UAW 2865 Triennial Election Report
Section 1: Preamble
Pursuant to the UAW Local 2865 Bylaws, UAW Constitution and the UAW Election Guide,
balloting for UAW Local 2865 Executive Board and Joint Council positions, as well as
Delegates to the UAW International Constitutional Convention, took place on April 29 and 30,
2014. Ballots were counted over the following three days at the Statewide Office in Berkeley,
with the vote count concluding on the evening of May 3.
This election was heavily contested, with most candidates aligning with one of two main slates:
Academic Workers for a Democratic Union (AWDU) and Student Workers for Inclusive
Transparent Change (SWITCh). While party affiliation is not formally a part of the election
process, it is important to acknowledge the presence of these two organizations for the purpose
of demonstrating that a fair, transparent, and democratic election has been carried out.
Challengers from both slates were present at the polls at various campuses, and at the vote count.
The primary AWDU challengers present at the vote count were Shannon Ikebe, Brenda Medina
Hernandez, and Munira Lokhandwala. The primary SWITCh challenger present at the vote
count was Michelle Gallagher.
The Election Committee received several complaints and reports of irregularities during and after
the election, submitted by challengers, candidates, and rank-and-file members. These allegations
(and Election Committee responses, where appropriate) are detailed in Section 4 and Appendix
A. The Election Committee takes any reports of election rules violations seriously. However,
we feel that the reported discrepancies are minor in aggregate and do not call the results of the
election into question.
All election materials were sealed into boxes and will be saved for one year as mandated by law.
Any questions about this report should be directed to the Election Committee by emailing
elections@uaw2865.org.
The Election Committee certifies that the results of the election are accurate to the best of our
knowledge and ability to ensure their validity. This report was approved by a vote of the full
Election Committee on May 8, 2014.
UAW 2865 Election Committee
Berkeley: Ben Keller (chair)
Davis: Shaun Geer
Irvine: Andrew Holbrook
Los Angeles: John Branstetter
Riverside: Amanda Admire
Santa Barbara: Matt Porter
Santa Cruz: Aaron Wistar
Section 2: Vote totals
The following tables lay out the number of votes received by each candidate, as well as the total
number of votes cast at each campus. These totals do not include challenged votes that were
rejected (see Section 3). The winners of each race are bolded.
Statewide Executive Board Positions
President
Total
B
D
I
LA
M
R
SD
SB
SC
1122
168
8
161
185
7
171
158
252
12
1455
461
115
29
339
7
40
186
68
210
1466
465
116
26
332
8
36
191
85
207
1035
166
5
161
175
6
171
143
197
11
1106
176
13
157
206
9
158
153
225
9
1391
433
108
28
320
4
48
182
62
206
John Gust
1070
163
11
157
177
9
174
154
218
7
Erik Green
Kelsey
Collier
Leslie
Quintanilla
Skylar Joseph
Covich
Asad Haider
Katy FoxHodess
Coral
Wheeler
Amelia Ray
Beezer de
Martelly
Edwin Elias
Amanda
Zeddy
Susan
Richardson
Henry Maar
1386
439
105
26
325
5
36
179
64
207
1065
162
10
165
171
11
164
154
218
10
1387
425
111
24
332
2
42
181
64
206
1070
168
8
157
181
7
161
149
235
4
1383
432
108
27
323
5
39
180
54
215
1402
438
109
25
327
5
47
181
70
200
1055
163
10
167
175
6
157
151
210
16
1093
171
10
156
184
11
166
159
224
12
1274
423
92
26
287
6
32
175
45
188
1043
158
15
157
180
7
168
147
203
8
1070
163
10
156
178
8
162
142
234
17
1283
394
111
27
296
4
36
174
48
193
1269
407
95
24
281
4
31
177
60
190
Rob
Ackermann
Michelle
Glowa
Northern
VP
Mar Velez
Southern
VP
Stephanie
Jones
Sayil
Camacho
Ren-yo
Hwang
Financial
Secretary
Recording
Secretary
Sergeant
At Arms
Guide
Trustee
Total Cast
2719
Berkeley Joint Council Positions
Unit Chair
Recording Secretary
Head Steward
Total Cast
Olivia Lichterman
172
Krista L. Cortes
454
Robbie Nelson
433
Abigail Polin
172
Brian Shevitski
133
Adam Breihan
52
Franco Vargas Pallete
168
Bryan Lopez
151
Christine Ho
168
Brendan Folie
143
Eva Nichols
166
James Moody
145
Ravital Solomon
140
William Hart-Cooper
145
Anastasia Chavez
174
Maria Guadalupe Martinez
172
Stephanie Jones
143
Jonathan Smucker
373
Meredith A. Palmer
377
Emma Silverman
396
Marianne Kaletzky
373
Francisco "Paco" Martin del Campo
394
Evan Bissell
394
César Bowley Castillo
389
Joanne Tien
399
Seth Leibson
378
Margaret Mary Downey
376
James Morton
372
Joshua Peterson
135
Daniel Woo
399
Blanca Gamez-Djokic
382
670
Davis Joint Council Positions
Head Steward
Tory Webster
64
Nicholas Ammar
63
Brandon Buchanan
67
Emily Breuninger
68
Ashlyn Jaeger
64
Pablo Silva Jr.
