GREENBURGH CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES -- JUNE 15, 2000
(DRAFT)
Present:
Andrew Goodman, Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, Claire Lee, Harriet Leib, Erin Malloy, Susan Mancuso, Anne Nelson, Sally Schaadt, Charlotte Schienberg, Ervin Schliefer, Francis Sheehan, Lester Steinman, Mary Tobias
Speakers (in order of first appearance):
Stephanie Bellino President, Lower Manor Woods Neighborhood Association
Ella Preiser Secretary/Spokesperson, Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations
Co-founder, Grassroots for Greenburgh
William Pohlmann Chairman, Greenburgh Republican Party
Observers: David Gottlieb, reporter/photographer, The Scarsdale Inquirer
Absent:
Elizabeth Daniel, Rev. Wilbert Preston, Mike Reynolds
The tenth meeting of the commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in room 131, at Rochambeau School, 228 Fisher Avenue, White Plains.
Co-chair Harriet Leib welcomed the attendees and then recognized Anne Nelson, stating that she chaired the first commission meeting and has been following the commission’s work.
Anne Nelson, from the League of Women Voters County Government Committee, thanked the commission members for all their effort and time dedicated to doing the important work of the commission. She said she has not been able to attend many of the meetings but that she has been able to follow the commission’s work by reading the detailed minutes of the meetings that Francis Sheehan generates and sends to her. Reading the minutes makes her feel as though she is sitting at the discussion table with the commission members. She thanked Francis Sheehan for helping keep her and everyone else informed about the commission’s work.
Harriet Leib said that there are guest speakers who wanted to supplement their public hearing comments. She recognized Stephanie Bellino.
Stephanie Bellino distributed a letter that she wrote to commission members, dated June 10, 2000. She asked that her written statements be included in the minutes and considered by the commission. The contents of the letter follow:
First of all, I would like to congratulate the members for all the time and effort that they have put forth regarding this enormous undertaking which is absolutely needed in our town.
I have reviewed the proposed recommendations distributed at the public hearing held on Monday, June 5, 2000, and I have the following comments:
First, as to the Cable Subcommittee recommendation:
1. The last recommendation regarding an independent, non-profit cable access television board should be the priority, for without this, nothing else will be accomplished regarding cable television reform in Greenburgh. Just look at what happened with the Greenburgh Antenna Review Board televised meeting. The establishment of this independent board is the only way to ensure fair and equal access to Greenburgh’s Cable Access Channels for all candidates, all citizens, all organizations and all boards. This board should have the authority to mandate equal access for all candidates without interference from any other board or organization.
2. Access should be given to all candidates even if the candidate does not participate in any other campaign finance reform initiatives that may come forth as your recommendations. I also believe that all political segments should be played on a continuous basis the weekend prior to any election whether it is a primary or general election.
Secondly, as to the Ethics Subcommittee recommendation:
1. The establishment of a campaign oversight committee-- whether it be nonpartisan or bipartisan-- is worthless unless the process and procedure is described as to how any ethical or financial issues will be directed to, delivered and dealt with by this committee and what absolute authority this committee will have to punish.
2. The elimination of conflicts of interest-- elected officials should be required to recuse themselves under ALL circumstances from voting on a contributor’s application or any application presented by another who has contributed.
3. "Create a level playing field for candidates". Taxpayer-financed mailings by incumbents should be banned during the period of six months prior to general election and primary if applicable. As discussed in one of your meetings, any pertinent information needed to be given to the general public regarding an issue within a community can be addressed by the department head involved in the issuer-- not by the political candidate and without the political candidate’s name being used in the notification.
Thirdly, as to the Public Finance Subcommittee recommendation:
1. It is difficult now for volunteer treasurers to comply with the regulations of the Board of Elections. The rules for financial disclosure should be the same as the Board of Elections with the exception of adding an additional filing date for the town.
2. The limit for contributions should be less than $1,000-- say $500.
3. All candidates should pledge not to accept contributions from anyone doing business with the town, including the unions.
4. I agree that there should be more than one debate held during the election season and they should follow the League’s guideline. However, in the case of a primary where one party refuses to participate in the debate-- such as a primary for the conservative party where only one person is available, it should be stated that the other party refused to participate and time should be given to the individual who agreed to participate to at least give a 5 minute statement.
5. I am against any further taxation for financing of campaigns. I believe that the residents of Greenburgh feel that the tax burden is already high, and those of us who have followed the "green space referendum" know that the town leaders already tried to use the funds in an improper manner and are currently using the monies collected from cable franchise fees for other purposes as stated by Paul Feiner at the town board meeting where the budget was discussed.
