GREENBURGH CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES – APRIL 11, 2000
(approved April 25, 2000)
Present:
Elizabeth Daniel, Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Claire Lee, Harriet Leib, Erin Malloy, Susan Mancuso, Charlotte Schienberg, Francis Sheehan, Lester Steinman, Mary Tobias
Invited Speakers: Yorktown Town Councilman Nicholas J. Bianco, Fair Campaign Practices Committee member Evelyn Stock, Greenburgh Town Clerk Alfreda Williams
Observers: Robert Lee, William Pohlmann, Jewel Williams
Absent:
Andrew Goodman, Rev. Wilbert Preston, Mike Reynolds, Sally Schaadt, Ervin Schliefer
The fifth meeting of the commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in room 103, at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains. An agenda was distributed as well as several handouts. Copies of the previous minutes were not yet available.
Co-chair Harriet Leib asked each commission member to introduce him/herself to the guests. Following the introductions, Ms. Leib introduced Yorktown Councilman Nicholas Bianco, stating that he was invited to discuss his unsuccessful attempt to propose Campaign Finance Reform in Yorktown. Ms. Leib stated that learning how/why Mr. Bianco’s proposal was unsuccessful should be particularly valuable to the commission.
Yorktown Councilman Nicholas Bianco submitted a copy of his introductory remarks to the Commission Secretary and provided extra copies of his campaign reform proposal for those who had not received the proposal at a prior commission meeting. He said that he ran for office in 1995. He was fortunate in that his children’s college tuitions were partially funded by scholarships. The scholarships allowed him to redirect $5,000 - $6,000 of family funds, which had been earmarked for his children’s tuition, to his campaign. He said he was fortunate to have $5,000 - $6,000 to run for an $11,000/yr office even though he was/is not wealthy. Realizing he had an edge on others who did not have similar resources, in October 1997 he proposed local campaign finance reform during a Yorktown Town Board work session and advocated that a Campaign Finance Board be created. All of the other councilpersons opposed his proposal and three of the five councilpersons were adamantly opposed to holding a public hearing on the issue.
Mr. Bianco explained the reasons his proposal was unsuccessful. Some councilpersons thought it was only a cable access television proposal and not truly campaign finance reform. Some cited taxpayer costs even though the cable programs and operation are provided by the cable company at no cost to the taxpayer. The other four Yorktown Town Council members just didn’t want to move his reform proposal and were not willing to propose any alternatives. Incumbents do not like challengers. As an example, incumbents have their managers go through opponents’ designation petitions to try to knock them off the ballot. Incumbents do not personally do the challenge to claim the high-road. Instead, they have others do the challenge for them.
Mr. Bianco said he felt some satisfaction when President Clinton proposed similar reform two years later. The President’s reform proposal also died.
Mr. Bianco, referring to his handout, described the composition of the proposed Yorktown Campaign Finance Board, which would have 5 members appointed by the Town Board, serving staggered three year terms. No more than two members could be enrolled in the same political party and each member had to agree to not: (1) be a candidate for elected office, hold elected office, or be an officer in a political party; (2) make contributions to a candidate for elected office; or (3) be a participant in any campaign for a NYS elected office. The proposal defines the term "Elected Official" as meaning the Supervisor, four-year Town Council, Town Clerk, Superintendent of Highways and Town Justice.
Mr. Bianco explained that the proposal outlines, by title, the availability of the "Yorktown Government Channel", a cable access channel, to those candidates who abide by voluntary spending limits. If a candidate for Town Supervisor limits contributions and expenditures to $12,000 or less, then up to 180 minutes of free "government channel" cable access time will be made available to the candidate. Candidates for Town Councilperson must not exceed a $5,000 contribution/expenditure threshold and candidates for the other three elected positions in Yorktown must not exceed $10,000 to receive 120 minutes of free "government channel" cable access television time.
Mr. Bianco said that, in addition to the contribution and spending limits, in order to receive the free cable access time under his proposal, candidates would have to qualify to be on a ballot during the year, have an opponent before or after the primary, agree to public debates, disclose all contributions to the Yorktown Campaign Finance Board that must be disclosed under NYS election law, adhere to the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee’s "Statement of Principles", comply with any Yorktown Campaign Finance Board rules, refrain from using other cable access programs starting September 1 of the election year except in an official capacity, and act in a professional manner while on television. Debate appearances would not count against a candidate’s cable access time allocation.
