 |
|
|
|
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 alleged that David Thornsberry and the United Rank & File (UR&F) slate distributed a campaign flyer in the Local Union 89 delegate and alternate delegate election that utilized material developed by Convoy Dispatch, the newspaper of Teamsters for a Democratic Union, which the protestor claimed violates the Rules. Election Supervisor representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest. Findings of Fact The flyer at issue adopted the style of a fugitive poster and was titled, “Wanted For Crimes Against Teamsters.” It depicted images of General President James Hoffa and Local 89 president Fred Zuckerman and asserted their purported offenses, including raising members’ dues while reducing their benefits. The flyer urged members to vote for the UR&F slate. The protestor claims that this flyer utilized material developed by Convoy Dispatch. In support of its claim, the protestor states the following:
Investigation showed that the flyer was developed by Thornsberry without assistance from TDU or Convoy Dispatch. Investigation further showed that Convoy Dispatch has published many articles in the past two years critical of the incumbent IBT administration. The protestor cites the following as examples:
Only the July/August 2005 issue of Convoy Dispatch printed a report concerning the delegate and alternate delegate election in Local 89. An article titled “Early IBT Delegate Elections Kick Off” contained the following:
The protestor asserts that Convoy Dispatch is financed by contributions of employers and non-members. Analysis The protestor contends that the criticisms of the Hoffa administration that appeared in Convoy Dispatch were part of a long-term TDU campaign to provide employer- and nonmember-financed assistance to the UR&F slate in the Local 89 delegate and alternate delegate election. The protestor further contends that the UR&F slate now has taken over the criticisms of the Hoffa administration first presented in Convoy Dispatch and linked them to the Zuckerman-Bolton slate in its campaign material. Article XI, Section 1(b) of the Rules prohibits acceptance of employer and
nonmember contributions by any candidate or slate. TDU submits that publication of Convoy Dispatch is funded solely by contributions permitted under the Rules. Further, TDU and the UR&F slate assert that the protest is untimely and should be denied. Because of our resolution of this protest, we need not address the
protestor’s contention that Convoy Dispatch is funded from an impermissible
source. We DENY this protest on the grounds that follow. Second, consistent with precedent established in 1991 and affirmed in each succeeding election cycle, we have no authority to regulate content of campaign literature. See Rogers, P518 (February 21, 1991); Landwehr, P201 (November 15, 1995); Yolland, P660 (April 3, 1996); Gamaza & Rosas, 2001 EAD 278 (March 28, 2001). The Election Officer has held:
Braxton, P304 (May 21, 1991). Consistent with this well-established principle, we hold that a candidate’s campaign literature may present issues that are also addressed in, or published by, an allegedly impermissibly-funded voice and that, absent facts specifically showing support received from the improper source, the candidate’s publication would not constitute the acceptance of a prohibited contribution. Accordingly, the UR&F flyer at issue here does not violate the Rules, even if it sounds themes previously expressed in Convoy Dispatch. Third, we have previously found that James Hoffa became a candidate for re-election in late April or early May 2005. TDU & Hackett, 2005 ESD 2 (July 15, 2005). Because seven of the nine issues of Convoy Dispatch at issue here were published before April 2005, their content – while critical of the incumbent administration – did not constitute opposition to Hoffa as a candidate for office or support for any other candidate within the meaning of the Rules, regardless of the manner in which the newspaper was funded. Finally, the protest is untimely. Although it was filed within two working days of the date the protestor became aware of the UR&F campaign flyer, the protestor’s assertion of impermissibly-funded opposition to Hoffa are predicated on the content of the TDU newspaper, not the UR&F flyer. Seven of the nine issues of Convoy Dispatch at issue were published before the May 1, 2005 issuance date of the proposed Rules. A protest based on pre-issuance activity is waived unless filed within thirty days of the Rules’ issuance, Article XIII, Section 2(a), and this protest is therefore untimely by several months. For the other two Convoy Dispatch issues, each of them was published more than two days before the date the protest was filed, and the protest is therefore untimely. Article XIII, Section 2(b). Accordingly, we DENY this 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 1400, Washington, D.C. 20007-5135, all within the
time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for
hearing. Richard W. Mark cc: Kenneth Conboy DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED): Patrick J. Szymanski Bradley T. Raymond David J. Hoffa, Esq. Barbara Harvey Ken Paff Stephen Ostrach
Robert Colone David Thornsberry United Rank & File Slate Ann Curry Thompson Jeffrey Ellison
|
|
|