I am sorry that I was unable to get my thoughts to you earlier, but l hope that you will consider them when you come up with your final recommendations.
Ms. Bellino provided an overview of the above written comments and supplemented them with the following statements: If additional campaign finance disclosure is recommended, the commission should ensure that someone is available to answer questions from volunteer campaign treasurers, who are already overburdened with complicated filing requirements. Contribution disclosure requirements should remain consistent with the current Board of Elections’ threshold of more than $99, to make record keeping easy. However, the cap on individual contributions should be lowered to $500. The pledge to not take contributions from anyone doing business with the town must include the unions representing town employees. Mr. Feiner collected more than $6,000 from the Teamsters Union and then directly negotiated town contracts with them. She tried to file ethics charges regarding the union contributions but the town’s Ethics Board would not entertain the charges. She concluded by stating that all the local reform initiatives proposed are predicated on incentives that require independent control of cable access franchise fees and independent control of cable access programming. The commission needs to ensure they are truly independent in order to be fair to all citizens and groups in Greenburgh and provide a level playing field for all candidates. It is our only hope.
Claire Lee said that everyone is already entitled to cable access time. Ensuring fairness of cable access cannot be avoided. One of the issues for the commission is how to provide more cable access time to candidates who agree to reforms.
Ms. Bellino said she agrees that everyone is entitled to cable access time but there is a difference between being entitled to something and actually getting it. During the last election the town unfairly administered and manipulated access to cable television. It really wasn’t fair access.
Claire Lee said that we already know it wasn’t fairly implemented but everyone is entitled to it. The commission needs to ensure the access residents are entitled to is actually received. In Larchmont/ Mamaroneck the Town Board never took over control of cable or the cable access franchise fees. She doesn’t know how it can be rested away from the Greenburgh Town Board at this point.
Mary Tobias said the Town Board has to decide if it really wants campaign reform. If so, the Town Board will agree to give up control of cable access to a totally independent board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said one of the issues to discuss is a calendar. There is no way the commission can do its work within the Town Board’s timeframe to get a referendum on the ballot this fall. The commission needs to consider meeting in the fall.
Harriet Leib suggested talking about the calendar later, after first hearing any additional public comments regarding the subcommittee recommendations.
Ella Preiser was introduced. She agreed that resting control of cable access from the Town Board would be a formidable task. They won’t be willing to concede control. However, they must since the commission is relying solely on cable access as an incentive to candidates to voluntarily agree to campaign reforms. Therefore, cable access must be independently operated and funded or the commission will have wasted its time working on these proposals. Cable cannot be an incentive unless fair access is assured. She summarized her concerns in a letter, dated June 15, 2000, which she distributed to commission members:
I am writing this memo to provide additional input after more carefully reviewing the Commission’s recommendations that were made available at the June 5, 2000 Public Hearing.
Cable Subcommittee Recommendations
The Cable Subcommittee recommends "increased cable access time be used as an incentive for candidates to sign on to local campaign finance reform" and the Public Finance Subcommittee recommends that "significantly increased" cable access be "the primary or sole incentive" for any campaign reform measures.
If cable access is the linchpin that will make campaign finance reform work in Greenburgh, the Cable Subcommittee must rearrange the order of its recommendations and place as its number one recommendation that "An independent, non-profit cable access board be created...." However, it defies logic to believe that incumbents who wish to be re-elected every two to four years will relinquish control over and/or fairly administer a program that might tend to level the playing field and perhaps jeopardize their chance at re-election. The golden rule -- he who owns the gold, rules! The "you betcha" attitude about the power of the incumbency and cable TV access was demonstrated in numerous ways during the 1999 election year, particularly when the incumbents chose not to follow the very rules that they had promulgated. The Commission is betting on significant cable access policy changes for its reforms to work and, therefore, needs to be much more specific in what those changes should be and include consideration of the following:
1. Who would create the proposed "independent, non-profit cable access board?" How? A truly independent cable TV board with adequate resources and a bit of creativity would find there are no insurmountable problems and could make cable access an attractive incentive for voluntary campaign reforms. If the Town Board refuses to turn over operational and financial control of cable access to the proposed independent board, it would appear the Commission will have wasted its time since an independent cable access system is an integral part of all of the Commission’s proposed local campaign finance reforms. Is there a plan B?
