September 21, 2005 

IUOE Local 18
Executive Board
Election Board
3515 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115 

We, as members of Local 18, candidates for Officers, Executive Boards, and Advisory Boards, and on behalf of any member not listed, wish to protest the election of Local 18, International Union of Operating Engineers, which was conducted on August 27, 2005 as provided us by Constitution of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Article XXIV Subdivision 1. Section (g), By-Laws of Local 18, Article XIII Section 11, Election Committee Rules and Regulations – 2005 Election, Item 27, Page 7 of the May issue of the Buckeye Engineer, or all. Below you will find the specific points of the election process which are in direct violation or contradiction of such rules and regulations.

POINT ONE:

Item I: Article XIII, Section 10, of the By Laws of Local 18 states “The Election Committee shall submit a written report of the results of the election to the Local Union”, and Article XIII, Section 15, Item (c) states “Immediately on completion of the tabulation, the Election Committee will certify the results to the Local Union and all interested parties”.

1. The results that the Election Committee certified were not complete and did not give results of all districts as they voted. Only a “summary” of the votes for Officers of Local 18 were certified.
   1. Each district in Local 18 voted for Officers, Executive Board, and Advisory Board by district. Although members voted by district they were denied the entire results of whom they voted for since total results of their district were only certified for Executive Board and Advisory Board. Only a “summary” of district votes were certified which is in violation of the above mentioned article.

                                                              i.      This can be likened to a national election. Each state is counted separately and result of each state is willingly made available to all citizens whether they voted or not. The members of Local 18 are being denied the total results of how their districts voted when at the same time the Business Manager, who was also a candidate was provided the results.

2. Any results, of any voting, of any election, should be freely and willingly provided to the members of Local 18.
   1. In many phone calls with Warren Wright, other members of the Election Committee, Michael Blanski, Patrick Sink, and at District 6, District 1, and District 3 union meetings on September 12, 2005, I, Patricia, and other members requested the total results by district. Although all parties mentioned should willingly and without prejudice provide such results, all parties listed above, vehemently denied that members had a right to those results and refused to provide total results.

                                                              i.      In calls early on September 12, 2005, Warren Wright and Michael Blanski stated that Pat Sink did have the results in question. However, Warren Wright said he did not have the results nor did he give them to Pat Sink.

2.  Michael Blanski admitted he gave them to Pat Sink and had no problem furnishing them to me with the permission of the Election Committee, specifically Warren Wright, and was going to immediately call Warren on his cell for permission.

                                                              i.      Blanski did not call Warren Wright; he called Pat Sink and was told not to give the results to anyone.

3. No where in the election rules, By Laws of Local 18, or the International Constitution does it give the accounting firm or any of its representatives the authority to provide any information to anyone other than the Election Committee.
   1. Michael Blanski, by his own admission, gave the results to Pat Sink.
   2. Blanski was hired by the Election Committee and should have no contact with a candidate to request permission to release election results. The Election Committee is his employer and the ethics of Michael Blanski is unacceptable and his firm should not be employed by the Election Committee of Local 18 in any future election.
4. In phone conversations with Pat Sink, he denied he had or had seen the total results in question therefore implying that Warren Wright and Michael Blanski were lying.
   1. As Business Manager, International Vice President, and candidate for office, Pat Sink should be above board, legally, morally and ethically, and he himself should demand that the members of Local 18 be provided total and complete results of how they voted for all positions in all districts thereby, ensuring democracy within Local 18.
5. Any attempt to withhold the complete results of any election by the Election Committee, Mr. Blanski, legal council, Stephen Rosenblat, or any Officer or Executive Board member, should and does give the impression to the members of Local 18 that the election process is biased and the result for officers by district does not add up to the numbers provided in the “summary”. Checks and balances cannot occur without the number of votes for officers by district are provided so that the “summary” equals votes cast.
   1. In a recent letter to Election Committee members, Stephen Rosenblat, legal council hired by the Election Committee, advised committee members that they were not required to furnish anyone with the complete results.

                                                              i.      Legal advice that does not comply with the By Laws of Local 18 is incompetent and Stephen Rosenblat should not be employed by the Election Committee of Local 18 in any future election.

