll of IBT members.
The IBT responds that it commissioned Hart to conduct a presidential preference poll for the International union. It contends that such polling concerned issues of legitimate concern to the union and its members and does not violate the Rules.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Bruce Boyens.
James P. Hoffa
July 2, 1996
Page 1
The Election Officer’s investigation reveals that two polls of IBT members were conducted by Hart in May 1996. The first was conducted for the Ron Carey campaign. The Carey campaign commissioned Hart to design the questions, obtain the necessary information and analyze the poll’s results. The poll addressed member support of candidates in the IBT International officer election. Hart subcontracted the actual process of telephoning and interviewing members for the Carey campaign to TDM Research and Communications (“TDM”). This poll consisted of at least 48 questions, not including follow-ups, and the interviews with members lasted approximately 20 minutes.
During a partially overlapping period, Hart also conducted a poll commissioned by the IBT for the purpose of discerning member’s opinions on the 1996 U.S. presidential election. A copy of the questions asked in the poll were obtained by the Election Officer. The questions in the poll dealt solely with national issues and the preference of members in the upcoming U.S. election. Hart handled all aspects of the polling, including the questioning of IBT members. Each interview lasted approximately 40 to 45 minutes.
In support of his allegation that IBT funds were used to conduct a poll in violation of the Rules, Mr. Hoffa submitted the sworn affidavit of Norma Bartus, an IBT member and former employee at the International union’s headquarters. Ms. Bartus also was interviewed during the investigation. Ms. Bartus states that on May 28, she received a telephone call from a person identifying himself as a Hart associate. The interviewer stated that the IBT had hired Hart to conduct an opinion poll to discern which candidate the IBT should support in the 1996 U.S. presidential election. According to Ms. Bartus, she was asked and answered questions relating to various social issues affecting working people, as well as her opinions on current and prospective presidential candidates. Ms. Bartus contends that towards the end of the poll, the interviewer asked her if she felt Ron Carey was doing a good job in running the IBT. Ms. Bartus claims that she gave him the lowest rating because of her experience with the “Carey group” and because he fired her after 36 years as an IBT employee.
Mr. Hoffa also provided IBT member Dave Ricci as a witness. Mr. Ricci stated that he was interviewed by telephone regarding internal union politics for approximately 20 minutes. He was asked which candidate he preferred in the 1996 IBT International officer election. Mr. Ricci also was asked to characterize Mr. Carey’s performance running the IBT. Mr. Ricci states that, while he did not remember what organization interviewed him, he was certain it was not Hart.
Mr. Hoffa also provided a copy of a TITAN electronic mail message distributed on
May 28, 1996. The message, which is dated May 28, 1996, states:
Consistent with procedure used in the last U.S. presidential election in 1992, the International Union will be conducting a survey of the U.S. membership in conjunction with the 1996 U.S. presidential election. This is to inform you that the Peter D. Hart Research firm will be calling approximately 600 members beginning this evening.
He further supplied a press release distributed by the Ron Carey campaign on June 6 entitled, “INDEPENDENT POLL SHOWS CAREY HAS 19 POINT LEAD IN TEAMSTER RACE,” which conveys results of a polling obtained by Hart.
James P. Hoffa
July 2, 1996
Page 1
As part of the investigation, Mr. Boyens obtained the questionnaire used for the interviews in the IBT-commissioned poll concerning the U.S. presidential election. None of the questions in the poll refer to Mr. Carey, internal union issues, or even the performance of the IBT as an institution. The questions concern members’ views on U.S. policy and members’ presidential preference in the upcoming U.S. elections.
A Hart associate, Jeff McCrystal, worked the phone bank interviews for the IBT poll on the U.S. presidential election. Mr. McCrystal stated that he is specifically instructed by his supervisor to ask only the questions supplied to him without deviation during the polling process. He has been informed that any variance in this procedure is grounds for his termination by Hart. Mr. McCrystal also stated that, while he rarely remembers any person by name after an inter-view, he did remember interviewing Ms. Bartus. The interview was noteworthy, according to Mr. McCrystal, because she volunteered during the interview that she had worked 36 years at the IBT and had been fired by Mr. Carey. She appeared to be very angry regarding the firing, he said, and noted that Ms. Bartus volunteered that she had hired an attorney to represent her in the matter. It is Hart’s policy, according to Mr. McCrystal, to permit poll subjects to make any comments they wish without interruption. The interview is continued only after the unsolicited comments have been made. Mr. McCrystal states that he never deviated from his script and never asked Ms. Bartus any questions about Mr. Carey or his administration of the IBT.
Article VIII, Section 11(c) of the Rules, with limited exceptions, prohibits the use of “[u]nion funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc. . . . to assist in campaigning.”
Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules prohibits employers and unions from making any “campaign contribution,” which is defined as any contribution “where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate . . .” Where the IBT or an affiliate is accused of making a campaign contribution through its activities, the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect” of the conduct must be examined in light of the union’s legitimate activities and functions. “[R]estrictions on campaigning must not be read so broadly as to restrict the right and the responsibility of union officers to conduct their official business . . .” Martin, et al., P-10-IBT-PNJ, et seq., aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The Election Officer previously has applied Article XII, Section 1(b) in the context of public opinion polls commissioned by the IBT and conducted by Hart. In Giacumbo, et al., P-001-IBT-PNJ, et seq., aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 32 (KC) (November 1, 1995), the Election Officer stated that while polling questions that inquire into “valid issues of legitimate concern to the union and its members” do not violate Article XII, Section 1(b)(1), questions that “seek information that would be directly useful and relevant” to a candidate are violations of the Rules.
Here, two separate polls were conducted by Hart--one commissioned by the IBT and one commissioned by the Carey Campaign. While the canvassing of IBT members for the polls overlapped for two days, from May 28 and May 29, the evidence supports the conclusion that each poll was conducted and financed separately. The evidence also supports the conclusion that Mr. Ricci was interviewed in the poll conducted by the Carey campaign.
James P. Hoffa
July 2, 1996
Page 1
Mr. Ricci stated that while he was questioned regarding candidates for International office, he was certain that Hart did not conduct the questioning. In fact, TMI conducted the questioning for Hart in the Carey campaign poll. The Rules explicitly permit candidates for International office to conduct public opinion polling of IBT members. Article VIII, Section 3. Further, the investigation showed that the Carey campaign was billed for the expense of the Carey campaign poll.
As to the IBT-financed poll, the union has a strong institutional interest in discerning the opinions of its membership before endorsing a candidate for the U.S. presidential election. As noted above, the Election Officer has reviewed the text of the questions asked of IBT members. All of the questions reviewed sought information on questions of legitimate union interest and are not designed to elicit information which is directly useful to Mr. Carey’s campaign. Giacumbo, supra.
The procedures followed by Hart in conducting this poll are consistent with the account offered by Mr. McCrystal. The Election Officer concludes that there is no evidence that any IBT member was prompted to supply any “information that would be directly useful and relevant” relating to Mr. Carey’s campaign for International officer. Id. Ms. Bartus’ statement, while credible despite her admitted anger with Mr. Carey and his administration, is consistent with Mr. McCrystal’s statement that he allowed her to make her statements during the interview, and the Election Officer finds that the interviewer did not utilize IBT funds to ask questions regarding IBT internal union politics.
Therefore, the Election Officer finds that the IBT-commissioned opinion poll was properly conducted, and the Rules were not violated.
In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Hoffa’s 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
James P. Hoffa
July 2, 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
Bruce Boyens, Regional Coordinator