April 23, 1999
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Doug Mims
April 23, 1999
Page 1
Doug Mims
1645 Brantford Drive
Tucker, GA 30084
James P. Hoffa, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Hoffa Unity Slate
c/o Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334
Barbara Harvey, Esq.
Penobscot Building, Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Patrick J. Szymanski, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Doug Mims
April 23, 1999
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. SR-09-IBT-SOU
Gentlepersons:
Doug Mims, a candidate for Southern Region 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 International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”)for scheduling an inauguration ceremony in Dallas, Texas which in fact has the purpose of supporting the Dallas-based candidate opposing Mr. Mims in the Southern Region Rerun Election.
The IBT responds that the Dallas inaugural event constitutes legitimate union business and that any campaign events will be incidental to such business. The campaign events will not be paid for by the IBT.
The protest was investigated by Election Officer Representative Barbara C. Deinhardt.
Doug Mims
April 23, 1999
Page 1
In December, soon after the rerun vote count, the Hoffa transition team began to plan for the new administration. Among their decisions was the planning of inauguration activities. It was clear to those charged with planning the activities that inauguration events had to be scheduled at least in Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles, so that members in different parts of the country could attend. As early as February 9, a draft resolution was prepared for presentation to the General Executive Board (“GEB”) upon the swearing of the new officers to authorize “the General President and the General Secretary-Treasurer . . . to make arrangements to sponsor receptions for all of the members of the Union able to attend in Washington, DC, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California and at additional sites to be determined at a later date within the southern territory and in Canada.” The new GEB adopted this resolution, among others, at its first meeting on March 22, 1999. As of that date, a definite decision had been made as to the first three locations. The attorneys drafting the resolution included the reference to possible events in the Southern Region and Canada so that new resolutions would not be necessary if plans changed.
In mid-February, the Hoffa campaign disseminated a “Hoffagram” publicizing inaugural events to be held in Washington on March 6, in Chicago on March 7, and in Los Angeles on March 17. According to Tom Pazzi and David Lyle, Special Representatives for President Hoffa, after the distribution of the Hoffagram, members in the Southern Region began to express their concern that no inaugural event was planned for their area. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Pazzi and Mr. Lyle began to work on selecting a site for an inaugural party in the Southern Region.
Starting in November 1998, the Election Officer conducted an investigation of campaign finance violations committed by Hoffa Slate Southern Region Vice-President candidate J.D. Potter. The Independent Review Board issued a report on December 15, 1998 recommending charges against Mr. Potter, and on January 28, 1999 the Election Officer issued a decision certifying the rerun election results, but disqualifying Mr. Potter based on his violation of the campaign finance rules. DeBella, PR-409-JC18 (January 28, 1999). The Election Officer ordered that the vacancy created by this disqualification could be filled by the GEB in accordance with the IBT Constitution.
Doug Mims appealed the Election Officer’s ruling and requested, inter alia, that a rerun election be held to fill the seat from which Mr. Potter had been disqualified. On February 23, 1999, Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy granted Mr. Mims’ appeal and ordered a rerun election for one Southern Region Vice-President position. In re DeBella, 99-Elec. App.- 494 (February 23, 1999). The Election Appeals Master stayed his decision pending the parties’ right to appeal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Because of that stay, the IBT stopped planning activities relating to the inauguration events, including the selection of a site in the Southern Region.
Doug Mims
April 23, 1999
Page 1
Judge Conboy’s decision was appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Based on the briefing schedule, Hoffa transition team staff assumed that the Court would rule in the week of March 22, 1999 and resumed inauguration event planning. Even before Judge Edelstein issued his decision on March 19, the Hoffa transition team decided to schedule the Washington event for Saturday, May 1, with another city event to be scheduled for the following day, according to the original Saturday/Sunday plan. Chicago was not an option for this plan because a key Hoffa supporter was unavailable that day; Los Angeles was not an option because it was too far away for people to travel after the Saturday Washington event. Dallas was then selected as a site for an event. Hoffa transition staff explained that Dallas was chosen because about a third of the Southern Region membership is in Texas and there are three large locals in Dallas (Local 19, Local 745, and Local 767) with a combined membership of over 13,000, and because of the convenient airplane transportation. For this reason and because the Local 745 membership meeting was scheduled for the morning of May 2 pursuant to the Local 745 by-laws, Dallas was selected as the site for the May 2 inauguration event.
