Home
GCFC 2-3-2000
GCFC 2-18-2000
GCFC 3-2-2000
GCFC 3-17-2000
GCFC 4-11-2000
GCFC 4-25-2000
GCFC 5-11-2000
GCFC 5-23-2000
GCFC 6-15-00
Cable
Ethics
Public Finance
Public Hearing 6-10-2000

Present:

Elizabeth Daniel, Andrew Goodman, Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Claire Lee, Harriet Leib, Susan Mancuso, Charlotte Schienberg, Francis Sheehan, Lester Steinman, Mary Tobias

Invited Guests:

Stephanie Bellino (Republican, 1997 Town Supervisor Candidate, 1999 Town Council Candidate)

Nancy Delahunt (Democrat, 1997 Town Council Candidate)

William Pohlmann (Chairman, Greenburgh GOP; 1999 Republican Town Supervisor Candidate)

Observers:

Ella Preiser (Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations)

Absent:

Erin Malloy, Rev. Wilbert Preston, Mike Reynolds, Sally Schaadt, Ervin Schliefer

The eighth meeting of the commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m., in room 103, at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains. Copies of the April 25, 2000 and May 11, 2000 minutes, which were distributed to members in advance of the meeting via e-mail, fax and personal delivery, were available and distributed to everyone present.

Co-chair Harriet Leib said the commission had a full agenda, with three invited guests who recently ran for elected office in the Town of Greenburgh. Their attendance and input is greatly appreciated. Approval of the minutes was postponed. She welcomed the guests and invited everyone to introduce him/herself. Following the introductions, she recognized Nancy Delahunt.

Nancy Delahunt, 1997 Democratic Primary Town Council candidate, thanked the commission for the opportunity to present her views on campaign finance reform. She said that there are two aspects of a campaign that need to be distinguished-- the financial aspect and the informational aspect. The town has four information distribution channels-- the mailings the town sends out, the town’s website, the town-controlled cable access channels, and the town’s public meetings. The order has not been prioritized. Incumbents can use all these channels. They have access to them on a regular basis. Access to each of these channels represents a financial benefit. Candidates who have to pay for their access to the public incur financial cost that otherwise would not be incurred. Incumbents’ abuse of their access to these informational channels can be controlled and/or limited.

Ms. Delahunt, starting with town mailings, discussed her suggestions for controlling or limiting "information channel" abuses. She said that only emergency mailings should be permitted in an election year from June to the election. Also, there is no reason many of the mailings sent have to be sent by an incumbent-candidate. Alternatively, instead of limiting incumbent mailings, they could be controlled by giving "insurgents" equal space to respond to any incumbent-candidate commentary contained in the mailings. The state and the county have regulations regarding mailings during campaign periods. The commission should research the county’s mailing restrictions and implement them locally. The best way to manage mailings is by exception. The rules should be the rules, defining the number and type of permissible mailings. Exceptions should only be allowed for emergencies. If there are mailings that are routinely sent out during campaign season, they could be examined to determine if they really need to go out at that time and, if so, whether a town department could send them instead of an incumbent-candidate.

Ms. Delahunt next discussed the town’s website. She said that fair access to the town’s website should be easy. All candidates should be allowed to put their issues on the town’s website for anyone who has web access to read. It’s that easy. There is no reason it does not happen.

Ms. Delahunt said cable television access, the third information channel she identified, should be standardized. Each candidate should be given a regular timeslot each week that is fixed. There should be no schedule shifting, as was the case when she ran for office in 1997. She printed the date/time of her taped segment on her palm cards and the show was switched after the cards were distributed. She couldn’t rely on the scheduling so she didn’t include the cable show on palm cards thereafter.

Ms. Delahunt said the fourth informational channel, public meetings, is more difficult to deal with. She said she doesn’t know how to structure public meetings to make them fairer to insurgents. Special meetings could be limited during the campaign season. Special meetings provide an easy means for incumbents to gain increased visibility during a campaign. At regular meetings and special meetings, equal time for other candidates to respond to political commentary should be allowed. The commission needs to distinguish between what constitutes a normal board meeting and what is purely political commentary. Candidates should be provided equal time to respond to political commentary, but not routine town agenda business. During her campaign, the Town Board classified her work as chair of the Conservation Advisory Council as political commentary for no apparent reason except to obtain equal time. She suggests the same during Town Board meetings. She explained that during the 1997 campaign for Town Board there was a referendum on establishing a Greenways Fund, which was supported by the Town Board and the town’s Conservation Advisory Council (CAC), which she chairs. The CAC was asked by the Town Board to help educate the public about the proposed Greenways Fund. The CAC decided to put together a public access program explaining the fund, why it was needed, how the percentage would be computed, etc. Very factual. She asked the town’s cable access committee if, because of her presence, the program would be considered political and was told it would not be, provided it was informational in nature. After the CAC taped the show, the Town Board pulled the tape, classified it as political commentary, insisted on equal time, and added their own commentary to the tape. The incumbents’ comments added nothing to the informational value of the program and they even strayed from the Greenways Fund topic. She would have abstained from appearing on the program, even though she is the CAC chair, had she known that performing her duties as chair would be classified by the Town Board as political. Candidates should be given similar equal time at Town Board meetings, she said.

