Teamster Power, 2021 ESD 129
for the
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE:
) Issued:
Protestor. ) OES Case No. P-148-060221-NA
____________________________________)
Election Supervisor
representative
Findings of
Fact and Analysis
The protest cited a Facebook post
made by Kristina Hicks, member and elected delegate of Local Union 651 and
supporter of the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate, that showed she collected
“pocket change” to be contributed to that slate. The post, made on or about May 29, 2021,
read: “So proud of my UPS part time local sort co-workers[;] they’ve saved
pocket change for the last month to donate to OZ Slate!” The post included a photo of a red, Folgers,
2 lb. coffee container filled with quarters, dimes, and nickels. The post also showed a receipt from the
O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate for the sum of $150.00, issued May 28, 2021.
In a comment beneath the post, Fred Zuckerman,
candidate for IBT General Secretary-Treasurer, wrote, “Awesome. Thank them all from us. OZ 2021.”
In a separate comment, Sean O’Brien, candidate for IBT General
President, added, “Thank you Kristina very much appreciated.” Hicks replied to Zuckerman’s comment,
writing, “We are going to continue doing the drive for change … hopefully
collect even more.”
Article XI of the Rules regulates
campaign contributions. Among other
requirements, the Rules specify that only IBT members may contribute to the
campaigns of candidates for International office. Each such member is subject to a monetary cap
on contributions. To enforce these
provisions, candidates for International office and their supporters are
required to obtain the name, local union number, other identifying information,
and the amount of each contribution.
They are then obligated to enter that information into the CCERS system,
which verifies membership status and indicates whether the contributor has
exceeded the individual cap on contributions.
Only upon verifying this information may contributions be used for
campaign purposes.
The protest asserted that the
collection of contributions from individuals, without verifying their
membership status or relationship to the contribution cap, violated the
Rules. The protest further asserted that
the endorsements by Zuckerman and O’Brien of the impermissible practice
exacerbated the violation.
Investigation showed that Hicks had
no previous experience with campaign fundraising in Teamster elections,
conceived of the “pocket change” idea herself, and did not consult with any
representative of the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 before executing her plan. She further stated that she did not maintain
any record of the identity of contributors or the amounts they contributed, but
she asserted that they were all members of Local Union 651. She stated that she contributed $150 to the
O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate, of which $120 was from her own funds, with the
balance coming from the change she collected.
After the protest was filed, the
O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 slate refunded $150 to Hicks, and she has made no
further contribution to any candidate’s campaign for International office.
Hicks’ conduct violated the Rules
only because she did not collect contributors’ names, local union numbers,
other identifying information, and contribution amounts from the individuals
whose contributions she accepted. This basic
reporting requirement is long-understood as part of the Rules. See Certain Campaign Contributions by
Officers and Employees of Local Union 853, 2006 ESD 341(August 23, 2006) (“[c]ontributions
must be reported in the name of the eligible contributing member and are
subject to audit to ensure that funds are not contributed from an improper source
and that contribution limits are obeyed”) (emphasis added).[1] Had Hicks remitted the sum of the
contributions to the campaign together with the contributors’ information, she
would have satisfied the Rules’ requirements because the campaign would then have
had the means of entering the data into CCERS and in so doing verify membership
and contribution status. By remitting
the aggregated contributions of multiple contributors as she did, Hicks sent
the campaign funds it could not verify.
She further risked that at least a portion of the remittance was
contributed by a person who either was not a member or was a member who had
exceeded his/her contribution limit; in either of these circumstances,
unverified or unverifiable contributions could have been introduced into the
campaign. The sum involved in the
example this case presents is small, but it usefully illustrates the danger
involved in remitting aggregated contributions without documenting their
sources.
As of the date Hicks remitted the $150
contribution to the O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 campaign, the campaign had no notice
that the contribution was an aggregation of smaller individual contributions;
it therefore lacked a reason to question the contribution. However, once Hicks made her Facebook post
and Zuckerman and O’Brien responded to it, the campaign was on notice that it
could not accept the contribution without the contributor data outlined above,
and the contribution should have been refunded without the need for a protest
to spur that action. We caution the
O'Brien-Zuckerman 2021 going forward to take steps to insure each contribution
it receives is solely from the person identified with the contribution. We order no further remedy.[2]
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:
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, all within
the time prescribed above. 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.
Richard
W. Mark
Election
Supervisor
cc: Barbara Jones
2021
ESD
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED):
Bradley
T. Raymond, General Counsel
International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
braymond@teamster.org
Edward
Gleason
egleason@gleasonlawdc.com
Patrick
Szymanski
szymanskip@me.com
Will
Bloom
wbloom@dsgchicago.com
Tom
Geoghegan
tgeoghegan@dsgchicago.com
Rob
Colone
rmcolone@hotmail.com
Barbara
Harvey
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Kevin
Moore
Mooregp2021@gmail.com
Fred
Zuckerman
fredzuckerman@aol.com
Teamsters
for a Democratic Union
ken@tdu.org
Kristina Hicks
jrhkahkahjrh@yahoo.com
Mike Watson
mwatson@teamsters651.org
Bruce Boyens
boyensb@aol.com
Joe Childers
jchilders@ibtvote.org
Bill Broberg
wbroberg@ibtvote.org
Jeffrey Ellison
EllisonEsq@gmail.com
[1] OES has engaged an accounting firm to review CCER
compliance. Part of that process
involves sending notices to a random selection of contributors and asking for
verification that identified contributions were in fact made by that
contributor.
[2] Candidates may require contributors to affirm that
each contribution is made from the contributor’s funds, and that funds are not
being provided to the contributor by another person or entity for the purpose
of making the contribution. If a
contributor has “bundled” funds from others, each person contributing to the
aggregate should provide the sourcing statement.