Item II: Total and complete results of voting for Officers by district has always been available to the members of Local 18, i.e. interested parties.

1. Enclosed you will find the complete results of the Election of 2002 which was freely given to me and all interested parties after the tally was complete at the Cleveland Union Hall on August 24, 2002.

Summary of Point One:

Article XIII, Section 10, and Article XIII, Section 15, Item (c) of the By Laws of Local 18 declares that unbiased results, not a “summary” of results, be provided to all interested parties.

POINT TWO:

Item I. Article XXIV, Subdivision 1. Section (b) of the International Constitution and Article XIII Section 12 of the By-Laws of Local 18, states that candidates for office “shall have been in regular attendance at all regularly scheduled Local Union membership meetings and home district meetings held after nomination and before election, subject, however, to a reasonable excuse based upon good cause such as physical incapacity or death in family”.

1. The dates of Union Meetings that pertain to attendance for eligibility of candidacy were July 11, 2005 and August 8, 2005 and both meetings were before the election which was August 27, 2005. Ballots were mailed August 8, 2005

Item II: Rules for Nomination and Election – 2005 General Election, item #16, page 24 in the June issue of Buckeye Engineer states “To be eligible for election, all bona fide nominees for Officer or Executive Board Member of Local 18, shall have been in regular attendance at all regularly scheduled Local 18 General Membership meetings, and their home District Membership meetings held after nominations and before election, subject however, to reasonable excuse based upon good cause such as working at the trade or on behalf of the Union, physical incapacity or death in the immediate family. Such excuse must be communicated by nominee in writing to the Chairman of the Election Committee at 3515 Prospect Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, before the close of business on July 15, 2005, to be considered in determining eligibility”.

1. In a meeting held on July 16, 2005, as candidate for Executive and Advisory Boards of District 6, Bruce Bertle and Michael B. Lumbatis, were found by the Election Committee, on the advice of legal council, Stephen J. Rosenblat, to be ineligible for candidacy because they were not in attendance at the July 11, 2005 meeting.

a.      They were working at the trade and called District Representative, Steve DiLoreto to inform him that they were working and would not be in attendance at the meeting that night. Mr. DiLoreto, who was a candidate himself and very informed as to the requirements, did not inform or remind them, his union brothers, to follow up in writing by July 15, 2005.

                                                                          i.      Although legally within the rules of the Election Committee, Steve DiLoreto not only morally, but as a brother Operating Engineer, failed to remind or advise them that they had to put their absence in writing and send to the Election Committee by the specified date. They were candidates who were not endorsed by Local 18 or Steve DiLoreto, and if this had occurred with a candidate who was endorsed by the Local, Mr. DiLoreto would have reminded or advised him or her, as a fellow operator, of the notification rules.

                                                                        ii.      They were not aware of the rule for notification that was made by the Election Committee. It is not a rule for candidacy in International Constitution or By-Laws of Local 18, and the only place is was published was in the Buckeye Engineer.

1.     The Buckeye Engineer is a monthly publication of Local 18 and is at the mercy of the US Post Office for delivery. These candidates live in a rural area where mail is very slow.

2.     They also work many miles from home, sometimes staying away from home and do not always have the leisure time or access to read the Buckeye Engineer. Their priority for time goes first to their mail.

                                                                      iii.      The rule in question was not furnished to them in writing by the Recording Corresponding Secretary in the letter asking for their acceptance of nomination for candidacy nor as eligible candidates were they notified by mail of this added rule.

                                                                      iv.      The Election Committee formulated a rule that was not consistent with the International Constitution or By Laws of Local 18 and placed an added burden on Bruce Bertle and Michael Lumbatis as candidates.

b.     The District Union Meeting held on August 8, 2005 was after the ballots were printed but still within the rules that states all candidates for office must attend their district union meetings “before the election”. Therefore, any candidate for office who was not present at the meeting on August 8, 2005 would still be an eligible candidate and listed on the ballot. The ballots were mailed that day.

                                                                          i.      The Election Committee met and determined eligibility on July 16, 2005 which was after this first required attendance meeting but before the second required attendance meeting. They did not meet after the second required meeting (August 8, 2005) to determine if any candidate was no longer eligible, nor did they have a way to remove that person from the ballot or eligible candidate list.

