Protest Decisions

IN RE: RON SCHERER,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 82
Issued: January 19, 2001
OEA Case No. PR110301SO

See also Election Appeals Master decision 01 EAM 17 (KC)

Ron Scherer, a member of Local 767, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2000-2001 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules")against Local 767. The protestor alleges that Local 767 improperly provided him with an incomplete set of mailing labels with which to mail literature to members of the local in support of his delegate campaign, in violation of Article VII, Section 7 of the Rules. This protest was the subject of our earlier decision in 2000 EAD 63 (December 12, 2000). On January 3, 2000, Election Appeals Master Kenneth Conboy issued his decision in 2001 EAM 13, remanding this protest to the Election Administrator for further investigation, which has now been concluded.

Election Administrator representatives Dolores Hall, Lois Tuttle and Lisa Taylor investigated the protest.

Findings of Fact and Analysis

1. Two slates were formed at Local 767 for its local union officer and delegate elections. The "Strength Through Diversity" slate (the "STD slate") of local union officer candidates consists of Wesley Jenkins, Gerald Thompson, John Shorts, Jill Shipman, Paul Tribble, Mark Hopkins and Terry Johnson. The same seven individuals were candidates for delegate or alternate delegate on the STD convention delegate slate, along with delegate candidate (but not officer candidate) Matt Laakso.

The second slate was the "United Teamsters" slate (the "UT slate"). Its candidates for local union office were Scherer, Alton Green, Jerry Watkins, Custer Kesel, Ralph Compton, Mark Grant and Dennis Travis. The same seven individuals were candidates for delegate or alternate delegate on the UT convention delegate slate, along with alternate delegate candidate Ken Cole. Two other Local 767 members were individual candidates for delegate and alternate delegate, respectively.

Local 767's nomination meeting was held on October 1, 2000. The ballots for Local 767's delegate election were mailed on November 1, 2000, and the ballots were counted on November 22, 2000. The UT delegate slate candidates did not prevail, with Scherer garnering the highest number of votes of UT slate candidates. Scherer trailed the successful delegate candidate with the least number of votes by 26 out of 1002 votes cast, with 19 undeterminative challenged ballots.

Scherer timely requested that Local 767 provide mailing labels for a UT slate campaign mailing, and received those labels on October 26, 2000. The list provided contained 3,769 names.[1]  On November 2, 2000, Scherer learned from Jackie Johnson, a member of his slate's election committee, that the mailing list for the ballots that were sent to the printer on October 23, 2000 contained 3,930 names. Scherer then spoke to the secretary-treasurer, Gerald Thompson, about this.

According to Thompson, the ballot mailing list was received from the IBT and sent directly to the printer retained by the local to assist with ballot mailing. Shortly thereafter, while his Titan operator Angie Hightower was at a seminar in Las Vegas, Thompson received Scherer's request concerning the UT slate's campaign mailing. Since Hightower was gone, Thompson ran the UT mailing labels himself with Hightower's step-by-step assistance over the phone. According to Thompson, when he ran the list with her assistance, Hightower did not know that he was supposed to include bad addresses. As a result, the list that he gave his own slate (the STD slate) and the list he gave the UT slate contained only 3,769 names (excluding those with a "Bad Address" code). He said that he further reduced his slate's mailing list of 3,769 names by about 30 names that he knew were on Scherer's slate before submitting this list to the printer.

In our original investigation and decision, we determined that Thompson spoke with Scherer on November 2 or 3, after the discrepancy in the lists was discovered, and offered to provide Scherer the bad addresses for his campaign mailing and go with Scherer to the printer. Scherer refused. This was based on Thompson's original testimony. At hearing before Judge Conboy, Thompson agreed with Scherer's claim that this conversation may not have occurred until as later as November 7 or 8, 2000. As Judge Conboy stated, this would "give credence to Scherer's stated reason for refusing the missing labels, i.e., because he believed they would have been too late to be of any practical use to his campaign…. [thus] putting into question the Election Administrator's finding of a 'waiver' of any claim of a violation by the protestor." 2001 EAM 13 at 2. At the appeal hearing, Thompson also claimed that he had spoken to Alton Green, a fellow candidate of Scherer on his slate, on November 2 or 3, 2000, and informed him of the label mishap. Judge Conboy granted the Election Administrator's request for a remand for further investigation regarding these ambiguities.

