On August 26, 1997, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Representative Pete Hoekstra, announced that the Subcommittee would begin an investigation of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' 1996 election of officers. Four days before this announcement, the IBT's Election Officer had invalidated the election results and ordered a rerun of the election because of several large and improper contributions to the campaign of Teamsters' General President Ron Carey. Chairman Hoekstra stated three goals for the Subcommittee's investigation: (1) to account for the approximately $20 million in taxpayer funds spent on supervising the election; (2) to explore the illegal contributions and other improprieties that corrupted the election; and (3) to ensure that the rerun election is conducted effectively and with integrity. The Subcommittee made substantial progress toward achieving each of these goals.
Under the terms of the 1989 Consent Decree, the federal government had the option to have the 1996 IBT election supervised. The government exercised this option and provided over $17.6 million during the period 1993 to 1997 to fund the Office of the Election Officer, the court-appointed official responsible for supervising the entire election process. The Subcommittee sought to ensure that these taxpayer funds were spent wisely and effectively. The Subcommittee sought to ensure that the types of problems that invalidated the 1996 election do not occur in the rerun election. Two years after the last election, with the Teamsters union still lacking a duly elected leadership and the federal government sharing the costs of the rerun election, it is vitally important that these funds are not wasted again.
In the course of investigating these matters, the Subcommittee uncovered other wrongdoing involving the misappropriation of union funds and improper ties between the IBT and the White House. In fact, IBT officials engaged in a long pattern of misconduct that was not limited to funneling union funds to the Carey re-election campaign in the last week of October 1996. Simply put, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has not been maintained solely for the benefit of its members. Instead, while the union was already in financial disarray, senior Teamster officials misused the union's treasury for their political benefit. Not only did these IBT officials and consultants misappropriate union funds for campaign efforts, but there also appears to have been an effort to manipulate and to misrepresent the union's pension funds and financial condition dating back to 1994. IBT officials threatened and interfered with others who questioned the union's expenditures. All of these matters remain under investigation by the Subcommittee as it attempts to evaluate the performance of federal agencies charged with union oversight, and the effectiveness of federal laws designed to protect union members from financial and other types abuse.
Federal supervision and the consent decree
Ironically, all of this misconduct occurred during a period when the IBT has been perhaps the most scrutinized union in American history. Due to the decades-long domination of the IBT by organized crime, the Justice Department filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in 1988. The government and the IBT settled the suit in 1989 by agreeing to a Consent Decree, the primary purpose of which was to ensure `that the IBT . . . be maintained democratically, with integrity and for the sole benefit of its members and without unlawful outside influence.' The Consent Decree provided a wide-ranging framework for supervision of the IBT and its financial and disciplinary operations by the government and its agents. The Consent Decree also established direct elections for international union offices.
Federal supervision of the IBT was divided into two phases. The first phase entailed strong, proactive government involvement in the IBT's activities to rid the union of corrupt influence and pave the way for its first ever democratic election in 1991. To achieve these goals, the Consent Decree provided for the appointment of three officers: an Independent Administrator, an Election Officer, and an Investigations Officer. The Election Officer supervised the 1991 election and ensured that it was conducted in a free and fair manner. The Investigations Officer had the authority to investigate corruption within the IBT and recommend charges to the Independent Administrator. The Independent Administrator (1) ruled on these charges; (2) meted out appropriate punishment, including expulsion from the union; and (3) vetoed any IBT financial transaction that would constitute or further racketeering activity.
The second phase of the Consent Decree, which began in October 1992, relegated the Government to a more reactive position. A three-member Independent Review Board (IRB) took over the disciplinary roles of the Independent Administrator and the Investigations Officer. The Attorney General, the IBT, and Judge Edelstein each appointed one member of the IRB. The IRB does not have the authority to veto financial transactions.
Ron Carey won the 1991 election for the IBT's General Presidency, and candidates on Carey's slate captured every position on the IBT's General Executive Board (GEB). The Carey slate took office in 1992 as self-styled reformers who would help the Teamsters shed the bad reputation the union had acquired after suffering through a half-century of domination by organized crime.
