ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
--------------------------------------------------------X
IN RE: JIM BROWN 2015-2016 EAM 25 (KAR)
DECISION ON MOTION TO
APPELLANT. DISMISS APPEAL OF
2016 ESD 219
--------------------------------------------------------X
Protest Decision 2016 ESD 219 (ESD 219), denying a protest by Edgar Esquivel (OES Case No. P-213-031016-FW), a member of Local Union 952, was issued on May 23, 2016.
The protest in this case alleged that the procedure used by Local Union 952 to retrieve and remail ballots returned as undeliverable (RAU) violated the Rules. The Election Supervisor found to the contrary that the procedure complied with the Rules; was consistent with the notice of procedures that was timely given to candidates, including the appellant; and was implemented so as to safeguard the ballots returned as undeliverable, which were produced for inspection at the tally of ballots. Finally, the Election Supervisor determined that the protest claiming the procedure as conceived and announced was defective was filed some seven weeks after notice of the procedure was given, far too late under the two working day time limit for protests set forth in the Rules.
The protestor did not appeal the adverse decision. On May 26, 2016, the Election Appeals Master received an email from Jim Brown, a member of Local 952 titled “Request for an appeal on case Protest Decision 2016 ESD 219.” The appellant did not provide a copy of this email to the Election Supervisor or to the parties to the original protest.
The Election Appeals Master forwarded a copy of the May 26 email to the Election Supervisor on May 31, 2016. On June 9, 2016, the Election Supervisor moved to dismiss Mr. Brown’s appeal on the ground that he had failed to comply with Article XIII, Section 2(i) of the Rules, which provides that any “appeal shall be delivered to the Election Appeals Master or her/his designee, the Election Supervisor and to all other parties to the dispute … within the [two working day] time limit prescribed above, with a copy of the original protest attached.” The Election Supervisor noted that this requirement is restated at the end of every protest decision, including the one at issue here, but that Appellant sent the appeal only to the Election Appeals Master, without forwarding a copy of the appeal to the Election Supervisor or any interested party. The Election Supervisor contends that “[a]ppeals filed without simultaneous service on the Election Supervisor and other interested parties are subject to dismissal and have been dismissed as defective under the Rules. Sgrillo & Fabiano, 11 EAM 31 (April 6, 2011); Webb, 11 EAM 16 (February 4, 2011); Kenny, 06 EAM 40 (May 31, 2006).”
Mr. Brown has not responded to the motion to dismiss or produced any evidence that he provided a copy of his appeal to the Election Supervisor and interested parties.
Mr. Brown’s appeal is therefore DISMISSED for substantially the reasons set forth in the Election Supervisor’s Motion to Dismiss.
SO ORDERED.
/s/___________________________________
KATHLEEN A. ROBERTS
ELECTION APPEALS MASTER
DATED: June 25, 2016