Protest Decisions

November 1, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

John Steger

8229 Bubbling Spring

Laurel, MD 20723

Diana Kilmury, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

2612 E. 47th Avenue

Vancouver, BC V5S 1C1

Tom Gilmartin, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

George Cashman, President

Teamsters Local Union 25

544 Main Street

Boston, MA 02129

Thomas Leedham, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 206

1860 N.E. 162nd Avenue

Portland, OR 97230

Richard Nelson, President

Teamsters Local Union 886

3528 W. Reno

Oklahoma City, OK 73107

Jim Nelson, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

4444 W. Northern Avenue

Glendale, AZ 85301

John P. Morris, Vice President

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

2833 Cottman Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19149

Ron Carey Campaign

c/o Nathaniel Charny

Cohen, Weiss & Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,

  Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.

32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-1023-IBT-EOH

Gentlepersons:

A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

John Steger, a member of Local Union 639 and a candidate for International office.  The protester alleges numerous violations of the Rules that are reflected in the Campaign Contri-bution and Expenditure Reports (“CCERs”) filed by various candidates on the Ron Carey slate.  The alleged violations will be addressed separately below.

The protest was investigated by Election Office Representative Kathryn Naylor.

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF DIANA KILMURY

A.  Incomplete CCER for the Period Ending May 20, 1996

The protester asserts that Ms. Kilmury’s CCER for the period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996 is incomplete since it does not report the actual amounts for the contributions received and expenditures made.  The protester notes that several amounts are listed as “EST,” and are in round dollar figures indicative of estimates.

A review of Ms. Kilmury’s CCER for the period ending May 20, 1996 reveals that “EST” or “estimate” is noted on the CCER Summary and by several specific amounts.  In response to the protester’s allegations, Ms. Kilmury explained that she made these notations on the CCER because when she prepared this CCER during the week of the IBT Convention in Philadelphia this past July, she was unsure whether she had documentation and receipts for all campaign-related contributions and expenditures.  Ms. Kilmury stated that when she returned to Canada after the Convention, she confirmed that all contributions and expenditures were accurately reported on the CCER for the period ending May 20, 1996. 

The Election Officer finds that Ms. Kilmury’s CCER for the period ending May 20, 1996 is complete and, thus, will not require Ms. Kilmury to file an amended CCER for this reporting period.  Reporting contributions and expenditures in round dollar figures does not constitute a violation of the Rules.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

B.  Reporting Only Contributions from Personal Funds

The protester notes that all of Ms. Kilmury’s CCERs report contributions solely from her personal funds to her campaign.  The protester contends that in light of Ms. Kilmury’s previous failure to file any CCERs until July 1996, the Election Officer should verify that she has made expenditures from her personal funds and not from any other unreported or improper source.  The fact that Ms. Kilmury filed her CCERs in an untimely fashion does not constitute a reasonable basis for conducting this sort of investigation or audit.  The untimely filing has been adequately addressed and remedied in Steger, P-827-IBT-EOH (September 3, 1996).

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

C.  Frequent Flyer Ticket on CCER for the period ending May 20, 1996

The protester alleges that Ms. Kilmury lists a frequent-flyer ticket without any reported value on the CCER for the period ending May 20, 1996.  The protester asserts that this ticket must be valued at the standard cost for the trip and a corresponding contribution from

Ms. Kilmury should be reported on the CCER.

While there was no listing of a frequent-flyer ticket on the May 20, 1996 report, as protested, a review of Ms. Kilmury’s CCER for the period ending May 20, 1995 reveals that Ms. Kilmury used two Northwest Airlines frequent flyer tickets on January 13, 1995 and

April 26, 1995 with no corresponding values reported for these trips.

Although Ms. Kilmury did not incur any expenses in obtaining and using these frequent-flyer tickets, the use of such tickets are viewed as in-kind contributions to her campaign that should be reported on the CCER.  The fair market or normal commercial rate for the respective flights on Northwest Airlines at the time Ms. Kilmury used the frequent flyer tickets should be reported as the value for these tickets on the CCER.

Accordingly, the Election Officer directs Ms. Kilmury to file an amendment to her CCER for the period ending May 20, 1995 that reports these frequent flyer tickets as in-kind contributions received by her campaign on the CCER Summary and Schedule A, Part 3, if in excess of $100, by Friday, November 8, 1996.

The revised CCER will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules.

