GREENBURGH CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES – MARCH 17, 2000
(approved April 25, 2000)
Present:
Jo Brill, Elizabeth Daniel, Andrew Goodman, Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Claire Lee, Harriet Leib, Erin Malloy, Rev. Wilbert Preston, Charlotte Schienberg, Ervin Schliefer, Francis Sheehan, Mary Tobias
Invited Speaker: Westchester County Legislator George Latimer
Observers: Stephanie Bellino, Ella Preiser
Absent:
Susan Mancuso, Mike Reynolds, Sally Schaadt, Lester Steinman
The fourth meeting of the commission was called to order at 8:38am in room 121, at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains. An agenda was distributed. Copies of the February 3 and February 18 meeting minutes as approved March 02, 2000 were also distributed, along with copies of the draft March 02, 2000 meeting minutes that were previously faxed to each commission member.
Co-Chair Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Westchester County Legislator George Latimer is first on the agenda. Since he was detained, Elizabeth Daniel, listed next on the agenda, was asked to discuss her handouts.
Elizabeth Daniel distributed two handouts, one entitled "Outline" and another entitled "Public Financing at the Local Level: Data from the Most Recent Complete Election Cycle". She said that she is available to help the commission in any way possible. The commission has much to accomplish in a short time period. The subcommittees need a very clear understanding of the direction they will pursue. The three primary areas of concern seem to be politicians taking money from those doing business with the town, cable access that is unfairly administered, and more general campaign finance issues. The Ethics Subcommittee seems to have appropriate direction working with the proposed Ethics Law revision written by Francis Sheehan. There may be legal issues involved but it is a good place to start. Similarly, the Cable Subcommittee seems to have good focus on the cable access problems in Greenburgh and has a direction to remedy the problems. A related issue involves prohibiting incumbents’ use of town mailings during election season. These issues have been clearly defined.
Ms. Daniel said the main area still requiring direction is the more general concept of campaign finance reform. Referring to her outline, she said the first objective should be to investigate the current situation, i.e., what is actually happening in Greenburgh. What is the maximum contribution allowed? How much is typically spent on a Town Council campaign? What are the sources of the contributions, if decipherable from the filings? Are the amounts contributed corrupting or could they lead to the perception of being corrupting? On what was the money spent? For a candidate with few expenditures, was the candidate’s costs borne by another candidate on the ticket? The commission needs to determine overall campaign costs in Greenburgh, preferably tracking expenditures over several election cycles. It is important to determine if the cost of running a campaign in Greenburgh dissuades potential candidates.
Ms. Daniel said the key aspect of any campaign finance reform initiative is the proposed regulatory structure. There must be one. Greenburgh does not have an "election board" so a decision needs to be made regarding who will provide the needed oversight. The county’s Election Board may be one option. Another option is expanding the powers of the Town Clerk or some other local official; however, such a proposal may raise legal issues and create new conflict of interest concerns, contrary to what the commission is trying to accomplish. Creating a local campaign finance board, either volunteer or part-time, is another option that can be explored. The commission needs to look at the legal issues and feasibility of each of these options before deciding how any adopted reform proposal will be monitored. An Independent Auditor is strongly recommended regardless of the option selected.
Ms. Daniel said that, in addition to regulatory structure, the commission needs to decide what kind of system is preferred. Local governments are preempted by New York State law from imposing campaign contribution restrictions. Therefore any system proposed must induce voluntary participation and compliance. Voluntary restrictions might include lowering the maximum contribution limits; barring specific sources of contributions, such as those from developers; enhancing the disclosure laws to include disclosure of all contributions or internet-accessible filings; and limiting the amount that may be expended during a campaign.
Ms. Daniel said contribution limits must be voluntary. Candidates can be asked to pledge not to accept "interested" contributions but pledges have their own problems. Any enhancement disclosure or spending limits must also be voluntary.
