Hogue, 2026 ESD 43
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 43
SPENCER HOGUE )
) Issued: February 15, 2026
)
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-052-012226
)
)
INTRODUCTION
Spence Hogue, Secretary-Treasurer of Local 222, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2025-2026 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) challenging Dale Varney’s eligibility for delegate and the Independent Slate’s slate declaration forms.
Ron Webne and Jim Devine of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest. The investigation included interviews of various witnesses including protestor Spencer Hogue and the following candidates on the Independent Slate: Dale Varney, Deven Bugger, Tyson Paulson, Nick Reddan, Riley Buchei. It also involved review of documentary evidence including, but not limited to, TITAN records, election forms submitted by the interested parties, documents related to Varney’s suspensions in 2024 and 2025 including, the General Executive Board’s (“GEB”) decisions on Varney’s appeals related to his suspension in 2024 (the “2024 Suspension”) and his one-year suspension in 2025 (the “2025 Suspension”).
BACKGROUND
Dale Varney’s Eligibility
Hogue challenges the eligibility of Varney to run for delegate in Local Union 222’s delegate election because he was suspended for a period of time during the 24 months leading up to the nomination meeting and, therefore, does not meet the continuous good standing requirement under the Rules. Prior to the nomination meeting, Varney filed a Request for Eligibility Verification with the OES. On January 22, 2026, the OES notified Varney of its determination that he was not eligible because he did not meet the continuous good standing requirement under Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules.[1] He was subsequently nominated as Local 222’s nomination meeting. This protest followed.
- Varney’s 2024 Suspension
TITAN records show that Varney was suspended from Local 222 on February 2, 2024, and that the suspension was lifted on January 3, 2025. Varney does not dispute this.[2] He stated that his suspension was a result of a disciplinary complaint brought against him having to do with his conduct at one or more local union meetings. This is consistent with review of the documents Varney submitted, including, but not limited to, correspondence from the GEB dated April 3, 2024, which shows that the Local 222 Executive Board filed charges against Varney alleging violations of Section 29 of Local 222 Bylaws and Article XIX, § 7(b)(1), (2), (3), (6), and (10) of the IBT Constitution for recording a general membership meeting on January 8, 2022, and distributing said recording without the authorization to do so. A hearing was held before Teamsters Joint Counsil No. 3 (JC 3) on August 16, 2023. Pursuant to its decision rendered by the JC 3 on January 19, 2024, JC 3 determined that Varney’s conduct was disruptive and interfered with Local 222’s obligation to its members in violation of Local 222’s rules of order and Article XIX, Section 7 of the IBT Constitution, his oath of membership and Local 222 Bylaws and issued a 90-day suspension commencing upon Varney’s receipt of the decision. JC 3 found there was insufficient evidence to support the remaining allegations.[3] Varney appealed this decision to the GEB. The GEB decided Varney’s appeal at its March 20, 2024 meeting. In correspondence dated April 3, 2024, the GEB provided Varney and other interested parties the GEB’s written decision denying his appeal.
Varney’s statements corroborate the above. He stated that the 2024 Suspension was originally for 90 days, but was extended because he challenged the right of Local 222 to make him pay a reinstatement fee and fine as a condition of reinstatement. Varney acknowledged that although he appealed his suspension and the fine/reinstatement fee issue to the JC 3, all of his appeals were denied.
b. Varney’s 2025 Suspension[4]
Review of the documents Varney submitted, confirmed by TITAN records, also show that the Local 222 Executive Board filed new charges against Varney on or about May 23, 2025, related to Varney’s alleged misconduct at various meetings in 2025 and postings on Facebook resulting in a one-year suspension of Varney’s membership beginning in October 2025. However, Varney appealed this decision as well. Unlike Varney’s appeal of his 2024 Suspension, in correspondence dated December 15, 2025, Varney was notified that his appeal of the decision resulting in his 2025 Suspension had been successful resulting in the GEB reversing JC 3’s decision and ordering Local 222 to restore his membership “effective immediately and retroactive to the date of suspension.”
The Independent Slate’s Nomination Forms
a. Form 4 Candidate Information Sheet & Form 44 Written Nomination, Second or Acceptance
Generally, all members of the Independent Slate’s statements were consistent. The Independent Slate met to fill out the forms in connection with Local 222’s delegate election. During that meeting the group reviewed the OES’s Official Form 4 Candidate Information Sheet (“Form 4”) and Official Form 44 Written Nomination, Second or Acceptance (“Form 44”). The Form 4 contains the candidate information (including phone number, address and email address) and position they are running for and all nominators and seconds information (including phone number, address, and email).[5] The Independent Slate submitted Form 4’s for every candidate on its slate.
The Independent Slate also submitted a Form 44 acceptance for each of its candidates which includes the candidate’s information, position running for, statement of acceptance, and their signature. At the bottom of Form 44 it specifically states, “While use of this Official Form is encouraged, it is not required for the submission of a valid nomination, second or acceptance.” The instructions on Form 44 state:
The slate interpreted these instructions to mean that if you chose to submit this form, you should only fill out and submit one of these two sections. Based on the slate’s understanding of the instructions on the Form 44, and because Form 44 is optional, the slate decided to only fill out and sign the acceptance section for each candidate since they already provided the required information for the two nominators and two seconds for each candidate in Form 4. Additionally, because each of the candidates had already signed the Form 44 and all of the nominators and seconds were candidates,[6] the slate thought there was no need to have them sign another form. We find the witnesses credible as to their explanation and confusion concerning the forms.
All of the Independent Slate’s forms were turned in via email and in person well in advance of the nomination meeting and deadline. See Rules, Art. II, Section 5(g) (written nominations and seconds must be received no later than 5 pm the date immediately prior to the nomination meeting); see also Rules, Art. II, Section 5(i) (if acceptance is made in writing, the document must be presented to the presiding Local Union officer no later than the time the member is nominated). Emails confirm receipt of the electronic copies of the Independent Slate’s forms on January 15th and physical copies on January 20th. Hogue acknowledges that he received the forms by email on January 15th and physical copies on January 20th. Hogue also admitted that he reviewed the forms submitted and their deficiencies but did not notify or otherwise discuss what he perceived as a problem with them with anyone on the Independent Slate prior to the nomination meeting.
No member of the Independent Slate attended the nomination meeting[7] but, since they believed that they had properly submitted their slate forms prior to the meeting, they were not required to. See Rules, Art. II, Section 5(f) (written nominations and seconds properly submitted under the Rules shall be announced and treated “as if it had been made from the floor of such meeting.”). The Independent Slate was not aware of any issues with their forms prior to the filing of this protest. In fact, Varney stated his belief that if there were issues with any of the forms, the Secretary Treasurer would have informed him since they were submitted in advance of the meeting. Varney stated that he was not notified of any issues with the Independent Slate’s forms prior to the filing of this protest. Hogue confirmed that he reviewed the forms but did not notify anyone on the Independent Slate of any deficiencies until after the nomination meeting and pursuant to this protest. During the nomination meeting, all of their nominations were presented in writing.
Hogue stated that Varney, the spokesperson for the Independent Slate, was involved in the nomination process during the last election cycle five years ago when he assisted a slate running in Local 222’s delegate election. Hogue stated his belief that Varney assisted with the paperwork for that slate. Hogue believes that Varney was aware of the necessary paperwork and applicable Rules since his former slate completed them correctly. When asked why Varney or the Independent Slate would intentionally submit incomplete paperwork, Hogue acknowledged that he did not know but that by doing so, they failed to provide the required signatures for the nominators and seconds rendering such nominations invalid.
Varney acknowledged that five years ago, he assisted a slate run in the delegate election but denied filling out or assisting with any of the paperwork. In fact, Varney stated that he did not know what paperwork that slate filed. As discussed above, it was Varney’s understanding that the Independent Slate properly filled out all of the necessary paperwork with the required information and signatures since each candidate provided a wet signature and all of the nominators and seconds were also candidates who, therefore, provided their signature on at least one form.
Form 10 – Number of Candidates Included on the Independent Slate
Local 222 is entitled to elect five delegates and two alternate delegates. The Independent Slate submitted a Form 10 slate declaration form containing six candidates for delegate and two candidates for alternate delegate. It is Hogue’s position that because the Independent Slate’s declaration form includes six candidates for five delegate positions, it is improper. He acknowledges that he does not know why the Independent Slate chose to fill out the declaration form this way but speculated the slate may have done so in case one of their delegate candidates is declared ineligible to allow them to still have a complete slate.
Varney stated that the Independent Slate filled out the slate declaration form with six candidates for five delegate positions because they interpreted the Rules to mean that you only need this to be accurate at the time of the ballot printing. The Independent Slate stated that it intentionally included six candidates since Varney’s eligibility is being questioned. If Varney is determined to be ineligible, the slate will still have a full slate and if Varney is allowed to run one of the other candidates will withdraw.
ANALYSIS
Dale Varney’s Eligibility
Pursuant to Article VI, Section 1(a) of the Rules, to be eligible to run for any Convention delegate, alternate delegate, or International Officer position, one must:
(1) Be a member in continuous good standing of the Local Union, with one’s dues paid to the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination for said position with no interruptions in active membership due to suspensions, expulsions, withdrawals, transfers or failure to pay fines or assessments;
(2) Be employed at the craft within the jurisdiction of the Local Union for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months prior to the month of nomination; and
(3) Be eligible to hold office if elected.
The nomination meeting for Local 222 took place on January 22, 2026. Thus, to be eligible, Varney must have remained in active memberships from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025. Here, is it undisputed that Varney was suspended—a binding decision that has already been appealed and affirmed—from February 2024 through January 2025. All of the evidence corroborates that Varney was suspended during this time and we have no evidence to refute making such a determination. Thus, because a member loses continuous good standing if he is suspended from membership during the eligibility period, Varney is not eligible to run for delegate in Local 222’s delegate election. Giacumbo, E85 (February 14, 1996), aff’d, 96 EAM 110 (March 1, 1996); contrast Eligibility of Keller & O'Donnell, 2006 ESD 61(February 7, 2006) (members were not ineligible despite pending internal union charges because they had not yet been found to have committed misconduct or been suspended from membership).
Accordingly, we GRANT this protest as to the allegations concerning Varney’s eligibility.
Nomination Forms
a. Form 4 and Form 44
Article II Section 5(f) governing the nomination and elections of delegates and alternate delegates provides the following:
Any member eligible to nominate or second a nomination may do so by a writing submitted to the Local Union Secretary-Treasurer. The writing shall state whether it is a nomination or a second, the name of the member being nominated or seconded, and whether the nomination or second is for delegate or alternate delegate. It shall be signed by the member submitting the nomination or second and shall provide his/her complete mailing address. The submitting individual may also choose to provide the last four digits of his/her Social Security number. At the nomination meeting, the presiding Local Union officer shall announce and treat a written nomination or second as if it had been made from the floor of such meeting. The Election Supervisor may separately request a nominator, seconder, or candidate to provide the last four digits of his/her Social Security number directly to the Office of the Election Supervisor to verify eligibility.
In other words, pursuant to the Rules, written nominations and seconds must: (1) be submitted to the local union secretary treasurer; (2) state whether it is a nomination or second; (3) state the name of the member being nominated or seconded, (4) be signed by the member submitting the nomination or second; and (5) provide his/her mailing address. Rules, Art. II, Section 5(f).
The Independent Slate submitted Form 44 acceptances signed by each of the candidates but did not submit signed nominations or seconds. Instead, for each candidate on its slate it submitted a completed Form 4 candidate information sheet which includes the name of each nominator and seconder, the name of the member they nominated or seconded, and their mailing address as required by Article II, Section 5(f). The Form 4 also includes the last four digits of some of the nominators and seconds but not all. As noted above, although the Form 44 is not required, the Rules state that written nominations “shall be signed by the member submitting the nomination or second[.]” Id.
Pursuant to Article I of the Rules, the Election Supervisor is charged with the responsibility “to ensure fair, honest, open, and informed elections” and is granted “the authority to take all necessary actions, consistent with these Rules” to do so. “Measured against the scope of this authority, it cannot be said that it would serve the underlying purpose of the Rules or the Consent Decree if [the Independent Slate] were to be barred from running for delegate.” Slawson, 2001 EAD 81 (Jan. 17, 20001). In fact, protests seeking to disqualify a candidate or candidates for technical violations similar to those at issue here have repeatedly been denied where such a determination would not serve the underlying purpose of the Rules. See e.g., Sather, P498 (Mar. 5, 1996) (denying protest despite failure to comply with express language of the Rules explaining that the procedures have caused confusion regarding written nominations, seconds and acceptances but that the “Election Officer has been accommodating in her approach as to members who have not explicitly followed the letter of these Rules. Such accommodation promotes the underlying principals [sic] of member participation and union democracy as set forth by the Consent Decree and the Rules.”) (citing McGill, P-331-LU213-CAN (Jan. 25, 1996); Slawson, 2001 EAD 81 (Jan. 17, 20001) (declining to reject candidate’s nomination based on his good faith belief he corrected the technical deficiency finding that “[i]n such a situation, a member otherwise properly entitled to stand as a candidate should not be disenfranchised.”) (collecting cases);[8] Kent et al., 2006 ESD 179 (April 12, 2006).
It is undisputed that the Independent Slate did not submit signed Form 44’s for each nomination or second and that the Form 4 is not signed by each nominator or second. However, all nominators and seconders for each of the candidates on the Independent Slate are also candidates and in addition to each signing the Form 44 acceptance they submitted a slate declaration form signed by all. Thus, while we find that the Independent Slate’s nominations were technically not on compliance with the express language of Article II, Section 5(f) of the Rules, we find that the Independent Slate believed in good faith that by submitting all of the forms together (Form 4 with the required candidate, nominator and seconds information in conjunction with the Form 44 signed acceptance by each candidate and Form 10 slate declaration with each candidate’s signature), that it provided all of the required information and signatures in compliance with the Rules. We find this determination to be consistent with the purpose of the Rules and decline to disqualify the otherwise eligible candidates in the Independent Slate on these grounds. This is particularly so where, as here, we recognize that the instructions on the forms may be confusing, that the Independent Slate submitted its forms well in advance of the nomination meeting, Hogue acknowledged that he reviewed those forms but did not notify or otherwise discuss what he believed to be deficiencies with the slate until submitting this protest after the nomination meeting. Lastly, there is no indication of any attempt by the Independent Slate to undermine the nomination of delegates in Local 222. See Slawson 2001 EAD 81 (Jan. 17, 20001).
Accordingly, we DENY the protest as to these allegations.
b. Form 10
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 2(b) of the Rules, “[t]he number of slate members shall not exceed the number of positions open for election.” It is undisputed that the Independent Slate contains more delegate candidates than positions available. Although the Independent Slate’s Form 10 was improper, for the same reasons discussed above, we decline to hold that such a technical violation renders the entire slate disqualified, particularly where, as here, the Independent Slate contains the proper number of delegates and alternate delegates since we find that Varney is ineligible.
Accordingly, we DENY the protest as to these allegations.
APPELLATE RIGHTS
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. Any party requesting a hearing must comply with the requirements of Article XIII, Section 2(i). All parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely in any such appeal upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:
Election Appeals Master
Barbara Jones
Election Appeals Master
IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Service may be accomplished by email, using the “reply all” function on the email by which the party received this decision. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Timothy S. Hillman
Election Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones, IBTappealsmaster@bracewell.com
2026 ESD 43
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Dale Varney
Darrell Eaten Jr,
Nicholas Reddan
Riley Buchei
Tyson Poulson
Anthony Winters
Deven Bugger
Simione Malohifoou
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
Richard Hooker
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Timothy S. Hillman
Paul Dever
Ron Webne
Jim Devine
Kelly Hogan
[1] We note that such a determination advises members of the OES’s determination of eligibility status and does not prevent a member from seeking nomination.
[2] In an email dated January 21, 2026, Varney wrote:
I was suspended on or about February 2, 2024, and the suspension remained in effect until January 3, 2025. The suspension arose from a disciplinary complaint relating to alleged conduct at local union meetings. The original suspension period was stated to be 90 days. I disputed the reinstatement fee and fine imposed as a condition of reinstatement and appealed those issues. My appeals were denied. A request for internal investigation remains pending.
Varney provided an email dated April 12, 2024, sent to a senior investigator of the IBT Office of the Independent Investigations Officer stating his belief that he did not receive a full and fair hearing and asking to “make my case to this office.” We confirmed that Varney does not have any pending investigation or complaint filed with the Office of the Independent Investigations Officer. Even to the extent Varney requested that the IBT’s Office of the Independent Investigations Officer review and reverse the GEB’s decision, such a request would be procedurally improper and exceed the scope of their authority. See IBT Constitution, Article XIX, Section 2(a), (b). Moreover, had Varney wanted to appeal the GEB’s decision concerning his 2024 Suspension, he was required to do so as set forth in Article XIX, Section 2(b) of the IBT Constitution within 15 days of the decision—we have no evidence that he did.
[3] The timing of this decision in the end of January 2024 is consistent with Varney’s statements and TITAN records which show that Varney was suspending beginning in early February 2024.
[4] Although Varney’s 2025 Suspension is not the basis for our determination that Varney is not eligible, we include a brief summary to provide additional context and to avoid any confusion about Varney’s various suspensions and outcome of his appeals.
[5] Some of the candidates, nominators and seconds also included their social security numbers on the Form 4.
[6] Varney only signed his acceptance form and did not nominate or second and candidate since his eligibility status was being questioned and he did not want to risk disqualifying any other candidate.
[7] Most of the members of the Independent Slate stated they were unable to attend.
[8] We note that in Slawson, 2001 EAD 81 (Jan. 17, 20001), the Election Officer initially found one of the challenged candidate’s nominations to be valid but found the others to be invalid and voided. The Appeals Master reversed, finding the second candidate also should not be disqualified from running as a candidate. See 01 EAM 19 (KC) (Jan. 31, 2001).