 |
|
|
|
IN RE: HOFFA 2006, Protestor. Hoffa 2006 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”). The protest alleges that three independent committees have failed to file appropriate CCER reports as required by the Rules. Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest. Findings of Fact The protest alleges that three independent committees violated Article XI of the Rules, two by failing to file CCER reports for the period ending May 31, 2005, and the third by failing to disclose an “in-kind” contribution it made during that reporting period. Thus, the Committee for New Leadership (CNL) and the Central States Pension Improvement Committee (CSPIC) are said to have violated the Rules by failing to file reports. Further, the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) is said to have failed to disclose an “in-kind” contribution it made to CNL. On Wednesday, July 13, 2005, counsel for the protestor corresponded with our office inquiring, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2(e) of the Rules, whether TDU, CNL and CSPIC had filed CCERs.1 We sent a written reply to this inquiry on Friday, July 15, which the protestor’s counsel read on Monday, July 18. This protest was filed two days later, on July 20. CNL. CNL was formed in May 2005 with the aim of assembling “the program and leadership team that can defeat Hoffa in next year’s IBT election.” The committee has solicited contributions from Teamster members. According to CNL’s records, however, by the end of the first reporting period, May 31, 2005, CNL had not yet collected or expended $1,000 in funds. CSPIC. CSPIC was formed in 2002. CSPIC states that its purpose is to address four principal issues with the Central States Pension Fund: 1) restrictions on members’ rights to hold jobs after retirement from covered employment; 2) a freeze on pension benefits; 3) increases in the cost of retiree health insurance; and 4) accountability of union-appointed trustees of the fund. It has devoted its efforts to educating the membership, organizing support, and financing litigation around these issues. To that end, CSPIC periodically has published newsletters describing its progress. Some of these newsletters reference the delegate election governed by the Rules, in the context of bringing about a change in the IBT constitution that ends appointment of union pension trustees and requires their election by the relevant membership pool. Thus, the following appears in Update #19, published in March 2004, under a headline of “Winning Accountability: Now and Into the Future” and a sub-headline of “Local Elections, Delegate Races and the IBT Convention”:
Similarly, Update #21 published in June 2004 states: 4. Looking to the future. The immediate goal is to stop the cuts. Some long-term goals can play a role by adding pressure on the IBT and the fund.
Update #23, published in September 2004, states CSPIC’s goal to “build accountability into the Teamster Constitution” by “bringing pension issues to the floor of the 2006 Teamster Convention and making benefit cuts a focus of the next IBT general election.” Update #24, published in November 2004, elaborates on this point:
This update quotes a member of Local Union 667: “Starting one year from now every local union will hold elections so members can choose the delegates that will represent them at the 2006 Teamster Convention. We need to start preparing now to win those delegate races. In Memphis we are going to do whatever it takes to make sure that Local 667 Teamsters are represented by ‘No Pension Cuts’ delegates at the convention. We need to be there to demand accountability and a restoration of benefits.” Finally, Update #25, published in January 2005 (the last such update published on CSPIC’s website, www.nopensionfreeze.org), states: “The answer is to strengthen our union and our pension plan. We can send delegates to the Teamster Convention in 2006 committed to pension accountability, reform and new leadership for our pension funds. It worked before, and it will work again.” CSPIC denies that it has solicited or expended any funds for the purpose of supporting or opposing any candidate for International office, and we have found no evidence to contradict this denial. The excerpts quoted from newsletters, which are typical of CSPIC’s statements, describe CSPIC’s position on pension fund issues but the statements do not identify delegate candidates or international office candidates for support or opposition. TDU. TDU publishes Convoy Dispatch, a newspaper; it also maintains a website at www.tdu.org. Both of these vehicles carried an article announcing the formation of the Committee for New Leadership. The Convoy issue was printed on June 8 and mailed on June 9. The CNL article was posted on the website at the same time. The first CCER reporting period ended on May 31, 2005. Analysis Timeliness. Respondents first challenge the timeliness of the protest. The Rules, at Article XIII, Section 2(b), require that pre-election protests be filed “within two (2) working days of the day when the protestor becomes aware or reasonably should become aware of the action protested or such protest shall be waived.” Here, the uncontradicted evidence is that protestor, through its counsel, first learned that CNL and CSPIC had not filed CCERs when he read