The Election Officer will review the amended CCER and determine if any further action is necessary.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF RICHARD NELSON

The protester notes that Mr. Nelson’s CCER for the period covering May 21, 1996 through August 20, 1996 reports $8,092 in contributions to date, $3,070.46 in in-kind contributions, $26,348 in expenditures and $3,516.05 in extensions of credit.  Based on these reported figures, the protester asserts that Mr. Nelson has failed to report substantial campaign contributions or extensions of credit.

The investigation revealed that to the extent the expenditures exceed contributions,

Mr. Nelson has used his own personal funds to make these payments.  The Election Officer directs Mr. Nelson to submit an amended CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 that accurately reflects Mr. Nelson’s contributions to his campaign by Friday, November 8, 1996.

The revised CCER will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules.

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer will review the amended CCER and determine if any further action is necessary.

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TOM GILMARTIN

The protester notes that Mr. Gilmartin’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 reports no contributions, $6,005 in expenditures and $1,605 in in-kind contributions to date.  Based on these reported figures, the protester asserts that Mr. Gilmartin has failed to report substantial campaign contributions or extensions of credit.

The investigation revealed that to the extent the expenditures exceeded contributions, Mr. Gilmartin has used his own personal funds to cover such payments.  Mr. Gilmartin has submitted an amended CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 that accurately reflects his personal contributions to his campaign.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is RESOLVED.

The revised CCER will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules.

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF TOM LEEDHAM

The protester notes that Mr. Leedham’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 is incomplete.  The protester notes that Mr. Leedham’s CCER for this period reports a $500 balance at the beginning of the reporting period on May 21, 1996, a $2,055 balance at the end of the reporting period on August 20, 1996, $1,810 in contributions, and $2,255 in expendi-tures for the period.  The protester contends that Mr. Leedham’s balance cannot increase when his expenditures have exceeded his contributions for the period.

A review of Mr. Leedham’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 indicates that Mr. Leedham made contributions to the Ron Carey slate from his personal funds that he reported on his CCER.  Moreover, the CCER does not properly reflect contributions

Mr. Leedham has made to his own campaign.

On October 15, 1996, Mr. Leedham submitted an amended CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 that accurately reports all contributions received and expenditures made by his campaign.  The amended CCER properly reflects contributions Mr. Leedham has made to his campaign.  Also, the amended CCER no longer reports as an expenditure what was actually a personal contribution by Mr. Leedham to the Ron Carey slate.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is RESOLVED.

The revised CCER will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules.

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

V.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF JIM BENSON

A.  Use of a Discounted Airline Pass

The protester asserts that Mr. Benson has reported the use of an airline pass as an expenditure on his CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996.  The protester argues that use of this pass represents a prohibited employer contribution from the airline to Mr. Benson’s campaign.

A review of Mr. Benson’s CCER indicates that Mr. Benson purchased a discounted airline pass for $54 that is offered to parents of airline employees.  The investigation revealed that although Mr. Benson reported his expenses for purchasing this airline pass, he has not used the discounted pass in order to attend any campaign events.  Instead, the Committee to Re-elect Jim Benson contributed funds to purchase a standard airline ticket for Mr. Benson to attend the campaign event.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.  However, the Election Office directs Mr. Benson to submit an amended CCER that deletes the expenditure for the discounted airline pass and reports the contribution of the airline ticket from the Committee to Re-elect Jim Benson by Friday, November 8, 1996.

The revised CCER will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules.

B.  Not Fully Reporting Contributions

The protester also asserts that Mr. Benson has improperly reported a number of miniature trucks and tickets as contributions to his campaign without specifying the contributor of these items.

A review of Mr. Benson’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 indicates that Mr. Benson made contributions to the Ron Carey slate by purchasing miniature campaign trucks and tickets for a raffle, reception, and boat trip.  Mr. Benson incorrectly reported these donations to the Ron Carey slate on his CCER as contributions to his campaign.  Mr. Benson has confirmed that he made these contributions to the Ron Carey slate using his personal funds. 

Under the Rules, all candidates for International union office must report all campaign contributions and expenditures made on behalf of their campaign.  Insofar as Mr. Benson has used personal funds, not campaign funds, to make contributions to the Ron Carey Slate, he is not obligated to report these contributions on his CCER.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is RESOLVED.

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

C.  Not Fully Reporting Debt

The protester asserts that Mr. Benson lists a debt of $600 on his CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996, but has not indicated to whom the debt is owed.

The investigation revealed that Mr. Benson received a contribution of $600 from the Committee to Re-elect Jim Benson that was incorrectly reported as a debt on Mr. Benson’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996. 

