June 25, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE
C. Sam Theodus
202 James Circle
Avon Lake, OH 44012
Fax: (440) 933-6131
Re: Election Officer Case No. PR-140-CST-EOH
Sir:
C. Sam Theodus, a candidate for International vice president-at-large in the initial election and a declared candidate for general president in the rerun election, 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 Election Officer Michael G. Cherkasky alleging Rules violations pertaining to several aspects of the rerun supplemental nomination process.
This protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
By letter dated June 24, 1998, Mr. Theodus alleged 1) that the Election Officer provided a list of delegate addresses to him which contained a number of improper addresses despite being described as an updated list; 2) that due to the improper addresses “it is possible that . . . duly elected delegates never received a supplemental nomination ballot;” 3) that the potential failure of some delegates to receive ballots is “depriving [him] and other candidates seeking nomination of having [an] equal opportunity to get nominated;” 4) that the actions of the Election Officer are “disenfranchising virtually everyone but the candidates that were nominated at the ‘96 convention;” 5) that “the current system is flawed and does not provide the tenets of a true democratic election;” 6) that the Election Officer’s “justification for denying other protests because they were not filed in a proper time frame is also flawed as there have been significant changes in the supplemental nomination procedure;” and 7) that “ a wrong uncovered concerning . . . democratic procedures . . . should never be untimely if in fact there is time prior to an election to correct it.”
C. Sam Theodus
June 25, 1998
Page 1
By an additional letter dated June 25, 1998, Mr. Theodus reiterated the allegations made in his letter of June 24, and requested that “all candidates seeking supplemental nomination be awarded the number of delegate votes equal to that number of delegates they were unable to reach by mail or further delegates who did not receive a ballot because of the lack of proper addresses provided by the Election Officer.”
In Theodus, PR-119-STC-EOH (June 12, 1998), aff’d, 98 Elec. App. - 355 (GSB) (June 24,1998), the Election Officer thoroughly addressed the issues raised by Mr. Theodus in points four through seven of the current protest. Consequently, the Election Officer will only address the issue of improper addresses for delegates.
Mr. Theodus contends that he and other candidates have been provided with improper addresses for current delegates. Mr. Theodus first requested and received a delegate list on May 13, 1998. Mr. Theodus was advised by the Deputy Election Officer that a final list of delegates and upgraded alternates who would receive supplemental nomination ballots would be available on June 9, 1998. Mr. Theodus and all other candidates were sent a printed and computer disk copy of the list by overnight mail on that date. Except for a few non-TITAN local unions, the delegate addresses were obtained through TITAN, which requires local union TITAN operators to enter the most recent addresses of members. On June 12 and again on June 18, memoranda regarding additional changes in the delegate lists were sent out to Mr. Theodus and all other candidates.
From June 15, the day the supplemental nomination ballots were mailed out, to June 22, the date by which all delegates who had not received a ballot were told to contact the Election Office, the Election Office did not take requests for a re-mailing of a ballot due to an address change. This was to allow completion of mail delivery of the ballots, so that delegates would not be requesting duplicate ballots before receiving the mailing. Delegates who had contacted the Election Office prior to that date were advised to wait and call back on June 22 if they did not receive a ballot. On June 22, the Election Office began receiving new addresses from delegates who had not received ballots. At that time, the Election Office also received from the United States Post Office those ballot packages that were undeliverable due to address changes. The Election Officer was able to determine correct addresses for all of the returned ballot packages and the packages were subsequently re-mailed by June 23. All of these address changes were then combined onto a final master list of address and delegate status changes. That finalized list was sent out on June 24 to Mr. Theodus and all other candidates by fax and overnight mail.
To date, the Election Office has no information showing that any delegates did not receive a ballot. A small minority (less than two percent) of the delegate addresses initially provided to the candidates were determined to be incorrect. The limited impact of the small number of address changes will be borne equally by all candidates for supplemental nomination. The protester is reminded that the five percent threshold required to win nomination is determined solely from the actual number of ballots cast, not from the number of ballots mailed out. In these circumstances, there has been no violation of the Rules.
C. Sam Theodus
June 25, 1998
Page 1
Based on the foregoing, 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, 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 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 Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master