2. A baseline amount of studio time would appear to be one-half hour each month of the election period since that is what other hosts/producers presumably are provided. During the 1999 election year, the following number of candidates qualified for the ballot (primary and/or general election) and could have been entitled to a cable program under the proposed recommendation:
3 – Supervisor (1 DEM, 1 REP, 1 CON)
7 – Councilperson (3 DEM, 2 REP, 2 CON)
3 – Town Clerk (1 DEM, 1 REP, 1 RTL)
8 – Town Justice (4 DEM, 2 REP, 2 RTL)
If each of the 21 eligible candidates had requested a separate taping during 1999, a total of 9 to 10½ hours of studio time would have been required each month. Additional time would be required to prepare the tapes with titles, etc. [Note: Judges have 4-year terms so they won’t run in 2001, but theoretically even more than 21 candidates could seek election in 2001.]
Would all candidates be entitled to tape cable programs during the months of May, June and July (for broadcast in June, July, August and September) - or only those running in a primary? Limiting cable access to only those running in the primary could severely limit name-recognition of some candidates in the November general election. However, reducing show length would severely hurt primary candidates who may not make it to the general election if they don’t gain name-recognition during the summer months.
3. Would a candidate be allowed to appear on another host/producer’s program in addition to his/her election taped programs? If so, would there be a limit?
4. Would a candidate who runs as part of a "team" be permitted to interview and/or endorse other members of the team in his/her separate taped segments each month or would the taped segments be team-member specific?
5. Would candidates who participate in reform measures be permitted to tape additional programs or merely have the previously taped program(s) replayed on the weekends?
6. How will Danny Gold’s question about scheduling be addressed? Baseline monthly taped programs would air twice a month on Channel 71 and weekly on Channel 73. To air 10½ hours of tapes (for 21 candidates) involves adding another two hours to each day’s scheduling, Monday through Friday. Town Board, Planning Board, ARB and ZBA meetings often run late into the night and are cablecast live and/or rebroadcast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings, and Ardsley Village Board meetings air on some Mondays. Thus, scheduling on Channel 71 could be difficult unless there is a major re-structuring and expansion of the schedule, which the Town Board appears resistant to do.
a) How would timeslots be determined for airing programs? By lottery? Would timeslots be fixed for the entire election period? While a fixed timeslot would be helpful in designing a candidate’s palm card, it might not help to level the playing field if one candidate’s program is scheduled for a non-primetime airing (e.g., 4 p.m. or 11:30 p.m.) while opponents receive primetime timeslots.
b) How will debates be scheduled on cable? The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations’ (CGCA) pre-primary debate was telecast live and rebroadcast on Labor Day. When the CGCA objected to the holiday airing, the Town Clerk promised a second date for rebroadcast and the CGCA publicized that date, but the debate never aired.
7. Finally, the Subcommittee should determine whether cable shows sent out from the Town should/could be pre-empted by the Villages. Approximately one half of Town voters live within the incorporated Villages and efforts should be made to ensure that Village residents have an opportunity to be informed about candidates running for election. In addition, the Village of Tarrytown is not part of the same cable system as the Town of Greenburgh and special efforts must be made to reach Tarrytown voters.
Ethics Subcommittee Recommendations
Please consider the following as supplementing my comments at the hearing:
1. The preface addresses "elected town officials" and thus applies to all three subsections that follow. The Subcommittee needs to alter the wording to include all candidates-- not just incumbents. As written, the recommendation suggests an oversight committee would be limited to addressing the actions/activities of only the incumbents.
2. The first recommendation -- "establish a campaign oversight committee" -- does not spell out the mechanism for establishing the committee or what kinds of authority the committee would have. Would it take an act of the Town Board to establish the oversight committee? Does the Subcommittee envision this oversight committee as having the authority to impose any punishment beyond shame? Please note that the "shame factor" requires the participation of the news media, which has been repeatedly shown difficult to obtain.
3. Although it might not be the Commission’s charge to suggest revisions to the Town’s Ethics Code, the mechanism of the oversight committee getting to the Ethics Board needs to be defined.
4. Regarding conflicts of interest, the Subcommittee needs to address Mr. Gold’s comment regarding under what "certain conditions" an elected official would be required to recuse him/herself. This provision appears to apply to only the Supervisor and Councilpersons who vote on issues. The Town Clerk, the Tax Receiver and the Town Justices all deal with suppliers either directly or through recommendations to the Town Board. Will provision be made to eliminate potential "conflict of interest" in these critical elected Town positions, too?
5. The Subcommittee should clarify the statement: "Taxpayer-financed mailings by incumbents should be reviewed." What constitutes a "mailing?" Is it the number of people mailed to? The use of election district labels? Do "mailings" include e-mail or website information? Who would do the reviewing?, the oversight committee?