70
Susan Richardson
10
Caroline McKusick
10
Melissa Salm
62
Duane Wright
73
Total Cast
129
Irvine Joint Council and Delegate Positions
Unit Chair
Recording Secretary
Delegate
Total Cast
Elizabeth Heckmaier
166
Anastasia Baginski
24
Moshe Lichman
168
Jordan Brocious
25
Kelsey Collier
163
Jessica Conte
27
Elizabeth Heckmaier
159
Jordan Brocious
25
196
Los Angeles Joint Council and Delegate Positions
Unit Chair
Recording Secretary
Head Steward
Delegate
Total Cast
Cristina Echeverria
204
Alexandra Holmstrom-Smith
337
Kareem Elzein
210
Jason Ball
322
Sarah Ingebritsen
198
Ben Gunter
184
Peng Deng
180
Christian Beren
174
Jonathan Gingerich
183
Caitlin Decker
187
Samuel Weeks
281
Anthony Trochez
182
Mike Hoa Nguyen
184
Ezekiel Trautenberg
299
Lauren Schaeffer
314
Cody Trojan
321
Sayil Camacho
187
Elizabeth Thornton
296
Rachel Wells
190
Melissa Whitley
312
Jamin An
305
Mathew Sandoval
290
Roni Hirsch
299
Courtney Cecale
309
Jason Ball
297
Sayil Camacho
246
Ben Gunter
207
588
Riverside Joint Council Positions
Unit Chair
Recording Secretary
Head Steward
Jason Struna
164
David Chavez
51
Mary Irene Morrison
167
J Sebastian
44
Andrew J DeGroot
158
Jackson Pitts
163
Natalie De Howitt
155
Deborah De La Riva
155
Charles Sepulveda
45
Ren-yo Hwang
49
Jasmine Riley
62
Total Cast
225
San Diego Joint Council Positions
Unit Chair
Recording Secretary
Head Steward
Total Cast
Donald D. Johnson, Jr
148
Malathi Iyengar
192
Huong Thien Nguyen
152
Alborz Ghandehari
193
Chandler Miller
144
Amelia Ray
158
Ben Madej
146
Kate Veccharelli
152
David Lee
146
Caleb Richard Scoville
147
Amanpreet Kaur
145
Pablo Pérez A.
191
Linh Nguyen
186
Maria Celleri
184
Daniel Alejandro Gutiérrez
170
Deborah Jane Seligsohn
141
Raquel Pacheco
185
Johnathan Abreu
26
Cynthia Vazquez
186
Barbara Ann Bush
186
Mychal Matsemela-Ali Odom
178
351
Santa Barbara Joint Council Positions
Unit Chair
Head Steward
Total Cast
Aviva Milner-Brage
225
Shari Sanders
84
Ben Coté
211
Samir Sonti
220
Rosalie J. Carlson
223
Alex Blue V
208
Patrick Mooney
212
Earl Perez-Foust
82
David Hur
83
Sunny Lim
95
Martie Smith Roberts
83
324
Section 3: Challenged Votes
During the vote count, some ballots were challenged and not counted. Ballots may be
challenged for a variety of reasons, including a challenge to the eligibility of the voter, double
voting, or inability to positively identify a voter. Ballots may be challenged by Election
Committee representatives or by designated vote count challengers. The following is an
accounting of all of the challenged ballots at each campus. An accepted challenge means that the
ballot was ultimately counted; a rejected challenge means that the ballot was ultimately not
counted.
Berkeley Challenge List
Initial:
Santa Cruz voters (5): ACCEPT, move to Santa Cruz count
Davis voters (1): ACCEPT, move to Davis count
Blank outer envelope/no outer envelope (4): REJECT
After alphabetizing:
Filled out, but did not sign, membership card (4): REJECT
Double vote (2): Randomly select one, REJECT the other
Similar names (4): ACCEPT after checking the rosters and identifying them
Unclear names (3): ACCEPT after checking the rosters and identifying them
New members are being checked against the database and other sources to confirm that they are
in the bargaining unit. We found one student who was a student of GTU, not Berkeley; her
ballot was challenged and REJECTed.
Total valid ballot count delta: -7
Approximately 15 ballots had their head steward votes invalidated because they voted for more
than 13 candidates. The other positions on those ballots were still counted.
Davis Challenge List
Initial:
Voter from Berkeley (1): ACCEPT
One voter did not fill out a new member card and was not a new member. REJECT
One voter was marked as a challenge but did have a signed membership card. ACCEPT
After alphabetizing:
Signature only (4): We able to identify one member based on their signed membership card.
Three signatures were totally illegible. ACCEPT 1, REJECT 3.
Total valid ballot count delta: -3
Irvine Challenge List
Initial
One ballot was marked as challenge because the member had graduated. We confirmed this and
REJECTed the challenge.