Upon reinvestigation, we asked Ron Scherer if he had a conversation with Alton Green regarding the offer that Thompson claims he made to Green and thus to Scherer's slate either on November 2 or 3, 2000. Scherer claims that he had no such conversation with Green. Scherer claims that on November 2, 2000 he spoke with Jacqueline Johnson regarding the mailing of the ballots as Johnson had gone to the printer to observe the process. According to Scherer, the printer pointed out to Johnson that when he did the slate mailings (both slates were done on the same day) the STD slate mailing list had 29 less names than the UT slate.[2]  During this conversation, Scherer stated that Johnson mentioned that 3,930 ballots went out. Scherer claims that this was how he learned that his slate's list was deficient. He further claims that he first learned of the reasons why the names were missing from Thompson on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. Scherer states that he went to the local union office on Monday, November 6, he saw Thompson but that he said nothing to Scherer about the missing addresses.

During the reinvestigation, Thompson stated that either on November 2 or 3, 2000, Green called him at his office and left a message that informed him about the addresses missing from the mailing list. Thompson claims that it was at this point that he called Dolores Hall who told him that he needed to fix the problem. Thompson claims that he returned Green's phone call the same day. Thompson claims that Green demanded a list of the 161 addresses that were missing from the original mailing list. Thompson stated that he denied this request because it is against the local's rules to give membership lists to anyone. Thompson claims that he offered to provide the bad addresses to the Scherer slate under the same conditions that he provided the original mailing list. According to Thompson, Green stated that he would talk to Scherer about it. Thompson stated that Scherer came to the office on Monday, November 6, 2000, at which point Thompson made the same offer to Scherer that he made to Green. Thompson states that Scherer rejected this offer.

When our investigator spoke with Thompson during the reinvestigation, he was not sure exactly how he learned of the problem with the exclusion of bad addresses from the mailing lists. However, Thompson states that when he spoke with Green, he was aware of the source of the problem. Thompson states that he does not know if Green spoke with Scherer before November 6, 2000.

Angie Hightower, the Titan operator at Local 767, stated that she was at a conference in Las Vegas between October 30 and November 2, 2000. Hightower remembers that when she returned to work on Friday, November 3, 2000, Thompson informed her of the missing addresses and claims that neither she nor Thompson knew the reason why the labels were missing. Hightower claims that she immediately called the help desk at the International and found out that the labels were printed without the bad addresses. Hightower claims that this is how the local determined the source of the problem.

Upon reinvestigation, Green confirmed Thompson's version of their interchange regarding the missing addresses. Thus, he confirmed that when he learned of the mailing list deficiency he called the local union and left a message for Thompson about the problem, a call that Green says Thompson returned the same day. Green also confirms that when Thompson called him back, he explained the reason for the deficiency (the exclusion of the bad addresses) and offered to provide the UT slate the missing labels under the same conditions that he provided original mailing labels. Green further stated that he called Thompson as soon as he learned that the UT slate's mailing list was short, although he could not recall exactly how he made this discovery. (He indicated that it could have been from Scherer.) Green states that Thompson told him that he would speak with Scherer when Scherer came into the office. However, Green also admits that he promised to relay Thompson's offer to Scherer. Green apparently did not do so, and claims that he assumed that Thompson spoke with Scherer about the offer when Scherer visited the local union.

Green was confused regarding the dates of these events, including the date of his conversation with Thompson in which Thompson offered to provide the additional mailing labels to the UT slate. Green was certain that when he did call Thompson, he left a message and Thompson returned his call the same day. He thought he could identify the day of the call because the call was received on his cell phone, and he thought he could verify this date through his phone records. He was unsuccessful. However, Green was "absolutely positive" that he found out about the list being short prior to the ballots for Local 767 being mailed on November 1, 2000. (The UT slate mailing list was delivered on October 26, 2000.) Green stated that he is sure, but not positive, that Ron Scherer knew about the short mailing list before the mailing of the local's ballots and that he knew about the short list before speaking with Thompson.

Our reinvestigation causes us to conclude that the local union, through Thompson, made a timely offer on November 3, 2000 to the UT slate (through Green) to correct the mailing list problem. The following timeline summarizes our findings:

October 26, 2000: The local provides the UT slate with mailing labels that were sent directly to the printer.

