June 23, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James E. Smith, Jr.
June 23, 1998
Page 1
James E. Smith, Jr.
Teamsters Local Union 115
2833 Cottman Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19149
Thomas B. Griffith, President
Teamsters Local Union 776
2552 Jefferson Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Kevin M. Cicak, President
Teamsters Local Union 430
1780 6th Avenue
York, PA 17403
Kitty Hake
Teamsters Local Union 430
1780 6th Avenue
York, PA 17403
Al Koch, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 430
1780 6th Avenue
York, PA 17403
Thomas Ryan
1221 Woodbrook Lane
Warminster, PA 18974
William H. Snead, President
Teamsters Local Union 384
2910 Hannah Avenue
Norristown, PA 19401
Howard Fisher, Business Agent
Teamsters Local Union 384
2910 Hannah Avenue
Norristown, PA 19401
Charles H. Stansburge
Secretary - Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 570
6910 Eastern Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21224
James P. Hoffa Slate
c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
James E. Smith, Jr.
June 23, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-092-LU115-NYC
Gentlepersons:
James E. Smith, Jr.
June 23, 1998
Page 1
James E. Smith, a member of IBT Local Union 115, 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”). Mr. Smith filed his protest against the following individuals:
Thomas B. Griffith, president of Local Union 776; Kitty L. Hake, recording-secretary of Local Union 430; T. Allen Koch, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 430; William H. Snead, president of Local Union 384; Howard Fisher, recording-secretary of Local Union 384; Charles H. Stansburge, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 570; Thomas Ryan, former president of Local Union 107; and James P. Hoffa, candidate for general president.
Mr. Smith contends that all of the officers improperly utilized union vehicles to attend a Hoffa/De Santi campaign fundraiser in violation of the Rules. The protester also asserts that Mr. Ryan’s attendance at the Hoffa/De Santi fundraiser constitutes a violation of the Rules because Mr. Ryan is currently suspended from membership by the IBT and that both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hoffa should be penalized for Mr. Ryan’s presence.
The local union officers all admit using union vehicles to attend the fundraiser but assert that this use is permitted under the bylaws of their various locals and does not violate the Rules. Mr. Ryan responds that he did not purchase an admission ticket to the event and that his suspension from IBT membership does not prohibit him from attending fundraising events. Mr. Hoffa denies that any Rules were violated.
The protest was investigated by New York City Protest Coordinator Barbara C. Deinhardt.
On May 3, 1998, Mr. Hoffa and Dan De Santi, a candidate for International vice-president, held a campaign rally in Essington, Pennsylvania. Between 900 and 1,000 supporters of Messrs. Hoffa and De Santi attended the rally. The protester was present outside of the fundraiser leading a counter-demonstration. While demonstrating in the parking lot, Mr. Smith witnessed the officers arriving at the event in the following manner: Mr. Griffith arrived in a green van belonging to Local Union 776; Ms. Hake, Mr. Koch, and other unidentified officers and business agents from Local Union 430 arrived in vehicles belonging to that local; Mr. Snead and Mr. Fisher of Local Union 384 arrived in two luxury cars belonging to that local; and unidentified Local Union 570 officers and business agents arrived in a Local Union 570 van driven by Mr. Stansburge. All parties agree that the union vehicles were used for this purpose. The protester also observed Mr. Ryan attending the fundraiser.
James E. Smith, Jr.
June 23, 1998
Page 1
All of the local union officers cited by Mr. Smith submitted to the Election Officer’s representative relevant sections of their local union’s bylaws which specifically permit the use of union vehicles by local officers for personal use. The bylaws of Local Union 570 state that a union vehicle is provided only if the officer’s own vehicle is being repaired. Mr. Stansburge provided documentation showing that his personal vehicle was in the shop and unavailable at the time of the fundraiser. In all of the bylaws of the other locals involved in this protest, there are no restrictions on the personal use of a union vehicle by an officer.
While the Rules generally restrict the use of union property for campaign purposes, union-owned or leased cars are treated as a specific exception to this rule. Thus, Article VIII, Section 11(c) of the Rules reads, in relevant part:
Union officers and employees provided with Union-owned or leased cars, if otherwise afforded the right to utilize those cars for personal activities, may use the cars for campaign activities, provided no costs, or expenses incurred as a consequence of such use are paid out of Union funds or other prohibited sources.
The rule permits the use of union-owned vehicles regardless of the amount of use or distance used. Therefore, if a local union permits its officers to use the cars to drive long distances on vacation, there is similarly no limitation of its use for campaign activities, even if the officers travel long distances to campaign events. The rule is clear, however, that the union should not incur expenses, therefore, the officer would have to pay for the expenses of operation, e.g., gas and tolls. There is no evidence here that these expenses were paid for by the local unions. Therefore, the use of these vehicles by the charged parties does not violate the Rules.
During the investigation, Mr. Anthony Siegel, a member of Local Union 107, stated that he purchased a ticket to the fundraiser. Unable to attend the event, he gave the ticket to Mr. Ryan, who did not reimburse him for the ticket. Nothing in the Rules prohibits an active member from purchasing a ticket and distributing it to whomever they wish. See Moriarity, PR-026-JHC-EOH (November 18,1997). The protester has presented no evidence to show that Mr. Ryan purchased any campaign paraphernalia or made any financial contributions while at the fundraiser.
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 (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:
James E. Smith, Jr.
June 23, 1998
Page 1
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
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Barbara C. Deinhardt, New York City Protest Coordinator