November 5, 1997
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
November 5, 1997
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Dede Hill, Esq.
Cohen, Weiss and Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Ron Carey, General President
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
c/o Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Nancy Coleman
Communications Department
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
James P. Hoffa Slate
c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptiste and Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Richard Leebove
RL Communications
18600 W. 10 Mile Road
Suite 101
Southfield, MI 48075
John Murphy
Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 122
765 E. Third Street
Boston, MA 02127
Jack Cipriani, President
Teamsters Local Union 391
P.O. Box 35405
Greensboro, NC XXX-XX-XXXX
Chip Ross
c/o Teamsters Local Union 391
P.O. Box 35405
Greensboro, NC XXX-XX-XXXX
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
David L. Neigus, Esq.
Deputy General Counsel
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
James P. Hoffa
November 5, 1997
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-013-IBT-EOH
Election Office Case No. PR-019-JHC-EOH
Gentlepersons:
James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, filed a pre-election protest (PR-013) pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against the IBT, Ron Carey, IBT Communications Coordinator Nancy Coleman, and Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”). Mr. Hoffa alleges that an IBT-organized and financed press conference supported Mr. Carey’s candidacy in violation of the Rules. Mr. Hoffa further contends that TDU violated the Rules by presenting their members at the press conference.
On October 27, 1997, the Carey Campaign submitted a letter to the Election Officer responding to PR-013 and requesting an investigation into allegations that a number of Hoffa supporters, wearing campaign paraphernalia and distributing campaign literature, attended a hearing of a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee (“subcommittee hearing”) on
October 14, 1997 while on union time and/or at union expense, in violation of the Rules. The Election Officer logged this allegation as protest PR-019. As both protests are related to the same subcommittee hearing, they were consolidated by the Election Officer.
The IBT and TDU respond that the press conference was an official IBT function and not a campaign event. Additionally, TDU asserts that its members may support candidates for any office, even when the members are present at IBT expense. Further, TDU states that it does not control the actions of its members and cannot be held responsible for their actions.
The Hoffa supporters identified by the Carey Campaign respond that they were neither wearing Hoffa campaign paraphernalia nor handing out Hoffa campaign literature at the subcommittee hearing. They also respond that the protest is untimely as it was filed 12 days after the event at issue.
These protests were investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Peter F. Gimbrère.
James P. Hoffa
November 5, 1997
Page 1
The IBT conducted a press conference on the morning of October 14, 1997 at the Capitol. The press conference was held prior to a hearing called by Representative Pete Hoekstra, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. As evidenced by a letter received by the Election Officer from the subcommittee on October 2, 1997, Representative Hoekstra called the subcommittee hearing for the specific purpose of reviewing “the Civil RICO case against the IBT, the 1989 consent decree, and the procedures that were followed in administering the recently nullified 1996 Teamsters election.” His letter went on to affirm the subcommittee’s interest in learning “why [the 1996 election] outcome is now in question and to consider what policies or procedures might be changed to ensure that all union elections are conducted fairly and honestly in the future.”
According to Ms. Coleman, the stated purpose of the IBT press conference was to address “some concerns about whether [the] committee will get a balanced picture of what’s going on in the Teamsters Union, [about] what’s been happening in our union since the consent decree was put in place and the kinds of reforms that have been going on.”
The following people spoke to reporters at the press conference: Patrick Reardon, Local Union 7; Tina Anderson, Local Union 63; Thomas Doyle, Local Union 807; Bruce Saul, Local Union 966; Odell Copperidge, Local 726 and Jim Carruthers of Local Union 299. The IBT paid for the travel and expenses of these members.
They spoke about the following subjects: local grievance procedures prior to the Consent Decree, the fight for pension increases at UPS, local election procedures prior to “the new leadership,” membership involvement in the 1997 UPS strike, the end of corruption under the “new Teamsters,” corrupt activities of the “old officers,” trusteeships and the effect of the Consent Decree upon contract negotiations. There is no dispute that IBT staff in the Washington office helped prepare and develop the statements of the members.
During the conference, the press asked the members two questions related to the election. Mr. Reardon responded to a question about illegal campaign contributions to the Carey campaign by stating that “there was considerable monies on the other side that were unaccounted for in terms of their sources or originations. In fact, they outspent the Carey campaign something like two or three to one.” Mr. Sullivan also responded to a question about whether he was asked to testify by stating that “the committee allowed six people to testify from kind of the other side and we were only allowed two spots today.”
The subcommittee hearing, televised by C-Span, took place later that same day. According to IBT employees Steve Trossman and Ms. Coleman, a number of “Hoffa supporters” were observed wearing Hoffa campaign paraphernalia and Richard Leebove, a Hoffa campaign consultant, was seen distributing literature supportive of Mr. Hoffa. All of the individual IBT members mentioned by Mr. Trossman or Ms. Coleman denied that they had worn any campaign paraphernalia to the subcommittee hearing.
