October 12, 1995
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Clifford Chentnik
October 12, 1995
Page 1
Clifford T. Chentnik N3066 Apricot Road Lake Geneva, WI 53147
Julie E. Hamos Julie E. Hamos and Associates 203 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60601 |
| Edward J. Sherman, Secretary-Treasurer Teamsters Local Union 325 5533 Eleventh Street Rockford, IL 61109 |
|
|
|
Clifford Chentnik
October 12, 1995
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case Nos. P-163-CHI-EOH
P-175-CHI-EOH
Gentlepersons:
These protests were filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
Clifford Chentnik, a member of Local Union 325 alleging irregularities by Regional Coordinator Julie Hamos in conducting the lottery for the placement of candidates on the ballot (P-163-CHI-EOH), and by not "specifying the exact date" on which ballots would be mailed (P-175-CHI-EOH).
The protests were investigated by Protest Chief Benetta Mansfield.
In P-163-CHI-EOH, the investigation revealed that a nomination meeting for delegates and alternate delegates to the International convention was held at Local Union 325 in Rockford, Illinois on Sunday, September 10, 1995. Following the nominations, Regional Coordinator Hamos explained that Wednesday, September 13, 1995, was the deadline for filing slate declarations of candidates for delegate and alternate delegate positions. See
Article IX, Section 1(c). Pursuant to the Rules, a lottery is held for ballot position.
Article II, Section 10(b).
Clifford Chentnik
October 12, 1995
Page 1
Ms. Hamos explained to the nominees that a provisional lottery could be conducted at the time of the nomination meeting, but if further slate declarations were presented prior to the deadline on September 13, 1995, the lottery would have to be conducted again in her Chicago office. In discussing this procedure, the protester took the position that the lottery should not be held at the nomination meeting on September 10, but should be held at the Chicago office of the regional coordinator after the deadline for the submission of slates on September 13, 1995. The other participants in the discussion (a total of seven) took the position that they preferred to have the lottery conducted immediately after the conclusion of the nomination meeting on September 10. In accordance with the election procedures, Ms. Hamos conducted the lottery on a provisional basis with the understanding that it would have to be rerun through her office in Chicago if additional slates were filed prior to the September 13 deadline.
The protester, who at the time was an independent candidate, was the first candidate selected in the lottery and was provisionally placed in the first position on the ballot as an independent candidate. When this occurred, it was pointed out to Ms. Hamos by some of those present that the regional coordinator had mixed together in the drawing both slate and independent candidates, despite the fact that the Rules provided for slates of candidates to proceed all independent candidates on the ballot. Recognizing this to be the correct reading of the Rules, yet having already selected the protester’s name, Ms. Hamos retained
Mr. Chentnik’s position as the first of the independent candidates, but proceeded to segregate the slates from the independent candidates and completed the lottery with a separate position- drawing for the slates and independent candidates.
On September 11, 1995, the protester filed protest P-163-CHI-EOH alleging that after Ms. Hamos selected his name to appear first on the ballot, other candidates protested the manner in which the lottery was being conducted. The protester contends that rather than requiring these protesting candidates to file a written protest with the Election Officer,
Ms. Hamos improperly accepted an oral protest, and thereafter changed the rules to indicate that if an individual expanded his or her nomination position to include a slate, the lottery would have to be rerun. The protester alleged that this was a change in the rules and permitted other candidates to file oral protests while he was required to file a written protest.
The protester’s assertions are incorrect. The holding of a provisional lottery by
Ms. Hamos is in accord with the procedures promulgated by the Election Officer. The Election Officer finds that it is proper under the Rules to hold such provisional lotteries at nomination meetings where there can be direct observation by the candidates. However, any subsequent timely filing of slates pursuant to Article IX, Section 1(c) will require that the lottery be redone after the three-day deadline has expired.
In addition, the Election Officer does not view the discussion regarding the proper means of holding the lottery as an “oral protest.” The Rules state:
Clifford Chentnik
October 12, 1995
Page 1
All full and partial slates shall be listed on the ballots before the column(s) headed “independent candidates.” The order of placement of slates on the ballot shall be determined by lot. The members of each slate shall determine the order of each candidate's name within the slate listing. Among independent candidates, the order of placement on the ballot shall be determined by lot.
Article II, Section 10(b).
Pursuant to this section of the Rules, Ms. Hamos realized that she had incorrectly combined individual and slate candidates at the beginning of the lottery. Also recognizing that she had already drawn Mr. Chentnik’s name, who was running as an independent candidate, she allowed him to remain first among the independent candidates. She then proceeded to separate the remaining individual candidates from slates, and continued the provisional lottery. Such action on the part of Ms. Hamos was appropriate and in accordance with the Rules.
On September 11, 1995, at the same time he filed the protest, the protester filed a slate for the positions of delegate and alternate delegate. This necessitated voiding the provisional lottery and conducting another lottery, as the regional coordinator had previously advised those present at the provisional lottery. On September 13, 1995 at 5:00 p.m., after the deadline for filing slate declarations, Ms. Hamos conducted the second lottery at her office in Chicago. The protester’s slate was chosen third from among the three slates which had been filed. Had Mr. Chentnik retained his independent status, he would have remained under that column as the first candidate. Since, however, he filed a slate petition, this necessitated the second lottery to draw among the slates that were now in the race.
The protester believes it was improper for Ms. Hamos to move him from the first- ballot individual position to the third-slate position. He contends that he should have remained in the first position, regardless of whether he was an individual candidate or on a slate. Such a ruling, however, would be in violation of the clear meaning of Article II, Section 10(b) of the Rules regarding the order of candidates on the ballot. It was protester’s actions which necessitated the second lottery. Having declared himself part of the slate, he placed himself in a different grouping of candidates, whose order of placement had to be redetermined.
It is the finding of the Election Officer that the lottery for position of the candidates on the ballots was properly conducted in accordance with the Rules.
The investigation in P-175-CHI-EOH revealed that in response to an inquiry from the protester, Ms. Hamos, in a handwritten note, advised him that she was planning to mail the ballots on October 13, 1995. She further indicated "this is [an] approximate [date]."
Mr. Chentnik alleges that in not specifying “an exact date” for the mailing of the ballots,
Ms. Hamos is depriving the members of an informed vote and giving an unfair advantage to incumbents because “they have immediate access to the membership mailing list.”
Clifford Chentnik
October 12, 1995
Page 1
The Election Officer maintains this contention is without merit. Given the complexity of the arrangements which must be made for a centralized mail ballot, it was not reasonable for Mr. Chentnik to demand an exact date for the mailing several weeks in advance of the anticipated mailing date. Several unanticipated and unavoidable problems may arise beyond the Election Officer's control which might cause a short delay in the actual mailing of the ballots. The mailing date was provided to the protester with sufficient clarity to enable candidates to direct their campaign communications to members in a timely manner.
Accordingly, the protests are DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham and Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 North Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master