Douglas McCarron
General President UBC
101 Constitution Ave.
Washington D.C
Re: Chicago Regional Council Officer Election
Dear President McCarron,
This letter is written as to my formal protest as to the process in the recent Convention Delegate election within the Chicago Regional Council. I am a member of a local within the Chicago Regional Council who has recently heard of the conduct of this election. All parts of this protest are under the rights granted me under the LMRDA, here referred to as ‘the Act’. Title IV explicitly calls for fair and democratic elections within a Union and specific rights of candidates and member rights. In section 401, minimum standards are set which in my opinion were not met. Title 1, the members ‘Bill of Rights’ calls for ‘equal rights’ for members (sec. 101 a 1) within the Union. In my opinion this was not met. Also within Title 1, is section 105, which obligates a Union to inform a member of their rights under all sections of the Act. In my opinion this was not met.
The Act and the Department of Labor requires that I exhaust all remedies within my Union. Further I ask that all reports, statements and any other document used in the disposition of this protest be copied to me as per my right to equal treatment and participation under the Act The DOL’s “Election of Officers of Labor Organizations’ 29 CFR Chapter IV Subchapter A Part 452, 2002 was used as my reference in this protest. I thank you for your consideration and hope to hear from you soon as new elections are coming up.
1) On July 9th, the nominations, and as they were unopposed, the election of Regional officers and as a consequence the Regional Executive Committee was held. No notice of this election was given to the general membership of the Chicago Regional Council, some 47,000 members. As the Regional Council is a representative body for the general membership, the names of the candidates running should have been available to the members of each local. All locals in our council met within the 1 calendar month before the special called meeting of the Regional Council for the election of officers. The failure of the Council to give notice to the general membership deprives the membership the right to direct their delegates to represent them as they see fit and hold them accountable. CFR452.1, CFR 452.51 CFR 452.55, CFR 452.56, 452.59,CFR 452.66, CFR 452.99 CFR 452.110
2) In this past Regional officer election held on July 9th, members were seated as delegates and allowed to vote for Council Officers, who in turn will vote on wage and other collective bargaining issues and are members of the Regional Executive Committee, who were not elected to these delegate positions. The past president of local 181 is an example. He was supposedly given his seat because he is a Region Council appointed B.A. (he holds no office). This same abuse is said to be going on at other locals. Often it is not stated on the ballot at the local elections that a position such as Financial Secretary will also include the position of Regional Delegate. Further ,as has been documented in the past convention delegate elections of 2005, and the 2002 local 1 officer elections, the Regional Council allows irregularities to occur at the local level thus allowing members to be seated as delegates who have ‘profited’ from these irregularities. Many of the irregularities that occur at the local level are done with the knowledge of the local leadership who are also sitting Regional Council officers or officials. An example would be Robert Quanstrom of local 1, who going back to the 2002 officer/delegate election, caused opposition candidates to seek a lawyer to force the local to abide by the campaign mailing laws under the LMRDA. Another instance would be 1st Vice President Jeffery Issacson’s many violations alledged by a member, yet to be fully investigated by the international or the DOL. The Regional Council, through it’s attorneys, have bought and paid for a booklet, authored by these same attorneys, that states items like campaign mailing can only begin when nominations are announced (on average 50 days before an election) and nominees must be present unless out on union business or in ante room or ill (but does not state alternate method to be nominated nor state that this method must be made known to membership). Locals used this booklet in the last officer elections and at the Convention Delegate election of 2005. Mr. Issaacson is listed in this booklet as the union official to verify that election notices are proper and within the law. This gives him some kind of authority on elections that he has not demonstrated in past elections. The lack of proper democratic safeguards by these two officials are but an example of how past elections have been conducted in recent Regional Council history. CFR 452.1, CFR 452.7, 452.11 CFR 452.22, CFR 452.27, CFR 452.66, CFR 452.96, CFR452.110
3) The Regional By-laws state that a member who is duly elected as a delegate from his local is not eligible to run for Regional office until he has been a delegate for three years. This in my opinion is an unreasonable qualification and could deny the membership a candidate of their choice for nomination and further deny members the candidate of their choice. This also does not allow the level of participation accorded another class of members namely incumbents. It may cause a member delegate who is elected delegate in from their local not be allowed to run for Regional office for 6 years if his initial 3 year term begins2 years before 4 year cycle of the Regional Council. This does not allow the council make-up to reflect the wishes of the members. CFR452.23, CFR 452.35, CFR452.36, CFR452.40
4) In my examination of the UBC Constitution, and with the comparison of the rights and safe guards of the Act, I as a protesting member and a now declared future candidate do not see an alternative method for nominations as CFR 452.59 suggest. Given the fact that the Chicago Regional Council now covers 82 counties in 3 states, the cost to a member to switch locals would be 1 year of diminished rights to participate at their new local. Further as locals have been consolidated and merged with others, a member may have found himself with the local moving away from him. A violation of CFR 452.59.
5) In my
examination of the UBC Constitution, and with the comparison of the Rights and
safe guards of the Act, I as a protesting member and a now declared future
candidate do not see a reasonable opportunity to vote for most members. The
hours of polling discriminated against many working members. As stated above, we
now cover more area now than ever and as the proponents of the restructuring
have noted so do the employers. Multiple days of voting, multiple sites, and
mail balloting are allowed by the Act, and the fact that the Constitution, or by
laws do not allow something does not for shadow the members rights as in Title
IV. A violation CFR 452.94.
6) The ‘Ketterman’ rules were used at the recent local officer and delegate elections. The “Ketterman rules’ were never accepted by any membership body, have not been reported on from a committee meeting, nor pass the test to be consistent with Title IV of the LMRDA. This in violation of UBC 41 A, CFR 452.1, CFR 452.2, CFR 452.7, CFR 452.55, CFR 452.59, CFR 452.66. CFR 452.67, CFR 452.69, CFR 452.80, CFR 452.96, CFR 452.105, CFR 452.109, CFR 452.110, CFR 452.112, CFR 452.112, CFR 452.114.