Ms. Daniel explained that incentives could be offered to entice voluntary compliance. Government matching funds can get expensive or appear expensive. Increased cable access time or newspaper coverage is less costly and commonly used. Shame is another significant factor to encourage candidates to volunteer. Each incentive has its own problems but some municipalities use them with some success. Regarding a referendum, the four attorneys on the legal subcommittee are looking into the possibility. It is a complicated issue. If a referendum were to be recommended, it would have to be recommended soon to be on the November ballot. The commission should talk to as many informed people as possible. The NYC Campaign Finance Board’s system is so large, it is not a good model for Greenburgh. She brought five copies of the NYC regulations. Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Harriet Leib, and Francis Sheehan each accepted a copy. She said the commission should talk to Boulder, CO representatives. Kathleen Rutherford, who attended an earlier commission meeting, is an excellent source. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. She is also willing to provide counsel on any of these issues.
Harriet Leib asked if including contribution limits in the Ethics Code would raise legal issues.
Elizabeth Daniel said that it might. She wants to look into it. It may also be a home rule issue.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she had spoken to Lester Steinman and he said the commission can’t limit the contributor but might be able to get the candidate to agree not to accept the contribution. She said there is no benefit to betting on a horse if the track won’t accept the bet. Similarly, if a candidate refuses the contribution, there is no benefit to the contributor.
Elizabeth Daniel said you cannot mandate contribution thresholds different from those set by federal regulations.
Rev. Wilbert Preston asked what advantage there is to having a referendum.
Elizabeth Daniel said referendums made the decision look more independent. It avoids incumbents looking as though they want to raise money for themselves. Also, more people get involved in a referendum issue. Candidates are less likely to be concerned about the appearance of taking public money if the majority of voters approved the referendum. The alternative is adopting a local ordinance to address some of these issues, which places local officials on the spot.
Andrew Goodman said another issue to consider is that a local ordinance can be changed by the Town Council any time in the future, which is not the case with an adopted referendum.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the commission has repeatedly heard from its legal representatives that there are major problems trying to hold a referendum on these issues in NYS. If a referendum could be held, it would be good to include a cable access incentive in it, if possible.
Elizabeth Daniel said increased local cable access time is the primary non-tax related incentive used to gain voluntary compliance in many localities. Those that sign on to the reforms are given more time. She understands there are other problems related to cable access in Greenburgh that need to be addressed before the increased time incentive would be effective.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the commission needs to pin down exactly what has happened to cable access in Greenburgh. A fact-finding mission is needed.
Claire Lee said she thought someone from cable would be at this meeting.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said Alfreda Williams, the Greenburgh Town Clerk, was invited since she is responsible for cable access in Greenburgh but she could not attend this meeting.
Francis Sheehan said her absence is understandable since she has been quite ill.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thought Ms. Williams might be able to make the commission’s April 11th meeting, or one shortly thereafter.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett introduced George Latimer who was a member of the Singer Commission and is currently the chair of the Westchester County Board of Legislators.
Harriet Leib said that she asked Mr. Latimer to attend so that he could give the commission members his perspective and insight why the Singer Commission recommendations were not adopted. She also asked him to address what the commission should consider at the local level to avoid some of the pitfalls previously encountered by the Singer Commission at the county level.
George Latimer apologized for being late. He said the commission needs to consider the structure of Greenburgh politics. Applying county politics to Greenburgh reforms is not productive. The commission has a much different environment in which to work, in many ways a more favorable environment. There are a significant number at the county level ready to embrace campaign finance reform but many are still not ready to do so. Any change in the status quo comes with a difficulty level.
Mr. Latimer said the Singer Commission was useful even though it appeared unsuccessful in obtaining the reforms recommended. He noted that, after a year had passed, Legislator Thomas Abinanti asked what happened to the Singer Commission report. Mr. Latimer explained that the Singer Commission report was a campaign finance reform proposal involving the use of public money for candidates. He did not "count heads", the number of legislators willing to sign on to the tax-increase-related recommendations. He failed to recognize early on that support for the Singer Commission’s recommendations fell off sharply due to the provisions involving public financing.
