GREENBURGH CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES—APRIL 25, 2000
(May 21, 2000 draft)
Present:
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Harriet Leib, Susan Mancuso, Rev. Wilbert Preston, Ervin Schliefer, Francis Sheehan, Lester Steinman, Mary Tobias
Invited Speaker: Supervisor Paul Feiner
Observers: Stephanie Bellino (Lower Manor Woods Neighborhood Association), Lorrin Brown (North Elmsford Neighborhood Association), Madelon O’Shea (Edgemont Community Council, Inc.), William Pohlmann, Ella Preiser (Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations), Kathy Sundaram, Carol Wielk (Secor Homes CA, Inc.)
Absent:
Andrew Goodman, Claire Lee, Erin Malloy, Mike Reynolds, Sally Schaadt, Charlotte Schienberg
Invited Speaker: Dan Greenfield, The Journal News
The sixth meeting of the commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in room 121, at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains. An agenda was distributed. Copies of the draft March 17, 2000 and April 11 meeting minutes that were previously faxed, hand-delivered and/or e-mailed to each commission member were also available.
Co-chair Harriet Leib said the first item on the agenda is to hear from our guest speaker, Dan Greenfield, from the The Journal News. Since he is late, the commission will continue with the next item on the agenda-- the Ethics Subcommittee report. Before detailing the Ethics Subcommittee report, she explained to those present, specifically addressing the observing townspeople, that nothing contained within the subcommittee report had been finalized. It is a work in progress. She distributed copies to those present and called for a five-minute break while members read the report, which follows in its entirety:
Ethics Subcommittee: Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Harriet Leib, Charlotte Schienberg, Francis Sheehan, Lester Steinman
The Ethics subcommittee is considering the following recommendations:
1. The Ethics code should be amended to reflect the following:
A Town officer or employee receiving directly or indirectly a gift/contribution from an entity including but not limited to developers, consultants, architects, and attorneys having business with the Town or before a Town board must recuse him/herself from voting on any matter involving said entity, and may not lobby on behalf of said entity.
The timeframe for recusal before/after receipt of a gift/contribution is still to be discussed.
NY State restrictions on imposing mandatory campaign contribution/spending caps at the local level were considered in making this recommendation.
The following are being considered:
A. Whether to alter the existing procedure by which the Ethics Board is permitted to hear complaints. At present the Town Board must refer a matter to the Ethics Board before it can be heard; only the Town Board has this authority. Ethics laws from Seattle, the City of White Plains, the Village of Dobbs Ferry and elsewhere were provided as examples of ordinances that allow anyone to bring a complaint before Government Ethics Boards.
B. Discussion continues as to whether to submit code language to the town board for approval or whether a recommendation should be made specifying the areas requiring change. A combination of the two was also considered. A portion being either a strong pointed recommendation followed by a prepared code change in an addendum; or a preamble introducing the changes followed by the prepared code change.
C. The terms under which a person is appointed to the ethics board were discussed. Should there be a condition recommended which states a person must have or not have a political affiliation for a specific period of time prior to his or her appointment?
2. The creation of a Fair Practices Board.
A. This board could be formed independent of the Town Board (similar to the one described by Evelyn Stock) or under the Town Board.
B. The Board would be either bipartisan or nonpartisan.
C. The Board would be responsible for overseeing such things as cable, mailings, contribution disclosure, etc.
3. A ban on neighborhood mailings at taxpayers' expense, newsletters etc. during the primary and general election season.
A. The County passed a law banning certain types of mailings during campaigning periods.
B. The law could be amended to fit the needs of Greenburgh
Harriet Leib said there are three primary recommendations. Each recommendation contains subparts. The subcommittee’s first recommendation is that the Greenburgh Ethics Code should be amended. After explaining that the Ethics Code applies to town officials and employees, she asked co-chair Catherine Lederer-Plaskett to discuss the recommendation.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the subcommittee, after deciding that the Greenburgh Ethics Code needed to be amended, determined that the phrase "directly or indirectly" was a critically important part of the proposed amendment. She said it goes to the heart of the incumbent campaign team practice where one candidate accepts campaign money from developers, consultants for developers, those suing the town, etc. and then uses that money to re-elect a slate of other incumbent candidates. Under the proposed Ethics Code amendment, the other candidates could not claim, as they do now, that they have not accepted contributions from developers, etc. The "directly or indirectly" clause was suggested to plug that loophole.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the recusal provision was included to address the widespread perception that certain contributions influence certain votes. The commission has heard repeatedly that local ordinances cannot override federal and NYS laws regarding contributions to candidates. Lester Steinman suggested recusal as a means of addressing the problem, without running into a conflict with campaign laws, and the subcommittee jumped on the idea as a great way of finding a legal means of addressing a significant problem. The "directly or indirectly" clause would prevent any candidate on a slate funded by an applicant’s contribution from subsequently voting on the applicant’s application. However, timeframes still need to be discussed, along with allowing contributions to be returned once a conflict has been identified.
Lester Steinman said the commission needs to consider the possibility that a majority of the Town Board might have to recuse themselves. There are provisions that allow board members to vote on an application even though a conflict of interest has been identified if recusal results in an insufficient number of voting members.
Mary Tobias said the Town Board typically runs as a team so the possibility of not having a majority of voting members on an application is very real.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that, if a majority of Town Board members had to recuse themselves, the publicity that would result from having to invoke the special provision mentioned by Lester Steinman might be sufficient to discourage a majority from having such a conflict in the future.
Harriet Leib said the shame factor is an important consideration and can have a significant effect; however, Mary Tobias’ concern, that incumbents in Greenburgh routinely run as a team and would all have to abstain from voting, needs to be addressed.
Mary Tobias said the recusal provision will cause a big problem with the Town Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said there are significant problems with the current situation as well. The commission is trying to address the problem within the restrictions of NYS law. The recusal provision is an innovative way to address a significant problem. No other suggestions that comply with NYS law have been offered.
Harriet Leib said County Legislator George Latimer was previously asked if any reforms resulted from the Singer Commission. His response was that it created a climate for reform. Hopefully, this commission will create the same climate for reform in Greenburgh.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said another recommendation of the Ethics Subcommittee is the creation of a Fair Practices Board.
Lester Steinman said the opportunity for an official to return a previously received campaign contribution that would necessitate recusal was discussed by the subcommittee but is not in the distributed written proposal.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett agreed, adding that the omission was inadvertent.
Susan Mancuso read aloud in its entirety the first Ethics Subcommittee recommendation. She said the recommendation far exceeds what is being asked of the commission. If she accepted a gift, what should she be restricted from doing, she asked.
Harriet Leib said the commission is trying to address a perception of favorable treatment of contributors.
Susan Mancuso repeated that the provisions restricting employees from accepting gifts far exceeds the charge of the commission, which is limited to campaign finance issues.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Lester Steinman commented that the commission has not heard from the public that lack of money is a barrier to running for office. However, there are significant advantages to incumbents because of the contributions they accept. Regarding the gifts, she said White Plains does not allow employees or elected officials to accept any gifts, regardless of how small.
Susan Mancuso said that this is a campaign finance commission and yet the town’s Ethics Code is being questioned. It is beyond the commission’s charge.
Harriet Leib said the issues all complement each other. It may seem as though it is beyond the scope of the commission but it really isn’t.
Susan Mancuso asked how a candidate is affect by an employee accepting gifts. She asked if the members believe the commission should recommend developers be restricted from giving gifts to employees as well as candidates.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that there is a perception that contributions have an undue influence and prevent a level playing field upon which challengers can compete.
Susan Mancuso said she disagrees.
Lester Steinman said this discussion mirrors what goes on at subcommittee meetings. The detailed draft is a mistake. Details will kill the commission’s work because a clause can be pulled apart and debated and debated, causing the overall worthy objective to be lost. There should not be even the perception of someone making a contribution which affects a vote yet all that is lost in the proposal because of a debate about specific wording.
Susan Mancuso said the commission is being overly broad. The commission must be specific in what is being addressed, otherwise what is trying to be accomplished is lost. It is peculiar that the commission is now including how employees receive gifts, etc. She doesn’t disagree that employees should be prohibited from accepting gifts but the commission is singling out a subset of candidates for the gift ban. It does not restrict all candidates from accepting gifts, just those elected or who are employees. There is no consistency. It is unfair to leave out the non-incumbents.
Francis Sheehan said the records show that there is no advantage to developers giving money to non-incumbents. A review of the financial filings show that developers contributed to the incumbents, not the challengers.
Harriet Leib asked Susan Mancuso how she would address the issue differently.
Susan Mancuso said that a Fair Practices Board could adopt rules that apply to everyone. The board could address the gift issue, as well as a much greater concern that has been mentioned-- media access. The commission has heard repeatedly that access is money and money is access. Access is through the media. The same rules must apply to everyone. The Fair Practices Board could control the money aspect and the media aspect. She said that Francis Sheehan proposed at a subcommittee meeting that candidates who signed on to voluntary local campaign reforms should receive a "carrot", the carrot being rights to cable access media time. She supports that proposal.
Mary Tobias said that the subcommittee proposal doesn’t appear to be singling out any particular candidate because it affects any candidate who wins election. If a candidate loses, the issue is moot because the candidate is not in a position to help a developer who may have contributed. Any candidate who receives contributions from developers and wins election would have to recuse him/herself from voting.
Harriet Leib said a developer could contribute to both candidates, just to cover him/herself, similar to betting on a horse. A person who can contribution to both candidates should not have an advantage over someone only able to contribute to one candidate. That would be unfair.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said whichever candidate received the contribution and was subsequently elected would have to recuse him/herself. She said the clause Susan Mancuso is objecting to in the Ethics Subcommittee’s first recommendation, "A Town officer or employee", was a mutually agreed upon amendment suggested by Lester Steinman. It was not her wording. She asked if anyone thought it was legal to include other than town employees and officials in the town’s Ethics Law. She said it was worded the way it was because it was the subcommittee’s decision that the Ethics Law could only pertain to town employees and elected officials. Since NYS preempts mandatory local campaign contribution restrictions, the recusal provision, which applies to everyone elected, regardless of party affiliation, addresses a serious, repeatedly mentioned problem in Greenburgh regarding developer contributions. Increased cable access alone is not sufficient to balance the influence of large campaign coffers that result from developer contributions. Many residents do not have cable and the mainstream press provides very limited coverage. It is a shame Dan Greenfield from The Journal News failed to show up for the meeting because he could have been asked why so little attention is given local candidates, particular non-incumbent candidates, and why they twice inaccurately listed the names of non-incumbent Greenburgh candidates. Regarding the possibility that the proposed Ethics Law amendments might be challenged, she said the threat of a challenge should not discourage the commission from doing what is right. The commission should move forward. Anyone watching a Senate hearing on C-SPAN can see that any proposed law can be criticized but that does not mean new laws should no longer be adopted.
Susan Mancuso, asking to respond, said the commissioners must decide whether a "messy job" or a good job is the goal. She said the subcommittee’s proposal is messy. While the commissioners may not agree on all the issues, everyone should agree that fairness is the ultimate goal. The provision in the Ethics Law that restricts gifts to incumbents but not all candidates is not fair.
Harriet Leib asked Susan Mancuso if a gift restriction imposed by a Fair Practices Board would be acceptable.
