Protest Decisions

September 17, 1996

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

Joseph Rockstroh

6154 Old Washington Road

Elkridge, MD 21227

Tom Feeley

34-21 Review Avenue

Long Island City, NY 11101

William Hogan, Jr.

219 Avondale

Palatine, IL 60067

James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098

Robert Maier, President

Teamsters 639 Retiree Chapter

c/o Teamsters Local Union 639

3100 Ames Place, N.E.

Washington, DC 20018

Chuck Mack, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 70

70 Hegenberger Road

Oakland, CA 94621

Jon Rabine, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 763

553 John Street

Seattle, WA 98109

Les Singer, President

Teamsters Local Union 20

435 S. Hawley Street

Toledo, OH 43609

Jim Santangelo

8556 Moorcroft Avenue

West Hills, CA 91304

Garnet Zimmerman, President

Teamsters Local Union 31

490 E. Broadway

Vancouver, BC V5T 1X3

T. C. Stone

P.O. Box 571

Kaufman, TX 75142

Sam Theodus, President

Teamsters Local Union 407

3150 Chester Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44114

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

Paul Alan Levy

Public Citizen Litigation Group

1600 20th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

Bradley T. Raymond

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,

  Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.

32300 Northwestern Highway Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

Nathaniel K. Charny

Cohen, Weiss and Simon

330 W. 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036             

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case Nos.              P-821-IBT-EOH

P-915-IBT-EOH

Gentlemen:

Related pre-election protests have been filed pursuant to the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by Joseph Rockstroh, a member of Local Union 355 and Tom Feeley, a member of Local Union 804.  The protesters allege multiple violations of the Rules that are reflected on the Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports (“CCERs”) filed by various International union officer candidates.  The alleged violations will be addressed separately below.  Because of the related nature of these protests, they were consolidated by the Election Officer.

The protests were investigated by Election Office Staff Representative Kathryn Naylor.

I.              Alleged Violations of the Hoffa Campaign

A.              Reporting of Expenditures for Legal Services

Protester Rockstroh notes that the CCER for Hoffa ‘96 National shows two payments to Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman, P.C. (“Finkel, Whitefield”) for legal services during the reporting period January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996.  The protester challenges whether these two “quarterly payments” totaling $14,000 for “continuous representation throughout the election process for a whole year reflects the market standard for the provision of legal services in the Detroit area.”  The protester argues therefore that Finkel, Whitefield is extending credit to Mr. Hoffa’s campaign.  The protester reasons that “given the normal hourly rates for a management firm like Finkel, Whitefield and given the large number of hours that the firm has devoted to the Hoffa account, it appears that Finkel, Whitefield has made in-kind contributions of their time and expenses or has provided discounted legal services to Mr. Hoffa’s campaign.”  The protester contends that the Hoffa campaign should be required to report such in-kind contributions of legal services.

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer previously noted in Rockstroh, P-764-IBT-EOH (July 11, 1996), that Finkel, Whitefield performed a minimal amount of work for the Hoffa campaign prior to December 1, 1995.  For such minimal services, Finkel, Whitefield was paid less than $300 which is reflected in the CCER filed by the Hoffa ‘96 National Legal and Accounting Fund for the period ending January 20, 1996.  After December 1, 1995, Finkel, Whitefield began performing significantly more legal services for the campaign. 

Bradley Raymond, the attorney who handles the Hoffa account at Finkel, Whitefield, explains that generally, clients are expected to pay their invoices within 30 days of receipt, however, the firm is flexible depending on the nature of the client’s business.  The Hoffa campaign has made large periodic payments to Finkel, Whitefield.  Mr. Raymond has not objected to this practice given the unpredictable nature of campaign fundraising and the financial demands of campaigning.  Mr. Raymond maintains that as of the end of the reporting period on May 20, 1996, the campaign had paid a total of $14,000 to Finkel, Whitefield.  These payments covered the vast majority of the fees and expenses rendered on behalf of the campaign for that period, except for charges for services and expenses that were outstanding for more than 30 days and charges that were billed in early May 1996 and were outstanding for less than 30 days.    

