[Letter], B-279886, April 28, 1998

B-279886 Apr 28, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Since the funds remain "available until expended" and the election rerun is a continuation of the 1996 election. Since an appropriation act is non-permanent legislation. The costs of supervising a rerun of a 1996 International Brotherhood of Teamsters election are programmatic costs that. Neither would that fund be available to pay for those costs if the court were to directly order the government to pay those costs (in the manner of injunctive relief). For ease of discussion we have grouped our analysis of the issues under one of three headings: the 1997 Justice Appropriations Act. Your questions and our answers are set o ut below. The purpose of the Consent Decree and the changes it mandated was the elimination of the "hideous influence of organized crime" in the Union's operations. View Decision B-279886 April 28, 1998 DIGEST The Honorable Peter Hoekstra Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Education and the Workforce House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: By letter dated April 22, 1998, you raised a number of issues concerning the availability of federal funds to pay the expenses of supervising a rerun of the 1996 International Brotherhood of Teamsters election. You asked for our response by April 28, 1998. Although we would typically solicit the views of interested departments and agencies in preparing our response, because of the short time frame requested, we did not obtain the views of the Departments of Justice, Treasury, or Labor. Your questions relate generally to the availability of funds appropriated in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Division A, title I, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (1997 Justice Appropriations Act), the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440 (1997) (1998 Justice Appropriations Act) and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-78, 111 Stat. 1467 (1997) (1998 Labor Appropriations Act), and the permanent, indefinite appropriation commonly referred to as the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1304. For ease of discussion we have grouped our analysis of the issues under one of three headings: the 1997 Justice Appropriations Act, the 1998 Justice and Labor Appropriations Acts, and the Judgment Fund. Your questions and our answers are set o ut below. I. Background On March 14, 1989, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) entered a consent order (the Consent Decree) embodying a voluntary settlement of charges brought by the United States pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964, against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union). In the Consent Decree, the Union agreed to a number of "sweeping changes in the [Union's] electoral and disciplinary processes." United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 86 F.3d 271, 272 (2d Cir. 1996). The purpose of the Consent Decree and the changes it mandated was the elimination of the "hideous influence of organized crime" in the Union's operations. United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 742 F. Supp. 94, 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). One of the reforms mandated by the Consent Decree was the appointment of an Election Officer to supervise, at Union expense, the 1991 election of Union officers. Consent Decree, Para. 12(D). The Consent Decree specified that the Election Officer had the right to distribute election materials to Union members and to supervise the balloting process and certify the election results. Id. In October 1989, the District Court concluded that the Election Officer's duty to "supervise" the 1991 election was "expansive and proactive," giving the Election Officer a "broad mandate to intervene in, and coordinate, the [Union's] electoral process up to and including the next general convention." United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 723 F. Supp. 203, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). The Union also agreed in the Consent Decree that the United States had the option to have the Election Officer supervise, at the government's expense, the Union's 1996 election. /1/ The United States availed itself of this option, covering the cost of the Election Officer's supervision of the 1996 election out of funds appropriated to the Departments of Labor and Justice. See United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 88 Civ. 4486 (DNE), slip op. at 6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 1997) (Teamsters (D. Ct.)).