6. Regarding the use of an "incumbent’s name, voice or likeness in public ads" -- should this include the Town’s web site? Does it include the Town’s "Guide to Programs, Activities and Services?" If so, would the Subcommittee eliminate not only the letters from the Town Board members and the Town Clerk but also eliminate mention that the Town Clerk is on the Brochure Committee or that Diana Juettner is Liaison to the Library Board, etc.? In the last election, the Town’s "Guide to Programs, Activities and Services," which includes individual statements by the incumbents, as well as summaries of the Town Board’s accomplishments, was mailed to all Town residents the week before the primary election. Is the recommendation that the mailings be re-scheduled or that the incumbents’ names be removed?
Public Finance Subcommittee
Please consider the following as supplementing my comments at the hearing:
1. The Subcommittee recommends "more frequent" disclosure. As Ms. Wielk requested, this should be better defined. How often is "more frequent?" Please remember that most candidates have ‘volunteer’ treasurers. These volunteers would be required to prepare the state-required documents in addition to the "more frequent and more descriptive" documents that the Subcommittee is suggesting. State law already requires a total of 8 filings a year if a primary is involved. (5 if no primary in an election year.)
2. The second bullet states that "participating candidates should limit individual contributions for each election ...." Contributions should also be limited from corporations, other political candidates’ political committees, union or trade organizations, PACs and other entities. The Subcommittee should recommend the dollar limit. Even total disclosure would not stop those who wish to give more than the current $1000+ limitation as contributors could offer the funds through family members or friends. As Mr. Pohlmann noted, total disclosure might discourage those who fear retribution. NYS election law does not limit the amount a candidate and his/her spouse can spend on an election. Is the Commission considering a cap on the amount that the participating candidate and his/her spouse could use to fund a campaign? In other words, would a rich candidate who totally self-finances his/her campaign without small donations be considered compliant with the local reform measures and entitled to increased cable access, etc?
3. Does the third bullet apply only to Town Board candidates? The stated example – "(such as developers doing business before the town’s boards)" is limiting. What about candidates for Town Clerk, Tax Receiver or Town Justice? Shouldn’t all elected incumbents be required to pledge not to accept contributions also from suppliers who they might use or recommend? The Subcommittee also needs to address Mr. Pohlmann’s question about how a non-incumbent would know what is an "interested" contribution. The ability to return "interested" contributions once identified, which was mentioned in the Commission’s meeting minutes, but is not part of the recommendation, would partly address Mr. Pohlmann’s concern.
4. Requiring candidates to participate in a minimum number of debates presupposes that the LWV or some other group will sponsor these debates. The Subcommittee should attempt to obtain a commitment from the group(s) and also a commitment from the Town Board that the meeting room will be made available for the debates. Arrangements also have to be made to ensure cable coverage. In addition to requiring a minimum number of debates, the debates should be of sufficient length to cover a number of issues. Many of the 50+ people who attended the CGCA pre-primary [debate] described it as helpful, as did those who watched it on cable TV. The CGCA devoted an hour to the Democratic candidates for Town Justice and an hour to the Democratic candidates for Town Councilperson. Even with this amount of time, there were a substantial number of people who did not get the opportunity to ask their questions during the debates. If the Republicans and Conservatives had chosen to participate that night and the same amount of time had to be divided among four debates, the usefulness of the debates would have been limited.
5. In response to Mr. Pohlmann’s comment that a candidate who refuses to debate should be penalized, that candidate would be penalized by not receiving additional cable TV time. Please note, it is not just the LWV guidelines that prohibit "empty chair" debates if the debate is carried over radio, TV or cable. According to the instructions promulgated by the LWV, the Federal Communications Commission regulations apply to all radio, television broadcasters and cablecasters and require that "at least two candidates must appear in any debate." Perhaps the Commission could address Mr. Pohlmann’s "empty chair" complaint by delineating how the proposed "shame factor" would be employed. Does the Commission envision the proposed oversight committee as having a public relations/press relations component?
Again, I do thank the Commission members for their hard work in addressing these important issues.
Mrs. Preiser, while reviewing her written statements, said that she wasn’t sure how the cable system in Greenburgh was wired. Different areas of Greenburgh seem to get different programs and Tarrytown has a totally separate cable system than other areas of Greenburgh.
Ms. Bellino said Tarrytown’s cable system recently merged with Cablevision so the difficulties with Greenburgh cable access program distribution to Tarrytown residents may change.
Mrs. Preiser said she hopes the merger helps resolve the Tarrytown program distribution problems.
