ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
IN RE: RAYNELL CASTILLO, Protestors.
11 Elec. App. 38 (KC)
ORDER
This matter is an appeal from the Election Supervisor's decision 2011 ESD 203 issued April 7, 2011. The appeal was submitted by Mike Webb, a member of Local Union 391.
A hearing was held before me on April 18, 2011. The following persons were heard by way of teleconference: Jeffrey J. Ellison, Esq., for the Election Supervisor; David J. Hoffa on behalf of the Hoffa Slate and Mike Webb.
The original protestor in this case, Raynell Castro of Local 657 in San Antonio, Texas was nominated, ran for delegate, and lost. After the votes were counted, she filed a post election protest alleging pre-election violations of the Election Rules, most notably, that Local 657 President Frank Perkins, through an intermediary, offered to arrange for her to serve at sergeant-at-arms at the Convention with all expenses paid, if she agreed to withdraw her candidacy for delegate. This overture she asserted had occurred on January 26, or 45 days before she filed her protests.
This is prohibited under our long standing case law, most notably expressed in Berg, 2006 ESD 296 (June 4, 2006) aff'd, 06 EAM 44 (June 15, 2006):
Post-election protests are properly addressed to actions
occurring at or after the ballot count itself. They are not to be
used to assert violations based on matters that the protestor
knew (or she have known) about in the pre-election period. A
protestor cannot sit on a pre-election allegation, wait for the
outcome of the election, and then seek to upset the entire
result based on pre-election conduct that, if a violation, could
have been addressed earlier.
As noted in his decision, the Election Supervisor observed that protestor Castillo, during the pre-election period and after this purported election misconduct had occurred, had contact on numerous issues with OES representative Doloros Hall, yet Ms. Castillo was conspicuously silent about any sergeant-at-arms proposal emanating from her election opponents.
The Election Supervisor denied her protests on grounds of untimeliness.
Not surprisingly, neither Ms. Castillo nor anyone associated with Local 657 appealed the Election Supervisor's decision, as its reasoning is unassailable.
The appellant here, Mike Webb of Local 391 in North Carolina has no connection to the protest proceedings below, no connection to Local 657, is not an affected candidate, and is not a person aggrieved by the determination, as his substantive rights under the Election Rules were not determined or affected by the decision.
During the argument, Mr. Webb asserted that his interest in a "fair and honest election" gives him standing under the Rules to intervene with an appeal. When asked if each of 1.4 million IBT members had the same right to intervene in any proceeding under the Rules, he answered in the affirmative. He also denounced the conduct complained of by Ms. Castillo in the original proceeding as "criminal" and "bribery." It is imperative that all those interested in a "fair and honest election" understand that the Election Supervisor is not a United States Prosecutor, that these Rules proceedings are not the equivalent of a federal grand jury, and that the Election Rules are not a species of federal criminal statutes.
It is clear beyond doubt that Mr. Webb lacks standing under the Election Rules to bring this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
SO ORDERED:
___s/Kenneth Conboy__________
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Dated: April 20, 2011