This website uses cookies.
Office of the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters


              May 21, 1998




Gene Moriarty

May 21, 1998

Page 1


Gene Moriarty

c/o Ron Carey Campaign

Post Office Box 77067

Washington, DC  20013


Hoffa Slate

c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.

Baptiste & Wilder

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC  20036


C. Thomas Keegel

2433 Wight Bay

Brooklyn Park, MN  55443


John Steger

8229 Bubbling Spring

Laurel, MD  20723


Donato DeSanti

68 C Gloucester Way

Jamesburg, NJ  08831

Phillip Feaster, President

Teamsters Local Union 639

3100 Ames Place, NE

Washington, DC  20018


Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

  Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI  48334


Dede Hill, Esq.

Cohen, Weiss and Simon

330 West 42nd Street

New York, NY  10036


Gene Moriarty

May 21, 1998

Page 1


Re: Election Office Case No. PR-077-JHS-EOH




Gene Moriarty, a member of IBT Local Union 677, 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 the Hoffa Slate, John Steger, candidate for International trustee, Thomas Keegel, candidate for International secretary-treasurer, and Dan De Santi, candidate for International vice-president.  The protester alleged multiple violations of the Rules based on the Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports (“CCERs”).  The protests will be analyzed separately below.


This protest was investigated by Director of Campaign Finance Leslie Deak.


Gene Moriarty

May 21, 1998

Page 1




A.  Contributions in Excess of Member Limits


The protester alleged that the Hoffa Slate accepted contributions from Michael Bane, an IBT member, in excess of the $1,000 limit established by the First Supplement to the 1996 IBT International Officer Rerun Election Plan (“First Supplement”). 


Michael Bane made a $575 in-kind contribution to the Hoffa Slate on November 8, 1997, which was reported on the Hoffa Slate CCER No. 1.  He then made a cash contribution to the Hoffa Slate of $860 on February 24, 1998, putting him $435 over the $1,000 member contribution limit.  The Hoffa Slate explained that its system for aggregating member contributions had failed to combine an earlier in-kind contribution from Mr. Bane.  Upon receipt of the protest, the Hoffa Slate returned $520 to Mr. Bane.


Accordingly, this portion of the protest is RESOLVED.


B.  Allegations Regarding a Baltimore Fundraiser


The protester alleges that the Hoffa Slate improperly solicited contributions at a Baltimore fundraiser.  Specifically, the protester asserts that it was improper for the Hoffa Slate to issue one ticket that would admit two people to the fundraiser and that neither the tickets nor the flyer advertising the fundraiser contained a disclaimer advising that only active IBT members could contribute at the fundraiser.


Pursuant to the 1996 IBT International Officer Rerun Election Plan (“Rerun Plan”), only active IBT members and their immediate family are permitted to contribute to candidates general campaign funds.  Rerun Plan at 5.  At the fundraiser in question, a dinner and dance, the Hoffa Slate reported on their CCER that only active members purchased tickets and the fundraiser was attended by only active members and their spouses or partners.  Although the tickets admitted more than one person, the Rules do not prohibit non-members from attending fundraisers, only from contributing to the candidate’s campaign. 


Despite the fact that the Election Officer has strongly advised that candidates utilize a disclaimer on all literature and advertising connected with fundraisers, the Rules do not require that fundraiser documentation contain disclaimers or explanations of campaign financing provisions.  See McCormick, PR-012-LU705-NCE (November 17, 1997).  Accordingly, neither the flyers nor the tickets for the Baltimore fundraiser violated the Rules.


This portion of the protest is DENIED.


Gene Moriarty

May 21, 1998

Page 1


C.  Failure to Identify Contributors


The protester alleged that the Hoffa Slate violated the Rules by failing to identify the employer for two individuals who made contributions to the legal and accounting fund.  The Hoffa Slate identified Joseph Conners as a businessman and Mary Lynn Nickolas as a businesswoman.


