RESPONSES TO PATRICIA KOHL
PROTEST TO 2005 OFFICERS ELECTION
POINT
ONE:
A,
B, C & D AND E. [BLANSKI
→ Advisory Board is only by District,
therefore are certified by District.
→ Executive Board is also only by District
and therefore are certified by District.
→ Statewide votes
for statewide office are the only votes that count and they were certified.
→ Local 18’s election is different then
federal election since the federal election is based upon electoral votes so
while the state popular vote is irrelevant it is only necessary for the
calculation of the electoral vote allocation which is the only vote that counts
and is certified.
→ The protest is
not well taken since it is a complaint related to post election activity only
and will not affect the outcome of the election and the information sought is
not required by the By-Laws, Constitution applicable law or the Election Rules.
Article XIII Section 10 of By-Laws: “Election Committee shall submit a written
report of the results of the election to the Local Union” and that is what they
did do.
→ Once the
election is certified the Election Committee has no further authority until the
next election.
POINT
TWO:
Items
1 & 2
→ Lumbatis and Bertle were declared
ineligible by Election Committee for nonattendance at
→ Kohl claims they called DiLoreto even
though rules said that request for a waiver for non meeting attendance must be
in writing to Election Committee.
→ Kohl admits it was not done in
accordance with the rules. Wants to impose on DiLoreto a
moral obligation to bypass the rules. The law requires that all
candidates must follow the written rules.
→ Kohl claims they were unaware of rule -
The Rule was published in the May, June, July and August issues of the Buckeye
Engineer and posted in the District offices. Surely they received the May and
June issues by
→ Constitution requires attendance
contrary to her representation which sections were also published in the
Buckeye Engineer. Rule 20 and Article XXIV, Subdivision 1(b) page 75.
→ Buckeye Engineer is the official notice
publication of Local 18. Article XXIX, Section 2 page 45.
→ Recording-Corresponding Secretary did
not have the legal authority to do anything under the constitution or By-Laws,
the election rules provided for the procedure for notification of non meeting
attendance. Article XXIV § 1(b) constitution. Rule is consistent with
constitution to protect the rights of all candidates especially those that
follow the rules.
→ August 8 meeting - Election began when
ballots were mailed on August 8 - constitution references election not ballot
count. Ballots were mailed by
Item
3 Eligibility
determined
→ All candidates
names were published in the Buckeye Engineer for July and only the eligible
candidates were published in the August issue.
[BLANSKI LETTER]
→ Rule is consistent with applicable law -
election begins when ballots are mailed not when they are counted.
→ Bertle and Lumbatis would not have been
eligible even if the Buckeye Engineer was mailed after July 16, 2005 since they
both missed the July 11, 2005 District Meeting.
POINT
THREE:
→ By-Laws Article XII 10 requires the
Business Manager to appoint the Chairman of the Election Committee.
→ By-Laws were followed - it is not a
conflict of interest.
→ Executive Board cannot change the
By-Laws.
Claim that post
office should have counted ballots is in conflict with the Election Committee
duties to provide the only verifiable count. What’s the difference? The
Election Committee and observers brought back all the ballots which were
counted. [Blanski letter].
POINT
FOUR:
Glen Haught, Election Committee member,
played a recording of Ranftl soliciting his vote. Election Committee members
are only prohibited from running for office they are not prohibited from
voting. Haught apparently did not feel compromised by providing you with the
information of the call - Election committee members have the right to vote and
receive mail and other solicitations from candidates. While Ranftl never talked
to Glen, Kohl did, perhaps it is the winners who should be protesting?
→ Ranftl never asked for any financial
support from Haught or anyone else - There is no violation of Rule 21 of the
Election Rules.
→ Kohl claims that Business Agents made
calls on union time - WHO AND WHEN?
RESPONSE: A member had rented a
local school house that was used for community functions to host a meeting of
my group. They had a marquis outside that read Welcome Local 18.
Joe Lucas and agent from my district got word from a
member that there had been a meeting of my group and the next morning on union
time, in a union vehicle, with a union camera, and on a union cell phone, Joe
Lucas went to Unionport
Cannot investigate without evidence of allegation.
READ LETTERS AND MEMOS
TO STAFF FROM PAT SINK RE CAMPAIGNING.
→ Claims Laborers Union provided in kind
use of telephones - SHOW EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS PAID FOR BY CEO OR CANDIDATE
THEMSELVES. RESPONSE:
Pat Sink verbally referred to his proof that Steve
DeLong, District 1 Rep. had rented the phones personally. Once again he did not
share any documentation with the Board. When I received the documentation from
the International that had been refused to me by the Local, I discovered that
the so called proof did not prove anything. There were 2 receipts from Laborers
Local 758,. It had Business Manager Pete Pappas on it
as well as the initials JLD.
·
The first was dated
·
Under comment it said CHK: DEP PHONES.
·
Total said $100
·
There was no copy of the check
for $100
·
Reference was Steve Delong’s
name and address
·
Under SSN/Card
it said 216-43-2313 (this would be the phone number of the District #1 Union Hall minus the last 1- the number is
216-432-3131)
·
The so called deposit was made
AFTER the phone calls were made from there. After my call to Glen Haught, I had
stood up at the
·
The second was dated
·
Under comment it said CHK: DEP Phones.
·
Total said $176.80
·
The copy of the check #307 that
was provided had a date that was not legible, part of it was covered up (logo
and bottom routing numbers). THERE WAS NO COPY OF THE BACK OF THE CHECK.
·
Reference was Steve Delong’s
name and address
·
Under SSN/Card
it said 216-43-2313 (this would be the phone number of the District #1 Union Hall minus the last 1- the number is
216-432-3131)
o
After this event, Scott Ranftl
was demoted to Organizer.
o
The amount paid was not a true cost of renting
a room and installing phones.
o
How many more agents made calls
from there?
o
Scott Ranftl called a District
6 member and he is a District 1 agent.
o
Where did he get the phone
number?
→ Kohl’s use of information she lifted
from apprenticeship computer - finding of forensic examination of her computer
when she left.
POINT
FIVE: A, B, C.
• Blanski letter
re count for purposes of determining adequacy of staff to man the count.
• Cannot answer
to an unknown alleged call to Post Office - No way to veri
and if true did not affect the outcome of the election - whatever ballots were
returned were counted.
• Article XIII,
Section 10 of the By-Laws provides as follows: “The Election Committee shall be
empowered to employ the services of any person, firm, or organization, which it
deems necessary to assist it in the conduct of the election.”
•
Read Blanski/Rosenblat letter.
• What is the
federal law that you claim the U. S. Post Office violated. Perhaps Kohl ought
to report it to law enforcement authorities since the Executive Board has no
authority to arrest and charge Postal authorities.
POINT
SIX: A, B.
→ Blanski/Rosenblat letter response re
multiple ballots.
→ Ballots
mailed from
→ Travel time is reasonable and only two
hours longer than drive from
POINT
SEVEN:
• Hand counting of ballots - greater
chance of error.
• While you cite to federal elections,
ballots are not hand counted.
• Read Blanski/Rosenblat response?