Carey was a candidate for re-election in the supervised 1996 election. Carey won a narrow victory over James P. Hoffa, but the Election Officer, Barbara Zack Quindel, refused to certify the results after concluding that illegal funds may have allowed Carey to win the election. The Election Officer found that Carey's campaign consultants and officials of the IBT laundered money from the union's treasury through several organizations to Carey's reelection campaign. Among the most significant of these `contribution swaps' were the following:
As a result of these transactions, the Election Officer ordered a rerun election. After Ms. Quindel resigned due to a possible conflict of interest, her replacement as Election Officer issued a ruling on November 17, 1997 disqualifying Carey from the rerun election because of his knowledge of these fundraising schemes. The following week, three momentous events altered the union's power structure. First, the Justice Department and the IBT agreed to create the position of Independent Financial Auditor for the IBT, a position with veto authority similar to that had been held by the Independent Administrator. Two days later, Carey took an unpaid leave of absence. Later the same day, the IRB charged Carey with bringing reproach upon the union.
Since the corruption of the Carey campaign came to light, a criminal investigation has been underway in the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Thus far, three of Carey's campaign aides have entered guilty pleas in federal court and are cooperating with prosecutors. An attorney for Carey's campaign and a fundraiser involved in the money-laundering schemes also pled guilty to federal charges. The IBT's former political director, William Hamilton, has been indicted by a federal grand jury. The IRB has barred Carey and Hamilton from the union for life. The Secretary-Treasurer and the International Vice Presidents elected on the Carey slate in 1996 continue to hold office, run the union's operations, and most are candidates in the rerun election.
Investigative efforts
The Subcommittee looked into a number of allegations of misconduct involving the Teamsters union. A partial list includes the fundraising swaps of the 1996 election and the role that other organizations may have played in these schemes, Clinton Administration efforts to grant favors to the IBT in exchange for political contributions, misuse of IBT personnel for campaign purposes, manipulation of pension funds under IBT control, filing inaccurate forms with the Department of Labor, the manipulation of the union's net worth and a corresponding membership dues increase, misuse of the union's internal Ethical Practices Committee, the reasons why so many IBT local unions have been placed under trusteeship, the IBT's lack of internal auditing practices, and the use of federal grants by the IBT and other entities involved in the fundraising schemes. In addition, the Subcommittee monitored the activities of the Election Officer, the Independent Review Board, and the Independent Financial Auditor to ensure they are discharging their duties in an acceptable manner.
To explore these matters, the Subcommittee conducted interviews, depositions, and hearings, and requested and subpoenaed documents. Pursuant to its requests, the Subcommittee received documents from dozens of entities, including the U.S. Departments of Labor, Justice, and Agriculture; the National Labor Relations Board; the United States Trade Representative; the United States Secret Service; the White House; the Federal Election Commission; the National Council of Senior Citizens; the AFL-CIO; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Project Vote; Axis Enterprises; the Convention Management Group; the Share Group; DeLancey Printing; and Clinton-Gore '96. The Subcommittee also received voluminous and unsolicited material from Teamsters members throughout the country.
The Subcommittee and Chairman Goodling issued a total of seventeen subpoenas for documents to the following individuals and organizations: the Democrat National Committee; the IBT; Peter D. Hart Research Associates; the November Group; Cohen, Weiss, & Simon; Grant Thornton LLP; Covington & Burling; Palladino & Sutherland; the Segal Company; Citizen Action; Tom Sever, the IBT's acting General President; Howrey & Simon; the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; Lewis Schiliro, Deputy Director in Charge, New York office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc.; and Kelly Press. Seven financial institutions also received subpoenas for specific bank accounts.
Throughout the Subcommittee's investigation, the current IBT leadership followed a three-pronged strategy of obstruction:
In response to these tactics, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 507 on July 30, 1998, which authorized Subcommittee staff to depose witnesses without requiring the presence of Members of the Committee. In the three months following that vote, staff members deposed fifteen individuals with knowledge of the various areas the Subcommittee is investigating. Since October 1997, the Subcommittee held a total of eleven hearings over twelve days. There might have been more, however; the Subcommittee refrained from conducting interviews, depositions, and public hearings into some aspects of the fundraising swaps at the request of the Department of Justice. Among those who testified in a deposition or hearing are the following:
How it happened: oversight weaknesses
Evaluating the effectiveness of the federal investment in overseeing the 1996 Teamsters election was one of the Subcommittee's major goals. The Department of Justice exercised its option for a supervised election on February 7, 1995, which ultimately cost $18 million. The Subcommittee focused on how this money was spent.