Mr. Bianco outlined the proposed penalties should a candidate exceed the allocated cable access time-- $50 per minute, increased yearly based on the consumer price index (CPI). There was no way to avoid paying a fine, he said. If the candidate was successful, the controller would be authorized to deduct the fine from the official’s paycheck. If the candidate was unsuccessful, cable access would be denied during subsequent campaigns until the fine is paid. The fines collected are proportionally dispersed to the other candidates running for the same office who voluntarily participate in the campaign reforms.
Mr. Bianco said his proposal was simple and has been considered by many groups since it was proposed. It would cap how much is spent on campaigns. Currently, one must be a town board member to appear on the "government channel". The incumbents own that channel. Anyone else who wants to have a show must use another cable access channel, not the government channel. He said candidates who are challengers basically have to trip before a News12 satellite truck to get on television. In contrast, the government channel is on all the time. The Town Supervisor is on all weekend in a continuous loop. A Town Councilperson has a show Friday evenings. On Mondays, the County Legislators session is shown and on Tuesdays, Wednesday, and Thursdays, municipal meetings are shown. Shows during the week contain captions indicating the dates/times when the Town Supervisor’s program will be shown.
Elizabeth Daniel asked if there are any rules governing cable access.
Mr. Bianco said he could have a program on the government channel and have it show repeatedly. However, if he only had a show on during election time his opponent would likely object. Currently, only the Town Supervisor and one Town Councilperson have a show.
Lester Steinman asked, "Who is to say someone cannot have a show?"
Mr. Bianco responded by stating that Mr. Steinman’s question was a good one, adding that it would be interesting to find out what would happen if John Q. Public would be prohibited because it is a "government channel".
Elizabeth Daniel asked what would happen if a Zoning Board member wanted to host a cable show?
Mr. Bianco said he didn’t know. He wouldn’t stop anyone from having a show but he didn’t know what would be the response. He said Cablevision informed the town that the town owns the station and can use the station any way it wants.
Harriet Leib asked if debates are shown on the channel.
Mr. Bianco said debates are not shown on the government channel.
Lester Steinman asked if any candidates have asked for debates to be shown.
Mr. Bianco said debates have been taped but have not been shown. He doesn’t believe candidates have asked.
Erin Malloy asked Mr. Bianco if he would know if the Town Supervisor was asked to play the debate and refused the request.
Mr. Bianco said he wouldn’t be told but he doubted that the Town Supervisor would reject such a request since she was a candidate included in the debate.
Mary Tobias asked Mr. Bianco if he intended to resubmit his proposal to the Yorktown Town Board.
Mr. Bianco said he doesn’t intend to resubmit the proposal since the composition of the board has not changed. The other Councilpersons know his interest and have not approached him. He hasn’t made any attempt to approach them on the issue either. It is an important issue. It cost him $8000 to run as an incumbent last time. His opponent could not use the cable channel. It was a disadvantage to the challenger because those who watch cable remember what you look like even if they do not remember what you said.
Evelyn Stock asked Mr. Bianco if he submitted his proposal to the local newspaper.
Mr. Bianco responded that an article was written about the proposal but he did not get an editorial supporting the concept.
Co-chair Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Mr. Bianco for his participation.
Mr. Bianco thanked the commission for giving him the opportunity to speak. He said campaign finance reform is a difficult issue. If someone wants to make an illegal contribution, it can be done without anyone finding out. It doesn’t matter if it is hard money or soft money.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett introduced Alfreda Williams, the Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh, saying she is in charge of cable access television in Greenburgh. Ms. Lederer-Plaskett said Cable Access Committee member Del Hillgartner has spoken at a previous commission meeting and cable access issues have been the focus of much of the commission’s work. She asked Ms. Williams to speak about Greenburgh’s cable access policy.
Alfreda Williams said part of her responsibility as Town Clerk is the cable access system. The responsibility began when her predecessor was Town Clerk. There are three cable access channels-- 71, 72, 73, formally 14, 15, and 16. Channel 72 is the educational channel. It was unofficially deeded over to Westchester Community College (WCC) to handle programs from the 6 of 11 school districts in Greenburgh which have an arrangement with WCC. School districts without an arrangement, such as Edgemont School District, can still tape a show and it will be aired. Channels 71 and 73 are under town control and air programs 6 p.m. – 10 p.m., Monday through Friday. Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings are shown on Channel 71, along with public access programs. Channel 73 is used solely for public access programs. Municipal meetings are not shown on channel 73.