                                                                        ii.       All candidates who were eligible on July 16, 2005 would therefore be eligible even if they did not attend the August 8, 2005 required meeting since the ballots were already printed and their names appeared on the ballots.

B.     The Election Committee has formulated a rule that was not consistent with the International Constitution or the By Laws of Local 18, and is impossible to enforce without discriminating against candidates. Bruce Bertle and Michael Lumbatis were discriminated against in determining eligibility for candidacy.

Item III: According to Local 18, Article XIII, Section 13 of the International Constitution and Local Union By-Laws Pertaining to Union Elections that appeared in the June Issue of the Buckeye Engineer on page 18, “Names of all eligible candidates who have filed their acceptances of nominations for the office shall be published in the July issue of the Buckeye Engineer and promptly posted in each District office and in addition, all eligible candidates will be listed on the ballot”.

A.    Names of eligible candidates did not appear in the July issue of the Buckeye Engineer as stated in the By-Laws of Local 18. The eligible candidates were determined by the Election Committee on July 16, 2005 and did not appear until the August issue of the Buckeye Engineer.

a.      Had the eligible candidates appeared in the July issue of the Buckeye Engineer as required in the By-Laws, Bruce Bertle and Michael Lumbatis would have been included in all required postings as well as on the ballots since at that time, they had met all requirements of candidacy. Therefore, even with the advice of legal council, the Election Committee was negligent and in violation of the By Laws and Constitution by not ensuring the specific time frames were followed to insure a fair election.

Summary of Point Two:

Although not in the International Constitution or By-Laws of Local 18, the Election Committee formulated a rule, with advice of legal council, that to be an eligible candidate for officer or Executive Board, any candidate must submit in writing to the Election Committee his reason for not being in attendance at the union meeting. The only place this was stated was in the Buckeye Engineer. Candidates were not informed in letters from the Recording Corresponding Secretary or the Election Committee of Local 18.

          Article XIII, Section 13 of the By Laws of Local 18 was clearly violated. This section states “The names of all candidates who have filed their acceptance of nominations shall be published in the July issue of the Buckeye Engineer”. The eligible candidates were not published in the July issue of the Buckeye Engineer.

The 2005 Election Committee and legal council of Local 18 did not abide by its own rules, the By Laws of Local 18, or the International Constitution and did not treat all candidates fairly by denying Bruce Bertle and Michael Lumbatis eligible candidacy.  Therefore the 2005 Local 18 Election should be voided and a new election should be held.

POINT THREE:

Item I: Article 13, Section 10 of the By Laws of Local 18 states that “The Chairman of the Election Committee shall be appointed by the Business Manager; and The Election Committee shall provide adequate safeguards to ensure a fair election”.

1. Patrick L. Sink was the Business Manager of Local 18 as well as a candidate for re-election as Business Manager.
   1. This is a conflict of interest since the Chairman of the Election Committee owes his position to the Business Manager.

                                                              i.       Furthermore, when I, Patricia Kohl, questioned Warren Wright on his accountability to the members of Local 18, he reminded me that he was not elected by the members but appointed by the Business Manager and was obligated to answer to him.

2. This does not ensure a fair election and the Executive Board of Local 18, by the powers vested in them, should amend the By Laws to ensure fairness.

                                                              i.      The Chairman of the Election Committee should be elected by the members of that Committee, not appointed by a candidate.

Item II: On August 27, 2005 at the Post Office in Cleveland, the person in charge asked Mr. Blanski if he wanted her to count the pieces of mail he was receiving. He said no. I asked the committee to have them counted since the lady had said it would only take a few minutes. The committee decided it was late enough and it was going to be a long day anyhow and they did not want to take the time to ensure accuracy with checks and balances.

1. Again, it was the responsibility of the Election Committee to provide all safeguards necessary for a fair and unbiased election.

Summary of Point Three:

          The Election Committee did not fulfill their obligation to ensure a fair and unbiased election according to the By Laws of Local 18.