Ms. Delahunt said that fairness of access prior to the primary becomes increasingly important when a political party has been in power in a municipality for a long time. The primary becomes the venue for issues to be discussed and debated. Unfortunately, the newspapers and the League of Women Voters traditionally pay little attention to primaries, making insurgents’ access to the public even more difficult. She was surprised the League of Women Voters wouldn’t hold a debate for the primary. Primaries occur because of conflicts over issues. The public needs to hear those issues debated to make an informed vote. She was fortunate the League of Conservation Voters sponsored a debate because environmental issues were raised during the campaign. Planning issues can be fiscal-oriented or conservation-oriented. She was concerned with the conservation aspects of planning, so the League of Conservation Voters was interested enough to hold a debate. The incumbents did not attend the debate. That was their choice. The important thing is that the public had an opportunity to hear from the candidates who showed up.

Ms. Delahunt asked if anyone had a question.

Mary Tobias asked Ms. Delahunt if she could recall the cost of her mailings.

Ms. Delahunt said she was very limited financially, so mailings were very difficult. She had a very spontaneous campaign so she was not able to do any bulk mailing, which requires some planning. She did one very focused mailing by hand. Financial constraints caused her to distribute most of her literature in person.

Mary Tobias asked Ms. Delahunt how she obtained campaign contributions.

Ms. Delahunt said she had to choose between getting information out and getting contributions in due to the late start of her campaign. She footed the bill for most of her campaign and then sought donations after the election.

Elizabeth Daniel asked Ms. Delahunt how long it took to get out a mailing.

Ms. Delahunt said that mailings are very time-consuming unless the candidate can afford to use a mail clearinghouse. Even then, some scrubbing of the data may be necessary. Of the 50,000 voters in Greenburgh, 23,000 are Democrats. 4,000 show up for primaries. There was no way she could send mailings to 4,000 people. Voter data can be purchased from the Board of Elections and then scrubbed to try to target those voters who will likely vote in the next primary. It is a very time-consuming task for a candidate to scrub the data down to a number within budget. It is a matter of prioritizing the voters within the available budget. It is very involved. She said Francis Sheehan would know better what would be the costs associated with bulk mailings.

Co-chair Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Ms. Delahunt what happened when the incumbents choose not to attend the League of Conservation Voters’ debate. Was there an empty chair?

Ms. Delahunt said that the League of Conservation Voters still held the debate for the two candidates who attended. Five questions were sent to candidates in advance. The incumbents choose not to attend and respond. Therefore, she and another "insurgent" spoke for the entire time period.

Claire Lee asked Ms. Delahunt to comment further about the fourth issue-- public meetings.

Ms. Delahunt said that if incumbents follow a regular meeting agenda there is no problem. However, when they deviate from the normal conduct of town business to make political speeches or engage in campaign rhetoric then, in order to level the playing field, other candidates should be given a certain amount of time at the meeting to respond.

Harriet Leib asked Ms. Delahunt if public financing could work in Greenburgh.

Ms. Delahunt responded to the question with a question, asking how it would be structured.

Harriet Leib said that was part of her question-- would public financing work and if so how.

Ms. Delahunt said that Maine has offered public financing for those who agree to certain limits. If a candidate doesn’t accept the public financing then he/she is not tied to the limits. She said it would be fantastic if there was a spending limit imposed on local candidates because it would fix the resources each candidate has. It would then be up to the creativity of each candidate to maximize the available money. A creative candidate would likely also be creative in office and be fiscally conservative.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett questioned the impact a spending cap would have on challengers who do not have access to the town’s website, the press, extensive visibility at town meetings, etc. Challengers tend to have to pay for their access to the public through mailings, ads, etc.

Ms. Delahunt agreed that imposing spending caps would be a disadvantage to challengers if there wasn’t fair access to the four information channels. She then agreed spending caps do not even the playing field-- they work against challengers who do not have the incumbents’ access and name recognition.

Charlotte Schienberg asked Ms. Delahunt how spending could be limited without tying it to some form of public finance.

Ms. Delahunt said that some form of public financing would be needed.

Harriet Leib said the public financing would be the "carrot".

Mary Tobias asked Ms. Delahunt how important to her was local cable access television.

Ms. Delahunt said that there is a certain audience who watches cable access television. They are interested in town activities because they watch Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Town Board meetings on cable. They are informed voters. She doesn’t know if they all vote or what party they belong to, which is an important issue for a primary election candidate. Cable access could be very important. However, cable access is not as important as it could be in the Town of Greenburgh because it is totally controlled by incumbents running for re-election, incumbents who have changed schedules without notice, etc. It must be standardized and made fair so it is not misused.

Charlotte Schienberg asked Ms. Delahunt if more frequent debates would be helpful.

Ms. Delahunt responded, "absolutely".

Elizabeth Daniel asked Ms. Delahunt what are other ways to get known in the town other than fliers and mailings.

Ms. Delahunt said that shaking hands is important, walking around and talking to people. People like to meet candidates and size them up. They like to find out firsthand where candidates stand on the issues. Mailings are also very valuable. If the town provided candidates free mailings, which she is not advocating, it would be fantastic and incredibly valuable because of the time and expense a candidate could save. It would free candidates to concentrate on personally meeting the public. During her campaign the Austin Avenue (Sprain Road closing) issue was a major issue. The Supervisor sent out special mailings to the residents explaining the Town Board’s position. The mayor of Ardsley also mailed out letters, to residents in the village. Challengers cannot afford to compete with those mass mailings, even on a critical issue such as Austin Avenue. She considers the taxpayer-financed mailings unethical, but that is politics, she said.

Susan Mancuso asked Ms. Delahunt for a practical example of how political speech could be separated from non-political speech.

