2 The voting rates were similar in the 1991 Teamster delegate elections -33% in mail elections and 19% in walk-in elections. In 1996, nearly all Teamster delegate elections, and the voting for International officers, were conducted by mail.

23

to vote. What this argument fails to acknowledge is that those who care enough to travel to the polls are likely to be those who benefit from existing union policies. Those who are disadvantaged by union policies, particularly over a lengthy period, may be insufficiently motivated to travel to the polls. Their failure to vote may indicate, not that they do not care about union affairs, but that they do not perceive existing union policies (or officers) as benefitting them, and do not have sufficient confidence that their vote will make any difference to warrant a trip to the Union hall in order to vote.

Some of those members will not vote regardless of the ease of mail voting. In the delegate elections, two-thirds of the membership in Locals with mail balloting still did not vote. In the General President election and Referendum, 83% of the members in Locals with mail balloting did not vote. Still, mail balloting doubled the percentage of members voting in both the delegate election and the election for General President and Referendum. It is thus apparent that the availability of mail balloting is a crucial element in achieving the goal of the LIUNA-DOJ agreement -- a truly democratic LIUNA in which the membership, not a few insiders, controls the Union's destiny.

Accordingly, we recommend that the LIUNA-DOJ agreement be amended, and that the Election Rules be modified, to explicitly provide the Election Officer with the authority to order mail balloting in order to increase voter turnout. At very least, it should be made clear that the Election Officer has the authority to encourage Locals to vote by mail if they wish to do so, and to provide Locals with financial and administrative incentives to vote by mail. (In the 1996 election for General President and Referendum, the Election Office prepared, mailed and counted all ballots at no charge to the Locals. The total cost of doing so for 557 Locals with approximately 375,000 members was approximately $600,000.)

Disclosure of Information. The Introduction to the 1996 Election Rules provides for "fair, honest, open and informed elections." The Election Officer held that one element of an open and informed election is that voters have access to all arguably relevant information about the elections. Thus, the Election Officer concluded that the International was required to disclose the salary of an International Vice President to another candidate for that office. The Election Officer also held that a

24

business agent, who was a candidate for International Vice President, was required to disclose to his opponent his compensation from the Local Union of which he was business agent, as well as his salary and compensation from other LIUNA-related entities.

Finally, the Election Officer held that the International was required to notify all members that it would make available to them, on request, copies of the draft RICO complaint provided to LIUNA by the U.S. Department of Justice in November, 1994. The Independent Hearing Officer reversed this decision of the Election Officer, holding that the 1996 Election Rules did not provide the Election Officer with authority to require LIUNA to provide the draft RICO complaint to the membership. The Independent Hearing Officer also held that even if the Election Officer had the authority to impose such a requirement, doing so was an abuse of his discretion.

The Election Rules should be amended to vest express authority in the Election Officer to require both the Union and candidates for Union office to make available all information arguably relevant to a ~: pending election. Providing the Election Officer with this authority is a key element in creating the structure for political democracy within LIUNA.

Candidate Literature and Mailings. Article IV, Section 7 provides that each candidate should be permitted a reasonable opportunity to have the candidate's literature distributed by the Union, at the candidate's expense.

While, in theory, this provision places all candidates on an equal footing in their efforts to communicate with the electorate, that was not, in fact, true in the delegate elections. Particularly in large Locals, many challengers were unable to afford the cost of mailings to the membership. Even if incumbent officer candidates for delegate did not do mailings either, the name recognition that goes along with incumbency (as well as slate voting provisions), typically carried the incumbent candidates to an easy victory.

Candidates for International office are not limited to mailings in their efforts to communicate with the membership, but are entitled to have their campaign literature published in The Laborer ( 1996 Election Rules, Article IV, Section 9). Although this does not overcome all the advantages of incumbency, it does provide challengers with some opportunity to present themselves and their ideas to the membership.

25

In the 1996 election campaign, nearly all non-incumbent candidates for International office, and a few incumbents, took advantage of this opportunity.

A similar opportunity should be made available in the delegate elections. Each Local Union should be required, at least once prior to the election of Convention delegates, to publish and mail to all members a communication in which all candidates for delegate have the opportunity to place campaign literature. Alternatively, the Local could mail, free of charge, to all members, at least once, each candidate's campaign literature. (At least one Local followed this latter approach in the 1996 delegate elections.)

The results of the 1996 Election Referendum, pursuant to which all International Vice Presidents are to be elected by direct vote of the members, rather than by Convention delegates, will lead to new communication problems in Vice Presidential elections. Instead of campaigning among a comparatively small group of Convention delegates, approximately 200 for Regional Vice President candidates and 2,000 for At Large Vice President candidates, each candidate for Vice President must now campaign among a vastly larger constituency -approximately 40,000 members for Regional Vice Presidents and 400,000 members for Vice Presidents at Large.