Quite a few ballots did not have names printed on them, only signatures. We challenged 26
ballots for this reason. We were able to successfully identify and ACCEPT 1 of them without
duplicates. We were forced to REJECT 25 ballots.
After alphabetizing:
We were unable to identify 7 ballots due to illegible names. REJECT all.
Because of concerns regarding the integrity of the vote count at Irvine, all Irvine ballots were
subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and individually checked against the membership roster
and new member cards. We found 5 ballots that we could not find on the roster and did not sign
new member cards, leading to 5 REJECTs.
Total valid ballot count delta: -12
Los Angeles Challenge List
Initial: Box 1
1 Berkeley voter: ACCEPT, move to Berkeley
4 blank, REJECT
86 with illegible names. Through heroic, time-consuming efforts by our volunteers, we were
able to positively identify many of these voters from their signatures. ACCEPT 47, REJECT 39.
Box 2
5 blank, REJECT
Box 3
6 blank, REJECT
1 illegible. REJECT
Box 4
1 Santa Barbara voter: ACCEPT, move to SB
1 blank, REJECT
1 illegible. REJECT
After alphabetizing
2 Berkeley voters found: ACCEPT, move to UCB
Because of concerns regarding the integrity of the vote at the polling location, checked all the
names from Box 2 against the roster and the new member cards, and were unable to identify 6 of
those as members. We ACCEPTed 4 of them after we found them on the roster, and REJECTed
2.
We found an additional envelope with no name or signature. REJECT
Four ballots were REJECTed because new members did not sign their cards.
We found one ballot that was marked SPOILED.
Total valid ballot count delta: -7
We also had an empty outer envelope that we found when we were opening the outer
enevelopes.
Merced Challenge List
We had one ballot from a non-member. REJECT
We had two ballots whose names we couldn’t identify at first, but we were able to compare
against the rosters and identify them. ACCEPT
Riverside Challenge List
Initial
4 ballots were challenged and REJECTed because they had no names on the outer envelope.
After alphabetization
One new member did not sign her card, so we REJECTed that ballot.
One new member appears to be a post-doc, not a graduate student, so we did not count her ballot.
Total valid ballot count delta: -2
San Diego Challenge List
Initial
Santa Barbara student: ACCEPT, move to SB
New member who is starting a PhD in the fall: ACCEPT, per EC decision in March that people
are eligible to join once they have decided to attend their graduate program
Three members with no name or illegible signature only on the outer envelope: REJECT
Santa Barbara Challenge List
Initial
2 ballots from other campuses: ACCEPT
Box 1: 3 illegible signatures. REJECT
Box 2: 1 illegible signature. REJECT
Box 5: 1 blank envelope. REJECT
Box 6: 1 illegible signature. REJECT
After alphabetizing
6 new members did not sign their cards. REJECT
1 new member was flagged as not being a grad student. REJECT
Total valid ballot count delta: -7
Santa Cruz Challenge List
Initial:
Voters from Berkeley (5): ACCEPT
Three voters did not print and sign their name on the outer envelope, one in box 3, one in box 4,
and one in box 5. Using the rosters, we were able to check off all of the other voters for each
box and figure out the identity of the voters, so these challengers were ACCEPTED.
After alphabetizing:
Two people were not members, and we were not able to find new cards for them, so the
challenges were REJECTed.
Total valid ballot count delta: -2
Section 4: Complaints
The following is a list of complaints received by the Election Committee throughout the election
process. Election Committee responses or rulings are included where appropriate.
4.1: Improper Campaigning, received 4/26/14, Santa Barbara
On April 26, 2014, the UAW 2865 Elections Committee received a complaint alleging a
violation of election rules by a candidate. The charge stated that Robert Ackermann, a candidate
for President of our Local who is currently Santa Barbara Unit Chair and so a member of the
bargaining team, was engaged in campaign activity on April 16th on UC Santa Barbara campus,
at the same time as a bargaining session was taking place at UCLA. The complainant claimed
that this constituted a violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which
states that candidates for union office may not campaign during hours when they are being paid
by the union.
Robert Ackermann is currently being paid at 50% time in his capacity as Unit Chair. However,
our Local has no system or procedure for tracking the exact hours worked by those elected
officers that receive compensation (a situation similar to most GSIs represented by our
Local). Paid union officers are responsible for using their time responsibly, and budgeting it as
they see fit. Furthermore, due to constraints on schedules, budgets, and strategy, not all
bargaining team members attend every bargaining session. Indeed, lately it is typical for less
than half of the bargaining team to be present for any given bargaining session.
The complaint against Robert Ackermann made no claim that Robert had planned to attend
bargaining on April 16, or otherwise designated the hours on the morning of the 16th as hours for
which he was specifically fulfilling his responsibilities as Unit Chair. Therefore, the Elections
Committee finds that Robert Ackermann did not violate election rules in this case, and no action
will be taken against him or his campaign.
The above summary and response was approved by a vote of the full Election Committee on
April 27, 2014. See Appendix A.1 for the full complaint.
