Democratic Nominees Sweep Challengers. Boykin, Lecuona, Power Win Dem Line

Hits: 0

 


WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007. September 18, 2007 UPDATED September 19, 2007 12:30 A.M. EDT UPDATED September 20, 2007 8:45 A.M. EDT UPDATED September 24, 2007 10:25 P.M.: Incumbent Councilpersons Benjamin Boykin and Dennis Power and new rising Democrat personality, Milagros Lecuona  have ended incumbent Councilperson Arnold Bernstein’s political career Tuesday, and withstood a challenge from Candyce Corcoran in the Democratic Primary. Corcoran though will get another opportunity in November as she has the Conservative Line in the citywide election to be held November 6.


The turnout of 2,402 voters based on the recanvas released Monday, September 24, was 1,012voters more than voted in the primary  year of  2003 (1,390) in White Plains, and 39 voters more than the  2,363 votes in the 2002 Adam Bradley-Naomi Matusow Primary Race. The City Democratic Committee turned out  2,402 Democratic votes to support the nominated ticket.


The results with 43 of 43 Districts Reporting from the Westchester County Board of Elections, percentages are rounded.


 


Benjamin Boykin  1,694 votes  26%


Dennis Power       1,649 votes  26% 


Milagros Lecouna  1,395    22%


Arnold Bernstein       1.009  votes   16%


Candyce Corcoran  698 votes     11%


Total Votes :2,402


 

Posted in Uncategorized

Mayor Pounds the Sales Tax half Cent Increase Schedules Resolution for Special M

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. September 18, 2007: Mayor Joseph Delfino has scheduled a Special Meeting of the Common Council for Wednesday evening at 6 PM in the Mayor’s Conference room to consider a resolution requesting a Home Rule legislation increasing the White Plains Sales Tax 1/2 percent to 8.25%. The council had tabled the resolution last week in an acrimonious exchange, saying they needed to discuss it, after having known about the policy the Mayor has espoused for about six months. It was widely speculated this was done for political reasons by the Council to postpone voting until after today’s primary. In addition to the resolution, the council will discuss demapping of streets for the Kensington assisted living project on Maple and Longview Avenunes and take up discussion of the increase in the Affordable Housing setaside (within new rental complexes), to 10% or higher — again without significant developer input as to the feasibility for developers to live within the new 10% figure.


The agenda:



 


COMMON COUNCIL


AGENDA


SPECIAL  MEETING


SEPTEMBER 19, 2007


6:00 P.M.


 


RESOLUTION:


 



1.            Resolution  of the Common Council of the City of White Plains authorizing a Certification of a Home Rule Request seeking enactment of State legislation to amend the Tax Law in relation to authorizing the City of White Plains to impose an additional increase of one-half (½) of one percent (1%) Sales and Compensating Use Tax.


 


 


2.            Communication from the City Clerk transmitting a request from PDH Holding Corp. d/b/a Sam’s of Gedney Way, 52 Gedney Way, requesting a waiver of the thirty (30) day notification requirement set forth in the New York State Alcoholic Beverage Control Law for the renewal of two liquor licenses.


 


3.                        Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains waiving the thirty (30) day notification requirement set forth in Section 64(2)(a) of the New York State Alcoholic Beverage Control law in regard to an application submitted on behalf of Sam’s of Gedney Way Restaurant


 


 


ITEM FOR REFERRAL:


 


4.            Communication from Acting Commissioner of Building formally transmitting a previous administrative referral of a request for a site plan amendment submitted by Cappelli Enterprises for changes to the exterior on a previously approved site plan for construction at 240 Main Street.


 


 


DISCUSSION:


 


5.            Longview Avenue/Kensington LLC De-Mapping of City-owned property.


 


6.            Affordable Home Ownership and Rental Housing Program.

Posted in Uncategorized

Primary Day in White Plains 2007.

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007. By The Armchair Analyst (Edited) September 17, 2007 UPDATED 3:45 PM EDT: The polls on Democratic Primary Day open in White Plains Tuesday morning at 6 AM at all 43 of White Plains regular polling places.  Only registered Democrats may vote.


Registered Democrats will have their choice of  Arnold Bernstein, Benjamin Boykin, Candyce Corcoran, Melagros Lecuona, and Dennis Power. Boykin and Power are incumbent Councilpersons and the nominated by Democratic City Committee choices. Lecuona is a newcomer nominated by the Committee this year. Corcoran is a well-known crusading Democrat who has worked tirelessly for numerous causes throughout the city and has been denied twice an opportunity to run for Council. Mr. Bernstein is an incumbent Councilperson bidding for a second term who was denied renomination by the party and is fighting for his political career.


One observer of the uncomfortable, and increasingly cantankerous Democratic contests with accusatory mailings arriving daily, had this to say about keys to the race, the Analyst has also taken our earlier article to a new level, showing the actual numbers for the 2002 Adam Bradley White Plains vote canvas, showing the actual demographics of who votes in Democratic Primaries:


 


The election Tuesday, one veteran political observer, whom we shall call The Armchair Analyst,  notes is going to be based on the demographics of the turnout, in county wide Democratic primaries held in 2003 and 2006.


Older People Are the Voters.


The Armchair Analyst notes that in the 2003 and 2006 (not just 2003, the Analyst points out, as we first wrote),  Democratic Primaries (with no councilpersons primarying), 842 White Plains  “hard core Primary” Democrats turned out to vote, and the Analyst reports that 52% (442) were over the age of 65, and of that 52%, two-thirds were women.  Another 42% of the Democrats were over the age of 70, and two-thirds of them were women. The key factor: the voting demographic is older, and two-thirds are women. The key issues with them are security and taxes. Our Analyst notes that only 40 of the 842 White Plains Democrats were under 40 years of age, and only 133 were under age 50.


The bottom line: the hardest core Democrats, our Analyst points out in 2003 and 2006, the voters were “overwhelmingly” women over age 65.


In 2006, an offyear race the analyst reports, 7,744 Democrats turned out to vote Countywide. Of those 7,744, 62% were women; 66% were over age 50, and 62% of those were women.


Most striking, the Armchair Analyst reports, only 489 voters were under the age of 30 (a mere 6.3%). Young voters? Not many. Only 137 voters were under the age of 25 (1.76%).


Over half the voters in the 2006 primary were over age 50.


In both races, the Analyst reports the voters were “predominantly white, either catholic, protestant, or Jewish.” These are the voters he calls the “super primes” folks who came out for BOTH primaries, not just one.


The 2003 Count On Its Own.


For 2003 alone,  the total Democratic  Primary Vote was  1390 and the number of women voting was 872 (62.7%), 1021 of the total voters were above the age of 50 (73%).

Of that number over 50, The Analyst reports, 652 were women (63.8%).

Above 60 were a total of 703 voters (50.57%), and of that number, 450 were women (64%).

Above 70 were 424 voters. (30.5 % of the total vote), and of that number, 277 were women (65.3%)

Under 30: 44 voters, of that number 25 were women (56.8%) Under 30  represents only 3% of the total votes cast.

Under 25: 29 voters, of that number 18 were women (62%). Under 25  represents only 2% of the vote.


Inside the Adam Bradley White Plains Primary Vote Count.


In the Adam Bradley Primary Race in 2002, where Mr. Bradley defeated Naomi Matusow by 22 votes, was by contrast 2,376  White Plains voters voted in a race that mattered to White Plains. So even in that race, WPCNR notes that 986 more voters turned out to support “a favorite son.”


The 2002 Primary Race that made Adam Bradley the Assemblyman for the 89th District shows the following — almost two-thirds of the voters (61%) were women and they made up 62% of the voters over 60.  More telling is that that  70% of the White Plains primary voters were over age 50 (1,672 of 2,376, and 1,018 of the 50-somethings were women.. Here is the Breakdown:

2376 total voters went to the polls.

Of that number, 1447 were women (61%)

Total voters above the age of 50: 1672 (70%)

Of that number, 1018 were women (60.8% of the class)

Total voters above the age of 60: 1042 (43.8%)

Of that number, 646 were women (62%).

Total voters above the age of 70: 616 (26%)

Of that number, 383 were women (62%)

Younger than 30: 90 voters (3.7%) 53 were women (58%)

Younger than 25: 10 voters (.42% of the vote) 7 were women (70% of that
class)


The Analyst notes that only 4% of the entire vote in the 2002 when a younger candidate was running, was under 30. He considers it a sad comment on the young residents of White Plains


What does this mean?


The Armchair Analyst warns the base voters today will be women, retired or semi-retired, aged 50 to 65 with concerns about property taxes and personal safety issues. The Analyst draws a picture of a women voters who have raised families in White Plains and are not “transplants.” He says “anything that keeps their taxes low while not interfering with their lifestyle will be supported.” Our source describes them as living in the outer neighborhoods of the city with knowledge of local issues and an awareness of Mr. Bernstein and the Common Council personalities.


The Armchair Analyst predicts that Bernstein fits the base best. Ms. Lecuona the least.


The Analyst gives Corcoran a chance because she is “in the middle of the base: a woman, white, a name that could be Catholic, or Jewish, a history of community activity.”


The Analyst rates Boykin a toss-up, because he does “not fit the base too well, either, but he has name recognition and has served a long time. Arnie, however, has that same name recognition and fits the base.”


Power. The Analyst sees him as “a wild card”. But, notes Power lost 1,400 Democrat votes when he ran for Mayor in 2005, when Power lost to Mayor Joseph Delfino by slightly over 2,000 votes. And only about half the Democrats voted in that election, so Power simply did not galvanize them.


The Analyst picks Bernstein to win a seat, with a toss-up as to whether Corcoran has done enough to get her petition signers to the polls in her third single-handed attempt to run for Common Council and can slip past Boykin or Power to secure the Democratic Line. Corcoran will still be in the hunt in November on the Conservative Line.


The analyst likes her possibilities  “I think she can beat Boykin. Her profile is better. She got signatures from well over a thousand Democrats, (if she was smart, she should have focused on getting signatures from Superprimes. Power survives only because Ben (Boykin) is a weaker candidate as compared to Corcoran.”


City Committee Must Have Its Slate Win Big.


The analyst, a veteran election tracker, thinks the White Plains Democratic City Committee does not realize the “grave risk” they have taken. “If Arnie wins and Holy Moses, Candyce Corcoran, the leadership is sunk. The leadership has really forgotten what their role really is: finding the best candidates whose focus is on what is best for White Plains, not their own political fiefdoms.”


The analyst  sighed,  “Adam Bradley holding up the sales tax, so he can vet the financials of the city while Boykin is head of the Budget Committee and Rita the Council President? Absurd. If the tax will keep the property taxes of residents down, he should have made damn sure it was passed at the earliest possible time. Politics, not policy, is running the show here in White Plains, as any knowledgeable observer should note.”


WPCNR is not making any predictions, but implores all the “Real Voters all 14,000 or so Democrats to come on out and vote. As the talk show host Bob Grant used to say, “Your opinion counts. Use it!”

Posted in Uncategorized

Backoff News to Wood. Cites 2 Cases Prohibiting Policy Making in Council Caucus

Hits: 0


 WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. From the Mayor’s Office. September 17, 2007: City Hall announced today that Robert Freeman Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government has ruled in the distant past (1994) that a caucus involving a majority of governing officials taking action out of the public eye, setting policy is not permitted, and cited New York court decisions putting this ruling in place. Freeman’s letter on matters of caucusing and legislative bodies is on the Open Government website.


 


Wood said he had received no communication from  Camille Jobin-Davis, the Assistant Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government that she had modified or “backed off” from her ruling of Friday in which she noted “If these four members (Councilpersons Boykin, Malmud, Roach and Power), including the President, did not discuss their decision to send this letter during a public meeting, I do not believe that they could validly have acted. Even if the letter was circulated for signing without discussion, I believe it to be action taken outside the requirements of the law.” The unsubstantiated (to this hour report), was printed in the news media Saturday morning.


 


The  Robert Freeman take on caucusing and policy making,  Wood said could be found on the Open Government website:  “ I have a ruling right off the Freeman website that shows a caucus is o.k., but you cannot discuss a public issue  in a caucus, you can only discuss strategy, and you cannot come to conclusions on public issues. I don’t know that they (the Committee on Open Government) are backing off. I don’t agree that they are backing off. Her e-mail seemed to indicate to me that was the final word. They are not allowed to discuss public issues and come to the conclusions about them outside the view of the public, and that’s exactly what they did.”


One case is Humphrey vs. Posluszny and involved a meeting of a village board with its Police Benevolent Association. The Appellate Division found that the discussion went to the step of policy making. Mr. Wood contends that the four Democrats (consisting of a majority) were doing that when they announced they would “avail  ourselves of all measures at our disposal to bring this ill-considered proposal (the RFQ) to a quick end.”


A  second case, Buffalo News versus the City of Buffalo Common Council in which the Common Council members consisted of members of all one party which met to formulate a budget policy. Here, too, the New York Supreme Court Second Department found they were  in violation of the Open Meetings Law.


The complete letter, for the record, of  Mr. Freeman, Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government. The relevant sections of the letter are highlight in blue type:


February 11, 1994

Mr. Isidore Gerber


The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solelyupon the facts presented in your correspondence.

Dear Mr. Gerber:

As you are aware, I have received your letter of January 12. You have asked that I furnish information concerning judicial interpretations and advice pertaining to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege and political caucuses under the Open Meetings Law.

In this regard, it is noted at the outset that the Open Meetings Law provides two vehicles under which a public body may meet in private. One is the executive session, a portion of an open meeting that is closed to the public in accordance with §105 of the Open Meetings Law. The other arises under §108 of the Open Meetings Law, which contains three exemptions from the Law. When a discussion falls within the scope of an exemption, the provisions of the Open Meetings Law do not apply.

Of relevance to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is §108(3), which exempts from the Open Meetings Law:

“…any matter made confidential by federal or state law.”

When an attorney-client relationship has been invoked, the communications made pursuant to that relationship are considered confidential under §4503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Consequently, if an attorney and client establish a privileged relationship, the communications made pursuant to that relationship would in my view be confidential under state law and, therefore, exempt from the Open Meetings Law.

In terms of background, it has long been held that a municipal board may establish a privileged relationship with its attorney [People ex rel. Updyke v. Gilon, 9 NYS 243 (1989); Pennock v. Lane, 231 NYS 2d 897, 898 (1962)]. However, such a relationship is in my opinion operable only when a municipal board or official seeks the legal advice of an attorney acting in his or her capacity as an attorney, and where there is no waiver of the privilege by the client. Further, after a public body has
sought and obtained legal advice from its attorney and has started to discuss and deliberate a matter of public business, I believe that the attorney-client privilege would end and that the Open Meetings Law would apply.

With regard to political caucuses, since the Open Meetings Law became effective in 1977, it has contained an exemption concerning political committees, conferences and caucuses. Again, when a matter is exempted from the Open Meetings Law, the provisions of that statute do not apply.
Questions concerning the scope of the so-called “political caucus” exemption have continually arisen, and until 1985, judicial decisions indicated that the exemption pertained only to discussions of political party business. Concurrently, in those decisions, it was held that when a majority of a legislative body met to discuss public business, such a gathering constituted a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law, even if those in attendance represented a single political party [see e.g.,
Sciolino v. Ryan, 81 AD 2d 475 (1981)].

Those decisions, however, were essentially reversed by the enactment of an amendment to the Open Meetings Law in 1985. Section 108(2)(a) of the Law now states that exempted from its provisions are: “deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses.” Further, §108(2)(b) states that:

“for purposes of this section, the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses means a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business, (ii) the majority or minority status of such political committees, conferences and
caucuses or (iii) whether such political committees, conferences and caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations…”

Therefore, in general, either the majority or minority party members of a legislative body may conduct closed political caucuses, either during or separate from meetings of the public body.

Many local legislative bodies, recognizing the potential effects of the 1985 amendment, have taken action to reject their authority to hold closed caucuses and to continue to conduct their business open to the public as they had prior to the amendment.

There have been recent developments in case law regarding political caucuses that suggest that the exemption concerning political caucuses has in some instances been asserted as a means of excluding the public from gatherings that have little or no relationship to political party
activities or partisan political issues.

One of the decisions, Humphrey v. Posluszny [175 AD 2d 587 (1991)], involved a private meeting held by members of a village board of trustees with representatives of the village police benevolent
association. Although the board characterized the gathering as a political caucus outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held to the contrary. In a brief
discussion of the caucus exemption and its intent, the decision states that:

“The Legislature found that the public interest was promoted by ‘private, candid exchange of ideas and points of view among members of each political party concerning the public business to come before legislative bodies’ (Legislative Intent of L.1985,ch.136,§1). Nonetheless, what occurred at the meeting at issue went beyond a candid discussion, permissible at an exempt caucus, and amounted to the conduct of public business, in violation of Public Officers Law §103(a) (see, Public Officers Law §100. Accordingly, we declare that the aforesaid meeting was held in violation of the Open Meetings Law” (id., 588).

The Court did not expand upon when or how a line might be drawn between a “candid discussion” among political party members and “the conduct of public business.” Although the decision was appealed, the appeal was withdrawn, because the membership on the board changed.

The second decision, Buffalo News v. City of Buffalo Common Council [585 NYS 2d 275 (1992)], involved a political caucus held by a public body consisting solely of members of one political party. As in Humphrey, the court concentrated on the expressed legislative intent regarding the exemption for political caucuses, as well as the statement of intent appearing in §100 of the Open Meetings Law, and found that:

“In a divided legislature where a meeting is restricted to the attendance of members of one political party, regardless of quorum and majority status, perhaps by that very restriction it would be fair to
assume the meeting constitutes a political caucus. However, such a conclusion cannot be drawn if the entire legislature is of one party and the stated purpose is to adopt a proposed plan to address the deficit before going public. In view of the overall importance of Article 7, any exemption must be narrowly construed so that it will not render Section 100 meaningless. Therefore, the meeting of February 8, 1992 was in violation of Article 7 of the Open Meetings Law… “When dealing with a
Legislature comprised of only one political party, it must be left to the sound discretion of honorable legislators to clearly announce the intent and purpose of future meetings and open the same accordingly consistent with the overall intent of Public Officers Law Article 7″
(id., 278).

I hope that the foregoing serves to clarify your understanding of the Open Meetings Law, and that I have been of assistance. As you requested, a copy of this response will be forwarded to the Chairman of the Sullivan County Board of Supervisors.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director

RJF:jm

cc: H
o

Posted in Uncategorized

$6,000 Ad Exposes Truth of Boykin, Power votes: Committee Head– Papers Biased

Hits: 0

 


WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007.  By John F. Bailey. September 17, 2007 UPDATED 6:32 PM EDT: You couldn’t miss it. A full-page advertisement on the back of this morning’s Journal News Main Your World Section, blaring “ATTENTION WHITE PLAINS DEMOCRATIC RESIDENTS.”  The advertisement was placed by “The  Year 2001 Committee,” described by its Chairman, John Ioris , a White Plains resident, owner of The Complete Golfer and Chairman and President of the Board of Trustees of the White Plains Performing Arts Center, as an effort to inform the public of  the truth about the voting records of Democratic Primary Candidates Benjamin Boykin and Dennis Power.



Ioris explained the advertisement to the CitizeNetReporter: “The actions we took on Friday, (placing the ad),was an unprecedented action for this organization. My feeling, John is enough is enough. That was the mindset I had when I bought space for that ad. Enough is enough, let’s get back to running the city and let’s dispense with the rhetoric and get back to business. This was basically a bunch of people who put their own money where their mouth was and this was what we feel about what’s going on here. I think the politics of this city has been totally portrayed in the newspapers with an unbelievable bias.”



Mr. Ioris, speaking to The CitizeNetReporter in an interview confirmed his Committee had placed the advertisement and that it cost The Year 2001 Committee $6,000.


WPCNR asked Mr. Ioris  why his Committee ran the advertisement, and if it was in support of the Mayor and his policies, and the spurned Democrat incumbent Councilman Arnold Bernstein, in a fight for his political career in tommorrow’s Primary.  Ioris said, “The year 2001 Committee is an independent political action committee that has absolutely nothing to do with the Mayor of the city, other than the fact that he has been kind enough to lend his name to many of our fundraisers.”


WPCNR asked him what funds were used for what causes, Ioris replied  “political causes and charitable causes, but this (ad) is in no way, shape or form a Mayoral organization.”


I asked him what was his rational in publishing this advertisement today. Ioris said he was concerned about “what’s going on in the political process.”


“Basically having followed what’s going on in the political process in the last several months and being disgusted is the wrong word, close to disgusted with what’s going on on the political side of the city, I figured the citizens at large have a right to read a true and accurate portrayal of the voting record of a couple of people who are running for Council.”


Not a Bernstein Endorsement


WPCNR asked if he was not endorsing Arnold Bernstein:


“We are not,” Ioris said. “We simply basically believe that the direction the city has taken over the last several years on the development side has been the proper direction for the city to take. It seems as though a faction of the city is attempting to derail it for political reasons. Basically this (ad} was simply telling the truth. If the votes we basically paid to tell the  people about today  — if the councilmembers don’t like those votes – maybe they need to rethink how they’re voting. It was their votes.  They are what they are. The actions of the council over the last several months have been much to the detriment of this city. As a citizen and business owner in this town, I think that’s a very bad thing.”


Makeup of The Year 2001 Committee


WPCNR asked who else was on the Committee or do they have an Advisory Board, Ioris said to WPCNR, “There are several people we meet with to advise us on our opinions who do not want their names published, so as a result we don’t publish them. But quite frankly, I believe the opinions of the people who are involved in this organization are the opinions of the large majority of the citizens of this city. I think small factions that make a lot of noise are given far too much weight.”


I asked how many persons are on the Year 2001 Committee.


Ioris reported “We have several people that contribute. Several people that come to meetings. There is a goodly handful that are active that I hear from on a regular basis.”


Ioris said the full-page all print advertisement cost slightly short of $6,000.


Ioris said it was a possibility the Committee would run more advertisements: “That is something that depending upon how I feel or what we feel or how we feel about what is going to happen in the city going forward, we may decide to do on a regular basis.”


Newspapers Biased.


I asked him if he did this as a public service to inform the people:


Iorus said, “I did it because I felt largely because what people read in the media, the local  media in this city is unfairly biased.I believe people need to hear the truth sometimes, and they don’t always get the truth in the newspaper.”


He elaborated on his charge to WPCNR: “I think the politics of this city has been totally portrayed in the newspapers with an unbelievable bias. Things that should come to the forefront don’t. The local papers are reporting their own agenda and are not reporting the news. You read these political stories. They read like op-eds, they don’t read like news. News is news.I don’t need the newspaper to interpret them for me.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Committee on Open Government Closed Today.

Hits: 0

 


WPCNR AROUND ALBANY. September 17, 2007: A WPCNR effort to get a clarification from Ms.  Camille Jobin-Davis, Assistant Director  of the New York State Committee on Open Government on her interpretation of how the Open Meetings Law applies to caucuses and policy-making in the press which she issued last week, as reported by City Hall, was stymied today by Ms. Jobin-Davis being unavailable. 


 WPCNR contacted the Open Government Committee to confirm whether she softened her original observation that Councilpersons Malmud. Now the City has to wait in suspense on hold until Ms. Jobin-Davis returns to the office next Monday. Efforts to have Ms. Jobin-Davis contact us from her undisclosed location were met with the information that “I guarantee she will not be contacting you.”


Robert Freeman, who is Director of the Committee on Open Government is also out of the office until Thursday. The woman fielding WPCNR’s call said Mr. Freeman would defer to Ms. Jobin-Davis on the issue. So, caucus etiquette  and the announcement of policy positions in the press guidelines – the final word—awaits the return of Ms. Jobin-Davis.  The Ms. Jobin-Davis absence during this week was planned in advance, the spokesperson said.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

The Coup Without Grace. Bumping off Bernstein.

Hits: 0

WPCNR THE SUNDAY BAILEY. News & Commentary by John F. Bailey. September 16, 2007: One issue that no one has pointed out in the Arnold Bernstein-Benjamin Boykin-Candyce Corcoran-Milagros Lecuona-Dennis Power rumble coming up on Primary Day,  Tuesday September 18 is that Arnold Bernstein was elected to the Common Council by all the people of White Plains.


Think about this word: elected.


Apparently the impact of its meaning has little place in the Democratic Party.



If someone had come along to you Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. White Plains and said, you elected Mayor Delfino to office, but we think he’s developing too much, and we think Andy Spano should run both the county and White Plains, so we are going to remove Mayor Delfino from office, and put say Larry Schwartz in the Mayor’s Chair, would you like that?


Because that is what the Democratic City Committee did to Arnold Bernstein. They indirectly said to you Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. White Plains voter, that your vote does not count. 


They think your vote cannot be trusted.  


They think Mr. Bernstein has done things not in keeping with “Democratic Values” (which raises another question, do they have any?) and what they think is good for the city now.


Well, what has this action taught us about the Democratic Party in White Plains?


Well it is certainly not Democratic, is it? Removing someone from office is a coup. More reminiscent of Communist Russia, and the Politburo than the good old burros we know.  In old Communist  Russia and in present Putinland what those good-hearted, good real Democrats did would be known as a purge.


That’s real Democratic values, my friends.


The seamy, sleazy truth of the primary challenge is that the Democratic City Committee Leaders decided to deny Mr. Bernstein renomination for the seat he was elected to serve in by the people.


Now both parties use this club against incumbents, saying we will not renominate you unless you kowtow to what we want. But, it is rarely done.


 However, the White Plains Democratic City Committee took this one step farther this year, denying Mr. Bernstein the nomination. 


However, this may not the first time. Sources say William King was told he would not be nominated to run again, and Mr. King said publicly he was not interested in running again.


 Earlier in Mr. Bernstein’s term, Council President Rita Malmud gave us a preview of the Bernstein “Bump-off” . When it was Mr. Bernstein’s turn to serve as Common Council President, his other Democrats denied him the Council Presidency. Why?  Bernstein as Council President had too much control over the agenda, is the logical reason. It certainly wouldn’t be to prevent Bernstein from ascending to the Mayoralty should something happen to the Mayor. It will be interesting who will get the Council Presidency next. (But, I digress.)


Much has been made in recent mailers by the Democratic Party that the District Leaders overwhelming approved their slate. Big deal. The District leaders are pretenders to power, doing what the party leadership bids, otherwise they are dumped as District Leaders.  Sycophantic  in their devotion to leaders whose only goal is power district leaders  pepetuate the mediocrity of leaders this city, this county and this state, and taking it all the way to the top, this nation now enjoy.


To show you how far this loyalty goes, one such district leader,  told one candidate in the primary who came to her door how much she supported that candidate and how much they had done for the Democratic Party, that they would support that candidate, saying quote:


“We need to   have someone like you who really cares  about White Plains on the Council and is devoted to White Plains and its citizens. You have my family’s vote.”


Nonetheless, in a mailing this weekend that same district leader that told the stumping candidate that, signed a pre-printed postcard saying, “I strongly urge you to vote to elect and re-elect Council Members Ben Boykin and Dennis Power. I know all three personally. They are honest, hard-working and highly intelligent. Most important, they share the values that make us Democrats.”


Too bad this district leader did not pencil a fourth Democratic value: hypocrisy.


It is interesting that the postcard reads “elect” and “re-elect.”


Apparently the Democratic City Committee truly believes that they elect the leaders of White Plains.


Newsflash to the connected and the powerful:  the people do.


No matter how much contempt you have for the people the people do.


By denying Mr. Bernstein the right to run again, the Democratic Party City Committee shows they are no more than power hungry leaders looking to control events by subverting the will of the people prematurely.


If Mr. Bernstein is the development demon the Democratic campaign propaganda says he is, then let the people vote him out in the real election in November, and show they do not want development.


Perhaps a better slogan for the Democratics instead of  being “Real Democrats with a Real Vision for White Plains” would be “Democrats against Development,”  which would really be hypocritical since all the development in White Plains was approved by a Democratic controlled Common Council. They all gave the developers those deals, that height, and they all approved the numbers that do not work.


Sometimes the lack of respect for the intelligence of the White Plains Democratic Voter on the part of their leadership staggers the mind.


Remember, this is the same Democratic Party in White Plains who cared so much about Democratic Values in 2005 that not one of the “Real Democrats” on the council then would challenge  the Real Republican, Mayor Joseph Delfino – Roach, Malmud, Boykin, Hockley, Bernstein all ducked him. The same Democratic Party Leadership that cares so much about Real Democrats as opposed to the “faux Democrats” were not going to run anyone. The Nominating Committee could not find anyone to run for Mayor. How hysterical. 


Until the late Ron Jackson showed up and threw his hat in the ring. Well, the Democrats then quickly recruited Dennis Power to run for Mayor.  Mr. Power was reportedly available for the position because he said he had left his job at Hudson River Museum.


Mr. Power ran what WPCNR felt was a lackluster campaign, starting very late,  and actually with very little advertising support.  Unless I miss my guess there have been more flyers sent out promoting the Dem slate for a primary than for Power mailed when he ran for Mayor. The Democrats knew he was a loser.


He lost to the Mayor.  No connection, but  shortly after his loss to the Mayor, apparently by coincidence, he was appointed to a job in Economic Development with the county. And six months later when Councilman Robert Greer died, no connection, Mr. Power was appointed to the late Mr. Greer’s seat, winning an election for the last year of Mr. Greer’s term(this year).  Mr. Power has done very well, hasn’t he?  


More cynical observers say the Democratic Leaders simply don’t like Bernstein, and they wanted to get a candidate that appealed to the Hispanic population instead: Ms. Lecuona, who also being a woman takes care of two constituencies.


More to the point is by having Mr. Power and Ms. Lecuona on the council, who are both connected to the county leadership, Andy Spano will control White Plains.


What if Andy Spano, tired of the prison-like Michaelian Building – thinks its time for the Andy Spano Westchester County Building – a new county office building. Bingo, it will sail right through the Common Council with Power and Lecuona on it.


Or suppose Mr. Spano  wants another affordable housing development like the 5-years-in-the making Horton Mills townhouses? Maybe down at the railroad station?


The council already with Dennis on board did not care to take the city’s side against the county on the 85 Court Street matter — let alone launch a probe into all those homeless incidents and why county run shelters were the scenes of many of the incidents. For 19 months, the council by inaction — those Democratic Value people — would not cross the county on the homeless issue. Where is their concern for people first? Their concern is for what Boss Andy wants not what you want.


For almost 17 months now Dennis Power has been dithering and blustering and concerning his way, but never once asks a blunt hard question, on the homeless (not a voice in support of the down and out) on sewers (when he’s in the County Environmental Facilities Department!) but then neither do any of the other Real Democrats or the faux Democrats (Hockley and Bernstein).


For eight years Benjamin Boykin has caved on every big time vote, being the Democrat Swing Man. Ms. Lecuona — what does she stand for in her Hispanic community? If she took a position on what she would do for the Hispanic community, that might give her credibility as a candidate.


Was Arnold Bernstein any worse?  


But, I digress.


I never thought a Democratic Value was pulling an incumbent from their elected position simply because he disagrees with what you tell him to do.


Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco,  Benito Mussolini, Nikita Kruschev, Chiarman Mao, and Tony Soprano  would approve.


It’s the way real politics works when the voters let them get away with it.


Where are the real voters?

Posted in Uncategorized

The Caucus Race.

Hits: 0

WPCNR SUNDAY COMICS. From a CitizeNetReporter. September 15, 2007: A reader, amused by the earnest Common Council opposition to the recent Request for Qualifications, (two of whom are facing a primary challenge Tuesday), only expressing their “concern” two weeks after it was introduced August 23 by Mayor Joseph Delfino without a public peep until the White Plains Times received the letter September 5 sent this little know lyric in to characterize the way the present Common Council makes policy. The song is from the Walt Disney motion picture,  Alice in Wonderland.



Caucus Race


From “Alice in Wonderland” (the Walt Disney motion picture)
Music and Lyrics by Sammy Fain and Bob Hilliard

Forward, backward, inward, outward
Come and join the chase!
Nothing could be drier
Than a jolly caucus-race.

Backward, forward, outward, inward
Bottom to the top,
Never a beginning
There can never be a stop
To skipping, hopping, tripping
Fancy free and gay,
I started it tomorrow and will finish yesterday.
Round and round and round we go
And dance for evermore,
Once we were behind
But now we find we are

Forward, backward, inward, outward,
Come and join the chase!
Nothing could be drier than a jolly caucus-race.



Posted in Uncategorized

Mount Vernon Capitalizes on Tiger Miscues in 2nd Half, Triumphs 25-7

Hits: 0

WPCNR PRESS BOX. By John F. Bailey. September 15, 2007: With the Tigers driving for the go-ahead touchdown at the Mount Vernon 42 at the outset of the 4th quarter, they failed to make a first down on a 3rd and 2. Forced to punt, the Tigers had an errant snap on the ensuing  key punt, which sailed over the head of Tiger punter at the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter leading to the clinching touchdown for Mount Vernon. When the Knights recovered the bouncing snap all the way back on the Tiger 20, the Knights took the ball  in 5 plays to break open the contest at 19-7. The Knights added one final touch down in the last 4 minutes for a final score of 25-7. The Tigers moved to 1-1 on the season with Scarsdale coming up next on Thursday afternoon at 4:30 PM.



The Tigers  tied the score on this pretty 10-yard scoring strike to the elegant receiver, Svaughn Greene who is shown going up and coming down with  Marquis Williams’ on target 10-yard strike over  the middle to make it 7-6 just before the half. Mike Howard’s conversion tied the score, 7-7. Mount Vernon took the lead on a 45 yard touchdown strike with 2 minutes to go in the half, after an onside kick by WP was recovered at the White Plains 45 by the Knights. White Plains failed on a first and 10 series starting at the Mount Vernon 25 early in the third quarter and again were stopped in the outset of the fourth quarter with the ball in Knights’ territory.

Posted in Uncategorized

Bernstein Accuses Council Opponents of Lying Big, Suppressing Open Government.

Hits: 0

WPCNR  CAMPAIGN 2007. By John F. Bailey. September 15, 2007 UPDATED 5:40 PM EDT: In a news conference at City Hall this morning incumbent Councilman Arnold Bernstein called his colleagues Benjamin Boykin, Rita Malmud, Dennis Power and Thomas Roach to account for secretly voting to kill the RFQ proposal for station plaza, delaying submission of the half-percent sales tax increase to the legislature, and failing to protest the 85 Court Street Drop In shelter for the homeless for political reasons.



Arnold Bernstein, news conferencing at City Hall today, (center) said, “if you are going to deceive your constituents, then lie BIG in the hopes that if you say it long enough it will be accepted as truth.” (Power and Boykin are running in the Democratic Primary Tuesday with Milagros Lequona and Candyce Corcoran against Mr. Bernstein.) He cited as example the council letter to the press last week announcing a 4-vote majority in opposition to the RFQ as evidence that “although they say they are a force for open government, their actions clearly show otherwise.”


Bernstein in questions from the media, said he would support including all neighborhoods in making decisions on the railroad station; that he was for the RFQ with that exception. He said he felt development of the station area and the West Side Lexington Avenue strip and Post Road did not have to be “mutually exclusive,” (one area at a time), and that he favored increasing income eligibility levels for the affordable housing program, but limiting the size of new apartments to 50 units as the lowest number of units that had to be held to the 10% limit proposed by the council.


Bernstein also said Louis Cappelli’s offer to keep the Corner Nook restaurant in business if the council extended the date when affordable housing had to be built for the second Ritz-Carlton tower to open by one year, was an offer Cappelli made “tongue-in-cheek,” (not serious.) Rita Malmud, Common Council President has yet to comment to WPCNR on how she as President feels about taking Louis Cappelli up on his offer to save the Nook.


(More details to be published later today


 

Posted in Uncategorized