Under the Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (“Advisory”), revised November 1997, only disinterested employers can contribute to a candidate’s legal and accounting fund.  Advisory, at 17.  Because of the distinction between interested and disinterested employers, the designation of “businessman” and “businesswoman” used by the Hoffa Slate is insufficient because a reviewer of the CCER cannot discern if the employer is indeed “disinterested”.


Pursuant to this protest investigation, the Hoffa Slate investigated the employers of the two contributors in question.  It contacted both of the individuals and verified that Mr. Conners is an attorney and not an interested employer as defined by the Rules and that Ms. Nickolas works for a company that does not employ Teamster members.


Accordingly, this portion of the protest is RESOLVED.


D.  Contribution from the Retirees at Local Union 639


The protester alleged that union and non-member resources may have been involved in a fundraiser at a Local Union 639 Retiree Meeting that resulted in a contribution to the Hoffa Slate.


The Local Union 639 Retiree Chapter meet monthly at Local Union 639's hall.  On January 13, 1998, during their monthly meeting, the retirees solicited contributions for the Hoffa Slate.  They announced that the contributions were for the Hoffa Slate Legal and Accounting Fund.  They passed a hat and collect $555 from the members present at the meeting. 


When a retiree chapter conducts its meetings in the local union hall or is union financed, it is treated as a local union entity.  See Hendricks, P-583-LU916-SCE (March 12, 1996).  Local unions can only allow campaigning during meetings and functions if all candidates have equal access and opportunity to campaign.  Under Article VIII, Section 5(a)(4):


A Local Union shall not discriminate or permit discrimination in favor or against any candidate in conjunction with its meetings or otherwise.  This requirement shall apply not only to formal presentations by or on behalf of candidates but also informal campaign activities, such as, for example, comments on candidates during meetings, literature distribution at meetings, literature distribution tables, etc.

Gene Moriarty

May 21, 1998

Page 1


While the retirees may contribute to the Legal and Accounting Fund, the solicitation of contributions by the Local Union 639 Retiree Chapter at the union violated the Rules


Accordingly, this portion of the protest is GRANTED.


When the Election Officer determines that the Rules have been violated, he “may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.”  Rules, Article XIV, Section 4.  In fashioning the remedy, the Election Officer views the nature and seriousness of the violation as well as its potential for interfering with the election process.  The Election Officer, therefore, orders the following remedy:


1.  Local Union 639 and its Retiree Chapter shall cease and desist from discriminating against candidates in meetings.


2.  The Hoffa Slate must return the $555 contributed by the Local 639 Retirees Chapter within five (5) days of the date of this decision.  The Hoffa Slate shall send a copy of the check returning the funds to the Election Office within five (5) days of this decision. 


3.  Within five (5) days of receipt of this decision, Local Union 639 shall post the attached “Notice for Members of Local Union 639" on all bulletin boards at the local union hall for a period of 30 days.




The protester alleged that C. Thomas Keegel has made several reporting violations in his CCERs.  The protester alleged that Mr. Keegel made contributions in excess of the $5,000 limitation on candidate contributions in the rerun election through an initial contribution by Mr. Keegel of $8,200.  The protester also alleged that Mr. Keegel’s CCERs report a $5,000 discrepancy in funds.


Candidates are prohibited from contributing more than $5,000 total to the rerun election.  Advisory, at 8.  Mr. Keegel reported a personal contribution of $8,200 to his campaign on October 31, 1997.  His contribution clearly exceeded the limitation by $3,200. 


The C. Thomas Keegel Campaign reimbursed Mr. Keegel $3,100 on December 2, 1997, and reported the reimbursement on an amended CCER No. 2, which Mr. Keegel filed with the Election Office on March 20, 1998.  Mr. Keegel has stated that the failure to reimburse himself for the full $3,200 was a mistake.  On March 11, 1998, Mr. Keegel was reimbursed for $100 and reported the reimbursement on his CCER No. 5.


