GREENBURGH CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES--MAY 11, 2000
(May 23, 2000 draft)
Present:
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Claire Lee, Harriet Leib, Erin Malloy, Susan Mancuso, Charlotte Schienberg, Ervin Schliefer, Francis Sheehan, Lester Steinman
Absent:
Andrew Goodman, Rev. Wilbert Preston, Mike Reynolds, Sally Schaadt, Mary Tobias
The seventh meeting of the commission was called to order at 12:40 p.m. in room 121, at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains.
Co-Chair Harriet Leib said that the sole purpose of the meeting is to focus on the ultimate goals of each subcommittee and the commission in general to be presented to the public. Therefore, there is no agenda. The commissioners need to work in the spirit of compromise, with the townspeople in mind, recognizing that there is no perfect system. There are legal, ethical, and moral issues that need to be addressed. The commissioners should keep the discussion as impersonal as possible. Each of the subcommittees should talk about their concerns and what should be in the document presented to the public.
Claire Lee said she would start. The Cable Subcommittee had a good meeting. Susan Mancuso typed up and presented a proposal at the last meeting. The subcommittee has learned that other communities have a much better way of handling cable access. She wouldn’t mind exploring those methods, but perhaps doing so is beyond the commission’s charge. She spoke to Frank Leicht, who was responsible for setting up cable access in Larchmont and Mamaroneck. The residents there recognized cable access would be important so the local civic associations formed a non-profit organization to regulate cable. Frank Leicht was astonished to learn that the cable franchise fees in Greenburgh are not used for improving cable access but instead are placed into the town’s general budget. Larchmont/Mamaroneck has an oversight board with members from each of the three municipalities-- Larchmont, the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Mamaroneck. Francis Sheehan has since conducted research on the web and found that other municipalities have similar systems.
Harriet Leib asked if it is common to have a non-profit oversight board in other municipalities.
Francis Sheehan said that he conducted a search for "cable access" on the web and has downloaded a considerable amount of material which he is still collating. He said he has not found any that are under the total control of the municipal officials, as is Greenburgh’s cable access system. All of the cable access stations found to date offer comprehensive training so that the community members essentially operate and control the amount of access and the quality of the system-- producing, hosting and editing the cable access shows. Many of the stations are regulated, not by the municipality, but by a non-profit organization similar to that in Larchmont/Mamaroneck. Some of those non-profit organizations even negotiate the franchise agreement with the cable company, again similar to the system in Larchmont/Mamaroneck. They do not have to rely on a municipal employee’s approval or availability to host or produce a cable access program. Community members who take the training courses can sign out cameras and other equipment and televise any non-commercial, non-obscene show or meeting they wish.
Francis Sheehan said, using the franchise fee moneys as well as fund-raising proceeds, cable access systems elsewhere have built substantial studio buildings, purchased one or more vans to offer mobile coverage, equipped their studios with numerous editing booths, etc. It appears the common format is to require hosts/producers to obtain training and to then apply that training to their shows as well as the shows of others. There is a community team effort. In other words, the public access station is truly placed in the hands of the public with sufficient funds to provide quality equipment. He did not try to find web sites that differed from Greenburgh’s system. He downloaded any cable access site he found. Only one site indicated the municipality takes most of the cable franchise money and diverts it to other uses, similar to what happens in Greenburgh. The vast majority of cable systems found are under the control of independent, non-profit community organizations.
Francis Sheehan said, based on his research, municipalities generally distinguish between the three cable access channels provided by most cable companies-- a municipal channel, an educational channel, and a public access channel. The municipal channel is generally limited to official municipal business, such as town meetings. Schools use the educational channel for school board meetings, plays, etc. The public access channel is the one used for all other programming and is operated by the community. However, it appears most municipalities that have a non-profit organization overseeing the public access channel ask the non-profit group to oversee and operate the municipal channel as well, taping the board meetings, etc., as a service to the community. He said Yorktown Councilman Nicholas Bianco’s presentation at a prior commission meeting only pertained to the municipal channel, which Mr. Bianco called the "government’s channel". The commission did not hear about the public access channel or the education channel in Yorktown. Therefore, no conclusion can be made regarding whether Yorktown officials control community programs as do Greenburgh officials. It appears from the research to date, that Greenburgh officials’ total control over all access channels is atypical.
Harriet Leib asked Francis Sheehan, based on his research, what other municipalities do regarding allowing political aspirants access to cable.
Francis Sheehan said that some cable access organizations have very extensive rules and regulations, including access by political candidates. Most of the rules that are posted seem to be directed toward providing fair and equal access to everyone, not specifically singling out candidates. One of the rules he read does provide for candidates to appear for up to 30-minutes per week.
Charlotte Schienberg asked if the stations have staff.
Francis Sheehan said that many do have one to five staff members, but rely extensively on volunteers. One of the ways he measures how active an organization may be is by monitoring how frequently the web site is updated. Most of the cable access sites were up-to-date, with information about their cable board meetings, etc., indicating that someone is minding the store.
Claire Lee said that the response in Greenburgh to complaints about limited access to candidates was that they couldn’t give as much access to candidates as desirable because of a limited budget. As candidates asked for more coverage, the town’s response was that taxes would have to be raised or moneys diverted from other programs. If the cable franchise money wasn’t diverted into Greenburgh’s town budget then that would remove that argument. Frank Leicht was very surprised that Greenburgh takes that money away from cable access.
Francis Sheehan said that it would be helpful to have Frank Leicht or someone else from Larchmont/Mamaroneck to attend a commission meeting so the commission can learn firsthand how their system works.
