Jesse J. Averhart
23 North Lenape Ave
Trenton, NJ 08618
(609) 865-5431
JAverhart5@comcast.net
November 5, 2008
Peter Maurer, Chairman
Election Committee
CWA Local 1033
321 West State St.
Trenton, New Jersey 08618
Dear Mr. Maurer:
The undersigned member, on behalf of the Members For Change Team and the membership of this
Local, submit the following objections to this Committee regarding violations by the Roeder Team that
may have affected the outcome of this election. Upon the finding of such violations this election cannot
stand and deemed invalid and re-run under the objective purview of a third party election vendor to
conclusively remove all doubt regarding the election result.
The Department of Labor publication “Conducting Local Union Officer Elections—A Guide for Election
Officials” (hereinafter “Conducting Elections”) lists the following commonly protested prohibited acts that
may affect the outcome of an election:
Campaigning on time paid for by the union or employer.
Use of union/employer owned or leased equipment such as telephones; fax machines,
and copy machines (including employer-owned e-mail)
Use of union/employer property or facilities
Giving free services or special discounts to a candidate customer such as printing, photocopying,
etc.
Candidates must be treated equally regarding the opportunity to campaign using membership listing.
It is emphasized here, that once a violation under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act
(“LMRDA”) or the CWA Union Constitution (“Constitution”) has been shown, that showing establishes a
prima facie case that the violation may have affected the outcome of the election. In essence, the
Members for Change Team do not have to prove an actual effect on the election, only that a violation
may have affected the outcome of this election. Rather, the insurmountable burden of proof is on the
Roeder Team to show that the violation did not affect the election.
This Committee has not hesitated to seek legal guidance on questions posed by the Roeder Team
concerning alleged improprieties by the opposing candidates. Hence, by copy of this letter to Pat Shea,
Esq., we ask for her learned legal influence to help shape this Committee’s objective determination upon
this appeal. Indeed, it is recommended on pg. 66 in the publication, “to seek the advice from parent body
union officials.”
Moreover, the above publication, recommends the following “Seven Steps For Resolving Protests,”
pgs. 65 - 66:
1. Review the election protest thoroughly to decide what information is needed to resolve the
allegation;
2. Talk to the protesting member in order to clearly understand the allegation and to obtain any
specific information needed, such as the names of individuals;
3. Review the constitution; bylaws and the election rules (the adopted LMRDA guidelines)
4. Review election records;
5. Interview members and other persons, as necessary;
6. Decide if the allegations are true by reviewing all the information gathered and discussing the
findings as a team;
7. Determine how many votes may have been affected if the allegation(s) is/are true.
Noting, the Election Committee is functioning as fact-finder and should not rely upon rumors, hearsay or
perfunctory and conclusory findings.
CASE BACKGROUND
Election Protests were filed on the following dates. June 26, 2008; August 4, 2008, and September
23, 2008. (Exhibit A). Each protest raised violations or prohibited activities as noted above.
A response from the Election Committee, to the above protests was received September 26, 2008.
(Exhibit B)
Two responses, dated October 10, 2008, were mailed to the Election Committee. (Exhibit C). These
responses indicated that the response from the Committee was “wholly insufficient where it did not
address my concerns.”
A response was received from the Election Committee on October 24, 2008, three (3) days before
the counting of the ballots, denying all protests. (Exhibit D).
STATEMENT OF FACT
The incumbent, Rae Roeder was permitted to use employer (paid) P-days to take members off the
job and use local union monies and facility, since June 2008 thru September 19, 2008, for purported
training in the last few months of this administration. Also, free movie tickets were distributed as gratuities
for attending members.
The incumbent used a membership listing generated by Local resources. This listing was used to
send out a campaign mailing on July 19, 2008 and 6 or 7 subsequent mailings.
On October 9, 2008, and thereafter on numerous other occasions, members were called at work
and home using this listing. (Exhibit E)
Further, automated or robocalling information generated with Local resources was used to call
members at work and home. The Members For Change Team was denied equal opportunity of using the
membership listing.
On or about August 6, 2008, the week of August 11, 2008, and on October 1, 2008, Roeder used
an employer’s facility to campaign, the Motor Vehicle Commission’s lobby. was permitted to campaign on
the employers’ property, while other candidates were denied equal opportunity. (Exhibit F)
Members did not receive a ballot and/or some of the three ballots were missing and/or the secret
ballot envelope was missing. (Exhibit G)
Election ballots were hand delivered to members, rather than mailed. See statement.