Gene Moriarty

May 21, 1998

Page 1


The protester also asserted that Mr. Keegel’s CCERs show $5,000 more in his bank accounts than he reported in total contributions.  The protester based his assertion on Mr. Keegel’s CCER No. 3, wherein Mr. Keegel’s total contribution minus his total expenditures amount to $5,000 less than what Mr. Keegel reported as the total fund balances. 


The protester’s reliance on the total contribution and total expenditure amounts was misplaced because it fails to account for all of the income to Mr. Keegel’s campaign.  Mr. Keegel reported a $5,000 loan from a financial institution on his CCER No. 1.  As a commercial loan, the $5,000 was not a contribution and was properly reported only as a loan.  On December 12, 1997, when he repaid the loan, he properly reported the payment as an expenditure.  Because the $5,000 from the loan was never reported on the contribution side, the reporting of the loan on the expenditure side results in an apparent $5,000 shortfall in income.  Accordingly, Mr. Keegel’s CCERs properly report the activity in his campaign funds.


This portion of the protest is RESOLVED in part; and DENIED in part.




The protester alleged that Mr. Steger violated the candidate contribution limit by loaning more than $5,000 to his campaign.  The protester asserted that, after a $5,000 loan to his campaign, Mr. Steger personally paid for campaign expenses totaling $64.50 and then was reimbursed by his campaign.


The Election Officer previously has found that, although a loan made by candidates to their campaign counts toward the candidate’s contribution limit until the loan is repaid, bills do not become debts or loans until the bills are more than 30 days old.  Moriarty, PR-058-JHS-EOH (April 8, 1998), citing Steger, P-827-IBT-EOH (September 3, 1996).  The Election Officer specifically found in Moriarity that Mr. Steger did not make a contribution to his campaign when his campaign reimbursed him within 30 days for campaign expenditures he made personally.  Accordingly, the $64.50 reimbursed to Mr. Steger was not reimbursement of a contribution, but merely reimbursement of expenditures.  Furthermore, Mr. Steger’s CCER No. 4 reported that his campaign repaid $200 of the $5,000 loan he made to the campaign.  Therefore, Mr. Steger’s contribution to his campaign is only $4,800, below the $5,000 contribution limit.


This portion of the protest is DENIED.




The protester alleged that Mr. De Santi violated the Rules by failing to report the winner of a raffle.


Gene Moriarty

May 21, 1998

Page 1


The winners of raffles need not be reported.  See First Supplement, at 4.  Candidates need to report expenditures associated with fundraisers, including raffles, and the cost of prizes from raffles is an expenditure.  On his CCER No. 4, Mr. De Santi reported a fundraiser consisting of a raffle for jackets.  He reported expenses of $243 on CCER Form Addendum 1 for the raffle and an expenditure for reimbursement for jackets, t-shirts, and ticket printing of $1,123 on CCER Schedule B, Part 1.  Mr. De Santi has stated that the cost of the jackets that were raffle prizes were $188 of the $243 total expenses for the raffle and were also included in the reimbursement expenditure for jackets.  Mr. De Santi has properly reported the contributions and expenditures from the fundraiser in question.


Accordingly, this portion of the protest is hereby DENIED.


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


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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC  20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.






Michael G. Cherkasky

Election Officer





cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master




The Election Officer has found that Local Union 639 and the Retirees Chapter of Local Union 639 violated the Election Rules when the Retirees Chapter solicited contributions for the James P. Hoffa Slate Legal and Accounting Fund during a meeting held at Local Union 639's meeting hall.  The Election Officer has ordered Local Union 639 and its Retiree Chapter to cease and desist from such conduct.

Local Unions cannot discriminate against any candidates in conjunction with its meetings.  If a local union decides to allow campaigning during its meetings, it must give prior, written notice to all candidates and allow all candidates equal access and opportunity to campaign during the meeting.

Any member believing the Election Rules have been violated may file a protest with the Election Officer at 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC  20001; telephone (800) 565-VOTE or (202) 624-3500, facsimile (202) 624-3525.





Phillip Feaster, President



This is an official notice which must remain posted for thirty (30) consecutive days and must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.


Approved by Michael G. Cherkasky, IBT Election Officer.