First, the Subcommittee sought to account for the millions of tax dollars spent to oversee the election of officers at a private organization. The Subcommittee's concerns included unexplained costs, excessive salaries, and unacceptable delays in auditing these expenditures. For example, Ms. Quindel earned more than $1 million in fees for slightly more than two years of work as Election Officer. On several occasions, the Subcommittee requested and received further information from the Department of Justice regarding these costs and audits. The Department of Justice did not initiate audits of the costs incurred in the 1996 or 1997 fiscal years until May 1998, despite repeated inquiries and encouragement by the Subcommittee over the previous six months. The Department of Justice provided the results of these audits to the Subcommittee when they were completed in September 1998. According to audits of the Election Office's expenditures, supervision cost the taxpayer $17,985,998 through September 30, 1997.
Second, the Subcommittee sought to determine whether the Office of the Election Officer applied the rules fully and fairly throughout the election process. The Subcommittee first wrote to Ms. Quindel on June 24, 1997, to express its concern about news reports of possible conflicts of interest, the fundraising improprieties, and other complaints it had received regarding the conduct of the election. During the Subcommittee's October 14, 1997 hearing on these subjects, employees of the union's international headquarters testified that they campaigned for IBT General President Ron Carey on union time and were pressured to make campaign contributions to Carey. Another employee at IBT headquarters testified that the IBT contributions to get-out-the-vote organizations in 1996 were unusual both in size and in the procedures used to approve them. When questioned during the October 15, 1997 hearing about these matters, Ms. Quindel testified that it was not possible for the Election Office to detect Carey's fundraising schemes prior to the election, as the events occurred at the last minute.
The Independent Review Board has also been a subject of the Subcommittee's scrutiny. The primary responsibility of the IRB has been to eliminate organized crime influence within the IBT and its local unions. In an oversight hearing on July 30, 1998, the administrator, chief investigator, and members of the Independent Review Board testified regarding the IRB's authority, investigative techniques, disciplinary procedures, and criticisms that it had not been impartial in some cases. The Subcommittee also heard testimony regarding the role and activities of the Independent Administrator and Investigations Officer. The Subcommittee reviewed the recommendations of the Independent Administrator for ways to improve the IBT's internal governance, including the institution of a formal budget, a financial procedures manual, and an office of Inspector General. The Subcommittee remains concerned that these recommendations have not been implemented.
The Subcommittee also monitored the performance of the Independent Financial Auditor (IFA), a position created by an `Interim Agreement' in the wake of the Election Officer's decision to disqualify Carey from the rerun election. The `Interim Agreement,' entered into by the IBT and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, states: `Independent Financial Auditor shall have the authority to review any expenditure or proposed expenditure of IBT funds or transfer of IBT property and to review any proposed contract entered into on behalf of the IBT (other than a collective bargaining agreement) and to veto any such expenditure, transfer or contract whenever the Independent Financial Auditor reasonably believes that such expenditures, transfer or contract would constitute or further an unlawful act or violation of the IBT Constitution or would otherwise constitute or further fraud or abuse of IBT funds or property.' In the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on April 29, 1998, however, the IFA testified that his office does not conduct investigations, but merely reviews disbursements on the basis of documentation provided by the Teamsters. Furthermore, the IFA also does not review the Teamsters' legal expenses or pension funds, the business purpose behind IBT transactions, or the adequacy of the IBT's internal controls. It is clear that the services rendered by the IFA measure far short of those envisioned in the Interim Agreement.
Finally, the Subcommittee examined the activities of two offices within the Department of Labor: the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) and the Pension and Welfare Benefits Agency (PWBA). Both of these offices have oversight responsibilities related to the Teamsters union, but took few steps to monitor the union. During its oversight hearing on June 16, 1998, the Subcommittee heard testimony from five officials of the Department of Labor. The Subcommittee received substantial cooperation from the Department prior to the hearing through interviews of key personnel and document reviews.
OLMS is responsible for receiving and auditing annual financial disclosure forms filed by labor organizations, for monitoring the use of trusteeships by national labor organization over their affiliates, and for reviewing complaints related to the election of union officers. Unfortunately, OLMS had not done a full audit of the IBT's financial report (the LM-2 Form) within the last 15 years under the International Compliance Audit Program (I-CAP) until it began one in October 1998 at the request of Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Minority Member Mink. The Subcommittee questioned OLMS witnesses about auditing procedures and inaccuracies and deficiencies in the IBT's LM-2 Form, particularly with regard to accurate reporting of employee travel costs and other reimbursements.