The Election Officer directs Mr. Benson to file an amended CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 that properly reports the $600 as a contribution from the Committee to Re-elect Jim Benson by Friday, November 8, 1996.

The revised CCER will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules.

VI.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF JOHN MORRIS

The protester asserts that Mr. Morris reported on his CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996, the purchase of $1,068 worth of T-shirts from Local Union 115.  The protester has requested the Election Officer to determine what kind of T-shirts were involved and whether such T-shirts are equally available to other candidates.

The investigation revealed that Mr. Morris’ campaign committee purchased $1,068 worth of printed campaign T-shirts from Local Union 115’s print shop, and such services are equally available to all candidates.  The evidence also indicated that the protester’s local union had T-shirts printed by Local Union’s 115 print shop in late July 1996.[1]

In Steger, P-827-IBT-EOH (September 3, 1996), the Election Officer addressed the issue of whether all candidates were informed of their rights to use Local Union 115’s printing facilities on an equal basis, as required by the Rules.  In order to guarantee that all nominated candidates were aware of Local Union 115’s printing services, the Election Officer directed Mr. Morris’ campaign to notify, in writing, the three slates--other than the Ron Carey slate--of such services. On September 10, 1996, Mr. Morris’ campaign sent a flyer/advertisement to all the slates that detailed the printing capabilities of the print shop. 

Accordingly, the Election Officer finds that all slates have been provided reasonable notice of the availability of Local Union 115’s print shop for a range of printing services, including the printing of campaign T-shirts.

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

VII.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF GEORGE CASHMAN

A.  Paul Cronin and Michael Maher

The protester alleges that contributors Paul Cronin and Michael Maher, reported on Mr. Cashman’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996, are employers.  The protester asserts that Paul Cronin is a member of the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Port Authority, and that Michael Maher is identified as a self-employed accountant on the CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996.  The protester asserts that, in fact, Mr. Maher employs a receptionist and several assistants.

Without any acknowledgment that Messrs. Cronin and Maher are employers,

Mr. Cashman’s campaign committee returned these two contributions.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is RESOLVED.

B.  Sandy Burgess

The protester asserts that Sandy Burgess, another contributor reported on

Mr. Cashman’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996, is an employer since she is a managerial employee of the Health and Welfare Fund.

The investigation revealed that Ms. Burgess is an employee of the New England Teamsters Federal Credit Union (“Credit Union”).  Ms. Burgess is an administrative assistant in the Collections Department.  Her normal duties do not involve any managerial or super-visory authority at the Credit Union. 

The Rules prohibit any candidate for International union office from receiving campaign contributions from employers or employer representatives.  Any person or entity who employs another, paying monetary or other compensation in exchange for that indivi-dual’s services, is an employer.  All individuals having supervisory or managerial authority on behalf of an employer are deemed employer representatives.  See Advisory, pages 8-10. 

Ms. Burgess is not an employer representative since she has no managerial or supervisory authority on behalf of the Credit Union.  Therefore, Ms. Burgess’ contributions to

Mr. Cashman’s campaign are permitted under the Rules.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.  However, on Mr. Cashman’s CCER for the period ending November 20, 1996, Ms. Burgess should be properly identified as an administrative assistant with the Credit Union, and not as a member of Local Union 25.

The protester also contends that since Mr. Cashman has so blatantly misrepresented these three individuals as Local Union 25 members, the Election Officer should verify the membership of any individual identified as a member of Local Union 25 on Mr. Cashman’s CCER.  The protester’s allegations do not rise to the level that would warrant such a verification process in

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

light of the Election Officer’s investigation and amended CCERs filed by Mr. Cashman as a result of Steger, P-827-IBT-EOH (September 3, 1996).

VIII.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF RON CAREY SLATE

A.  Not Reporting All Contributions and Expenditures

The protester asserts that the slate’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 does not properly report all contributions and expenditures, as required by the Rules.  The protester notes that the slate’s CCER for this period reports a $65,610 funds balance at the beginning of the reporting period on May 21, 1996, a $69,434 balance at the end of the reporting period on August 20, 1996, $613,916 in contributions, and $544,365 in expenditures for the period.  The protester contends that the slate’s balance at the end of the period could not increase by only $4,000 since the slate’s contributions exceeded expenditures by almost $70,000 for the period.

The investigation revealed that the funds balances reported on all the CCERs, including the $65,610 for the beginning of the reporting period on May 21, 1996, and $69,434 for the end of the reporting period on August 20, 1996, do not accurately reflect the difference in contribu-tions received and expenditures made by the slate during the respective reporting periods.  The fund balances reported on the CCERs were taken from the slate’s bank account statements as of the closing day of the reporting period.  The slate then reported the fund balances from its bank statements on the CCERs without making any adjustments for:  (1) contributions that had not been deposited in the slate’s account, even though the contributions were reported on the CCERs; (2) withdrawals that had not cleared the slate’s account, even though the expenditures were reported on the CCERs; (3) checks for contributions that bounced; and (4) bank charges. 

The Election Officer’s concern in reviewing the financial reports of candidates and slates is that they fulfill their obligations, under the Rules, to report all campaign contributions and campaign-related expenditures.  To this end, the Election Officer reviews the funds balances in conjunction with the contributions and expenditures reported on the CCERs, as an indicator of whether the candidates/slates are reporting all campaign contributions and expenditures. 

For instance, if the reported fund balance exceeds the difference in contributions and expenditures received to date, this may indicate that the candidate/slate has not reported all contributions.  However, the Election Officer also recognizes that, as here, some candidates/

slates may report their fund balance as of the final date of the reporting period without accounting for received and reported contributions not yet deposited, or reported expenditures made where checks have not yet cleared.  For this reason, fund balances listed are not determi-native but raise issues for further investigation.  Such further investigation was conducted here.

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer reviewed all of the slate’s CCERs and recalculated totals to date.  This shows the slate having received a total of $1,012,696[2] in contributions to date and made $934,222 in expenditures to date for a difference of $78,474.  The fund balance reported on the most recent CCER (period ending August 20, 1996) was $69,434.  The discrepancy between this amount and the difference between the slate’s contributions and expenditures of $78,474 was accounted for as follows:  (1)  the fund balance did not include $8,927 in checks that were reported on the CCER as contributions but not deposited in the slate’s bank account until

August 23, 1996; and (2) a $1,000 calculation error.  Recalculation of the balance with these adjustments yields the fund balance which will appear on the slate’s amended CCER of $77,361.  The discrepancy of $1,113 that exists between the difference between the slate’s contributions and expenditures to date ($78,474) and the actual fund balance to be reported on its amended CCER ($77,361) is a result of $413 in accumulated bank charges not previously reported and a $700 contribution check that bounced and must therefore be subtracted from the slate’s reported total contributions.

Based on this investigation, the Election Officer is satisfied that the Slate has reported all campaign contributions and expenditures to date.  However, the Election Officer directs the slate, by Friday, November 8, 1996, to amend its CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 to reflect the correct amounts for contributions, expenditures to date, including the bank charges and bounced check described above, and funds balance.  The Election Officer also advises the slate, in the future, to take into consideration:  (1) contributions that had not been deposited in the slate’s account even though the contributions were reported on the CCERs; (2) withdrawals that had not cleared the slate’s account even though the expenditures were reported on the CCERs; (3) checks for contributions that bounced; and (4) bank charges--when reporting its fund balances at the end of the respective reporting periods on the CCERs.

The protester also notes that several contributors to the slate are listed without any identification of either their union affiliation, or their position and employer.  The slate has submitted amended Schedules for those contributors that were not properly identified on the original CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996.  

The revised CCER will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules.

The Election Officer will review the amended CCER and determine if any further action is necessary.

B.  Receipt of Prohibited Employer Contributions

John Steger

November 1, 1996

Page 1

The protester also asserts that the following contributors reported on the slate’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 are employers:  (1) John Richardson, Consultant;

(2) Michael Podhorzer, Consultant; (3) Earl Dotter, Photographer; (4) Geoffrey Faux, Public Resource Director; (5) Paul Devlin, Consultant; (6) Robert Borosage, Director of Campaign for New Priorities; (7) Ross Benjamin, Consultant; and (8) Daniel McGinley, School Principal.

Without any acknowledgment that these individuals were employers, the Slate returned all the contributions from the persons mentioned above, with the exception of Earl Dotter.  The slate confirmed that Mr. Dotter is a photographer with the United Mine Workers.  Mr. Dotter has no managerial or supervisory authority over the employees or operations of this organization and is therefore not considered an employer representative.  The slate returned the contributions from John Richardson, Michael Podhorzer and Paul Devlin because the slate was unable to confirm that these individuals were not employers, under the Rules, by the issuance of this decision.

                Accordingly, with respect to all contributors except Mr. Dotter, this aspect of the protest is RESOLVED.  With respect to Mr. Dotter, the protest is DENIED.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one 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, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile

(202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.

Sincerely,

Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer

cc:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master