January 8, 1999
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
C. Sam Theodus
January 8, 1999
Page 1
C. Sam Theodus
202 James Circle
Avon Lake, OH 44012
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
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
C. Sam Theodus
January 8, 1999
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No: PR-367-LU407-EOH
Gentlemen:
C. Sam Theodus, a member of Local Union 407 and an independent candidate for at-large vice 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 the Hoffa Unity Slate (“Hoffa Slate”). The protester contends that the Hoffa Slate’s Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reports (CCERs”) report an unusually high number of individuals who have made large cash purchases of paraphernalia in the range of $300 to $900. The protester claims that the large contributions attributed to the reported individuals on the CCERs do not represent contributions solely from these individuals, but instead actually represent improper contributions collected from employers or retirees in violation of the Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (Revised November 1997) (“Advisory”). The protester argues that these large cash contributions by individuals are suspicious because in general, most people would be reluctant to carry large amounts of cash and would make such large purchases by check or credit card. The protester requests the Election Officer to investigate this protest by initially focusing on 77 individuals who were reported on the Hoffa Slate’s CCERs for August and September 1998. The protester selected these 77 individuals based on the amount of their cash contributions reported on these CCERs.
C. Sam Theodus
January 8, 1999
Page 1
The Hoffa Slate denies the protester’s allegations. It contends that the protester has not presented any evidence to support these allegations. The Hoffa Slate also noted that the Election Office has conducted a number of spot audits and checks on the Slate’s reported contributions, and so far, the Election Office has not informed the Slate of any evidence suggesting that any reported contributions have been less than bona fide.
The protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Kathryn A. Naylor.
In response to the investigator’s request for any other evidence besides the 77 individuals marked on the Hoffa Slate’s CCERs, the protester provided the names of two supporters of the Hoffa Slate from Cleveland, Ohio who sell campaign paraphernalia for the Slate. The investigator spoke with one of the supporters who acknowledged selling campaign paraphernalia for the Hoffa Slate, before and after local union meetings and at fundraisers in Ohio and other areas. The protester denied selling campaign paraphernalia to individuals other than IBT members. The witness stated that he requested all purchasers of campaign paraphernalia to provide their name, address, local union number, and social security number, and that he forwarded this information to the Hoffa Slate along with the contributions. He did not retain any copies of this information. The witness also stated that he generally advised members that their contribution limit for the Rerun Election was $1,000. The witness stated that large sales of paraphernalia by single individuals were not unusual since members frequently bought a number of different items for their family and friends, and popular items were not necessarily cheap, for example, sweatshirts were priced at $35 to $40 each. The investigator was not able to reach the other witness provided by the protester.
Under the Advisory, only active IBT members can make campaign contributions to candidates and their campaigns. Candidates and slates must report all contributions and contributors, regardless of the amount of the contribution.
The Election Office has conducted extensive audits of the Hoffa Slate’s campaign contributions and a report on these audits will be issued in late January, 1999. The Election Officer audits have not uncovered any evidence that substantiates the protester’s allegations that the Hoffa Slate has engaged in pervasive campaign fraud to conceal improper contributions from employers or retirees.
The Election Officer has consistently denied protests when the protester offers no evidence to corroborate and support allegations. Hoffa, PR-081-IBT-NCE (May 13, 1998). The protester bears the burden of proof to present evidence that a violation has occurred. Rules, Article XIV, Section 1.
Based on the foregoing, the protest is DENIED.
C. Sam Theodus
January 8, 1999
Page 1
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