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


              June 19, 1998




Sergio Lopez

June 19, 1998

Page 1


Sergio Lopez

c/o Post Office Box 77067

Washington, DC  20013


James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI  48098


Hoffa Slate

c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.

Baptiste & Wilder

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC  20036


Henry F. Murray, Esq.

Livingston, Adler, Pulda & Meiklejohn

557 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT  06105

Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

  Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI  48334


Jerome L. Vercruse, Secy. - Treas.

Teamsters Local Union 630

750 South Stanford Avenue

Los Angeles, CA  90021


Sergio Lopez

June 19, 1998

Page 1


Re:  Election Officer Case No. PR-118-JHS-EOH




Sergio Lopez, a candidate for International trustee, 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 James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, and the Hoffa Slate.  The protester alleged that Mr. Hoffa and the Hoffa Slate deliberately failed to disclose contributions from officers and business agents of Local Union 630 to the Hoffa Slate Campaign in the initial election in order to conceal coercion of the business agents or a scheme to launder union funds through the officers and staff.


Sergio Lopez

June 19, 1998

Page 1


The Hoffa Slate responded by raising three issues.  First, they argued that the Election Officer had already concluded his investigations into the initial election.  Second, the Hoffa Slate complained that the protester presented no evidence to support such serious allegations as coercion and diversion of local union assets.  Third, the Hoffa Slate asserted that, contrary to the protester’s allegations, the evidence did not indicate any deliberate attempt to conceal the contributions because the Hoffa Slate had reported a few, but not all, of the contributions from the individuals in question. 


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


The protester based the allegations on the Supplemental Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports (“CCERs”) filed by Mr. Hoffa and the Hoffa Slate as part of the remedy ordered in In re Carey Slate, PR-035-JHS-EOH (April 27, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 348 (May 15, 1998), which revealed monthly contribution checks from eight members of one local union.  In In re Carey Slate, the Election Officer conducted an extensive investigation into the Hoffa Slate’s contributions from the initial election.  As a result of that investigation, the Election Officer found that the Hoffa Slate failed to report $43,868 of contributions made by various sources. 


The Election Officer found that the unreported contributions were not themselves improper, only that the Hoffa Slate Campaign had failed to report the contributions.  The Election Officer made that finding after a thorough audit of the Campaign’s finances, including a review of every check.  He ordered the Supplemental CCER to remedy the reporting violations found as a result of the Carey Slate Protest investigation.


The protester alleged that the amounts and the frequency of the unreported contributions from these members of Local Union 630 indicates “some type of wrong-doing”.  The unreported contributions were either for $50 or $100 and were made roughly once a month during the period of November 1995 through April 1996.  The contributors did not give on the same day each month and each individual made their contribution on a different day.  These contributions do not conform closely enough to a pattern to merit the inference of an underlying violation of the Rules.  The protester offered no evidence beyond the remedial CCER.


The Election Officer will not undertake any further investigations of the initial election.  In In re Cheatem, POST-27-EOH (August 21, 1997), aff’d 97 - Elec. App. - 322 (October 10, 1997), the Election Officer formally closed all investigations of the initial election.  In re Cheatem, at 129.  Furthermore, the Election Officer’s investigation of the Hoffa Slate campaign finances in In re Carey Slate disposed of the issues raised by this protest.  The Election Officer discovered the unreported checks and investigated the circumstances concerning the failure to report the checks.  He found no improper actions surrounding the contributions other than the reporting failure.  In re Carey Slate, PR-035 at 22-23.


Accordingly, this protest is DENIED.


Sergio Lopez

June 19, 1998

Page 1


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, Esquire

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 Cherkasky

Election Officer




cc:              Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master