Mrs. Preiser asked the commission if the preface on the Ethics Subcommittee recommendations was a typo or was the intention to make the recommendations apply solely to incumbents.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the town’s Ethics Law does not apply to candidates, per se; it applies to town officials. The recommendations are fair in that they apply to all candidates who get elected. The person elected cannot vote on an application filed by a contributor. If a candidate is not elected, it is a non-issue because the person would not be in a position to vote on the application.
Mrs. Preiser said that she could envision ethical issues coming up during the campaign itself.
Harriet Leib said the campaign oversight committee would be an established board that could handle those types of campaign-related issues. It does not help to get that detailed. A broader picture is needed. The commission needs to establish broad guidelines. Trying to define all the details will kill the proposal.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that she does not believe the other members of the board agree with Harriet Leib’s last statement. Ms. Lederer-Plaskett said that she wants to include as much detail as possible in the recommendations, not just give generalized headlines. She is concerned the Town Board will endorse the headlines, but develop details that do not further the commission’s goals toward campaign fairness. The public will be mislead into thinking whatever the Town Board later develops is an outgrowth of the commission’s work, because the Town Board will say they acted on the commission’s generalized headlines.
Harriet Leib said that the amount of detail needed is something that still needs to be worked out.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said there was a recognition that the Ethics Board has its limitations and, therefore, some things had to be handled by a Fair Campaign Practices Committee. The committee would handle ethical issues regarding candidates. The commission was asked why candidates "buying clout" wasn’t against the law. The committee would address those issues.
Harriet Leib suggested not referring to the oversight board as a Fair Campaign Practices Committee since there is already a committee with that name at the county level. A Campaign Oversight Commission might be a better name.
Claire Lee asked if the town’s Campaign Oversight Commission would duplicate any of the functions of the county’s Fair Campaign Practices Committee.
Harriet Leib said the county committee does not get involved with local issues such as cable access.
Claire Lee asked if the county’s Fair Campaign Practices Committee would get involved with candidates meeting any voluntary contribution limits imposed as local reform.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said they would not.
Harriet Leib said the county committee examines campaign statements that are contested and issues rulings regarding the truthfulness of the statements. The proposed oversight commission would not duplicate the county’s work.
Stephanie Bellino said the League’s Fair Campaign Practices Committee has no teeth.
Harriet Leib said that its teeth is in the publicity that it generates regarding its findings.
Charlotte Schienberg said the press coverage gives the Fair Campaign Practices Committee its teeth.
Ella Preiser said that the local oversight commission would likely also rely on the shame factor. However, if the press doesn’t provide coverage there is no shame factor. It is very difficult to get press coverage of local issues, particularly coverage on television or a newspaper of widespread circulation. She asked if the oversight committee would have the authority to impose any penalties or be able to file charges with the town’s Ethics Board, in addition to trying to use the "shame factor". For the oversight commission to file charges with the Ethics Board, the Town Board would have to amend the Ethics Code to allow such filings. How does the commission envision getting the Town Board to do that?
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that access to the Ethics Board has not been resolved. The commission purposely avoided specifics until hearing from the public. There are strong feelings by some to only let the oversight commission have access to the Ethics Board and there are just as strong feelings by others that everyone should be able to directly file charges with the Ethics Board.
Charlotte Schienberg, in response to Mrs. Preiser’s concern regarding whether the recommendations also apply to the Town Clerk, Town Receiver, etc., said that the wording mentions elected officials, which would include the Town Clerk, Town Receiver, etc.
Ella Preiser said that the term "elected officials" is not used consistently throughout the documents.
Charlotte Schienberg agreed that the term should be consistently used.
Ella Preiser supplemented her written comments regarding mailings with the following: An oversight commission cannot look at every letter sent by town officials so how would it work? Regarding the "name, face, likeness" provision, twice each year the town does a town-wide mailing that includes the various town recreation and activity programs, schedules, etc. The booklet includes prominent letters from the Town Supervisor, Town Council members, Town Clerk, etc., along with a list of their accomplishments. One of the bi-annual mailings arrives the weekend before primary day. Would the names, pictures, and letters of the elected officials be removed from the publications or would the suggestion be to time the mailings differently?
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said Mrs. Preiser has raised excellent questions, most of which still require further consideration of the details.
Harriet Leib said that being very specific could kill what the commission is trying to accomplish, particularly attempts to try to define things. Definitions can be torn apart, word by word. Generalizations with some specifics should be the goal.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the amount of detail still needs to be addressed.
