IN RE: TOM LEEDHAM RANK AND FILE POWER SLATE,
Protest Decision 2001 EAD 545
Issued: November 8, 2001
OEA Case No. PR100711NA
The Tom Leedham Rank and File Power slate ("Leedham slate") 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 the Hoffa Unity slate ("Hoffa slate"). The protest alleges the CCERs the Hoffa slate and individual candidates on that slate filed for period 5 document violations of the Rules.
Election Administrator representative Jeffrey Ellison investigated the protest.
Findings of Fact and Analysis
1. The protest alleges that the Hoffa slate failed to file Addendum #2, which reports the anticipated contributions and expenditures for the period September 1 through the remainder of the election period. Investigation shows that the slate properly filed the required addendum, but it was not transmitted timely to the Leedham slate by our office. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest.
2. The protest alleges that the Keegel campaign's Addendum #2 projects spending for phone banking at the offices of the campaign's accountant and lawyer, both of whom are said to be IBT vendors. This allegation does not state a Rules violation. Employers, even if IBT vendors, may permissibly allow use of their facilities and equipment, provided they are compensated for such use at fair market value. When properly paid for, such use of facilities does not constitute a contribution under the Rules. Accordingly, we DENY this aspect of the protest as well.[1]
3. The protest alleges that the Hoffa slate CCER shows identical receipts to date of $66,782 from each of the Hoffa/Cammack and the Hoffa/Santangelo campaign accounts. Yet, the protest notes, the corresponding Hoffa/Cammack CCER shows total expenditures to date of only $322.75.
Investigation shows that the facts the protestor alleges are true. For reporting periods prior to June 1, 2001, the Hoffa/Cammack and Hoffa/Santangelo campaigns operated a combined account for contributions and expenditures. All such transactions were reported on the Hoffa/Santangelo CCERs. By contrast, the Hoffa/Cammack CCERs prior to June 1, 2001, showed no contributions or expenditures.
Commencing in period 4, we directed the campaigns to report contributions to and expenditures by them separately. We also directed that they file amended CCERs for the periods when they had combined their reporting. Leedham Slate, 2001 EAD 302 (April 12, 2001). Subsequently, we excused the filing of amended CCERs because the campaigns were unable to reconstruct the contributions and expenditures attributable to each campaign. For subsequent reporting periods, however, the two campaigns divided the fund balance evenly between them.
Before the campaigns divided the account, they made two combined contributions in CCER reporting period 4 to the Hoffa slate. The first was a $35,000 contribution made March 13, 2001. The second was a $9,333.38 contribution to the "Hoffa campaign Palm Springs fundraiser" made May 15, 2001.
The Hoffa slate reported receipt of these contributions, but reported half from each of the two campaigns. Thus, on its CCER 4, the Hoffa slate reported receipt of two contributions of $17,500 each from the Hoffa/Cammack and Hoffa/Santangelo campaigns. Similarly, on its CCER 5, the Hoffa slate reported receiving two contributions totaling $9,333.98 ($4,666.99 from each campaign) on June 15, 2001.
We DENY this aspect of the protest. The Hoffa slate properly attributed the contributions from the combined campaigns to each of them separately. Accordingly, the receipt of the contributions was properly reported.
4. The protest finally alleges that the Hoffa/Cipriani CCER 5 is nonsensical. According to the protest, the CCER reports contributions received to date of $101,000, expenses to date of $10,000, and a bank balance of $0. However, the CCER the protest cites is not signed by the candidate.
The signed CCER 5 submitted by the campaign shows contributions received to date of $101,255.00, expenses to date of $91,187.17 and a bank balance of $16,608.89. These figures demonstrate that the balance remaining is more than the difference between the contributions and expenditures to date. Investigation shows that, beginning with CCER reporting period 3, the treasurer of the Cipriani campaign deposited funds in the campaign's bank account near the end of the reporting period, reported the ending bank balance for that period as including all funds deposited in the period, but did not report the contributions the final deposits represented until the next reporting period. This fault was repeated in subsequent reporting periods. Thus, for CCER reporting period 5, the bank balance shows some $6,541.06 on hand that is not accounted for in the reported contributions for the period. The Cipriani campaign has agreed to file forthwith amended CCERs commencing with CCER 3. These CCERs will properly report all contributions received in each reporting period.[2] Based on this agreement, we deem this aspect of the protest RESOLVED.
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 (facsimile: 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 545
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
3060 Penobscot Building
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 Thompson
209 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
Matt Ginsburg
30 Third Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11271
James L. Hicks, Jr., P.C.
Suite 1100
2777 N. Stemmons Freeway
Dallas, TX 75207
C. Thomas Keegel
IBT General Secretary-Treasurer
25 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Randy Cammack
IBT Local 63
845 Oak Park Road
Covina, CA 91724
Jack Cipriani
3100 Sandy Ridge Rd.
Colfax, NC 27235
Jim Santangelo
IBT Local 848
9960 Baldwin Place
El Monte, CA 91731
Jeffrey Ellison
65 Cadillac Square
Suite 3727
Detroit, MI 48226
[1] In denying this aspect of the protest, we do not pass on the propriety of the payments actually made to the vendors for the phone-banking expenses that were incurred. Those are reported in the campaign's subsequent CCER filings.
[2] The campaign may comply with the requirement to amend the affected CCERs by photocopying the reports originally submitted, clearly labeling the copies "amended," legibly inserting the correct numbers into the appropriate spaces in the copies, and signing and dating the copies with the date the amendments are submitted.