4.2: Poll Location Opened Late, received 4/29/14, Los Angeles
The Court of Sciences polling location did not open at 10AM on 4/29 as noticed, due to a noshow by a poll worker. The polling location was open by approximately 10:20.
4.3: Inappropriate Actions by Poll Workers, received 4/29/14, Los Angeles
The complaint alleged that a poll worker was directing voters to talk to AWDU campaigners if
they asked for information on how to vote.
4.4: Inappropriate Actions by Poll Workers, received 4/29/14, Los Angeles
The complaint alleged that a poll worker was discouraging graduate students from joining the
union by misrepresenting the cost of membership. Additionally, the complaint alleged that a poll
worker was suggesting that voters vote for the AWDU slate.
4.5: Inappropriate Campaigning Near the Polls, received 4/30/14, Los Angeles
The complaint alleged that a campaigner was standing near the ballot box and encouraging
voters who approached her to vote for the AWDU slate.
4.6: Questions as to Whether Poll Workers Followed Procedure, received 5/2/14, Irvine
A member reported that a poll worker did not seem familiar with the proper procedure for
voting, and was concerned that a candidate may have been helping (or solely responsible) for
setting up one or more polling locations. The Election Committee representative at Irvine
confirmed that proper procedure was followed. Nonetheless, all ballots from Irvine were
subjected to additional scrutiny during the vote count, to confirm that there were no major
irregularities.
4.7: Inappropriate Campaigning, received 5/6/14, San Diego
Two complaints contained several allegations of improper behavior:
• A candidate for the AWDU-affiliated POWER slate tried to persuade voters within 20
feet of the polling place to come back outside the “chalk line” so that he could try to sway
their vote.
• Some voters were informed of polling places that did not exist.
• POWER slate campaigners were aggressive towards a candidate from the SWITCh slate.
At one point, a POWER slate campaigner harassed the SWITCh candidate and made
intimidating threats.
4.8: Vote Tampering, received 5/6/14, San Diego
On May 6, 2014, the Election Committee received a complaint by a SWITCh challenger alleging
that 28 ballots cast on the second day of polling at San Diego were fraudulent (“ballot box
stuffing”). This claim was made on the basis of a discrepancy between an informal tally kept on
the side of the ballot boxes, which totaled 194 votes, and the final vote count in the box of 222
votes which was reported on the Ballot Box Verification form. The complaint alleged that the
Election Committee representative from San Diego, Adam Morgan, has partisan affiliation with
the AWDU/POWER slate, and since the ballot boxes were for a time in his sole custody, the
results of the San Diego election are called into question.
It is common for the tallies kept by poll workers throughout the day to marginally deviate from
the number of ballots cast (particularly as San Diego had only one polling location, and would
have been quite busy). Adam Morgan worked the polls for much of the day on Wednesday,
including at closing, and he states that he may have mis-tallied the votes at several points.
However, efforts were made to correct for any missed tallies, and a count of the marked names
on the roster and new member cards from 4/30 finds 223 total voters, a close match to the final
number of ballots counted in the box. Additionally, Adam sealed the boxes immediately at the
close of polling and signed the seal to prevent tampering. He did this in the presence of
campaigners from both slates, who did not raise any objections at the time, and there was no
evidence of tampering when the boxes were opened for the count. Adam provided a detailed
response to the challenges and an accounting of his actions on the 30th, and he is confident that
no fraud occurred at San Diego. Adam does not identify with either slate, and was elected as
Election Committee representative without objection months before the election.
The Election Committee finds that the allegations regarding vote tampering at San Diego have
no concrete evidence to support them and are not a reason to suspect the validity of the election
at San Diego.
The above statement was ratified by a vote of the full Election Committee on May 8, 2014. See
Appendix A.2 for complete statements from all parties involved in this complaint.
Appendix A: Full complaints
A.1: Complaint 4.1
The full text of the received complaint is below.
Dear Elections Committee Chair and Local Recording Secretary,
I am a second year Comparative Literature major at the University of California,
Santa Barbara (UCSB). I have been a member in good standing since beginning
my attendance at UCSB. I am writing to formally charge UCSB Unit Chair, and
Local Presidential candidate, Robert Ackermann, with violating election campaign
rules – specifically the guidelines laid out by the Elections Committee in an email
sent out April 15th.
On Wednesday April 16th at around 10:30am, I attended the Graduate Student
Association’s (GSA) weekly Bagel Hour. As soon as I entered the room, I saw Mr.
Ackermann and I was angered because I knew that he was my bargaining team
representative and that at that very moment UAW 2865 was engaged in bargaining
at UCLA. As if that wasn’t enough, he was asking members at the event to sign a
vote pledge and was campaigning for his Presidential bid in the upcoming
Triennial election.
This observation was very upsetting and I left the room disgusted by what I had
seen. Mr. Ackermann is charged by the members to represent them at the
bargaining table and instead of fulfilling his responsibilities to the UCSB
membership, he felt it was more important to campaign for his Presidency. I left
the GSA event feeling betrayed by the leadership of my Unit but it was not until I
re-read an email from the Elections Committee regarding campaign rules that I
realized that this wasn’t only an affront to the trust placed in him by our members
but also an election violation. In an email from the Elections Committee dated
April 15th, Ben Keller advised candidates that they were not allowed to campaign
while being paid by the union or the university (Appendix I).
As outlined by our Bylaws, part of Mr. Ackermann's financial compensation
comes with the representation he is expected to provide on the bargaining team
(Appendices II & III). Insofar as he was campaigning for his candidacy during the
time he was expected to perform these representative duties this, therefore,
constitutes payment by the union to campaign.
It is for this reason that I think that Mr. Ackermann's choice to campaign at UCSB
rather than represent the interests of the UCSB membership constitutes an
egregious violation of the guidelines provided by the Elections Committee. I do
not believe this was simply a mistake, as Mr. Ackermann has been involved in
many elections and is intimately familiar with the internal procedures of our
union. I believe that this violation was an intentional subversion of the proud
democratic heritage of our union and committed without regard to the effect his
absence would have on contract negotiations.
I believe that this action has given Mr. Ackermann an unfair advantage in the
Triennial election, at the expense of his responsibilities to the UAW 2865
members at UCSB, and believe that he should be disqualified from running for
office in this election cycle and any other charges which may be applicable in this
case.
In solidarity, Earl Perez-Foust UCSB
Appendices (relevant passages are marked)
Appendix I, email from Elections Committee dated April 15th:
Dear Candidates,
Thank you for accepting nomination to run for elected office in our Local. I would
like to review some relevant guidelines in the lead-up to the election on April 29th
and 30th.
-Sample ballots and candidate statements (if you submitted one) will be posted on
the website by Monday, April 21: uaw2865.org/2014triennial.
-Candidate statements will also be made available at the polls. However, no
campaigning or campaign literature of any sort is otherwise permitted within 20
feet of each polling location. This boundary will be marked by a chalk circle
where practical. Candidates and their supporters should remain outside of this
circle unless they are personally voting at that time.
-During voting, each candidate may designate up to one challenger per polling
location at any given time. Challengers cannot campaign on behalf of any
candidate, and should address any concerns to the poll worker or to the Elections
Committee directly. If you wish to designate a challenger, please submit the name,
campus, phone number, and email address of each and every challenger for voting,
as well as the times and polling locations at which they will be in attendance, to
elections@uaw2865.org by 5PM April 28.
-The vote count will be held May 1st and 2nd in the statewide office in Berkeley.
Candidates are not permitted to attend the vote count. During the vote count, you
may designate one challenger. If you wish to designate a challenger, please submit
the name, campus, phone number, and email address of the challenger for
counting to elections@uaw2865.org by 5PM April 28.
-Finally, you should be aware that federal law dictates that you may not use union
or university funds, facilities, equipment, and supplies for campaigning. This
includes but is not limited to membership lists, databases, telephones, printers, and
copiers. You also may not campaign during hours when you are being paid by
the union or the university.
If you have any questions before, during, or after the election, please direct them
to elections@uaw2865.org. If there are urgent issues during the election, my cell
number is 401 378 7523. You can also reach out to the Elections Committee
representative on your campus.
In solidarity, Ben Keller, on behalf of the UAW 2865 Elections Committee
Appendix II, Article 10, Section 4:
“The Campus Unit Chair and Campus Unit Recording Secretary will be the first
two Joint Council representatives for the Campus Unit. In addition to the duties of
a head steward, the Campus Unit Chair shall have general administrative
responsibility for the Campus Unit, and shall chair the Campus Unit Bargaining
Team. In addition to the duties of a head steward, the Campus Unit Recording
Secretary shall take minutes at Campus Unit meetings. The Campus Unit Chair
will be paid as a half time position, at an hourly rate, with health benefits and
expenses, set by the Joint Council. Hourly rate is based on the actual hourly rate
of a mid-scale TA at the Campus Units. The Local Union shall pay salaries unless
paid by the University of California or the International Union, UAW. Officers
may choose to decline their salary for any specified period of time.”
Appendix III, Article 9, Section 1:
“The Campus Unit Joint Council Representatives will function as Campus Unit
Bargaining Teams. If there is a Local Union Bargaining Team, Campus Unit
Chairs and the Campus Unit Recording Secretaries will represent each
Campus Unit on the Team.”
A.2: Complaint 4.8
The original complaint:
Dear Ben,
I challenge and question the results of the recent triennial election at San Diego, on the
following bases:
Whereas a running total was kept the second day of voting on the side of boxes number
3, and 4 in the form of hash marks in red pen on the lids of those boxes;
Whereas that total was 194 at the close of polls;
Whereas that total of 194 was reported orally to campaign activists;
Whereas 28 additional votes were present in boxes 3 and 4 once these boxes of votes
were opened at the UAW 2865 offices in Berkeley;
Whereas boxes 3 and 4 were in the sole custody of an AWDU aligned poll worker
immediately following the close of polls and prior to shipment to Berkeley;
Whereas poll workers at San Diego acted contrary to official instructions and the dictates
of conscience by preferentially discouraging SWITCH-friendly individuals eligible for
membership from signing up as members and exercising voting privileges;
It is impossible to verify or infer that official instructions and the dictates of conscience
were followed by San Diego election officials during the post-voting process of securing
voted ballots for shipment to Berkeley.
It is impossible to verify or infer that the total number of votes in San Diego boxes 3 and
4 represents the total number of voted ballots cast by voters on day 2 of the San Diego
voting process.
Given that the total number of votes cannot be verified for the second day of voting, and
that poll workers had been observed actively discouraging eligible individuals from
obtaining membership and exercising their right to vote, the specter of doubt is cast on
the entire San Diego election process.
The evidence suggests that vote tampering sufficient to determine the outcome of the
election at San Diego may have occurred.
Sincerely,
Michelle Gallagher
A response from Adam Morgan, the San Diego Election Committee representative:
Whereas a running total was kept the second day of voting on the side of boxes number
3, and 4 in the form of hash marks in red pen on the lids of those boxes;
Whereas that total was 194 at the close of polls;
Whereas that total of 194 was reported orally to campaign activists;
Whereas 28 additional votes were present in boxes 3 and 4 once these boxes of votes
were opened at the UAW 2865 offices in Berkeley;
On both days of polling, I found that on a few occasions that I had been forgetting to tally
votes as they went into the boxes. I believe this was not the case for the volunteers, who
were very diligent, and only working shifts of up to 90 minutes. I spent over 4 hours as
the sole poll worker on Tuesday and over 6 hours on Wednesday, which was not easy
given the steady stream of voters for much of the day (and the 90+ degree heat). I did my
best to keep an estimate of how many people I thought I might have missed on a separate
piece of scratch paper, and as far as I can recall never forgot to either cross voters off the
roster or collect a voter registration card. At the end of each shift I counted up names
crossed off the roster to confirm that there were no exceptional discrepancies. The
numbers reported in the report I sent to the elections committee Wednesday night and on
the poll worker sign in and box forms I shipped to Berkeley are the result of this process
of doing my best to keep up throughout the day, as well as double-checking based on
roster records and registration cards.
Whereas boxes 3 and 4 were in the sole custody of an AWDU aligned poll worker
immediately following the close of polls and prior to shipment to Berkeley;
At the end of both days of polling I was the only poll worker working. On both days I
asked campaigners and candidates from both slates represented at UCSD to watch me as I
sealed and signed the two ballot boxes, and then to keep an eye on all of the union
materials (table, envelopes, etc.) as I carried both ballot boxes, registration cards, and all
unused ballots from that day to a secure location that I could lock while I went back to
deal with packing up and moving all other supplies. On Tuesday, that location was the
trunk of my car, and on Wednesday it was my office. I would be very surprised if any
candidates or campaigners present at the time of poll closing believed that the ballots
were in anyone's possession aside from my own at any point.
If the "AWDU aligned poll worker" is meant to refer to me, then all I can offer is that in
addition to attempting to be as impartial as possible throughout this whole process and
not identifying my own political leaning in this particular election to anyone involved in
the election, I am not even sure what AWDU is. Here at UCSD we had a SWITCh slate
and a POWER slate. -AM
Whereas poll workers at San Diego acted contrary to official instructions and the
dictates of conscience by preferentially discouraging SWITCH-friendly individuals
eligible for membership from signing up as members and exercising voting privileges;
As far as I know, this did not happen. Two relevant incidents come to mind. Towards
the beginning of polling on Tuesday I misinterpreted some language in the poll
instructions for registering non-union members which said something like "only graduate
students or undergraduate students who are current employees are eligible to register and
then vote." I took this to mean that both grad and undergrad students had to be currently
employed to register. In hindsight this was a mistake, but I almost discouraged one
person from voting due to this. Luckily, someone who was voting at the time pointed out
this misinterpretation, and I then registered that person and they voted. I did not and still
do not know who that person intended to vote for. The second incident occurred on
Wednesday when I came back from lunch. Don Johnson, a candidate and campaigner
that day, informed me that the poll worker turned away 3 medical students who were not
believed to be eligible to vote. I don't know the details of this claim, but Don told me that
he had asked them to come back and vote. I asked him to tell me by the end of the day if
they had not returned so that I could include it in my report to the EC. I did not hear from
him again about this. On a personal note, the poll worker who allegedly turned these
people away is a good friend, and I fully trust that if this did occur it was not out of any
sort of partisan intention to tamper.
As a final note, while other poll workers may have been more perceptive than I, my sense
is that it was generally not possible to tell with which slate an individual voter was
aligned. On day 1 there were likely more SWITCh-friendly voters just by virtue of
taking place in a courtyard in a STEM-heavy part of campus (as many SWITCh
candidates are STEM students), but most of Michelle's complaints seem to refer to day
2. I take the premise that it was even possible to discourage voters supporting a
particular slate over the other to be misguided. -AM
It is impossible to verify or infer that official instructions and the dictates of conscience
were followed by San Diego election officials during the post-voting process of securing
voted ballots for shipment to Berkeley.