There has been no evidence of a special restricted-access designation of Post Office Box 661,
assuring that it could only have be accessed on the October 27, 2008 pickup date for the counting of the
ballots.
STANDARDS
Article XV of the CWA Constitution and the adopted standards of federal law under the LMRDA governs
the administration and review of this local election, as noted in the 2008 Local Officers Election
Procedures. Also, see Department of Labor civil action enforcement as a guideline. (Exhibit
H)
It is pointed out that the Members For Change was hesitant and proceeded with caution in asking
members to provide written documentation of their experiences in this election in an effort to ensure
secrecy of vote without being subject to penalty, discipline, improper interference or reprisal of any kind
by the incumbent administration.
CAMPAIGNING ON TIME PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYER
The incumbent, Rae Roeder was permitted to use employer (paid) P-days to campaign under the
guise of contract training from June 2008 through September 19, 20008. In excess of 500 members
attended this training. Timing, tone and future rhetoric espoused at these training sessions are important
factors to consider.
The timing of this training happening so close to the election is critical. Keeping in mind that a
tentative state worker contract had been out since February 2007 and the final contract was effective July
1, 2007. Moreover, in the 12 years of this administration, members have never been (sic) trained en
masse as has occurred here.
The tone of self-laudation in opposing the contract and future-oriented statements regarding future
contract provisions, smacks of electioneering.
Also, see violations below as employer expenditures. The bottomline is that even di minimis election
support or miniscule expenditures such as an amp of electricity, by a labor organization or employer
violates the LMRDA, as it may affect the outcome of an election.
CAMPAIGNING ON TIME PAID FOR BY THE UNION
The incumbent, Rae Roeder was permitted to use union paid time to conduct (sic) contract training
from June 2008 through September 19, 2008.
A review of employee records will show that Russell Caffey and Sandra Coia total annual
compensation, including overtime, were not commensurate with the duties performed. Rather, these
excessive payouts were contrived to prepay these individuals to work full-time on the incumbent’s re-
election efforts.
During the month of August 2008 the Roeder and staff under the guise of signing up members for
the Local’s Picnic tickets, were electioneering at worksites on union paid time.
The incumbent has refused to release the pay records of any of the employees employed by the
Local.
USE OF UNION/EMPLOYER PROPERTY OR FACILITIES
The incumbent, Rae Roeder was permitted to use the Local facilities to campaign under the guise of
contract training from June 2008 through September 19, 2008.
During the month of August 2008 the Roeder and staff under the guise of signing up members for the
Local’s Picnic tickets, were electioneering at the employer’s worksite.
Roeder, on October 1, 2008 and prior to this date, was permitted to campaign on the employers’
property, the Motor Vehicle Commission lobby.
On October 10, 2008 Anthony Miskowski was electioneering using the properties of the Local to call
Gail Hopkins, a member regarding her non-receipt of a ballot. (Exhibit G)
USE OF UNION/EMPLOYER OWNED EQUIPMENT
The incumbent, Rae Roeder was permitted to use Local equipment to campaign under the guise of
contract training from June 2008 through September 19, 2008.
Roeder was further permitted to use a Local generated members listings to campaign by calling
members at home and on the job. Also a robo/automated calling listing, generated at Local expense was
used by Roeder to call members at home.
Additionally, Roeder was permitted to use employer owned equipment by calling members at their
place of employment to campaign. (Exhibit G)
On October 10, 2008 Anthony Miskowski was electioneering using the Local’s telephone and
Employer telephone to call Gail Hopkins, a member regarding her non-receipt of a ballot.
OPPOSITION CANDIDATES WERE DENIED EQUAL TREATMENT
The purpose of the anti-discrimination provision, S 401 (c) of the LMRDA was meant to mitigate the
advantages of incumbency by seeking to prevent, discourage and make unprofitable improper conduct
by entrenched union leadership.
Specific provisions of this requirement requires unions to “refrain from discrimination in favor of or
against candidate with respect to the use of lists of members.
Members For Change candidates were denied the use of the list of members and the
robo/automated calling list to call members off the premises of Local 1033 as was permitted by the
incumbent.
Members For Change candidates were denied equal opportunity to campaign at the facility of an
employer as was permitted by the Roeder candidates.
THE ELECTION COMMITTEE FAILED TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS FOR A FAIR ELECTION
INCLUDING FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD BALLOTS PROPERLY
The potential for violating election laws were considerable by the incumbent. The consequences of
such violations are significant, including the time and expense of rerunning the election. This Committee
has utterly failed to provide adequate safeguards for a fair election, safeguarding of the ballots and
member’s right to a secret ballot.
The Election Committee failed to advise the incumbent of prohibited acts as noted above. A common
pitfall noted in the publication Conducting an Election. See sample letter from this publication to
incumbent. (Exhibit I). Moreover, corrective action was not taken when these prohibited acts were
brought to the attention of this Committee. Further compounding this lack of enforcement is the
Committee’s stance that “the Committee has no control over whom he calls or why” (referring to an
improper electioneering telephone call by the incumbent Secretary, Anthony Miskowski to a member, Gail
Hopkins, regarding a replacement ballot). (Exhibit G).
There is no proofs that P.O. Box 661 had special restricted access and was not accessed prior to
the October 27, 2008 pick-up date to safeguard the ballots. Moreover, protests were raised regarding
continued use of the Ringoes Post Office. There were concerns, as aptly stated in your letter of 9/24/08,
that this Local is “one of their prime customers and get their full attention.” The stated reason for
continued usage of the Ringoes Post Office in the letter of 9/24/08 was contrary to previous assertions
that this Post Office was used for your convenience in picking up undeliverable ballots.
Further, Members For Change candidates Mary E. Brown, Mary R. Walker and Shirley E. Huntley,
and an observer, Dona Varga accompanied the Election Chair to the Post Office and noticed that there
was no key issued to you to retrieve the ballots. Rather the ballots were unceremoniously brought out.
It was noted that a mail container, with a capacity of approximately 400 pieces of mail was almost half
full with duplicate ballots. The Preliminary Certification of Results show there were 5629 ballots printed;
272 ballots unused; 5222 eligible voters; 5356 ballots used. The result is 407 extra ballots minus 272
unused ballots, for a total of 135 replacement ballots sent out.
In your response dated October 22, 2008, it was noted “[t]o date, we have mailed out 102
replacement ballot requests….[t]he missing ballots have been mailed out the same day the request were
received.” (Exhibit D). Emphasis added Thirty (33) more missing ballots requests came in a very short
turnaround period to get mailed to the member and the member mailing the ballot in a timely manner
before the October 27, 2008 cutoff.
What was the extent of the problem? How many of the 3237 remaining members who did not vote
were denied reasonable opportunity to vote because they did not receive a ballot? How many ballots
were received after the October 27, 2008 11:00 am cutoff? Was it the members fault, did they receive
the ballot in a timely fashion? Some members were advised that their ballot only had to be postmarked
October 27, 2008 to be counted. (Exhibit G)
Was redelivery of a ballot with an address correction synonymous to providing a replacement ballot?
How many ballots were undeliverable?
A member, who wish to remain anonymous, called the Local seeking a ballot which he had not
received. A ballot was hand delivered and placed surreptitiously under his door. Upon investigation and
fact-finding by the Committee, with assurances of confidentiality this member would be prepared to make
a statement.
The Election Committee claimed mailing of ballots would be done the week of September 22, 2008.
Members For Change did a mailing on September 23, 2008. The Roeder Team did multiple mailings after
September 23, 2008. However, the Committee denies that the Roeder Team barrage of mailings
interfered with the mailing of the ballots. The evidence shows otherwise.
The Roeder team, acting as the de facto Election Committee, sent out a campaign mailing indicating
that the LPS and Public Defender Area Rep., Sharon Brooks was “unopposed [and she would be]
certified and considered elected.” (Exhibit J). The Election Committee was requested to send out
corrective notice to the members in this area that Doreen Griffin was back on the ballot. The Committee
did not.
The inaction by the Election Committee resulted in irreparable harm to the candidacy of Doreen
Griffin.
Moreover, in the 2005 election, members were impermissibly limited to signing only one candidate’s
petition for a particular office to indicating support/vote for that candidate. This requirement clearly
violated the secret ballot principle.
Throughout the 2008 nomination process, members were confused about this illegal requirement and
would not or hesitantly sign(ed) Members For Change’s petitions. Consequently, there was synonymous
confusion about which candidate they could vote for. This was brought to the attention of the Election
Committee. The Committee’s resolution was to embolden the statement that the member could vote for
any candidate that they wished on the ballot instructions.
The resolution by the Election Committee was an inadequate safeguard and possibly denied 3237
members reasonable opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, where the residuals of the
2005 prohibited act may have affected the outcome of this election.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons this election cannot stand and deemed invalid and re-run under the
objective purview of a third party election vendor to conclusively remove all doubts regarding the
election result.
In Solidarity,
/s Jesse J. Averhart
Jesse J. Averhart
c. Pat Shea, Esq.