PWBA's mission, generally speaking, is to protect the pension and health benefits of participants in employee benefit plans in the private sector. The PWBA receives annual financial reports from private pension plans and audits these reports to detect investment weaknesses or funding shortfalls. In the Subcommittee's oversight hearing, PWBA witnesses were questioned about technical advice they provided to the Independent Administrator regarding payments from the Teamsters to pension plans under IBT control in 1991, as well as the effects of changes made by the IBT to actuarial data for their pension funds and the possible consequences of those changes. Around the time of the hearing, the Pension and Welfare Benefits Agency began an IBT pension plan also under Subcommittee investigation.
Mismanagement and malfeasance by IBT officials
The Subcommittee began its investigation after revelations that senior Teamsters officials and IBT consultants organized, in the words of the Election Officer, `a complex network of schemes to funnel employer and IBT funds into the Carey Campaign.' Mindful of the criminal investigation of these schemes, the Subcommittee has taken pains to tailor its investigation in a way that preserves the efficacy of the parallel criminal inquiry. Hence this investigation focused on such areas as abuse of IBT resources for campaign purposes, questionable political activities, efforts to use the Teamsters' political strength to charm favors from the Clinton administration,
manipulation of an IBT pension fund, the possibly inappropriate use of an emergency assessment on IBT locals, the union's internal financial procedures and governance, and possible misuse of the union's Ethical Practices Committee. A summary of some of these matters follows.
Fundraising schemes and misuse of union resources
Several of the Subcommittee's hearings have focused on the illegal fundraising schemes. In a hearing on October 14, 1997, a former supervisor at the IBT's Political Action Committee detailed the IBT's internal financial procedures as they related to the fundraising schemes. In a hearing on April 30, 1998, John Sweeney, the President of the AFL-CIO, testified regarding the labor federation's role in the fundraising schemes. The AFL-CIO's Secretary-Treasurer, Richard Trumka, was allegedly responsible for the AFL-CIO's participation in the fundraising swap among the IBT, Citizen Action, and the Carey campaign. But Trumka declined to appear before the Subcommittee, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Despite this, Sweeney testified that he does not believe Trumka has done anything improper and that he is not investigating the matter further. On May 19, 1998, the IBT's General Secretary-Treasurer and acting President, Tom Sever, testified about his knowledge of the contribution swaps and the IBT's check-handling procedures. The Subcommittee's depositions of IBT financial personnel have addressed their knowledge of these schemes, to the extent that they could do so without compromising the Justice Department's criminal inquiry.
In addition, information obtained by the Subcommittee indicates that dozens of employees of the union's international headquarters may have campaigned for the Carey slate on union time. This abuse of power may have cost the union's treasury thousands of dollars in salaries and expenses. The Subcommittee heard testimony from four IBT employees on this subject in its hearing on October 14, 1997. Two IBT organizers testified that they had campaigned on Carey's behalf on union time at the direction of their supervisor. These organizers and an IBT International Representative testified that they were pressured to donate to the Carey campaign and that they did so, out of fear of losing their jobs. Another rank-and-file member of the IBT testified that he had been beaten by Carey supporters for trying to speak in a meeting of his local union. Moreover, a memorandum written by Carey's campaign manager indicates that at least thirty IBT employees were involved in using union resources for the Carey campaign. The Subcommittee questioned the current Election Officer about his investigation of these allegations in hearings on April 29, 1998 and September 29, 1998. In a Subcommittee hearing on May 19, 1998, Sever testified that he is not investigating IBT employees who allegedly misused union resources. Further, the Subcommittee discussed this matter with the members of the IRB on July 30, 1998.
Questionable political expenditures
There are serious questions regarding the union's expenditures in national and State politics. First, of course, are the efforts to raise money for Carey's re-election campaign by promising larger than expected soft money contributions to the DNC and State Democrat parties. Second, evidence indicates that the IBT may have made soft-money political contributions that were earmarked for specific congressional races. Under federal law, unions may not make expenditures designed to influence national elections from their general treasuries, and must instead use PAC funds; hence, earmarking is illegal. Moreover, the unions' accountants appear to have either ignored or covered up these potential violations of the law. In the Subcommittee's hearing on June 15, 1998, Stephen Leser, a partner in the Teamsters' accounting firm, Grant Thornton, LLP, testified that he was not aware of a subordinate's memorandum discussing IBT general treasury expenditures for election activity or discussions of whether the IBT should remove such information from its files. Subcommittee depositions of current and former Grant Thornton personnel have included questions regarding this memorandum.
Improper ties to the Clinton administration
Another subject under investigation is the Clinton administration's efforts--specifically, the White House, the United States Trade Representative, the Labor Department, and the Agriculture Department--to help to settle a Teamsters' strike against Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. The administration's pressure on the company involved implicit threats to exclude walnuts from trade talks involving the European Union, to remove company products from the School Lunch Program, and to revoke payments to the firm under an initiative marketing U.S. agricultural products overseas. It also involved attempts to bar the firm from receiving any federal contracts.
Information obtained and developed by the Subcommittee indicates that the Clinton Administration's efforts to help the Teamsters with their strike of Diamond Walnut may have been motivated by the promise of generous IBT political contributions. A high-level Labor Department appointee, possibly acting at the instruction of a senior White House official, wrote a memo before the 1996 elections telling presidential advisors how much money the Teamsters had contributed to Democrat Party coffers in 1992. The memo tells White House aides that the President needed the Teamsters' support during his re-election campaign, and that the Teamsters needed White House help settling a strike of Diamond Walnut. Around the time this memo was written, the administration brought pressure to bear on Diamond Walnut. After the Clinton administration's exertions, the Teamsters contributed millions to the coffers of Democrat senatorial and congressional campaigns, as well as State Democrat parties. An analysis done by Subcommittee staff indicates that the Teamsters contributed some $1 million to the national and State Democrat parties, and another $2.5 million to Democrat candidates across the country during the 1996 election cycle.
Financial manipulation
The Subcommittee is probing a number of events and transactions related to the union's net worth, pension funds managed by IBT officials, and an emergency dues assessment that began in 1994. In an attempt to finance its spending priorities in the face of an annual budget deficit, the IBT conducted a mail referendum in 1994 to increase dues by 25%. When this measure was rejected overwhelmingly by the Teamsters membership, the IBT looked for other sources of revenue to finance its agenda. To begin with, the IBT Constitution requires all IBT locals to pay an additional $1 per member per month emergency tax to the International when the IBT's net worth falls below $20 million. The increase expires when the union's net worth climbs back to $25 million. The provision was triggered in May 1994 and, since then, has brought an additional $17 million per year into the union's treasury. Despite the ramped-up
revenues, IBT officials have continued to spend more than they took in each year, even with the emergency assessment funds, thereby preventing the `emergency' increase from expiring. These financial machinations occurred at the same time as questionable changes to an IBT pension plan, raising questions about the motivation for these steps.
The IBT made a number of changes to pension plans under its control as part of its efforts toward financial reorganization. The most drastic step was the curtailment of, or freeze of contributions to, the Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan (TAPP), which provides benefits to the officers and employees of many local unions. When the IBT froze this pension plan, it retained its financial obligation to the plan, which has had a large impact on the net worth of the union, and, in turn, on the emergency assessment. By instituting a freeze instead of terminating the plan outright, the IBT retained a multi-million dollar liability on its balance sheet, a liability that will likely never be paid.
In addition, the IBT made changes to the pension plan's discount rate--evidently without performing calculations that would typically accompany this action--that, in effect, allowed the union to continue its emergency tax and at the same time avoid insolvency. Had the discount rate remained the same as in previous years (7 1/4 %), the union would have been insolvent on its books. However, by changing the discount rate to 8%, the IBT's net worth remained between $0 and the $25 million threshold at which the emergency dues assessment would have expired. Then, in 1995, after the emergency assessment had been secured, the IBT returned the pension plan's discount rate to 7 1/4 %, again without explanation. Most importantly, this change was not reported in the pension plan's annual financial statement, a problem that has generated a PWBA investigation.
Those financial maneuvers have been the subject of Subcommittee hearings on March 26, June 15, and June 16, 1998, and have been discussed in depth in many of the depositions taken by the Subcommittee. First, on March 26, 1998, the Secretary-Treasurer of an IBT local testified that he believed the IBT leadership's decision to freeze contributions to the Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan was designed to continue the emergency dues assessment and to gather additional financial resources for IBT headquarters. On June 15, 1998, A. Donald Morgan, a partner in the Teamsters' actuarial firm, the Segal Company, testified about a conference call between the Segal Company, IBT officers, and TAPP trustees, during which it became clear that IBT officials were concerned about the discount rate's impact on the IBT's emergency assessment. On June 16, 1998, witnesses from the PWBA discussed the actuarial and financial effects of these changes and answered questions about the PWBA's oversight procedures and investigations.