October 26 - November 1, 2000: Green learns of the missing labels. According to Green, he found out that the mailing list was missing addresses sometime after the labels were sent out but before the ballots were mailed.

November 1, 2000: The local's ballots are mailed.

November 2, 2000: Johnson reports to Scherer about what she observed at the ballot mailing. Scherer realizes that his slate's mailing list is deficient and immediately files a protest.

November 3, 2000: Green calls Thompson to inquire about the deficient mailing list. Thompson asks Hightower, who had returned to work from Las Vegas this day, and Hightower calls the IBT with the same inquiry. After Hightower discovers the reason for the deficiency and informs Thompson, Thompson calls Green, explains the reason, and offers to provide the UT slate with the additional labels for the bad addresses. In this regard, we credit Hightower's claim that she dealt with the missing address problem on the day of her return, that she did this at Thompson's request, that she discovered the reason for the missing addresses from the IBT that day, and that she immediately informed Thompson. We further credit Thompson's claim, corroborated by Green, that he immediately offered to provide the missing labels to Green for the UT slate on November 3, 2000. In making this finding we note that although Green could not identify the date of his conversation with Thompson, he was sure that he received an answer to his question about the mailing label deficiency and Thompson's offer to correct the problem, on the same day that he called and left a message for Thompson about the problem.

November 6 or 7, 2000: Thompson speaks with Scherer about the offer that he extended to Green and Scherer rejects the proposal.

For these reasons, we conclude that a mailing by the UT slate to the residences coded as "bad addresses" (which were the same addresses that ballots were mailed to) could have been accomplished as early as November 3, 2000, but for the UT slate's failure to act. We accordingly reaffirm our original conclusion that the UT slate thereby waived any claim for violation of the Rules in this regard.

2. During the reinvestigation, Scherer raised a number of other claims regarding the Local 767 delegate election, concerning which we gathered evidence. Scherer's additional allegations raise a number of issues, including what can only be characterized as claims of ballot fraud. We find that Scherer's additional allegations are without merit. We summarize our findings here.

Local 767 conducted the local union officer election and delegate election simultaneously, mailing the ballots on the same date. However, the ballot count for the delegate election was held on November 22 and the count for the local union officer election was held on November 27. The voted ballot envelopes for the delegate election were green and the officer election envelopes were yellow. The outer envelopes for both elections were white but bore return addresses of "Teamsters Election Committee - Delegate" and "Teamsters Election Committee - Executive Board." The delegate ballots (both voted and undeliverable) were returned to the Glencrest Station on Wichita Street and the local officer ballots went to the Everman Branch.

During the counting of ballots in the delegate election, Scherer gave his observers the names of approximately 50 to 60 members he felt voted for him because they had contributed to his campaign and/or were his co-workers. During the checking of eligibility, it was found that five of the individuals on Scherer's list had not returned ballots. When Scherer questioned the individuals, they assured him they had voted and returned their ballots. Scherer claims to have identified over 100 members who told him they received their ballots, voted and returned the ballots but the ballots were missing when the count was held. Scherer obtained a statement from an employee at the post office where the voted local union officer election ballots were returned (Everman Branch) and the postal worker claimed that some unidentified person picked up a tub containing 300 to 600 voted ballots prior to the date of the ballot count. Scherer also questioned the fact that "numerous" ballots contained postmarks over the meter stamp. He stated the postal worker who provided the statement told him that the only time metered mail is postmarked is if it is run through the system a second time. Scherer cites this as being highly suspicious of tampering with the ballots. He believes someone picked up voted ballots and undeliverables and discarded votes from his supporters and voted ballots returned as undeliverable.

Scherer provided names of 112 individuals who had told him they had voted. Scherer has attempted to obtain affidavits from these individuals stating they mailed the voted ballots in "a timely manner in order to be counted." Affidavits were provided (over several days) from 72 members, 39 of whom were on the list. The eligibility roster was checked and ballots were received (and counted) from 25 of the affiants. From the remaining 47 affiants, two had ballots received by the Post Office after the ballot count on November 22, one had a ballot postmarked November 22 and another November 27, one stated that he voted in one of the elections, but could not recall which one, and one stated he called the union hall three times to request a ballot, but ultimately received it and voted (He is shown as not having voted and his ballot was not returned as undeliverable.)