Francis Sheehan said that he has been advocating using significantly increased cable access as an incentive to candidates to sign on to local campaign reforms. The access must be fair and predictable, so a candidate could list the air time on mailings to the public. Mailings can only contain a limited amount of information but could serve as a hook to get the public to watch a program with more information. He does not know of anything else, at least in the short term, that could serve as an incentive to candidates to accept full disclosure, campaign spending limits, etc.
Co-chair Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Hillary Clinton was on the Today Show earlier in the day. Ms. Clinton said that free TV time is critical to real campaign reform. The commission can’t offer commercial TV time as an incentive to candidates, but it could offer cable access time.
Harriet Leib asked if the cable subcommittee will be standing by the original proposal or will be meeting to modify it.
Claire Lee said that Sally Schaadt wanted to know what was included in the term "the conduct of official town business".
Susan Mancuso said the term is used in a clause which exempts the conduct of official town business from candidate access time-limits. It means the meetings of the Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals, which are televised, are exempt from the restrictions. Francis Sheehan is on the Zoning Board. He should not have to step down from the Zoning Board while he is a candidate because the meetings are televised. It also means that the Zoning Board meetings could still be shown even though he is a candidate as well as a board member. The clause exempts those meetings.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said at the last meeting there was a suggestion that equal time be given to those who do not sit on the boards to compensate for all the time a candidate-board member appears on cable.
Claire Lee said that is a possibility.
Susan Mancuso said that the proposal is a starting point. There are some benefits to incumbents, she mentioned that in the past as well, however, the proposal shouldn’t be overly complicated. If a real disparity is apparent in access then changes can be made.
Harriet Leib said there does appear to be a disparity already. The commission has heard repeatedly that the incumbents own the station. It was a major point. The incumbents controlled the scheduling and there was not equity or fairness in the distribution of time.
Susan Mancuso said the proposal addresses that problem. It even provides for candidates vying for primary nomination. It establishes the amount of time, 10-minutes, the candidates can appear on air. It could be done other ways, and suggestions are welcome, but the proposal allows all candidates equal time and as the field whittles down, if candidates fail to get on the ballot or lose the primary, fewer candidates would appear on cable. The segments would be changed monthly so the public wouldn’t get bored. Every candidate would get an opportunity to appear first.
Harriet Leib asked Susan Mancuso if the town would be receptive to the idea of separating cable access franchise fees from the town’s budget, similar to what is done in Larchmont/Mamaroneck.
Susan Mancuso said she cannot speak for the town. She thinks it is a laudatory idea. She thinks a non-profit corporation operating cable access is also a great idea. However, these issues are beyond the scope of the commission.
Harriet Leib said it could be a recommendation even if it can’t be implemented immediately.
Susan Mancuso said she would not have a problem with making a recommendation.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Harriet Leib’s final comment at the last meeting addresses this issue. The League of Women Voters signed on with a condition that the commission would be independent and could make recommendations other than those directly related to financing campaigns. Supervisor Feiner acknowledged that he agreed to the condition. The commission is not confined to act solely on the Supervisor’s charge.
Susan Mancuso agreed. She said her statement was directed toward what can be readily implemented. She wasn’t questioning the commission’s ability to make recommendations. She is trying to develop something manageable, starting small and expanding outward.
Charlotte Schienberg asked what would be the window of time for candidates during the campaign season.
Susan Mancuso said the election season starts in June.
Charlotte Schienberg asked how much time could be allotted for candidates during the election season and could the so-called "government" channel provide additional time to candidates when municipal meetings are not being televised.
Susan Mancuso said other members of the subcommittee may be able to speak to this issue also. The subcommittee is developing a minimum access time. As Francis Sheehan has said, cable access can be a "carrot". Hillary Clinton’s comment regarding the importance of TV coverage crystallizes this cable access "carrot" idea. This proposal could be the minimum for signing on to whatever the rules are for campaign finance reform.
Francis Sheehan said that he hoped the meeting would be used for concepts instead of specific proposals. At the last commission meeting each subcommittee presented subcommittee reports that were not fully developed at the subcommittee level and, more problematic, each of the subcommittees started treading on the work of other subcommittees and could not make decisions because the issues involved another subcommittee. For example, the Cable Subcommittee’s proposal does not contain incentives for candidates who sign on to local campaign finance reforms. In fact, it is a disincentive for a candidate to sign on because it requires a candidate who has a 30-minute cable show to give up that show for a 10-minute segment. It makes a candidate less of a citizen than everyone else in the Town entitled to have a cable show. He doesn’t think anyone would sign on to such a proposal.
Francis Sheehan said the Cable Subcommittee drafted the proposal as written without incentives because the use of cable as an incentive would step on the work of the Public Finance Subcommittee. The Cable Subcommittee had no incentive-mandate with which to work. The Ethics Subcommittee met and developed recommendations which included creation of some type of oversight board, which was also discussed separately by the Cable Subcommittee and the Public Finance Subcommittee. He hopes this meeting will be used, not solely for hearing from each subcommittee separately, but for all the subcommittees to jointly develop a focus for these overlapping issues so subcommittees can continue working, all in a unified direction. For example, if the incentive for signing on to local reform is significantly increased cable access, as he believes it should be, then each of the subcommittees can incorporate that incentive into their proposals. He hopes the subcommittee members will leave the meeting with a unified focus. For example, if cable is determined to be the incentive, the Cable Subcommittee could develop recommendations for providing increased cable access time to candidates and the Public Finance Subcommittee could decide what reforms a candidate should agree to in order to obtain that increased cable access time, full disclosure, etc.
