Protest Decisions

IN RE: LUCIO REYES, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2010 ESD 59
Issued: December 22, 2010
OES Case No. P-030-090810-FW

Lucio Reyes, member of Local Union 601, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 campaign mailed campaign fundraising solicitations to individuals at local union addresses in violation of the Rules.

Election Supervisor representatives Christine Mrak and Jeffrey Ellison investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact

Rome Aloise is a candidate for election to IBT Vice President - West Region and is a member of the Hoffa-Hall 2011 slate. On September 7, 2010, the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 campaign sent out a 4-page mailing announcing 2 upcoming fundraising events and promoting its website. Each piece mailed was sent to a specific named individual on the campaign's mailing list. The first page of the mailing was Hoffa-Aloise 2011 letterhead with the name and address of the recipient in the space where such would appear in a business letter, and a large-type notice reading "Please Copy & Post/Distribute" centered across the remainder of the page. Behind the cover page were three flyers: the first for a Hoffa-Aloise 2011 Custom Car & Motor Cycle Show set for Saturday, October 9 at Teamsters Local Union 431 in Fresno, California (admission $20); the second for a fundraiser to occur Saturday, November 6 at an elementary school in San Leandro (admission $20, lunch included); and the third promoting the campaign website at romealoise.com and inviting readers to follow the candidate on facebook, twitter and flickr; this page also made appeals for contributions, both as cash donations and as purchases of campaign merchandise. The 4-page mailing was tri-folded and stuffed in a #10 left-window business envelope, with the recipient's name and address from the cover page appearing in the window. The return address on the envelope read "Hoffa-Aloise 2011" and carried the home address of the Aloise campaign's manager, Ron Horner.

Five pieces of this mailing were sent to Local Union 601 officers and employees. The addresses read:

Ms. Maria Alvarado
Teamsters Local 601
745 E. Miner Ave.
Stockton, CA 95202

Mr. Ted Parmentier
Teamsters Local 601
745 E. Miner Ave.
Stockton, CA 95202

Mr. Michael Ball
Teamsters Local 601
745 E. Miner Ave.
Stockton, CA 95202

Mr. Manual Garcia
Teamsters Local 601
745 E. Miner Ave.
Stockton, CA 95202

Mr. Maria Juarez
Teamsters Local 601
745 E. Miner Ave.
Stockton, CA 95202

The Miner Street address in Stockton is Local Union 601's hall. At the time of the mailing, Alvarado was the local union president and a full-time business agent. She worked at the Miner Street location daily. Ball was the local union vice president and Parmentier, Garcia and Juarez were local union trustees. These four were employed full-time at Pacific Coast Producers facilities in Lodi, Woodland and Oroville, California. They came to the Stockton office for monthly meetings of the local union executive board and other times as needed.

Investigation of the September 7, 2010 mailing found evidence of three other mailings by Hoffa-Aloise 2011 of individually-addressed campaign solicitations to members at local unions. The mailings are described below.

Investigation showed that the first mailing was sent April 21, 2010. It was an appeal from Aloise for contributions to support his campaign, viz.

Believe me, the hardest thing about the campaign for me is to ask you for money, but it takes money to run. I have to raise between $80,000 and $125,000 over the course of the campaign. If we want to keep our level of influence, and keep someone on the General Executive Board, we have to raise money.

I am asking you to help my campaign. Obviously for those that can afford it, I am asking you to "Max Out" by contributing the maximum amount of $2000. This can be done all at once, or over the next year. We need a number of you to contribute at least $1000 now, so that we can begin to move the campaign forward and purchase what we need for bringing our members into the fold. Of course, any contributions to the campaign you can afford will be greatly appreciated.

(Emphasis in original.)

The April 21 mailing included a second sheet for response, with space for the contributor to fill in identifying information (name, address, phone, email, local union number, and the last 4 digits of the contributor's social security number). The following text appeared on the response sheet under the heading "Campaign Contribution" :

I am voluntarily committing to contribute to the Rome Aloise campaign for the upcoming International Brotherhood of Teamsters Election.

I intend to contribute $2000, which is the maximum allowed by the Election Rules. Any other money I contribute will go to the Legal and Defense Fund.

Beneath this text were spaces for the contributor to write in any amount enclosed, the date of the contribution and his/her signature.

A notice in 7-point typeface at the bottom of this sheet reads: "Only Active I.B.T. members may contribute to the campaign. Employers, representatives of any employer, unions, charitable organizations, trusts, foundations or other similar entities may not contribute any money, goods, services or facilities to the campaign."

Investigation showed that a second campaign mailing, consisting of 4 pages, was sent on May 19. The mailing included a cover letter soliciting contributions, viz.

In order to continue to be in a position to work for you, Rome needs to be re-elected. This means that he has to raise money, as required by the Election Rules, through contributions from members like you. No one, including Rome, likes having to ask for money, but it is necessary to ask for help to raise enough money to make his campaign viable.

The Election Rules allows for each member to contribute up to $2000. Of course, we realize that this is not attainable for most of our membership, but any contribution, of any amount, will be appreciated. There will be fund raisers over the next 18 months, and perhaps you will attend one or more of them. Ticket sales and clothing items are also for sale and are a way to donate to the campaign.

The May 19 mailing included flyers for a "Poker Run" in Reno, Nevada. A third mailing publicized an August 14 barbeque and poker tournament in Oakland, California. A fourth mailing, sent September 7, prompted this protest.

Ron Horner is the campaign manager for Hoffa-Aloise 2011 and was responsible for all the mailings. Horner told our investigator that he sent the April 21 mailing to a list labeled "Joint Council 7 Officers and Officials" and consisting of 225 individuals. Review of this list showed that the addresses for 175 of the individuals on the list (78%) were local union or joint council addresses. Horner stated that he obtained most of the addresses on this list from a directory of Teamster local unions for the West region that he said he purchased with his personal check from Joint Council 28.

All four mailings were sent to individual addressees at local union office addresses. None of the mailings included a request for a local union to copy the campaign material for general distribution via the campaign literature table. None of the mailings included the disclaimer language for material distributed for placement on the campaign literature table.

The May 19, July 12 and September 7 mailings used a list with almost 5 times more names than the "Joint Council 7 Officers and Officials" list Horner used for the April 21 mailing. These three mailings were created with a web-based program called CiviCRM. That program was used to store the campaign address list database and to address the mailed pieces. The CiviCRM program does not store historic versions of the database, nor does it store mailing lists generated by particular queries and used for particular mailings. The compilation for each mailing is ephemeral, and as address data is entered into the database, current information for an individual's record overwrites the old data. Over time, Horner would add, delete or modify entries in the database.

Horner told our investigator that the CiviCRM database was first populated from a list he had created on an excel spreadsheet. That list had 986 names entered. Horner produced that list for our review. We found that it included 2 names with no addresses and 129 duplicate names.[1] Thus, the excel spreadsheet had 855 unique names with addresses sufficient to deliver mail. Of the 855 persons listed on Horner's excel spreadsheet, the mailing addresses for 20 - about 2% - were local union addresses.

Horner provided our investigators with a copy of the CiviCRM address database shortly after the protest was filed. Because updates could have altered some records between the September 7 mailing and the date the database was provided, we cannot establish that the list provided represents exactly the list used for the mailing. It is, however, the closest thing to the mailing list that Hoffa-Aloise 2011 could supply. The database differed in two significant respects from the excel spreadsheet Horner said he had used to populate CiviCRM some months earlier. First, it is bigger - the CiviCRM database has 1,112 names, of which 53 had addresses insufficient for mailing.[2] Of the remaining 1,059 names, 72 were duplicates. Subtracting those, the CiviCRM database provided to the investigators consisted of 987 unique names with addresses sufficient to deliver mail, 132 more than on the excel sheet Horner said he imported into the CiviCRM database. Second, 203 of the addresses listed for the 987 unique names - about 20% - were local union addresses.[3]

Candidate Aloise was appointed to fill a vacancy as IBT Vice President for the West region in 2009 and is seeking election to that position. In addition, he is principal officer of Local Union 853 and president of Joint Council 7. Most of the individuals on the excel spreadsheet and the CiviCRM database are officers, employees or members of local unions in that joint council.

The actual mailings were created, folded, stuffed, sealed, and stamped by Horner and his wife in their home. The April 21 mailing was addressed using the "Joint Council 7 Officers and Officials" list of 225 names. The May 19, July 12 and September 7 mailings were created using CiviCRM's mail-merge function to insert addresses from the database Horner maintained with CiviCRM into the printed documents.

Horner produced documents reflecting contributions made in response to the April 21 mailing that used the "Joint Council 7 Officers and Officials" list. Of the eight forms returned, two - each enclosing a check for $1,000 - were from respondents who received the mailing at the local union addresses where they work. Each respondent also committed in writing to contribute the maximum amount of $2,000.

The campaign did not have records associating specific contributions with the subsequent three mailings. OES therefore analyzed all contributions received by Hoffa-Aloise 2011 during the time period from April 21 through October 15[4] and identified sums contributed by individuals whose names: 1) appeared in the CiviCRM database as produced by the campaign in this investigation; and 2) were associated with the member's local union address as the mailing address. From that total, we subtracted: 1) any contributions identifiable to a Tahoe fundraising event held May 24 for which no publicity was mailed;[5] and 2) purchases of campaign paraphernalia. That calculation yields $25,705 in campaign contributions from individuals who were in the campaign's CiviCRM database with their local union as their mailing address.[6]

Horner told our investigator that he knew that the addresses for many of the persons listed on the campaign mailing list were local union addresses. He stated further that he did not intend the mailing to be placed on the literature tables at local union halls. Instead, he described the mailing as "private mail" intended for the addressees only.

Specifically with respect to Local Union 601, Horner told our investigator that Reyes, at the time of the protest the principal officer of that local union, did not complain about the April and May mailings "when he was supporting us." It was only after Reyes declared his candidacy for International office opposing Aloise that a protest was filed.

Horner and the Aloise campaign complain that Reyes violated postal regulations by opening mail addressed to employees of his local union, apparently suggesting that any alleged Rules violation would not have been discovered if the mail had not been opened. Investigation showed that Reyes did not open the 5 pieces that prompted this protest. Instead, they were opened by an office clerical following the regular procedure for mail delivered to the local union.

Analysis

Several provisions of the Rules prohibit campaigning using union facilities. Thus:

• Article VII, Section 12(c): "Union … facilities, … personnel, etc. may not be used to assist in campaigning unless the Union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance."

• Article XI, Section 1(b)(3): "No labor organization … may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate … No candidate may accept or use any such contribution. These prohibitions extend beyond strictly monetary contributions made by a labor organization and include contributions and use of the organization's … facilities and personnel."

• Article XI, Section 1(b)(6): "No Union funds or other things of value shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote the candidacy of any individual. Union … facilities, … personnel, etc. may not be used to assist in campaigns unless the Union is compensated at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided with equal access to such assistance and are advised in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance."

Further, several Rules provisions address a candidate's responsibility with respect to union support of campaigning:

• Article XI, Section 1(b)(1): "Only contributions which are properly solicited … under these Rules may be expended or used by candidates, slates or independent committees for the 2010-2011 International Union Delegate and Officer Election."

• Article XI, Section 1(b)(13): "Candidates are strictly liable to insure that each contribution received is permitted under these Rules. Prohibited contributions must be returned promptly."

• Article XI, Section 1(b)(15): "Ignorance by a candidate, by a union and/or by an employer that union or employer funds or other resources were used to promote a candidacy shall not constitute a defense to an allegation of a violation of these Rules."

It is firmly established under these provisions that a campaign may not mail, fax, or email campaign materials to a local union except where the campaign expressly requests that the material be placed on the local union's literature table for general distribution and then only if the transmission complies with the requirements of our Advisory on the Use of Literature Tables. As the Election Administrator spelled out in Ostrach & Mandaro, 2000 ESD 29 (October 2, 2000), aff'd, 00 EAM 7 (October 10, 2000):

while a local union's or joint council's officers may have a real interest in campaign materials for candidates, the Rules require that such campaign materials intended for them, rather than the membership as a whole through campaign literature tables, be sent to the officers at their homes or to campaign addresses.

This point is no longer disputable. We note that in this and in previous elections, the Hoffa campaign has itself filed protests against candidates who have sent general campaign communications to local unions without complying with the Literature Table Advisory, and resulting rulings have reaffirmed that campaign materials cannot be addressed for receipt by an individual at the local union address. See Hoffa-Keegel 2011, 2010 ESD 3 (June 9, 2010), aff'd, 10 EAM 2 (July 7, 2010); Hoffa 2006, 2005 ESD 12 (September 30, 2005).

Here, it is an undisputed fact that Hoffa-Aloise 2011 sent solicitations to members asking for support and campaign contributions, and individually addressed those solicitations to each targeted member using a local union as the mailing address. This use of local union addresses to deliver individually-addressed campaign solicitations violates the Rules.

Hoffa-Aloise 2011 argues that mailing solicitations for campaign contributions to local union officials and employees is permitted by the Rules, citing Hoffa 2006, 2006 ESD 326 (July 18, 2006). That case involved communications with members in their capacity as elected convention delegates, not a solicitation for money or votes in connection with the delegate or International officer referendum voting. Article VII, Section 4 of the Rules entitles accredited candidates to receive, on request, a list of "all certified delegates with corresponding addresses." In that decision, we noted that the Rules "do not regulate the addresses elected delegates and alternate delegates may list on their candidate information sheets. As such, delegates and alternate delegates, as elected representatives of the local union, may list the address of the local union they have been elected to represent without violating the Rules." The Leedham campaign appealed to elected delegates for support at the nominating convention by sending campaign literature to local union addresses where the delegate had given that as his or her mailing address. The protestor in that case, Hoffa 2006, contended that the Leedham campaign violated the Rules by sending appeals for convention support to certified delegates at local union addresses. We denied the protest, and distinguished Ostrach, 2000 EAD 29, as follows:

The central purpose of the Rules provision permitting accredited candidates to obtain certified delegate lists is identical to that underlying the provision that permits candidates to obtain union membership lists - it allows candidates to campaign among and solicit support for their candidacies directly from members who will vote on whether the candidates will be nominated to the ballot in the International officer election. To suggest, as the protest did, that an accredited candidate may not mail campaign literature to the address a certified delegate has listed, if the listed address is that of the local union, would impermissibly interfere with the candidate's ability to solicit support among all delegates and alternate delegates.

[W]e hold that an accredited candidate is permitted to contact delegates and alternate delegates at any addresses those persons list - including local union addresses - where the contact is made to those persons in their capacities as delegates or alternate delegates. Accredited candidates may not otherwise contact those persons for a campaign purpose at the local union addresses they list, except in their capacities as delegates and alternate delegates, without including the disclaimer required by our advisory on literature tables and bulletin boards.

Accordingly, the Leedham slate did not violate the Rules by mailing campaign literature to elected delegates and alternate delegates at the local union addresses they listed on their candidate information sheets. The Leedham mailing was not required to include the literature table disclaimer because the campaign literature was not intended for literature tables; instead, it was directed to elected local union representatives - delegates and alternate delegates - at the addresses they had listed for contact.

Hoffa 2006 addressed the specific circumstance of seeking support from members in their capacity as certified local union delegates to the IBT convention. It does not apply here where the campaign seeks the support of local union officials and employees in their capacity as members. Candidates may send campaign literature and solicitations to members at their residences, but cannot send an individually-addressed mailing to a member at a local union where the member happens to work.

We also reject the contention of Hoffa-Aloise 2011 that protestor Reyes may have acquiesced in the alleged violation by not protesting the April and May mailings, which occurred at a time when Reyes was not opposing Aloise's candidacy. The investigation of the provenance of the September 7 mailing list led us to discover that the CiviCRM list was used for earlier campaign contribution solicitations and also led us to the mailing that used "Joint Council 7 Officers and Officials" list. Strict adherence to campaign fundraising rules has long been an important element of the IBT International Officer election process. See United States v. IBT, 981 F. Supp 222, 229-30 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

Finally, we reject Hoffa-Aloise 2011's argument that Reyes violated postal regulations by opening mail not addressed to him. Reyes did not open the mail; instead, it was opened by an office clerical pursuant to Local Union 601's regular procedures.

We find that Hoffa-Aloise 2011 violated the Rules by mailing solicitations for support to members at local union addresses. Therefore, we GRANT the protest.

Remedy

When the Election Supervisor determines that the Rules have been violated, he "may take whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate." Article XIII, Section 4. In fashioning the appropriate remedy, the Election Supervisor views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.

As no candidate may use contributions received from members who were improperly solicited at local union addresses (Article XI, Section 1(b)(1)), Hoffa-Aloise 2011 cannot use or transfer to another candidate or slate for use the funds it received from members to whom it sent such solicitations. Accordingly, we direct Hoffa-Aloise 2011 to cease and desist from addressing solicitations or campaign mailings to individual members at local union addresses, unless such material is designated for distribution on a local union literature table open to all and unless such solicitations otherwise comply with the requirements of our Advisory on that subject. This cease and desist order does not apply to communications with elected delegates as allowed by Hoffa 2006, 2006 ESD 326 (July 18, 2006).

We further direct Hoffa-Aloise 2011 to disgorge those funds, which we determine to be $25,705, that it received from individuals who were improperly solicited at local union addresses. The identified contributions were made either at the events promoted in the improper mailings or in the time period when these mailings (each of which directly appealed for campaign contributions) circulated.

Respecting the privacy of those individuals, we will supply their names and amounts directly to Hoffa-Aloise 2011 and not name them in this decision. The disgorgement must be accomplished by the campaign issuing checks to the individuals within 5 business days of the date this decision issues. Each such check must be accompanied by the Notice of Return of Campaign Contribution, the text of which is attached to this decision; the notice must be printed on Hoffa-Aloise 2011 letterhead. We recognize that some number of these individuals may not wish to accept a refund of their campaign contributions from the campaign. Nonetheless, an audit trail must be established showing the return of those funds and subsequent contributions (if any) from such individuals. The campaign cannot benefit as if its improper conduct did not occur. Hoffa-Aloise 2011 must hold the returned sums in escrow until the check is cashed and the held sum will count against the contributor's contribution limit until and unless the contributor accepts the returned funds. Once the checks are cashed, the individual contributor may make contributions, subject to the Rules, as the individual deems fit.

In the previous election cycle, we found that Ron Horner had misused union resources and violated the Rules relating to campaign contributions. Certain Campaign Contributions by Officers and Employees of Local Union 78, 2006 ESD 363 (October 4, 2006). His continued use of union resources in this case - local union addresses - demonstrates a disregard for the provisions prohibiting use of such resources to support a candidacy. To deter future misconduct on Horner's part, we suspend him from all activity in support of Hoffa-Aloise 2011 and allied candidates for a period of 30 consecutive days, commencing January 3, 2011 and continuing through and including February 1, 2011. During the period of his suspension, Horner may not engage in any activity that supports the campaign of Aloise or any allied candidate, including any delegate or alternate delegate candidate allied with Aloise or the slate to which Aloise belongs.

In the previous election cycle, we found that Rome Aloise also misused union resources and violated the Rules relating to campaign contributions. Certain Campaign Contributions by Officers and Employees of Local Union 853, 2006 ESD 341 (August 23, 2006); see also, 2006 ESD 350 (September 15, 2006). The violation for which Aloise was found responsible in the previous election cycle did not deter further misuse of union resources in the current cycle, and candidate Aloise is strictly liable for the violation. The violation found here involved four mailings over five months and we have determined that it generated $25,705 in contributions requiring a refund. On that basis, we conclude that a fine against the campaign is also appropriate. In Hoffa 2006 (after remand), 2006 ESD 331 (July 19, 2006), we ordered a candidate who had failed to file CCER reports timely to pay a fine representing 15% of the contributions reported on the delinquent reports. The circumstances presented here warrant a similar penalty. Accordingly, we order Hoffa-Aloise 2011 to pay a fine in the amount of $3,856, representing 15% of the amount we order refunded. Such fine must be received by the Office of the Election Supervisor no later than Tuesday, January 4, 2011. This fine is strictly remedial in nature and is intended to deter future Rules violations.

Finally, we direct the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 campaign to send the attached notice to all persons on the mailing list used for its September 7, 2010 mailing. The mailing is to be completed within five (5) business days of the date of this decision. The purpose of this notice is strictly remedial in nature and is intended to educate the recipients on the requirements of the Rules and the fact that Hoffa-Aloise 2011 violated them. Hoffa-Aloise 2011 is also directed to post the notice on the home page on www.romealoise.com for a period of 30 days. Such posting shall appear in the first, uppermost position on the page, immediately beneath the masthead, and shall remain in that position for the duration of the posting.

Compliance affidavits for all remedies imposed here shall be supplied to our offices within 3 business days after each element of this remedy has been completed.

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 Supervisor 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 the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite421 L, Washington, D.C. 20006, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.

Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor

cc:    Kenneth Conboy
        2010 ESD 59

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):

Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington,D.C. 20001
braymond@teamster.org

David J. Hoffa
Hoffa Keegel 2011
1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste. 730
Washington D.C. 20036
hoffadav@hotmail.com

Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210-0128
ken@tdu.org

Barbara Harvey
1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net

Fred Gegare
P.O. Box 9663
Green Bay, WI 54308-9663
kirchmanb@yahoo.com

Scott D. Soldon
Previant Goldberg
155 North River Center Drive, Ste. 202
P.O. Box 12993
Milwaukee, WI 53212
sds@previant.com

Fred Zuckerman, President
Teamsters Local Union 89
3813 Taylor Blvd.
Louisville, KY 40215
fredzuckerman@aol.com

Robert M. Colone, Esq.
P.O. Box 272
Sellersburg, IN 47172-0272
rmcolone@hotmail.com

Carl Biers
Box 424, 315 Flatbush Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217
info@SandyPope2011.org

Julian Gonzalez
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
350 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10001-5013
jgonzalez@lcnlaw.com

Lucio Reyes
301 S. Tuxedo
Stockton, CA 95202
lreyes601@sbcglobal.net

Rome Aloise
250 Excecutive Park Blvd., Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94134-3306
raloise@teamsters853.org

Ron Horner
95 Monika Lane
Hayward, CA 94541
t70ronh@aol.com

Christine Mrak
2357 Hobart Avenue, SW
Seattle, WA 98116
chrismrak@gmail.com

Kathryn Naylor
Office of the Election Supervisor
1801 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
knaylor@ibtvote.org

Jeffrey Ellison
214 S. Main Street, Ste. 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
EllisonEsq@aol.com

[Hoffa-Aloise 2011 letterhead]

NOTICE OF RETURN OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION

The Election Supervisor has determined that the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 campaign violated the Election Rules by sending requests for campaign contributions individually addressed to you at the address of the local union where you work. Solicitations for campaign funds and campaign literature generally cannot be addressed to individuals for receipt at the mailing address of the local union.

The Election Supervisor has ordered Hoffa-Aloise 2011 to refund to you the contributions you made to our campaign. Enclosed is that refund.

Once you cash or deposit the enclosed check, the amount of that check will not count against the contribution limit set by the Rules, and you will be free to make any contribution, or refrain from contributing, as you see fit.

HOFFA-ALOISE 2011

Office of the Election Supervisor
for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421 L
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-429-8683
877-317-2011 Toll Free
202-429-6809 Facsimile
electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org
www.ibtvote.org

Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor

TO: All person on the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 mailing list
FROM: Richard W. Mark, Election Supervisor

The Election Supervisor has found that the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 campaign violated the Election Rules by sending requests for contributions and support individually addressed to members at the address of the local union where the members work. Solicitations for campaign funds and campaign literature generally cannot be addressed to individuals for receipt at the mailing address of the local union.

The Election Supervisor will not tolerate violation of the Rules. The Election Supervisor has ordered Hoffa-Aloise 2011 to refund contributions made to the campaign by members who received campaign material and solicitations individually-addressed to them at their local union's address. The Election Supervisor has also imposed a fine of $3,856 on the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 campaign and has suspended the campaign manager, Ron Horner, from all campaign activity for a period of 30 consecutive days. The Election Supervisor has also ordered Hoffa-Aloise 2011 to cease and desist from addressing solicitations or campaign mailings to individual members at local union addresses, unless such material is designated for distribution on a local union literature table open to all and otherwise complies with the requirements of our Advisory on that subject. Finally, the Election Supervisor has ordered the Hoffa-Aloise 2011 campaign to mail this notice to all persons who received the mailing sent by the campaign on September 7 to inform them of the Rules violation and the remedy imposed.

The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Reyes, 2010 ESD 59 (December 21, 2010). You may read this decision at http://www.ibtvote.org/protests/2010/2010esd059.htm.

Any protest you have regarding your rights under the Rules or any conduct by any person or entity that violates the Rules should be filed with Richard W. Mark, 1801 K Street, N.W., Suite 421L, Washington, D.C. 20006, telephone: 877-317-2011, fax: 202-429-6809, email: electionsupervisor@ibtvote.org.

[1] The spreadsheet was prepared with last name shown in the first column and first name shown in the second. In the most common example of a duplicate, a given person was listed twice, once in the manner just described and a second time with the person's first name in the last name column and last name in the first name column. In both entries, the address listed was the same.

[2] Most of the deficient entries had no address at all; some had city and zip code but no street number or name.