GREENBURGH CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES-- FEBRUARY 18, 2000
(approved March 02, 2000)
Present:
Jo Brill, Andrew Goodman, Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Claire Lee, Harriet Leib, Erin Malloy, Susan Mancuso, Amy Paulin (invited guest), Rev. Wilbert Preston, William Pohlmann (for Sally Schaadt), Mike Reynolds, Ervin Schliefer, Francis Sheehan, Lester Steinman, Mary Tobias
Absent:
Sally Schaadt, Charlotte Schienberg
The second meeting of the commission was called to order at 8:35am in room 208 at Pace University, 1 Martine Avenue, White Plains. Various handouts were distributed. Draft February 3, 2000 meeting minutes were also distributed.
Co-chairs Catherine Lederer-Plaskett and Harriet Leib welcomed the attendees.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett distributed an agenda and said approval of the February 3 minutes will be postponed so members have an opportunity to review them, adding that in the future the minutes will be sent in advance of subsequent meetings.
Harriet Leib introduced Amy Paulin, a member of Westchester County’s Singer Commission which studied county-wide campaign finance reform.
Amy Paulin said that there is a real need for campaign reform and cited as examples: the 1991 Ferrick Commission which highlighted abuses (e.g., involving Playland), common fund-raising practices in Westchester, the Dunn/Spano Campaign for County Executive, and the cost of County Legislator races which has reached $50,000 for an open seat and exceeded $100,000 for a challenged seat.
Ms. Paulin outlined how Westchester County’s Singer Commission was created, beginning with (then) County Executive Andrew O’Rourke’s proposed legislation in 1994 to establish a commission. By Fall 1995 the County Board of Legislators approved the Singer Commission and by June 1996 members of the commission were appointed, charged with submitting a report approximately ten months later. Meetings began in July 1996. All parties were represented except the Conservative party, which chose not to participate. The Singer Commission submitted its report to the County Board of Legislators in April 1997.
Ms. Paulin said the Singer Commission recommended a non-partisan Westchester Campaign Finance Board be created. It was a key provision and they were proud of the recommended non-partisan composition. However, the County Board of Legislators, believing that it was not possible to create a non-partisan board, changed the proposed Campaign Finance Board to one that would have a bipartisan board with Democratic- and Republican-appointed members. To address the Singer Commission’s quest for impartiality, the County Board of Legislators added a provision for an Independent Counsel and approved the legislation, planning for it to appear on the November 1997 ballot. The County Executive vetoed it.
Ms. Paulin said the reason the Westchester campaign reform legislation was defeated was not the addition of the Independent Counsel provision because the legislation was resurrected again without the Independent Counsel provision and it was defeated a second time. The County Board of Legislators wanted the Independent Counsel to report directly to the Campaign Finance Board but the County Executive objected. To get the legislation passed, the Singer Commission went along with the County Executive, recommending removal of the Independent Counsel. The County Board of Legislators, who liked the idea of an Independent Counsel, put the provision back in, approved the legislation, and sent it to the County Executive, who then vetoed it. Remarkably, the County Board of Legislators didn’t override the veto even though they had previously approved the legislation with more than enough votes to survive an override. It was voted down by one vote for reasons unrelated to campaign finance reform. The initiative was recently revived for the first time since the veto override defeat.
Ms. Paulin said the Singer Commission met biweekly, starting July 1996. They were advised that the Supreme Court prohibited spending caps unless there was public financing. It was quickly decided that some form of public campaign finance was needed. The County Clerk and District Attorney offices were excluded from consideration because, according to a September 1996 legal decision, they are considered state offices. The Singer Commission targeted the County Executive and County Board of Legislators seats. They started by examining the NYC Campaign Finance Law, as well as others. The Singer Commission also conducted three outreach meetings. The outreach meetings were poorly attended, however the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) and Common Cause provided input, as did County Legislators and the County Executive. The Singer Commission went over each clause in the NYC law. They looked at fundraising methods throughout the County. Do candidates raise money individually? Does the party raise money for their candidates? The Singer Commission also looked at the soft-money issue. What they found in NYC is that literature can easily be examined to determine if it is candidate-specific and, if so, can be counted as part of a candidate’s campaign financing. The Singer Commission also considered the comments and recommendations of outside experts knowledgeable about campaign finance reform. Bob Stern was particularly helpful. He was/is the co-director of the "Center for Government Studies" in California.
Ms. Paulin emphasized that it is okay to disagree with experts because there is no exact way of doing this type of study. Experts are helpful in giving direction. Andrew Greenblatt from Common Cause was very helpful to the Singer Commission but he is no longer with the group. Blair Horner and Richard Kirsch provided the Singer Commission with some input as well. Ms. Paulin suggested that Nicolle Gordon be interviewed because Ms. Gordon helped the Singer Commission and it would be helpful to find out what she would now recommend, in retrospect, be included in a campaign finance reform law.
Ms. Paulin said the New York City system encourages small money donations. Initially New York City had 1:1 matching funds. It was later changed to 4:1, $4 of public money for every $1 of candidate-raised donations, subject to several limitations.
Jo Brill said the reason for the increase from 1:1 to 4:1 was bizarre. The finance board didn’t ask for the matching funds to jump from 1:1 to 4:1.
Ms. Paulin said everyone on the Singer Commission worked hard and was in favor of a Westchester Campaign Finance Board after the public hearings were concluded. Even though there was disagreement regarding the preferred number of Campaign Finance Board members, they agreed that an odd number was needed to avoid a stalemate. Five members, similar to the NYC board, was considered. The Singer Commission decided on seven members for the proposed Westchester County Campaign Finance Board.
Ms. Paulin said that having an Independent Counsel is critical should a local campaign finance board be created. An Independent Counsel is a much fairer choice than having a Town Attorney serve as counsel since a Town Attorney works for a partisan Town Board. The ultimate goal must be to create a fair process.
Ms. Paulin said a fair campaign finance proposal also requires an independent auditor be appointed. Auditors are critical in making sure the process is fair. Candidates know that their filings are rarely scrutinized by the Board of Elections. Rules are commonly violated. The NYC Campaign Finance Board continues to find violations even though candidates know every filing is scrutinized and error-checking software is distributed to candidates. The auditors are needed so candidates know their books will be examined, and to make sure everyone plays by the rules. It is a matter of fairness to those who do follow the rules. At first everyone is nice and complies, but if one candidate breaks the rules, the other candidates will try to level the field. The auditor protects the system from failing. The Singer Commission recommended a full-time auditor and even recommended a pay scale-- grade 14.
Ms. Paulin asked and was informed the Greenburgh Town Supervisor is a two-year term. She said, on a two-year cycle, as soon as an election is over, the next campaign begins. All models examined used a two-year cycle. She discussed the cost of having a Campaign Finance Board. In NYC the cost is small compared to the overall NYC budget. The cost of having a Westchester Campaign Finance Board, Independent Counsel, and independent auditors was not a factor in its defeat at the County level. In Greenburgh the staff costs will be the same, an Independent Counsel and an independent auditor is needed. Greenburgh’s overall budget is much smaller so how to finance the board is a factor that must be considered.
Andrew Goodman asked if the county considered forming a board that could be utilized by towns and cities in a cooperative effort to share staff costs.
Ms. Paulin said that the county had not considered such a proposal.
Jo Brill said she wanted to deviate from the agenda momentarily to discuss the handouts. The first handout, an October 27, 1997, memo from Yorktown Town Councilman Nicholas Bianco to his Town Board, was a proposal to create a Yorktown Campaign Finance Board. It never passed. Attached was a summary written by Nicholas Bianco highlighting the obstacles he faced. It was written at Jo Brill’s request. Another handout contained legislation that actually did pass. It was resolution 74-1998, Act 85-1998, involving computerization of financial records. When the commission’s recommendation for a Campaign Finance Board was voted down, computerization of campaign financial records was adopted. Many on the Singer Commission though it was a consolation prize. However, they later realized differently. It was an important step toward increasing disclosure. She added that it is not ideal legislation-- it contains words such as "urge" and "voluntary" throughout.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked how long the Singer Commission took to develop their recommendations.
Ms. Paulin said they worked from Summer 1996 to Summer 1997, about ten months.
Andrew Goodman said any system the Greenburgh commission recommends must be voluntary since the state preempts local regulation in this area. Virtually anything we do must involve voluntary participation, he said.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said there were issues during the last election, e.g. cable abuses, that could be addressed at the local level, adding that goals would be discussed later, as listed on the agenda.
Francis Sheehan asked if members could get a copy of the Singer Commission documents.
Jo Brill said that she can get members copies but the report is voluminous. She would like to make only as many copies as absolutely necessary due to its size.
Francis Sheehan said that he did not care about thickness, that he would read the entire document. He said he thought it important since the Singer Commission has been so frequently mentioned.
William Pohlmann questioned if having an independent Independent Counsel is possible in Greenburgh. He said he is the only Republican at the table and is concerned that the opinions of other groups are being ignored. As the Republican candidate in the last general election against the incumbent Town Supervisor he has many opinions he would like to express about how the process in Greenburgh unfairly discriminates against challengers.
Ms. Paulin said that Mr. Pohlmann’s participation on the commission is critical in developing a fair system. She said that a fair system can be developed, adding that the system in New York City works because the participants want it to work. If a group is appointed to be fair and fair-minded people are appointed, and the Town Supervisor does not influence who the staff is, it will work out, she said.
William Pohlmann said that the power of the incumbency in Greenburgh includes the use of intimidation. He said he could not get contributions for his campaign because of fear of retribution by incumbents who have been in office for so many years.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she was sorry that Mr. Pohlmann was not present at the last meeting because there was considerable agreement at that meeting that there is a problem that must be addressed and that outreach meetings are needed to solicit opinions from anyone who wants to offer an opinion.
Mike Reynolds said that he was also a candidate in the last election challenging an incumbent.
Francis Sheehan said that he was a Democratic primary candidate, challenging Democratic incumbents in office for many years, which was a unique experience.
Ms. Paulin said primaries are an important part of the election process and must be considered in any reform measure developed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett repeated that it was amazing at the last meeting how much agreement there was that real reform is needed.
William Pohlmann said that there is an orchestrated effort in Greenburgh against Republicans. He said that Republicans don’t stand a chance at the general election. He said that the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations didn’t even hold a debate for the general election because they assumed the election was over after the Democratic primary.
Francis Sheehan objected to Mr. Pohlmann’s characterization of why the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations did not hold a general election debate, saying it was not accurate.
William Pohlmann repeated that candidates in Greenburgh don’t stand a chance against incumbents and said that even the League of Woman Voters debates worked against challengers.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that these issues will be addressed but asked that the group return to the agenda.
Jo Brill said that she had to leave the meeting early and again referred to the handouts. In addition to those previously mentioned she said there are clippings which she provided for educational purposes. She has many resources, including model campaign finance legislation and the names of contacts. Common Cause’s executive director is now Rachel Leon, not Andrew Greenblatt as indicated in one of the handouts.
Jo Brill said public financing may or may not be right for Greenburgh. Auditing is becoming increasingly important to her. The New York City Campaign Finance Board still finds mistakes and attempts at fraud even though filers know the documents will be examined by the independent auditors and software is given candidates which is designed to catch mistakes. They have a hard time finding auditors in New York City. It takes a special person. The NYC Campaign Finance Board works hard to preserve their independence, which is difficult since they are part of the city’s budget process. They do all their audits internally and significant fines have been imposed, eliciting retribution by elected politicians. As an example, Mayor Dinkins received significant fines for campaign violations, then prior to leaving office, he retaliated against a Campaign Finance Board member, denying reappointment.
Jo Brill said the Singer Commission started out by getting to know each other, deciding how to deal with the press, and holding public hearings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that dealing with the press is on today’s agenda.
Jo Brill said that the mission of this commission is to study campaign finance reform and make recommendations to the Greenburgh Town Board. The The Scarsdale Inquirer article is misleading because there is no presupposition about what the commission should recommend. She said she is really excited about the spirit and enthusiasm in the room.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Ms. Brill, adding that Ms. Brill had been very helpful and a significant resource upon which she repeatedly relied while co-chair Harriet Leib was on vacation.
William Pohlmann asked if Jo Brill would respond to a question about the commission’s charge before leaving. He said that the recommendations are going back to the Town board. He doesn’t think the recommendations should go back to the Town Board if the commission is to be independent. He questioned why the commission’s recommendations to the Town Board should involve voluntary compliance.
Jo Brill explained that, as Lester Steinman pointed out earlier, voluntary compliance may be required by NYS law which limits what local governments can place on a ballot in the form of a referendum. That limitation is not reflected in the charge-- it is set by state law. She said she is not favoring any particular approach.
William Pohlmann asked if representatives of the Independence Party and Conservative Party were asked to be members of this commission.
Jo Brill said they were not invited, that, alternatively, there would be eight parties represented at the table had minor party representatives been invited. She said they also didn’t consider the different factions of the Democratic Party. There had to be a limit, she said.
William Pohlmann said he wasn’t criticizing, just asking a question.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that, as the draft February 3, 2000, meeting minutes are being proofed, the "press issue" needs to be addressed. She proposed that the entire commission approve press releases before press releases are issued.
William Pohlmann said that he questions everything Supervisor Feiner does. He thinks he knows why the Supervisor created the commission and how he will exploit it in the press. He will not respond publicly if the commission issues press releases but reserves the right to respond if Supervisor Feiner gives comments to the press.
Jo Brill said that she has been troubled by the press statements and has spoken to Supervisor Feiner about them. She said that, as part of the initial negotiations with Supervisor Feiner regarding the composition of the commission and its charge, he agreed to let the commission work independently. She recently reminded him of that agreement and again asked that he not make self-serving statements.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that press issues have been a major concern since the last meeting.
William Pohlmann said he commends the co-chairs and Jo Brill for trying to deal with Supervisor Feiner’s use of the press, but, nevertheless, must reserve the right to criticize statements if made by the Supervisor. He repeated that he would not respond to statements released by the commission.
Susan Mancuso said we need to keep politics out of the discussion because there is a very short time period for this commission to do its work. The best thing is to say nothing to the media, to concentrate on getting the work done. Whatever we do must have the utmost integrity.
Rev. Wilbert Preston agreed. He was surprised the media so quickly obtained his name and called him for a quote. When we are ready, then we can have a press release. He does not want to speak on behalf of the group because quotes become a matter of interpretation.
Andrew Goodman said he was surprised when he received a call from the press on a Sunday night asking for a quote. We need to decide how to handle press inquiries. Simply saying "no comment" won’t work. He suggested having a person to whom the press can be referred, adding that the commission needs to be compliant with the Open Meetings Law.
Lester Steinman said there is no way to stop someone from speaking to the press if someone wants to do it, but the members are all adults and if the members want the commission to be successful they will work together.
William Pohlmann said that he wants the commission to work and that is why he won’t comment unless the Supervisor initiates the comments.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said we all need to do our best to be fair and suggested press statements be issued by the chairs.
Andrew Goodman agreed and proposed an amendment-- that the meetings be open to the public. If the press wants to know what the commission is doing they can attend the meetings.
Mike Reynolds agreed with the amendment and stated that any press release be limited to just listing the next meeting time.
Claire Lee said that if anyone attends they should not be allowed to speak.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett disagreed, stating that the work of the commission could be brought to a halt if attendees could interrupt members and speak at will. An agenda must be followed for the commission to timely complete its work.
Harriet Leib said that there will be public meetings for public comment.
Lester Steinman said that opening the meeting to the press may result in "half-baked quotes" appearing in the press that will need a response.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said that the public may also skew what they hear if they are allowed to attend.
Andrew Goodman said that he is on the commission because he is cynical of government. He would like the meetings open to all.
Erin Malloy said that the benefits from opening the meetings far outweighs any downside.
Francis Sheehan said that closing the meetings to the public will only lead to rumors. He said, if the meetings are open, the likelihood is that no one will attend; if the meetings are closed, the public will think the members are trying to hide something. He said he could not support closing the meetings.
Ervin Schliefer suggested opening the meetings and closing them, if necessary, should attendees get out of hand.
Mary Tobias supported opening the meetings and suggested listing the meeting dates in the newspaper’s "daybook".
Rev. Wilbert Preston suggested closing the next few meetings until the commission establishes its goals. He said that, based on the considerable feedback he received from his one quote in the newspaper, the meetings might be very-well attended.
Susan Mancuso asked if the Singer Commission meetings were open to the public.
Ervin Schliefer said all the meetings were closed. There were no outsiders.
Susan Mancuso asked if conduct was an issue at the Singer Commission meetings.
Ervin Schliefer said that, since the Singer Commission meetings were closed, conduct wasn’t an issue.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett called for a vote. Should the meetings be open to the public. Yes, approved unanimously. Should the next 2-3 meetings be open to the public? Yes, approved with 3 opposed. Should speaking at the commission’s work sessions be limited to commission members and invited guests? Yes, approved unanimously. Should press statements be issued solely by the chairs? Yes, approved unanimously.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the budget needs to be addressed. She is getting all the bills. A source of funds is needed, otherwise each member will have to contribute for the coffee. She said having the town support the commission financially may be a conflict of interest. There was general agreement with her statement. Ms. Lederer-Plaskett said Kathleen Rutherford might be a source of funds. She asked if there were any objections to having Kathleen Rutherford provide support, to which there were no objections.
Harriet Leib said that Kathleen Rutherford offered to supply coffee and bagels. She will talk to her about copy costs.
Mike Reynolds volunteered to supply bagels at future meetings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked for suggestions regarding the calendar. 8:30am is not good for invited guests from New York City and some members. She suggested alternating meetings or moving to evenings-only meetings. She also suggested setting several meetings at once. She knows that room availability at Pace University is more limited during the evenings and that parking is problematic.
Harriet Leib said that she will check space availability at the Rochambeau School, which is on Fisher Avenue in White Plains and used as the headquarters for the League of Women Voters.
Claire Lee suggested staggering the days.
Harriet Leib agreed to staggering days and staggering day/evening meetings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that establishing a calendar is directly related to item 3 on the agenda. Time is short. We need to decide how often to meet to accomplish the goals to be established later.
Andrew Goodman asked if smaller groups would help meet the goals within the timeframe.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that smaller groups would be a good idea once the goals are established.
Andrew Goodman and Lester Steinman said they are looking at relevant preexisting legal issues.
A discussion ensued, centered on picking the next meeting dates. It was quickly decided that there are no dates when all members can attend-- the goal is to maximize attendance, recognizing perfect attendance was not realistic. It was mentioned that some evenings conflict with Town meetings. All Wednesday evenings are taken by either Town Board or Planning Board meetings. The fourth Thursday is the Zoning Board of Appeals. The third Tuesday is the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations meeting. Rev. Wilbert Preston said he holds church services Thursday evenings. As a compromise between members wanting early evening meetings and others wanting 8:00pm meetings, it was decided all evening meetings will begin at 7:30pm.
Harriet Leib suggested the third meeting be held Thursday, March 2, 2000, at 7:30pm at a location to be decided. There were no objections.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested the fourth meeting be held Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at 7:30pm at a location to be decided. There were no objections.
Harriet Leib suggested the fifth meeting be held Thursday, March 30, at 8:30am, at a place to be decided. There were no objections.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett next turned the discussion to the committee’s goals and asked each member to discuss goals the commission should consider.
Harriet Leib interjected that this is most important part of the meeting, hearing what each member thinks needs to be addressed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the voluntary candidate compliance issues were already addressed. She said we don’t want to propose anything that is so onerous that candidates can’t comply who do not have a party supporting them and are trying to do all the work him/herself. Voluntary contribution limits and changes to the ethics law should be considered. She referred to a recent article regarding an elected official in Port Chester using cable television to make an 11 minutes address while prohibiting an opponent access to cable television. There are also problems with Greenburgh cable access television that needs to be addressed.
Ervin Schliefer said that he hopes the commission can draft a statute similar to the Singer Commission which is based on the NYC system. If we can do that we have done a fine job. Cable access television issues are secondary.
William Pohlmann said spending problems must be addressed. The Ethics Law has to have teeth. The power of the incumbency is abused. He said Supervisor Feiner frequently sends out letters to the public solely expressing concern and asking for feedback-- the letters are not issue-specific. The mailings are actually campaign literature. Cable TV is also a major issue. He agrees with Mike Reynolds’ statement in the last meeting minutes-- if the press did its job we wouldn’t need campaign finance reform. The Town manipulated cable access, playing the debates when the World Series was on. Primary elections raise a whole new set of issues. There should be no dead-time on cable access channels. The print media is also a problem in Greenburgh because they don’t cover the elections in any detail. He said commission members sitting at the table didn’t know who he was and he was the Republican candidate for Town Supervisor last November. He summarized four issues that need to be addressed: (1) inadequate press coverage of local elections in Greenburgh, (2) an ineffective Ethics Law, (3) abuse of incumbency, including constant use of the Supervisor’s office for campaigning, and (4) cable access television abuses.
Francis Sheehan said that he distributed a memorandum at the last meeting which highlights his concerns regarding the inadequacies of the town’s Ethics Law. The memorandum includes suggestions how to revise the law to make it effective. There must be a mechanism for residents to petition the Ethics Board to investigate questionable Town Board actions. Currently, only the Town Board can initiate an inquiry by the Ethics Board. Taking campaign contributions from those having applications before the town or who do business with the town is wrong and needs to be prohibited. Some form of campaign finance reform is needed to encourage small donations and prohibit non-incumbents, who are not covered by the town’s Ethics Law, from accepting campaign monies from those doing business with the town. His memo to the commission suggests ways of doing that. There are serious problems with cable access television and that it is used by incumbents against opponents. The Town Board passed a resolution last year limiting cable access by political candidates but it was not enforced against incumbents. The incumbents even scheduled a special "puff piece" about the services the town offers residents to play immediately after each playing of the LWV-sponsored debate. Many believed the incumbents did poorly at the debate and the incumbents’ scheduling and use of the tape with them on it clearly showed how incumbent-control of cable doesn’t work. He said the incumbents even showed the tape on the eve of the election in violation of their own resolution.
Mary Tobias said she is not sure about public financing at this point. She said that everyone familiar with cable access television in Greenburgh knows it does not work. Cable needs to be addressed and it can be addressed without a referendum. It is a local problem that can be handled by the Town Board locally if they wanted to. The Ethics Code needs to be changed to prohibit campaign contributions from anyone doing business before the town. However, the Greenburgh Town Board must approve any change to the Ethics Code. It is unlikely the Greenburgh Town Board would vote to change the Ethics Code to prohibit those contributions.
Susan Mancuso said campaign finance is not the problem-- it creates the problem. Many of the concerns mentioned involve other than financing. Money gives you access, so the commission needs to make sure all candidates are on an even playing field. Revising the Ethics Code will not satisfy all the concerns mentioned-- a separate chapter of Town Law would need to be created.
Claire Lee said that she agreed to be on the commission because things are so bad that anything the commission can do will only make matters better. She said just improving cable access would be a very significant accomplishment.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said the power of the incumbency needs to be addressed. The ability to finance a campaign does not equate to the ability to perform in office. The financing is simply a vehicle to get in office. Finance must be looked at. The commission must take the power out of financing a campaign. There should be a policy that all have access to cable, including anyone running for office. If you do not have access to the public, you can’t get known. He said he didn’t know Mr. Pohlmann was a candidate for Town Supervisor in the last election.
Erin Malloy said cable access is important, not a side-issue, and campaign financing is critical. Resolving the problems with cable access should not be difficult. She urged the commission not to lose sight of campaign financing issues.
Andrew Goodman said that he would speak from a practical perceptive. The commission needs to finish by June. Since the country was founded, candidates have complained about the power of the incumbency and then, once elected, have used that power to stay in office. The commission can’t change that. The commission’s title is "Finance Reform" and we should stick to that issue. Having read the materials distributed last time and having listened to Ms. Paulin today, he recognizes our options are limited philosophically and legally. The goals need to be focused, which can be done by the next meeting. Subcommittees should be formed at the next meeting so they can begin their work in March. April should be used for public hearings. Writing the report should commence in May. The report needs to be finalized by June so recommendations can be placed on the November ballot. Financing of campaigns is the critical issue before us and matching contributions might be appropriate.
Mike Reynolds said the commission should use the work of the Singer commission as a model. He suggested that a candidate’s campaign contributions go directly to the Campaign Finance Board instead of the candidate to assure contribution limit compliance and relieve candidates of much of the paperwork. He agreed with Catherine Lederer-Plaskett’s earlier comment that requirements should not be so burdensome that third party candidates are discouraged from running. Having the Campaign Finance Board manage the deposits/expenses and filing requirements would allow third party candidates additional time to campaign. He disagrees with comments that cable access is not related to campaign finance. Access to the public via cable access television has a dollar value and, therefore, cable access issues must be addressed. He said Mr. Pohlmann opened a can of worms when he raised the issue of taxpayer-financed mailings by incumbents. What dollar value do you put on incumbents’ free mailings?, he asked. It is not realistic to not put a dollar value on it-- it is part of the power of the incumbency which needs to be addressed.
Lester Steinman said he is not a Greenburgh resident. He is on the committee, he believes, because of his legal background. He said it would be a mistake to limit the commission’s work and not address the broader issues of campaign finance reform specific to the Town of Greenburgh, issues which can then be applied on a broader scale elsewhere. The commission is not working in a box so it should try to address the real problems facing the town, including cable issues.
Harriet Leib said she is a resident of the Town of Greenburgh. She said cable access is important and can be tied to limiting spending in campaigns. The county passed legislation prohibiting mailings from incumbents for a certain time period in advance of an election. The commission should look at that legislation. Lobbyists should also be limited in when they can contribute. Most important, she said, is that an oversight group be in place to monitor compliance-- otherwise, anything proposed would be lost.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that she agrees with Lester Steinman-- it is an important time to look broadly at Town of Greenburgh issues. She said she is the chair of the town’s Antenna Review Board which adopted an ordinance very specific to the town. It won’t work elsewhere without modification because it is so specific but it works in Greenburgh because of its specificity. Greenburgh-specific campaign finance reform can also work. This is an opportunity to do so much. To limit it would be contrary to our charge. Subcommittees are a good idea and will be formed at the beginning of the next meeting after topics and grouping are decided.
Harriet Leib said she hoped to hear from CGCA members at next meeting. Due to the increasing accumulation of snow, she suggested the meeting come to a close.
Harriet Leib asked how many members would like to go to New York City to visit their Campaign Finance Board. The following volunteered, providing the date selected does not cause a scheduling conflict: Andrew Goodman, Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Claire Lee, Harriet Leib, Erin Malloy, Rev. Wilbert Preston, Francis Sheehan and Mary Tobias.
Harriet Leib said at the next meeting subcommittees would be formed to examine the NYC Campaign Finance Board policies, cable access, referendum legalities, and the Ethics Law.
William Pohlmann asked if the subcommittees were limited to those mentioned.
Harriet Leib said they were not, that the list is open.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked anyone with additional subcommittee suggestions to e-mail them to her.
William Pohlmann said the print media is a major problem. He said cable access can be fixed locally but the print media can’t. The print media doesn’t cover candidates in any depth.
Francis Sheehan asked Catherine Lederer-Plaskett what would be the procedure regarding approving the draft February 3, 2000, meeting minutes.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that members should take them home and look them over for consideration at the next meeting.
The next meeting is Thursday, March 2, 2000, at 7:30pm. The location will be dependent on space availability.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Sheehan, Commission Secretary