Francis Sheehan said that rehashing the details of the Cable Subcommittee proposal again, as was done at the last commission meeting, does not seem to be productive, particular in light of Lester Steinman’s comment during an Ethics Subcommittee meeting that candidates cannot be barred from cable access simply because they refuse to sign on to campaign reforms. Candidates are residents of the town and have as much right to cable access as any other resident. Candidates do not become less of a citizen by declaring to be a candidate. Therefore, what the Cable Subcommittee needs to do is develop basic access for all candidates and then a "nugget" or "carrot", and it should be a big one, for those candidates who sign on to the campaign reform measures developed by the Public Finance Subcommittee.
Claire Lee said increased cable access doesn’t cost anything. She said George Latimer was smart to avoid reforms that cost a lot. The residents have complained about cable access being unfair. Oversight is needed to ensure compliance. If someone breaks the rules, the violator needs to be exposed. It is really not complicated to implement these reforms.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the cable access proposal defines the election season as starting on June 1st. There is nothing special about June 1-- it is not the date signatures are collected or petitions are filed at the Board of Elections. Perhaps the date should be the date a person declares him/herself a candidate in the newspaper. It could be part of the "nugget" that was mentioned. It could be a remedy to the disadvantage a challenger has against an incumbent who appears frequently on cable during board meetings, etc., which are exempt from regulation. Incumbents tend to wait until the last minute to declare because they can give speeches at meetings without those speeches being considered campaign-related. If a challenger declares in February, for example, he/she could start benefiting from the increased cable time. It would apply to all candidates who agree to the reforms. The date should be more flexible and be based on when a candidate declares him/herself to be a candidate.
Claire Lee mentioned Frank Leicht. The subcommittee will probably talk to him. Would the entire commission want to hear what he has to say?
Harriet Leib said the problem is time. The commission could hear endlessly from people who have helpful things to offer but there is a little amount of time.
Elizabeth Daniel said she is unclear if the Cable Subcommittee is limiting itself to making cable access more fair and accessible in general or is focusing on making it fairer and more accessible only if tied to campaign finance reform.
Susan Mancuso said the idea is that the only way to get voluntary compliance with campaign finance reforms is to offer the cable "nugget". Therefore, there is a linkage.
Claire Lee said that even if there wasn’t linkage the process is worth doing.
Elizabeth Daniel said she absolutely agrees. Her point is that not all candidates will agree to the reforms so the issue becomes how best to structure cable so that it is fair for all candidates without linkage and then how best to structure cable for those candidate who sign on. How many candidates sign on will depend on how onerous it is to comply with the reform measures adopted. It will be a smaller group of candidates who benefit from the nugget. The two structures needed are different. The commission might consider proposing both structures at the public hearing but doing so might get too confusing. It is conceivable that it is not feasible to proceed with a full-blown campaign finance reform system, but one of the key things that must be done is to address complaints that cable access is not fair. It must be made fair for everyone.
Francis Sheehan said that he has never advocated making cable access fair only if there is linkage. Access to cable needs to be fair and equitable, regardless of any other reform initiative. Since the commission has learned that all candidates must be provided some baseline amount of access to cable, similar to what is available to other residents, it is even more critical that the commission develop recommendations to ensure day-to-day access to cable is fair. Baseline access must be fair to everyone, including candidates who decide not to participate in reforms.
Elizabeth Daniel said a municipality doesn’t have to allow everyone access to the government channel, which is used for municipal meetings. It only has to provide open access to the community access channel. Residents do not have a right to be on the government channel, as they do on the community access channel.
Francis Sheehan said that the channel distinction Elizabeth Daniel described is very common elsewhere, but not in Greenburgh. Greenburgh essentially has two government channels. The incumbents control both channels, decide who can have a show, when it will air and how often, and then they schedule the permitted shows to be replayed on both the "government" channel, channel 71, and the public access channel, channel 73, in a window from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays. The only difference between the channels in Greenburgh is that town municipal meetings are not shown on channel 73 in the unincorporated area of town. Also, the villages have been given the ability to preempt what is shown on the access channels so cable shows may not be viewed town-wide.
Susan Mancuso said the villages probably have the right to preempt what is on the public access channels within their villages.
Francis Sheehan said that he has not seen anything in writing that permits preemption of town-wide programming.
Susan Mancuso said if there is nothing in writing it would be interesting, even though politically it may be problematic working it out.
Harriet Leib summarized that the issues with cable are equity and incentives, with possible long-term changes to the way Greenburgh deals with cable access in general regarding creation of a non-profit corporation and separating financing from the town budget. The commission can recommend short-term and long-term changes. The Cable Subcommittee needs to know if this is the focus upon which to concentrate. Any recommendations should be in as few words as possible because they must be given to the media for publication, perhaps even posted on the cable access bulletin board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if anyone had an objection to the Cable Subcommittee focusing on the issues summarized by Harriet Leib. There was no objection.