Mr. Latimer said that the Singer Commission created a climate for reform. It was like the nose of a camel getting a peek under the tent. For example, the legislators have adopted a rule that prohibits any legislator who is a candidate for an elected county office from mailing legislative newsletters. The legislative newsletters are informative. Even though they do not specifically say "vote for me", they could be considered campaign literature paid for at taxpayer expense. The legislators ended that practice for any legislator who has submitted his/her designating petition to the Board of Elections.
Mr. Latimer said that legislators also banned legislators who are candidates from distributing "Golden Apple" pins that are produced and paid for by the County if those pins are attached to something identifying the legislator and his/her district. It was a nice gesture on the part of a legislator to hand out a pin on a card with the legislator’s name on it but the practice is no longer acceptable while the legislator is a candidate.
Mr. Latimer said another reform the legislators are working on, which has not yet become effective, is the prohibition of taxpayer-financed public service announcements involving a legislator-candidate’s name, voice, or likeness. For example, he said, a public service announcement consisting of, "Hi, I am George Latimer, come to Rye Parkland," would be prohibited, as would household cleanup schedules containing the names of the legislators. Any posting, broadcast, or other means of circulating the public service announcements with the name, voice or likeness of the legislator-candidates would be illegal from the last day to turn in candidate designation petitions until the general election.
Mr. Latimer said another law that the legislators adopted was computerization of campaign records. These kinds of legislation pass unanimously because no public funds go to candidates. With the Singer Commission report he did not realize that the inclusion of funds for candidates as incentives to obtain their voluntary compliance with the proposal campaign reforms significantly changed the amount of support among the legislators. The Singer Commission recommendations died on procedural votes. The procedural votes were a clear signal to him of what would happen if the proposal was submitted for a full vote. He pulled the proposal rather than have it recorded as defeated legislation. In retrospect, it was a mistake not to create a commission similar to that called for in the report before submitting the remainder of the proposal to the legislators. Others had urged him to do so in order to work out some of the issues. He did not believe splitting the proposal was the best way to proceed but in hindsight not splitting the proposal was the wrong way to go. It was a judgment call and he simply miscounted the votes and underestimated the loss of legislator-support for using public funds as an incentive for candidates to participate.
Mr. Latimer said the Singer Commission recommendations applied to the County Executive and the County Legislators. The County Clerk and the District Attorney were excluded because they were considered state offices. The Legislators were willing to go along if it only applied to the County Executive. Some Democrats said it took a long time becoming the majority party, why change the rules now? A catch-22 developed because the County Executive would not vote for the reforms if only his office was affected.
Mr. Latimer said he lives in a world of sound bites. This is "welfare for politicians" makes a great sound bite. The pro-reform side could not overcome that one phrase. The issues involved in reform were too complex to counter in one pro-side sound bite. Ultimately, "welfare for politicians" won the media battle. Greenburgh needs to decide what needs to be done locally and how best to accomplish it.
Mr. Latimer said he understands the concern regarding taxpayer-financing at the county level, with 17 legislator seats, potentially 3 or 4 candidates per race, every 2 years, with primaries, the cost could be quite significant. On the other hand, since compliance with reforms must be voluntary, the financial incentives must be good enough for a candidate to sign on. If someone can easily raise one million dollars, why agree to a $250,000 cap. It is not realistic. It just won’t happen without attractive incentives. A check off box on the income tax forms was not an option for the county. The financing must come from the property tax. How many in the county feel that an urgency exists for Campaign Finance Reform that a property tax increase is warranted? Generally interest follows some incident. Without a "smoking gun" incident, residents will not make Campaign Finance Reform one of the top five issues. Incumbents are aware that no one has lost an election because of taking a position against Campaign Finance Reform. He heard that statement many times. He learned a lot from the Singer Commission report approval process.