Ms. Delahunt said the short answer is to just give all candidates equal time, perhaps 30 minutes each week at a fixed time period. She likened her proposed cable timeslot selection process to the Board of Elections’ practice of determining ballot positions by lot. She said the primary season is June, July, August, and the first week of September and the general election season is September, October, and the first week of November. If timeslots were determined by lot, candidates would know in advance when their segments would air during the campaign season. Regarding what is political vs. non-political requires a fair oversight board. The board should be similar to a 501-C3, a not-for-profit organization. A not-for-profit organization is allowed a certain amount of political commentary and a certain amount of educational commentary. If an oversight board had existed, it could have reviewed her chairing the Conservation Advisory Council’s program about the Greenways Fund and determined if her comments were educational in nature. Instead, the incumbents running for re-election determined the CAC’s program was political and wanted equal time. She doesn’t know why. Something caused them to intervene. All of them walked in and taped their comments, which added nothing.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Ms. Delahunt and then asked Stephanie Bellino for her comments.

Stephanie Bellino, 1997 Republican Town Supervisor candidate and 1999 Town Council candidate, said that she ran a full campaign against Paul Feiner in 1997, from March to November. She had a committee, press secretary, treasurer, and a secretary who scanned the newspapers for possible campaign locations, etc. She did not get involved with the financial aspects of the campaign because she had a treasurer. Before continuing, she asked if the commission was considering a town-wide proposal that would include both town and village elections, or would the commission’s recommendations be limited solely to elected town officials.

Harriet Leib said the recommendation would be limited to the election of town officials.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said village residents vote for town officials so they are involved.

Ms. Bellino agreed, adding that village residents also vote in village elections and their candidates may feel slighted since they would be deprived of any matching funds collected. The taxes would be increased and collected town-wide but used only for town elected offices, not village elected offices.

Harriet Leib said the villages did not invite the commission to consider their inclusion. The villages could also adopt the recommendations if they like them.

Ms. Bellino said that incumbents have a great advantage. There were constant town-financed mailings from Supervisor Feiner to civic associations and residents. For example, on average, leading up to the general election, Supervisor Feiner mailed 5-7 taxpayer-financed letters monthly to residents on East Hartsdale Avenue about issues the residents did not believe warranted a mass mailing. The commission must look at the abuse of town mailings and stop it, not only for the primary election, but also for the general election.

Lester Steinman asked Ms. Bellino if, setting aside her position as a candidate, the mailings contained any information of value to the residents in the area.

Ms. Bellino said the mailings actually contained misinformation.

Lester Steinman said that he didn’t ask about that and asked again if the mailings contained any information, not already publicly known, about an issue of interest to residents in the area.

Ms. Bellino said she wanted to clarify her answer. Mailings were sent about the potential signing of a lease for a store in the area. It was the fourth time there was the potential a lease would be signed, and the renter had not yet signed the lease when the mailings were again sent. The mailing stated that the supervisor was "hopeful" the lease would be signed.

Harriet Leib said the question is, were the supervisor’s mailings mostly educational or were they mostly political.

Ms. Bellino said they were redundant and political in nature.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if the mailings could have been sent from a town department other than from the supervisor’s office.

Ms. Bellino said the mailings could "absolutely" have come from another department. In fact, the supervisor had created a Hartsdale Steering Committee, which could have sent the mailings.

Ms. Delahunt interjected and agreed with Ms. Bellino, stating that, during campaign season, mailings that must be sent by the town should be sent by the individual departments most responsible.

Ms. Bellino said that Supervisor Feiner’s taxpayer-funded mailings during campaign season were particularly upsetting because they were targeted toward registered voters, not property owners or residents. The election district of each recipient was even listed on the address label attached to the town envelope. Both she and her husband are registered voters and, therefore, received the same letters. She is the president of her neighborhood association and knows that her neighbors also received identical mailings to their homes based on voter registration data. If the goal is to inform the people living in the area, she said lists are available that show who is a property owner, tenant-owner, absentee-owner, etc. Instead, the supervisor targets registered voters with town mailings.

Ms. Bellino said that she is in favor of changing the town’s cable access control to one similar to Mamaroneck’s system, which is governed by an independent, not-for-profit organization. The town uses the cable franchise fees to support their different agendas, while the town’s cable access system deteriorates. The residents suffer. The town’s system must be fixed year-round, not just during campaign season. Also, the town’s system needs to be changed so that all of Greenburgh gets the local cable access programs. There are sections of the town that do not get the local cable access programs. For example, residents of the Village of Tarrytown do not get Town Board meetings. All communities that vote for town officials should get the Town Board meetings and local access programs. The Town Board meetings, also do not play in the village of Hastings-on-Hudson, she believes.

Ms. Delahunt commented that she believes that Hastings-on-Hudson does get the Town Board meetings because when the meetings air they air on the same channel throughout Greenburgh. However, the meetings may not be televised live elsewhere.

Ms. Bellino said there is no "dial democracy" (where viewers can phone in comments during televised board meetings) when the meetings are not televised live. During April, May, June, July, August and September, the Town Board does "road shows", holding all the official Town Board meetings in various parks, firehouses, etc. The Town Board meetings are not televised during those months, which are the months leading up to the election. There have been times when residents have watched the board meetings at home, learned of a topic being discussed, and traveled to Town Hall to address the Town Board on the issue. If they wanted they could call in if the "dial democracy" system was working. The residents do not have that opportunity when the Town Board moves the meetings from place to place and just tapes them.

Lester Steinman said that dial democracy is an extraordinary provision that few municipalities have.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the point is that dial democracy used to work but now it doesn’t.

Ms. Bellino said it is unconscionable to have the Town Board in control of cable access television, able to review the challengers’ tapes prior to taping their own campaign segments. A truly stand-alone commission dealing with cable access would be welcomed. There is no reason candidates cannot be given a fair opportunity to express their viewpoints. During the last election, Republicans were each given a specific date to tape a 15 minute segment. They rushed and met the deadline. Two weeks later their tapes were still not ready. The Republicans discovered that the incumbent-candidates used part of a Town Board work session, two weeks after the Republicans’ deadline, to tape their segments. The Republicans had to wait until after the incumbents taped their segments to get the tapes.

Ms. Bellino said that she is sorry the commission is not more diverse-- only one Republican and one Right-to-Life member are on the commission. To make matters worse, the Republican-appointee’s request to have a substitute-Republican fill in when she could not make the meetings due to work schedule conflicts was denied. She hopes, if the work of the commission is to continue, that a more diverse board be appointed.

Ms. Delahunt interjected that she shares that concern and stated that she was not aware of the commission’s lack of diversity.

Harriet Leib said that the commission also has a representative from the Liberal Party. The members of the commission who are members of the League of Women Voters are non-partisan.

Ms. Bellino said she does not support the supervisor’s proposal to have a voter’s guide. There are already voter guides that are well done, such as the one from the League of Women Voters. Another pamphlet would be redundant, unless it is for a primary election.

Ms. Bellino said that, regarding establishing a threshold contribution amount for recusal on a contributor’s application, the amount should be the same as that required by election law for disclosure. An official should not vote on a campaign contributor’s application if the contribution was more than $99.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Ms. Bellino for her comments and introduced William Pohlmann.

William Pohlmann, 1999 Republican Party Candidate for Town Supervisor, began by accusing the League of Women Voters of being partisan because it advocates. He said there are two functions of the League of Women Voters-- to inform and to advocate. The advocacy is political. He agrees that the informational aspect, which is the League’s main function, such as when it sponsors debates, is non-political. Advocacy is political, he said.

Harriet Leib said she takes exception to Mr. Pohlmann’s comments. The League of Women Voters is not a partisan organization. When the League advocates, it advocates issues.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that advocacy can takes many forms. Advocating an issue does not necessarily mean advocating for a political party. Democrats may support the League’s position on one issue and Republicans may support the League on another issue, or both parties may support the League’s position on an issue.

Harriet Leib agreed. The League, when it advocates, advocates particular issues. The League does not get involved in party-politics. She suggested Mr. Pohlmann continue with his comments.

Mr. Pohlmann said he respects the League of Women Voters because the service it provides in informing the public is crucial, but he has a problem with its advocacy because he generally is on the other side of the League’s position. It is a problem he has always had with the League.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested Mr. Pohlmann focus on the issues before the commission.

Mr. Pohlmann first discussed town mailings. He said there are 50,000 registered voters in Greenburgh. A mailing costs about fifty cents, including printing, postage, etc. To mail to every registered voter one time, therefore, costs $25,000. There has been no campaign in recent years where a candidate mailed to every registered voter. He certainly could not afford to send literature to every voter. It should shock the public to learn that not every resident who can vote is informed of the issues advocated by local candidates. However, Supervisor Feiner has the town budget to support mailings of so-called "puff pieces". In response to Mr. Steinman question earlier to Ms. Bellino regarding the informational value of the supervisor’s mailings, Mr. Pohlmann said the most useful information in the majority of his mailings is the supervisor’s phone number. Most of the mailings contain information that was also sent to the newspapers. It is difficult to stop the supervisor from sending mailings, but the issue needs to be addressed.

Mr. Pohlmann next addressed candidate-access to town facilities. He said he was disadvantaged during the last campaign because Supervisor Feiner was able to collect signatures at the town’s parks, parks that are closed to village residents. Since he (Mr. Pohlmann) lives in Ardsley, he is prohibited from collecting signatures in the town’s parks, even Anthony Veteran Park, which is located within the borders of the Village of Ardsley. The incumbents sponsor events at the parks and then collect signatures from those who attend. Part of the reason Supervisor Feiner had so many signatures from non-Democrats on his petition, which he (Mr. Pohlmann) was able to challenge, was because they were collected at the parks.

Lester Steinman and Elizabeth Daniel said they were unaware of the prohibition on village residents using town parks.

Ms. Delahunt said that all candidates could be given access to town facilities to campaign and collect signatures.

Mr. Pohlmann disagreed, stating that the residents attend the parks for recreational purposes and should not be interrupted by political campaigning. He suggested that no candidate be allowed to collect signatures at town facilities.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said another reason for prohibiting all candidates from campaigning on town property is because the incumbents schedule events at the park during the signature collection period, such as a senior’s picnic, and then collect signatures at the event. Allowing campaigning on town property definitely works to the advantage of incumbents.

Ms. Delahunt said that, as a candidate, she went to the town’s senior center to talk to the seniors. She was not collecting signatures at the time. She just wanted to talk to the seniors. Ms. Delahunt was barred from entering the town’s senior center by its director, even though her incumbent-opposition, Diana Juettner and Timmy Weinberg, had been allowed in and, in fact, had just left the center. One of the incumbents lives in Ardsley and yet was allowed in. Ms. Delahunt agreed that incumbents have an unfair advantage of access to town facilities.

Mr. Pohlmann said that Supervisor Feiner’s scheduling of a "puff piece" about the town in which he (Supervisor Feiner) appeared on the eve of the election should shock every resident. It was outrageous. The debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters was hardly played. The debate should be played in a continuous loop around the clock each day, starting three days prior to the election-- Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

Ms. Bellino interjected, stating that, for the recent Greenburgh Central School District #7 school board election, incumbent Timmy Weinberg interviewed the school superintendent about the importance of passing the school budget and those in opposition, whoever they may be, were not given equal time to respond. The town controls all aspects of cable.

Mr. Pohlmann said that the Republicans have lost 110 consecutive town elections, as well as numerous county and state elections, bringing the total to about 150 losses since 1973.

Several commission members, speaking concurrently, stated that it is not the task of the commission to prevent Republican losses. It is the Republican Party’s responsibility to try to win elections.

Mr. Pohlmann agreed, adding that the system is becoming a one party system. He wants a fair chance.

Mr. Pohlmann next discussed the town’s Ethics Board. He suggested that every party that gets 10% of the vote, or some other agreed upon percentage, be able to designate one member to the board. The party chairs should make the designation, not the Town Board. Supervisor Feiner could likely find someone enrolled in the Republican Party who supports him. Who represents a political party on a board should be decided by the party. It is not currently done that way. Another method could be that every political party on the local ballot be entitled to designate a representative and the Town Board designate five additional members. A critical point is that some method of access to the Ethics Board is needed other than through the Town Board. Residents must be able to ask the town’s Ethics Board to investigate ethics issues, and the Ethics Board must be able to act independent of a Town Board request. Supervisor Feiner has taken $400,000-$500,000 from developers and their attorneys doing business with the town. That should shock every resident. The Ethics Board needs to be strengthened. He has filed charges and they have not even been considered. The charges were ignored.

Mr. Pohlmann next discussed cable access. He said the town’s cable access stations must be made available to all candidates for their programs and debates. He saw the 1998 Democratic Primary debates sponsored by the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations. They were professionally done, well done and instructive. They were rarely played, perhaps twice. They should have been played around the clock. The League of Women Voters debate should also have been played around the clock. He doesn’t need to raise much campaign money if he can get his message out through the debates. He would like to see a bi-partisan cable board. By bi-partisan, he means party representatives selected by the party chairs. It does not have to be limited to two political parties. The free access is supposed to be equal but the Republicans have no say. Cable decisions are made by Alfreda Williams, who frequently "shoots from the hip" to address cable issues.

Mr. Pohlmann said the town tried to limit candidates’ ability to post political signs. Signs are the least expensive means for a challenger to achieve name recognition in a campaign. Mr. Pohlmann said he was the candidate for a major political party, the Republican Party, in the local election held last fall, and yet at an earlier meeting a commission member asked who he was because she didn’t know him. Name recognition is obviously difficult for a challenger. He doesn’t like political signs but they are necessary. He said, "unfortunately, democracy has to be a little bit messy, so that people get informed." Candidates must have a place to put up signs. The villages provide locations-- the town should make 4-5 locations available as well.

Mr. Pohlmann next discussed newspaper coverage. He urged the commission to include in its report the importance of newspaper coverage in local elections. The press has a significant responsibility in making elections fair. For example, in the last election, The Rivertowns Enterprise endorsed Supervisor Feiner even though he (Mr. Pohlmann) was never interviewed. The newspaper never even printed Mr. Pohlmann’s picture throughout the entire campaign. The newspapers should at least go through the "charade" of interviewing opposition candidates before endorsing the incumbents, he said.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett agreed with Mr. Pohlmann and asked if he had any other comments.

Mr. Pohlmann next addressed public financing. He said that he doesn’t know how money would be divided if public financing is provided. For example, if money is divided based on registration, the Democrats would receive twice as much as Republicans. If the money is divided equally among all political parties, it doesn’t seem fair the Right-to-Life party would receive the same amount as the Democratic and Republican parties. How the money would be divided is an issue that must be addressed. The amount of money that would have to be collected from the taxpayers is also an issue. Experts say that it takes about $100,000 to run a competitive race against the incumbent-supervisor. At a minimum, three mailings are required. Each mailing is $25,000. With some television time and other expenses, the cost is about $100,000. He was only able to raise $10,000.

Mr. Pohlmann said challengers have an uphill battle because they have to engage in a massive educational effort to win. The incumbents don’t have that problem. Every challenger he spoke with experienced the same thing he found in the last election. When he was campaigning in the villages, asking people to vote for him, he was told that they couldn’t because they don’t live in Greenburgh. Many village residents do not pay attention to town candidates campaigning, thinking they don’t vote for town offices in their village election districts. However, when they get into the voting booth, they vote for the names most familiar to them, which tend to be the incumbents. Challengers need to educate the public about the elections. It is not in the incumbent’s interest to do so.

Mr. Pohlmann said he doesn’t want to be more divisive but Supervisor Feiner unfairly uses the town’s copy center and staff for campaigns. He said he wouldn’t dwell on the issue at the present time.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if anyone has any questions.

Harriet Leib said that Mr. Pohlmann gave a very full presentation. She had one question. She asked Mr. Pohlmann if a non-partisan board, instead of a bi-partisan board, would be acceptable to him.

Mr. Pohlmann said he doesn’t know how a non-partisan board could be created.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said to Mr. Pohlmann that he made his opinion about the League of Women Voters known earlier, but the League is non-partisan.

Mr. Pohlmann said that he applauds the League when they are doing the critical work of informing the public. There is no greater responsibility than that. He then switched the discussion to civic associations. He couldn’t believe that not one civic association invited him to speak during the last campaign. He said they are all Democrats. The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations didn’t even bother to hold a debate after the Democratic primary.

Ella Preiser said the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) did sponsor a primary debate in 1998 for all parties having primaries. The Conservatives had a primary that year and Mr. Pohlmann was invited to the debate. Unfortunately, the other person seeking the Conservative Party nomination refused to attend. The CGCA followed the League of Women Voters’ debate guidelines explicitly and therefore could not have an "empty chair" debate. Mr. Pohlmann was invited but shut out for reasons beyond the control of the CGCA. Regarding the general election, the CGCA tried to book Town Hall for a debate but there were no dates available. If a debate is to be held, it should be televised and could not be without Town Hall being available. The CGCA’s inability to hold a general election debate had nothing to do with party politics. Fortunately, the League of Women Voters was able to hold a debate for the general election.

