Details

Published: 15 June 2011

Created: 15 June 2011

Last Updated: 15 June 2011

Hits: 4509

It appears the Chairman of our Westchester County Board of Legislators, Ken Jenkins (D Yonkers) has begun his 2013 race for County Executive. He’s beefed up his campaign staff, courtesy of the taxpayers of course, with no opponent in sight this November. Many of the press releases coming from his office can only be described as political in nature. For example, in May out of about two dozen releases, at least eight were written about what a terrible person County Executive Rob Astorino is. Jenkins tends to end the press release expressing hope that all involved can get past the attacks and the distractions and get back to governing. The irony of Jenkins himself being the one creating the distractions, and issuing the attacks and, most important, doing anything in his power to prevent Astorino from governing, is lost on Jenkins.

With Jenkins preoccupied with doing his thing the board -- lacking leadership-- has done one dumb thing after another -- and then they issue press releases praising themselves -- for doing dumb things. By dumb I mean does it make sense to vote against an extension of the county sales tax only weeks after you voted to request an extension of the county sales tax in Albany? Especially since the revenue from the sales tax you just voted against is necessary for that historic tax cut about which you keep bragging? Things like that. But mostly it’s Jenkins in full bore campaign mode who has made a spectacle of himself publicly and repeatedly.

Not since the Three Amigos staged their coup in Albany have I witnessed such a rash of bizarre developments in quick succession. Unlike the budget charade or the CSEA debacle, which lingered for a while in the media, each day it seemed the Board of Legislators feigned a new injury accompanied by a press release expressing outrage! . It’s hard to skewer a moving target – and as much as I enjoy trying - my efforts to write about the Boards’ various stunts were stymied by the sheer number of press releases flying out of the 8th floor like buckshot.

One week in particular was for the record books. Jenkins first accused Astorino of:

deceiving the public and keeping a secret security detail. The lack of truth behind this charge did not prevent his Budget Chairman Jose Alvarado from calling Astorino disingenuous. Board watchers will know that the likelihood of Alvarado being able to spell the word, let alone use it in a sentence, is slim. The man is not known for his eloquence, and I’m being kind here. Nonetheless, given Andy Spano’s predilection for armed guards this is standard glass houses rhetoric. But it didn’t end there.

Jenkins followed with:

a silly accusation of sex harassment, which may seem almost quaint in the post Anthony Weiner world in which we live, but at the time was written as if Clarence Thomas was working on the 9th floor. The over the top response from Jenkins, coupled with a near hysterical series of press releases from the newly hired PR guy, (for whom we pay, naturally) backfired however, making the accused, George Oros, a sympathetic figure to most observers-- even cranky feminists like me who don’t like sex harassment trivialized to score cheap political points.

So I’m on that issue and working up a good rant about crying wolf etc when bam! Jenkins:

has an Astorino staffer removed by the police from a Board of Legislators meeting for disorderly conduct and vandalism. The scoundrel apparently clapped without Jenkins’s permission and then quell horreur attempted to turn a portrait of Chairman Jenkins upside down while being escorted out.

The portrait fell down – that’s the vandalism part – and the bad actor immediately picked it back up and re hung it. And he never said Mother may I.

Disingenuousness and deception! sexual harassment! disorderly conduct! vandalism! And, finally,

stalking, I guess – why else were the police assigned the following Monday to a meeting George Oros ( the previously accused ) was scheduled to attend – it must have been to protect the women folk from harm. Yes, you read that right. Jenkins had police officers stationed outside a public meeting of the County Board to prevent a member of the County Executive’s staff from entering. Do you know the hourly rate for a cop? Jenkins doesn’t care. You’re paying for it.

Every one of these crackpot accusations-- accompanied by a sensational screaming press release--was written on public time. They all appeared magically on Jenkins’ campaign web site as well.

Now you might wonder how Jenkins can possibly think that, despite the fact that Astorino was elected with something like 58% of the vote, he has a mandate to make sure the County Executive can’t get anything done and his term in office is not a productive one. The answer is he doesn’t, but he doesn’t care either. He wants to be County Executive himself. If the county goes to hell in the meantime that’s better for him.

Here’s another question: How does this benefit the citizens of Westchester who rely on our elected officials to run our government?

How does this balkanized state over in White Plains benefit the tax payers who pay close to 60K a piece for these fools to work 1 day a week?

Finally what does this say about the contempt Jenkins holds for the voters who elected Astorino? Does he think that we didn’t know what we were doing so he has to ride around non stop in his clown car to protect us from our own poor judgment and prevent Astorino from screwing things up until his term ends?

Astorino could say it’s warm outside and we’d get a press release from Jenkins calling Astorino dishonest because it was warmer the last year of the Spano administration.

Astorino could do a PSA for prostate exams and Jenkins would say its one more example of Astorino’s disregard for women and children since the program callously excluded them.

Astorino could even trip and fall on camera and we’d get another press release about the County Executive attempting to distract attention from the Board of Legislators’ historic 2.2% tax decrease.

And we’re paying for all this nonsense - in an election year.

Jenkins’ arrogance, coupled with his members’ obeisance, has turned even the normally liberal Journal News against them recently. Both columnist Phil Reisman and investigative reporter Jerry McKinstry have written repeatedly on their comical if it weren’t so expensive behavior.

Far from being chastened the thinned skinned Jenkins has turned around and called them both out for dishonesty and, in the case of McKinstry, for being a tool of the Republicans. McKinstry is widely regarded as an impartial journalist, but Jenkins is not one to be influenced by facts, let alone public opinion.

The Journal News is in bed with the GOP. Ken Jenkins said so.

The fact that Reisman also has taken almost as many shots at Astorino matters little to Jenkins who, possessed of an emotional glass jaw, becomes absolutely unhinged at the least criticism.

He’s actually gotten off easily in the press, because the truth is 9 times out of 10 the garbage is flowing in one direction only, and that’s out of Jenkins overstaffed press office, which evidently has no real work to do.

About that press office -- the board has a “communications” staff of 5 for 12 democrats. The GOP minority has 1 part timer as far as I can tell. With some of our legislators I can understand a staff to camper ratio rivaling Purchase Day Camp (Did I mention Jose Alvarado?) but does it bother anyone other than me that 12 part time people need 5 full time people to help them communicate?

Another question, can you, off the top of your head, think of something important communicated to you recently by the County Board? I mean other than the hold the presses news that they’d decided on a whim to eliminate the entrance fee to Playland after the season already started? The same entrance fee which they included as revenue to achieve that historic 2.2 percent tax cut, by the way.

No, can’t think of anything? I can’t either. Now that’s a problem.

Charmian Neary is a bored housewife and former Democratic political operative from Rye New York who is much better at politics than homemaking.

Details

Written by Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 22 June 2011

Created: 22 June 2011

Last Updated: 23 June 2011

Hits: 5798

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:

• Larry Bell, Chair*
• Dan Hochvert*
• David Irwin*
• L. William Kay III*
• Edward A. Morgan*
• B. Kathleen Munguia*‡
• James Pullman*
• Evelyn H. Seidman*
• Beverley Sved*
• Beatrice Underweiser*
• Bruce Wells*

* Member of working/drafting group.
‡ Abstained.

To view the report in its entirety, click here.

Details

Published: 13 June 2011

Created: 13 June 2011

Last Updated: 13 June 2011

Hits: 3589

Development at the Five Corners in Scarsdale continues to be a hot topic at Scarsdale Village Hall. On June 7, the Land Use Committee held a second open meeting in Rutherford Hall to review questions about the proposed condominium project to be built at 2-4 Weaver Street on land adjacent to the Heathcote Tavern.

Developers Frederick Fish and Stephen Oder have offered to buy a small strip of Village land that borders the parking lot to include in the project. The additional strip of land would allow them to set the project further back from the road, increase the distance between the new building and the Heathcote Tavern and move the curb cuts for the project further away from the intersection.

However there is still community concern about congestion in the area, the additional traffic that could be created by the project and pedestrian safety. Members of the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition attended the hearing and posed many questions about the size and height of the project, setbacks, variances and building and zoning requirements.

Stephen Oder did not attend this meeting, but asked Project architect Joe Plouffe to respond to the long list of questions that compared the buildable area, the building footprint and the project size in the case that the Village retained the land or opted to sell it to the developer. The Coalition also posed questions about lighting and ventilation in the Tavern building in the event that the new building was constructed and questioned the required setbacks from Wilmot Road and the Heathcote Bypass.

The architect responded that no variances would be needed for setbacks, however the developer would require a variance for the number of required parking spaces – which is currently three per unit. In response to questions about the number of units to be built with and without the village owned land, the architect said that 10 units could be built in the new building without the village strip and 12 units if it was included in the project. However, additional units can be added in the space in the current tavern building.

From the conversation, it appeared that the Trustees would have little reason to deny the developer the land. Land Use Committee Chair Jonathan Mark ended the session saying that the Trustees would go into executive session to discuss the potential land sale.

However it appears that the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition plans to continue to address area development. Last week they mailed out a fundraising letter to their members asking for $100 per household to pursue their work. Citing traffic congestion, pedestrian safety and new construction the Coaltion appealed to residents for funds. They said, “Volunteer members of the Coalition attend meetings of the Village Board of Trustees, the Planning Board, the BAR, and other meetings with local civic organizations. We seek the advice of urban planners, architects and legal counsel …to protect the interests of residents.”

Many of the decisions affecting the area have already been made. The new 11,000 square foot retail building at 1 Palmer Avenue has already been approved. The nine homes at Heathcote Manor further down Weaver Street are under construction and it looks as if the land sale and development at 2-4 Weaver Street will go forward. That leaves the discussion about a potential traffic roundabout at the Five Corners that was proposed to ease congestion. Any objections to that?