Hon. David N. Edelstein
U.S. District Judge
U.S. District Court for Southern New York
40 Center Street, Suite 2104
New York, New York 10007

RE: Dismissal of Teamsters Election Officer Michael G. Cherkasky

Dear Judge Edelstein:

Michael G. Cherkasky should be dismissed from his appointment as Election Officer for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters due to an apparent conflict of interest. The appearance of this conflict and the manner in which it was disclosed demonstrates conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of this Court. To retain Mr. Cherkasky would make a mockery of the landmark 1989 Consent Decree and Title IV of the Landrum-Griffin Act.

Before leaving her post, former Election Officer Barbara Zack Quindel stated, "The consent decree requires accountability." Teamsters, as well as their court-appointed overseers, should have accountability required. In fact, the union's federal overseers should be held to an even higher standard of ethics and accountability given the nature of their work.

Mrs. Quindel had another profound statement upon her recusal from the Teamsters investigation on September 23, 1997 due to a potential conflict of interest. Her letter of resignation stated: "Whether or not these allegations are true, the fact that they have been asserted at this point in the investigation places me in an untenable position with respect to the
investigation and issuance of any supplemental decision on the matter of disqualification." She added, "I have concluded that these new allegations create the appearance of a conflict of interest. I must recuse myself from any further investigation in this matter."

Mrs. Quindel removed herself due to a connection to former Ron Carey campaign consultant Martin Davis through a small political party in which she and her husband were actively involved, the New Party. Mr. Davis has already pled guilty to multiple criminal charges in connection with the Carey campaign's alleged money laundering scheme.

If Mrs. Quindel felt it necessary to recuse herself due to circuitous ties to Mr. Davis, then Mr. Cherkasky's more direct ties to Mr. Davis should also constitute the necessity for recusal. Mr. Cherkasky sought Teamsters' contracts using Mr. Davis as a reference. In a 1994 letter to then-Teamsters General Counsel Judy Scott, who has also been connected to the Carey campaign scandal, Mr. Cherkasky wrote: "I am writing at the suggestion of Martin Davis."

Subsequent to the disclosure of the Cherkasky-Davis association, Mr. Cherkasky has denied any conflict of interest. However, the appearance of conflict does exist. It is this appearance of a conflict that places him "in an untenable position with respect to the investigation."

If an investigator was involved in planning or promoting a transaction or operating an entity that is connected to any issue in a case, then the investigator should not participate in the case so as to avert a conflict of interest or other violations of professional conduct.

Conflict of interest rules should be more strictly applied in this context than in most other areas of law. The Teamsters case is a highly political and volatile situation. If the Election Officer appears to have links or sympathies with one side, how can a fair and proper investigation and election be held? One side will not have confidence in Mr. Cherkasky's impartiality; and thus, they will be far less cooperative with the investigation and other matters. The other side will perceive Mr. Cherkasky as an ally and try to use him, directly or indirectly, to their advantage. Mr. Cherkasky's apparent conflict of interest places the integrity of the upcoming rerun election in serious question.

Without an Election Officer who is, and is perceived to be, totally and unquestionably impartial, the rank-and-file Teamster suffers. Union democracy suffers. Teamsters deserve a corruption free election and should not have to tolerate any more delays and embarrassments.

Finally, the fact that Mr. Cherkasky failed to adequately disclose this apparent conflict of interest at the time of his appointment is exceptionally disturbing.

In Mr. Cherkasky's letter to the Court of December 2 -- the same day he was appointed -- he denied any potential conflicts of interest. Only after Mr. Cherkasky had secured the Court's appointment, did he notify the Court, via a December 10 letter, of his association with Mr. Davis. It is highly doubtful that a person in Mr. Cherkasky's position knowing the recent history of the Teamsters case would forget this embarrassing connection to a central figure in the investigation.

How can the Court put its faith in Mr. Cherkasky's investigation and oversight, when he failed the Court in his first and most simple task of providing information about himself?

However, the pivotal question to the Court is -- would the Court have appointed Mr. Cherkasky had it known of the Cherkasky-Davis association prior to the appointment?

The Court's obligation to inquire about conflicts of interest was reportedly fulfilled by the U.S. Attorney, a political appointee. The court had a reasonable awareness of potential conflict of interest knowing that an actual conflict of interest would adversely affect the new Election Officer's performance. Yet the Court's due diligence search was circumvented by Mr. Cherkasky's omission of vital information.

Given the recent resignations of Mrs. Quindel and Amy Gladstein due to conflict of interest concerns, it would seem illogical that the Court would risk yet another Election Officer debacle had it known about Mr. Cherkasky's connection to Mr. Davis. Surely, the Court could find an equally qualified candidate who did not have any real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case.

If the Court would have not appointed Mr. Cherkasky had it known about the Cherkasky-Davis association, then the Court should not continue to employ Mr. Cherkasky now that the Court has this vital information.

In order to protect the integrity of the investigation and rerun election, the National Legal and Policy Center respectfully requests that the Court act on the information disclosed in Mr. Cherkasky's December 10 letter and dismiss him as Teamsters Election Officer without further delay.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Boehm, Esq.
Chairman

Related Media Release

Organized Labor Accountability Project

NLPC Home Page