Harriet Leib said the next subcommittee is the Ethics Subcommittee. She said she heard the biggest source of contention for the subcommittee seems to involve restricting employees from accepting gifts, and using the term "contribution" may be problematic because it may not be legally allowable. She asked Catherine Lederer-Plaskett to give the subcommittee report.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that one of the questions facing the subcommittee, which may have been clarified at the end of the last commission meeting, involves the scope of the commission’s charge and possible recommendations it could make. As mentioned previously, Lester Steinman came up with the recusal provision as a means of legally addressing the appearance of impropriety that results from a board member being asked to vote on a campaign contributor’s application; the contribution cannot be restricted if it complies with election laws but the elected official’s ability to vote on a contributor’s application can be restricted, which reduces the influence a contribution from a developer may have. Officials would be given the opportunity to return a contribution rather than recuse themselves.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the Ethics Subcommittee also discussed the section of the Ethics Code which prohibits a majority of Ethics Board members from belonging to the same political party. The members considered imposing a time period that a person should belong to a political party before being appointed but there was strong sentiment by some that that section of the Ethics Code should be left alone.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said there was discussion about how a complaint gets to the Ethics Board. In many towns, residents have direct access to the Ethics Board. In Greenburgh, the Town Board must authorize the Ethics Board to conduct any inquiry. She said Francis Sheehan conducted research on the web and found innumerable examples of municipalities that allow any person to file a complaint with the Ethics Board. Some members felt that allowing any person to file a complaint would overwhelm the Ethics Board in Greenburgh. Other members felt that if municipalities such as the City of White Plains or the City of Seattle or our own Village of Dobbs Ferry can handle open access to their Ethics Boards, then the Town of Greenburgh should be able to handle the potential workload as well. The members of the subcommittee have strong but differing opinions regarding each of these issues.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said there was also a difference of opinion regarding whether the subcommittee’s recommendations should consist of a drafted proposed Ethics Code amendment, a more generalized statement of concerns for the Town Board to consider, or a hybrid of the two presentation methods. The hybrid compromise involves making generalized statements of concern in the final report, while referencing proposed amendment language in an appendix.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the Ethics Subcommittee members are in agreement that a Fair Practices Board needs to be created. The composition of the board and whether it should be a non-partisan board or a bi-partisan board needs to be resolved.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the last but an important issue discussed by the Ethics Subcommittee pertains to newsletters, which was effectively handled at the County level. The commission has seen examples of how town officials sent out mass mailings to sections of town simultaneously with the time period for collecting signatures to get on the ballot. The possibility of truly needed mailings being sent from the legal department instead of the Supervisor’s office was discussed. The public would still obtain needed information without the politics.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the issue of gifts has been contentious. Susan Mancuso has objected to changing the Ethics Code to prohibit employees from accepting any gifts. The issue was initially raised to try to address concerns about favoritism and lobbying. Proposed changes have been said to penalize candidates for getting elected. However, the advantage of dealing with these issues in the Ethics Code is that it targets those in a position to make decisions on a contributor’s applications. Candidates who don’t get elected can’t vote. Another discussion concentrated on the possibility that the recusal provision could result in a majority of board members being prohibited from voting, since contributions obtained directly or indirectly as part of a team are included. She spoke to Elizabeth Daniel regarding this possibility and even if the board members had to vote in order to have a quorum they would still be required to disclose receiving the contribution.
Erin Malloy asked what would happen if all five members of the Town Board accepted contributions from the applicant.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that there is a provision that allows members to vote even if there is a conflict if recusal results in an insufficient number of voting members.
Erin Malloy asked if the law would then be that the Town Board members would not have to recuse themselves, they would just have to disclose the contribution.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the issue is up for discussion.
Lester Steinman said the order should be disclosure and then recusal. Disclosure is a minimum step. The officials would have to state why they are stepping down from the vote. The public is entitled to know why their elected officials are not voting on an issue. Once they disclose, if there are an insufficient number of voting members, they can vote.
Erin Malloy said the goal is obviously to encourage elected officials not to have a conflict.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett agreed, stating that elected officials won’t want to appear tainted by certain contributions and may refuse them.
Harriet Leib asked what was the legal issue involving using the term "contribution", or was the problem related to the term "employee".
Lester Steinman said he didn’t want to be repetitive but most municipalities exclude campaign contributions from gift provisions in their Ethics Code to avoid violating federal and state election laws. The recusal provision that was developed addresses the concern that was raised regarding campaign contributions to a board member. There was a later discussion that raised the issue of employees accepting gifts, which is a totally separate issue, quite distinct from campaign finance reform. The commission should focus on the major issue, which is dealt with by the recusal provision.
Ervin Schliefer asked if other municipalities have a prohibition on voting by elected officials.
Elizabeth Daniel said there are a handful of towns that have similar provisions and some cities as well. The difficulty municipalities have is defining what constitutes having an interest in an application.
Ervin Schliefer asked what do those municipalities do when a majority cannot vote.
Lester Steinman said that there is a common law rule called the "Rule of Necessity", which states that, if the board cannot otherwise function, members can vote even though a potential conflict has been identified.
Elizabeth Daniel said that similar provisions exist in the corporate world.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that great progress has been made in what can be presented to the public.
Lester Steinman asked if the recusal provision should be tied to a monetary threshold, such as $25. It is a fundamental question. There is a supposition being made that an elected official will be unduly influenced by contributions and therefore precluded from voting. It is difficult to make that case for a small contribution. Elected officials could repeatedly have to recuse themselves for no valid reason. A threshold is important.
Harriet Leib asked if it was legal to prevent an elected official from accepting contributions, setting aside employees at this point.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said it is not legal to attack the giving of the campaign contribution. The proposal doesn’t do that. Instead, the ability of a contribution to influence an elected official’s vote is addressed through the recusal provision. The contributor can give the candidate a contribution. However, the contribution can’t help the contributor’s application because the candidate is recused from voting on it.
Lester Steinman said this discussion goes to the heart of the issue-- what constitutes a substantial contribution, one that would influence a vote and therefore justify recusal.
Harriet Leib said the dollar value is not the only benefit to a candidate, there is a "chumminess" factor that is very important.
Elizabeth Daniel asked if a candidate attended a League of Women Voters’ reception and ate a lot, would that be considered a gift.
