Stedronsky, 2026 ESD 99
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION SUPERVISOR
for the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
IN RE: ROSEMARY STEDRONSKY ) Protest Decision: 2026 ESD 99
) Issued: May 29, 2026
Protestor. )
) OES Case No. P-106-030326 and
) P-114-030626
INTRODUCTION
Rosemary Stedronsky filed a protest against UniLect and Local 63, alleging that ballots were mailed to individuals who were allegedly not eligible to vote and because UniLect allegedly failed to provide equal access to election information by not disclosing the total number of ballots mailed in violation of the Rules for the 2025-2026 International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”).
Deborah Schaaf of the Office of the Election Supervisor (“OES”) investigated this protest.
BACKGROUND
The protestor filed P-106 alleging that the Rules were violated because ballots were mailed to seasonal workers and/or peak‑season workers employed under Local Union 63’s jurisdiction despite not meeting membership eligibility requirements. She does not identify any specific provision of the Rules she contends was violated in connection with her protest but claims that “Issuing ballots to non-members constitutes a[n] improper use of Local resources and creates an environment conducive to election fraud.” The protestor further alleges that UniLect failed to provide equal access to election information by not disclosing the total number of ballots mailed asserting that the lack of access undermined transparency and fairness in the election process. As relief, the protestor seeks a rerun of the delegate election and replacement of UniLect as election administrator.
Four days after filing P-106, on Saturday, March 7, 2026,[1] protestor filed an “amendment to all prior protest[s],” attaching previously filed protests P-100, P-101, P-102, P-106, and P-058,[2] asking for acknowledgment of her protests filed and immediate investigation alleging that delays in investigating her protests cast doubt on the integrity of the election process.[3] At the time protestor filed P-114, acknowledgment letters had not yet been distributed in connection with her protests P-100, P-101, P-102, and P-106. However, internally, those protests had already been assigned, sent to, and discussed with the investigator.
We assigned this new submission protest no. P-114. In P-114, protestor reiterated her allegations described above including that UniLect did not provide the Power for All Slate with the same level of access to information provided to the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate regarding the exact number of ballots distributed, and further alleging that UniLect did not inform the Power for All Slate about the scheduling of appointments to visit the post office or printing house, “or any other pertinent details necessary to ensure a fair and honest election process for both the Power for All Slate and all members.”
On Monday, March 9, 2026, the OES issued formal acknowledgement letters to interested parties regarding the protestor’s protests filed on March 3rd. On Wednesday, March 11, 2026, the OES issued a formal acknowledgement of P-114. We analyze P-106 and P-114 herein.
UniLect responded to these allegations stating that its standard election procedures require that ballots be mailed to all individuals listed as active members on the membership roster maintained and provided by the IBT TITAN Department, regardless of whether those individuals may ultimately be eligible to vote at the time of the ballot count. UniLect explained that this practice is intended to avoid disenfranchising members who may be temporarily ineligible at the time of mailing but regain eligibility before ballots are counted. UniLect further explained that voter eligibility is determined immediately prior to the ballot count using an Election Control Roster (“ECR”) provided by the IBT. Ballots returned by individuals not in good standing and not eligible, as reflected on the ECR, are treated as challenged ballots, and segregated. Only if challenged ballots could affect the outcome of the election, the Election Supervisor reviews each challenged ballot and determines whether it should be counted or voided. As discussed below, because of the significant margin in the delegate election, the challenged ballots could not affect the outcome of the election and were not counted.
Local 63’s Local Union Election Plan (“LUEP”) was submitted to the OES on September 22, 2025, and was approved by the Election Supervisor. As required by the Rules, the LUEP must be posted on all Local 63’s bulletin boards as soon as possible but no later than seven days from the date of the Election Supervisor’s approval of the LUEP and be maintained throughout the nomination and election period.[4] Local 63 submitted a Form 3 - Declaration of Posting Required Notice signed under penalty of perjury by Principal Officer Randy Cammack in October 2025, attesting to its compliance as required under the Rules. Members were permitted to comment on the LUEP.
The LUEP provides important information including, but not limited to, that candidates and slates are entitled to equal observer rights and access to election-related information such as ballot distribution procedures, observation of printing and mailing, and related logistical details, ensuring that each candidate and slate has the same opportunity to monitor and verify the integrity and fairness of the ballot process. Specifically, the LUEP explains that UniLect picked up undeliverable ballots once daily, Monday through Friday, and that observers have the right to observe this process in person or via Zoom. See LUEP, Question 6(c). It further states that candidates and observers are permitted to observe the printing and mailing of ballots. See id. at Section 5B. The LUEP also provides the addresses of the location of the printer, the PO Box for undeliverable ballots, and the PO Box for returned ballots. See LUEP, Questions 5B(d) & 5B(e).
During the candidates meeting on January 24, 2026, the protestor received and signed an OES Form 6 - Observer Rights Information, acknowledging her receipt of the “Observer rights sheet.” The Form 6 also includes information concerning observer rights during the delegate election process. Additionally, UniLect provided a letter regarding “Official Ballot Printing & Observer Process” to both slates stating,
This memo is to inform you that on Thursday, February 12, 2026 @ 9:00am, the printing of the Official Ballots for Local 63’s Convention Delegate & Alternate Delegate Election will take place. As a Candidate running for delegate, you have the right to observe this process or have an Observer present during this process on your behalf.
The letter also provided the location ballots were printed and Catherine Burkhart’s cell phone number to call with any questions.
During the candidates meeting, the protestor asked Burkhart for a weekly returned ballot count from the post office and Pearl Monahele-Hill, Adjunct OES Representative, responded that the OES does not allow that. Burkhart also responded, stating that the Department of Labor does not allow that. No one has access to the returned ballots until it is time for the ballot count, at which time, members are invited to observe the retrieval of the ballots, and the count.
A total of 1,302 ballots were cast; 1,235 valid ballots were counted, no ballots were voided, and there were 67 unresolved challenged ballots. The winning delegate candidate with the least number of votes received 872 votes.[5] The losing delegate candidate with the most votes received 258 votes, making the margin for the delegate election 614 votes. Assuming that all 67 unresolved challenge votes went to the Power for All Slate candidate who received the most votes, the margin was 547.
Ballots Mailed to Allegedly Ineligible Members
Article V, Section 2 governs voter eligibility, and establishes that eligibility is determined at the time of the ballot count—not at the time ballots are mailed. The Rules provide that eligibility is verified using the Election Control Roster immediately prior to counting ballots, and that ballots cast by individuals whose eligibility is challenged are segregated and resolved by the Election Supervisor if outcome‑determinative. Specifically, the provision states:
The Election Supervisor will supervise and direct the preparation of Election Control Rosters for all ballot counts. Prior to the commencement of any count of ballots, the eligibility to vote of each member who cast a ballot shall be verified. An Election Control Roster notation that a member's ballot should be challenged is binding until resolved by the Election Supervisor. The Local Union official or designated agent in charge of the ballot count, Election Supervisor, representative of the Election Supervisor, or any candidate or observer present may challenge the eligibility of any member to vote. The ballot of the member whose eligibility to vote is challenged shall be so marked by noting on the outside of the return ballot envelope the reason(s) for the challenge. The Election Supervisor or a representative of the Election Supervisor shall resolve all outcome determinative challenges.
This framework is well settled. As prior decisions have consistently held, “[e]ligibility to vote is determined as of the date ballots are tallied.” Tom Krause, 2006 ESD 229 (May 9, 2006). Accordingly, mailing ballots to individuals who may later be determined ineligible does not violate but is consistent with the Rules because eligibility screening occurs at the ballot count. Tom Leedham Rank and File Power Slate, 01 Elec. App. 104 (Nov. 2, 2001) (reversing a finding of a Rules violation where ballots were mailed to unqualified members because all ballots were screened for eligibility at the count).
The protest here challenges the inclusion of allegedly ineligible individuals, such as workers who are not actively employed, at the mailing stage. That claim fails. The Rules do not require pre-mailing eligibility determinations; to the contrary, they expressly contemplate that some recipients of ballots may ultimately be found ineligible and provide a mechanism to address that circumstance at the count. Indeed, the Rules define a “ballot-qualified member” as one entitled to receive a ballot, including various categories of members—such as members who are not actively employed due to termination, layoff, etc.—whose eligibility may depend on their status at the time of the tally.[6]
Nor does this case involve a failure to mail ballots to eligible members. See Sullivan & Teamsters United AZ, 2016 EDS 149 (Mar. 17, 2016) (explaining that ballots must be mailed to all members of the Local union). Instead, the protest challenges the opposite: that ballots were mailed too broadly. The Rules, however, favor inclusivity at the mailing stage to avoid disenfranchising members whose eligibility may change before the count, while relying on the challenge procedure to ensure that only eligible ballots are counted.
Moreover, the protestor does not allege that any ineligible ballots were counted, nor does she identify any specific individual whose ballot was improperly included in the tally. Instead, she challenges the mailing of ballots to individuals who might later be deemed ineligible, a practice expressly contemplated by the Rules as discussed above. Speculation is not sufficient to establish a violation, let alone conduct that could have affected the outcome of the election. Absent such evidence, and given the Rules’ express framework, the mere mailing of ballots to individuals who may later be deemed ineligible does not constitute a violation.[7]
UniLect’s Alleged Failure to Prove Equal Access to Information
The protestor alleges that UniLect violated the Rules by failing to disclose the total number of ballots mailed, information about rights to observe the mailing and printing of ballots, and other unidentified details necessary to ensure a fair and honest election.[8]
Under Article IX, Section 5:
Observers shall be permitted to observe the entire mailing process. Observers shall be permitted to accompany the ballots to the post office and to observe their mailing.
Observers shall be permitted to be present at the time(s) when those ballots returned as undelivered are picked up from the prescribed post office box and when the envelopes containing those ballots are inspected and counted. Observers shall further be permitted to be present when the cast ballots are picked up from the post office box and to accompany the transfer of such ballots to the location where they are to be counted. Notice shall be given to all affected candidates of the times of such mail ballot pick-ups.
Consistent with Article IX. Section 5 of the Rules, the protestor had the same access to information and observable election events as others, including notice of observer rights and procedures set forth in the LUEP and Form 6 (which she signed). Ballot totals and related information are, and were here, made available during the count. Specifically, the protestor, along with others present, had access to the number of returned ballots, prior to determinations of eligibility, and undeliverable ballots, which are also present at the ballot count, including a record of the total number of such ballots and date returned. The protestor’s disagreement with the Rules’ structure does not establish unequal access or a Rules violation.
Moreover, there is no evidence that UniLect provided preferential information to any candidate or slate or withheld information required to be disclosed. To the contrary, the protestor relies on her conclusory assertion that the Power for All Slate was not provided the same access to this information as the Cammack/Stewart Oz Teamsters United 2026 Slate but provides no evidence to support such claims. See Rules, Article XIII, Section 1 (“it shall be the burden of the protestor to present evidence that a violation has occurred.”); Rivers, 2011 ESD 222 (April 19, 2011) (a protest without supporting evidence will be denied).[9]
Lastly, to the extent protestor alleges that the time it took for the OES to formally acknowledgement her protests or to investigate her allegations affected the outcome of the election, those claims are without merit and are denied. As discussed above, P-100-P-102, and P-106 were formally acknowledged and distributed to interested parties by March 9th and, P-114 was acknowledged by March 11th. In each instance, however, the protests were assigned for investigation prior to the issuance of the formal acknowledgement letters, ensuring that there was no delay in starting the investigative process.
The Election Supervisor is expressly authorized “to take all necessary actions, consistent with these Rules, to ensure fair, honest, open, and informed elections.” Rules, Article I. In accordance with this authority, and consistent with that obligation, the OES conducted thorough, fact-intensive investigations into each of the protestor’s allegations. These investigations included interviews of the protestor, charged parties, and other witnesses, review and analysis of all materials submitted by the interested parties and witnesses, and examination of other relevant documentary evidence, including election forms. The OES then carefully assess and weighed the totality of the evidence applying the Rules and relevant authority before reaching its determinations. Notably, the protestor has provided no evidence demonstrating that the timing of the acknowledgment letters or the duration of the investigations resulted in prejudice to her or her slate, nor has she shown that these processes could have affected the outcome of the election. In the absence of such evidence, her claims fail.[10]
Accordingly, we find no violation of the Rules and DENY these protests.
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 on 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 99
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE):
Rosemary Stedronsky
Randy Cammack
Catherine Burkhart
Richard Hooker
John Palmer
Edward M. Gleason, Jr.,
James L. Donovan Jr.
David Suetholz
Will Bloom
Ken Paff
Thomas Kokalas
Hon. Timothy S. Hillman (Ret.)
Deborah Schaaf
Paul Dever
Emily Balzano
Emily.balzano@nelsonmullins.com
Kelly Hogan
[1] The attachment in P-114 is dated March 6, 2026, but the email submitting it was sent on Saturday, March 7, 2026.
[2] Protestor further stated that the Power for All Slate submitted amendments to all outstanding protests and referred to the attached documents. A comparison of the attached documents with the originally filed protests identified no new or additional allegations concerning P-058, P‑100, P‑101, and P‑102. In summary, P-114 did not add any additional facts or allegations that were not included in the original allegations or addressed in this decision. Further, those allegations have already been considered and resolved by the Election Supervisor in separate decisions. See Stedronsky & Negrete, 2026 ESD 74 (May 5, 2026) and Stedronsky, 2026 ESD 91 (May 27, 2026).
[3] At the time protestor filed P-114, acknowledgment letters had not yet been distributed in connection with her protests P-100, P-101, P-102, and P-106. However, internally, those protests had already been sent to and assigned to an investigator internally.
[4] It is also posted on the publicly available OES website. See https://www.ibtvote.org/forms/ElectionPlan/ViewPlan/30505. These postings are maintained throughout the nomination and election period.
[5] The Power for All Slate was a partial slate and there were no alternate delegate candidates nominated, therefore, the Cammack/Stewart OZ Teamsters United 2026 Slate’s alternate candidates were deemed elected following the nomination meeting.
[6] A “ballot‑qualified member” means a “a person entitled to receive a ballot” including “active members (including those classified in the TITAN system under status codes 00, 01,02, 04, 09, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19, or their equivalents in Local Unions which do not participate in the TITAN system) and members who, by virtue of employment in the seasonal food industry and membership in a seasonal Local Union (as defined below), may be eligible to vote.” Rules, Definitions, 4. By way of example only, TITAN system status code 18 “[a]pplies to members who are not actively employed due to termination, layoff, etc.”
[7] The protestor’s allegations appear to arise from a report concerning two former local union officers in a different local. Protestor states, “In light of recent findings in Local 986, where 14 years of election fraud and ineligibility were uncovered, it would be a disservice to the membership and the Teamster organization to disregard this grave issue.” To the extent she is referring to the February 13, 2026, IIO report, that report addresses findings of financial misconduct and fiduciary breaches by two former Local 986 officers: Chris Griswold and Sean Harren. While the report finds that they were ineligibility to run for office, those findings are limited to Griswold and Harren and protestor has provided no evidence to connect that report, or the findings therein, with her allegations asserted here.
[8] The protestor does not identify any specific information that she claims she was entitled to but was not disclosed to her or allege any new facts beyond her prior assertions regarding the number of ballots mailed and rights to observe the mailing and printing of ballots. Her third allegation here is conclusory and merely repackages her prior statements under broader, more generalized language regarding unequal access to information.
[9] To the extent protestor makes the conclusory statement that this conduct created an environment conducive to election fraud, she has likewise provided no evidence to support that claim.
[10] Moreover, each of the underlying protests referenced herein was independently investigated and denied on the merits, further underscoring the absence of any prejudice or impact on the election outcome.