One result of this change may be that candidates for Vice President will be required to raise substantial amounts of money to campaign among the vastly enlarged electorate. If challengers do not raise such funds, they run the risk that victory will go to the incumbent by virtue of name recognition. If challengers do raise sufficient funds to mount a substantial campaign, incumbents may believe it necessary to do likewise.

In order to minimize the necessity for substantial fund-raising in order to campaign for Vice President, increased communication opportunities should be made available to all Vice Presidential candidates. Thus, Article IV, Section 9(a) should be amended to provide candidates with the right to have campaign literature published in all issues of The Laborer beginning with the January-February issue preceding the Convention. Similarly, Article IV, Section 9(b) should be amended to increase the space available to each Vice Presidential

26

candidate from one-half page to one page beginning with the May-June issue of The Laborer. If, as in 1996, the November-December issue of The Laborer is not to be published until late November, a special pre-election if- newsletter should be mailed to all members in early November. In this newsletter, which could be different for each Region, each candidate for whom members in that Region would have the opportunity to vote C, could be given a final opportunity, once again free of charge, to communicate to the membership. (A similar newsletter, in which candidates for General President were each allowed three pages of campaign material, was published by the Election Officer in November 1996.)

Slate Voting. The rules for delegate elections permitted the formation of slates (Article V), and provided significant advantages to slates (Article I, Section 8). Slates were listed on the ballot prior to unaffiliated candidates, a slate box was placed on the ballot, and by marking that box, the member voted for the entire slate. If a member voted for both a slate and non-slate candidate, with the result that the member voted for more candidates than there were delegate positions, the vote for the slate was counted, and the votes for non-slate candidates were disregarded.

The effect of these rules was to provide incumbent Local Union officers and their followers with a substantial advantage in the election of delegates. Typically, incumbent Local officers would form a slate of candidates for delegate. If there were more delegate positions than ,, Union officers who wanted to be delegates, supporters of the incumbents were added to the slate. With slate voting in place, the incumbents typically carried the less well-known members on the slate to victory, shutting out non-aligned challengers.

The effect of the slate rules was thus contrary to one of the overall goals of the Election Rules -- to strengthen participative democracy within LIUNA by encouraging more members to become politically active. Accordingly, we recommend that those portions of Article I, Section 8 which provide for slate voting be eliminated. Candidates who wish to run as a slate should be able to do so, and to be identified on the ballot as slate members, but voters should have to vote for each slate member individually.

27

This approach was used by the Election Officer in the election of International officers (Supplemental Convention Rules, Article VII), and represents a better balance between the interest in allowing candidates to form a slate and the interest in encouraging greater member participation than does the approach followed in the delegate elections.

Pre-Nomination Meeting Verification of Eligibility. Article II, Section 2 provides that all persons seeking nomination as delegate must request verification of their eligibility from the Local at least 24 hours before the nomination meeting. That section also provides that the requirement of a pre-election verification request will be excused for good cause shown to the Election Officer.

The provision for pre-nomination meeting verification grew out of the concern that incumbent officer delegate candidates would have their eligibility in order prior to the nomination meeting, but that challengers would have their eligibility attacked, thus reducing the likelihood that they would be elected, even if nominated. By providing for a pre-nomination meeting eligibility check, combined with Election Officer review of determinations of ineligibility, we hoped to avoid eligibility issues arising at the nomination meeting. We realized, however, that this was a change in LIUNA procedures, and that not all members would be aware of it. In order not to ban such members from running, the provision for a "good cause" excuse for not filing a pre-nomination meeting verification request was added.

Unfortunately, we underestimated the extent to which those members who were not Local Union officers would lack knowledge of the requirement for pre-nomination meeting verification. Typically, Local Union officers were aware of the requirement, and complied with it, while many challengers were either unaware of the requirement or for some other reason failed to comply with it. As a result, we were in the uncomfortable position of either finding many challengers to be ineligible, which would be contrary to the goal of encouraging participation in union affairs, or applying the "good cause" standard so liberally as to make the requirement of pre-election verification nearly meaningless.

28

The Article II, Section 2 provision for mandatory pre-nomination meeting verification should be eliminated. Candidates should, however, be provided with the opportunity to request pre-nomination meeting verification, and Locals should be required to comply with such requests.

Mailing Lists. If, as we recommend, mail balloting is to be used to increase members' participation in elections, both LIUNA and its Locals must make extensive efforts to obtain correct mailing addresses for all members. Otherwise, many members will not receive ballots and will be effectively disenfranchised. In the 1996 election for General President and Referendum, of the 377,830 members eligible to vote by mail, 19,307 (5.11 %) did not receive ballots because their correct addresses ~ were unknown to LIUNA, and could not be found by the Election Of lice.

There are a number of steps that can be taken to decrease the number of members for whom correct addresses are not available. At a minimum, LIUNA should continue to regularly submit all incorrect addresses in its possession to Local Unions for correction. Since members are more likely to maintain correct addresses to receive benefit checks than to receive The Laborer, Local Unions should be encouraged to compare incorrect addresses with addresses on file at the relevant health and welfare funds. Next, incorrect addresses should not be deleted from The Laborer mailing list, as they are at present. Rather, they should be maintained in the mailing list data base as "bad addresses." Doing so would allow LIUNA to periodically submit the "bad address" file to a National Change of Address (NCOA) service for updating and corrections.

Although some progress has been made in transforming LIUNA into a participative political democracy, that progress is both limited and fragile. The problems which led to the 1994 draft RICO complaint did not develop overnight, and they will not be cured overnight. In this Report, we recommend that the reforms instituted by the 1996 agreement between LIUNA and the Department of Justice be expanded, and that Department of Justice supervision of LIUNA be extended through at least the 2001 elections. Only if these recommendations are

29

followed is there any realistic likelihood that LIUNA will develop into a participative democracy, in which members will use the ballot box to keep LIUNA free of the corruption and criminal influence which led to the 1994 draft RICO complaint.

30

The February 1997 Election Officers' report to LIUNA and the Department of Justice sets out our policy-based recommendations for amendments to the 1996 Election Rules. In this Memorandum, we set out those recommendations for change which we view as primarily technical in nature. This Memorandum also includes advice on administering the Election Rules.

Right to Reply. Article IV, Section 5(a)(2) provides that:

31

If a candidate is permitted to address a Local meeting, there is no reason to limit the right to reply to non-member candidates.

The Laborer: Election Officer Review. Article IV, Section 9(f) provides:

While pre-publication review by the Election Officer should minimize post-publication protests, and the difficult remedial questions t that would follow a successful post-publication protest, such protests ought not be barred by a pre-publication review that will have taken place without the benefit of adversary presentations.

The Laborer: Revealing Contents. Article IV, Section 9(h) provides:

No person involved in the editing, production or distribution of The Laborer may alter or reveal the content of any candidate's or slate's material prior to its publication.

This Section should be amended as follows:

No person involved in the editing, production or distribution of The Laborer may alter or reveal the content of any candidate's or slate's material to any other candidate or slate prior to its publication. (Amendments underlined.)

This change is intended to harmonize Section (f) and (h).

A broader version of this Rule, which applied to all LIUNA elective offices, was promulgated on May 22, 1996 as a joint Order of the Election Officer and the GEB Attorney. That Order, as limited to delegate and International officer elections, should be incorporated into the Election Rules.

33

Union Logo. The last sentence of Article IV, Section 10 (c), which prohibits use of the Union logo or letterhead to assist in campaigning, should be amended to prohibit only use of the Union letterhead. While the argument in favor of prohibiting use of the Union logo is that its use implies Union endorsement, that argument is without merit if all candidates are free to use the logo.

The use of Union letterhead in campaigning is quite different. Since Union letterhead is typically used only for Union business, its use by a candidate does suggest that his or her campaign is Union business. Additionally, Union letterhead is likely to be available only to officers, so that allowing its use would provide an advantage to such of ricers.

Retaliation. Article IV, Section 10(f), which prohibits retaliation for exercising rights guaranteed by the Election Rules, should be printed as a separate section with a bold-face heading.

While there was no claim by any person charged with violating this rule that he was unaware of its existence, nonetheless its importance warrants malting it more prominent.

Campaign Committees. While Article VII, Section 2, as drafted, refers only to candidates, it was interpreted by the Election Officer to apply also to campaign committees. That interpretation, as set out in the following paragraphs, should be explicitly incorporated into Article VII, Section 2:

During the course of the 1996 campaign for International office, the Election Officer answered numerous questions relating to the campaign financing and expenditure report. Those answers, as set out below, should also be incorporated into Article VII, Section 2:

Inspection of Campaign Financing and Expenditure Reports. Article VII, Section 2(e) provides that:

35

Inasmuch as the initial campaign financing and expenditure report is due prior to the Convention, the right to inspect should be available to "declared" candidates, rather than to "nominated" candidates. Otherwise, no member would have the right to inspect initial campaign financing and expenditure reports until that member was nominated at the Convention.

Pre-Election Protests: Time Limits. Article VIII, Section 1 (a) provides that certain types of pre-election protests must be filed within 48 hours, but contains no time limit for other types of pre-election protests.

The time for filing all pre-election protests should be the same. There is no justification for different time limits for different protests.

Additionally, the time limit for all pre-election protests should be extended to 72 hours. While it is important that protests be filed promptly, members should be given a reasonable amount of time within which to file protests. (In the 1996 elections, 13 grievances were denied in whole or in part on the grounds that they were untimely.)

Pre-Election Protest Decisions: Time Limits. Article VIII, Section 1 (d) provides that the Election Officer shall issue a decision within 72 hours of receiving a pre-election protest.

As a practical matter, it proved nearly impossible to issue protest decisions within 72 hours of receiving a protest. Initially, the Election Office staff member assigned to investigate the protest had to find and interview both the protector and the alleged violator of the Election Rules. Often, one or both were working, and could not be contacted for 24-48 hours. The Election Office staff member then had to write a draft decision, which was reviewed by one or more of the Election Officers. In view of the other demands on the Election Officers' time, these steps typically required an additional 48-72 hours. As a result, few protest decisions were issued within the 72-hour time period.

36

While the Election Officer should make every effort to issue protest decisions promptly, establishing an unrealistic time limit for doing so serves no useful purpose. Indeed, it subjects the Election Officer to criticism for not abiding by the Rules that he/she has promulgated.

This Section should be amended to provide that the Election Officer shall issue a decision "promptly" after receiving a protest.

Independent Hearing Officer Hearings: Pre-Election Protests. Article t VIII, Section 1 (f) provides, with respect to hearings on pre-election protest decision appeals to the Independent Hearing Officer, that

The following individuals may be present at such hearing: the complainant(s) and/or the complainant's representative(s); any representative(s) of the Union(s) involved; the Election Officer or his representative; the person(s) filing the appeal, if other than the complainant(s), and/or the complainant's representatives(s); and any other person who obtains the permission of the Independent Hearing Officer or his designee.

Each of the persons named in the foregoing sentence should have the right to be present at hearings before the Independent A. Hearing Officer (or, more precisely, before the outside neutral we — recommend should hear appeals from Election Officer decisions). Accordingly, the Section should be amended to provide:

The following persons should be given timely notice and an opportunity to be present at such hearing

Post-Election Protest Decisions: Time Limits. Article VIII, Section 2(d) provides that the Election Officer shall issue a decision within seven days after the filing of a post-election protest regarding a delegate election, and within 15 days after the filing of a protest regarding the International officer election.

While these time limits are more reasonable than the 72-hour limit provided by Article VIII, Section 1 (d) for delegate elections, the principle that the Election Officer should not be bound by time limits that may not fit the demands of a particular situation is equally

37

applicable. This Section, too, should be amended to provide that the Election Officer's decision should be issued "promptly".

Hearings: Post-Election Protests. Article VIII, Section 2(f) contains the same provision with respect to appeals from post-election protest decisions of the Election Officer as does Article VIII, Section 1 (f) with ,,, respect to appeals from pre-election protest decisions. All interested parties "may" be present at the appeal hearing.

This section, too, should be amended to provide that the named persons "shall be given notice and an opportunity to be present at such hearing."

Election Officer Remedial Authority. Article VIII, Section 4 provides, in relevant part, that:

If as a result of any protest filed or any investigation undertaken by the Election Officer without a protest, the Election Officer determines that these Rules have been violated or that any other conduct has occurred which may prevent or has prevented a fair, honest and open election, the Election Officer may take whatever remedial action is appropriate.

While this section is clear that the Election Officer may take remedial action based on the Election Officer's investigation, even if no protest has been filed, it does not specifically deal with the situation in which an untimely protest has been filed. Inasmuch, however, as the Election Officer may act in the absence of any protest, there is no valid ~ reason to bar the Election Officer from talking appropriate remedial action when an untimely protest has been filed. In order to make that plain, the first sentence of Article VIII, Section 4 should be amended as follows:

We also recommend that the following Rules be amended:

Campaign Material Identification. Article XII, Section E provides that:

This Section should be amended to provide that if the person, committee, caucus, group or organization paying for or authorizing distribution of the material has not previously filed a Campaign |, Financing and Expenditure Report pursuant to Article VII of the Election Rules, such a Report must be filed prior to distribution of the material.

The purpose of this amendment is to insure that Convention delegates know the source of campaign material in order to assist them in determining the credibility of such material.

District Caucuses. Article XII, Section H was amended on September 9, 1996 to provide that:

A District Caucus need not allow any candidates for International Office, or the supporters of any candidate for International Office, to speak on behalf of that candidate during District Caucus meetings. If, however, any candidate for International Office, or the supporters of a candidate, are to be , allowed to speak during a District Caucus meeting (formal or informal), all other candidates for the same office, and the Election Officer, must be notified at least two (2) hours prior to the meeting. All candidates who appear at the meeting must be

39

allowed equal time to speak The order of appearance shall be determined by lottery, conducted by the Election Officer.

This amendment is consistent with the principle of equal access, and should be incorporated into the Convention Rules. It was clarified during the Convention to include District parties, and this clarification should be added to Section H.

Gifts to Delegates. In the period preceding the Convention, the Election Officer ruled that gifts from LIUNA or its affiliates to Convention delegates could not contain the name of any Union officer if that officer was participating in a contested election. Since the  reason for that ruling was to prohibit the use of Union funds to aid in Convention campaigning, the ruling should be incorporated into  Article XII of the Convention Rules.

Supplemental Rules for LIUNA General Officer Election and Rank_ and-File Referendum

Some of these Rules must be amended or deleted in light of the differences between the 1996 International Officer elections and those that will take place in 2001, when there will be no Rank-and-File 9 Election Referendum, but there will be direct election of all International Vice Presidents. One Rule that will be of continuing relevance, however, is that dealing with campaigning.

Campaigning. Article II, Section 2 (c) provides that

The Independent Hearing Officer interpreted this Section in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the Election Officer. In order to clarify that intent, and to remove language irrelevant to the 2001 Elections, Article II, Section 2 (c) should be amended as follows:

The last sentence of sub-paragraph (2) is intended to overrule the Independent Hearing Officer's decision in Protest Decision No. 156. Sub-paragraph d) accepts the Independent Hearing Officer's conclusion in Protest Decision No. 154 that a group can comply with the first sentence of sub-paragraph d) by stating the name of the group.

41

Identification of the group's funding sources and the name of someone connected with the group is achieved by the second sentence.

These suggestions come primarily from the Regional Coordinators and Adjunct Coordinators who administered the 1996 Election Rules. While they do not fit into any of the sections dealing with the LIUNA Constitution or the 1996 Election Rules, they are nonetheless valuable:

• Either LIUNA or the Election Officer should make all members aware of the reimbursement for Convention expenses provided by LIUNA and the reimbursement for wages lost while attending the Convention provided by some Locals. This information could be provided in the notice of nomination meeting. Broader knowledge of these benefits might encourage more members to run for Convention delegate.

• Election Office personnel should be advised to communicate with Local Union business managers, not with the president or secretary-treasurer. Particularly in small Locals the latter positions are often filled by rank-and-file members who rarely check for mail or messages.

• In view of the sparse attendance at Regional Election Forums (see p. 44), efforts to inform the membership about the Election Rules and election procedures should take place through mailings directly to the members.
  
• The Election Office was frequently advised by LIUNA members that mailings by LIUNA arrived far later than LIUNA had predicted. This was true of The Laborer; it was also true of the Election Officer's Newsletter that was  published prior to the election for General President and Referendum.
  
• Since publication in The Laborer is the least expensive means for both candidates and the Election Officer to communicate

  42

  with the membership, and since such communications are often time-sensitive, the Election Officer must have more accurate information on projected delivery dates for The Laborer. One means of accomplishing this goal would be to have the printer of The Laborer track delivery schedules both t- to the post office and to actual receipt by members in different parts of the U.S. and Canada. This should be done  for each issue of The Laborer that is published in the 12 months preceding April 1, 2000, the date on which the Election Officer should begin preparations for the 2001 delegate and International officer elections. Armed with this   information, the Election Officer could make more accurate judgments about the likely arrival date of time-sensitive information contained in The Laborer.

  In view of the many languages spoken by LIUNA members, 43 it is important that all Election Office communications with the membership be translated into the appropriate languages. This is particularly important for videotapes. The languages that should be utilized, depending on the Local, include Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Polish:

43

Staffing. The Election Officers engaged a staff of ten Regional Coordinators, 50 Adjunct Coordinators, and 58 Election Supervisors, all of whom worked on a part-time basis. The Adjuncts were responsible for day-to-day contact with the Locals in assisting them to comply with the Election Rules. They also supervised delegate nomination meetings, delegate elections, and the in-person elections for General President and the Referendum. The Adjuncts were supplemented in their supervisory duties by Election Supervisors.

The Regional Coordinators represented the Election Officers in dealing with the LIUNA Regional Managers and with all Local Unions in their Regions. They were also responsible for coordinating the activities of the Adjunct Coordinators and Election Supervisors in their Regions. The Regional Coordinators assisted the Election Officers at the Convention, and were responsible for supervising the counting of all ballots cast in their Regions in the General President and Referendum elections.

The Assistant Election Officer served as the Election Officers' special liaison to the Mail Handlers, was responsible for supervising all logistical aspects of the Convention, and for supervising the counting  of ballots in the election for General President and the Referendum.

The Election Office staff was completed by a full-time Executive  Director and a full-time clerical staff of three persons.

The Election Officers have promulgated the following guidelines for post-Election Office employment by members of the Election Office staff with LIUNA or its affiliates:

• Rules for the 1996 LIUNA delegate and International officer elections and Rank-and-File Election Referendum.

• Rules for the 1996 LIUNA delegate and International officer election and Rank-and-File Referendum, as applicable to the National Postal Mail Handlers Union.

• A Local Union guide to conducting the 1996 LIUNA Convention delegate elections.

• Supplemental Convention rules regarding nominations, elections, and campaign activity at the 1996 LIUNA Convention

• Supplemental rules for the LIUNA General Officer Election and Rank-and-File Referendum, with NPMHU Addendum.

These rules and regulations were made available to all Local Unions, and to members on request. Ultimately, 67,500 copies of the various rules were sent out, as were 25,000 copies of the Local Union Guide to Conducting Delegate Elections.

Department of Labor Assistance. The Division of Elections and 16 Trusteeships, Of lice of the American Work Place, U.S. Department of Labor, worked with Election Office staff to produce "A Local Union Guide to Conducting 1996 Convention Delegate Elections." This booklet proved to be quite useful to Local Unions because it dealt with all aspects of the election process in easy-to-understand terms. Department of Labor personnel also conducted training programs on election administration for all Election Office staff.

45

Outreach. Consistent with the goal of providing the membership with information about the elections, and encouraging members to become involved in the political process, the Election Officers:

• Conducted at least one Election Forum in each Region during the delegate election period. These forums, open to members of all Locals in the Region, were intended to provide an opportunity for discussion of the 1996 Election Rules and the new procedures for selecting delegates and International officers. Attendance at most forums was sparse.

• Conducted at least one Election Forum in each Region ; during the period in which voting in the election for General President and the Referendum took place. Average attendance at these forums was up slightly from those held previously.

  In one Region, the Regional Coordinator, instead of conducting an Election Forum, sent an Election Office representative to each Local Union meeting. The function of the Election Office representative was the same at these meetings as at the Election Forums -- to answer questions about the Election Rules and to encourage discussion about the Referendum and Genera President election. According to  the Regional Coordinator, the presence of an Election Office representative encouraged discussion and provided members with much-appreciated factual information about the election and election procedures

• Made two videotapes for showing at Union meetings and Election Forums. One video dealt with the 1996 Election Rules, the other dealt with the Rank-and-File Election _ Referendum.

• Published election information in every issue of The Laborer ~ subsequent to the March-April, 1996, issue. ,

• Provided a toll-free line for members to contact the Election Office. Over 1,000 calls were received on this line.
  
  46

• Provided candidates for International office with the opportunity to have campaign material published in The Laborer. Seven candidates took advantage of this opportunity.
• Published an Election Officer Newsletter containing information about the election for General President and the Referendum, as well as campaign material from the candidates for General President. This Newsletter was mailed to every LIUNA member.

Nomination and Election of Delegates. Regional and Adjunct Coordinators assisted all Locals in complying with the requirements of I the Election Rules. This included such matters as preparing notices of nomination and election, conducting pre-nomination meeting verifications of eligibility, and preparing for elections. Adjunct Coordinators or Election Supervisors were also present at all nomination meetings and elections.

Approximately one-third of the Locals (224/630) had contested elections; in the remainder, there were no more nominees than delegate positions. Of the 224 Locals which held elections, 196 had in-person voting, 28 had mail voting. The voter turnout was 15% (22,692/ 148,919) in those Locals voting in person, and 30% (7,962/26,675) in those Locals voting by mail.

The 630 LIUNA Locals elected 2,134 Convention delegates. Of these, 20 did not attend the Convention, typically due to ill health. Twelve of these delegates were replaced by substitute delegates, who did not have the right to vote on the nomination or election of officers; the remaining eight delegate positions were unfilled.

Convention. The Election Office was involved in Convention preparation for the purpose of insuring that all aspects of the Convention were politically neutral. The Election Officers reviewed such matters as the Convention agenda, the allocation of space for campaigning and political activity, delegate gifts and stipends, visual , and written Convention presentations, security, and the design of the voting area.

47

The Election Officer presided over the General Convention at all times when the nomination or election of officers was the order of business. Regional Coordinators performed the same function in their respective Regional caucuses. (A detailed report on the activities of the Election Office in preparing for the Convention and at the Convention will be provided to LIUNA for the use of the 2001 Election Officer.)

The nomination and election of International Union officers were both marred by technical problems with the computerized voter registration and ballot counting system. Since these technical problems resulted in lengthy delays in voting, the Election Officers extended the scheduled voting hours so that every delegate would have a reasonable opportunity to vote. Ultimately, 98% (2082/21 16) of the delegates voted in the nomination balloting for General President and Vice Presidents at Large, and 93% ( 1968/21 16) voted in the election balloting, which was limited to Vice Presidents at Large.

There were contested elections for District Vice President in Districts 3 and 7. The turnout was 98% ( 163/166) in District 3 and 99% (170/172) in District 7.

In the contested elections for District Vice President, the results

The results in Electoral District 7 were so close that the Election Officer conducted a recount. While the recount confirmed the official results, representatives of Mr. Quarcini challenged those results, filing a protest which alleged that Wilkinson supporters, including some International representatives, had violated the 1996 Election Rules by engaging in conduct that prevented a fair election. After a thorough investigation, which included interviews with all of the witnesses relied upon by Mr. Quarcini, the Election Officer denied the protest. Accordingly, the Election Officer certified the results of the election, and Mr. Wilkinson was sworn in as District 7 Vice President.

All the remaining candidates for Regional Vice President were unopposed, and were elected by acclamation. They were Armand Sabatoni (Electoral District 1 - New England), Ray Pocino Electoral District 2 - Eastern), Ed Smith (Electoral District 4 - Midwest), Terrance Healey (Electoral District 5 - Great Lakes), Charles Barnes (Electoral District 6 - Northwest and Western Canada), Peter Fosco (Electoral District 8 - Southeast and South Central), and Mason. Warren (Electoral District 9 - Pacific Southwest).

49

The results of the nomination voting for Vice President at Large, reported by Electoral District, were:

All candidates for Vice President at Large satisfied the Constitutional requirements to advance from the nomination voting to the election voting. The results of the election voting, again reported by Electoral District, were:

Since there are four Vice Presidents at Large, the four candidates with the greatest number of votes -- Vere Hayes, George Gudger, Carl Booker, and Michael Quevedo -- were elected.

50

The results of the nomination voting for General President were:

Mr. Coia and Mr. Caruso each qualified for the final election, to be conducted by direct vote of the membership between November 2 and December 16, 1996. Mr. Scanlon received fewer than 5% of the votes cast, so did not qualify for the final election.

There was only one nominee for General Secretary-Treasurer, R. P. Vinall. As a result, Mr. Vinall was elected by acclamation..

Election for General President and Rank-and-File Election Referendum. Election Office staff consulted with each Local to determine if it wished to vote by mail or in-person. Of 650 Locals (including Mail Handlers), 557 chose to vote by mail, 93 chose to vote in person.

Election Office staff next supervised ballot printing, and the preparation and mailing of mail ballots. Election Office staff were also present at all walk-in elections. (Two detailed reports -- one for the United States, one for Canada - on the activities of the Election Office in conducting the election for General President and the Rank-and-File Election Referendum will be provided to LIUNA for the use of the 2001 Election Officer.)

51

The voting rate was 17% in the 557 Locals voting by mail, and 9% in the 93 Locals voting in-person. The overall voting rate was 15%.

Ballots were counted in 12 separate locations, each under the supervision of an Election Office Regional Coordinator. (The count was conducted regionally, rather than nationally, in order to make it more feasible for Local Union representatives to observe the count.)

In the election for General President, the incumbent, Arthur Coia, received 45,626 votes (67%), while challenger Bruno Caruso received 22,446 votes (33%). In the Rank-and-File Election Referendum, 49,964 members (78%) voted to have International Vice Presidents elected by direct vote of the membership, while 14,246 members (22%) voted to continue the current system, under which International Vice Presidents are elected by delegates to the Convention.

The results of the election for General President and the Rank and-File Election Referendum, reported on a Regional basis, were as follows:

52

Results of General President Election and Referendum

53

Protests. One of the most time-consuming tasks of the Election Office was that of that of investigating and ruling upon protests. One hundred and fifty-eight protests were filed. Approximately 130 of these protests dealt with the nomination and election of delegates, while the remainder dealt with the nomination and election of International officers and the Rank-and-File Referendum.

The Election Officer issued 149 protest decisions, seven protests were withdrawn and two were settled. A summary of the Election Officer's protest decisions and a subject-matter index have been provided to LIUNA, and a notice has been published in The Laborer concerning their availability, on request, to LIUNA Locals and members.

Of the 149 protest decisions issued by the Election Officer, 41 were appealed to the Independent Hearing Officer. Two settled after the appeal was talon, one was remanded by the Independent Hearing Officer to the Local Election Judges, three were reversed by the Independent Hearing Officer, one was reversed in part, and the remainder were affirmed.

These statistics, however, are misleading. The cases in which the Independent Hearing Officer affirmed the decision of the Election Officer dealt with such mundane matters as whether a potential nominee for delegate was ineligible for failure to pay dues in a timely fashion, was "working at the calling," or had filed a timely protest. In nearly every case in which an appeal was taken from an Election Officer decision unfavorable to incumbent International officers, the Independent Hearing Officer overruled the Election Officer.

Three of those cases have already been discussed (see pp. 20-21). In addition, the Election Officer held (Protest Decision No. 156), that when Local Union officers published a recommendation that members vote against direct election of Vice Presidents, and did so in English, Portuguese, and Italian, with the disclaimer that they were speaking only on behalf of themselves, not the Union, only in English, they had failed to comply satisfactorily with the Election Rules disclaimer requirement. The Independent Hearing Officer overruled this decision, as he did the Election Officer's decision (Protest Decision No. 154) that a group which distributed material supporting the incumbent General President and opposing direct

54

election of Vice Presidents, and which signed that material, "Concerned Union Members," had failed to comply with the Election Rules requirement that all campaign material indicate who had authorized and paid for it.³

3 In both Protest Decisions 154 and 156, the Election Officer had issued a cease and desist order. In addition, the Election Officer had stated that, "the propriety of additional remedies, up to and including setting aside the results of: the election for General President and Referendum will be deferred until the results of those elections are known."

55

At the International level, the Election Officers dealt primarily with the Division of Membership Accounting (in getting out the Convention Call, resolving issues pertaining to combining small Locals for election purposes and good standing of Locals, and certifying delegates), the Public Affairs Division (in publishing material in the Laborer and the Election Officer's Newsletter, as well as in producing rules booklets and videotapes), and the Comptroller's Office (on financial matters). Each of these Divisions exhibited the highest degree of competence and cooperation, and made the task of the Election Officers immeasurably less arduous than it could have been. Particular praise is due to Ralph Adams, Comptroller; Bruce Andress, Director, Membership Accounting; Linda Fisher, Director, Public Affairs Division; and Faye Hale, Public Affairs Division Assistant.

The Election Office also dealt frequently with the Office of the Inspector General, which was asked by the Election Officers to investigate protests that called for investigative skills and assets beyond the capacity of the Election Office. Both Inspector General W. Douglas Gow and Associate Inspector General William Rice cooperated completely and with the utmost professionalism.

The relationship of the Election Office with counsel for LIUNA and counsel for the General Executive Board varied with the type of issue being dealt with by the Election Office. On all matters concerning the nomination and election of Convention delegates, LIUNA and GEB counsel cooperated completely with the Election Officers. Indeed, counsel for the GEB filed a brief with the Independent Hearing Officer in Protest No. 11 (Francella), supporting the Election Officer.

When matters arose that involved the nomination or election of International officers, disagreements were more common. LIUNA and GEB counsel opposed the Election Officer's efforts to compel LIUNA to mal<e the draft RICO complaint available to members, LIUNA counsel opposed the Election Officer's order directing that the tally of votes in the Vice President nomination voting at the Convention not be announced prior to the election voting, and both LIUNA and GEB counsel opposed the Election Officer's efforts to encourage Locals to use mail balloting in the election for General President and the Referendum. Nonetheless, the overall relationship between the Election Officers, counsel for LIUNA, and the GEB Attorney was both cordial and entirely professional.

56

Budget. In April 1996, the Election Officers submitted a statement of estimated expenses to LIUNA. At that time, the total costs of the Election Office were estimated to be $6,279,318, exclusive of Convention costs. Convention costs were subsequently estimated to be approximately $200,000, a total of approximately $6,500,000.

While final cost figures are not yet available, it appears that the total costs of the Election Office, including Convention costs, will be under $5,000,000. (An independent accounting firm has been engaged to audit the finances of the Election Office. It is anticipated that an audited financial statement will be submitted to LIUNA and the Department of Justice within 60 days of submission of this Report )

There are two central reasons for the lower than estimated costs of the Election Office. First, the overall costs of preparing for, supervising, and resolving protests arising out of the nomination and election of delegates was estimated to be approximately $2,750,000. In substantial measure due to the cooperation that the Election Office received from LIUNA and nearly all Local Unions in the nomination and election of delegates, the actual Election Office costs associated with the nomination and election of delegates were approximately $2,150,000, a savings of $600,000 in comparison to estimated costs.

The other important factor leading to lower than estimated Election Office expenses was that 88% (557/650) of the Locals chose to conduct the election for General President and the Referendum by mail. The cost of preparing for and conducting in-person elections in all Locals, excepting those few in which delegate elections were held by mail, was estimated to be approximately $ 1,500,000. The actual costs of preparing for and conducting 557 elections by mail and 93 elections in person was approximately $600,000, a savings of $900,000 compared to the estimate.

  57

The foregoing is a true digital html copy of the report after scanning and much labor in assuring its accuracy. If the Election Officer had furnished me with a digital copy when first published , it would have been on the internet within one hour of receipt. Laborers for JUSTICE demand that all election protests, rulings, decisions etc etc   be made immediately available electronically to authorized members. The incumbents in office have immediate access to the information and the use of lawyers funded by members dues to help the incumbents retain their incumbency. How unlevel  a playing field do they need? I doubt very much you will find this report on LIUNA's web site for members to read.Anyone who believes the Coia regime will provide for free, fair, and democratic elections is an "unqualified idiot" 

Laborers for JUSTICE©1998 All Rights Reserved