Citizen's Party Candidates to Run Unopposed in Village Election

There will be no fireworks over the Village Election process this year as the candidates nominated by the Scarsdale Citizen's Party will be running unopposed. According to the Village Clerk, the February 14 deadline for candidates to file petitions to be put on the ballot has now passed, and the only candidates on the ballot are the Citizen's Party's nominees.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Scarsdale's new mayor will be Bob Steves, who is just completing four years as a Village Trustee. Steves has served the Village tirelessly with six years on the Scarsdale School Board, He also served on the boards of Scarsdale and Edgemont Family Counseling Service, Scarsdale Student Transfer Education Plan (STEP) and the Immaculate Heart of Mary School of Religion; chaired the Scarsdale Bowl Committee and was president of the Greenacres Neighborhood Association. In addition to his volunteer work, he holds a demanding day job at Fordham University where he is the Assistant Treasurer.

Stacey Brodsky, currently completing her first two-year term as Scarsdale Village Trustee, is on the ballot to serve a second two-year term. Her professional career as an attorney included stints at the U.S. Attorney's Office and in private practice. She also served on the Board of Architectural Review, the School Board Nominating Committee, as the President of the Heathcote PTA, on the Board of the Scarsdale Library, as Vice Chair of the Scarsdale Task Force on Drugs and Alcohol, on the Board of the League of Women Voters Scarsdale and as a member of the Scarsdale Bowl Committee. During Brodsky's first term as trustee she shepherded the Village through the process of liberalizing the laws concerning permanent standby generators making it possible for more residents to install generators on their properties.

Newcomers to the Village Board include Thomas B. Martin and William Stern. Martin is a long-time Scarsdale resident who grew up here and has lived in the Village as an adult on Fox Meadow Road for 29 years. He has expertise in finance and owns Circle Advisers, a wealth management firm.

William Stern is a 40-year Scarsdale resident with expertise in power generation, transmission and distribution as well as radio frequency , microwave
communication and generation, lasers, masers, atomic physics and quantum electrodynamics. He runs a medical device company that manufactures neurological ultrasound for the diagnosis of stroke and management of sickle cell disease. The company also manufactures hospital hydrotherapy pools designed for women to labor in and give birth in.

Visit www. Scarsdalecitizens.org for brief biographies of the candidates.

The Scarsdale Village election for Mayor and Village Trustees will be held on March 19 at Village Hall in Scarsdale, and the voting hours are 6-9 A.M. and Noon - 9 P.M.

However, the election is not totally without controversy as Harry Reynolds objected to the Non-Partisan filing of its petitions. Specifically he argues that the candidate's petitions needed to be fastened together rather than submitted in a looseleaf binder.

Here is his complaint:

Objector's Argument

Section 6215.1 (c) of the regulations of the State Board of Elections relating to the filing of nominating petitions requires that "Any two or more petition sheets shall be securely fastened together by any means which will hold the pages together in numerical order". Section 6251.1(d) of those regulations requires that "Petition sheets may be fastened together to form one or more volumes." (Emphasis added.) These regulations were incorporated by reference in Election Law, §6-134 which provides that "When a determination is made that a designating petition does not comply with such regulations, the candidate shall have three business days from the date of such determination to cure the violation."

A child of seven knows the meaning of "fastening together". The Scarsdale Citizens' Non-Partisan Party, however, has divined a way of claiming that one is fastening petition pages together by inserting them unfastened in a loose leaf book or loose leaf binder, a simple device known universally for containing only loose pages unattached to one another. Should the Scarsdale Citizens' Non-Partisan Party's claim succeed before this Board, Staples will be jammed over night with overweight politicians buying loose leaf books.

The Party's filing was made by use of a loose-leaf book containing 40 separate petitions each of which was not fastened to one another in violation of Election Law, § 6-134(2) and 9 NYCRR 6215.19(c)(d) which together required of the Party its compliance with its mandatory duty of securely fastening together the Party's 40-page nominating petition. Gucciardo v. Wolf, 162 A.D.2d 570 (2 Dept. 1990); see also, Matter of Jones v. Scaringe, 143 A.D.2d 294, 295 (3 Dept. 1988), appeal denied 72 N.Y. 2d 805); Matter of Braxton v. Mahoney, 63 N.Y.2d 691, 692 (1984).
The Party's argument, should it make it, that it used a loose-leaf "binder" to "bind" the petitions is self-defeating, for "loose leaves" are individual pages that are not bound or joined together and loose leaf books are "made with each leaf separate for ready insertion or removal (1 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, p. 1640). Even if we incanted the words "loose leaf binder" over the words "loose leaf book" the Party's petition pages still would not be fastened to one another as the law mandates. Fastening means to "Attach to something else; fix or hold securely in position; secure with a clasp, button, latch, bolt, seal, etc." (1 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, p. 934). In short, the law expressly mandates the physical joining or "fastening" together of individual petitions.

Nor is the law's fastening requirement a brittle, dispensable duty. Fastening petitions together tends to assure the integrity of the filing of the petition, inhibiting as it does the corrupt removal or substitution of sheets.

Last, during the Village election in 2012, as in the matter now before the Board, the Party filed with the Village Clerk one or more loose leaf books containing petitions which were not fastened to one another. They were mirror images of the unfastened petitions now before the Board. As a candidate opposed to the Party, I informed its representatives of the egregious violation after I discovered it, I believe, following the expiration date for the filing of that petition, as I stated in my letter of objection now before the Board. Notwithstanding its knowledge of that violation in that election, the Party repeated that violation in the matter now before the Board.

Accordingly, the curative provision of § 6-134(2) was not intended to be available to the Party for it can only be read as a provision in aid of persons who by understandable neglect or unfortunate ignorance failed to observe the statute. In a rational order, a Legislature would not have intended it to aid a person who knowingly continued his violation of a provision which, in the eyes of any reasonable person, was designed, at least in part, to inhibit the corrupt removal or substitution of petition sheets.

For the Board to grant curative relief under the circumstances before it would be a violation by the Board of Election Law, § 6-134(10) which provides that "The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud." (Emphasis added.) The Party's violation would encourage fraud and its awareness of its violation proves that its attitude towards that regulation was distant from that of "substantial compliance", facts that bar it from the liberality of the section.

I request the Board to determine that the Party's petition is insufficient and that the Party is not entitled to the curative period provided by Election Law, § 6-134(2).

Respectfully submitted,
Harold Reynolds