November 19, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Anthony Rumore and Joel LeFevre
November 19, 1998
Page 1
Anthony Rumore, President
Teamsters Local Union 812
202 Summerfield Street
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Joel LeFevre, Sec.-Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 840
345 W. 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
Board of Trustees
Teamster Affiliates Pension Fund
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Tom Sever, Gen. Sec.-Treas.
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Reid Weingarten, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX
General Executive Board
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Aaron Belk, Vice-Pres.
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
David L. Neigus
Deputy General Counsel
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Michael R. Smith, Esq.
Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor & Kolker, LLP
1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC XXX-XX-XXXX
Anthony Rumore and Joel LeFevre
November 19, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-062-IBT-NYC
Decision on Remand
Gentlemen:
Anthony Rumore and Joel LeFevre
November 19, 1998
Page 1
Anthony Rumore and Joel LeFevre filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against former General President Ron Carey, General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Sever, each “responsible” member of the IBT General Executive Board and the trustees of the Teamster Affiliates Pension Trust Fund (“TAPF”). Mr. Rumore is the president of Local Union 812. Mr. LeFevre is the secretary-treasurer of Local Union 840. The protesters alleged that Mr. Carey and his supporters misrepresented the financial condition of the IBT in order to trigger an “emergency” dues assessment pursuant to a provision of the IBT Constitution. The additional revenue, according to the protesters, was used to hire approximately 60 additional International IBT organizers who were used by Mr. Carey to improperly campaign on his behalf.
On June 19, 1998, the Election Officer issued a decision denying the protest on the basis of timeliness. The Rules at Article XIV, Section 2(b) state that pre-election protests “must be filed within two (2) working days of the day when the protester becomes aware or reasonably should have become aware of the action protested or such protests shall be waived.” The Election Officer held that all of the facts alleged in the protest “were matters of public knowledge for years before the filing,” that the protesters were well aware of them and that their explanation was insufficient to justify the delay. LeFevre, PR-062-IBT-NYC (June 19, 1998).
The protest was appealed to the Election Appeals Master and was heard July 1, 1998. On July 6, 1998, the Election Appeals Master remanded the case to the Election Officer, stating as follows:
During the course of the appeal hearing however, the protester asserted that Peter V. Marks, an investigator for the Election Officer, had advised him that, in connection with the disposition of an unrelated appeal, the substance of the instant protest was first raised with the Election Officer in 1995, and was at that time referred to either the IBT Independent Review Board or the IBT Pension authorities for investigation. Accordingly, he argued that the timeliness rule should not be enforced. The Election Officer’s representative agreed that in light of Mr. LeFevre’s contention, the matter should be remanded for further inquiry by the Election Office.
In re Anthony Rumore and Joel LeFevre, 98 - Elec. App. - 358 (KC) (July 6, 1998).
After the remand, additional investigation was conducted and an effort was specifically made to identify the case to which Mr. LeFevre referred during the hearing on appeal. During questioning, Mr. LeFevre stated that the 1995 matter was not an appeal, but was a protest matter initially filed against a number of entities including Local Union 840. Mr. LeFevre further described the case as a matter which had been investigated by Mr. Marks and ultimately withdrawn.
All protest decisions for 1995 were searched on the basis of the criteria stated by
Anthony Rumore and Joel LeFevre
November 19, 1998
Page 1
Mr. LeFevre. The search revealed that, in 1995, only one protest was filed against Local Union 840 which was also investigated by Mr. Marks and withdrawn prior to formal resolution - Carey, P-123 (October 17, 1995). This protest was filed by Mr. Carey in his capacity as general president of the IBT. He alleged that funds contributed to the Real Teamster Caucus (“RTC”) by several local unions including Local Union 840, had improperly been used to campaign in violation of the Rules. The final decision in P-123 stated that Mr. Carey and the IBT sought withdrawal of the case because he had been advised that other protests had been filed raising questions “as to whether the Real Teamsters Caucus’ (“RTC”) formation, activities, and/or use of dues money violate the Election Rules. . . specifically P-032, P-058, P-074, P-094 and P-185.” The Election Officer determined that Mr. Carey’s request “effectuate[d] the purpose of the Rules” and permitted the protest to be withdrawn.
As part of his response to P-123 on behalf of Local Union 840, Mr. LeFevre submitted a 30 page document addressed to Mr. Marks dated August 17, 1995. In this document,
Mr. LeFevre generally addressed the propriety of contributing union funds to the RTC. On pages 24-26 of his response, Mr. LeFevre affirmatively alleged that improper payments to the Teamster Affiliates Pension Trust Fund (“TAPF”) were the basis for a misrepresentation of the IBT’s financial status, made by Mr. Carey, which triggered an “emergency assessment” under the
IBT Constitution based on false grounds. Without further explanation or offer of evidence,
Mr. LeFevre further stated that the TAPF had, by virtue of claiming only that the monies were owed, had made a contribution to Mr. Carey’s campaign.
Significantly, the allegation made by the protesters in PR-062, charging Mr. Carey with using the extra revenue to finance the hiring of over 60 persons for campaign purposes, was not made in this 1995 response. Instead, Mr LeFevre charged Mr. Carey with triggering the “emergency assessment” to secure funds to restore the IBT strike benefit fund, which
Mr. LeFevre perceived to be of political benefit to Mr. Carey. Mr. LeFevre stated as follows in his response dated August 17, 1995:
With the General Executive Board able to proclaim to all the members that 1995 will be the first year since 1983 that International Union expenditures will be within its income the appearance of fiscal prudence is achieved. Being able to restore strike benefits (see exhibit 45), an enormously important and popular move, at the beginning of the election period will enable the incumbents to appear fiscally responsible.
Mr. LeFevre further recalled Mr. Marks calling to inform him that P-123 had been withdrawn and that it would therefore not be necessary to address the issues raised in his response. According to Mr. LeFevre, upon indicating his displeasure with this result, Mr. Marks replied that the issues raised by him would not be ignored and would be referred to the IRB.
Anthony Rumore and Joel LeFevre
November 19, 1998
Page 1
Mr. Marks has no recollection of receiving Mr. LeFevre’s response, discussing it with him during the alleged telephone conversation regarding the withdrawal or even of the protest itself. The IRB, however, does recall these allegations. It reports that by October 17, 1995, the date that P-123 was withdrawn, the Board was well aware of the protester’s allegation charging Mr. Carey with misrepresenting the financial status of the IBT for the purpose of inappropriately causing the “emergency assessment” declaration. After an investigation, the IRB concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations and that the matter had no merit.
The charge made by Mr. LeFevre on August 17, 1995, in response to a filed protest, is substantially different than those made by him in connection with PR-062. Both allegations are similar in that they refer to a misrepresentation of an accounting entry to trigger the “emergency assessment” provisions of the IBT Constitution. But at that point, the allegations diverge. The 1995 allegation does not refer to the hiring of 60 organizers and focuses only on the restoration of the strike benefit fund. The allegation in PR-062 does not refer to the strike benefit fund, but instead concentrates solely on the alleged improper hiring of 60 new organizers. The two allegations are in substance, completely distinct. Therefore, the submission of the 1995 allegations cannot affect the operation of the timeliness provisions under the Rules as they were applied in PR-062.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001,
Facsimile (202) 624-3525. a copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master