correspondence to this effect from our office on July 18, 2005. The protester could only learn whether CNL or CSPIC had made a CCER filing by making a written request for that information, Rules, Article XI, Section 2(e), and the correspondence from this office, read on July 18, provided the protester with factual information that formed a basis for the protest. The protest, filed July 20, was therefore timely. The merits. The Rules define “independent committee” as “any person or entity not controlled by a candidate or slate who/which has accepted any campaign contribution as defined by these Rules, or who/which has made any expenditure, where the purpose, object, or foreseeable effect of the contribution or expenditure is to influence the election of International Officer candidate(s).” Definition 22 (emphasis added). The Rules require that Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports (CCERs) be filed by “[e]very independent committee which has received or solicited contributions in excess of $1,000, whether of money or of any other thing of value, or made expenditures in excess of $1,000 whether of money or of any other thing of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of any such contribution or expenditure is to influence the election of one or more International Officer candidates, whether or not any such candidate is as yet declared, accredited or nominated.” Article XI, Section 2(a)(3), in relevant part. For those independent committees required to file CCERs, the Rules require that the first such report cover activity occurring during the period ending May 31, 2005. Article XI, Section 2(d)(1)(i). In contrast to the requirement that independent committees supporting or opposing candidates for International Office file CCERs, no such requirement is imposed on independent committees for activity relating only to the delegate elections. Thus, Article XI, Section 2(b)(1)(B) requires each independent committee to contributions received for delegate elections “are made only by members;” Section 2(b)(1)(C) requires each independent committee to maintain records of expenditures exceeding $50 made “in connection with the International Union delegate and alternate delegate elections;” and Section 2(b)(1)(A) requires each “independent committee participating in the International Union delegate and alternate delegate elections to keep records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with these Rules” and submit to audit by the Election Supervisor upon notice. But an independent committee has no obligation to file a CCER if it does not receive or expend funds in support of or opposition to a candidate for International Office. Based on these provisions, we find that CNL was not required to file a CCER for the period ending May 31, 2005. One purpose of CNL is to draft candidates to defeat incumbent International Officers. CNL was not required to file a CCER, however, because it did not, receive or expend “money or any other thing of value” in excess of $1,000 during the reporting period “to influence the election of one or more International Officer candidates.” CNL did not reach a level of activity under the Rules’ that triggers an independent committee’s filing obligation. Regarding CSPIC, we find that organization did not, during the reporting period, meet the Rules’ definition of “independent committee.” CSPIC’s activities have focused on pension reform, not the election of International Officers. One of CSPIC’s goals in this regard is to effect constitutional change in the manner in which pension trustees are selected – change that can be made by action of the delegate body at the International Convention. However, through May 31, 2005, CSPIC had not raised or expended funds in support of or opposition to particular candidates for delegate or alternate delegate, and therefore had no obligation (even a recordkeeping obligation under Article XI, Section 2(b)(1)) under the Rules. Regarding CCER filings, because CSPIC has not received or expended funds to support or oppose any candidate for International Office, it was not required to file a CCER during the period in question. Finally, TDU’s announcements of the formation of CNL did not occur during the reporting period at issue here. We express no opinion as to whether such announcements constitute reportable “in kind” contributions from TDU to CNL, as the protestor contends, as the matter is not ripe for decision on the facts presented here. Accordingly, we DENY the protest. Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal and shall be served upon: Kenneth Conboy Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1450, Washington, D.C. 20006, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing. Richard W. Mark cc: Kenneth Conboy
Footnotes: 1. The protester initially requested information about filed CCERs on July 7, 2005, shortly after the June 30 filing deadline for the first CCER. The protester was informed on July 12 that the request did not comply with Article XI, Section 2(e) of the Rules, and a new request that complied with the Rules was submitted the next day.
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED): Patrick J. Szymanski Bradley T. Raymond Barbara Harvey David J. Hoffa Ann Curry Thompson Teamsters for a Democratic Union Jeffrey J. Ellison |
|
|