POINT FOUR:

Item I: Article XXIV Subdivision 1. Section (e) of the International Constitution, Article 13 Section 9, of the Election Committee Rules and Regulations – 2005 Election, Item 21, Page 7 of the May issue of the Buckeye Engineer states “No candidate (including a prospective candidate) for Local Union office and no supporter of a candidate for Local Union office, may solicit or accept any direct or indirect financial support from any non-member of the International Union of Operating Engineers or from any foundation , corporations or other entity whose funds are derived in whole or in part from any person not a member of the International Union”.

1. District 6 Election Committee member, Glen Haught, played back a message for me (Patricia Kohl) to hear that was left on his answering machine. The caller ID identified the number as the Cleveland Labor Hall and the caller was Agent Scott Ranftl asking Glen for his support for Sink/Triplett in the upcoming election.
   1. The Election Committee is supposed to be impartial yet Union Business Agents were pressuring Glen for his vote. Glen asked me to listen to the call because he felt it was inappropriate, as do we.
   2. A union Business Agent was making calls on union time to solicit votes for the Sink/Triplett slate.
   3. The Sink/Triplett slate accepted indirect financial support from an entity who was not a member of Local 18 by using phone lines of the Laborers Union to make calls. In kind donation is the same as taking money.
2. Many union members were called by Local 18 Business Agents to solicit their support. Members asked the agents how they got their phone numbers and the reply was they had it from previous contact with the member because of a problem, or had found the number in the phone book, etc. Union members found that odd because they had changed their numbers since that time or had unlisted numbers. One had been retired for 10 years and had moved to another city.
   1. Membership information (phone numbers) was from union records that were not made available to all candidates, was in violation of union rules, and were obtained illegally.

Item II: Article II, item 14 of the Heavy Highway Collective Bargaining Agreement states “The authorized representative of the Union shall have access to the job during working hours for the purpose of visiting individual members, adjusting grievances or disputes, and other such duties as may have to be preformed, provided the activities do not interfere with the progress of the job”.

2. Agents and officers, while claiming to the members they were on vacation and driving their own vehicles, gained access to jobs under the pretense they were acting as agents of the union. Agents and Officers gained access to job sites to campaign in an illegal manner.

                                                              i.      No candidate that was not a known agent/officer would be permitted on a job due to the fact they were not covered under the safety policy of the company, i.e., no coverage for workers compensation or liability insurance.

                                                            ii.      Agents/officers gained access to jobs by misrepresenting their visit to foremen, superintendents and the company in general. They would not be covered under workers compensation by claiming to be on vacation and not be allowed on the job.

                                                          iii.      This is an contract violation that affects the integrity of the union business agents in their relationship with the contractors

Summary of Point Four:

Agents/officers campaigned illegally by phone and on jobs, misrepresented their visit to the job sites, and violated the collective bargaining agreement; therefore the agents/officers should be reprimanded and the election should be voided.

POINT FIVE:

Item I: Article XIII, Section 15, Item (c) of the By Laws of Local 18 states “The Post Office box will be opened and the ballots will be picked up in the presence of a majority or by a number determined by the Election Committee (not less than three (3) Election Committee members) at a time and date to be published in the Buckeye Engineer. No one will have access to the Post Office box until the specified time and date” and Article 13, Section 10 of the By Laws of Local 18 “The Election Committee shall provide adequate safeguards to insure a fair election and it shall maintain the secrecy of the ballots”.

1. Early during the week of the vote count, a member called to ask how many ballots were turned in and he was told about 4000.
   1. How was this known if no one was to have access to the box before the day of the count?
2. I called the Post Office myself and finally got in touch with the person in charge of the boxes (Suzanne). She informed me an employee had been reprimanded for giving out information several times that concerned our box. She apologized and assured me no one had access and no one was given any information as to numbers of ballots in the supposedly sealed box.
   1. People who called were given information since the number of around 4000 was accurate.
3. While at the Post Office to pick up the ballots, I asked Mr. Blanski and legal council, Stephen Rosenblat, how someone could know how many ballots there were in the post office box. His response was “he was authorized to call and check so he would know how many (non union) temps (temporary help) would be needed the day of the vote count.
   1. This is a direct violation of Article XIII, Section 15, Item (c) of the By Laws and Election Rules. He has no authority nor does anyone else although he admitted he did know.

