October 25, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Dennis Skelton
October 25, 1996
Page 1
Dennis Skelton, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Charles Lenceski
665 Preakness Lane
Florissant, MO 63033
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Nathaniel K. Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Dennis Skelton
October 25, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1065-IBT-MOI
Gentlemen:
Dennis Skelton, a member of Local Union 600, an International vice president and a candidate for reelection, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Charles Lenceski, a member of Local Union 688, and the Hoffa campaign. Mr. Skelton alleges that Mr. Lenceski took pictures of people attending a fundraiser for General President Ron Carey on October 5, 1996, in violation of the Rules.
Mr. Lenceski responds that he went to the fundraiser on October 5, but did not take any pictures. The Hoffa campaign responds that it has no knowledge of Mr. Lenceski and should not be held accountable for his actions.
Regional Coordinator Michael D. Gordon investigated this protest.
Dennis Skelton
October 25, 1996
Page 1
The investigation conducted by the Election Officer revealed the following facts. On Saturday, October 5, 1996, the Carey campaign held a fundraising rally in a public park in
St. Louis, Missouri, at which Mr. Carey appeared. The rally, which was demarcated by a line of yellow tape, took place in an area of the park bordered by a public street. Approximately 200 to 250 people attended the fundraiser. According to eyewitnesses, some attendees took photographs, while at least one individual recorded the event on videotape.
At about 1:00 p.m., eyewitnesses observed Mr. Lenceski standing next to a car in the public street adjacent to the fundraiser taking photographs with a 35 mm camera and using a telephoto lens. Mr. Lenceski admits that he was present at the fundraiser, but denies taking any photographs. However, the Election Officer credits the testimony of several eyewitnesses who observed the charged party taking the photographs. After taking photographs from at least five different angles, Mr. Lenceski placed his camera in the car and walked to the line of yellow tape to speak with John Layton, a member of Local Union 600, whom the charged party has known since childhood.
According to Mr. Layton, Mr. Lenceski told him that he had come to the fundraiser to speak with Mr. Carey. Mr. Layton, who had observed the charged party taking photographs, did not mention this activity to Mr. Lenceski. At some point during Messrs. Layton and Lenceski’s conversation, Leo Hobson approached the two men. Mr. Hobson is a member of Local Union 600 and a Carey campaign captain who organized the October 5 fundraiser.
Mr. Hobson also observed Mr. Lenceski taking photographs from the street.
After being introduced to Mr. Lenceski by Mr. Layton, Mr. Hobson shook the charged party’s hand and left. Mr. Hobson did not mention the picture-taking to Mr. Lenceski. Messrs. Layton and Lenceski were also joined by Dan Eby,[1] a member of Local Union 688, and other unidentified individuals. No one spoke to Mr. Lenceski about his photography.
Mr. Layton states that he invited Mr. Lenceski to cross the yellow tape line.
Mr. Lenceski declined to do so, but stated that he wished to speak with Mr. Carey. After
Mr. Carey arrived at the park, he was introduced to Mr. Lenceski by one of his supporters and spoke with the charged party for several minutes. According to Mr. Lenceski, he told Mr. Carey that he supports Mr. Hoffa and explained his reasons for doing so.
The protester asserts that Mr. Lenceski, whom he claims is a “known Hoffa supporter,” engaged in conduct “that is coercive, intimidating and threatening” by taking photographs of people attending the October 5 Carey fundraiser. The Hoffa campaign states that it is not familiar with Mr. Lenceski.
Dennis Skelton
October 25, 1996
Page 1
Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules guarantees members “the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right to . . . support or oppose any candidate [and] to aid or campaign for any candidate.” This basic right, essential to the goal of a free and fair election, is reinforced in Section 11(f)’s prohibition of retaliation against any IBT member “for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules.”
The Election Officer has found on several occasions that photographing members during protected campaigning, or otherwise conducting surveillance of such activities, chills the free exercise of such activities and is “destructive of the fundamental safeguards of . . . free and fair elections outlined in the Consent Decree and the Election Rules.” Pollack,
P-008-LU732-NYC (October 29, 1990), aff’d, 90 - Elec. App. - 8 (November 7, 1990). As stated by the Election Appeals Master, “the appearance of surveillance of IBT members engaging in campaign activities violates the right of members to support candidates free from coercion, interference or harassment.” In Re: Giacumbo et al., 95 - Elec. App. - 45 (KC) (December 18, 1995). See also Halberg, P-259-IBT-SCE (January 2, 1996), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 58 (KC) (January 23, 1996); Sheibley, P-1010-LU653-ENG (October 14, 1996); Kilmury, P-1030-LU362-CAN (October 16, 1996).
In the instant protest, the Election Officer finds that Mr. Lenceski photographed IBT members as they participated in a campaign event for Mr. Carey. However, on the narrow facts of this case, the Election Officer declines to find a violation of the Rules for the following reasons. First, as compared to the perpetrators of the surveillance in Giacumbo et al., P-210-IBT-NYC et seq. (December 5, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 45 (KC)
(December 18, 1995) and Halberg, supra, Mr. Lenceski is not an official of his local union or the International union, nor is he a candidate for International office. In Giacumbo, supra, the Election Officer found the surveillance conducted by Tom Gilmartin to be “particulary pernicious because he did [it] under color of his position on the IBT’s Ethical Practices Committee.” Mr. Gilmartin, an International vice president and a candidate for reelection on the Carey slate, is the Ethical Practices Administrator for the IBT. Similarly, in Halberg, supra, both the Election Officer and the Election Appeals Master emphasized the significance of Ms. Kilmury’s role as an International vice president and a candidate for reelection. The Election Appeals Master stated, “A candidate for International office, who demonstrably records the identities of those attending an opposing slate’s campaign gathering conveys . . . the appearance of surveillance and the veiled threat of retaliation.”
Second, there is no indication that Mr. Lenceski threatened the attendees of the fundraiser in any way. Compare Sheibley, supra, where the unidentified individuals who took pictures of the Carey supporters told them “we know who you are” and threatened them with loss of employment opportunities.
Dennis Skelton
October 25, 1996
Page 1
On the contrary, the behavior of the attendees who witnessed Mr. Lenceski taking pictures indicates that they did not feel intimidated by his actions. As described above, both Mr. Layton and Mr. Hobson spoke with Mr. Lenceski after they observed him taking pictures from the street. By their own accounts, neither of these men confronted Mr. Lenceski about his photography, nor did anyone else who joined in the conversation between Mr. Layton and the charged party.[2] Mr. Layton then invited Mr. Lenceski to join the rally; even though the latter declined to do so, he was introduced to Mr. Carey and spoke with him for several minutes. There is no indication that Mr. Lenceski approached Mr. Carey in a threatening or abusive manner.
Accordingly, the Election Officer holds that Mr. Lenceski did not violate the Rules by taking photographs at the October 5 fundraiser. However, the Election Officer reiterates that her ruling is based on the narrow circumstances of this protest and advises Mr. Lenceski not to engage in such conduct in the future.
In regard to the Hoffa campaign, the protester has submitted no evidence that links
Mr. Lenceski in any way to the campaign.
For the foregoing reasons, 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
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
Michael D. Gordon, Regional Coordinator
[1]Mr. Eby informed the Regional Coordinator that he did not see Mr. Lenceski with a camera but heard other attendees saying that someone had been taking pictures from the street.
[2]Compare Kilmury, supra, where the charged party spent three hours following Ms. Kilmury and an IBT organizer as they campaigned at various work sites. At one point, Ms. Kilmury told the secretary-treasurer of the charged party’s local union that the charged party had been following her and that she intended to file a protest over his actions.