Union governance
A related matter that has received the Subcommittee's attention is a series of reports issued by the Independent Administrator at the end of his term in 1992. The reports recommended several changes to improve the financial controls and governance of the Teamsters. Among the key suggestions were the creation of an Inspector General's office at the IBT, the formation of a policies and procedures manual, and the establishment of an organization-wide budget. Under Carey, the international did not adopt a formal budget; instead, the IBT had a `spending plan' that was honored in the breach. Although Carey and IBT General Secretary-Treasurer Tom Sever commissioned studies and made reports on possible spending cuts, the union's spending spiraled upward while the union's net worth plummeted.
Another governance matter that received Subcommittee scrutiny was the relationship among the union's international officers, particularly regarding budget matters. Because of the failure to share financial information among officers, the union essentially lacked any internal oversight of the IBT's fiscal management. First, Carey and Sever refused to provide IBT Vice Presidents (who were members of the GEB) with access to information regarding legal bills and services, credit card reimbursements to other officers, payments regarding the Detroit newspapers strike, and other matters. Second, when the International Trustees, who are required to audit the union's books every six months, began to question the union's financial situation, the board excluded them from meetings and denied them access to financial records and personnel. At the Subcommittee's hearing on March 26, 1998, a former International Trustee testified that, after the trustees had discovered improper expenditures and accounting discrepancies, IBT officials refused to provide them with financial information necessary to perform their constitutionally-mandated biennial audit. They were also unable to interview IBT employees about the union's financial practices and were barred from GEB meetings.
Finally, the Subcommittee is looking into IBT's use of internal disciplinary procedures. The Teamsters created an Ethical Practices Committee (EPC) to punish union members and officials for violations of the IBT Constitution. Since 1992, the IBT has placed approximately seventy local unions into trusteeship. The Subcommittee received numerous complaints that EPC investigations and hearings and the union's trusteeship proceedings were aimed at political opponents. Subcommittee depositions and public hearings on March 26 and July 24, 1998 delved into these matters. On March 26, 1998, a former International Vice President testified that the Carey administration used the disciplinary process, the abolition and creation of subordinate union bodies, and the emergency dues assessment to centralize power at the international level. On July 24, 1998, Aaron Belk, a Teamsters Vice President, testified before the Subcommittee regarding his tenure as the Administrator of the Ethical Practices Committee and raised additional questions about Carey's use of the EPC.
Monitoring the rerun election
The Subcommittee's third goal was to provide oversight to ensure that the rerun election is conducted fairly and that the oversight failures of 1996 are not repeated. To this end, the Subcommittee consulted frequently with the Election Officer, made its views known to Judge Edelstein and the Department of Justice, and discussed the rerun procedures in several public hearings. On April 29, 1998, the Election Officer discussed his original plan for overseeing the rerun election. The plan will be more proactive than oversight of the 1996 election, and will include placing monitors in campaign offices during the final weeks of the campaign. The focus of the Subcommittee's hearing on May 19, 1998 was to determine who was responsible for funding oversight of the rerun election. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Tom Sever, the Department of Justice, and the General Accounting Office. Ultimately, an agreement was reached to fund oversight of the rerun election without additional Congressional approrpriations. The Subcommittee held a public hearing and again heard testimony from Mr. Cherkasky on September 29, 1998, after Judge Edelstein approved the Election Officer's revised oversight plan, budget, and schedule. Ballots for the rerun are scheduled to be mailed on November 2, 1998 and are due back to the Election Office by December 3, 1998.
Hearings held: Teamsters investigation
105th Congress, First Session
October 14, 1997--Oversight hearing on the 1996 IBT Election.
October 15, 1997--Oversight hearing on the 1996 IBT Election.
105th Congress, Second Session
March 26, 1998--Oversight hearing on the financial affairs of the IBT.
April 29, 1998--Oversight hearing on the supervision of the IBT by the Election Officer and Independent Financial Auditor.
April 30, 1998--Oversight hearing on the role of AFL-CIO officers and employees in the failed IBT election.
May 19, 1998--Oversight hearing on who should pay for the IBT rerun election.
June 16-17, 1998--Oversight hearing on IBT financial practices and pension fund changes and the IBT's disclosure reports filed with the Department of Labor.
July 24,1998--Oversight hearing on IBT governance and management practices.
July 30, 1998--Oversight hearing on the role and performance of the Independent Review Board.
September 29, 1998--Oversight hearing on plans for conducting the IBT rerun election.
October 6, 1998--Oversight hearing on the Clinton Administration's efforts to settle the Teamsters' strike at Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc.