Protest Decisions

September 3, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

John Steger

8229 Bubbling Spring

Laurel, MD 20723

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

Team Canada

c/o Louis Lacroix, President

Teamsters Local Union 1999

9393 Edison Street, Room 100

Montreal, Quebec H1J 1T4

Diana Kilmury, Vice President

International Brotherhood

  of Teamsters

2612 E. 47th Avenue

Vancouver, B.C. V5S 1C1

Thomas Leedham, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 206

1860 N.E. 162nd Avenue

Portland, OR 97230

Eddie Kornegay, President

Teamsters Local Union 922

2120 Bladensburg Road, N.E.

Washington, DC 20018

John P. Morris, Vice President

International Brotherhood

  of Teamsters

2833 Cottman Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19149

Charles Thibault, Vice President

International Brotherhood

  of Teamsters

1194 Matheson Boulevard, E.

Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1Y2

Walter Chambers, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 1035

400 Chapel Road, 2-B

South Windsor, CT 06074

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

John Riojas, Vice President

International Brotherhood

  of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Tom Gilmartin, Jr., Vice President

International Brotherhood

  of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Bill Urman, Vice President

International Brotherhood

  of Teamsters

8750 W. Bryn Mawr Avenue

Suite 500

Chicago, IL 60631

Lorelei Anderson

Teamsters Local Union 705

1645 W. Jackson Street

Chicago, IL 60612

George Cashman, President

Teamsters Local Union 25

544 Main Street

Boston, MA 02129

Richard Brook

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-827-IBT-EOH

Gentlepersons:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by

John Steger, a member of Local Union 639 and a candidate for International office.  The protester alleges numerous violations of the Rules that are reflected in the Campaign Contri-bution and Expenditure Reports (“CCERs”) filed by various candidates on the Ron Carey Slate.  The alleged violations will be addressed separately below.

The protest was investigated by Election Office Representative Kathryn Naylor.

I.              Alleged Violations of John Morris

A.              Not Reporting All Campaign-Related Expenditures

The protester alleges that John Morris, a candidate for vice president in the Eastern Region, has violated the Rules by not disclosing any itemized expenditures for office rental, telephone, facsimile or postage expenses.  Jim Smith, Mr. Morris’ campaign representative who prepared the CCERs, responds that he has reported all of the campaign committee’s expenditures on the CCERs.  Mr. Smith claims that the campaign committee has not incurred any of the alleged expenses since the committee is not conducting a full-blown campaign separate from that of the Ron Carey Slate’s campaign.  The protester has provided no evidence that Mr. Morris’ campaign committee has incurred any of the alleged expenses that he

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

contends were not reported on the CCER for the period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

B.              Not Reporting Expenditures for Campaign Mailing

The protester contends that although Mr. Morris’ CCERs for prior reporting periods reflect two expenditures to Local Union 115 for “printing” expenses, Mr. Morris has not reported any itemized expenditures for printing and mailing campaign literature that was sent to members during the most recent reporting period (January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996).  Mr. Smith acknowledges that the committee’s only campaign mailing sent to members occurred during the recent reporting period.  Mr. Smith explains, however, that the expenditures were not reported on the CCER for this period because the campaign committee reimbursed Mr. Smith for the expenses he incurred in preparing and mailing the literature after May 20, 1996.

The evidence indicates that the committee’s sole mailing was done on May 17, 1996.  The committee made an expenditure to Mr. Smith on May 22, 1996 to reimburse him for personally covering the expenses for printing, postage and labels.   The Rules and Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (“Advisory”), issued December 14, 1995, require candidates to report campaign contributions and expenditures when they are actually received and made by a candidate or campaign committee.[1]  See Rockstroh, P-764-IBT-EOH (July 11, 1996).  Since the committee made the expenditure to reimburse its treasurer for the expenses associated with the mailing on May 22, 1996, this expenditure does not have to be reported on the CCER covering the period ending on May 20, 1996.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

C.              Not Notifying Other Candidates of the Availability of Local Union Resources

The protester further asserts that Mr. Morris violated Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules since other candidates were not informed by Mr. Morris of their rights to use Local Union 115’s printing facilities on an equal basis.  Mr. Smith argues that Mr. Morris has not violated the Rules since such notification to other candidates was not necessary in light of the local union’s annual advertisement of its printing services to all local unions.  Mr. Smith

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

further contends that opposing candidates were specifically aware of such services as evidenced by their use or their local unions’ use of the print shop.

The investigation revealed that Local Union 115 has a full-scale print shop equipped to service all of the publishing needs of a local union.  Local Union 115 has sent a notice annually to all local unions advertising and soliciting such business.  The evidence also indicates that Thomas Ryan, an announced candidate aligned with James P. Hoffa at the time of the filing of the protest,[2] used Local Union 115’s print shop in October 1992 and March 1995 for printing campaign material associated with the local union officer elections in Local Union 107.    Additionally, the evidence shows that the protester’s local union had items printed by Local Union 115 in June and July 1996.[3]

In light of the local union’s annual advertisement to all local unions and the use of the print shop by opposing candidates, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Morris’ belief that specific notice to candidates was unnecessary is reasonable.  Based on the facts presented here, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Morris did not violate the Rules.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.  However, in order to guarantee that all nominated candidates are currently aware of Local Union 115’s printing services, the Election Officer directs the Morris campaign to notify, in writing, the three slates--other than the Ron Carey Slate--of such services.

II.              Alleged Violations of Eddie Kornegay

The protester notes that Mr. Kornegay reports a $4000 expenditure for rent and security deposit for office space covering the period February through May 1996 on his CCER for the reporting period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996.  The protester alleges that Mr. Kornegay has violated the Rules by not reporting expenditures for telephone, facsimile, office equipment and postage expenses generally associated with maintaining a campaign office. 

Mr. Kornegay asserts that the expenditure on his CCER represents rental payments for the campaign operations of the Local Union 743 Movement Towards Teamsters Slate for the delegate and local union officer elections, in April and May 1996, respectively. 

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

Mr. Kornegay asserts that the Movement Towards Teamsters Slate paid for all other campaign-related expenditures, such as telephone, office equipment, printing and postage expenses.  Mr. Kornegay paid none of these campaign-related expenses incurred by the Movement Towards Teamsters Slate.  The investigation confirmed Mr. Kornegay’s assertions.  Since Mr. Kornegay did not incur these expenses, he has not violated the Rules by not reporting them on his CCER. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

III.              Alleged Violations of Team Canada

The protester alleges that Team Canada has violated the Rules by not reporting expenditures for telephone, facsimile, office space, salaries, postage or travel expenses for the most recent reporting period, January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996.

Robert Bouvier, the representative of Team Canada, asserts that all of the campaign committee’s expenditures are reported on the CCER.  Mr. Bouvier states that Team Canada has not rented any space for a campaign office, nor has it hired any campaign staff. 

Mr. Bouvier also denies that Team Canada has incurred any specific travel expenses for campaigning.  Mr. Bouvier commented that Team Canada had purchased equipment such as a phone and a fax machine in preparation for future campaigning. The investigation revealed that Team Canada’s CCER shows charges for printing campaign brochures, purchase of telephone and fax machine, telephone charges and courier charges.  The protester has provided no evidence that Team Canada has incurred any of the alleged expenses that he contends were not reported on the CCER.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

IV.              Alleged Violations of George Cashman

A.              Contributions Not Sufficiently Itemized

The protester challenges the “unusually high non-itemized amount of contributions, especially compared to the itemized amount” of contributions listed on George Cashman’s CCER.  The investigation revealed that Mr. Cashman has incorrectly reported contributions received at fundraising events under the non-itemized section for “Individual Contributions.”  The Election Office has advised Mr. Cashman to file an amended CCER with Schedule A, Part 2, showing itemized contributions from the respective events under “Fund Raising Events.”  For any fundraising event which raises a total amount in excess of $100, the event must be itemized.

The revised CCERs will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII,

Section 2(e) of the Rules.

B.              Contributions from Employers

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

The protester also alleges that Mr. Cashman has received “substantial contributions from non- members.”  The protester asserts that Mr. Cashman has listed the employers but not the occupations of these non-member contributors, in violation of the “Instructions for Preparing CCERs” (“Instructions”) issued in conjunction with the Advisory.  The Instructions require information on a contributor’s employer and position or occupation only when the contributor is not an IBT member.  Mr. Cashman maintains that the vast majority of itemized contributors protested here as non-members are actually IBT members. 

The Election Office has advised Mr. Cashman that the CCERs were completely incorrectly.  Mr. Cashman has submitted revised Schedules reflecting the IBT affiliation of these contributors and the positions or occupations of non-members.  Based on a review of the amended Schedule A, Part 1 and the occupations or positions listed for some contributors, the Election Office is currently investigating the status of certain contributors to determine whether they are permitted to make campaign contributions under the Rules and will inform the protester of the results of that investigation.

The revised CCERs have been filed and are available for inspection pursuant to

Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules. 

Accordingly, there is no finding of a violation at this time.

V.              Alleged Violations of Bill Urman

The protester asserts that Bill Urman’s CCER lists an expenditure for the purchase of a fax cartridge but does not reflect any other associated expenses with the purchase, rental or other use of a fax machine.   The investigation revealed that Mr. Urman’s CCER lists an expenditure for the purchase of a printer cartridge for a copier, not for a fax machine, and that the associated expenses for paper, envelopes and postage are reported on his CCER under non-itemized expenditures on the Summary CCER.[4]  Mr. Urman claims that the cartridge was used to copy campaign literature on a copier owned by Gillian Furst, an IBT member.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

VI.              Alleged Violations of Lorelei Anderson

The protester asserts that Ms. Anderson’s CCER lists a “long-standing debt” of $215 for printing raffle tickets, and does not indicate whether this debt has been paid or that it will be paid.  A review of Ms. Anderson’s CCER for the reporting period September 21, 1995 through January 20, 1996 shows an expenditure to John McCormick on October 17, 1995 for $215 for printing raffle tickets.  This entry indicates that Ms. Anderson has repaid her debt to Mr. McCormick who initially paid for the raffle tickets.  Ms. Anderson has confirmed that the debt has been retired.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

VII.              Alleged Violations of Tom Gilmartin, Jr.

A.              Not Reporting All Campaign-Related Expenditures

The protester contends that Tom Gilmartin’s CCER lists expenditures for postage for mailing campaign literature, but does not show any associated expenditures for envelopes or paper.  The investigation revealed that the associated expenditures for envelopes and paper were reported on his CCER in the non-itemized category. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

B.              Not Notifying Other Candidates of the Availability of Local Union Resources

The protester also asserts that Mr. Gilmartin’s CCER indicates that Local Union 1035 has provided stamps to Mr. Gilmartin for campaign purposes, in violation of the Rules.

  A review of Mr. Gilmartin’s CCERs show that he has reimbursed Local Union 1035 for stamps.  Mr. Gilmartin claims that he used the local union’s stamps only after regular business hours when stamps could not be otherwise purchased.  Local Union 1035 did not provide advance notice to other candidates that stamps were available on the same basis afforded Mr. Gilmartin.  Mr. Gilmartin has informed the Election Office that Local Union 1035 now has a postage meter and stamps are no longer available.

Under Article XII, Section 1(b)(3) of the Rules, if a local union allows a candidate or his/her campaign to use union resources, the candidate must compensate the local union for the fair-market value of the resources and the local union is required to advise all candidates, in advance and in writing, of the availability of such resources.  The local union is obligated to provide equal access to such resources to all candidates.  The fact that Local Union 1035 may have provided stamps to Mr. Gilmartin after regular business hours does not excuse the local union from its obligation to advise other candidates of the availability of such assistance. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is GRANTED.   Local Union 1035 must cease and desist from making local union resources available to any candidate unless equal access and advance notice in writing is provided to all candidates.  Mr. Gilmartin shall cease and desist from utilizing local union resources unless such access and advance notice is given to all candidates.  See Olson, P-172-LU70-CSF (November 1, 1995).  Mr. Gilmartin has already reimbursed Local Union 1035 with the full cost of the stamps that were provided.  The Election Officer finds, therefore, that no further monetary remedy is necessary in this case.

VIII.              Alleged Violations of John Riojas

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

The protester asserts that John Riojas’ CCER for the period from September 21, 1995 through January 20, 1996, reports a total of $3305.75 worth of individual contributions, but no cash on hand or expenditures.  The investigation revealed that Mr. Riojas collected a total of $3305.75 from individual contributors on behalf of the Ron Carey Slate and then forwarded these monies to the Slate.  Mr. Riojas did not retain any of this money in his campaign account.

Based on a review of Mr. Riojas’ CCER, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Riojas incorrectly reported these contributions on his CCER.  These contributions should have been reported on the Slate’s CCER only. 

Pursuant to instructions from the Election Office, Mr. Riojas has filed an amended CCER indicating that he received no campaign contributions and made no expenditures for the reporting period at issue here.  The revised CCER has been filed and is available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

IX.              Alleged Violation of Tom Leedham

The protester contends that Tom Leedham’s CCER shows a campaign expenditure for registration at the Convention for the Teamsters for Democratic Union (“TDU”), but no travel expenses.  Mr. Leedham has confirmed that a reported expenditure for airfare on November 9, 1995 represents his expenses for travel from his home in Portland, Oregon to St. Louis, the site of the TDU Convention.  Mr. Leedham’s airfare from St. Louis to Washington, D.C. was paid by the IBT.  The Election Officer previously found that Mr. Leedham’s IBT-paid travel from St. Louis to Washington, D.C. was for union business unrelated to campaigning, and therefore was not in violation of the Rules.[5]   

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

X.              Alleged Violation of Charles Thibault

The protester asserts that Charles Thibault did not file a CCER for the reporting period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996.

During the course of the convention proceedings in mid-July, Mr. Thibault filed his CCER covering this reporting period.

The CCER submitted by Mr. Thibault has been filed and is available for inspection, pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules. 

XI.              Alleged Violations of Diana Kilmury

A.              Not Filing CCERs

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

The protester asserts that Ms. Kilmury has not submitted any CCERs in violation of the Rules.

As of June 26, 1996 when the protester inspected the CCERs at the Election Office, Ms. Kilmury had not submitted any CCERs to the Election Office.  Under Article XII,

Section 2(d)(1) of the Rules, Ms. Kilmury should have filed CCERs in accordance with the following schedule: 

(1)              Report I for the period January 1, 1992 through May 20, 1995 should have been filed by June 1, 1995;

(2)              Report II for the period May 21, 1995 through September 20, 1995 should have been filed by October 1, 1995;

(3)              Report III for the period September 21, 1996 through January 20, 1996 should have been filed by February 1, 1996;

(4)              Report IV for the period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996 should have been filed by June 1, 1996.

The investigation revealed that by letter dated September 20, 1996, the Election Officer instructed Ms. Kilmury to file Reports I and II by October 1, 1995.  On February 2, 1996, the Election Office received a written request from Ms. Kilmury for further clarification and guidance on reporting certain contributions and expenditures.  In a telephone conversation on February 3, 1996, the Election Office Coordinator of Campaign Finance and Reporting responded to Ms. Kilmury’s inquiries and directed her to file Reports I - III immediately.  On subsequent occasions, the Coordinator of Campaign Finance and Reporting informed

Susan Davis, an attorney representing the Ron Carey Slate and Joyce Mims, the Carey Slate Coordinator of Ms. Kilmury’s delinquent CCERs and the necessity to have these CCERs filed immediately.

On July 9, 1996, the Election Officer issued an interim order requiring Ms. Kilmury to file all such CCERs no later than 5:00 p.m. Friday, July 12, 1996.  Ms. Kilmury filed Reports I, II and III with the Election Office on July 12, 1996.   Report IV was incomplete when she submitted Reports I - III, and Ms. Kilmury was permitted to submit Report IV by close of business on July 13, 1996.  Ms. Kilmury submitted Report IV and amendments to

Reports I - III on July 13, 1996. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is GRANTED. 

The Election Officer finds Ms. Kilmury’s delay in submitting these Reports more than a year after the deadline for Report I a serious violation of the Rules and an abuse of the election process.  Although Ms. Kilmury’s has now filed Reports I - IV, her disregard of the Rules warrants remedial action by the Election Officer.  

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer notes that Ms. Kilmury’s delay in filing any report was over a year.  In determining the appropriate remedy, therefore, within ten (10) days of the date of this decision, Ms. Kilmury shall pay a fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) into an escrow fund that the Election Officer has established to hold fines, to be released to the General Treasury of the IBT at the conclusion of the International officer election.  The Election Officer has previously imposed a fine, pursuant to her authority under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Rules to “take whatever remedial action is appropriate,” after finding that the Rules had been violated.  See Hoffa, P-770-LU743-EOH (June 21, 1996).

B.              Expenditures that Should be Reported

The protester contends that Ms. Kilmury’s CCER should reflect expenditures to attorneys regarding the following matters:  1) In Re: Cipriani et al., 96 - Elec. App. - 123 (KC) (March 13, 1996) by Attorney Barbara Harvey; 2) In Re: Kilmury, 96 - Elec. App. - 58 (KC) (January 23, 1996) by Attorneys Nathaniel Charny and Susan Davis with the law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon; and 3) the inspection of CCERs on her behalf by Attorney

Paul Alan Levy.  The protester also asserts that Ms. Kilmury’s CCER should report an expenditure to American Mailers, a firm that was involved in processing the IBT membership list for campaign purposes.

A review of Ms. Kilmury’s CCER for the period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996  show an in-kind contribution from Ms. Harvey for services rendered from February 19, 1996 through April 4, 1996.  Ms. Kilmury has confirmed that this contribution represents legal services provided by Ms. Harvey in relation to the election office case Cipriani and the appeal before the Election Appeals Master.  A review of Ms. Kilmury’s CCER for the period September 21, 1996 through January 20, 1996 reveals an in-kind contribution from Mr. Levy for services rendered in relation to his inspection of CCERs on Ms. Kilmury’s behalf.   The Ron Carey Slate reports all expenditures to and/or in-kind contributions from the law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon.  Hence, there are no expenditures to the law firm of Cohen, Weiss and Simon on Ms. Kilmury’s CCER. 

In Cipriani, the Election Officer found that Mr. Paff of the TDU, on Ms. Kilmury’s behalf,  “arranged for the computerized data base to be delivered to American Mailers . . . for the purpose of converting it, at least for certain local unions, into mailing labels and/or lists with telephone numbers to be used for phone-banking.”  The Election Officer also noted that according to TDU and Ms. Kilmury, Ms. Kilmury reimbursed TDU for the costs and assets used in connection with the list.  Consistent with these representations by Ms. Kilmury and TDU that are noted in Cipriani, Ms. Kilmury’s CCER shows an expenditure to TDU for  “mailing list services.”  Thus, based on a review of these CCER filings, Ms. Kilmury’s reporting of the expenditures specified by the protester conform to the Rules and Advisory.

The CCERs submitted by Ms. Kilmury have been filed and are available for inspection, pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules. 

John Steger

September 3, 1996

Page 1

XII.              Alleged Violations of Ron Carey and the Ron Carey Slate

A.              Travel Expenses Not Itemized

The protester asserts that the CCER of the Ron Carey Slate lists several fundraising events which Mr. Carey attended, however, does not list any related travel or lodging expenses for Mr. Carey.  A review of the Ron Carey Slate’s CCER reports five fundraising events and travel expenses incurred by the slate on Mr. Carey’s behalf.  The Election Officer has previously determined that candidates are not required to itemize their travel expenses in connection with their campaign itinerary.  See Ruscigno, P-170-LU138-EOH (January 11, 1996). 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

B.              Not Reporting All Telephone Charges 

The protester also contends that the total telephone expenditures of $891 for the period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996, appears to be much less than actual cost.  The protester bases this claim on the much higher telephone expenses reported by the Hoffa campaign for the same period.  The investigation revealed that the Ron Carey Slate paid six telephone bills during the reporting period which amounted to $891.02.  Therefore, the amount reported on the slate’s CCER is accurate.

Accordingly, this aspect of 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

John Steger

September 3, 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