Scherer also provided statements from two individuals who said they contacted the local union and requested ballots but never received them. Their names were not on any of the lists of duplicate ballots requested. Two individuals provided statements to Scherer claiming they had lived at their respective address for a number of years but received no ballot. There is nothing to indicate they ever requested a ballot and they were not on the list of duplicate ballots requested.

Scherer provided a statement from one individual stating that he had changed his address with the Local in May 2000 and his "Teamster" magazine is received at the new address. His ballot, however, went to his old address and was forwarded to him. Contact with the Local 767 TITAN Operator Hightower disclosed that labels for the "Teamster" magazine are generated from TITAN in Washington, which would have the same addresses as the local. She stated that sometime in October, in preparation for the upcoming mailing of the ballots, she provided each company with a listing of employee addresses, with the request that the list be updated. She stated that it is possible that the member had not changed his address yet with his employer and the employer modified her list to indicate the old address. She stated there is no field in the TITAN that indicates the dates of address changes so she would not have known that the change was actually to his old address.

After the nomination meeting was held on October 1, 2000, each candidate appointed representatives to the Election Committee, which conducted all phases of the election. The committee consisted of eleven Local 767 members, five appointed by each of the two slates and one by the independent candidate. After appointment, the committee met and elected STD slate supporter Joe Ard and UT slate supporter Stan Sauers as co-chairs of the Election Committee. On October 10, Mike Farrell (appointed by the independent candidate) and Ard rented two post office boxes for the delegate election at the Glencrest Station - one for undeliverables and one for voted ballots. They were given one key for each box. Farrell signed the application for the voted ballots box and Ard signed the application for the undeliverable ballots box. These keys were returned to the union hall, sealed in a white envelope, taped, and Ard and Farrell signed across the tape. These envelopes were then placed in a manila envelope and locked in the local's safe.

Sauers and Ard were responsible for working with the printer to compose and print the ballots. On October 17, Jacqueline Johnson and Ron Morris took the sample ballot to Echols Printing. Echols printed the ballot and faxed a proof to the Local on October 23, 2000.

Sometime during the latter part of October, the local arranged for a representative of the U.S. Department of Labor to meet with the Election Committee and they were instructed in the proper conduct of union elections.

On November 1, 2000, Ard and Election Committee member (and UT slate supporter) Jacqueline Johnson accompanied the ballot packets from Ridgeway Mailers to the post office and waited until the ballot packets were actually deposited into the mail system. Ridgeway Mailers gave Ard and Johnson 70 extra ballot packets to be used for bad addresses and duplicates. These packets were placed in an envelope, which was placed in a box and then taped and signed across the tape. It was quite late when Ard and Johnson returned to the union hall and everyone was gone. Ard asked Johnson if she had a problem with his taking the box home overnight and she stated she did not. Ard returned the box to the Local the following morning and placed it in the locked safe. (The "locked safe" consisted of a large Rubbermaid tool chest with a padlock.). Johnson stated that the box was intact when Ard returned it.

On November 2, two ballot packets were delivered by the post office to the union hall. These were noted and returned to the post office for mailing to the addressees. Members began calling the Union hall, requesting duplicate ballots because of nonreceipt. These calls were referred to Joe Ard if he was present and he listed the names, reason and type of ballot (officer or delegate). If Ard was not present, the secretary would take the call, write the pertinent information on a "Post-it" note and stick it on Ard's desk. Ard would add the names to the list.

On November 8, Ard and Farrell went to the post office for the first time to retrieve the undelivered ballots. These two were selected in order to verify their signatures on the sealed envelopes containing the key to the post office box containing the returned ballots. They picked up 83 returned ballot packets. Since there were only 70 extra ballot packets, Ard called Echols Printing and ordered another 100 ballot packets to be used as duplicates. Ard and Farrell made a listing of the returns and then compared the returned ballots with the list of those members who had called in asking for a duplicate ballot. They then began attempts to obtain new addresses by consulting the telephone directory, telephone information operator, and employers. Because of the volume of returns, they did not finish. The key to the post office box for undeliverables was again placed in an envelope, sealed and signed across the seal. All election material was resealed in the locked box.

