June 2, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
June 2, 1998
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Thomas W. Leedham, Secy. - Treas.
Teamsters Local Union 206
1860 Northeast 162nd Avenue
Portland, OR 97230
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
June 2, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-112-LU206-EOH
Gentlemen:
James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, 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 Tom Leedham, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 206 and candidate for Western Region vice-president. The protester alleges that Mr. Leedham used union resources to campaign.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Counsel David S. Paull.
The investigation disclosed that Mr. Leedham was interviewed by a reporter representing Willamette Week, a weekly newspaper published and distributed in Portland, Oregon. The interview was conducted at the headquarters of Local Union 206. The resulting article was printed in an issue dated December 3, 1997. According to the reporter, the article was posted on the Internet within a few days of its publication.
Thereafter, the article was discovered and downloaded from the Internet by a person unknown to the protester. David Lyle, field director of the Hoffa Campaign, stated that he became aware of the article on May 26, 1998, when a copy of it was faxed anonymously to his office in Washington, DC.
James P. Hoffa
June 2, 1998
Page 1
The article consists of questions and answers concerning such subjects as Mr. Leedham’s professional relationship with former general president Ron Carey, his opinion as to Mr. Carey’s credibility and whether or not he planned to defend Mr. Carey’s actions during the rerun campaign. He was also asked whether Mr. Carey’s disqualification “sabotage[s]” the “momentum” of the UPS victory, whether or not the IBT was “broke” and what his position was on a local political issue.
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 requirement to promptly file protests is an important part of the election process. The short time limits are designed to quickly bring alleged violations of the Rules to the attention of the Election Officer. The Election Officer’s remedies are most effective when applied to a Rules violation filed in a timely manner.
The article upon which the protester relies is dated December 3, 1997. The protest was filed on May 28, 1998. The news item has therefore been part of the public record and available to the protester for approximately six-months before the date of filing. On the question of timeliness, the protester takes the position that he is “unaware of any prior Election Office decision which suggests that campaigns are charged with notice of everything that happens to be posted on the Internet.” Mr. Lyle stated that the Hoffa Campaign no longer subscribes to the Willamette Week.
The protest is untimely. The Election Appeals Master has stated that “long public exposure” of a fact justifies the inference of constructive knowledge. In re Heiman, 96 - Elec. App. - 172 (KC) (April 18, 1997). In Mee, PR-048-LU70-PNW (May 28, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 338 (KC) (January 28, 1998), a protest of an eight-month-old newspaper article was deemed untimely, although the protester contended that the violation was “ongoing” and that he did not become aware of the article until the day prior to filing. The Election Officer found that the protester “should have known” about the article and stated:
To rule otherwise could result in members searching for and retrieving historical information from numerous widely available public sources to use as the basis for protest allegations. This would render meaningless the provisions on timeliness under the Rules.
See, also, Ruscigno, P-144-LU337-MGN (October 4, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 25 (KC) (October 18, 1995), Young, P-423-LU41-MOI (April 4, 1996).
The Election Officer has determined these limitation issues using a rule of constructive knowledge, not actual knowledge, and will continue to do so. The protester has not offered a reason acceptable under the rationale of Mee that justifies the six-month delay in filing a protest based on public record material. The decision in Mee applies to this protest and on this record, a six-month delay is not reasonable as that term is contemplated in the Rules.
James P. Hoffa
June 2, 1998
Page 1
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:
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