2026 EAM 23 (re: 2026 ESD 115)

ELECTION APPEALS MASTER

FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

2026 EAM 23
ISSUED: September, 24 2026
APPEAL OF ELECTION SUPERVISOR PROTEST 2026 ESD 115
OES CASE No. P-154-061526

Protest Decision 2026 ESD 115 (“ESD 115”) was issued on July 22, 2026 (OES Case No. P-154-061526) by the Office of the Election Supervisor (“Election Supervisor” or “OES”).  ESD 115 addresses a protest filed by Lindsay Dougherty, a candidate for Vice President at Large on the O’Brien-Zuckerman Slate (the “OZ Slate”), alleging that Michael Sparks, a candidate for Vice President on the Fearless Slate, made threatening and harassing statements to her during the IBT Convention in violation of the Rules for the 2025–2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (the “Rules”).

Ms. Dougherty filed the protest on June 15, 2026, the day the Convention commenced.  The following day, after all certified delegates had cast their ballots, no Fearless Slate candidate – including Mr. Sparks – received the required percentage of ballots to hold a general election, and all candidates on the OZ Slate were deemed duly elected.  With the election concluded, Ms. Dougherty, through her counsel Edward Gleason, Jr., submitted a formal request to withdraw the protest as moot.  On July 22, 2026, the OES issued its decision and deemed the protest WITHDRAWN.

On July 24, 2026, Mr. Sparks appealed the OES’s decision to withdraw the protest. By Notice of Hearing, the Election Appeals Master scheduled a hearing for August 3, 2026.  Prior to the hearing, both the OES and Mr. Sparks filed pre-hearing submissions in support of their respective positions.  A hearing by video conference was held on August 3, 2026.  The following individuals attended the hearing:  Kelly Hogan and Joe Childers, on behalf of the OES; and Michael Sparks, on behalf of the Fearless Slate.

Determination

            As noted above, Ms. Dougherty’s protest alleged that Mr. Sparks made threatening and harassing statements to her on the floor of the IBT Convention.  Mr. Sparks has consistently denied the allegations and maintained that the evidence submitted in support of the protest does not substantiate them.  Following the election of the OZ Slate, however, Ms. Dougherty withdrew the protest before the investigation could be completed or a decision on the merits could be issued.  The Election Supervisor concluded that the withdrawal furthered the purposes of the Rules and deemed the protest WITHDRAWN.

On appeal, Mr. Sparks contends that the OES’s decision to permit the withdrawal was inconsistent with the Rules and that fairness required the OES to issue a reasoned determination on the merits.  He maintains that the allegations against him are inaccurate and that the withdrawal leaves a record suggesting he committed a violation.  In his view, a decision from the OES on the merits would have cleared his name.

The Election Supervisor has broad discretion to permit the withdrawal of a protest, see In re Webb, 2010 ESD 32 (Oct. 4, 2010), and that discretion extends even to protests alleging serious violations of the Rules.  See Leedham, PR-412-IBT-EOH (Jan. 8, 1999) (withdrawal permitted in retaliation claim based on failure to approve travel); Livaudais, PR-331-LU385-EOH (Nov. 18, 1998) (withdrawal permitted in retaliation claim based on improper termination); Busalacchi, P-1331-LU544-NCE (Dec. 20, 1996) (withdrawal permitted in retaliation claim based on slander).

In determining whether withdrawal is appropriate, the Election Supervisor exercises the discretion in Article I of the Rules, which directs the Election Supervisor to “take all necessary actions, consistent with these Rules, to ensure fair, honest, open and informed elections.”  The decision therefore turns on whether permitting withdrawal, rather than proceeding to a determination on the merits, better serves the purposes of the Rules.  In striking that balance here, the OES considered, among other factors, the nature of the alleged violation, the utility of any remedy available at the point withdrawal was sought, and whether adjudicating the protest would meaningfully advance the electoral integrity that Article I is designed to protect.  The Election Supervisor concluded that withdrawal was appropriate because, by the time the request was submitted, the candidates on the OZ Slate had been declared duly elected, no ongoing campaign or voting process required immediate intervention, and any further expenditure of election resources would not have been justified.  On the record before me, I find that the Election Supervisor properly exercised his discretion in permitting the protest to be withdrawn, and do not need to reach the parties’ remaining arguments.

Finally, I note that the allegations against Mr. Sparks have not been substantiated and there has been no determination that he violated the Rules.  The OES’s submission confirms as much, stating that the OES made no finding that Mr. Sparks violated the Rules, imposed no remedy, and reached no adverse factual conclusions against him.  Accordingly, the appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED:

Hon. Barbara S. Jones (Ret.)

Election Appeals Master

DATED:  September 24, 2026

DISTRIBUTION LIST (VIA EMAIL):

Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,

ed@hsglawgroup.com

Linsday Dougherty

lindsay.dougherty@gmail.com

James Donovan

jdonovan.ne@gmail.com

Michael Sparks

sparks7420@mac.com

Sparks7420@gmail.com

Richard Hooker

hookabrasi@gmail.com

John Palmer

Jpalmer8734@gmail.com

David Suetholz

DSuetholz@teamster.org

Will Bloom,

wbloom@dsgchicago.com

Ken Paff

ken@tdu.org

Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)

thillman@ibtvote.org

Joe Childers

joe@childerslaw.com

Paul Dever

pdever@ibtvote.org

Kelly Hogan

kelly.hogan@nelsonmullins.com