October 10, 1997
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Roy L. Atha
October 10, 1997
Page 1
Roy L. Atha, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 654
832 Warder Street
P.O. Box 1404
Springfield, OH 45501
Ron Carey, General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
David L. Neigus, Deputy General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Susan Davis
Cohen, Weiss and Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Roy L. Atha
October 10, 1997
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-001-IBT-EOH
Gentlepersons:
Roy L. Atha, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 654, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”), against IBT General President Ron Carey and the IBT. Mr. Atha alleges that a TITAN electronic message entitled “IBT Statement of Election Rerun” sent to Local Union 654 on August 22, 1997 constituted the use of IBT resources to support Mr. Carey’s candidacy in the rerun election.
The IBT responds that the TITAN transmission was a fair reporting of an event of undeniable importance to the union. The transmission, the IBT states, makes no reference to Mr. Carey's presumed candidacy in the rerun election or to the candidacy of any of his slate members or to James P. Hoffa. Thus, the IBT contends, the transmission does not violate the Rules.
Roy L. Atha
October 10, 1997
Page 1
This protest was investigated by Interim Election Officer Benetta Mansfield.
On August 21, 1997, the Election Officer issued her decision in Cheatem, Post-27-EOH, et seq.(appeal pending), in which she found violations by the Carey campaign which may have affected the outcome of the election. She refused to certify the election and ordered a rerun election be held for all positions except the Central Region Vice Presidents and the President of Teamsters Canada.
On August 22, 1997, Mr. Carey sent a TITAN message in the form of a memorandum to “All Affiliates, General Executive Board” in which the subject is “IBT Statement on Election Rerun.” The text of the message reads as follows:
The International Union today issued the following statement:
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has received a decision from court-appointed Election Officer Barbara Zack Quindel ordering a rerun of last year’s International Union election.
The decision notes that “a culture of democracy has begun to take root in this union” and that “no one can question that this campaign was as open and competitive as any undertaken in an American labor union in recent history.”
The summary of decision finds that a number of outside consultants engaged in an improper fundraising scheme which involved IBT funds and which was “not an altruistic effort by these participants” but a scheme to line their own pockets.
The decision adds that “there is no evidence” that General President Ron Carey or members of the General Executive Board “knew of or participated in the various improper fundraising schemes.”
President Carey commented today that if the description of the consultants conduct in the Election Officer’s decision is accurate, “the conduct of these consultants has no place in the Teamsters Union. It flies directly in the face of all the reforms our union has implemented in the past five and a half years.”
Roy L. Atha
October 10, 1997
Page 1
The Teamsters Union will cooperate with the government’s decision. The Union will review the government’s findings and take whatever actions may be appropriate and will continue tocooperate with the investigation by the U.S. Attorney in New York.
In the meantime, Carey said, “Our union will continue to do its job of standing up for American working families.”
The decision notes that, upon learning months ago that the consultants were not fully cooperating with the investigation, the International Union terminated any relationship with them. In addition, the decision reports, “the IBT adopted policies requiring appropriate cooperation with inquiries as a condition of the IBT continuing any relationship with outside vendors, and prohibiting the employee or vendor who invokes the Fifth Amendment in an inquiry related to the union from remaining in a relationship with the IBT.” The IBT also stopped all payments to Messrs. Ansara, Nash, Davis, and their respective companies pending the outcome of the current investigations.”
Article VIII, Section 8(a) of the Rules states that a union-financed publication or communication may not be “used to support or attack any candidate or the candidacy of any person.” In reviewing union-financed communications for improper campaign content, the Election Officer looks to the tone, content and timing of the publication. Martin, P-010-IBT-PNJ, et seq. (August 17, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 18 (KC) (October 2, 1995). The Election Officer also considers the context in which the communications appeared.
In Martin, the Election Officer recognized that union officers and officials have a “right and responsibility to exercise the powers of their office to advise and report to the membership on issues of general concern.” (quoting Camarata v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 478 F. Supp. 321, 330 (D.D.C. 1979), aff’d, 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924 (D.C.Cir. 1981). The Election Officer also recognized in Martin that:
. . . an otherwise acceptable communication may be considered campaigning if it goes on to make a connection with the election or the election process, if it involves excessive direct or indirect personal attacks on candidates, or alternatively, involves lavish praise of candidates. Otherwise legitimate coverage of the activities of a union official running for office may constitute campaigning if it is excessive.
Roy L. Atha
October 10, 1997
Page 1
The Election Officer also noted, however, that despite references to the election process, “[r]eports on the results of protest decisions are legitimate subjects for union financed publications.” See Blake, P-245-JC42-CLA (December 18, 1996), aff'd 96 - Elec. App. - 54 (KC) (January 12, 1996).
Here, the TITAN message was reporting on the Election Officer’s decision and directly quoted from that decision. The Cheatem decision specifically addressed whether the IBT or Mr. Carey, in his capacity as general president, violated the Rules. The decision itself and the order for a rerun election affects the IBT’s institutional interests and is therefore clearly newsworthy and of interest to its members. The timing of the TITAN message, directed to union leaders, one day after the issuance of the decision was appropriate. The tone and content of the message is neutral. It does not mention the candidacy of any candidate and only quotes Mr. Carey in his role as general president.
In these circumstances, 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
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 444 N. Capitol Street, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Benetta M. Mansfield
Interim Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master