Ms. Williams said any resident can submit a pre-recorded tape for airing. Currently cable studio time is limited to particular Thursday evenings, 6 p.m. – 10 p.m., and all the timeslots have already been taken by hosts of existing shows. There is a waiting list. By the first of May, or shortly thereafter, a new cable studio will open on East Hartsdale Avenue which should address the problem.
Ms. Williams described the financing of cable access. She said there are two financing streams. One stream is a 5% franchise fee paid by Cablevision, based on the number of Greenburgh customers, which goes into the general fund, similar to franchise fees for Con Ed and telephone utilities. The other stream is a $55,000 annual fee that Cablevision provides for purchasing cable-related capital equipment. The money has been used to upgrade cable equipment, purchase remote cameras, etc. The town has a 10-year agreement with the cable company that began in 1995.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if the $55,000 equipment fund is placed in the general fund.
Ms. Williams said the equipment money is kept separately.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that one cable access program shows a group of boys discussing gaseous body functions at 6:30 p.m. She said there also appears to be many religious programs which do not originate in Greenburgh. She asked how such programs get on cable.
Ms. Williams said that, unless there is nudity, cable access rules require that shows be aired if the producer is a Greenburgh resident. A show made elsewhere needs a resident of Greenburgh to serve as the producer and includes the resident’s name in the credits. When she came into office, she put out an open call for tapes. If a host has a Greenburgh producer, the show must be aired.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if there is any priority given residents.
Ms. Williams said they have tried but because of cable access regulations if someone has a producer in Greenburgh they must be shown unless the show is objectionable. We have been trying to narrow down the number of outside shows but have been receiving complaints from those submitting tapes from outside of town. For example, the host of "Dirge of the Charlatans", Clay Tiffany, has objected to the termination date he was given.
Erin Malloy asked how Ms. Williams determines if a show is objectionable.
Ms. Williams said they watch the tapes submitted before they are played. Shows must be 30 minutes long. Sometimes tapes must be edited to shorten them. They have to be monitored to determine if they are indecent. If a tape contains indecent content, they wouldn’t play it.
Harriet Leib said that commission members have heard that there had not been an equitable distribution of time during the last election. She asked how the time was allocated.
Ms. Williams said she sent out a letter on August 6th to each candidate asking if he/she wanted to air a campaign tape. If the candidate wanted to provide a tape it would be aired. If studio time were needed it would have been provided on a Thursday evening. She made a decision two weeks before primary day that the tapes would air alphabetically A-Z one week and Z-A the next. Some candidates complained so they changed the format for the general election. The Wednesday and Thursday evening before the general election all the candidates’ segments aired, starting at 7:30 p.m. and continuing until all the segments played. There was no particular order.
Mary Tobias asked if regular shows such as Supervisor Feiner’s cable show continued to be aired during the election session.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the 3C’s show, on which several opposition candidates appeared, did not run during the same period.
Ms. Williams said Town Council candidate Francis Sheehan and Town Judge candidate James Hubert asked that their appearances on the "The Three C’s" show be used as their campaign segment.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said James Hubert was on the "The Three C’s" show and the show on which he appeared was preempted because he was a candidate and was using the tape as his campaign segment.
Ms. William’s said that may be correct.
Lester Steinman asked if Ms. Williams was acting according to written rules.
Ms. Williams said she met with the Cable Access Committee in early April or March and the committee suggested that we implement the policy that was followed.
Claire Lee asked who Ms. Williams was referring to when she used the term "we"?
Ms. Williams said there are five members on the Cable Access Committee.
Lester Steinman asked Ms. Williams who handles scheduling.
Ms. Williams said she handled scheduling for the election segments. They had an unfortunate situation in that the former Cable Access Director left abruptly last year and his replacement, who started in June, had no knowledge of the town. He had to do a lot of filming.
Lester Steinman asked who now decides program scheduling.
Ms. Williams said the Cable Access Director now makes the decisions regarding what gets aired and when it is scheduled.
Lester Steinman asked Ms. Williams if the Cable Access Director acts according to written guidelines.
Ms. Williams said that the Town Board last year adopted rules for campaign-related segments.
Harriet Leib asked if the Cable Access Director is given sufficient time to perform the duties required of him.
Ms. Williams responded that the director has not been given enough hours. She has asked the Town Board to increase his hours. However, the Town Board decided that it would be wasteful to increase his hours until the new studio is available since studio taping time is currently limited to Thursday evenings. She is proposing increasing the number of hours.
Mary Tobias said much emphasis is being placed on the new studio that is quite small and will reportedly be used for multiple purposes, such as a youth entrepreneurial program.
Ms. Williams said her understanding is that a responsible adult will be at the studio at all times. It will be a dedicated studio space with possible other uses a few hours a week when the cable equipment is secured.
Erin Malloy asked which cable channels are affected.
Ms. Williams said both channels, 71 and 73, show basically the same programs.
Erin Malloy said that the commission had heard that there was a "Feiner beauty spot" showing after the League of Women Voters debates. She asked Ms. Williams if she knew anything about that program.
Ms. Williams said the Cable Director was new.
Francis Sheehan asked Ms. Williams if she was claiming that the part-time Cable Director, who was new to the Town, acted on his own initiative to find and air a segment about the town that has been characterized as a "puff piece" about town services and the incumbents. It wasn’t previously played and hasn’t played since. It seems to have only aired after the League of Women Voters-sponsored debate of the incumbents and their opponents. It even played on the eve of Election Day in clear violation of the rules adopted by the Town Board.
Ms. Williams said she did not know how the segment got on.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that one of the incumbents appeared on cable on the day of election.
Francis Sheehan said that Ms. Williams was the incumbent who appeared on Election Day.
Ms. Williams said that should not have happened.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that there is so much interest in cable access television. She asked Ms. Williams who now makes the decision of assigning timeslots.
Ms. Williams said we do not know how many timeslots there will be. We are only now doing the remodeling of the new studio. Supervisor Feiner has sent out letters to members of the Steinberg Center, the community center, local schools, etc. asking for cable access program hosts and producers.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked about the status of existing requests for cable programs.
Ms. Williams said existing requests will be handled first. They are on file with the staff. There are problems getting studio help because they tend to have full-time video production jobs and do not want to jeopardize their existing jobs to work for the town.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Ms. Williams for helping the commission with its work.
Mr. Bianco said that the biggest problem with the Greenburgh cable access system he has heard is that there is no independent board making scheduling decisions. An independent board is needed, he said, or there will be unresolved disagreements. He doesn’t relish Ms. Williams’ role.
Harriet Leib introduced Evelyn Stock, a member of BOCES and immediate past president of the New York State League of Women Voters. She has served on many committees and is very knowledgeable about campaign practices, currently serving as a member of the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee.
Evelyn Stock explained how the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee started. Elections can be quite dirty, and the dirtiness goes from election to election. Milton Hoffman, editor of The Reporter Dispatch, now The Journal News, challenged the League of Women Voters to come up with a committee that would address some of the dirtiness of elections. The League cannot take sides in campaigns so a separate committee was needed. A procedural manual was created and has been updated every year. The committee consists of college presidents, etc., without regard to party affiliation. It is an independent committee. An important consideration was that the local newspapers supported the committee and wanted it to be successful. The political parties also showed support for the committee. The support of the newspapers has been critical because the committee does not issue rulings. It has no teeth. It can only issue findings. The publicity associated with a finding is what gives the committee teeth.
Ms. Stock said the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee has made a difference. They listen to complaints and then, after the parties leave, they phrase a complaint. Every word is chosen carefully. They tend to give considerable leeway to routine political discourse, such as a claim that someone isn’t doing a good job. However, if a candidate states that the tax rate went up 10% and it actually went up 5% then that would be something that would result in the committee issuing a finding.
Ms. Stock said it is important to fix whatever you have and use the newspapers to help you. The Reporter Dispatch had an enormous impact in making their committee better. Use the editorial board. Go to them. Don’t wait for the editorial board to call you. Tell the editorial board your findings.
Lester Steinman asked Ms. Stock what is the jurisdiction of the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee.
Ms. Stock said the committee handles issues involving any election, even congressional elections.
Lester Steinman asked if Town of Greenburgh elections would be within their jurisdiction.
Ms. Stock said that when she started with the committee Susan Tolchin opposed Paul Feiner for Supervisor. She was told that the workload would not be significant but the Tolchin/Feiner election kept them very busy.
Lester Steinman asked Ms. Stock if the committee could handle current Greenburgh election disputes.
Ms. Stock said only candidates can ask for findings.
Lester Steinman said that the commission’s Ethics Subcommittee heard a suggestion that the Greenburgh Ethics Board consider complaints filed by other than Town Board members. The Fair Practices Committee seems to limit access as well.
Ms. Stock said the committee will only accept complaints filed by candidates.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Ms. Stock what the committee looks for?
Ms. Stock said the committee looks for any misrepresentation, distortion, or lying, that does not involve a legal issue. The committee does not address legal issues.
Harriet Leib said the Greenburgh Ethics Board is said to be a puppet board in that charges must come from the Town Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the commission is considering other means of getting to the Ethics Board without overwhelming the board.
Ms. Stock said that when she became chair her initial concern was that maybe complaints would not be filed, maybe no one would come before them.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the commission was considering incentive plans for candidates, cable access, etc., but it can’t work without an oversight committee.
Ms. Stock said that the committee’s board was initially appointed by the League. The membership was of such high caliber that no one questioned their involvement. Once we started, people got very involved and enjoyed doing it. The members are overworked during election time. After an election is a very slow period for the committee. The committee receives several thousand dollars in funding from the Peggy Freedmen Foundation. The funding is used to pay for their manuals, which are given to towns, school, etc.
Lester Steinman asked Ms. Stock if the committee has written procedural guidelines.
Ms. Stock said the manual that is revised annually contains specific procedures regarding how the meetings are run, etc. She will provide commission members with copies. There are also copies in the League of Women Voters’ office.
Elizabeth Daniel asked how committee members are replaced.
Ms. Stock said replacements are considered jointly by the committee and the League of Women Voters. There must be 3 members to have a hearing.
Lester Steinman asked if party registration is considered.
Ms. Stock responded, "not really". The committee is working on greater gender, color, and race diversity. They consider issues other than party.
Harriet Leib asked if the committee would be handling issues involving any violation of the county’s ban on political literature sent by legislators who are candidates.
Ms. Stock said that if it is against the law to send the literature then the committee would not get involved. The committee does not handle legal issues.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said it appears any Greenburgh system would be a voluntary system, so violations would not be against the law.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if all members of the committee vote.
Ms. Stock said that there are 11 members but they don’t all vote.
Elizabeth Daniel asked what encourages candidates to come to the committee.
Ms. Stock said publicity drives the committee’s effectiveness.
Harriet Leib asked if all parties are represented on the committee?
Ms. Stock said all parties are invited but they don’t all send representatives.
Claire Lee said an undercurrent at commission meetings is that one party in Greenburgh gets no recognition.
Ms. Stock said the committee invites all political parties.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Ms. Stock for attending.
Ms. Stock said, in the interest of full disclosure, she was a guest of the Yorktown Town Supervisor on her cable show that airs on the Yorktown government channel previously discussed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett stated that the next agenda item involves subcommittee reports. She said there are many people who want to speak to the commission and candidates should be scheduled separately on different nights. The Public Financing Subcommittee met just prior to the commission meeting. Lester Steinman, Elizabeth Daniel and she determined that the June commission completion deadline is not realistic. The commission is scheduled to have a public hearing on May 2. It should be held later than that, after more information is received.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Claire Lee, Cable Subcommittee Chair, for an update.
Claire Lee said she cannot attend on May 2nd. Regarding the Cable Subcommittee Report, the subcommittee is still working on it. She said she believes Catherine Lederer-Plaskett was right a month ago when she stated the rules already exist, the subcommittee only has to figure out how to enforce them.
Harriet Leib said she has already made commitments in June, expecting the commission to have completed its work. She can go along with extending the deadline but the commission needs a goal, a target date.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said maybe the subcommittees need to meet more often, as unpleasant as the idea sounds.
Harriet Leib suggested listening to each subcommittee to see how far along the work has come.
Francis Sheehan said this evening was the first time he heard that the cable rules are okay, requiring only enforcement.
Harriet Leib said a representative of the press will be at the next commission meeting.
Lester Steinman said we need written reports from the subcommittees. If the conclusion is that the cable regulations are okay there must be research to support the statement, including data obtained from looking at other cable regulations. The Ethics Subcommittee must do the same type of research. Conclusions must be based on data. One of the problems facing this commission is attendance. Attendance is poor at subcommittee meetings.
Harriet Leib read the attendance sheet, stating that absences are to be expected with such a large group. If the time must be extended, then so be it. She said that Paul Feiner had asked the commission to look at the possibility of having a Q&A-type campaign-related brochure. She asked subcommittee members to keep the idea in mind during their meetings.
Harriet Leib asked Claire Lee to continue with the Cable Subcommittee update.
Claire Lee said the committee is looking at cable proposals.
Lester Steinman said Mamaroneck has cable regulations. He will mail a copy to the Commission Secretary.
Claire Lee agreed that subcommittee attendance has been a problem. The first subcommittee meeting consisted of Francis Sheehan and herself. Francis Sheehan wrote something up. She asked the subcommittee members to meet after the meeting to pick another meeting date.
Harriet Leib said the Ethics Subcommittee has revised, revised, and revised again a draft proposal. The revised proposal was distributed to all the members. She asked Charlotte Schienberg, subcommittee chair, to discuss the proposal.
Charlotte Schienberg asked everyone to read the eight preliminary suggestions contained on the draft Ethics Subcommittee report which was distributed at the beginning of the meeting.
The eight preliminary Ethics subcommittee suggestions are: (1) the Ethics Code needs to be strengthened/changed; (2) the change could involve submitting specific code language to the Town Board for approval and/or generalized statements about areas needing change; (3) persons having business before the town have made campaign contributions to Town Board members creating a perception of improper influence and that such persons should be given a copy of the Ethics Code; (4) the Ethics Code should be amended to require a recipient of campaign contributions, either individually or as part of a team effort, to recuse him/herself from any matter involving such person making the contribution for a time period to be determined; (5) a home rule request be made to the state to amend campaign contributions as applied to Greenburgh elections and simultaneously at the local level amend the Ethics Code and create an Election Practices Board to monitor present provisions; (6) address issues involving contributions to one candidate funding a campaign slate; (7) adopt a campaign-season ban on taxpayer-financed mailings using Westchester County’s legislation as a model; and (8) explore the possibility of providing another means of access to the Greenburgh Ethics Board by creating a new Campaign Practices Board with referral powers.
Susan Mancuso said the Ethics Code is administered by the Greenburgh Ethics Board. If the Ethics Code is going to be to revised, as proposed in #5, there may be some infighting and the change may be cumbersome.
Harriet Leib said that currently only the Town Board can refer complaints to the Town Board.
Susan Mancuso agreed.
Lester Steinman said it is a common practice for Ethics Board referrals to be limited to those from the municipal board. The Ethics Subcommittee has been considering creating a new board as a means of forwarding campaign-related issues to the Ethics Board without overwhelming the Ethics Board with referrals.
Susan Mancuso said she hasn’t fully considered the issue yet but thought the Fair Campaign Practices Committee discussed earlier might be able to deal with these types of issues.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the Fair Campaign Practices Committee does not deal with the breadth of issues under consideration by the commission.
Susan Mancuso said she understands, but the candidates could take them to Ms. Stock’s committee.
Ms. Stock said that the Fair Campaign Practices Committee does not address those kinds of issues because they are legal issues.
Susan Mancuso asked if the Fair Campaign Practices Committee could handle issues involving cable. Maybe the candidates would take cable issues to the Committee if they were willing to take on those types of issues. She is hearing everything is unfair and there is a sense of unfairness on cable. With the Practices Committee there would be publicity.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that is not what the League of Women Voters is about. Recommendations were a big issue in the Ethics Subcommittee. One issue that was very exciting was Lester Steinman’s suggestion that, instead of trying to limit contributions due to NYS restrictions, instead persons taking contributions must recuse him/herself from any participation in any action associated with the contributor. It is item #4 of the subcommittee’s proposal.
Elizabeth Daniel said there are two issues: what can be done and what should be done.
Harriet Leib asked Ms. Mancuso if the Ethics Board is a functioning board.
Susan Mancuso responded that to the best of her knowledge it does function. Perhaps others know differently. The Ethics Board governs town employees and town officials. That’s it. Candidates are not their purview. She said it is a separate thing to govern her as an employee and Francis Sheehan as a candidate.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that is why we considered creating a separate oversight board.
Susan Mancuso said having to create a separate board underscores the problems with changing the Ethics Code.
Harriet Leib said the two entities would have separate functions.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the Ethics Board has teeth and, ultimately, almost everything comes down to Ethics. What is designated as Ethics by the state needs to be addressed. We need to determine what needs to be changed and then determine how the change can be made.
Lester Steinman said the concept is that any change to the Ethics Law would still apply to town officers and employees, and any remedies would be through their board. Anything else would be poor practice.
Harriet Leib read the proposal wording verbatim, adding that the two entities would serve separate functions.
Susan Mancuso said there are limitations as to what can be done through local law. A local law has to be voted on by the Town Board, which makes it a political issue. If voters can vote on it that would be better. A referendum would be a much more preferable way to proceed if it can be done.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said Lester Steinman has already done the research on that issue.
Lester Steinman said NYS does not provide for ballot initiatives. Even if a referendum was possible, the referendum would have to be advanced through a Town Board local law.
Harriet Leib said that the county held a referendum regarding the County Executive’s powers.
Lester Steinman said one basis for a referendum in NYS is the diminution of an elected official’s powers. The basis for holding a referendum is delineated in NYS law and that is one of the permissible reasons for holding a referendum.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the commission needs to look at the most productive method of obtaining change.
Susan Mancuso said that if we had a referendum that would be the preferable method, because the voters would directly decide the issue.
Harriet Leib asked if the Ethics Subcommittee should continue in the direction it is pursuing.
Erin Malloy said that ultimately there must be some oversight group.
Lester Steinman said the report from the Public Financing Subcommittee will reinforce Ms. Malloy’s call for an oversight group.
Francis Sheehan said that the cable proposal he submitted to the Cable Subcommittee this evening also recommends an oversight group so there seems to be a growing consensus for the need for an oversight board or commission.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Elizabeth Daniel wrote a well-worded summary.
Elizabeth Daniel handed out the summary she prepared and read significant excerpts from the handout, reprinted below in its entirety:
Options for a System of Voluntary Campaign Finance Reform for Greenburgh Town Council Elections
What follows is an outline of options for a voluntary system of campaign finance as developed. Any system of campaign finance enacted by the town must be voluntary because state law governs the area.
I. Fair Elections Practices Commission
Establish a commission of five volunteers charged with overseeing the town's voluntary campaign finance reform system. The members should be nominated and appointed in a manner to assure that the commission runs in a non-partisan manner.
The commission will have the authority to hire an auditor during campaign season and in the several months after the campaigns. The auditor's duties should include: determining whether participating candidates complied with this law and issuing reports on the campaign activities of participating and non-participating candidates based on their state-mandated filings with the county board of elections.
II. Optional Public Funding
A. Types of public funding
To encourage candidates to participate in a system of voluntary contribution and spending limits, the town must offer incentives for candidates to participate. There are three types of incentives:
(1) Matching funds: the town will provide a 2-1 match for contributions of $100 or less;
(2) Block grants: qualifying candidates receive a lump sum contribution from the town of 25-50 percent of the spending limit;
(3) Free or reduced-cost services: qualifying candidates receive a certain number of free mailings from the town, additional time on the local access cable stations, voter guides with free space for participating candidates, free use of town parks and other public/gathering spaces, etc.; or
(4) A mix of the cash grant programs with a grant of services
Please note that the amounts and specific services referred to in the three types of incentives are offered by way of example. This commission should discuss and take testimony on the options.
Pros and cons of the incentive options:
Matching funds: Matching funds are an efficient way to get public money to competitive candidates. Because the public money is allocated only when the candidate is raising private money, the system ensures that marginal candidates will be unlikely to receive much public money. The system could be administratively intensive because the money must be provided throughout the campaign season as the candidate raises money.
Block grants: Block grants provide an administratively simple way of allocating public money to candidates who agree to abide by the spending limits. Because the grants are based on a percentage of the spending limits, the spending limit must be set accurately. Additionally, because all qualifying candidates get the same amount of money, strict qualifying standards may be more important in this system than in a matching fund system -- to ensure that the money goes to viable candidates.
Free services: The public may find this system more acceptable -- although it won't necessarily be cheaper -- than a system that gives actual money to candidates. In addition, the types of services provided -- mailings, tv access, and use of public space -- have the benefit of encouraging candidates to reach out to voters. This system may be administratively difficult because it will require oversight to ensure that, for example, mailings go out as scheduled, time in the parks and on tv is allocated fairly and efficiently.
Mix: It is common to include some free tv time or other services to participating candidates as well as a cash grant.
Recommendation: Without knowing more about how campaigns are run in Greenburgh, I cannot make a firm recommendation at this time. However, if the public were willing to support a matching fund program and we determined that public funding would help make Greenburgh elections more competitive, I would probably recommend matching funds because that system is the most likely one to encourage participation.
B. Qualifying requirements
Any public funding system must include ways that candidates qualify for the public money -- in addition to their agreement to accept spending limits, lower contribution limits, and increased disclosure.
Note: The more generous the public funding system, the more rigorous the qualifying requirements.
Structure of qualifying requirements: The most common way for candidates to qualify in other systems is by raising a certain amount of money in small contribution (e.g., under $50) from residents.
III. Contribution Limitations
A. Current limits are approximately: $1,200 for primary; $2,000 for the general election.
B. Recommended limits for participating candidates: The limits should be low enough that a contribution does not raise the appearance of corruption or undue influence, but not so low that candidates cannot raise enough money for their campaigns. Also, since this is a voluntary system, the limits should not be so low that they substantially disadvantage participating candidates.
C. Participating candidates could be required to pledge not to accept interested contributions
IV. Expenditure Limitations
A. Estimate what it costs to run a competitive campaign in the primary and general elections. Set limits for both elections. Allow participating candidates to re-allocate part of the spending limit for their general election limit to their spending limit in the primary.
B. The limits must be generous enough that candidates will agree to participate.
V. Enhanced disclosure
Participating candidates should be required to agree to disclosure requirements that go beyond what is included in state law. For instance, the name, residence, business address, and name of employer, must be included. We could also require more frequent disclosure.
Elizabeth Daniel said item II lays out common types of public funding. The commission needs to keep in mind administrative ease. Item II A(3) could be great but an administrative nightmare. To make the public more at ease with public financing it is important to have good qualifying rules to ensure only viable candidates receive funds.
Charlotte Schienberg said the NYC finance board calls candidates who can qualify "serious candidates".
Elizabeth Daniel said that she has spoken to Lester Steinman and Catherine Lederer-Plaskett as well as others regarding the need to hear from candidates and incumbents about what they need, how much cable time, etc. The commission needs to find out what Greenburgh needs and what Greenburgh is comfortable providing.
Erin Malloy asked if the candidates and incumbents should appear before a subcommittee or before the entire commission.
Elizabeth Daniel said she though it best if the entire commission hears the wants/needs of candidates and incumbents. She welcomes phone calls and e-mails on the issue. She generally can be reached at work until 7 p.m.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said anyone who can’t make it to a subcommittee meeting can submit questions to the subcommittee in writing.
Elizabeth Daniel emphasized the handout submitted is a draft that still contains typos.
Lester Steinman reported that the Legal Subcommittee will work with the other subcommittees, providing help as needed.
Harriet Leib said the NYC Campaign Finance Board is very impressive, much bigger than anything this commission could recommend. It is something to see. She said the next commission meeting is April 25 at 7:30 p.m. In the interim the subcommittees should meet.
Francis Sheehan asked what the purpose of the public hearing will be if the current idea is to hear from candidates and incumbents one by one at commission meetings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the commission needs to gather more information before holding the public hearing.
Lester Steinman said the commission needs additional input.
Elizabeth Daniel said the commission can benefit from obtaining the testimony in advance of the public hearing to make informed proposals.
Harriet Leib suggested that the commission segue to the issue of money. A suggestion has been made for every commission member to contribute $10 dollars for cover the commissions costs which have been borne entirely, or almost entirely, by Catherine Lederer-Plaskett.
Every commission member listed as present at this (4/11/00) meeting contributed $10 toward the commission’s operating costs.
Francis Sheehan suggested segueing back to the issue of delaying the May 2 public hearing. He said he already reserved Town Hall, as he did when the commission was considering an April date for a public hearing. Before Town Hall is reserved again a certain date must be determined because other groups are being deprived of the room once it is listed as reserved. He wanted it to be clear that his primary concern is that individual invitations to former candidates and incumbents at upcoming meetings would greatly delay the commission’s work. It is better to publicly notice everyone that a public hearing will be held for anyone interested in speaking about local campaign finance reform. The commission could then listen to anyone who wants to speak. If someone decides not to attend then that would not be the commission’s fault. The commission could not be accused of being selective. The current proposal calls for the commission to decide who is worthy of being personally invited to commission meetings, which will likely be controversial.
Lester Steinman said he believed hearing from the candidates and incumbents in advance would be valuable.
Francis Sheehan asked if it would be as valuable as inviting everyone who wanted to speak to speak at a public hearing.
Lester Steinman responded yes.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Susan Mancuso, Harriet Leib, Erin Malloy, and Elizabeth Daniel agreed with Mr. Steinman.
Harriet Leib, after consulting with the members, said the Ethics Subcommittee would meet at noon on April 24, 2000 at Lester Steinman’s office.
Claire Lee, after consulting with the members, announced the Cable Subcommittee would meet at 10 a.m. on April 18, 2000 at her home.
The next meeting of the commission will be held on April 25, 2000, at 7:30 p.m., at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Sheehan, Commission Secretary