Lester Steinman said chumminess has many facets other than money. A person cannot be disqualified solely on the basis of chumminess.
Erin Malloy said that non-monetary issues seem to be something only the League of Women Voters cares about. When she was at the NYC finance board she asked about in-kind contributions as she was being shown computer screens of data and they scoffed at her. In-kind contributions can be significant but are difficult to quantify, unlike monetary contributions, on which the commission should focus.
Harriet Leib said she believes NYC tried to regulate in-kind contributions but could not define the issue.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the value of someone making a phone bank available to a candidate is supposed to be disclosed to the Board of Elections.
Erin Malloy agreed, stating that those types of in-kind contributions have a dollar value that must be considered as equivalent to giving money. It must be decided what constitutes a potentially corrupting amount of money.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that there should be some standard. Election laws require disclosure of contributions of $100 or more. That may be a justifiable threshold. A review of the financial filings shows that the average person gives about $25. At the local level a $100 contribution stands out.
Erin Malloy said that $100 is too low. She is not uncomfortable with her elected officials voting on applications where the applicant gave more than that.
Elizabeth Daniel said that there is a difference between disclosure thresholds and thresholds that are corrupting. The disclosure threshold is set low to determine if there is a pattern to the source of the contributions. $100 seems appropriate for disclosure. A corrupting amount would be higher.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked what should be the threshold for recusal, $250?
Harriet Leib said the amount is relative to the community-- in one community $250 could be too low and in another it could be too high.
Francis Sheehan said that local disclosure requirements less than what is required by federal or state law are unenforceable unless there is full disclosure and all the contribution total what is reported to the Board of Elections. The oversight committee has no way of verifying if a candidate received two $75 contributions or three $50 contributions because no laws are broken by not itemizing the amounts under $100. The only way of verifying compliance with lower disclosure thresholds is to require full disclosure and then verify the totals against totals filed with the Board of Elections. He asked if there would be a different threshold of disclosure for receiving the cable "nugget" than for the recusal provisions.
Susan Mancuso said that there should be a distinction between the two thresholds.
Lester Steinman said the cable issue is totally different. The two are unrelated.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested sticking to the threshold for recusal and then suggested that the dollar amount may need to be determined after obtaining input at the upcoming public hearing.
Lester Steinman asked Erin Malloy if she had a recusal threshold amount in mind.
Erin Malloy said she was surprised how much money is spent in Greenburgh on local elections.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that she has made copies of local candidates’ financing filings for the past few elections.
Erin Malloy said her "gut" reaction is that $250 is too low.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that $250 is too high for local elections and urged that the records be examined.
Elizabeth Daniel said $250 may seem too high in a local election but to what end. Is it high based on what others are contributing or is it high because it is inherently corrupting at the local level?
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that it depends on who is giving the money. If a developer contributes the contribution is generally larger.
Lester Steinman asked how much developers typically donate.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she has offered the records at each of the commission meetings. Developers contribute $1000. Some contribute $250.
Francis Sheehan said $1000 is the maximum that could be contributed in the local election. The maximum is being contributed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Town Board members seeking higher office, such as a congressional seat or judgeship, raise more money from different sources than Town Board members just interested in running for local office. The local candidates typically receive smaller contributions than those running for higher office so the threshold needs to address the local candidate who may receive many small donations and a $100 or $250 donation really stands out.
Erin Malloy said Catherine Lederer-Plaskett’s point is an interesting one. The candidate’s goals need to be considered when establishing a threshold. In addition, the candidates’ actual expenditures should be examined to determine the cost of the local campaigns.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the issue of campaign costs highlights the team problem.
Elizabeth Daniel said the team issue is addressed by in-kind contribution disclosure requirements. If a town council candidate is receiving in-kind help from another member of the team worth $1,000 dollars that must be disclosed.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said in Greenburgh town council members have not disclosed the indirect funding of their campaigns by the Supervisor on their financial filings. Each gave $500 to the Supervisor who then paid for their entire campaign. A challenger generally collects numerous small donations so a $250 contribution to such a candidate who later is called on to vote on the contributor’s application could be perceived as having a conflict. The proposal doesn’t prohibit the contribution, just a subsequent vote pertaining to the contributor.
Harriet Leib said the commission is getting bogged down with the recusal threshold amount issue. A decision needs to be made. Should an amount be established or should a general statement be presented at the public hearing.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested letting the public comment regarding what would be an appropriate threshold amount. A finished product need not and should not be presented to the public.
Francis Sheehan said that in the last election two of the Town Council members running with the Supervisor spent $500 on their campaigns according to the filed financial records. Therefore, $250 for a Town Council member is extremely high and even $100 is too high. A distinction also needs to be made regarding the office sought. A Town Council race is different from a Supervisor race which is different from a congressional race.
Lester Steinman said Mr. Sheehan is using the wrong standard. The standard should be what dollar amount will influence the elected official’s vote. He hopes an elected official would laugh at a $250 contributor who asked for favoritism. When $1000 is contributed, that could have some influence. The individual gives $1000 for the primary, $1000 for the general election, his/her company gives $1000, and it all adds up to a significant amount of money that could influence a candidate. The standard needs to be the amount that could influence a vote.
Erin Malloy said that standard could also apply to a lesser degree to Town Council members voting. It didn’t cost only $500 for the Town Council candidates to get elected, it had to cost them much more.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the financial records filed with the Board of Elections indicate that they each contributed $500 to the team and that was all it cost them.
Harriet Leib said the in-kind contributions were obviously not included.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that a proposed $1000 threshold shows the high economic level of the members in the room. Some candidates do not get anywhere near $1000 contributions. A $100 or $250 contribution stands out and is highly unusual. Other candidates have supporters who can afford to give more so a $250 contribution may not have the same influence.
Lester Steinman said it is not illegal for a candidate, once elected, to vote in support of his/her constituents who helped win the election.
Erin Malloy said the comment that some candidates who receive smaller contributions than other candidates may be influenced by lower thresholds implies that those candidates are more easily corrupted.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that is not her point. The limit for federal elections is $1000. The threshold for a local election should be much lower, particularly for a seat that cost $500 to win. The commissioners seem to be judging that $250 or $500 is not much money based on their own salaries. Even so, how many in the room gave $250 to a candidate? It is a lot of money. If the contribution amount stands out from the other contributions it could lead to the appearance of a conflict, which should be avoided.
Elizabeth Daniel said that the commission should not consider $500 as the amount needed to run for office in Greenburgh. That amount is caused by a unique set of circumstances in how the incumbents ran as a team during the last election and how the expenditures were reported. Focusing on the $500 reported could skew the analysis needed. Instead, the records should be examined to determine if $250 is such a rare contribution that it is high enough to trigger a concern that something is going on.
Lester Steinman said the final thing to keep in mind when establishing a threshold is that it is not just requiring disclosure, it is preventing an elected official from voting, from doing his or her job.
Ervin Schliefer said that he is concerned that 10,000 people who may have contributed to a candidate could be disenfranchised because their candidate accepted their contributions and cannot vote.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested soliciting comment regarding the recusal threshold amount at the public hearing. There was consensus to do so.
Francis Sheehan asked if the June 5 date for the public hearing is firm. He was told the commission is committed to having the hearing on that date.
Harriet Leib asked if the commission should discuss the criticism that the public is barred from directly forwarding a complaint to Greenburgh Ethics Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested soliciting comment about it at the public hearing.
Claire Lee inquired as to possible options since the only way to get to the Ethics Board is if the Town Board agrees the matter should be considered by the Ethics Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Town Board approval is required under the current Ethics Law in Greenburgh but there are many municipalities that allow any person in the municipality to file a complaint directly with the Ethics Board.
Harriet Leib said that the oversight board might be an appropriate alternative path to the Ethics Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that how the oversight board is created will determine if they can forward complaints to the Ethics Board. The oversight board may have to be appointed by the Town Board in order to make referrals unless the Ethics Code is changed to allow any person to file a complaint.
Lester Steinman said he is still researching this issue. If the oversight is created totally outside the scope of town government he is concerned that they would not be able to make a recommendation under the current code.
Erin Malloy said she is concerned that the issue of how someone gets to the Ethics Board could consume valuable time at the public hearing.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the issue has been controversial for some time and it is likely someone will raise the issue at the public hearing, regardless of what is presented to the public.
Lester Steinman said that how the general public files a non-campaign-related complaint with the Ethics Board is outside the scope of the commission and yet it might detract from time spent hearing about campaign finance related issues. Perhaps a statement could be issued that acknowledges that there is no means of getting to the Ethics Board except through the Town Board so the commission is considering an oversight board as an alternate mechanism of forwarding campaign-related complaints to the Ethics Board. The statement may be ignored and general access comments received anyway.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that one alternative path via an oversight board is not the only option. Another option, since the commission is examining the Ethics Code anyway, is to recommend that any person should be able to file a complaint, including members of an oversight board that is not appointed by the Town Board, as is the case in many municipalities throughout the country.
Lester Steinman said this approach raises the issue of what is the commission’s charge. It is not to re-write the Ethics Code in toto. There may be 100 things that may need to be done to the Ethics Code to bring it up-to-date but that is not the commission’s role. He asked for guidance from the commission on the scope to be pursued.
Francis Sheehan said the final comments at the last commission meeting were the "saving grace" for the commission. It was clear that the League of Women Voters had extracted a commitment from Supervisor Feiner that, even though the Supervisor had a specific charge in mind, the commission could conduct an independent study and could make recommendations quite different that what might be considered within the scope of the Supervisor’s charge. He thinks it is important that the commission not ignore, or be perceived as ignoring, controversial issues that may not be directly related to campaign finance reform but are associated with the Ethics Law, cable access or any other topic under study by the commission. If objective research supports a recommendation which addresses a complaint heard by the commission, the commission should not shy away from making such a recommendation simply because it does not directly address a campaign finance issue. For example, his research indicates that many municipalities allow "any person" to file a complaint with the municipality’s Ethics Board without prior approval of another board. He noted that recently-revised ethics codes, including those for the City of White Plains and the Village of Dobbs Ferry, as well as many others nation-wide, have added language to allow any person to file a complaint without the approval of another board. The controversial requirement in Greenburgh that the Town Board approve an Ethics Board complaint, including a complaint that may be critical of one or more Town Board members, is not the standard. The commission, having recognized that the Greenburgh referral system is needlessly controversial, based on objective data, should not hesitate recommending remedies. To date, no data has been presented to refute his research findings. If anyone has such data, indicating that the town’s referral procedure is the standard, he would like to see it.
Francis Sheehan said the credibility and fairness of the League of Women Voters and the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, and every other group represented on the commission will be judged by the work product that is ultimately produced, its objectivity and scope. He is concerned that remedies to controversial issues that do not require much effort to address via a recommendation may be tabled because they don’t specifically relate to campaign finance. Particularly troubling to him is the apparent willingness by some to ignore a complaint that the political party composition of the Ethics Board has been manipulated to maintain Democratic Party control even though the Ethics Code specifically prohibits a majority of any political party being represented on the board. As mentioned at a prior meeting, a candidate for Greenburgh Town Judge, registered as an Independent, ran as a life-long Democratic who only changed his party affiliation because he was asked to be on the Ethics Board and the board already contained the maximum number of Democrats. Mr. Sheehan said he has the campaign literature proving the statements he is making. He said the commission has objective data indicating a provision of the Ethics Code is being sidestepped, jeopardizing the perceived objectivity of the board to which any oversight board created would refer complaints. Making a recommendation that Ethics Board members be affiliated with their party for at least one election cycle or some other time period before appointment doesn’t seem that onerous. He said it was wrong for the Town Board to sidestep the Ethics Code party diversity provision and it is wrong for the commission to not broaden its scope when necessary to address such issues.
Susan Mancuso asked who was the candidate.
Francis Sheehan said the candidate was James Hubbert.
Erin Malloy asked if the Town Board or Ethics Board has refused to accept ethics violation complaints.
Francis Sheehan said a civic association attempted to file an Ethics Code violation complaint with the Ethics Board, which refused to accept the complaint without authorization from the Town Board, which refused to grant authorization. These are real issues facing town residents.
Harriet Leib read a section of the recently adopted Ethics Code for the Village of Dobbs Ferry: "Upon receipt of a sworn complaint by any person alleging a violation of this Code of Ethics or by determining upon its own initiative that a violation of this Code of Ethics may exist, the Village Ethics Board shall have the power and duty to conduct any investigation necessary."
Francis Sheehan said that provision is standard language in ethics codes based on his research.
Erin Malloy said that adopting the Village of Dobbs Ferry’s Ethics Code was an incredible ordeal and that she is concerned about broadening the scope of the commission. However, she may be hypersensitive to the issue since she has spent months and months working on the Dobbs Ferry code.
Francis Sheehan said that there were calls for members to conduct research and research was done. If anyone can show what he has found is not standard language, then he would drop the issue. That doesn’t appear to be the case.
Lester Steinman said that is not the issue. If the commission was charged with re-writing the Ethics Code a wholesale review and re-write could be done after obtaining considerable expertise. That is not what he believes the commission is charged with doing. There is no problem mentioning that during the course of the commission’s deliberations issues were raised with respect to how the Ethics Board was appointed, with respect to how complaints are made to the Ethics Board. To get involved in re-writing the Ethics Code is beyond the scope of this commission.
Erin Malloy said the creation of an oversight board that could refer complaints to the Ethics Board would address the issue involving access.
Harriet Leib said that a complaint could be heard by the oversight board and a decision made by them.
Lester Steinman said the oversight board could not interpret the Ethics Code but apply the Ethics Code and refer a potential violation to the Ethics Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said unless the Ethics Code is changed to allow any person to refer matters to the Ethics Board, the oversight board could not refer violators unless the members of the oversight board were appointed by the Town Board.
Lester Steinman said a Town Board-appointed oversight board could refer matters directly to the Ethics Board without the approval of the Town Board and provide an alternate means of filing a complaint. If the oversight board works completely outside town government that presents a problem.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said this issue raises another issue-- how does the oversight board get appointed.
Harriet Leib said that is a totally different issue.
Lester Steinman suggested the commission resolve that issue. Should the oversight board be outside or not.
Harriet Leib said the issue is really should the oversight board be independent.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the access problem could be circumvented if the Ethics Code was amended to allow any person to file a complaint because then an outside, independent oversight board could file a complaint as a "person".
Lester Steinman said that these are two separate issues: access to the Ethics Board and how the oversight board is created. It is true that an outside oversight board could file a complaint with the Ethics Board if it is opened up to everyone’s complaints. The commission is trying to address campaign finance because it is an important issue and if going from closed to open is not feasible than letting an oversight board be an alternate means of getting to the Ethic Board with campaign-related issues is a way to resolve the problem. The oversight board serves as a check, similar to a grand jury, looking at complaints to determine if they merit being forwarded to the Ethics Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she doesn’t see how they are separate issues since how the oversight board is created determines whether the board has the authority to be an alternate path to the Ethics Board. Only a town-appointed oversight board would have that authority.
Lester Steinman said that it would be difficult to create an oversight board that is totally independent of town government and yet give it the authority in local town law to be tied into the administration of the government.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett repeated that an independent oversight board would have the authority to refer matters to the Ethics Board if the Ethics Code was modified, as it has been elsewhere, to let any resident file a complaint.
Lester Steinman said these issues have to be resolved. Opening it up to everyone is a totally different approach, requiring an examination of the commission’s charge.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that members indicated they would have to leave shortly and suggested hearing from the last subcommittee-- the Public Finance Subcommittee. She said that she has been lugging copies of the public finance records to every meeting and no one seems to want to look at them. She was told to get them and she did. She wants the record to reflect that there are clearly contributions from attorneys who appear before the town boards, from developers both small and large, from planners, and from people who have lawsuits pending against the town. They are available for inspection. She will give Francis Sheehan, the Commission Secretary, a copy for his records. The records are too voluminous to copy for everyone. The records do support the statements that have been made at these meetings regarding who has been contributing to the local campaigns.
Claire Lee suggested the records be left in the League of Women Voters office so anyone who wants to look at them can do so.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she spent a considerable amount of time obtaining the copies and would not want to let go of them at this point. However, she will be bringing them to every meeting so anyone who cares to can review them.
Lester Steinman said that he has scanned through the records and, in addition, has relied on Catherine Lederer-Plaskett’s representation of what they contain.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that she has taken the liberty of inviting a few of the candidates to attend the next meeting, so additional information can be collected. Hopefully, some will attend. The general feeling of the Public Finance Subcommittee is that no one is complaining that lack of funds is a barrier to running for office. Maybe the commission has not heard from a broad enough group. The candidates invited to the next meeting may provide additional insight.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the subcommittee hasn’t discussed the voter guide that Supervisor Feiner is proposing. The people that she has spoken to have commented that the League of Women Voters and the Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion both produce very good newsletters, updating the public on candidates’ positions and therefore another newsletter is unnecessary.
Harriet Leib said Supervisor Feiner’s suggested guide would be different from the guide distributed by the League. He wants individual guides with answers to certain questions of concern to Greenburgh residents. The League’s guide is more general.
Charlotte Schienberg said the League asks general questions but it is an idea worth exploring to have the League’s guide include questions from the local communities. If so, it would address the idea behind the guide without having another one. Another guide is not needed.
Francis Sheehan said a question-answer guide with specific questions raises another issue-- who decides what are the key issues in Greenburgh.
Charlotte Schienberg said that is an important question that needs to be resolved.
Harriet Leib said that people have strong positions, which is admirable, but there needs to be a middle ground sought.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested commissioners talk to the public to determine if they welcome another guide.
Harriet Leib suggested the commissioners resolve the issue now. She asked the commissioners if they support that a referendum be adopted, as Supervisor Feiner recommended. A referendum may not even be legal. She asked Lester Steinman if a referendum on this issue is legal.
Lester Steinman urged the commission to avoid the referendum issue. Having or not having a referendum is not the responsibility of the commission. The commission should decide what it wants to accomplish and set out to accomplish it. If there are costs associated with the commission’s recommendations then it is up to the town and its bond counsel to figure out how best to pay for them. The commission should expect the town to fund any recommendation it makes. How the town funds the recommendation is not for this commission to decide.
Harriet Leib said Supervisor Feiner make it clear he wanted something on the ballot.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she agrees with Lester Steinman’s statement.
Charlotte Schienberg said the commission should be able to come up with ways other than another costly voter guide to help candidates communicate with the public, such as increased free cable access discussed at the last meeting.
Lester Steinman said the commission could suggest reforms which do not have costs associated with them. Alternatively, if there are costs involved, because the commission questions the townspeople’s willingness to expend taxpayer monies on public financing of campaigns, a recommendation could be made, if legal, to hold a referendum. The commission should not get hung up on the referendum issue because, no matter what the commission recommends, the town’s bond counsel will ultimately decide if a referendum is possible.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked for a general sense from those present about having another voter guide.
Erin Malloy said she does see the need.
Charlotte Schienberg said she doesn’t see a reason to have another one.
Claire Lee said she doesn’t want another piece of campaign literature.
Francis Sheehan said it would create more controversy. Who selects the questions?
Ervin Schliefer questioned how the voter guide would compliment existing voter guides.
Susan Mancuso said her only concern is that written media has not been addressed. Since the reporter from The Journal News didn’t show up, she couldn’t ask him questions. The commission has not addressed the need for increased written material, as opposed to cable access, etc.
Elizabeth Daniel asked about the possibility of ads in newspapers.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the problem with candidates advertising in the newspaper is that it is very day-specific and even page-specific. There would have to a regular series of ads. If the newspapers didn’t donate the space, it probably would not be worthwhile to pour money into that kind of access.
Susan Mancuso said that there are weekly newspapers that cover town issues that might be helpful.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the Scarsdale Inquirer only covers Edgemont and Hartsdale. The Enterprise covers the river villages. There is a significant area of Greenburgh not covered by any weekly paper.
Claire Lee asked who would put out this voter’s guide?
Lester Steinman said he was about to ask the same question.
Harriet Leib said she doesn’t think the voter guide is needed either and, based on the comments, said it seems that the voter guide is not something the commission wants to consider.
Francis Sheehan said that every option should stay on the table pending the public hearing. Even though the commission doesn’t think a voter guide is worth pursuing, maybe the testimony at the public hearing will convince the commission otherwise.
Charlotte Schienberg said a more productive method of informing the public of candidates’ viewpoints would be to have more open forums, sponsored by many groups, not just the League of Women Voters.
Francis Sheehan said that the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations also sponsors debates of local candidates.
Francis Sheehan said that he would like to discuss the commission’s completion timetable. He said, as it reads, it may incorrectly lead the public to think that their comments at the public hearing will not be adequately addressed. Only one meeting is scheduled following the public hearing to conclude the commission’s work.
Harriet Leib said the meeting after the public hearing is to determine a completion date, which would take into consideration what is said at the hearing. If more meetings are needed, they will be scheduled but a completion date should be determined at that subsequent meeting.
Francis Sheehan said that addresses his concern.
Lester Steinman said that the timetable should indicate the commission will be using the meeting after the hearing to work on findings.
Harriet Leib said that subcommittees should meet prior to the May 23, 2000, meeting to come up with final recommendations and documentation. She will not be available for commission work after the third week of June. Anne Nelson, who chaired the first commission meeting, will substitute in her absence.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett consulted with members of the Public Finance Subcommittee present and determined that no meeting could be held before May 23, 2000. She then suggested the Ethics Subcommittee convene.
Harriet Leib suggested, due to various scheduling conflicts among the members, meeting at 5:00 p.m. before the May 23, 2000, meeting, after which a verbal presentation of the subcommittee’s conclusions will be presented to the commission.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Sheehan, Commission Secretary