Harriet Leib said that all three speakers have given the commissioners plenty to consider. She told them that the commission would be moving on to the next item on the agenda but they were welcome to stay.

Ms. Delahunt asked what were the commission’s timeframes and if there would be a public hearing.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the commission would hold a public hearing on Monday, June 5^th, at 7:30 p.m. Each subcommittee will put out its recommendations and solicit comment on those recommendations at the hearing. No conclusions have yet been reached.

Mr. Pohlmann asked if the recommendations would be available in advance of the meetings.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the recommendations would be submitted to the newspapers and they can be requested.

Harriet Leib suggested moving on with the agenda.

Lester Steinman asked if there was an agenda for the meeting.

Harriet Leib said the agenda is the timetable distributed at an earlier meeting. She recognized the Cable Subcommittee Chair, Claire Lee, to discuss the subcommittee’s recommendations.

Claire Lee said the Cable Subcommittee’s goal was equal access for all candidates. There are many municipalities that have independent, not-for-profit volunteer boards that run cable access. Based on the subcommittee’s research, it is not unusual to have a cable board that is independent. Nearby Larchmont/Mamaroneck has a great system. All the cable franchise fees go toward improving their cable access. That is the fourth recommendation of the subcommittee-- the franchise fees received by the town from the cable company should be used to improve Greenburgh’s cable access system. In addition, the subcommittee recommends all candidates receive a baseline amount of access and, if a candidate signs on to campaign reforms, then that candidate should receive significantly more cable access. The subcommittee also recommends that an oversight board be created to monitor candidates’ cable access during campaign season to make sure that the access a candidate is entitled to is received.

Harriet Leib asked if there were any comments.

Lester Steinman said he supports the subcommittee’s recommendations.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the recommendations were well written and its format could be used as a model by the other subcommittees.

Harriet Leib asked if there were any objections to the commission approving the cable subcommittee’s recommendations. There were no objections.

The following recommendations were approved:

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett handed out Antenna Review Board (ARB) documents pertaining to the ARB’s desire to televise its meetings on the town’s cable access station. She said their relevance may not be immediately apparent but the issues contained therein have everything to do with the commission’s work. She is the chair of the ARB. There are four boards in the town with decision-making powers-- the Town Board, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Antenna Review Board. All the other boards meet at night, have staff, and are televised live. The ARB does not have staff and is not televised. Recently, in a 4/18/2000 letter, Supervisor Feiner chastised the ARB for not informing the public enough about its meetings. He also said the ARB meetings should be held at night, similar to the meetings of the Zoning and Planning Boards, and that neighbors in the vicinity of proposed sites must be notified. The Town Board has refused the ARB’s request for a secretary and budget. After receiving the letter, as a means to keep the entire town aware of its work, the ARB requested the ARB evening meetings be televised live, similar to the meetings of the Zoning and Planning Boards.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that Supervisor Feiner, by his response, believes speech at municipal meetings should be regulated. In a letter to Town Clerk Alfreda Williams and Cable Access Director George Malone, dated 5/12/2000, Supervisor Feiner stated that the ARB should not be given access to the cable access station to televise its meetings. The ARB learned of the Supervisor’s blockade indirectly since he did not send a copy to the ARB. The ARB even wants to have dial democracy at its meetings so residents can call in with questions about antennas in the town. The supervisor is opposed to the ARB following the Town Board’s meeting policies. Something is going on. It is censorship. The only board that is not given television access is the one with members of which the Town Board is not fond. The town is clearly using its control of cable access to censor one of its boards, a board with members who are all strong community advocates supported by civic associations. She said the ARB is continuing to pursue the issue. She said a likely cause of the censorship is one of its members, Francis Sheehan, ran against the incumbents in the last election. It is clear from Supervisor Feiner’s letter that he recognizes that televised municipal meetings can have advantages to those appearing on them, other than just conducting town business.

Harriet Leib asked Ms. Lederer-Plaskett to summarize the constructive issues.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she is making two points. First, the Town Board engages in censorship and, therefore, a recommendation regarding year-round re-structuring of cable access is needed, not just during campaign season. Second, the equal time exception for Town Board members speaking at Town Board meetings needs to be re-examined. If the Town Board members are exempt from equal time regulations, then the members of the ARB and the Conservation Advisory Council who happen to be candidates should also be exempt. Since they are not, according to the Town Board, then the Town Board should not be exempt either, particularly the 30-minute supervisor announcement part of the meeting.

Lester Steinman said that he recommends against amending the Cable Subcommittee’s recommendations. The issues raised by Catherine Lederer-Plaskett are very important and need to be addressed but not by amending the recommendations. Most of the issues raised would be addressed by establishing a non-partisan, not-for-profit cable organization.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she is not asking the recommendations, which have already been unanimously approved, be amended. She raised the issue solely to highlight the "equal time" issue and the need to further consider it.

Harriet Leib agreed with Catherine Lederer-Plaskett and said she made her point clear.

Andrew Goodman asked who would draft the actual cable regulations.

Harriet Leib said the Cable Subcommittee considers cable issues.

Claire Lee said many municipalities already have regulations that can be used.

Andrew Goodman said the committee who is charged with actually drafting the new cable regulations, putting pen to paper, would be the proper forum to address the issues raised by Catherine Lederer-Plaskett. He doesn’t think drafting the actual regulations is the charge of the commission.