Ella Preiser said that all she is asking is that her questions be considered. For example, debates are nice but, if the League of Women Voters and the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations do not commit to them, the requirement for candidates to participate in debates is meaningless.
Harriet Leib said she spoke to the League of Women Voters’ County Chair who said it is administratively impossible for the League to do primaries. The League’s focus at the time of the primary and before is to get ready general election related activities.
Claire Lee said that she is convinced that the Primary Elections in Greenburgh are extremely important and need to be considered by the League.
Anne Nelson responded to the empty chair debate issue raised by Mrs. Preiser. She said the League’s local chair decides how to handle empty chair debates and may allow the candidate who shows up to make a short statement.
Claire Lee said that a candidate stating that his/her opponent refused to show up to debate is a very strong statement. A candidate who cannot debate because his/her opponent failed to show up should be permitted a few minutes to make such a statement.
Ella Preiser said the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations followed the League of Women Voters debate guidelines exactly and did not allow anyone without an opponent to participate in the debate.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the commission needs to obtain a copy of the FCC regulations that prohibit empty chair debates.
David Gottlieb asked what impact cable television has on local elections.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that it is difficult to measure the impact of cable access television on local elections. However, Greenburgh elected officials must perceive cable access as having a significant impact. She gave Mr. Gottlieb a packet of papers regarding cable access and the Antenna Review Board. The Supervisor said the Antenna Review Board could not televise its meeting. When the Antenna Review Board tried to televise its meeting, all of a sudden there was no sound going out. It made it very clear that the Supervisor did not want the Antenna Board meeting to be shown on cable television. George Malone, the cable director, investigated and could not find anything wrong with the town’s cable system. Cablevision was contacted and Cablevision technicians determined that everything was working on its end. Cablevision then sent a technician to Town Hall to investigate. The Cablevision technician eventually found that a wire had been disconnected from the jack it was supposed to be in and reconnected into another jack somewhere else. If the wire had dislodged itself, it would have been hanging and easy to find and fix. It wasn’t. The wire was plugged in, making it look like it was supposed to be there. It was Cablevision’s discovery. It is clear to her that the Antenna Review Board was not supposed to be televised. The Antenna Board met for one and one-half hours on camera but without sound. It supports much of what was said. There is a great fear of the power of cable access programs. It also shows the power of the incumbency to control information.
Harriet Leib said that the commission members need to keep focused within our minds on the scope of the commission.
William Pohlmann asked if he could comment on that point.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said he could.
Mr. Pohlmann said that the commission’s title is "Campaign Finance", yet the commission has already decided that there will not be financing of campaigns in Greenburgh. He agrees with that decision. The alternative, therefore, is for the commission to try to gain a greater measure of candidate access to the public because the main purpose of the commission is fairness, which requires an informed public. He advocates around-the-clock airing of candidate-related programs the weekend prior to the election because if the TV show Survivor happens to be on the same night as the debate, no one will see the debate live.
Mr. Pohlmann said he agrees with many of the commission’s recommendations but disagrees with several. He disagrees with the recusal recommendation because taking the campaign contributions from developers is against the law. It should not be permitted at all. Also, the team member who gets the contribution will recuse him/herself from voting but not the other candidates running as a team. The contributor will still get the application approved. It should not be a pledge. It should be against the law. The commission has yet to address the composition of the Ethics Board. It needs to include members who have a "natural tension" to the incumbent office holder. The Ethics Board needs to be changed so that party leaders from the three most major parties, not including the party of the then Supervisor, can appoint one member each. The Town Board should be able to appoint a member, as well as should the League of Women Voters.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Mr. Pohlmann to limit his comments to those not made at the public hearing. The comments that Ella Preiser and Stephanie Bellino made were not previously made.
William Pohlmann said he had one more comment. It is very difficult to find a campaign treasurer. No one wants the job. The commission should not make a volunteer treasurer’s work any harder than it is already.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett thanked Mr. Pohlmann for his comments.
Mr. Gottlieb asked how Larchmont/Mamaroneck evolved having such a "blissful state" of cable access television.
Claire Lee said that civic groups formed a non-profit organization to deal with cable issues as soon as a cable company announced plans to come into the municipality. The municipality gave the non-profit group total control of cable access. They never took control of cable or the franchise fees, as in Greenburgh.
Mr. Gottlieb asked if Larchmont/Mamaroneck had a legal basis for allowing the non-profit group to independently control cable.
Claire Lee said that Francis Sheehan has conducted a significant amount of research regarding cable access control and has found that many, many municipalities have a non-profit group independently control and operate cable access television. He was able to download and give her a lot of information from the Internet.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett suggested that this would be a good place to develop a calendar. One of the policies in the Town of Greenburgh, which was implemented at the urging of the residents, is that nothing controversial be presented during the summer months. She strongly suggests not presenting any findings to the Town Board during the summer since no one from the public will be around to hear it. In addition, commission members will be going away for vacation and it will be difficult to hold meetings. It is not realistic to expect to draft recommendations in the detail needed by the end of June. Anne Nelson has proposed an interim report.
Lester Steinman said the commission, at some point, has to stop obtaining additional input from the public and start meeting to act on what was heard. There has been ample opportunity for the public to comment at this point. The commission now needs to break into its subcommittees to develop questions for the full commission to consider. Each question should then be put to the full commission for a vote. There is still a long way for the commission to go.
Claire Lee said the commission members have been talking to each other for months and few others know what the commission has been doing. She has found the entire process very enlightening and the information so educational that she even thought of writing to the newspapers about it. She didn’t write because the information should come from the commission.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said it was very valuable to hear from the public at the public hearing and receive the additional comments earlier in the meeting. The commission can now focus on the answers to the questions presented to the commission. She asked what other commission members think of Lester Steinman’s comments.
Claire Lee said she agrees with them.
Mary Tobias said Supervisor Feiner stated at the first commission meeting that he wanted something from the commission by June so a November referendum could be placed on the ballot. She asked how the commission intended to address Mr. Feiner’s request.
Harriet Leib said that when Supervisor Feiner asked the League of Women Voters to get involved, the League was aware of Mr. Feiner’s desire for a referendum. However, the League made it clear to Mr. Feiner that the commission, should the League agree to get involved, would be independent and might go in a different direction at its own pace and its own schedule. It cannot be denied that he started the commission. He had his own ideas in mind. The League told him they would not be involved unless the independence of the commission was assured. Supervisor Feiner agreed to the League’s terms. She had hoped that the commission would have completed its work by June, but obviously that is not the case.
Mary Tobias asked if Supervisor Feiner had inquired as to how the commission was progressing toward completing its work.
Harriet Leib said that he had not.
Anne Nelson said that the commission has to respond in some manner to Mr. Feiner, as a matter of courtesy, by the end of June. It would be a slap in the face not to respond. There is disagreement about many specific things-- ethics, cable access, etc.; however, the commission should let Mr. Feiner know that the commission is working on these issues. The commission should spell out the objectives of the subcommittees. If the timeframe cannot be met then the report should say so. Mr. Feiner needs to be told what is going on.
Charlotte Schienberg asked if the commission’s report should go out as a press release.
Anne Nelson said that she knows the importance of press releases. The commission needs to respond, one way or the other.
Charlotte Schienberg said that a report could be issued as a courtesy, perhaps as a press release. It would not be an interim report, but, instead, a progress report.
Anne Nelson said that it could be a report regarding what the commission has done, what it is working on and what are the areas of concern being addressed.
Harriet Leib said that the Town Board is not without information. Susan Mancuso is on the commission as a representative of the Town Board and she does go back and speak to the Town Board. She suggested the commission not thwart its progress by stopping to write an interim report that would raise questions and debate over its wording and content, time that could be spent completing subcommittee work. A letter could go to the Town Board summarizing the number of meetings held, the recommendations under consideration, and the need for additional meetings.
Charlotte Schienberg said that her concern is that any report sent directly to the Town Board at this time could be considered by the Town Board as a final report that could then be sent to the public as final. The commission is independent and that is the role the commission should maintain. A courtesy report is fine but it must be clear that it is not the final report.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the report could be clearly marked that it is a work in progress.
Harriet Leib said that Anne Nelson’s point regarding a courtesy response to the Town Board is well taken. Something should be sent.
Erin Malloy said the report should be simple and to the point.
Anne Nelson said that the issues raised by the Supervisor should be addressed, such as Mr. Feiner’s desire to have a voters’ guide of local issues.
Lester Steinman said that the voters’ guide was discussed and there was no support for it.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the voters’ guide suggestion was discussed and rejected. Residents already receive too much mail. Another voters’ guide is not needed.
Anne Nelson said the questions in the local voters’ guide asked of candidates could be directed to specific issues important to Greenburgh residents, questions that are not asked in the League’s voters’ guide.
Francis Sheehan said that one of the concerns raised regarding the local voters’ guide is that someone or some group would have to decide which questions are important local questions and which are not. Question selection could be very controversial and politically motivated.
Anne Nelson said that Mr. Feiner is willing to put up the money for the voters’ guide.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that he is willing to put up our money.
