ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF GARY HAM, ANGEL GARCES, AND KIMBERLY SESSIONS, Protestors.
11 Elec. App. 27 (KC)
ORDER
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decision 2011 EAD 138 issued February 25, 2011. The appeal was submitted by Barbara Harvey on behalf of Gary Ham.
A hearing was held before me on March 16, 2011. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., for the Election Supervisor; Barbara Harvey on behalf of Mr. Ham, Walter Kane on behalf of Local 854 and David Hoffa on behalf of the Hoffa Slate.
The Election Supervisor ruled that when Mr. Ham nominated two candidates for delegate at Local 854's Nominations Meeting he was without authority to do so, because in the month prior to that meeting, his dues had not been fully paid. This had the effect of causing the uncontested election of the opposition slate.
It can be said without exaggeration, that the eligibility inquiry in this case was a fiasco. Investigation into whether Mr. Ham paid his required dues, when they were paid and the sequential impact of payments on particular months generated a welter of confusion, inaccurate information, erroneous assumptions, and plain wrong advice from the Election Supervisor to Mr. Ham.
The details of this sorry record can be found in the Election Supervisor's decision in this case.
Ms. Barbara Harvey, counsel to Mr. Ham sums up with admirable precision the case and its discontents:
Had Mr. Ham received a timely notice that he was in arrears for the month of September 2009, he would have paid it in advance of nominations. The OES failure to respond timely was attributable directly to the shoddy and unprofessional record-keeping practices and dilatory responses to the OES by both the employer and union.
Letter of Barbara Harvey to the Election Appeals Master dated March 15, 2011 at 2.
Mr. Ellison agrees with Ms. Harvey. There they part company.
Ms. Harvey asks that the election be nullified and a new election be ordered in the interests of broad equity and the nascent democracy in this local. Mr. Ellison objects, and asserts that ultimate responsibility for knowing and complying with the dues requirements to run for delegate and to nominate others to stand for election, under the Election Rules, rests with the would be candidates and those nominating them.
I agree with Mr. Ellison.
Accordingly, the decision of the Election Supervisor, its dismaying factual record notwithstanding, is affirmed.
SO ORDERED:
_/s/_______________________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: March 18, 2011