JUDICIAL PANEL CASE NO Local 371 Election Protest. This matter concerns a protest of an election for officers in Local 371 held on

Transcription

1 JUDICIAL PANEL CASE NO Local 371 Election Protest This matter concerns a protest of an election for officers in Local 371 held on April 29, Faryce Moore, an unsuccessful candidate for president, and Dawn Isom, an unsuccessful candidate for Central Labor Council delegate, filed the protests. AFSCME Local 371, Social Service Employees, is affiliated with New York DC 37. The protestants did not receive a response from the local on the protest; consequently, they filed a timely appeal with the Judicial Panel in accordance with Appendix D of the International Constitution. The case was assigned to Judicial Panel chairperson John Seferian for investigation and decision. After giving due notice to all parties concerned, the hearing was held on June 30, 2011 in New York City. THE PROTEST (See attached) RESULTS OF THE ELECTION (See attached) REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER In deciding this protest, the undersigned took into consideration not only the statements presented at the investigative hearing on June 30 but also the various written statements supplied to the undersigned and information obtained in a subsequent independent investigation. Relative to Sister Moore s protest, the election was conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). She alleged that Brother Joe Nazario, a candidate for secretary-treasurer, conducted election activities that should have been handled by the election committee. When questioned by the undersigned Brother Nazario maintained

2 2 that he was not involved in any manner with the conduct of the election. With respect to the allegation that some officers and staff members were mailed a duplicate ballot, again, the mailing of the ballots was conducted by AAA working off a membership list supplied by DC 37. Even if some officers and staff did receive more than one ballot, there was no indication that the duplication resulted in more than one vote being counted for an individual. These items of the protest are denied. It is apparent that Sister Andrea Walters, the current associate secretary-treasurer and a staff member of the local, assisted AAA by providing names of members who contacted the local to report that they did not receive a ballot. In addition, it is also evident that Sister Walters provided information to both slates concerning issues that arose during the election. It is not uncommon in AFSCME elections that staff members of both the International and the council/local assist election committees in the conduct of elections. Sister Moore asserted that during the course of the election when AAA decided that members could hand-carry ballots to AAA and have them tabulated, that Sister Walters informed Brother Wells slate earlier than her slate. It is a violation of the AFSCME Election Manual to allow voters to hand-carry their ballots in mail ballot elections and have them tabulated. The election manual clearly states that Everyone votes by mail or no one votes by mail. However, this technical violation did not affect the outcome of the election. The undersigned contacted AAA and learned that there were 18 walk-in ballots submitted to AAA, which were not opened or counted by AAA. This item of Sister Moore s protest is denied. Brother Gibbs denied to the election committee chair that he asked members for their ballots so that he could mail them. Two other issues concerned Brother Wells

3 3 advising members that they could contact AAA and receive a duplicate ballot to change their vote and the assertion that Brother Crossman also asked members for their ballots so he could mail them. It is the responsibility of each voter to cast his/her own ballot and be accountable for same. Furthermore, the undersigned could not conclude from the evidence in this investigation if this in fact could occur and that this affected the outcome of the election. These items of the protest are denied. The fact that a member of the Professional Division of DC 37 was invited to brunch by Brother Wells is not, in and of itself, a violation of Appendix D or the Election Manual. Sister Walters denied the assertion that she did not contact AAA in a timely fashion after members notified her that they did not receive a ballot. She stated that she was in the office daily during the course of this election except for one sick day. She maintained that she sent requests for ballots as soon as she was informed by members who did not receive one. According to AAA 108 duplicate ballots were mailed. Based on the investigation, the undersigned cannot conclude that the request for replacement ballots was handled differently for either slate or that Sister Walters did not pass on to AAA requests for duplicate ballots in a timely fashion. This item of the protest is denied. Relative to Sister Isom s protest, some of the items were similar to Sister Moore s protest. Concerning the mailing list utilized in this election, once again, AAA received a list of eligible voters from the DC 37. As the Election Manual notes, Mailing lists are frequently inaccurate. It is ultimately each member s responsibility to make sure that

4 4 the local has his/her correct address. In addition to the initial mailing of 15,032 ballots, Local 371 provided AAA an additional 788 names that were mailed ballots. As to the issue of members not receiving ballots in the initial mailing, Sister Isom stated that members who requested duplicate ballots were A) unable to reach to AAA by phone, or B) when they received their duplicate ballot it was too late to mail the ballot in order for it to be tallied. AAA stated that there was 10 staff responsible for answering phones and taking names of members to be issued ballots. At any one time there were no less than four workers on duty to handle calls. AAA compiled a daily list of members who wanted ballots and those requests were always mailed by 5 p.m. on the day the request was received. AAA also stated that if the 800 hotline number was busy, the call would automatically be flipped over to the operator. There is no indication that the two slates were handled differently in the request for duplicate ballot or that AAA did not handle the requests appropriately. This item is denied. It is apparent that when Brother Lee Saunders spoke at Rev. Al Sharpton s National Action Network Conference in New York City he made some incidental remarks concerning Brother Wells candidacy for president in this election. These remarks by Brother Saunders were not a violation of Appendix D or the AFSCME Election Manual. This item of the protest is denied. The fact that the local did not act on Sister Isom s protest is moot because she filed a timely appeal with the Judicial Panel, who has heard the protest. Appendix D and the AFSCME Election Manual provide that if the local does not hear a protest within 40 days of the election, the protestant can appeal directly to the Judicial Panel, which Sister Isom did in this case.

5 5 DECISION The protests as filed by Sisters Moore and Isom are denied and the election results of the April 29 election are affirmed. July 13, 2011 Washington, DC John Seferian Judicial Panel Chairperson AFSCME, AFL-CIO