November 13, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Tom Feeley
November 13, 1996
Page 1
Tom Feeley
34-21 Review Avenue
Long Island City, NY 11101
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Tom Feeley
November 13, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1187-LU804-NYC
Gentlemen:
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
Tom Feeley, a member of Local Union 804. Mr. Feeley alleges that the campaign of
James P. Hoffa received an employer contribution when a banner supporting his candidacy was hung from an employer-owned railroad trestle, in violation of the Rules.
The investigation revealed that the trestle is owned by Conrail. The employer does not deny that the protested banner was hung from its trestle. Conrail responds, however, that this display was placed there without its knowledge or consent.
The Hoffa campaign denies any knowledge of this banner.
New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt investigated the protest.
Tom Feeley
November 13, 1996
Page 1
The investigation revealed that on November 1, 1996, a large, pro-Hoffa banner was discovered hanging from a railroad trestle affixed to a building at 10th Avenue and 15th Street in New York City. Both the Hoffa campaign and Conrail state that they have no knowledge of who suspended this banner from the trestle. According to witnesses, the banner hung from the trestle for several weeks.
The investigation revealed that the protested banner has now been removed, but did not disclose any evidence of the identity of the individual or individuals who posted it. The Election Officer credits the statements of the employer representatives that the posting was done without employer knowledge or approval. The employer has stated that it will remove future campaign postings. Accordingly, the Election Officer determines that the protest is RESOLVED as to Conrail.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(9) of the Rules provides, “Candidates are strictly liable to insure that each contribution received is permitted under the Rules.” The Election Officer has found that the benefitted candidate is strictly liable. Pratt, P-469-LU966-NYC (April 2, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 168 (April 15, 1996).
Regarding the candidate’s liability, the Election Appeals Master has stated:
Under [Article XII, Section 1(b)(9) of] the Rules, all candidates are strictly liable for the receipt of any improper contributions, whether or not solicited, and whether or not specifically known. This is an essential rule in the administration of an election procedure as complex and protracted as we are dealing with here. Indeed, national candidates for political office at the congressional and presidential level are routinely sanctioned for the improper use of campaign contributions, even when specific intent and personal knowledge are absent.
Under this standard, the Hoffa campaign received a benefit from a use of employer resources, in violation of the Rules.
Accordingly, the protest is GRANTED.
When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, she “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.” Article XIV, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation, as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.
The Election Officer is aware of the efforts of the Hoffa campaign to prevent such violations. The Election Officer directs that the Hoffa campaign cease and desist from any future acceptance of employer campaign contributions. The Hoffa campaign must be vigilant and remove any signs that campaign workers see.
An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules. In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).
Tom Feeley
November 13, 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 & 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, 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
Barbara C. Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator