Protest Decisions

IN RE: HOFFA-HALL 2011, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 219
Issued: April 17, 2011
OES Case Nos. P-167-022311-NA

Hoffa-Hall 2011 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2 of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules").   The protest alleged that the campaign contribution and expense report ("CCER") filed by Fred Zuckerman, candidate for IBT central region vice-president, failed properly to disclose a fundraising event held by the Zuckerman campaign and the contributions received at the the event.

Election Supervisor representative Deborah Schaaf investigated this protest.

Findings of Fact

Under Article XI the Rules, each candidate for International office must file two financial reports for each reporting period in which he/she is a candidate.  A candidate must file a Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Report (CCER) that documents all contributions received, all expenditures made, cash on hand, loans incurred, and related financial information.  In addition, a candidate must file a Supplemental Report No. 1 that documents the contributions received and expenditures incurred for legal and accounting work on behalf of the candidate.  These filings are required even if the candidate received no contributions and made no expenditures in the reporting period.  Any candidate for International office has the right, upon request to OES, to inspect and obtain copies of the reports filed by any other candidate, in accordance with reasonable terms and conditions set by the Election Supervisor.

The third CCER reporting period commenced October 1, 2010 and concluded January 31, 2011.  Reports for this period were due February 15, 2011.    Candidate Zuckerman timely filed the required reports for Period 3.

The protest alleged that the Zuckerman campaign failed to include a fundraising event held in November 2010 at the Crowne Plaza Detroit Airport hotel and failed to disclose contributions raised at the event, although another portion of the CCER listed a payment to the hotel and identified its purpose as "fundraiser."   The protestor also cited Zuckerman, 2010 ESD 62 (December 28, 2010), aff'd, 11 EAM 10 (January 18, 2011)[1], as evidence that two IBT members, Jim Parrinello and Toiale  Johnson, attended the event; the protest complained that the CCER failed to disclose receipt of contributions from them.

Zuckerman acknowledged that the campaign event was not reported on Addendum No. 1 of his Period 3 CCER.    He stated that the November event in Detroit was not conceived as a fundraiser but rather was a "meet-and-greet" organized so that members could meet Zuckerman and other candidates running with Fred Gegare for International office.   Zuckerman further stated that there was no charge to attend the event and no request for contributions was made at the event.   Zuckerman acknowledged that Parrinello and Johnson attended the event but that neither made a contribution.   He stated further that four members did make campaign contributions there, and those contributions, as well as all expenditures related to the event, were reported in the CCER.   Zuckerman characterized the failure to report the event on Addendum No. 1 as an oversight, not an intentional omission.   He stated he was prepared to file an amended CCER for Period 3 if directed by the Election Supervisor.

Parrinello and Johnson confirmed that they had made no contribution to the Zuckerman campaign, although they attended the event.   Parrinello was emphatic in his statement that he is not a supporter of Zuckerman, Gegare or any member of the Gegare slate of International candidates; he said he attended the event to obtain information about the candidates and their campaign platform prior to making a decision about whom to support for International office.

Analysis

The Rules closely regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.  Candidates for International office and any slates they form must file periodic reports of the contributions received and the expenditures made in support of their campaigns.  Candidates and slates are expected to comply with the Rules' limitations on contribution sources and amounts. OES oversight aims to enforce strict compliance with the Rules' campaign finance requirements. 

We first look to the allegation that Zuckerman failed to report a campaign fundraising event on Addendum No. 1 to the CCER as required.   Zuckerman admits that he did not report the November 2010 event on Addendum No. 1 to the CCER for Period 3.   He states that the purpose for the event was not to raise funds, but in other portions of the CCER, the purpose for the event is described as "fundraiser" and four contributions were reported to have been received at the event. There is no evidence that Zuckerman deliberately excluded the November fundraiser    from Addendum No. 1, and he has agreed to file an amended CCER to resolve the inconsistency, if necessary.  

The instructions on Addendum #1, on which fundraising events are to be reported, requires the candidate to complete the form "for every fundraising event including but not limited to campaign raffles, beer or cocktail parties, cash bars, and dinners at which cash was collected."   Although the event Zuckerman hosted was not conceived as a fundraiser and did not carry an admission charge, the fact that contributions were received at it makes the event reportable on Addendum #1 as a fundraising event, a fact that Zuckerman implicitly acknowledged elsewhere in his CCER.   Accordingly, we direct Zuckerman to file an amended CCER for Period 3 that includes an Addendum #1 for the November event at the Detroit airport hotel.   We direct that the report be filed within five days of the date of this decision.   Upon filing the amended CCER, this portion of the protest will be deemed RESOLVED.  

The second element of the protest is that the CCER did not report specific contributions from Parrinello and Johnson.   As the investigation showed that no admission was charged to the event and that neither Parrinello nor Johnson made a contribution, we DENY this aspect of the protest.  

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
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY   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., Suite 421 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
            2011 ESD 219

DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):