April 15, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Dennis Skelton
April 15, 1996
Page 1
Dennis Skelton, Vice President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Michael D. Gordon
801 Greenway Terrace
Kansas City, MO 64113
Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Dennis Skelton
April 15, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. Post-10-LU600-MOI
Gentlemen:
A post-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 3(a) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Dennis Skelton, a candidate for International vice president. Mr. Skelton alleges that Regional Coordinator Mike Gordon improperly tabulated ballots from the Local Union 600 delegate election by ruling 99 ballots ineligible because the members had cast a vote for a slate of candidates as well as for an individual candidate running on an opposing slate. In addition, Mr. Skelton alleges that Election Officer representatives were assisted by a union-employed staff person who wore a campaign button on her clothing.
In response, Mr. Gordon states that he never made such rulings on ineligibility. He states, however, after reviewing the information after this protest was filed, that the number of void ballots was incorrectly noted on the official tally sheet for the Local Union 600 delegate election. As to the second allegation, Mr. Gordon received assistance from the TITAN operator who is a member of an IBT local union and, therefore, is permitted to wear a campaign button.
This protest was supervised by Protest Chief Benetta Mansfield.
Dennis Skelton
April 15, 1996
Page 1
Ballots from Local Union 600 delegate and alternate delegate election were counted on March 15, 1996, by Mr. Gordon and Adjunct Regional Coordinators Mary Campbell and
John Mikrut. According to the official tally sheet for Local Union 600 filed by Mr. Gordon, 1,647 ballots were cast and 1,507 ballots were declared valid. The tally sheet showed
99 ballots were declared void by Mr. Gordon, and an additional 41 ballots were categorized as “unresolved challenges.”
Mr. Gordon and Ms. Campbell reviewed the procedures followed at the ballot-count site, specifically accounting for ballots which were declared void. Mr. Gordon found that the 11 void ballots consisted of ballots resulting from no pre-affixed labels on ballot envelopes (6); ballots that were cut (3); one ballot which reflected double-slate voting; and one ballot voted for write-in candidates. In addition, 160 ballots were challenged at the count site. One hundred of these ballots were voided because the voter was found to be ineligible, and 19 voters were found to be eligible and their ballots were counted. The remaining 41 challenges were not resolved. According to Mr. Gordon, an error in the official Election Officer’s tally was made when the 100 ineligible challenged ballots were mistakenly tabulated as 99 voids, instead of 100, and the 11 voids described above were omitted. Mr. Gordon’s account is corroborated by Ms. Campbell. Mr. Gordon states that the official Election Officer tally sheet should have read:
Number of Ballots Cast: 1,659
Valid Ballots Counted: 1,507
Void Ballots: 111
Unresolved Challenged Ballots: 41
The Election Officer finds that, while mistakes were made in the tabulation of void ballots, all ballots were properly tabulated pursuant to the Rules and Election Office ballot- counting procedures. None of the ballots were voided based on a failure to apply the slate preference rule, as alleged by the protester. Thus, no Rules violation occurred.
As to Mr. Skelton’s second allegation, Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules states that “[a]ll union officers and employees, if members, retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right . . . to openly support or oppose any candidate . . .”
The Election Officer’s investigation found that Kim Miller, an employee of Local
Union 682 and a union member, worked as a TITAN operator assisting in verifying voter eligibility. Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules, Ms. Miller had a right to wear a campaign button at the count site.
In consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Skelton’s protest is DENIED.
Dennis Skelton
April 15, 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, 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