On November 10, Election Committee member (and STD slate supporter) Eddie Litteral and Johnson picked up 25 returned ballots, followed the same procedure as before and began preparing ballot packets for mail. Ard typed all the labels for the new ballot packets. Stan Sauers observed the process during some part of the day. Litteral and Johnson prepared 50 local union officer and 50 delegate ballot packets from the material contained in the box which was used to store the extra ballots. Johnson confirmed that the sealed box containing her signature was intact. By the time the metering of the ballot packets was completed, the post office was closed and could not receive the metered mail. Litteral and Johnson placed the sealed packets inside the Rubbermaid box, locked, sealed and signed across the tape on the box. The post office box key was again placed in an envelope, sealed and signed.

On November 13, Election Committee members David Bauer (a UT slate supporter) and Ron Morris (a STD slate supporter) mailed the previously prepared ballot packets. Morris confirmed that the locked, sealed box appeared to be intact, as was the envelope containing the post office key. This was the first mailing of ballot packets in response to requests for duplicate ballots and for returns as undeliverable. Bauer and Morris also picked up 12 more returned ballots. They followed the established procedure of comparing the returns with the requests for duplicates and attempted to get good addresses. Nine delegate and thirty-six local union officer ballot packets were prepared and metered; however, it was again too late in the day to post them. They were locked in the Rubbermaid box for the next work crew.

On November 15, Election Committee members Patty Delaney (a UT slate supporter) and Mark Phillips (a STD slate supporter) picked up seven returned ballots. They followed the established work procedure and prepared 33 delegate ballot packets. They then mailed these and the nine remaining from November 13. On November 17, Election Committee members Litteral and John Lopez (a UT slate supporter) picked up seven returned ballots, processed them in accordance with their procedures, and prepared and mailed 12 delegate ballot packets. On November 18, Phillips, Farrell, Lopez and Ard prepared and mailed 13 delegate packets. On November 22 (the ballot count date), eight undeliverables were picked up from the post office box for bad addresses. These were not processed.

.In sum, 129 ballots were returned as undeliverable (excluding the eight picked up on ballot count day) and 51 were re-mailed. Sixty-five requests were received for duplicate ballots, and the election records indicate that 66 were mailed. Forty-nine of the members that requested duplicate ballots were among those whose original ballot mailing had been returned as undeliverable. A total of 117 ballot packets were prepared and mailed by the Election Committee, in addition to the original mailing. None were mailed before November 13. Since the ballot count was conducted on November 22, at most ten days was provided for ballots to travel to a member's home, be voted, and mailed back. Of these 117 ballot packets, 24 were returned in time to be counted. The earliest postmark is November 15 and the latest is November 21. There were 28 voted ballots in the Post Office box when it was closed following the election. Of these 28, nine were duplicate ballots. There were 10 ballot packets returned as undeliverable in that box, three of which were duplicates that had been sent out by the Election Committee.

Seventy ballots were originally delivered to the Election Committee to be used as duplicates, and another 100 extra ballots were picked up on November 7, 2000. The Election Committee mailed 117 duplicate ballots. 53 ballots remain, as verified by the Election Committee and our investigator. There were no irregularities in the handling of duplicate ballots.

Scherer charges an irregularity because the voted ballots were postmarked over the meter stamp. He states that a postal official advised him that the only time this occurs is when someone is trying to utilize the metered envelope twice and cheat the post office. Our investigator examined the returned envelopes. There were 1061 ballots cast. Of this number, only 88 were not postmarked. Ronnie Henry, a postal supervisor, was interviewed regarding this phenomenon. He stated that metered mail, when deposited in large numbers, is not postmarked. He stated the reason is that the post office has already received their money by virtue of the metering machine and it is not necessary to tie up the postmarking machine. He stated, however, that if metered mail were deposited in the mail individually, it would be impossible to extract each piece before it goes through the postmarking machine. Henry also stated that once mail goes through the postmarking machine, regardless of whether it contains a meter mark or a stamp, it could not be run through a second time. There is no evidence that supports Scherer's claim of irregularities regarding such postmarks.

Scherer's claim of improper and surreptitious removal of ballots from the post office is also without merit. Thus, after the post office boxes were rented, the keys were kept in envelopes, which were sealed and signed by members of the Election Committee. Each time the key was needed to check for undeliverables, the seal and signatures were verified by members of the Election Committee to be intact. The key to the post office box containing the voted ballots was signed for by Mike Farrell, a representative of the independent candidate. Farrell confirmed that the envelope, which he sealed and signed after renting the box, was intact when he extracted the key on the day of the ballot count.

