Scarsdale Forum Committee Recommends Changes to the Non-Partisan Process

Scarsdale Forum Committee Recommends Changes to the Non-Partisan Process

Wednesday, 22 June 2011 13:55

Last Updated: Thursday, 23 June 2011 11:49

Published: Wednesday, 22 June 2011 13:55

Joanne Wallenstein

scarsdalecrest The Scarsdale Forum Non-Partisan Procedure Committee released a report on June 16, 2011 to address some of the issues that surfaced during the nominating process and election for Scarsdale Village Mayor and Village Trustees in March 2011. In the wake of the first contested election for Village Mayor and Trustees in recent history, many questions were raised about the nominating process because some believed that the process had become overly partisan. Questions included the use of absentee ballots in the election for nominators, the views of some of the CNC members who were rumored to support candidates who agreed with their own views, breaches in the confidentiality of the proceedings and the voting procedures for Mayor and Trustee.

While the grassroots write-in campaign for the positions of Mayor and Village Trustee that challenged the Non-Partisan system adopted in 1930 was not successful, each write-in candidate, Sharon Lindsay and Robert Selvaggio, received enough votes to signal dissatisfaction with the process by which some candidates were chosen by the CNC.

The Non-Partisan process is not easily understood by new or long-time residents, and many are not aware of how the Village elects our leaders. By way of explanation, Scarsdale’s leaders are not chosen in Village-wide elections. Instead, citizens in each of the five areas of Scarsdale elect two representatives each year to serve three-year terms on the Citizen’s Nominating Committee (CNC). The CNC, a committee of 30 elected representatives solicits candidates to run for the positions of Mayor and Trustee, performs due diligence on the candidates and then votes on them in what are supposed to be confidential proceedings. In the vast majority of the elections, potential candidates under discussion were not publicly identified, so as not to discourage interested candidates from trying to be selected on later occasions. The proceedings of the CNC are historically led by appointed members of the Scarsdale Forum, formerly known as the TVCC and supplemented by retiring members of the CNC and other citizens appointed at large.

As the Scarsdale Forum generally runs the CNC election as well as the nominating committee proceedings, the 6/16 report is the Forum’s own recommendations for revisions to the Non-Partisan Resolution that governs the process. The report makes recommendations to the Procedure Committee of the CNC to adjust the Non-Partisan Resolution to respond to critics of prior practices. The next step in the process will be the review of these recommendations, and those made by the Procedure Committee, which will convene this month. The Procedure Committee will also begin the process of finding candidates for next November’s election to the new CNC.

The Procedure Committee, comprised of elected members of the graduating class of the CNC as well as appointees from the Scarsdale Forum, will draft revisions to the Non-Partisan Resolution that will need to be approved by the voters. The Procedure Committee will be headed by Michelle Lichtenberg as Chair and David Brodsky as Vice Chair.

The 28-page report issued on 6/16 is not easily condensed or summarized, but here is an attempt at an explanation and an analysis of the Forum’s recommendations.

Confidentiality: According to the report, “The Committee noted with dismay that information with respect to the deliberations of the CNC, required to be kept confidential by the CNC’s Rules of Procedure, became available in the public domain.” In order to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings, the report recommends that a “Confidentiality Policy” should be added to the Resolution. The report calls for committee members to sign a Confidentiality Policy before being seated on the CNC and for sanctions against those who breach the policy. The report states, “Such sanctions could include public censure, removal from the CNC and/or making such person ineligible to serve on the CNC and/or The Procedure Committee for not less than three (3) years from the expiration of such person’s term.”

Due Diligence: Earlier this year, there was confusion about the due diligence process. In order to address the methodology for doing due diligence on the nominees and managing official communications between committee members and a nominees, the report offers rules on who can be consulted and how they should be addressed. For instance, the report recommends that Village employees should not be asked for input on a candidates and that letters of recommendation should not be considered. However names provided by the nominee for references can be consulted.

In addition, the report provides lengthy Guidelines for Communication between the committee members and potential candidates which bars “discussion of Village issues or of the on-going CNC selection process but does allow nominees to “be able to refute character allegations, and for CNC members to have access to potential nominees for such limited purpose. … “However, care should be given not to disclose the identity of the source of the information or the source of the allegation, nor for any such permitted contact to expand to include a discussion of Village issues or of the on-going CNC selection process.”

Issues: Addressing the charge that candidates were chosen due to specific views on issues, the Committee recommends, “that there should be no communication between CNC members and Potential Nominees regarding issues. This limitation is important so that Potential Nominees can maintain an open mind on issues and independently assess the merits of an issue if elected as Mayor or Trustee.” Furthermore, the report says, “In addition, candidates should avoid the need to make political promises, thereby avoiding obligations or becoming beholden to any group or sponsor.”

Role of the Nominator: According to the report, the role of the CNC member who nominates potential candidates also needed clarification, and the report states that the nominator “does not have to be an advocate for or “campaign manager” of the nominated person,” but should verify information, and explain the process to the candidate.”

Voting is done on paper ballots and a candidate needs 16 votes, which is a majority of the 30 possible votes to be elected. When there are three or four candidates usually the candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated after the first and second ballots. However, in the last election it was said that the name of the candidate with the lowest number of votes was not dropped, at the will of the Chair of the CNC, who was also the President of the Scarsdale Forum, who ran the proceedings.