Mr. Latimer said the ultimate issue for this Commission is whether Greenburgh residents are willing to support public financing of campaigns. The residents must decide if campaign issues in Greenburgh warrant reform and if public financing is a way to achieve those reforms. Many of Greenburgh’s campaign issues involve land-use issues. Greenburgh may be able to do what the legislators at the county level were unable to accomplish. If climate changes at the county level, further reform may be possible.
Harriet Leib asked if any of the commissioners had any questions. Hearing none, Ms. Leib asked if there had been any problems with enforcing the legislative newsletters ban or any other of the reforms implemented.
Mr. Latimer said there has been no effort by any legislator to violate the newsletter ban. Similarly, the supply of "Golden Apples" is centrally located and someone would have reported an attempt by legislator-candidates to obtain or use them. Computerization of the campaign finance reports is in the works. The Board of Elections wants more staff and capital equipment to proceed. The legislators want to see more will on the part of the Board of Elections for computerization. The Board of Elections operation is run based on political affiliation-- two Democrats and two Republicans. A commitment by the Board of Elections to implement the computerization legislation is still needed.
Mary Tobias asked which of the reforms mentioned were in the Singer Commission report.
Mr. Latimer said the literature ban; the name, voice, and likeness proposal; and the "Golden Apples" ban were not part of the Singer Commission’s recommendations. The computerization of the campaign financial records legislation was related to the Singer Commission’s work.
Mary Tobias asked Mr. Latimer if he thinks the Singer Commission prompted the reforms.
Mr. Latimer said the Singer Commission raised the issue of reform and the legislators did not want to appear against reform, just taxpayer payments to candidates. These lesser reforms were adopted because there was an atmosphere for reform created by the Singer Commission. The County will be looking to the League of Women Voters for direction regarding future reform initiatives.
Mary Tobias said the reforms adopted may not be as significant as those proposed by the Signer Commission but they are important nevertheless.
Mr. Latimer agreed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if the literature ban restricts legislator-candidates from writing individual letters.
Mr. Latimer said it does not. They had considered the term "direct mail" but it was too broad. Instead they settled on the wording contained in the legislation, which he read: "a general purpose newsletter prepared, financed, and mailed by the Board on behalf of all its members for the purpose of communicating Board activities and achievements to residents of such member’s legislative district." A violation of the ban would invoke Ethics Code penalties. The ban does not affect the County Clerk or the District Attorney. How do you stand in the way of the most-wanted list being mailed out during campaign season?, he said. Similarly, a mailing regarding Indian Point evacuation plans must be mailed out regardless of a campaign. It made sense to exclude these two offices from the restriction. The legislation does not constrain him from responding to a letter received from a constituent and copying other residents in the area.
Harriet Leib asked if legislators send mailings to voters or do they target property owners.
Mr. Latimer said that constituents, voters, are targeted.
Harriet Leib asked Mr. Latimer if he thought public financing of county elections could be resurrected at some point.
Mr. Latimer said public financing of campaigns to induce voluntary compliance with reform measures is possible with a specific proposal and a change in the current climate. Public acceptance must grow. Public awareness of the need is critical to its future success. In 1989, the County Executive candidates did not exceed one million dollars in expenditures. In 1993, the cost still wasn’t too bad. The last County Executive election highlighted the need for change. The amount spent on the next County Executive election may be what ultimately leads to widespread calls for reform.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Mr. Latimer and said that copies would be made of the two county laws he brought-- the newsletter ban and the name, voice, likeness proposal. She said commission members received copies of the legislation involving computerization of Board of Election filings at a prior meeting.
Harriet Leib said the next item on the agenda is the approval of the March 2, 2000 Meeting Minutes. She said a typo needs to be corrected. Claire Lee moved the minutes be adopted as corrected. Harriet Leib seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously.
Elizabeth Daniel said the commission needs to start considering a public hearing. Proposals are needed from the Cable, Ethics and Public Financing Subcommittees, but the proposals do not have to be polished. If the proposals are too polished, the public will feel as though they have been excluded from the process. Basically, a general overview is needed. The Legal Subcommittee does not need to draft a proposal prior to holding a public hearing, but must be ready to answer questions that may be asked at the hearing. The commission needs to gather as many facts before the hearing as possible.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that she would check the availability of Town Hall to hold the public hearing in early May. The next meetings of the commission will be March 30th and April 11th. A representative from Gannett cannot attend a morning meeting due to childcare issues. He will be here on April 11th, along with Yorktown Councilman Nick Bianco. The commission is also planning to hear from Alfreda Williams regarding Greenburgh Cable Access. Ms. Lederer-Plaskett asked for suggestions regarding other speakers.
Harriet Leib said that Catherine Lederer-Plaskett and she decided the March 30th meeting should be used for subcommittees to hold their meetings, but there may be a scheduling problem since some members serve on more than one subcommittee.
Claire Lee thought the idea of dedicating the meeting to subcommittees was a good one.
Charlotte Schienberg suggested letting the subcommittees work out their own meeting times.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said Elizabeth Daniel will be out of town on March 30th. If, on March 30th, the Ethics Subcommittee meets at 8:30 a.m. and the Cable Subcommittee meets at 9:15 a.m., there would not be overlapping. The Public Financing Subcommittee can meet via a conference call at another time.
Erin Malloy said the commission is scheduling too much on April 11th-- the Gannett representative, Nick Bianco, and the Town Clerk.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the Town Clerk will likely not be able to make it on April 11th.
Harriet Leib suggested an additional meeting date-- Tuesday, April 25, at 7:30 p.m., at Rochambeau School. She said April 19-23 are holidays.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett agreed with the date and said the commission needs to obtain facts in the interim. It will be difficult to track Greenburgh campaign contributions but we need to try to obtain the data.
Claire Lee asked if the Singer Commission report is "dead in the water".
Harriet Leib responded that it was.
Claire Lee said that perhaps the commission could get something out of the report.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if copies were available.
Jo Brill said she is trying to decipher all the different drafts of the report. She also has summaries of the comments made at the public hearings. She read the names of those who testified at the hearings. At the Yonkers public hearing, John Feerick, Alfred DelBello, Tom Abinanti, Harriet Leib, Fran MacEachron, and Helen Auerbach testified; at the White Plains public hearing, Andrew O’Rourke, Andrew Greenblatt, Nicole Gordon, Edward Elkin, Paul Feiner, Helen Auerbach, and Chuck Lesnick testified; at the Mount Kisco public hearing, Richard Kirsh and Blair Horner were the only speakers. With one exception, all the speakers at the public hearings were well-known. The Singer Commission meetings were not well publicized. This commission needs to attract a broader speaker pool.
Jo Brill said the Singer Commission report consisted of two parts-- it established a board and it established a system. The copies are voluminous. Five copies will be made to pass around. She is not sure the final report is easily locatable, but the agendas may suit the commission’s needs.
Jo Brill said she thinks computerization of candidates’ financial filings will happen. She agreed with Mr. Latimer’s description of the current state of reform at the county level. However, she believes reform likely will not occur at the county level until after the next County Executive election.
Mary Tobias asked how many members were on the Singer Commission.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, reading from the documents received from Ms. Brill, responded that there were eleven members and the chair, Cecile D. Singer. The members were Michael R. Edelman, David Ford, Herman Geist, Harriet Goldberg, George Latimer, Lloyd King, Paul Noto, Marc Oxman, Amy Paulin, Irving Schleifer, and Carolee Sunderland.
Harriet Leib said the next commission meeting will be held on April 11th, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains. The Ethics and Cable Subcommittees will meet on March 30th, at 8:30 a.m. and 9:15 a.m., respectively.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Sheehan, Commission Secretary