September 29, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
James P. Hoffa
September 29, 1998
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Tom Leedham
c/o Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Hoffa Slate
c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptise & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
September 29, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-220-TLC-EOH
Gentlemen:
James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, and the Hoffa Unity Slate 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 Tom Leedham, a candidate for general president. The protester alleged that Mr. Leedham failed to report expenses arising from campaign-related travel and that Mr. Leedham was campaigning on union time in the month of June, 1998.
This protest was investigated by Director of Campaign Finance Leslie Deak.
James P. Hoffa
September 29, 1998
Page 1
The protester alleged that Mr. Leedham was campaigning full-time during the month of June, but that he had only reported travel expenses of approximately $600 during the month. While the protester submitted extensive evidence of campaign travel by Mr. Leedham in the period from July 15 through September 6, 1998, the protest is limited to Leedham’s alleged failure to report campaign travel expenses and related in-kind contributions for the period ending June 30, 1998. Only one article, about an appearance in Memphis, Tennessee, discussed Mr. Leedham’s campaign activity in June, 1998, the relevant period.
In the instant case, the protester has not presented any evidence to support the allegations that Mr. Leedham has failed to report expenditures related to campaign travel or that Mr. Leedham is traveling and campaigning on union time. Further, the protester has not presented evidence to support the allegation that the reported expenses of $600 were insufficient to cover travel to campaign in Tennessee. The protester bears the burden of proof to present evidence that a violation has occurred. Rules, Article XIV, Section 1. The Election Officer has consistently denied protests when the protester offers no evidence to corroborate and support his allegations. Moriarty, PR-095-JHS-EOH (June 12, 1998); Hoffa, PR-043-LU385-SCE (January 9, 1998); Pike, P-278-LU952-CLA (January 30, 1996), aff’d , 96 - Elec. App. - 92 (KC) (February 20, 1996) .
While the Election Officer understands that it is difficult for candidates to gather evidence, at the very least, the protester must provide a framework upon which an Election Office investigation could be based. A protester should present evidence of a candidate’s travel through, for example, witness statements or published accounts, along with the reported expenditures. The relationship between the amount and distance of travel and the expenditures should be such that an inference of reporting violations could be drawn. This type of evidence was not presented in this case.
Accordingly, this protest is 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, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington DC 20001, Facsimile
James P. Hoffa
September 29, 1998
Page 1
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master