Susan Mancuso said it would because it would apply across the board to all candidates, or at least to all candidates who voluntarily sign on to the local reforms. From what she read the Fair Practices Board could not impose mandatory restrictions on all candidates. Its decisions would only affect candidates who voluntarily decide to agree to the restrictions.
Lester Steinman said restrictions imposed by a local Fair Practices Board would only apply to candidates willing to voluntarily comply.
Harriet Leib asked if Greenburgh’s Ethics Law currently requires an incumbent to recuse him/herself from voting on applications filed by applicants who contributed to his/her campaign.
Susan Mancuso said it does not currently require recusal.
Lester Steinman said most ethics laws do not address candidate’s contributions to avoid running afoul of federal and NYS regulations. One of the reasons the subcommittee developed the recusal concept is to avoid being preempted by federal and state regulations while trying to address a perception that applicants are receiving favorable votes by making campaign contributions. He disagrees with Susan Mancuso’s statement that the recusal provision unfairly singles out incumbents. It applies to town officials who have the power to vote on a campaign contributor’s application and affect the outcome. If a candidate is unsuccessful, the contribution cannot influence the recipient’s vote because the defeated candidate doesn’t get to vote. Candidates cannot be prohibited by local regulations from receiving campaign contributions that are otherwise legal. What can be addressed is the perception that the contribution is somehow affecting the decisions a candidate makes after being elected. Regarding non-elected town officials and staff members, their receipt of gifts, etc. should be addressed in a separate provision of the Ethics Code. Even though employees may make decisions regarding issuing permits, etc., those issues are not directly campaign-related. It is conceivable that some might argue that Greenburgh’s Ethics Code needs improvement in many areas; however, the commission is not charged with re-writing the ethics code. The commission should focus on those provisions of the ethics code which are specifically campaign-related.
Susan Mancuso, referring to Catherine Lederer-Plaskett’s statement regarding cable access for candidates being insufficient, said there is no doubt that incumbents have greater access to newspapers and challengers have a more difficult time getting media access. Cable, however, is something that can be controlled locally. Newspapers cannot be forced to provide more time to candidates. The commission should focus on what can be locally addressed.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said his concern with the first recommendation of the Ethics Subcommittee proposal is that it could be perceived as penalizing a person for winning an election.
Harriet Leib said that the recusal provision would only apply if an elected official is asked to vote on a campaign contributor’s application.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said the candidate should not be penalized for winning. It creates a perception of penalizing the winner and perception can become reality.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the perception is that developers in Greenburgh influence voting. The records show the amount of money contributed by developers, etc. is not small and there is a perception that it results in a bias toward the developers. Even if the perception is false, it is widespread and needs to be addressed.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said the bias cannot be proven and legislating that incumbents cannot vote on an application still amounts to a penalty on the candidate for accepting the contribution and winning.
Francis Sheehan asked Rev. Wilbert Preston to help him understand the penalty he claims is imposed on a candidate. Using the SCI building on Hillside Avenue as a hypothetical example, he asked if it would be penalizing an elected official to require that he/she recuse him/herself from voting on an application to rezone the property to something more profitable if the application was made by the owner of the building who had previous made significant contributions to the elected official’s campaign.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said some candidates may not be able to afford returning the owner’s money after being elected and would be prevented from voting on the application. The recusal provision not only penalizes successful candidates it may even deter some candidates from running for office.
Lester Steinman said that the commission must recognize that many candidates run at the urging of the community regarding a particular issue. What may result is that the candidate cannot vote on the issue which caused him/her to run. The provision cannot be absolutist and prevent an elected official from voting on precisely the issue on which he/she campaigned.
Ervin Schliefer said that, while the commission’s work may be on the leading edge of many issues, this one may already have been the subject of legal decisions in other jurisdictions in the state or country. Additional research is needed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said many ethics laws, such as the City of White Plains’ ethics law, prohibit gifts to incumbents, staff, etc.
Lester Steinman said that most ethics laws do not address campaign contributions.
Harriet Leib suggested moving on. Referring to the third recommendation of the Ethics Subcommittee she said that mailings involving all candidates, such as the LWV’s voting guide, would be banned. It should be directed toward a candidate’s mailings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the wording of #3 is intentionally vague because additional input and work by the subcommittee is still needed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that next subcommittee report is from the Public Finance subcommittee. The subcommittee discussed a previously made comment that, while the commission has heard many complaints about developer contributions and abuses involving cable access, no one has stated that he/she was prevented from running due to limited finances. The focus has been on the process of creating a Fair Practices Board. If the board were set up should it have two Democrats and two Republicans, and another member to make it an odd number? These issues still need to be resolved. [Note: The Public Finance Subcommittee report is included in the April 11, 2000 minutes.]
Harriet Leib asked if the Public Finance Subcommittee had made a decision regarding the need for public financing.
Lester Steinman said that the subcommittee has yet to hear comments citing a need for public finance. While he was not present for the March 17, 2000, meeting, he read the minutes, which made him feel as though he was present. At that meeting, Westchester County Legislator George Latimer spoke about how the public financing provision was the death knell of the Singer Commission.
Harriet Leib said that, in actuality, cable access, media access or some type of newsletter is a form of public access.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Lester Steinman’s observation from reading the minutes is correct. Legislator Latimer made it clear that asking for public funds to support candidates’ campaigns killed the reform measure.
Ervin Schliefer said there may be widespread opposition to public financing but at this point there is insufficient data to make that conclusion. We just don’t know if there is opposition, and if so, the level of that opposition. Additional input is needed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that, in an effort to obtain additional input, the subcommittee drafted a list of questions to ask candidates. She handed out copies of the questions. She said Supervisor Feiner had received a copy of the following questions in advance of the meeting:
1. Do you believe that we need a form of public financing of campaigns in Greenburgh?
2. Are there inequities being created under the present system, for example in regard to cable access or mailings?
3. Should an elected official who receives contributions be allowed to vote on matters related to the contributor?
4. Do you believe contribution limitations should be set? If so, what do you believe that contribution limit should be?
5. What do you believe public attitude toward public finance of local elections is in the Town of Greenburgh?
6. What do you believe to be the most effective form of campaigning? In other words, what works?
7. What are your recommendations for campaign reform?
8. It has been suggested that the commission prepare a referendum to be placed on the November ballot. If you support this suggestion please describe the referendum you envision. Do you know of any legal basis for such a referendum in the State of New York?