On March 22, 1999, the IBT issued a press release announcing Mr. Hoffa’s inauguration. The press release included a reference to inaugural events being held in Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles. According to Mr. Pazzi and Mr. Lyle, who had primary responsibility for planning the inaugural activities, in the press of business on March 22 this press release was not cleared with them before it was issued. Had they seen it, the press release would have been corrected to add a reference to the event planned for Dallas. On March 24 or 25, Charlie Gardner was selected to compete for supplemental nomination in the Southern Region Rerun Election as a candidate affiliated with Mr. Hoffa.
On March 26, 1999, the Election Officer filed Application XXIII with the District Court, setting forth a proposed schedule for the Southern Region Rerun. That schedule, which the District Court ultimately approved, calls for ballots to be mailed to the Southern Region membership on May 7, 1999. On April 2, the Hoffa Campaign issued a revised schedule for the inauguration events. That schedule included for the first time a reference to the Dallas events, including a reception at Local 745 immediately following their meeting and a Hoffa Campaign fundraiser in the evening.
Doug Mims
April 23, 1999
Page 1
The protester argues that the documentation submitted makes clear that the site for the Southern Region event was deliberately held open until the Election Officer and the Election Appeals Master made their determinations about holding a rerun election. Moreover, the protester argues that the Dallas site was not chosen until after Charlie Gardner, the principal officer of Local 745, was selected by the Hoffa campaign to run in that election and the schedule for the rerun was approved by the Court. Thus, it is argued, the Dallas event was added for the purpose of strengthening Mr. Gardner’s candidacy through well-publicized association with President Hoffa just days before the ballots are mailed and the publication black out period begins. While the protester does not dispute that the Union has a legitimate interest in holding inaugural events around the country for the purpose of involving and educating the membership, the protester objects to the Dallas site being selected or added, apparently at the last minute, “for the sole purpose of enabling campaign activities there in connection with the new rerun election.” The protester relies primarily on the timing of the announcement of the Dallas event as support for this allegation. The protester also presents statistics about membership in the Florida-Georgia conference compared with the Northern Texas conference and argues that there is a greater concentration of Teamster members in a Texas-sized area around Atlanta than there are in Texas. The protester argues that if the IBT was primarily interested in reaching the membership, rather than supporting Charlie Gardner, it would have chosen Atlanta as the site for the inaugural party.
The IBT argues that the Union has a legitimate interest in holding inaugural events throughout the country to allow the membership to meet the new GEB. While the South was not originally selected because the membership in the South is considerably smaller than in the other three regions, it was added when there were complaints received from members in the South. Dallas was chosen as a location because it has convenient transportation, and large concentration of the Southern Region membership is in the region.
Article VIII, Section 11(b) of the Rules states, in pertinent part, that union officers and employees, if members,
. . . retain the right to participate in campaign activities, including the right . . . to openly support or oppose any candidate . . . However, such campaigning must not involve the expenditure of Union funds.
This section protects the personal right of union officers and employees to campaign, and it ensures that their exercise of that right gets no union subsidy. Here the protester argues that because the selection or addition of Dallas as an inauguration site was motivated by campaign considerations, the inaugural event is not legitimate union business and cannot be sponsored with union resources. The IBT has, however, presented credible evidence that its selection of Dallas and the timing thereof were guided by legitimate union considerations. The fact that Dallas may also be the home of Hoffa’s choice for Southern Region Vice-President does not preclude the IBT from holding an inauguration event there, as it has been able to present reasons independent of the campaign to justify the site selection. While the protester points out that other areas in the Southern Region have concentrations of membership that may make them attractive sites for inaugural events, the IBT exercised reasonable discretion in selecting Dallas and the Election Officer will not intrude on that judgment.
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:
Doug Mims
April 23, 1999
Page 1
Kenneth Conboy, Esquire
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 N. Capitol Street, 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
Barbara C. Deinhardt, Esq.