It is impossible to verify or infer that the total number of votes in San Diego boxes 3 and
4 represents the total number of voted ballots cast by voters on day 2 of the San Diego
voting process.
Given that the total number of votes cannot be verified for the second day of voting, and
that poll workers had been observed actively discouraging eligible individuals from
obtaining membership and exercising their right to vote, the specter of doubt is cast on
the entire San Diego election process.
The evidence suggests that vote tampering sufficient to determine the outcome of the
election at San Diego may have occurred.
Personally, I am very confident that no tampering occurred at San Diego. While I report
a few irregularities here and in my report to the elections committee on 4/30/2014, I
believe that none of these corresponded to either avoidable neglect or partisan activities
on behalf of poll workers. -AM
A response from AWDU challengers:
Challengers’ Rebuttal to Allegations Regarding the April 29­30 UC­San Diego UAW
Election
It is our contention that any mistakes made by poll workers at UC-San Diego are
negligible and would not have any determinative impact on the election results at UC-San
Diego. In our response below we demonstrate three things: 1) All official elections
procedures safeguarding the legitimacy of the election results were properly followed by
UC-San Diego poll workers; and all evidence -- including the official tally sheet, UCSD
membership roster, and membership cards signed during election day -- attests to this
fact. 2) All of the allegations by the SWITCh challenger are fabricated and based on
hearsay; the challenger has presented no evidence to corroborate their claims and we
have included testimony from UC members present at the election that corroborates our
claims to the contrary. 3) Any negligible error on the part of poll workers is not
determinative of the election results, and because all elections procedures were followed
to safeguard the process, we contend that the UC-San Diego election results are
legitimate.
Below, please find specific rebuttals to each part of the SWITCh challenger’s statement
of allegations. Their statement can be understood in four parts and we have quoted their
claims in each part and provided specific responses below each of these claims:
Part 1: “Whereas a running total was kept the second day of voting on the side of boxes
number 3, and 4 in the form of hash marks in red pen on the lids of those boxes ...”
The following testimony is from challenger Munira Lokhandwala. Our analysis based on
this testimony follows. Testimony: Munira LokhandwalaI served as a challenger
during the vote count on May 1st and 2nd. On May 6th, elections head Ben Keller
allowed me to review elections materials from UCSD. After counting the total number of
checked names on the “Member Roster” for day two (marked in red) along with the total
number of new member cards signed on 4/30 (the second day of the election), I arrived at
a total of 223 votes cast on the second day. The official tally sheet mailed in with the
UCSD elections materials reported 222 votes cast on the second day. I do not believe
there is any significant discrepancy between the numbers reported by the elections
committee member at UCSD on the official tally sheet and the total number of members
who voted that I counted on the Member Roster and in new membership cards.
Our Findings: Further, with regards to the red hash marks, UAW elections policy does
not mandate that poll workers make hash marks on the ballot boxes. Official tallies are
arrived at by counting all the members marked on the member roster as well as all new
membership cards, not by writing hash marks on ballot boxes. Considering that tallies on
the side of ballot boxes are not a mandatory factor of a uaw 2865 election (no other
campus did such tallies), it seems that poll worker Adam Morgan only wrote hash marks
to keep track of the votes cast during his shift. Hash marks are not meant to be official
ballot counts as there may be inconsistencies across different poll workers in marking
them. Some poll workers may choose to use this method to keep track of their shift (as
Morgan did) while others may not choose to do so. Further, unofficial tally marks written
by one poll worker risk being incorrect as the poll worker may forget to tally each voter
during times when there is a large rush of voters. We believe that given the number of
different poll workers at UCSD, the strain of long hours for one poll worker at a given
time, and that hash mark tallies on boxes are never meant to be official in the first place,
that the tallies on boxes 3 and 4 do not reflect the actual number of ballots cast. In other
words, over the course of an eight-hour polling day and the large influx of people at
different times, it is easy to see how keeping track of such an unofficial tally could be
difficult. Since the official tally sheet that Morgan sent to Berkeley with the ballot boxes
reported 222 ballots cast, a number that he likely arrived at by recounting all the members
marked on the roster plus all new membership cards for April 30, this should be regarded
as the official number regardless of any unofficial hash marks on boxes 3 and 4. Again,
the only way the total number of votes can officially be calculated is by counting the
number of people marked off on the member roster plus all new membership cards.
Challenger Munira Lokhandwala in the testimony above corroborated that this
calculation came up with a total of 223 voters, only one more than what the official tally
sheet mailed in from UCSD reported. It is our contention that the actual ballots remain
consistent to what is reported on the roster and new membership cards, with a difference
of only one. This is not a significant discrepancy to void the election. On the contrary, it
attests to the almost perfect accuracy rate of the election committee’s official tally for
UCSD.
Part II: “Whereas that total was 194 at the close of polls; Whereas that total of 194 was
reported orally to campaign activists; Whereas 28 additional votes were present in boxes
3 and 4 once these boxes of votes were opened at the UAW 2865 offices in Berkeley ... ”
Challengers’ Findings: The total at close of polls that appears on the official tally sheet
from day two is 222. Again, the 194 number is an incomplete number based on
inconsistent hash mark tallies written by one poll worker purely for the purpose of his
personal record-keeping and does not account for the entirety of ballots cast that day.
Voters checked off on the membership roster plus new membership cards account for the
actual tally of votes.
Part III: “Whereas boxes 3 and 4 were in the sole custody of an AWDU aligned poll
worker immediately following the close of polls and prior to shipment to Berkeley ...”
Challengers’ Findings: At no time were the ballot boxes in the sole custody of any
AWDU-affiliated worker. Ballot boxes remained in the custody of Adam Morgan, the
officer who had been elected at a monthly membership meeting attended by both AWDU
and SWITCh members, with no objection from either side. Adam has never been, and has
never expressed any interest in being, affiliated with the AWDU, POWER, or SWITCh
slates. He has never been invited to or informed of any AWDU or POWER meetings, and
has never sided with any particular faction of the UCSD local unit. At the close of the
polls on April 30, he verbally expressed that he was going to take the ballot boxes to ship
them to Berkeley. Both SWITCh and POWER campaigners were present for these
remarks and nobody from either side objected to Morgan taking the boxes alone.
Part IV: “Whereas poll workers at San Diego acted contrary to official instructions and
the dictates of conscience by preferentially discouraging SWITCH-friendly individuals
eligible for membership from signing up as members and exercising voting privileges ...”
Please see the following testimony from three members present on at least one of the two
election days: Testimony: Michelle Glowa, UCB: On Tuesday the 29th from
10:30am-6pm, I personally witnessed people being signed up without any question of
who they were voting for. Rob Ackerman and I agreed and told a poll worker that despite
the language on the voting information sheet being ambiguous, that any graduate student
no matter if they are working currently or not can sign up for the union. Many individuals
were signed up as new members on Tuesday, the day that polling was in front of the
Engineering buildings.
Testimony: Ana Laura Martinez, UCSD: On Tuesday April 29th, I worked the polls
from 3:45 until 5:30pm, and 23 people voted. The standard process that I followed was to
first look up voting members on the roster, and if they were not on the list, I explained the
membership sign-up process. I had one graduate student refuse to sign-up, and I clearly
explained that without signing-up they would be ineligible to vote and they still refused
to sign-up. Nobody was discouraged from signing membership cards; on the contrary,
about six or seven members during my shift signed up and voted. Additionally, given that
I arrived 15 minutes early to my shift, I witnessed Adam performing his role as a poll
worker without regard to one's potential voting preferences and in line with the election
protocols of checking off members, registering new members, having members seal their
ballots and place them in the ballot box.
With regards to the red hash marks on the ballot box on the second day (Wednesday,
April 30th): When I voted that day and noticed Adam placing red hash marks on the
ballot box he said that keeping track of the votes on the previous day was difficult and
stated it was his way to keep track of votes during his shift. It is important to note that
keeping track of votes during one's shift is tricky, especially when working alone, so I
saw this technique rather helpful. When I worked the voting table the previous day, I
wrote people's names on a separate sheet of paper to help keep tally but in no way did
they represent the total number of votes for the whole day, just during my
shift." Testimony: Ly Nguyen, UCSD: On Wednesday April 30, I came to vote in the
UAW triennial election at San Diego. I witnessed Adam Morgan, the poll worker, signing
up four people to become members while I was in the line waiting. The line was very
long because people showed up and gave their last names to Adam expecting to be on the
list instead of telling him that they needed to sign up for membership. Adam searched for
their names in the roster but it turned out that they needed to sign membership cards so he
gave them all cards. I showed up a little after 2pm and waited until almost 3 to vote after
all those people had signed membership cards, given them to Adam, and voted.
Our Findings: Given the testimony above, it is clear that eyewitnesses saw Adam
Morgan signing up members at the polling table so the claim that he was discouraging
student-workers from signing up is erroneous. The testimony from Ana Laura Martinez
also makes clear that other poll workers were also giving clear instructions on the
membership sign up process and signing up members in the event that they wanted to
vote.
Conclusion: Based on the above testimony and findings, we confidently contend that the
April 29-30 triennial election results at UC-San Diego are completely legitimate, reflect
the will of voters, and necessitate the transition of San Diego elected positions as soon as
possible. To recap our findings: 1) The official vote tally sent from UC-San Diego was
calculated as official election policy mandates by counting the number of members
marked off on the UCSD “Member Roster” plus the number of all new membership
cards. This number is consistent (except for a negligible discrepancy of one ballot) with
the number of votes on the official tally sheet. 2) Testimony corroborates that the hash
mark method used by Adam Morgan was his own personal method of keeping track of
votes and was not intended by him to serve as an official vote count. These hash marks
cannot be used to determine the legitimacy of the election results as they are unofficial. 3)
Testimony corroborates that a number of poll workers, including Adam Morgan, signed
up members to vote in the election. At no time were people discouraged from signing up.
Given the above, we hope that the legitimacy of the election will be officially sanctioned
and announced as soon as possible.