November 16, 2005 

International Union of Operating Engineers
Christopher J. Hanley – General Secretary Treasurer
1125 17^th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Sir and Brother, 

In the 2005 General Officers election of Local 18, I was a candidate for President of Local 18, member of the Executive Board of Local 18 (I won), and member of the Advisory Board of District 16 ( I won a fourth term.)  I filed a protest of that election in accordance with the procedures specified in the IUOE Constitution, the Local 18 Bylaws and the Election Committee Rules and Regulations. My election challenge was denied. This is my appeal of that decision.   

My election protest, dated September 21, 2005, is attached.  This appeal summarizes the points I made in that protest: 

1.       Election procedures were inadequate to ensure a fair election.  Those procedures included the following:   

a)       Business Manager/IUOE Vice President Sink appointed the Election Committee although he was also a candidate for Local office.

b)      The Election Committee made various rulings improperly favoring the incumbent’s slate.

c)       The ballots in the election were counted electronically.  During the tabulation, several candidates requested a hand count of a certain number of ballots in order to verify the reported machine results.  This was denied making verification of the accuracy of the machine tabulation impossible. 

2.       Meeting attendance rules for candidates were unreasonable in several respects. 

          a)       Article XX1V (1)(b) of the International Constitution and Article XIII(12) of the Local 18 Bylaws state that candidates for office “shall have been in regular attendance at all regularly scheduled Local Union membership meeting 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.”    That requirement is on its face unreasonable. It has no intelligible relationship to any legitimate union objective. Instead it unreasonably places limitations on campaigning.   Candidates for office have to travel large distances to reach the membership and maximum flexibility for campaigning is required. Candidates running against incumbents whose supporters have access to all job sites and numerous methods of reaching the membership are particularly disadvantaged by the rule.

          b)      The Election Committee arbitrarily imposed a new requirement of written notification when a required meeting was missed for “reasonable cause.”

          c)       Notification of the new Election Committee requirement was not adequate to notify candidates.   It appeared only in the June issue of the Buckeye Engineer, the monthly publication of Local 18.  Delivery of that union publication is often late, particularly in many rural districts.  Further, some candidates work far from their homes and do not have access to the Buckeye Engineer or the opportunity to read it immediately.  Mail notification to the announced candidates of the new provision was required. Instead, candidates were eliminated by the failure to disclose the rule although it was known by union officials that they were relying on their timely oral notification.

          d)      The meeting attendance rule was not uniformly applied. Two meetings were held in the period between the nomination and the election.  Candidates who failed to attend the first meeting were subject to the rule.  Candidates who failed to attend the second meeting, held after the ballots were printed, were not subject to the rule. 

As a consequence of the above, two candidates (Bruce Bertle and Michael Lumbatis) were unlawfully disqualified.  The outcome of the election in other races also may have been affected by a depressed voter turnout. 

3.       Union resources were used to benefit some candidates and denied to others. 

          a)       The telephone lines of other unions were used to support some candidates for office although barred by the International Constitution as “outsider” support and by federal law.

          b)      Supporters of some candidates were given up-to-date lists of union members’ phone numbers not available to other candidates.    

          c)       Union representatives, on vacation to campaign, illegally campaigned on job sites by claiming that they were there on official union business.  Access to the sites was denied to other candidates.          

4.       The ballots were distributed from a distant location in Illinois which made it impossible to observe the mailing of the ballots.  Several members are known to have received multiple ballots. 

5.       In violation of election rules which prohibited access to the Post Office Box in which the ballots were held until a date and time specified, some members were told in advance how many ballots had been cast which gave them an election advantage of having information about the election denied to others. 

6.       An observer requested that ballots be counted as they were removed  from the Post Office box to provide additional security against the subsequent adding of ballots.  That request was denied.   

7.       A tally of the votes for Local officers by district was denied in this election although provided in the past.   A district breakdown of the reported results better enables candidates to verify the credibility of the reported outcome and raises questions about the outcome that was claimed. 

          Since these violations could have affected the outcome, I ask that the election be voided and that the re-election be conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

Fraternally, 

_______________________
Patricia A. Kohl, Register # 2131891
410 Stratton Avenue SW
New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663
614-582-1613

ALSO SUBMITTED BY: 

_________________________ 

__________________________    

__________________________