Mr. Raymond denies the protester’s assertions that the Hoffa campaign has been afforded a discounted rate or has not been billed for all of the time and expenses rendered on behalf of the campaign.  Mr. Raymond maintains that the Hoffa campaign is treated like his other clients:  it is billed on a monthly basis and is charged a rate commensurate with that of his other clients for similar work.

The “Instructions for Preparing CCERs” (“Instructions”) issued in conjunction with the Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (“Advisory”), issued December 14, 1995, provides, “To the extent that a candidate or his/her committee incurs an expense, but has not yet paid for the goods or services involved, the amount of the expense would be reported as a campaign debt or obligation under Section C of the CCER, and itemized on Schedule C, Part 2 if the expense exceeds $100.”   In Steger, P-827-IBT-EOH (September 3, 1996), the Election Officer has clarified this requirement noting that, “When the expenses are not paid for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice, such expenses should be reported under Section C of the CCER as an extension of credit received by the candidate or campaign.”

In accordance with the Instructions and the directions provided in Steger, the Hoffa campaign has been advised to file amended CCERs for the periods ending May 20, 1996 and August 20, 1996, showing the incurred fees and expenses which have been outstanding for more than 30 days.

The amendments to these CCERs will be available for inspection pursuant to

Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules. 

              The Advisory also provides that:

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

[a]ll such legal or accounting services that are donated . . . are permissible in-kind contributions that must be reported on Supplemental Form No. 1.  The value of such services should be reported at the fair-market value or what the legal or accounting professional would have charged the candidate.  If legal and accounting services are provided at less than fair-market value or the professional’s normal fees or rates, an in-kind contribution has been received.  The value of the contribution would be the difference in the amount paid by the candidate . . . and the market value or the professional’s normal rate for such services.

The protester, however, has provided no evidence that Finkel, Whitefield has made in-kind contributions to the Hoffa campaign in the form of a discounted rate as compared to

Mr. Raymond's other clients for similar work or unreported services provided at no cost.

Finally, the protester suggests that in-kind contributions of legal services by Finkel, Whitefield may be prohibited under the Rules, “depending on the firm's status vis-a-vis various Teamster employers.”  In accordance with the exception for disinterested employers and labor organizations, excluding the Union or any subordinate body of the Union, the Rules permit employer contributions to a candidate’s legal and accounting fund.  Thus, law firms, including Finkel, Whitefield, are permitted to provide in-kind contributions of legal services to candidates, despite their status as employers.  The candidate’s obligation is simply to report such an in-kind contribution, if made, as noted above.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

B.              Discrepancy in CCERs for Hoffa Support Team and Hoffa ‘96 National

Protester Feeley alleges that the Hoffa Support Team’s CCER for the period ending May 20, 1996 shows a total expenditure of $68,000 for all reporting periods to Hoffa ‘96 National.  However, the CCER for the Hoffa ‘96 National only reports receipt of  $58,000 in contributions from the Hoffa Support Team for all periods.  A review of the CCERs of the Hoffa Support Team and Hoffa ‘96 National confirm the protester’s assertions. 

The investigation revealed that during the reporting period from May 21, 1995 through September 20, 1995, the Young Support Team made a $10,000 contribution to the Hoffa campaign that was deposited in the account for the Hoffa Support Team instead of the account for Hoffa ‘96 National as Mr. Young’s campaign had intended.  To correct this situation, the Hoffa Support Team transferred $10,000 to the account for Hoffa ‘96 National.   During this reporting period, the Hoffa Support Team made another expenditure of $10,000 to Hoffa ‘96 National.  Both of these $10,000 expenditures to Hoffa ‘96 National were reported on the CCER for the Hoffa Support Team.  However, the CCER for Hoffa ‘96 National reported receipt of $10,000 from the Hoffa Support Team and receipt of the other $10,000 from the Young Support Team, instead of receipt of the entire $20,000 from the Hoffa Support Team. 