Ervin Schliefer said that the questionnaire is limited to town officials, not candidates in general.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she hoped to invite candidates who were not successful to future meetings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the next subcommittee report is from the Legal Subcommittee.
Lester Steinman said the Legal Subcommittee has been participating in and keeping up with the issues raised by the other subcommittees.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the next subcommittee report is from the Cable Subcommittee.
Susan Mancuso said the cable subcommittee has developed a proposed working draft regarding campaign access to cable. Copies of the following were distributed:
GREENBURGH CABLE TV CAMPAIGN ACCESS GUIDELINES
Working Draft
Section 1. Definitions
A. CAMPAIGN SEASON. The period from June 1 to the date of the general election in any year in which a town election is held.
B. CANDIDATE. A candidate-aspirant, a primary candidate, or a general election candidate.
C. CANDIDATE-ASPIRANT. An individual who has executed the Town of Greenburgh Campaign Reform pledge and is seeking petition signatures as required under state law in order to appear on a ballot in a primary election for a town office.
D. PRIMARY CANDIDATE. An individual who has executed the Town of Greenburgh Campaign Reform pledge and who is otherwise eligible pursuant to state election law to appear on a ballot in a primary election for a town office.
E. GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATE. An individual who has executed the Town of Greenburgh Campaign Reform pledge and who is otherwise eligible pursuant to state election law to appear on a ballot in a general election for a town office.
F. PRE-PRIMARY SEASON. The period commencing June 1 in a year when an election is to be held for Town Office until the date the Board of Elections certifies the candidates qualifying to appear on the ballot in the primary election.
G. PRIMARY SEASON. The period commencing the day after the date when the board of Elections has certified the candidates eligible to appear on the ballot in the primary election until the day of the primary election in a year when an election is to be held for a town office.
H. GENERAL ELECTION SEASON. The period commencing the day after the date after the primary election until the day of the general election in a year when an election is to be held for town office.
Section 2. Access.
A. Each candidate shall have access to the Greenburgh Cable TV production facilities for the purposes of producing videotape recordings to be aired on the Greenburgh Cable Access TV stations during the Campaign Season.
B. Monthly recordings. A candidate shall have access to the Greenburgh Cable TV production facilities for the purposes of producing one 10-minute videotape for each calendar month a candidate is a candidate-aspirant, a primary candidate or a general election candidate. Once a succeeding tape is produced, it shall replace any prior videotape aired on behalf of a candidate. No more than one tape shall be aired on behalf of a given candidate at any given time.
1. Candidate-aspirant. Candidate-aspirants shall have access to the Greenburgh Cable TV production facilities for the purposes of producing two 10-minute videotapes, to be aired during the months of June and July.
2. Primary Candidates. Primary candidates shall have access to the Greenburgh Cable TV production facilities for the purposes of producing four 10-minute videotapes, to be aired during the months of June, July, August and September.
3. General Election Candidates. General election candidates shall have access to the Greenburgh Cable TV production facilities for the purposes of producing four 10-minute video tapes, to be aired during the months of June, July, August, September, October and November. This provision shall apply to candidates who have received the nomination of their respective parties and are not opposed in the primary election.
4. During campaign season, all candidates shall otherwise limit appearances on Greenburgh Cable TV to the conduct of official Town business. Any candidate otherwise hosting a regularly-scheduled program shall be required during Campaign Season to use a substitute host.
Section 3. Campaign Reform Committee.
Any disputes in connection with the administration of these guideline shall be referred to the Campaign Reform Committee. The decision of the Committee shall be binding on all candidates.
Section 4. Pledge.
In order to receive access to Greenburgh Cable Television in accordance with the Greenburgh Cable TV guidelines, a candidate shall enter into the following pledge: By signing this agreement, I hereby declare my candidacy for the elective office of [office title]. I further represent that I am actively seeking signatures on petitions to place my name on the ballot as a primary candidate or that I am the nominee of the [state party name] for this elective office. I hereby agree to comply with the Rules and Regulations of the Town of Greenburgh Campaign Reform Committee.
Susan Mancuso said it appears the campaign season is divided into three categories. The first stage is when a prospective candidate is working toward being certified by the Board of Elections as a candidate in the primary or general election. The second stage is the time period before the primary after the candidate has been certified by the Board of Elections as a candidate. The third stage is after the primary when the candidate has successfully obtained a position on the general election ballot. The proposal calls for every candidate to have equal access to cable access television. Each candidate would be entitled to have the town produce a 10-minute segment each month using the Greenburgh facilities to be aired on a regular basis, equally with all other primary and general election candidates. The segments would change monthly and every candidate would have an equal shot at being the first segment shown. Oversight has not been addressed yet. Some entity, such as a Fair Practices Board, needs to oversee disputes.
Harriet Leib suggested that the pledge include compliance with local reforms, such as limits on campaign contributions, etc.
Susan Mancuso said the pledge could contain whatever was deemed appropriate for candidates to gain the right to be on the airways from June to November. The proposal also bans candidates from having a regular cable access program from June to November. A candidate with a regular cable access program would have to find someone else to host his/her show during campaign season.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked how the subcommittee proposes to address cable access time by candidate-incumbents at Town Board meetings.
