From: MThomas3@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 1:52 PM
To: TMarchitto@aol.com; jcmayers@comcast.net; carl.mayers@abc.com
Cc: JClark@cwa-union.org; JCLARK.HQPOST2.HQDOMAIN@cwa-union.org; rgelber@nabet16.org; Sue Fitzgerald; Mark Peach
Subject: Re: Protest of Local 31 Election

Greetings all,

 

This is a retransmission of a message given to the original addressees as a courtesy to all concerned. I will prepare motions for consideration of the Local 31 Executive Board similar to those of Mr. Welch's complaint on the points raised in Mr. Mayers' complaint. A few key points and motions to be considered:

 

  1. Is Mr. Mayers complaint timely (September 18th), given that the original election deadline was August 26th. The further counting was done on August 31, the Special Election Meeting was held on September 2nd, and the DOL guidelines suggest a 10 day period? There is no rule or bylaw on this, but acceptance at this date would constitute a precedent.

 

  1. The ballot was prepared by the Election Committee and the office staff. The names were chosen at random and not by lottery. Was the manner in which the two names for the Office of President and the two candidates for the Office of Vice President were chosen and listed on the ballot unfair? Therefore, should this fact invalidate the present election and a new election should be held?

 

  1. It is a fact that ballots arrived at the office after the Thursday, August 26th deadline, but were counted later since they had a postmark of August 26th, and were subsequently included in the election results announced on Tuesday, August 31. This dual counting was due to conflicting instructions on the ballot. This additional count did not change the outcome of the election. Was this later counting prejudicial to the election process or either candidate and as such should invalidate the present election and a new election should be held? There were several other ballots received after the deadline of August 26th but were not counted due to a late postmark.

 

  1. It is alleged that candidates were not adequately notified of this second counting on Tuesday, August 26th, and therefore were denied the opportunity to witness the second counting. Was this lack of adequate notice sufficient to invalidate the present election and therefore a new election should be held?

 

  1. It is alleged that the Incumbent Secretary was actively campaigning for the incumbent officers. It is a fact that the Incumbent Secretary presented a non-postmarked ballot from a member after the 1PM deadline. This ballot was hand cancelled by the Incumbent Secretary on the previous day and this fact was witnessed by another member. It is a fact that the Election Committee accepted that ballot as timely and it was counted. Therefore, these facts and events should invalidate the present election and a new election should be held?

 

  1. It is alleged that the Incumbent Secretary was actively campaigning for the incumbent officers. It is a fact that Incumbent Secretary's name appeared on the ballot, but he assisted in the opening and counting of ballots on Thursday, August 26th by permission, direction, and immediate supervision of the Election Committee. Therefore, this fact should invalidate the present election and a new election should be held?

 

You should expect that these issues will be translated into motions for the meeting.

 

-00-

 

 

Moe Thomas
301-996-0537