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer does not find that the Rules have been violated since all contributions and expenditures were reported by the campaigns.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

C.              Discrepancy in CCERs for Hoffa ‘96 National and Mack Support Team

Both protesters assert that the CCER for the Mack Support Team shows an expenditure of $7500 to Hoffa ‘96 National for the reporting period ending May 20, 1996.  However, the CCER for the Hoffa ‘96 National does not report any contribution from the Mack Support Team for this period.  The investigation revealed that the Mack Support Team had made a contribution to Hoffa’s campaign for $7500.  However, on the CCER for Hoffa ‘96 National, this contribution was reported from Lee Hafley, the signatory on the check from the Mack Support Team.  The Election Officer does not find that the Rules have been violated since all contributions and expenditures were reported by both campaigns.  

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.  In order to avoid any future confusion in reviewing the CCERs, the Election Officer advises the Hoffa campaign to report the contributing candidate’s campaign committee and not the signatory of the check. 

D.              Discrepancy in CCERs for Hoffa ‘96 National and Rabine Election Fund

Protester Feeley asserts that the CCER for Hoffa ‘96 National reports a contribution of $15,000 from the Rabine Election Fund; however, Mr. Rabine’s CCER only shows a $10,000 expenditure on December 27, 1995 to Hoffa ‘96 National.

The investigation revealed that Mr. Rabine’s campaign  inadvertently did not report the $15,000 that was contributed to Hoffa ‘96 National on February 13, 1996.  Mr. Rabine’s CCER for the period May 21, 1996 through August 20, 1996 includes this $10,000 expenditure to Hoffa ‘96 National.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is RESOLVED.

E.              Discrepancy in CCERs for Hoffa ‘96 National and Santangelo

Both protesters assert that Mr. Santangelo’s CCER reports a total expenditure to

Hoffa ‘96 National of $36,500 for the period ending May 20, 1996.  However, the CCER for the Hoffa ‘96 National only reports a $10,000 contribution from Mr. Santangelo.  Both protesters note that the Hoffa ‘96 National CCER also reports a contribution of $26,500 from Arlene Praw. 

The investigation revealed that Arlene Praw was the signatory on two checks for a total of  $26,000 from Santangelo’s campaign committee to Hoffa ‘96 National.  The Election Officer does not find that the Rules have been violated since all contributions and expenditures were reported by both campaigns.  

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.  In order to avoid any future confusion in reviewing the CCERs, the Election Officer advises the Hoffa campaign to list the name of the contributing candidate’s campaign committee instead of the signatory of the check. 

Protester Feeley also asserts that the CCER for the Santangelo campaign reports receipt of $2890 from “Hoffa Restore the Pride.”  However, there is no corresponding entry for an expenditure to the Santangelo campaign on the CCERs for the Hoffa Support Team or the Hoffa ‘96 National.

The investigation revealed that the reported contributions on Mr. Santangelo’s CCER from “Hoffa Restore the Pride” were actually received from Linda and Ron Hunt, and not any person or entity affiliated with Mr. Hoffa’s campaign committees.  According to Arlene Praw, a campaign representative for the Santangelo committee, Linda and Ron Hunt are married campaign workers who buy campaign paraphernalia from the Santangelo campaign committee, sell the paraphernalia and forward the proceeds to the Santangelo committee.  Since Mr. Hoffa is not affiliated with Linda and Ron Hunt’s campaign activities, the CCERs for the Hoffa campaign (Hoffa Support Team and Hoffa ‘96 National) do not have to reflect the campaign activity of Linda and Ron Hunt, also known as “Hoffa Restore the Pride.”

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED. 

II.              Local Union 639’s Retiree Chapter

Protester Rockstroh asserts that a $1000 contribution received by Mr. Hoffa’s campaign from the Teamsters Local 639 Retiree Chapter (“Retiree Chapter”) is impermissible under the Rules since the Retiree Chapter receives local union resources to support its activities.

The Retiree Chapter was established in 1983.  Only retired Teamster members are eligible to join the Retiree Chapter.  Membership in the Retiree Chapter is on a strictly voluntary basis and does not affect retiree rights, such as pension or health and welfare benefits.  The officers of the Retiree Chapter are unpaid volunteers.

The Retiree Chapter is funded primarily by dues collected from its members.  Members  also donate items to the Chapter for fundraising efforts.  The Retiree Chapter currently has 440 members who pay annual dues to the organization.  The members of the Retiree Chapter vote on how their dues monies are spent.  The Chapter has made contributions to recipients of organ transplants.  The Chapter also holds a drawing where the winner receives half of the proceeds and the other half is donated to a charitable organization.  The Retiree Chapter pays for all expenses associated with holding any fundraising events.

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

The Retiree Chapter does not have any office space in Local Union 639’s building.  However, the Chapter is permitted to use the local union’s building for monthly meetings.  The Retiree Chapter receives mail at Local Union 639 that is put aside and picked up by an officer of the Chapter.  Messages may be left with Local Union 639’s receptionist for officers of the Retiree Chapter, however, the officers of the Chapter do not have access to the phone system of Local Union 639 for Chapter business.

Under the Rules, as a voluntary association of retired IBT members, a retiree chapter is characterized as a caucus, as defined by the Rules.  As a caucus, a retiree chapter may make campaign contributions to candidates for International Union office, provided that the organization with respect to its campaign activities is financed exclusively from contributions from persons or entities permitted to make campaign contributions under the Rules.  See Rockstroh, P-764-IBT-EOH (July 11, 1996), quoting Jones, P-983-LU147-MOI (October 29, 1991).  Furthermore the Advisory provides that if a caucus such as a retiree chapter does receive funds from prohibited sources--for example, a local union--the chapter can still make campaign contributions, if 1) the caucus properly allocates and segregates resources obtained from prohibited sources from those received from permissible sources under the Rules; and

2) utilizes only the resources obtained from permissible sources under the Rules for campaign activities.   See In Re: Gully, 91 -  Elec. App. - 158 (SA) (June 12, 1991), aff’g Sargent,

P-249-LU283-MGN (May 21, 1991).

In accordance with the Rules and the Advisory, the Retiree Chapter’s contribution to the Hoffa campaign is not a violation since the Chapter made the contribution from the annual dues collected from its members who are all retired Teamsters and permissible contributors under the Rules.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

III.              Alleged Violations of Bill Hogan, Jr.

Protester Rockstroh asserts that the contributions from three business representatives of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Andre Balash, Vincent Pitta, and George Papageorge, are impermissible contributions from employer representatives, under the Rules. 

The Rules do not prohibit individual members, staffers, or officers of labor organiza-tions other than the IBT from making personal campaign contributions to IBT International Union officer candidates, as long as no funds of the labor organization are included in the contribution and provided that the contributor is not otherwise an employer or an employer representative.  Advisory, page 11.   Any person or entity who employs another, paying monetary or other compensation in exchange for that individual’s services, is an employer.  All individuals having supervisory or managerial authority on behalf of an employer are deemed employer representatives.  Advisory, page 8.  Despite repeated requests by the investigator, the Hogan campaign did not provide any information regarding the duties or responsibilities of these business representatives.  Therefore, the Election Officer is unable to determine whether these business representatives would be deemed employer representatives under the Rules.

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

Accordingly, since the Election Officer is unable to confirm that these contributions are permissible, this aspect of the protest is GRANTED.  Within seven (7) days of receipt of this decision, Mr. Hogan is directed to return all contributions from Messrs. Balash, Pitta, and Papageorge.  Within three (3) days of returning these contributions, Mr. Hogan shall provide the Election Officer with an affidavit attesting to when payment was made and the amount of such payments.

An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules.  In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).

The protester also challenges the $1000 contribution as a prohibited employer contribution from Louis Belpedio, who is described as a self-employed Chicago Board of Trade[r].  The investigation confirmed that Mr. Belpedio is a former member of Local

Union 714 and has no employees.  Therefore, Mr. Belpedio’s contributions to Mr. Hogan are permitted under the Rules.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

IV.              Alleged Violations of Garnet Zimmerman

A.              Not Reporting All Contributions and Expenditures

Protester Rockstroh notes that Garnet Zimmerman’s CCER reports the following: 

1) a total of $4005 in individual contributions; 2) a total of $22,299.73 from fundraising events; 3) a total of $39,689 in expenditures; and 4) an account balance of $3519.19 with no debt.  The protester also notes that Mr. Zimmerman has not reported a contribution of $5000 to the Hoffa campaign that is reported on the CCER for Hoffa ‘96 National.  Based on these reported figures, the protester argues that since Mr. Zimmerman has spent more than he has received in reported contributions, he has violated the Rules by not reporting the additional source(s) and amounts of unreported contributions.

Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that on February 26, 1996 he made a $5000 contribution to Hoffa ‘96 National that was inadvertently not reported on his CCER.  Mr.Zimmerman’s CCER for the period ending August 20, 1996 reflects this expenditure to the Hoffa campaign.

The investigation also revealed that Mr. Zimmerman has not reported ongoing individual sales of campaign paraphernalia, specifically, promotional wear such as T-shirts, for less than $100 sold by campaign workers, not in conjunction with any rallies or fundraising events.  Ms. Peters, the campaign representative of Mr. Zimmerman who prepares the CCERs, states that she misunderstood that such contributions had to be reported, since the sales were for less than $100 from unrecorded contributors.  Additionally, the investigation revealed that Mr. Zimmerman’s CCERs are not cumulative.  That is, the total amounts to date

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

for contributions received and expenditures made by the campaign do not include amounts for prior reporting periods.

The Election Office has advised Ms. Peters to file an amended CCER with respective Schedules, showing the cumulative amounts of all contributions received and expenditures made by the campaign as of August 20, 1996, the end of the most recent reporting period.  The amended CCER should also report the cumulative amount of contributions received from promotional wear sales not associated with any events, and any non-itemized contributions that were not reported on prior CCERs.

The revised CCERs will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII,

Section 2(e) of the Rules.

The Election Officer will review the amended reports and determine if any further action is necessary.

B.              Discrepancy with Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Baldwin’s CCERs

The protester alleges that Mr. Baldwin’s CCER, Schedule B, Part 3, lists an in-kind contribution to the Zimmerman campaign, however, Mr. Zimmerman’s CCER does not show receipt of any contributions from Mr. Baldwin.[1] 

The investigation revealed that Mr. Zimmerman has purchased campaign promotional wear on behalf of Mr. Baldwin with the understanding that Mr. Baldwin will repay him for such costs.  Mr. Baldwin made a payment to the Zimmerman campaign as reimbursement for the campaign wear.[2]  Mr. Zimmerman’s CCER did not report receipt of Mr. Baldwin’s payment for the campaign paraphernalia.  Ms. Peters did not realize that receipt of all monies by the campaign, regardless of the purpose, must be reported on the CCER under “Contributions.”  

The Election Office has advised Ms. Peters to file an amended CCER with Schedule A, Part 1 reflecting receipt of Mr. Baldwin’s payment and any other such payments for reimbursements that were received by the Zimmerman campaign.

The amended CCERs will be available for inspection pursuant to Article XII,

Section 2(e) of the Rules.

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer will review the amended reports and determine if any further action is necessary.

V.              Discrepancy in CCERs for Jim Santangelo and Mack Support Team

Protester Rockstroh asserts that the CCER for Mr. Santangelo’s campaign shows receipt of $245.65 from the Mack Support Team, however, the CCER for the Mack Support Team does not show an expenditure made to Santangelo.   The protester also notes that the CCER for the Mack Support Team shows an expenditure to Hoffa West ‘96, but “it is not clear whether this is the same as the receipt on the Santangelo CCER,” because the Mack CCER reports a total contribution to Hoffa West ‘96 as $1495.65.

The investigation revealed that the check/expenditure in question here for $245.65 from the Mack Support Team was made to Hoffa West ‘96, the campaign committee for Mary Lou Salmeron, and deposited in the account for the Santangelo campaign.  Ms. Salmeron and

Mr. Santangelo, both candidates on the Hoffa -- No Dues Increase Slate, have decided to combine their resources and funds for  their campaign-related activities.  As indicated on

Ms. Salmeron’s CCER for the period ending May 20, 1996, the balance of funds in her account were transferred to Santangelo’s account.  Mr. Wilson, the accountant who prepares the CCERs for both Ms. Salmeron and Mr. Santangelo, states that some checks received by Ms. Salmeron were deposited directly into the Santangelo account. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is RESOLVED.  However, in order to avoid any such future confusion in reviewing the CCERs, the CCERs for the Santangelo campaign should identify any contributions from other candidates or slates made to Ms. Salmeron or Hoffa West ‘96 that are deposited in the Santangelo account.  Alternatively, both candidates and their campaigns should advise other candidates to make contributions only to the Santangelo campaign.  

VI.              Alleged Violation of T. C. Stone

Protester Rockstroh asserts that Mr. Stone’s receipt of a $5000 contribution from Local Union 745’s Retiree Chapter (“Retiree Chapter”) violates the Rules since the Retiree Chapter is a union-supported entity.  In Rockstroh, supra, the Election Officer held that the Retiree Chapter’s contributions to International Union officer candidates are not violative of the Rules since the Chapter made the contribution from the annual dues collected from its members who are all retired Teamsters and permissible contributors under the Rules.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

VII.              Discrepancy in CCERs for Lester Singer and Hoffa ‘96 National

Protester Rockstroh notes that the CCER for Mr. Singer shows an expenditure to the Hoffa campaign for $11,020 for the period ending May 20, 1996.  However, the CCER for the Hoffa campaign only reports receipt of $10,000 for this period.

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

The investigation revealed that the Singer campaign made a total contribution of $11,020 to the Hoffa campaign, as reflected on the Singer CCER.  However, the difference of $1020 at issue here represented contributions from 51 persons who purchased raffle tickets at $20 per ticket.  The amount was included in the entry for “Donations Received under $100 for January 21, 1996 through May 20, 1996” on the CCER for the Hoffa Support Team.  The Election Officer does not find that the Rules have been violated since all contributions and expenditures were reported by both campaigns.

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is DENIED.

VIII.              Alleged Violation of Sam Theodus

Protester Feeley notes that the CCER for Sam Theodus does not report any contributions or expenditures for campaign activity for the reporting period September 21, 1995 through January 21, 1996.  The protester asserts that Mr. Theodus has been actively campaigning for the Hoffa Slate, of which he is a member.  Since Mr. Theodus’ CCER does not reflect any contributions or expenditures, the protester contends that the “only conclusion to be drawn is that he is using union funds to engage in this campaigning.” 

A review of Mr. Theodus’ CCER for the period ending January 20, 1996 show expenditures for travel expenses reported on Schedule B, Parts 1 and 3.  The protester has provided no evidence to support his contention that Mr. Theodus was using local union funds for campaign activities during this period.  The Election Officer has previously determined that candidates are not required to itemize their travel expenses in connection with their campaign itinerary.  See Ruscigno, P-170-LU138-EOH (January 11, 1996). 

Mr. Theodus’ CCERs for the periods ending May 20, 1996 and August 20, 1996 have been filed and are available for inspection, pursuant to Article XII, Section 2(e) of the Rules. 

Accordingly, this aspect of the protest is 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 & Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY 10022

Fax (212) 751-4864

Joseph Rockstroh & Tom Feeley

September 17, 1996

Page 1

Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 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