IN RE: TODD HARTSELL,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 311
Issued: April 17, 2001
OEA Case No. PR032616MW
Todd Hartsell, a member of Local 90 and a delegate candidate, 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"). He alleges that Local 90 impeded the right of his election observer to observe the processing of ballot mail returned as undeliverable.
Election Administrator representative Dennis Sarsany investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
Woodrow Murphy served as Hartsell's election observer and his witness in support of his claim that Local 90 impeded Hartsell's right to have Murphy observe the processing of undeliverable ballot mail. Hartsell claims the local's election committee did not allow Murphy to observe the counting of the returned ballot mail or to record the names and addresses of the members whose ballots had been returned undelivered. According to Murphy, on the first day that undeliverable ballots were picked up, Claudia Pettit, who was responsible for this task, did not count the ballots in his presence, but only announced the number of ballots that had been returned and bundled the ballots without counting them manually in his presence. Murphy further said that she refused to allow him to see the face of the envelopes and the names of the members printed on the envelopes. When told by our investigator that the right provided in the Rules to observe the process did not include a right to review the names of the voters, Murphy said that he was only allowed to see the totally blank reverse side of the ballot envelopes and could not tell, from looking at the blank envelope, if the envelopes were part of the ballot mailing.[1]
Murphy also stated that, as the process continued, Pettit began to respond to his requests for information and allow him to see the fronts of the envelope, while masking the names and addresses of the voters, so that he could, at least, verify that the envelopes were part of the ballot mailing. He also stated that by the time our investigator spoke with him, Pettit and he had reached an acceptable accommodation so that he felt that he could adequately observe the process.
Pettit's description of the ballot re-mail process differs in a number of ways from that described by Murphy. According to Pettit, she followed the recommendations of the Election Manual for the processing of ballots returned as undeliverable. Notice was given to candidates of the time and place of the ballot pickup and the schedule was adhered to. On the first day of mail pickup, March 19, 2001, Murphy met her at the post office. She opened the box and withdrew the accumulated mail. She then went to a counter where she counted the envelopes, in front of the observer, separated a couple of pieces of junk mail from the ballot envelopes and bundled the ballot envelopes. The postmaster approached her with two additional ballot envelopes. She exchanged the junk mail for the two ballot envelopes, added those envelopes to her bundle and returned to the offices of the local union. In total, she picked up 16 ballot packages that day. After arriving at the local, she made copies of the face of the envelopes and stored the original envelopes away for safekeeping. She then began working with the local's TITAN operator to try to generate new addressees for the returned packets. At her request, the TITAN operator verified that the number of packets was 16 and advised the observer that 16 packets had been picked up. According to Petit, Murphy did not comment on the process, except to inquire about the process of obtaining new addresses and the use of the TITAN system in this process.
On subsequent days, her routine was identical. However, no observer was present for some or all of the process on March 20, 21, 22, 23, 29 and 30.
The procedures followed by Pettit are in accordance with those recommended in the Election Manual. The officers and Election Committee of this particular local were scrupulous in their attempt to follow the procedures described there. Bob Jackson, the local's secretary-treasurer and a candidate for delegate, traveled to Chicago from Iowa to meet with Regional Director Sarsany about election procedures and the election plan. Subsequently, he called Sarsany on many occasions with questions about the process. When he was nominated as a candidate, he withdrew from the conduct of the election and Pettit and other members of the election committee continued to work with Sarsany. They consistently attempted to follow the guidelines set in the Election Manual throughout the process.
By comparison, Hartsell and Murphy concerns do not appear genuine. Both implied that they were making every attempt to ensure that the ballots were being properly handled, but neither advised Sarsany during the investigation of this protest that Murphy was absent during some or all of the ballot processing done on a number of days, or that no observer bothered to appear at all on four of the ten processing days.
We find no misconduct by Local 90 and accordingly 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 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 15th Street NW, Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 20005 (fax: 202-454-1501), all within the time 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
2001 EAD 311
DISTRIBUTION LIST VIA 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
Penobscot Building
Suite 1800
645 Griswold
Detroit, MI 48226
Betty Grdina
Yablonski, Both & Edelman
Suite 800
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tom Leedham c/o Stefan Ostrach
110 Mayfair
Eugene, OR 97404
Todd Hartsell
1823 Green Park Circle
Ankeny, Iowa 50021
IBT Local 90
Attn: Claudia Pettit
2425 Delaware Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50317
Dennis M. Sarsany
1829 Eddy Street
Chicago, IL 60657
[1] Murphy's claim in this regard is not credible. The reverse side of the outer ballot return envelopes clearly refers in large letter to the election process, and gives the date return envelopes were due. Any observer could plainly identify the returned ballot envelopes as such from that mark.