                                                              i.      Mr. Blanski, with the approval of legal council, violated Election Rules as set forth by the International Constitution and By Laws of Local 18 by calling and asking for numbers of ballots in the box.

                                                            ii.      The Post Office was in violation of Federal Law by giving out information.

                                                          iii.      The Election Committee failed to provide adequate safeguards as required by the By Laws of Local 18.

Summary of Point Five:

The ballots that were mailed to the Post Office Box in Cleveland, was not secure and sealed as required, people did have access to the box. Mr. Blanski, who was an employee of the Election Committee, was not authorized to have any access or information to that box. The secrecy of the ballots, and the integrity and fairness of the election was compromised and the election should be voided.

POINT SIX:

Item I: On Wednesday after the ballots were mailed I, Patricia Kohl, received a call from Robert Scalesi who informed me he had received 3 ballots in his packet. One was for the Executive and Advisory Boards of District 6 and two were for officers in District 6. He was very concerned that this had occurred and he now felt the mailing of ballots was flawed.

1. Ballots were mailed from the accounting firm’s office in Illinois which does not afford the candidates or observers of Local 18 the convenience of traveling in a reasonable period of time to witness the preparation and mailing of ballots.
2. At the Post Office, while waiting to pick up ballots, I questioned Mr. Blanski about the incident of Mr. Scalesi receiving extra ballots and asked him if this was an isolated case. He said there were more but failed to answer my question as to how many.
   1. The Election Committee was present and did not know this. Furthermore, when I asked the question, the committee showed no interest in answers.

                                                              i.      Members receiving extra ballots are another flaw in the election process and bring to question the reliability, professionalism, and impartiality of the accounting firm hired by the Election Committee.

Summary of Point Six:

The system of safeguards for mailing ballots is flawed and does not ensure the members of Local 18 a fair election.

POINT SEVEN:

Item I: Article XIII, Section 10 states that the Election Committee is responsible to ensure the members of Local 18 be provided a fair unbiased election.

1. In a letter given to Chairman of the Election Committee, Warren Wright by Paul Gonter (copy enclosed) on August 27, 2005, a request was made on behalf of several candidates for hand counting of some ballots and hand counting after tabulation by the machine be made on a number of ballots.
   1. Warren Wright, without a vote by the rest of the Election Committee, but on advice of legal council, refused the request stating “they were not going to comply with our request”.

Summary of Point Seven:

Request was made to the Election Committee to hand count of ballots but was denied. This is a violation of Article XIII of the By Laws of Local 18.

Overall Summary of Protest of the 2005 Election of Local 18:

          As evidenced above and protests filed by other candidates, there are many violations of the International Constitution, By Laws of Local 18, and the Rules for Nomination and Election -2005 General Election of Local 18. All of the violations listed may have had a result on the outcome of the election.

          All Officers, Executive Boards, Advisory Boards, and Election Committee members should demand that all candidates for any position in Local 18 be provided all safeguards possible to ensure a fair and unbiased election. Furthermore, all Officers, Executive Boards, Advisory Boards, and Election Committee members should demand that all members of Local 18 be provided with complete and entire results of how they voted. This is not only a violation of their rights as members of a labor union; it is a violation of their rights as citizens of the United States that operates on the system of democracy.

          It is very disappointing that the Officers and Election committee of Local 18 would be a party to and go to such lengths as to deny members any results of any election or deny candidate all safe guards possible for a fair and unbiased election.

          Therefore, we are asking the Executive Board and the Election Committee, by the powers vested in them resolve all issues by, but not limited to:

1. Overturn the certified results as they stand and recertify the entire and complete election results which include results for officers by district.
2. Overturn the validity of the entire election and demand a new election be held.

Sincerely and Fraternally,

Patricia A. Kohl

Patricia A. Kohl – 2131891

Paul Gonter – 1747801

Bruce Bertle                      Christopher Miller                       Daryl Cox

Michael Lumbatis              Nicholas Styacich                        James Lamb

William Roby                    Gaspare Pirrone                         George Baughman

Ronald Westfall                 Jeffrey Miles                               Thomas Barkhurst

Franklin Mazur                  Glen Hursey                               Rex Blackstone

Michael Murphy                Michael Harris                            Et Al Members of Local 18