August 25, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Jerry Halberg
August 25, 1998
Page 1
Jerry Halberg
Post Office Box 78213
Seattle, WA 98178
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
7435 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48210
Diana Kilmury
2612 East 47th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5S 1C1
CANADA
Glenn Cisco, Co-Chair
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
Evergreen Chapter
18407 40th Avenue East
Takoma, WA 98446
Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Henry F. Murray, Esq.
Livingston, Adler, Pulda & Meiklejohn
557 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Jerry Halberg
August 25, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-093-TDU-PNW
Gentlemen:
Jerry Halberg, a member of Local Union 174, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”), an independent committee, the Evergreen Chapter of TDU, an independent committee, and Diana Kilmury, a candidate for vice - president- at- large. The protester alleged that the description of campaign finance procedures announced by the Evergreen Chapter at a meeting was improper. The Evergreen Chapter denied the allegations.
This protest was investigated by Adjunct Regional Coordinator Paige Keys.
Jerry Halberg
August 25, 1998
Page 1
On April 25, 1998, the Evergreen Chapter held an election campaign meeting for Ken Hall, a former candidate for general president, at the Seattle Labor Temple. During the meeting, Bill Bishop, the treasurer of the Evergreen Chapter, gave an explanation of the Rules on campaign finance. Mr. Bishop said he detailed how contributions would be documented and allocated and repeated the information that the Evergreen Chapter needed from individual contributors in order to meet reporting requirements in the Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports.
The protester did not attend the meeting. Douglas Seavers, a member of Local Union 313 who attended the meeting, stated that, at the conclusion of the explanation of campaign finance procedures, Mr. Bishop stated that contributions could be made to TDU’s general fund in an unrestricted manner, and those contributions would assist Mr. Hall defeat James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president. Mr. Seavers understood that statement to mean that TDU would accept funds without observing the restrictions under the Rules.
Mr. Bishop denies that he made such a statement. Ms. Kilmury was present at the meeting. She stated she did not hear the comment in question because she had just finished her remarks and was in a discussion with several other participants. Other than Ms. Kilmury, who is a board member, no representatives of national TDU were present at the meeting.
It is well established that TDU is an “independent committee,” as defined by the Rules, because it consists of a caucus or group of union members not controlled by a candidate or slate, which has accepted funds or made expenditures with the “ purpose, object or foreseeable effect” of influencing the International election. Rules, Definitions, Section 22; Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (Revised November 1997) (“Advisory”), p. 19; Hoffa, PR-039-IBT-EOH (March 10, 1998); Halberg, P-019-LU174-PNW (December 14, 1995). As an “independent committee,” the TDU may contribute to International campaigns even if financial assistance is received from sources prohibited under the Rules. Funds received from sources impermissible under the Rules cannot be contributed to any candidate through TDU, or any other independent committee, and must be properly allocated and segregated. In re Gully, 91- Elec. App. - 158 (SA) (June 12, 1991), aff’g Sargent, P-249-LU283-MGN (May 21, 1991).
Mr. Bishop’s statement does not violate the Rules. He had concluded his explanation of the campaign finance procedures. There is no bar against the TDU accepting other contributions so long as they observe the Rules provisions on contributions.
Accordingly, this protest is hereby 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:
Jerry Halberg
August 25, 1998
Page 1
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.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Paige Keys, Adjunct Regional Coordinator