A postal employee that our investigator interviewed stated that anyone possessing the key could open the box. The boxes are positioned in such a way that an individual could enter the post office, extract mail from the boxes and exit without being observed by postal counter patrons or staff. This employee stated that anyone who called for mail from a specific box who did not have a key would be verified by the rental application before mail would be given to him or her from the box. Farrell's name is the only one on the voted ballot box rental agreement. There was no postal record of a duplicate key being made or delivered for the postal box. If requested, such a key would not be given to anyone other than the individual whose name is on the rental agreement. That individual is Mike Farrell.

Linda Guzman, Box Clerk at the Glencrest/Wichita Street postal branch, stated she put up most of the mail in the boxes. She distinctly remembered the Local 767 delegate election because of the bright green color of the envelopes. She stated the postal box filled up fast and they had to put the mail in postal tubs, with a "call" slip in the box. In response to questioning, Guzman stated that it is possible that if someone had a key to the box, they could have retrieved the slip and picked up a tub of ballots from the counter clerk without the rental card being checked. She stated that whomever had the key got the mail. She said no one picked up ballots prematurely from the voted ballot box. Guzman distinctly remembered the tubs of ballots piling up for days and then being picked up on one day all at one time. She stated the ballots trickled in after that but not enough to overflow the box again. Guzman said she would have missed a tub of ballots if one had been taken because it was something she saw every day. Again, she stated positively that no ballots were removed except on the one day when they were all picked up.

From the foregoing, we conclude as follows:

1. All delegate ballots printed were accounted for.

2. The keys to the post office boxes for the delegate election were secure and in possession of the Election Committee at all times and there is no evidence that they were used by any unauthorized person.

3. There is no evidence that voted ballots were prematurely retrieved from the voted ballot box. On the contrary, the post office box clerk states that no ballots were picked up from the voted ballot box except on the day of the ballot count.

4. There is no evidence that any unauthorized person retrieved undeliverable ballots from the post office. The Election Committee accounted for all undeliverable ballots.

5. Of the affidavits provided by Scherer and received from individuals certifying that they voted, some had in fact voted early enough for their ballot to count; some mailed the ballot after the count date; one could not recall which ballot he voted but knew he voted only one; and there is no explanation as to why other voted ballots (if in fact they were voted) were not received at the Post Office.

6. There was a delay in mailing ballots to individuals requesting duplicates. The delay was caused by the fact that the Election Committee was actually running two elections simultaneously and yet they chose to have only two individuals work every other day on processing requests for duplicate ballots and attempting to obtain corrected addresses for the undeliverable ballots. Because of the volume of work, a week was lost in getting the duplicate ballots out to members, which allowed only ten days for the return of the voted delegate ballots. The local union officer ballot count was held five days after the delegate election, yet the processing of requests for duplicate ballots and bad addresses was handled simultaneously. The numbers processed and returned are noted above. We cannot conclude, however, that the conduct of the Election Committee with regard to the mailing of duplicate ballots outlined above affected the results of the election in such a manner as to warrant a rerun. We further note that the Election Committee appears to have acted in good faith and that both delegate slates were equally represented on the Committee.[3]

Accordingly, this protest is DENIED.

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 Administrator 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

Election Appeals Master

Latham & Watkins

Suite 1000

885 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Fax: 212-751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon all other parties, as well as upon the Election Administrator for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 727 15^th Street NW, 10^th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, all within the time period prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

William A. Wertheimer, Jr.

Election Administrator

cc: Kenneth Conboy

2001EAD82

DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA FAX AND UPS NEXT DAY AIR:

Patrick Szymanski

IBT General Counsel

25 Louisiana Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20001

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,

Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

J. Douglas Korney

Korney & Heldt

30700 Telegraph Road

Suite 1551

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

Barbara Harvey

645 Griswold

Penobscot Building

Suite 1800

Detroit, MI 48226

Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach

110 Mayfair

Eugene, OR 97404

Betty Grdina

Yablonski, Both & Edelman

1140 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20036

Ron Scherer

421 McKinley

Cedar Hill, TX 75104

IBT Local 767

6109 Anglin Dr.

Forest Hill, TX 76119