James P. Hoffa
November 5, 1997
Page 1
With respect to PR-013, 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, (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.
Prior decisions of the Election Officer have also noted that so long as a report or communication on the activity of an incumbent “is addressed to the regular functions, policies and activities of such incumbents as officers involved in matters of interest to the membership, and not as candidates for reelection, there is no violation of [the Act]”. Donovan v. Metro Dist. Council, 797 F.2d 140, 145 (3d Cir. 1986), citing Camarata, supra.
The Election Officer has previously determined that issues ranging from collective bargaining to NAFTA are topics of legitimate interest to IBT members. Michaels, P-205-LU407-CLE (November 8, 1995); Riley, P-101-IBT-EOH (August 23, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 14 (KC) (September 29, 1995); Hoffa, P-1181-IBT-EOH (November 18, 1996). Additionally, numerous topics discussed in the various articles and features of printed communications (The Teamster and the Teamster Leader) have been determined to be of legitimate interest to union members. Martin, supra (review of IBT finances, organizing the unorganized, imposition of trusteeships, corruption within the union); Hoffa, P-126-IBT-EOH (October 4, 1995) (strike benefits); Hoffa, P-126-IBT-EOH (October 4, 1995) (IBT political action and lobbying); Hoffa, P-808-IBT-SCE (June 28, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 213
(July 17, 1996) (advocacy of reforms by IBT, summarizing achievements since last Convention, discussion of Convention issues); In Re: Hoffa, 96 - Elec. App. - 97 (KC) (February 23, 1996) (efforts to free the IBT of corrupt influence); In Re: Hoffa, 96 - Elec. App. - 199 (KC) (March 11, 1996) (cutting waste, making the union more efficient).
James P. Hoffa
November 5, 1997
Page 1
After reviewing the full transcript of the IBT press conference, the Election Officer has determined that the majority of what was said relates to the effect of the Consent Decree upon the operations of the union. These statements are directly relevant to Congressional funding of the rerun election and the continued enforcement of the overall Consent Decree. Consequently, the Election Officer finds that the issues discussed at the press conference were issues of legitimate concern to IBT members.
Furthermore, the Election Officer has determined that the press conference served the legitimate institutional interest of defending the image of the IBT. The balance between protected speech and impermissible campaigning must be carefully struck. Restrictions on speech must not be read so broadly as to restrict the right and responsibility of union officers to conduct union business. Crawley, P-027-LU-988-PNJ (August 23, 1995). The substantial majority of the remarks prepared by the IBT and delivered by IBT members related to relevant union business. The two responses to the questions proffered to the members make no reference to the election of any particular candidate. While the overall tone of the speakers was one of admiration for Mr. Carey, none of the comments made supported Mr. Carey’s candidacy. Fischer, P-090-IBT-PNJ/PGH, aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 15 (KC) (September 29, 1995). When faced with the prospect of a Congressional investigation which questions the internal procedures of the IBT, it is appropriate for the IBT to attempt to defend its image and its operations under the Consent Decree. As to the issue of timing, the press conference was held the same day as the subcommittee hearing and sufficiently remote from the election itself to prevent a finding of campaigning.
The protesters in PR-013 also claim that TDU engaged in improper campaigning against the Hoffa campaign. There is no evidence to support this allegation. While some of the comments made by IBT members who also belong to TDU criticize “the old leadership,” “corrupt union officials,” and “hand-picked cronies,” nowhere in the transcript does any member’s testimony attack the Hoffa campaign. See Halberg, P-111-LU174-PNW
(December 13, 1995) (a reference to “old guard candidate” in article reporting on events at national conference does not convert otherwise legitimate news article into impermissible campaigning). No mention of the Hoffa campaign was made. TDU members’ comparative comments about the past and present state of the union do not in themselves constitute prohibited campaigning.
With respect to PR-019, as this matter was not filed with the Election Office until October 27, 1997, it is untimely. Even if it had been timely, the Election Officer would not find a violation. The protestors failed to provide any convincing evidence that IBT members were distributing any literature or campaigning in support of Mr. Hoffa. The only evidence presented was that Mr. Leebove was distributing press packets to the media.
James P. Hoffa
November 5, 1997
Page 1
Additionally, the Advisory on Wearing of Campaign Buttons and Other Emblems (September 20, 1995), clearly states that IBT members, including union officers and employees, retain the right to wear campaign emblems on buttons, t-shirts or hats unless they are “representing the Union in relations with unrelated third-parties.” Powell, P-728-LU688-CHI (May 30, 1996). The protester failed to present any evidence that any IBT members that appeared before the subcommittee wore campaign paraphernalia.
Accordingly, the protests are DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) 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, 400 N. Capitol Street, NE, Suite 855, 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
BMM:gb
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master