Harriet Leib said that a letter needs to be drafted that can be sent to the Town Board.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said she would draft a letter and distribute it to the commission members to review prior to actually sending it.
Lester Steinman said that the letter should just state facts and have as attachments the materials that were available at the public hearing, and the minutes. The letter should state that additional time is needed to complete the commission’s work.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked for a vote on whether a letter as described by Lester Steinman should be sent to the Town Board and the press.
Lester Steinman said the letter should reflect where the commission is in the process.
Charlotte Schienberg suggested that each subcommittee revamp the prior recommendations, taking into consideration the comments heard at the public hearing.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked Charlotte Schienberg to hold off on her suggestion until the current issue is decided.
Erin Malloy asked if the commission was going to recommend a referendum.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said no, the commission agreed to develop recommendations regarding needed changes and let the Town Board decide how best to finance those changes if financing is needed. She said Lester Steinman stated the position of the commission clearly at the public hearing. The Town Board needs to decide how to pay for any financing needed.
Lester Steinman said that, before anyone can determine if a referendum is possible, what needs to be funded must be known. The commission is not in a position at the present time to make those determinations.
Francis Sheehan said that, even if reform initiatives cost money, the commission is not in a position to state that a referendum is appropriate.
Lester Steinman said the commission might be able to make a statement that a referendum is an option, if legal, emphasizing the term "if legal". Even if it were, however, the town’s bond counsel would be the person to decide if there should be a referendum, not this commission.
Mary Tobias said that the proposed letter to the Town Board will imply that there will not be a referendum this year on local campaign finance reform because the recommendations will not be to the Town Board by June.
Charlotte Schienberg suggested not mentioning the referendum in the letter.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the Town Board could still make campaign finance reform a referendum issue next year if a referendum is the town’s goal.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett asked for a show of hands for sending a letter similar to the one described by Lester Steinman. All approved.
Charlotte Schienberg suggested that subcommittees revamp the recommendations and respond to public comments in the form of consolidated questions and answers.
Claire Lee said that the cable subcommittee may not want to revamp the recommendations.
Lester Steinman said that the cable subcommittee has had more consensus on the issues than other subcommittees.
Claire Lee said that detailed questions and answers may get members lost in the details.
Harriet Leib asked if the commission should include the type of specificity in the final report that was requested at the public hearing.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said the recommendations were purposely not made specific to elicit discussion at the public hearing. The specificity is less than what some commissioners might like in the actual report.
Charlotte Schienberg asked if the commission intended to indicate what the community perceptions are or were, now and what was addressed, and what was addressed. It would be in three parts.
Harriet Leib said there is a fourth part. Many at the hearing were concerned that the recommendations would be buried after being presented.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that even if there is too much detail, it is important to respond to the comments raised by the public.
Lester Steinman said some of what the commission heard at the public hearing may be made part of forwarded recommendations.
Erin Malloy asked if the commission is supposed to list the comments heard at the public hearing and then respond with recommendations to address those comments? That may be a lot to do.
Claire Lee said that the oversight committee issue has never been fully addressed. If someone were to ask the commission about the oversight committee what would be the answer?
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said each subcommittee has to define what the role of the oversight committee should be.
Claire Lee said that one of her questions is, who? Who is on the oversight committee?
Harriet Leib said that is a big question.
Erin Malloy said that if the commission uses Lester Steinman’s suggestion regarding closing the public comment period and beginning developing responses, the commission will need to meet at least one or two more times.
Harriet Leib said the letter to the Town Board needs to be sent by the end of June, before June 30.
Charlotte Schienberg asked how should the letter be addressed, to the Supervisor as well as the Town Board?
Harriet Leib said the letter should also be addressed to Anne Nelson and the League President.
Harriet Leib said that a timetable needs to be established. Subcommittees need to meet and then the commission needs to met.
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett said that the reality is that many members will be on vacation and scheduling meetings during the summer will become difficult.
Mary Tobias said that she was planning on going away.
Claire Lee said that she would be away as well.
Charlotte Schienberg said the subcommittee members should get together to work out a meeting date.
Harriet Leib said that the timetable should be developed in reverse. She asked when the full commission should next meet.
Lester Steinman said that September is the closest realistic meeting time.
Harriet Leib suggested the middle of September to avoid the holidays. There was agreement that the next full commission meeting should be September 14th, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. at Rochambeau.
Harriet Leib discussed with Ethics Subcommittee members a possible meeting date. July 6, 2000, at 12:30 p.m. at Lester Steinman’s office was selected.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Sheehan, Commission Secretary