Lester Steinman said he does not see the commission drafting detailed regulations because consensus would never be reached. The recommendations are a great jumping off point. After further discussion, the commission might want to elaborate on them.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the commission has been considering the recommendations, week after week. The abbreviated recommendations are for the public hearing. She wants to come back after the public hearing and develop more detailed recommendations.

Harriet Leib suggested waiting until the public hearing to determine what the next steps for the commission will be. After the public hearing, the commission will decide what needs to be done. The commission may not hear anything different at the hearing, but it is important that the meeting be held and the commission listen to anyone who wants to speak.

Harriet Leib asked Ethics Subcommittee Chair Charlotte Schienberg to present the Ethics Subcommittee recommendations. She read the subcommittee’s recommendation in its entirety:

ETHICS SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

DRAFT

To establish strong public confidence in the performance of elected town officials in their assigned responsibilities the following is recommended:

--- Establish a campaign reform oversight committee

The committee should consist of a nonpartisan or bipartisan panel and address ethical and financial issues arising during political campaigns.

--- Eliminate conflicts of interest

Require an elected official to recuse him/herself under certain circumstances from voting on a contributor's application.

--- Create a level playing field for candidates

Review the use of taxpayer-financed mailings by incumbents.

Disallow incumbent's name on public ads during proscribed campaign season.

Lester Steinman said the introduction to the recommendations is too broad. It should be clear that the building of strong public confidence is in the context of campaign reform.

Francis Sheehan suggested changing the word "establish" to "promote", which does not imply that total public confidence will result solely from the recommendations listed. The amendment was unanimously approved.

Andrew Goodman asked what the term "address" means in the clause "address ethical and financial issues". He asked if "address" means the committee will have determinative powers.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the wording is intentionally somewhat ambiguous. All three subcommittees have agreed that some type of campaign oversight board is needed. How that oversight board is created, structured and empowered has not been determined. After the public hearing the commission should be in a better position to answer those questions.

Lester Steinman, responding to Andrew Goodman’s question, said that one of the issues discussed was having the oversight board "address" campaign-related ethics complaints filed by the public. The current system requires an ethics complaint to have the approval of the Town Board before the Ethics Board can consider it, which has created some controversy. A proposed alternative is to have the oversight board hear any campaign-related ethics complaints filed by the public and determine if the charges had merit. If so, the oversight board would be able to forward the complaint to the Ethics Board for consideration. This approach provides an alternative means of accessing the Ethics Board without opening up the Ethics Board to everyone who wants to file a complaint. A consensus on the proposal was not reached, but it was discussed as a means of "addressing" campaign-related ethics complaints filed by the public.

Mary Tobias asked the purpose of the provision that prohibits an incumbent’s name on public ads.

Lester Steinman said the provision is designed to address ads that indirectly promote an incumbent’s candidacy during election season. He gave the hypothetical example, "Hi, I’m Andy Spano, Westchester County Executive, welcome to Westchester." Those types of taxpayer-financed ads at the town level would be prohibited during the campaign season by the provision.

Harriet Leib said the county passed legislation that prohibits incumbents from sending taxpayer-financed literature during the campaign season with their names on it.

Francis Sheehan suggested using the county’s wording in the subcommittee recommendation. The county does not limit the ad restriction solely to an incumbent’s name.

Harriet Leib said she would include the wording from the county’s legislation. She then asked if there are any other changes. There were none. She then asked if there was any objection to accepting the recommendations as amended. Hearing no objection, the following recommendations, re-formatted similar to the cable subcommittee recommendations, were approved:

To promote strong public confidence in the performance of elected town officials in their assigned responsibilities the following is recommended:

• Establish a campaign oversight committee

The committee should consist of a nonpartisan or bipartisan panel and address ethical and financial issues arising during political campaigns.

• Eliminate conflicts of interest

Elected officials should be required to recuse themselves under certain circumstances from voting on a contributor's application.

• Create a level playing field for candidates

Taxpayer-financed mailings by incumbents should be reviewed.

Incumbent's name, voice, or likeness in public (taxpayer-financed) ads should be disallowed during the proscribed campaign season.

Harriet Leib said the next subcommittee report is from the Public Finance Subcommittee. Before recognizing Catherine Lederer-Plaskett for the subcommittee’s report, she said that it appears that public financing at this stage in Greenburgh is not the way to go. The incentive for participating in local campaign reforms would be the increased cable access time recommended by the Cable Subcommittee. Cable access would be the "nugget" to entice candidates to participate. Another possible nugget would be for the oversight board to award "blue ribbons" to those candidates who follow the rules. Another possibility is to have voluntary limits on contributions and spending. Those are possibilities she sees at the present time.

Elizabeth Daniel agrees that Greenburgh is not ready to adopt traditional forms of public finance. However, the commission does need to decide what candidates should agree to in order to get the extra cable access time, the blue ribbon, or any other carrot.

Lester Steinman said it would be helpful to have a list of possible reform measures that the commission could consider. He agrees with Harriet Leib-- Greenburgh is not ready for public financing. However, the committee could develop a program that encourages reform measures without spending taxpayer money. It could be a model for other communities.

Charlotte Schienberg agrees that a list of reform measures should be drafted. She supports a baseline cable access for candidates who do not sign on to the reforms. She said cable access should be available to everyone.

Claire Lee said that everyone has the right to use the cable access stations. Even if they do not get the access they are entitled to, they do have a right to it.

Elizabeth Daniel said that candidates should get special treatment regarding cable access scheduling. Candidates should not have to wait in line for a timeslot like everyone else. The election could be over by the time a regular timeslot is available.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said there appears to be a consensus that public financing is not viable at the present time in Greenburgh. She asked if the commission should raise public financing as an option at the public hearing.

Harriet Leib said that all options should be presented, adding that she would be surprised if there was support voiced at the public hearing for taxpayer-financed local campaigns.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett agreed. She asked who wants to volunteer to prepare a list of reform measures?

Lester Steinman volunteered Elizabeth Daniel.

Elizabeth Daniel said she would not be able to get to it before next Tuesday, May 30, due to workload issues.

Harriet Leib suggested preparing the list before leaving the meeting to avoid another commission meeting prior to the public hearing.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the list should be as innocuous as possible so it initiates dialogue but doesn’t promise anything that can’t be delivered.

Lester Steinman agreed. He suggested Elizabeth Daniel prepare the list using time-tested reform measures that can be distributed at the meeting for discussion purposes. It doesn’t have to be done immediately.

Elizabeth Daniel said she could e-mail the list to commission members.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested a timeframe be established so all commission members could respond and provide input as was the case with the Cable Subcommittee and Ethics Subcommittee recommendations. Next Tuesday is fine. If anyone has any changes to the proposal they should e-mail them as well. Any language changes will need to be worked out in advance of the public hearing so copies can be made available to the public.

Elizabeth Daniel said she would draft a recommendation that is vague, for the purposes of eliciting comment at the public hearing.

Francis Sheehan said the Cable Subcommittee had a mandate from the last commission meeting to incorporate into its recommendation additional cable access time for candidates willing to accept local campaign reform measures. The recommendation states that the reform measures are outlined elsewhere. It was envisioned that the Public Finance Subcommittee would develop the reform measures, such as increased disclosure, that candidates would have to comply with in order to obtain the increased cable access and any other nugget or carrot the independent oversight board could offer. He said the commission would truly have achieved its goal of local campaign finance reform if cable access is made non-partisan so it can be used as an incentive for campaign reform, and candidates signed on to the campaign finance reform measures Elizabeth Daniel will be drafting in order to obtain the incentives offered. He suggested the non-taxpayer-financed campaign reform initiatives be actively pursued.

Claire Lee said that, in addition to the incentives, a disincentive for not participating in the reform measures can be used-- the shame factor. An important role of the oversight committee will be to publicize who is and is not participating in the local reforms.

Nancy Delahunt apologized for interjecting. She said the discussion reminded her of another unfair advantage incumbents had during her campaign. The incumbents listed their names in big bold letters on the town’s cable bulletin board for hours with nothing else showing, listing when they will be on. The cable bulletin board is another area where incumbents can have an unfair advantage.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked for help in organizing and publicizing the meeting. She said she would notify the The Scarsdale Inquirer and the Rivertowns Enterprise.

Harriet Leib said she would notify the The Journal News.

Lester Steinman said he doesn’t have time to do it, but a press release needs to be prepared and sent to all the local news organizations.

Charlotte Schienberg said she happened to meet Tim Fleischer, the Westchester correspondent for Eyewitness News. He just recently re-located to the county and dropped into the office. He asked her to call him about anything interesting going on in the county. She will call him.

Harriet Leib asked if someone would prepare a flier?

Francis Sheehan volunteered to create a flier.

Harriet Leib asked if someone could post the notice on the web. She had a "Grassroots for Greenburgh" card. She asked about posting it on the Grassroots website.

Elizabeth Daniel asked who operates the website.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that website is a community-based website.

Francis Sheehan said the website posts community issues as well as copies of local newspaper articles from The Journal News and the The Scarsdale Inquirer. They have permission from the newspapers to post the articles.

Harriet Leib asked Francis Sheehan to handle the website posting and he agreed.

Elizabeth Daniel suggested posting the notice on the town’s cable access station.

Harriet Leib said she spoke to Milton Hoffman as part of a committee that met with the editorial board about countywide campaign finance reform. She told him she did not like his editorial about the commission. She told him the commission was independent. She used the word "independent" three times and even asked him if he noticed she used the word three times.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked if the press notices would include the flier and the subcommittee recommendations with the bullet points.

Harriet Leib said the press release would be a total package.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the flier cannot have so much data it can’t be read.

Lester Steinman said a flier is different from a press release. The flier should contain the date, time, and place, etc. in big bold letters. It has to be readable so it can be posted. He can run off some of the fliers.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said it is better to post the fliers rather than leaving paper that could fly around.

Charlotte Schienberg said that there will be expenses involved with publicizing the hearing.

Harriet Leib said that Kathleen Rutherford gave the League some money but she (Ms. Leib) is not sure it could be used for this purpose.

Harriet Leib prepared a "who does what" list. She asked Claire Lee to help her prepare the press release.

Claire Lee agreed to help with the press release.

Harriet Leib read the list of responsibilities: Catherine Lederer-Plaskett will notify the The Scarsdale Inquirer and the The Rivertowns Enterprise. Harriet Leib will prepare the press release and notify the The Journal News. Charlotte Schienberg will notify The Eyewitness News. Francis Sheehan will prepare the flier and post the information on the web. Claire Lee will help with the press release and notify Cablevision’s News12. Elizabeth Daniel will draft the Public Finance Subcommittee recommendations.

Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Francis Sheehan if he could send the flier via e-mail so the members can make their own copies and distribute them locally.

Francis Sheehan said he would send the flier via e-mail.

Harriet Leib assigned members who live in the town specific locales for flier distribution.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Francis Sheehan, Commission Secretary

[ Previous Page ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next Page ]

Copyright © 1999-2008 Grassroots for Greenburgh.  All rights reserved.
E-mail:  GrassrootsForGreenburgh@worldnet.att.net
Sign up for periodic e-mail updates.