Susan Mancuso said a provision has been included that excludes shows involving regular town business from regulation.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Ms. Mancuso how she justifies distinguishing between incumbents’ cable access time and non-incumbents’ cable access time while earlier in the meeting claiming it is unfair to treat incumbents and non-incumbents differently regarding the receipt of gifts, etc.
Susan Mancuso said these are issues that need to be addressed.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said that he gets invited to speak at church meetings throughout Greenburgh. He asked if he would be prohibited from doing so based on the proposal.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the proposal only affects candidates appearing on cable access television. Candidates may speak at all the meetings they wish, without restriction. The provisions only affect the showing of those meetings on cable access stations.
Harriet Leib said that it would be inappropriate to prevent Town Board meetings from being televised.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she is not suggesting prohibiting televised Town Board meetings. Perhaps some form of equal air time would be appropriate to balance time spent by incumbent-candidates making speeches at the board meetings.
Susan Mancuso said that many people who are or may become candidates speak at Town Board meetings. She said Mr. Sheehan, for example, frequently speaks at Town Board meetings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the limited time period a person gets to speak at a Town Board meeting cannot be equated with the time incumbents get throughout the meeting.
Susan Mancuso said that there are limits to what can be done. Even a camera angle can make a difference and can be a source of complaint. The process cannot be micromanaged.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that a campaign session is being defined as from June to November. What she is looking for as a minimum is fair and equal access to the public during that limited time period.
Lester Steinman said he agrees with Susan Mancuso. There is nothing improper about having a Town Board meeting, even during campaign season. The commission cannot eliminate every vested advantage of incumbency. Incumbents cannot be expected to worry about how holding a special meeting will impact their allotment of time on cable. Such micromanaging is inappropriate.
Francis Sheehan said he agrees that it would be inappropriate to restrict or limit official Town Board business from being televised, including during campaign season. However, much of what transpires at Town Board meetings is not official business, particularly during campaign season. He said the Supervisor frequently starts off Town Board meetings with self-serving announcements which may last 30 minutes or more. It is that part of the meeting, or the issuance of community awards by those board members who are candidates in the upcoming election, that may be the proper subject of equal time provisions. Regarding the subcommittee proposal being discussed, the subcommittee met and discussed these issues but no consensus was reached and none of the subcommittee members saw the wording of the provisions until this evening.
Harriet Leib said that Susan Mancuso did say it was a work in progress.
Francis Sheehan said that he is on the subcommittee and finds the proposal a disincentive to candidates to sign on to any reforms this commission may propose. A person who has a 30 minute weekly cable show would have to give up that show in order to receive 10-minute monthly segments. It doesn’t make sense.
Susan Mancuso said that candidates will sign on to the 10-minute segments if the public believes reform is important and the candidate wants to avoid negative publicity that would result from not signing on.
Francis Sheehan said the issue for a candidate is access to the public. Incumbents can make lengthy speeches during televised Town Board meetings without restriction, yet challengers are being asked to reduce their one-and-only cable access time from 30-minutes to 10-minutes in order to be considered as a participant in a fair access reform. It doesn’t seem fair.
Lester Steinman asked if an incumbent’s 30-minute cable show would also be reduced to 10-minutes, similar to a challenger’s cable show.
Susan Mancuso said it would.
Francis Sheehan repeated that the issue is the amount of time a candidate has access to the public. He said reducing an incumbent’s cable show from 30-minutes to 10-minutes while continuing to allow them to make self-serving uninterrupted speeches at Town Board meetings is not equivalent to reducing a challenger’s cable access time from 30-minutes to 10-minutes since that challenger has no other means of appearing on cable access.
Lester Steinman said Mr. Sheehan’s complaint is the "ox is being gored on the other side". If an incumbent’s 30-minute show is being swept out, then it makes sense to also sweep out a challenger’s 30-minute show.
Francis Sheehan said that three of the five Town Board members come up for re-election at the same time and run as a team. Therefore, since each of the three incumbents get 10-minutes, the team would still get 30-minutes of access time, in addition to the time spent at Town Board meetings, whereas a challenger would be limited to 10-minutes access time total. If the goal is fair cable access television exposure, the proposal doesn’t work and serves as a disincentive for a candidate with a 30-minute show to sign on.
Lester Steinman said that he only did a quick read of the cable access proposal handed him and has not fully worked through it. Any proposal must make sure that all candidates have cable access time.
Francis Sheehan said that many of the issues raised were also raised at the subcommittee meeting. There is something wrong with the process. The subcommittee did not reach consensus on many of the issues in the proposal and yet they are presented to the full commission for consideration. The subcommittee has not even had an opportunity to review the wording of the draft being discussed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that, unlike the way the Ethics Subcommittee and Public Finance Subcommittees wrote their reports, each containing caveats when there wasn’t full agreement, when she read the Cable Subcommittee report it appeared as though it was unanimously agreed upon.
Lester Steinman said that Larchmont/Mamaroneck has an extensive publication regarding their cable access. Two of the pages involve cable access, which he gave to the subcommittee.
Susan Mancuso said the subcommittee reviewed those regulations.
Francis Sheehan said another issue that has not been addressed is that the Town Board controls all decisions regarding cable access in Greenburgh-- who gets a show, when it airs, etc. Susan Mancuso mentioned earlier that camera angles can affect a presentation. One of the issues for a challenger considering signing on to reforms with cable access as an incentive is who controls that cable access and the production of the 10-minute segments. Every two years three of the five town board members, as well as the Town Clerk, are up for re-election and make all the decisions regarding access by challengers. Cable incentives will not be effective until a system such as the one used in Larchmont/Mamaroneck is adopted in Greenburgh. There, a non-profit organization has total control of cable access, including negotiating the franchise agreement with the cable company. The subcommittee’s proposal calls for challengers to buy into a system controlled by their opponents who have been shown in the past to manipulate cable access to the disadvantage of their challengers. The organizational structure of cable access must change.