In the current recommendation from the Scarsdale Forum, it is not clear which candidates names should be dropped in case no one candidate has 16 votes. Observers note that the School Board Nominating Committee (SBNC) another part of the Non-Partisan system in Scarsdale, has historically automatically dropped the candidate with the lowest number of votes on the first ballot, making it easier to reach a majority without the deal making that often results from multiple ballots.

Here is what the 6/16 report says: “At any time after two rounds of voting for a specific position, a motion can be made by a CNC voting member to drop any Eligible Nominees with less than an agreed upon number of votes from future rounds of voting for that position. It is not recommended to remove Eligible Nominees from a round if they have a significant number of votes…. The minimum number of votes to continue on the ballot for a position should be dependent on the dispersion of the votes cast. This process is designed to eliminate only an Eligible Nominee with substantially fewer votes than other Eligible Nominees.”

The timing of the vote is also discussed. The report hints at what might have occurred this past winter in a section titled “Dealing With Surprises, where it says, “If character and related allegations are made without the opportunity for meaningful rebuttal,” the voting can be deferred until the next meeting. However the report recommends that committee members can overrule the Chair’s decision to defer voting by a 2/3’s majority.

This implies that allegations were made at the final meeting without adequate time for rebuttal. Perhaps voting proceeded without opportunity to set the record straight on one of the candidates. It also puts the weight on the Chair – who is appointed by the Forum, to decide if and when to vote.

Who Should Serve on the CNC: The report addresses criticism that the membership of the CNC included husbands and wives, spouses of current trustees, and repeat service by members of the committee and the Scarsdale Forum.

However, the Forum Report comes down on the side of maintaining current practices, saying, “The Committee believes that persons should not be disqualified for eligibility for the CNC for being related, by blood or marriage, to another CNC member, nor for being active, currently or formerly, in Village activities or for having taken a position on a Village issue. In effect, the voters of each elementary district should be entitled to decide who their elected CNC representatives will be.”

On repeat members, the group also opted to maintain the status quo, saying, “It was concluded that persons who have previously been members of the CNC can run again from time to time so long as (as currently set forth in the Non- Partisan Resolution) they do not succeed themselves.”

The Role of the Scarsdale Forum: After the deliberations in March, some questioned the role of the Scarsdale Forum in chairing the proceedings of the CNC and performing the administrative tasks. The report defends the Scarsdale Forum’s role and advocates their continued involvement, saying, “The TVCC and its predecessor have long supported principles of non-partisan government in Scarsdale, and this history provides those furnished by the TVCC to assist with CNC mechanics with an institutional memory of the details of CNC procedures, providing considerable comfort that the mechanics will be efficiently handled and fairly, uniformly and impartially applied, without intruding on the substantive work and decisions to be accomplished by CNC voting members. In short, the existing system of non-voting members (including the participation of a SNAP designee) provides both sound mechanics and continuity of “best practices” in CNC operations.”

Last, during the January 2011 election there were reports that candidates for the CNC had mail-in ballots completed and brought them to the Procedure Committee in batches. The mail-in ballots were not mailed but instead collected by the candidates. To prevent this, the report recommends “guidelines for use of mail-in ballots forbid candidates to touch completed mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballots should be delivered and received prior to the close of the election.”

Comments:

As anyone who has gotten this far into the piece can surmise, the 27-page report does little to simplify the complex process and it is easy to understand how the Non-Partisan Resolution and procedures may have been open to interpretation by those wishing to sway the process.

The report makes a good effort to clarify the rules, yet the suggested process for doing due diligence is lengthy and might be difficult for 30 committee members to adhere to in practice. For instance the proposed rules would prohibit any discussion of an issue with a candidate while at the same time giving the candidates the opportunity to defend their characters against an accusation. But what if the attack on character centered on an issue?

The concept of sanctions for those who breach confidentiality is bound to be controversial, as the procedures for conducting any investigation into alleged breaches of confidentiality are not spelled out and questions could arise on the role of the Procedure Committee as an investigator and prosecutor. What is also puzzling is why those who breach the policy would be permitted to serve on the committee again after a three year wait, as any person is eligible to serve again after sitting out three years.

The report is silent on what happens when the Procedure Committee is unable to find eligible nominators to run for the CNC. Currently, if the CNC fails to find at least two residents from each school district that are open each year, the Scarsdale Forum is empowered to appoint someone to fill the position. Critics argue that this rule allows the Forum to select nominators who may represent the view of the Forum, rather than the neighborhood. Others note that the SBNC has a similar policy.

In conclusion, the current process may be time-honored but some say it is time for a change. Although complex to understand and therefore to administer, the CNC systems is very similar to the School Board Nominating Committee (SBNC) process that is dictated by a similar Non-Partisan Resolution and has worked well for years. There have been few questions about SBNC procedure, influence, cronyism, repeat assignments or voting practices. The SBNC and CNC differ in one significant way; committee leadership. The SBNC proceedings are chaired by two people who have completed their three-year elected terms who are chosen by the elected nominators to manage the process in their fourth year. On the other hand, the CNC proceedings are run by appointees of the Scarsdale Forum.

Perhaps rather than getting tied up in drafts of guidelines, appendices and rules, the CNC Procedure Committee should examine the relationship between the leadership of the Scarsdale Forum and the Citizens Nominating Committee and seek ways to separate the interests of the two.

The report was signed by: