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

November 4, 1998




Paul Heiman

November 4, 1998

Page 1


Paul Heiman

20045 W. 119th Street

Olathe, KS 66061


Nancy Yoke,

MoKan Teamsters for Hoffa,

1229 N.E. Birchwood Drive

Lee’s Summit, MO 64086


Hoffa Slate

c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.

Baptiste & Wilder

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036


Phil Young, President

Teamsters Local Union 41

4501 Van Brunt Boulevard

Kansas City, MO 64130



Dick Waers, Esq.

Blake & Uhlig Law Firm

753 State Avenue

Suite 475

Kansas City, KS 66101


Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.

Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,

   Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman

32300 Northwestern Highway

Suite 200

Farmington Hills, MI 48334


James P. Hoffa

2593 Hounds Chase

Troy, MI 48098


Dennis Speak, Sec.-Treas.

Teamsters Local Union 41

4501 Van Brunt Boulevard

Kansas City, MO 64130

Paul Heiman

November 4, 1998

Page 1


Re: Election Office Case No. PR-350-LU41-EOH




Paul Heiman, a member of Local Union 41, 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 Unity Slate and Local Union 41.  On

Paul Heiman

November 4, 1998

Page 1


October 20, 1998, the protester claims that he received a telephone call from Russell Orth, who stated that he was calling on behalf of the Hoffa Slate and asked the protester to vote for the Hoffa Slate in the upcoming rerun election.  The protester alleges that the Hoffa Unity Slate is conducting phone bank campaigning from the offices of Blake & Uhlig, the law firm that represents Local Union 41, because the firm name was displayed on the protester’s “Caller I.D.” screen.  The protester asserts that Blake-Uhlig may have provided the use of its firm’s resources free of charge to the Hoffa campaign, in violation of the Rules since the firm is an employer.  The protester noted that other members had received similar telephone calls on October 20, 1998.


This protest was investigated by Election Office Staff Attorney Kathryn A. Naylor.


The investigation revealed that the independent committee MoKan Teamsters for Hoffa (“MoKan”) used the offices of Blake & Uhlig to conduct phone bank campaigning in support of the Hoffa Unity Slate, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., from October 19 through October 23.   On October 16, 1998, Nancy Yoke, the treasurer of MoKan, paid Dick Waers, a partner with Blake & Uhlig, $125 in advance for the use of the space in accordance with their oral agreement to use the space for a fee of $25 per night.  Mr. Waers told the investigator that he believed this amount would cover any costs that would be attributed to MoKan’s use of the space for phone banking.  MoKan utilized ten to twelve secretarial cubicles to make calls.  MoKan made only local telephone calls.  Mr. Waers stated that the firm did not incur any additional expenses over and above its monthly overhead for telephone usage, electricity or security.


Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules states:


No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, directly or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate.  No candidate may accept or use any such contribution.


The Election Officer has consistently approved the purchase or lease of employer or union telephone facilities for phone-bank campaigning on payment of fair-market value.  See, e.g., Merritt, P-1162-IBT-PNJ  (Nov. 12, 1996) (use of telephones in state senator’s reelection office); Tiboni, P-1155-JC41-CLE (Nov. 14, 1996) (use of telephones in conference rooms in building ultimately controlled by partners in law firm); Cook, P-337-LU705-CHI  (May 8, 1996) (use of AFSCME telephones for phone bank operation), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 191 (KC) (May 17, 1996); Carter, P-457-LU550-NYC (1991).  However, the Rules prohibiting in-kind contributions are violated when such facilities are used by a campaign without the required payment.  See, Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (“Advisory”) (December 14, 1995, as revised November 1997).  The purchase of goods or services by a candidate constitutes a campaign contribution by the vendor unless the terms of use are commercially reasonable. 


Paul Heiman

November 4, 1998

Page 1


Since Blake & Uhlig has not previously allowed other third parties to use its offices for telephone banking or any other comparable function, the Election Officer has independently calculated the fair market value for using the firm’s telephones and space on a pro-rated basis for two days.[1]  Based on these calculations, the Election Officer concludes that MoKan’s payment of $125 constitutes fair market value for the use of Blake & Uhlig’s offices for phone banking in compliance with the Rules.[2]    


Based on the foregoing, the 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

(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

[1]Although MoKan’s phone banking operation took place on five nights, the operation lasted 15 hours, the equivalent of two eight hour days.  

[2]The Election Officer estimated that $125 represents the pro-rated amount for two days.  The following was considered in making this determination: (1) Blake & Uhlig’s monthly telephone bill for local calls of $800; (2) Blake & Uhlig’s monthly rent based on a rate of $1.17 per square foot; and (3) MoKan used a maximum of 12 secretarial cubicles representing approximately 960 square feet.