Susan Mancuso said the proposal was written with the full understanding that a majority of the subcommittee supported the provisions. She is surprised to hear Mr. Sheehan say that these provisions were not agreed upon. Regarding Mr. Sheehan’s point about the non-profit organization, that could be a great idea but it probably does not fall within the confines of campaign finance. It was actually Mr. Sheehan’s idea that cable access be used quid pro quo as an incentive for signing onto campaign reforms. Regarding the camera angles, etc., that is always a problem. The provision gives candidates access to the town’s production studio. However, if someone wants to tape a show elsewhere to produce a better production that should be allowed as well.
Francis Sheehan asked Susan Mancuso if the proposal would allow candidates to use the facilities to edit and produce their own tapes.
Susan Mancuso said she doesn’t see a problem with candidates doing that.
Harriet Leib said that the commission has had a very enlightening discussion. The subcommittees should go back and review their proposals, considering the comments heard this evening, and come back with their recommendations.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested that the cable subcommittee consider adopting the Ethics Subcommittee’s policy of referring any issue upon which there isn’t unanimous agreement to the full commission. When there are only four or five subcommittee members, one or two dissenting members can be enough to indicate significant disagreement requiring resolution by the entire commission.
Harriet Leib suggested each subcommittee consider developing a Plan A and a Plan B for presentation to the entire commission.
Harriet Leib asked if anyone had the opportunity to go to the NYC Campaign Finance Board facilities.
Ervin Schliefer said he went with Erin Malloy. The NYC board has been in operation since 1988. This is their third election cycle. It is quite large. There are 45 employees, but that number increases to 65 during election time. There is a five member non-partisan, not a bi-partisan, board. There is software that is used to make sure the candidates are complying with the rules. The principles are the same as what this commission seems to want to accomplish. The executive director told them that there wasn’t much support or opposition in 1988 when the board was created. It was on the ballot and it had support from civic groups and the media. This commission might want to look toward those two groups to get its proposals enacted.
Harriet Leib said it was her understanding that it was a fluke that it passed because it was basically hidden in another proposal that had support.
Ervin Schliefer said he had not heard that comment but it might be accurate since he was told the proposal had neither widespread support or opposition. He said that it would be helpful to get the local newspapers involved. If the civic associations support the proposal as did those in New York City, some form of local reform could be adopted in Greenburgh. Most NYC incumbents hate the finance board but don’t have the nerve to propose getting rid of it.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Ervin Schliefer if he was given a copy of the language that appeared on the ballot.
Ervin Schliefer said he wasn’t but he was given a copy of the statute.
Lester Steinman said the NYC board funds the finance board out of the NYC budget. Property taxes in NYC is not nearly the issue that it is in Westchester and therefore the cost of the program to taxpayers is not the same as it would be here.
Harriet Leib said she recalls Nicole Gordon stating that they wanted to change the charter for something else and the finance reform measure was squeezed into the change. It passed by being piggybacked on other legislation.
Harriet Leib said the next item on the agenda is approval of the March 17, 2000 and April 11, 2000 minutes.
Harriet Leib moved the minutes be approved. Catherine Lederer-Plaskett seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously adopted.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the next issue is selecting additional dates for meetings.
Lester Steinman said the commission should consider going back to morning meetings since evening meeting attendance has been poor. We need to hear from more members.
Harriet Leib said the commission scheduled evening meetings to accommodate a member who said she cannot attend morning meetings but she has not attended the evening meetings either.
Stephanie Bellino said that Sally Schaadt had mentioned to commission members weeks ago that she could not attend this meeting due to a school board meeting. She also cannot attend a May 2, 2000 meeting because the LWV is holding the school election debates that evening.
Harriet Leib said the May 2, 2000 meeting has been canceled.
Madelon O’Shea stated that the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations will be holding its monthly meeting on May 9, 2000 in the evening.
Lester Steinman suggested trying a morning meeting since the evenings seem problematic.
Harriet Leib suggested May 11, 2000, at 12:30 p.m. at Rochambeau, room 121 if available.
Rev. Wilbert Preston said that he wasn’t present when subcommittee selection was made and would gladly serve on one of them.
Harriet Leib welcomed Supervisor Feiner who arrived as scheduled at 9:05 p.m. She said that the commission looks forward to hearing from him.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that she forwarded the Supervisor questions in advance so he could respond to them at the meeting.
Supervisor Feiner thanked the commissioners for their service. He feels very strongly that there needs to be public financing of elections. If it was up to him there would be 100% public funding of local elections. He would like a ballot question asking the voters if they would like to abolish campaign contributions. He read an article recently in the NY Times regarding funding of elections in Maine. Greenburgh should consider the same thing. If the commission is unwilling to take that approach then the commission should consider creating a bi-partisan panel to oversee the conduct of elections in the town. The bi-partisan panel would be similar in composition to this commission. They would figure out what are the ten most important issues facing the community. Instead of giving public funds directly to the candidates, the money raised through taxes could be used to give each candidate an equal opportunity to communicate with the public through a mailing to all town residents. Each candidate could be given the opportunity to provide 100-word answers about each of the ten issues identified as important by the bi-partisan panel. He thinks enough public funds could be obtained to also produce radio and television info-commercials that could appear on radio and cable access stations as well as CNN and the Discovery Channel.
Supervisor Feiner said he is a challenger in a congressional race against an incumbent who can raise substantially more money that he can. The incumbent also has the advantages of incumbency. When he ran the last time, he could not raise enough to communicate with the voters. He could only afford to send 2-3 mailings to Democrats who voted in off-year elections. Republicans and Independence voters never received his mailings. If voters get information about the candidates they can make a more informed decision. The second proposal, where the increased taxes do not go directly to candidates, might be the preferred approach since he does not see how voters could reject that method of public financing.
Supervisor Feiner said that there are state and federal laws regulating freedom of speech. The 10-question voter guide could be an incentive to get candidates to agree to conditions. The conditions could include prohibitions on candidates soliciting funds from developers.
Supervisor Feiner said that he feels strongly that cable should be non-partisan. He would like everyone to be given equal access. After June or July, no candidate, including incumbents, should be given more airtime than anyone else. He would definitely support those changes. If a proposal was placed on the ballot and it was approved he would be willing to turn over the administration of cable television to a bi-partisan panel.
Supervisor Feiner said that it is not the amount of money that is raised in a local election that makes a difference, it is the ability to communicate with the voters. With the informational voters guide, within a few election cycles, the guides would have tremendous credibility and voters would be voting in off-year elections based on information in the guide.
Supervisor Feiner said his goal is to come up with a referendum at the local level, which could lead to county, state and federal reforms.
Supervisor Feiner, responding to the question "Should elected officials be allowed to vote on matters related to a contributor", said that everyone in the town can contribute, it is not just the developers. Someone from the community may not want a fence to be erected next to their property. The current system requires candidates to raise funds so they have an easy chance to win. He said those conclude his comments in response to the questions provided. If there are any other questions he would gladly answer them, he said.
Mary Tobias asked Supervisor Feiner if he was advocating public financing of cable television since the town already has cable access television.
Supervisor Feiner said that he does not watch cable access television and he doubts many others do. He has not watched a public access program in 3-4 years. He watches CNN. A voter like him will not see something on public access. He believes a majority of Greenburgh residents do not watch public access programs. Candidates need to be on popular channels such as CNN and the Discovery Channel. To reach the maximum audience, we need to get the message out. If having a moratorium was an important issue next year, for example, and money could be raised from a referendum, each candidate would be given the opportunity to say, for example, that Greenburgh is being overdeveloped and becoming "cementburgh". He could give a different opinion. Everyone would know where every candidate stood on an issue. If a voter later sees him at the supermarket he might be told his position on an issue in the guide was wrong. His referendum proposal will hurt incumbents like him because challengers would be given the opportunity to communicate with the voters. All the advantages of incumbency will never be eliminated. That is impossible. This gives challengers a fighting chance to get their message out. In fact, if the voter guide is adopted, Supervisor Feiner said he believes in 4-6 years there would be a two party government in the town. It would be healthy for the community to have a real challenge in local elections.
Lester Steinman said that with public financing there needs to be some threshold of support shown for the candidate in order to qualify for public financing. What should that threshold be? He also asked Supervisor Feiner to comment regarding how much money is necessary to run a competitive race for supervisor in Town.
Supervisor Feiner said that everyone running for office must be treated equally. Who should decide who is a serious candidate? When he first ran for county legislator he had no support, and he won against Abinanti. The Democratic party and the Republican party was against him, yet he still won. Anyone who qualifies and gets on the ballot should be allowed public financing. There are many small parties-- the Right-to-Life, the Green party, the Working Families party, the Liberal party and the Conservative Party-- and anyone who gets on the ballot should have the same opportunity to communicate as anyone else on the ballot. If Mr. Sheehan runs for office, for example, why should he be allowed to talk but not someone on the Liberal line.
Supervisor Feiner said that he was talking with Nicole Gordon today, who is a good friend of his, and learned that some members went to the NYC finance board today. The problem with NYC’s campaign finance laws is that candidates can still raise money from developers. It isn’t as good as it could be.
Lester Steinman said that leads to the second question. There is no threshold basically to qualify for funds. How much public money will a candidate receive?
Supervisor Feiner said one concept is full public funding. He hasn’t had a serious challenge in recent years for Supervisor. His greatest expense last year was staying on the ballot, which cost $9,000. His team was able to win the primary. He said he spent $10,000-$15,000 last year. However, in a hotly contested Supervisor’s race the cost could rise to $70,000, $80,000 or $100,000. In his first Supervisor race in 1991, to his recollection, he raised about $70,000 to win against Lois Bronz in the primary and then Anthony Veteran in the general election.
Lester Steinman asked Supervisor Feiner to try to quantify how much the town would have to raise to implement his plan of fully funding all candidates able to get on the ballot.
Supervisor Feiner said the voter guide makes a lot of sense. It is not just individual candidates. For example, if there is a primary for Town Council and there is someone who can’t stand him who wins the Democratic primary. Just because we traditionally run as a ticket does not mean everyone who is a Democratic and everyone who is a Republican will run as a ticket. Will every candidate be given $30,000 or $50,000, or will the party be given the money? When he ran as a County Legislator Anthony Veteran didn’t want to associate with him and didn’t give him a penny to help him. In Orangetown, Tom Kleiner is having trouble with his Town Council right now. There are many fights. If he runs they may not run as a team. A voter guide would be important to someone not running as a team. If the referendum passed, it might generate in the first year $30,000 - $50,000. A decision would have to be made regarding how many mailings would be sent and if they should be focused mailings. Conditions could be put on participating, and candidates would have to decide if they don’t want in.
Harriet Leib said the shame factor is an important tool.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Supervisor Feiner what, in his opinion, is the most effective method of campaigning.
Supervisor Feiner said voter contact is the reason he has been elected and re-elected. In the Town of Greenburgh you don’t have to buy an election but you must have the ability to communicate. Challengers get very little press coverage. For example, the primary coverage of Nancy Delahunt and Francis Sheehan was very limited. The Scarsdale Inquirer is better than most and may print letters to the editor but few residents read that paper. The Journal News will do an article when the challenger announces and another right before the election when it is probably too late to affect the election. To win an election, communication with the public must be cumulative.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Supervisor Feiner if the voter guide should be available for the primary or for the general election.
Supervisor Feiner said he would support a voter guide for both the primary and general elections.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said to Supervisor Feiner his comment about NYC’s system being less than it could be because candidates still raise money from developers seems contradictory, since candidates in Greenburgh will still need to raise money if the publicly-funded voter guide proposal is adopted.
Supervisor Feiner said as a challenger to Congressman Gillman he has a problem communicating. He cannot get much media coverage whereas Gillman as an incumbent doesn’t have that problem. It is hard to get name recognition. The best way to beat an incumbent is to get the issues to the voters. A voter guide sent to everyone in the town would probably eliminate the need to do fund-raising because the voters would be making an informed choice.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if the voter guide would solve the problems with the NYC system.
Supervisor Feiner said that it would because a condition of opting into the system could be that the candidate could not accept money from developers. He has been pushing a referendum because, if the voters decide local finance reform is needed, only the voters could overturn it. A referendum would let the voters decide if the current system is okay or if changes are needed.
Mary Tobias asked what would happen to an existing large war chest of a candidate who wants to participate in the public financing but also use the war chest to send out additional mailings.
Supervisor Feiner said he would be willing to put another condition on participation. A candidate could be limited to using funds raised in a particular time period during the election year. He is not looking at reform as a gimmick. He wants real campaign finance reform at the local level. He wants to truly level the playing field. Additional restrictions could be placed on participation, such as each individual can only raise $20,000.
Mary Tobias said it is very difficult for opponents to raise large amounts of money without going to "the big guys", the people with the deep pockets. By the time a challenger raises money it is too late in the race. She is concerned about the lopsidedness of the process. A challenger cannot complete with an existing large war chest.
Supervisor Feiner said another limit on participation in the voters guide could be that only a certain amount of money can be spent-- $0, $5000, or $10,000. No additional spending would be fine with him. If a candidate doesn’t participate the shame factor would be significant from the negative publicity. A candidate could use the voter guide to tell everyone in Greenburgh that the opponent refused to participate. The residents would vote against the person because he didn’t participate. He could sell the proposal to the Town Board this year but the commission needs to take the initiative now because everyone is thinking about next year’s election.
Harriet Leib said that many of the comments the commission heard involved contributions from developers. Do you need to take money from developers?
Supervisor Feiner said that there have been numerous instances in the last two years where he has voted against the interests of developers. You have to reach out to everyone. If you don’t, you might as well give up the race, particularly in a congressional race.
Francis Sheehan said that the commission has heard repeatedly that a referendum on this issue in New York State is not legal. He asked Supervisor Feiner how a referendum could be justified?
Supervisor Feiner said that the issue has to be tied to bonding or a home rule change could be sought.
Harriet Leib said another method would be to change the powers of the elected officials, similar to what the county did for the County Executive.
Supervisor Feiner said that the whole system is disgusting. If the town votes on this and something is approved with restrictions, such as a war chest can’t be used on a town election, then a bi-partisan panel could come up with 10 questions. Five mailings could be sent out to everyone in the town. The proposal could even provide for printing filers for candidates to hand out with the answers on them. Anyone who does not participate will be shut out. It would end contributions by those seeking favoritism for their contributions.
Francis Sheehan said to Supervisor Feiner that the two incumbent Town Council members spent about $500 on their re-elections because he funded the rest of their campaigns. Mr. Sheehan asked Supervisor Feiner if he thought a 10-question taxpayer-funded brochure is sufficient for a challenger to overcome such organized opposition.
Supervisor Feiner said that restrictions could be imposed to address that. Any candidate who participates could be prevented from taking contributions, from him or anyone else.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked the Supervisor if he would support a restriction that required each candidate to run individually, not as a team.
Supervisor Feiner said that he has a right to run as a team and send out literature as a team. If Diana Juettner seeks re-election next year, he has a right to support her. If there is a restriction against anyone contributing to a candidate, then he would not be able to give another candidate money. However, if candidates can raise money then he has a right to give candidates contributions as well.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that is the problem the commission is running into. Candidates have the right to do all sorts of things and local regulations cannot stop them. What must be decided is what are candidate’s "rights" and which "rights" should have conditions placed upon them in return for participating in the voluntary system.
Supervisor Feiner said he wants to have campaign finance reform. If no private funds are allowed, then he would not be allowed to fund Diana Juettner’s campaign because he wants the reforms to work. He was talking with Susan Mancuso earlier in the week about the commission’s discussion of what is a credible candidate. This proposal will likely hurt him and his team. This commission needs to look long-term. With a referendum only the voters can overturn what is proposed, not a future town board.
Francis Sheehan said the commission has repeatedly discussed his charge and comments have been made regarding whether proposals being offered are too broad or too narrow. He asked Supervisor Feiner what, if any, restrictions has he placed on the commission’s recommendations.
Supervisor Feiner said the only restriction is that there be a referendum placed on the ballot dealing with partial or full campaign financing so the voters could decide.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Supervisor Feiner if he was saying that he would not support the recommendations of the commission if a referendum was not legally possible due to NYS restrictions on what can be submitted to the public in the form of a referendum. Lester Steinman has repeatedly stated that a referendum on these issues may not be possible in NYS.
Supervisor Feiner said that if a referendum cannot be held, an informal vote could be held in the town. A mailing could be sent out and a machine placed at a designated polling place so voters could cast their ballot informally. The town can also ask the state legislature to grant a home rule request to give the voters an opportunity to vote.
Harriet Leib said to Supervisor Feiner that when he asked the League of Women Voters to take on the commission, the League agreed with the condition that the commission would be totally independent and could come up with recommendations other than that related to the charge.
Supervisor Feiner agreed with Harriet Leib’s statement.
Harriet Leib and Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Supervisor Feiner for attending.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Sheehan, Commission Secretary